Talk:List of British governments/Archive 1

Old conventions
Some conventions:


 * 1) Certain Secretaries of State may be shortened (Northern Secretary, Foreign Secretary, War Secretary, etc.).
 * 2) Use the peerage conventions that we use for position navboxes - affix a "The" in front of those who were peers in their own right ("The Duke of Wellington"; "The Viscount Whatever"), and change Baron to Lord. Courtesy peers should not have a "the." ("Lord North", "Viscount Castlereagh").
 * 3) Terms should not be longer than the ministry - ex. if a ministry went from 1700 to 1720, and someone served from 1680 to 1725, the term should read "1700–1720", not "1680–1725".
 * On further thought, I think this convention should be struck. It allows you to see, especially in the early ministries, who retained the confidence of the monarch and who didn't. ugen64 22:58, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

But I think most of these are pretty easy to see. ugen64 00:20, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * We need to give careful consideration to the terms of office (amongst other things). Under Prime Ministers, members of the government are considered to have resigned whenever a PM does - so, their terms cannot exceede those of the life of that government. If they continue into the next government, they are reappointed. That was not the case here, and I'm worried about creating a false impression. An laternative (that I've just used on Privy Council Ministry, is to list terms as throughout the ministry in question, or "to/from" a certain date if there was a change within the ministry. Does that work? -- Gregg 05:48, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would like to add the following convention:
 * 1) In lists, first mention the head(s) of the government, i.e., the "Prime Ministers." Prior to 1905, when the office of Prime Minister became official, do not use the term "Prime Minister" in the table.
 * 2) After head(s) of the ministry come the other officers in order of precedence or importance: 1st, Great Officers of State; 2d, Officers of the Royal Household; 3d Secretaries of State; 4th Chancellor of the Exchequer; 5th Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; 6th Others. -- Emsworth 23:27, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * But isn't the Chancellor of the Exchequer often the second most important member of the ministry (i.e. Gordon Brown), as he is also Second Lord of the Treasury? ugen64 03:06, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that the pages be moved to more explanatory names - Major Ministry sounds like a nightclub or something. Cabinet of John Major or Ministry of John Major would look better, I think. sjorford 13:57, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm - the obvious thing is to go for the names that are most famous historically, e.g. Fox/North Coalition, the Ministry of All the Talents, the Who? Who? Ministry, the Asquith Coalition, the Lloyd George Coalition Government, the First Labour Government, the Second Labour Government, then anything from 1931-1940 really should have "National Government" in the title (holds up hand for not using those terms for Chamberlain's governments), then Churchill Coalition, Churchill Caretaker Government and so on. It would seem very wrong not to use the term "Fox-North Coalition" for that government when that is how it's known to history.


 * But I can see problems:


 * Not all governments are so well known by an individual name.
 * Where exactly does "Ministry" become "Government"?
 * Different people take different views on whether an incumbant government being re-elected constitutes someone becoming PM an additional time. Harold Wilson was one of the worst examples of this, claiming to have been PM four times, "the only person since Gladstone". (Though by Wilson's logic, Stanley Baldwin would also qualify!)
 * "National Government" was used at the time to mean the all aprty war coalitions, but historians nowadays generally restrict it to the 1931-1940 administration and the fancies of Edward Heath in the October 1974 general election.
 * "Coalition" also has sloppy usage - it may mean an all major party government of national unity in the 20th century, but the Fox/North government was certainly not that. Yet virtually no-one used it at the time or since for the 1931-1940 administration.


 * Hmm... not an easy thing to write rules for that don't produce article with titles that don't use the common forms, yet at the same time cover the lot.


 * Also I think as a rule every page should have a full detailing of each reshuffle so that we can see easily when ministers changed and especially when a reshuffle demonstrates very little imagination by just swapping a few people around. The Thatcher Ministry page is difficult to follow (for instance was Nicholas Ridley Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the same time John Major was Foreign Secretary?) and would work better to have reshuffles listed and maybe even several tables to reflect the substantial ones.


 * Finally should we use a firm ranking of positions or attempt to reflect seniority within the government, in particular by putting the acknowledged number 2 (whether or not they held the title Deputy PM) in immediately below the PM? Timrollpickering 11:40, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Consistency about the "Two Days" & "Four Days" Prime Ministers
Please see Talk:List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom for discussion about consistency on how to handle the events of February 1746 and June 1757 on the various lists on ministers and ministries. Timrollpickering 22:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Naming standard for government cabinets/ministries
I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, which will hopefully lead to a consistent naming standard for national government cabinets/ministries. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions to take part in the discussion. /Slarre 12:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment
war of 1857 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.186.201 (talk)  12:05, 31 July 2010
 * Would you care to elaborate? -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Size
Is there a cap on the size of the government / ministry? How many ministers (from PM, Secretaries of State, to Ministers of State, Parliamentary Undersecretaries and Private Secretaries) can there be? 12:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.25.138 (talk)

1763-1811 -parties in office?
Why is no party listed as being in office during this period?

Any info would be better than the blank cell which is there at present.

For what it's worth, Pears Cyclopedia lists almost all the prime ministers from 1770-1830 as being Tory except for one or two shortlived coalitions (such as the Ministry for all the Talents). 95.144.243.118 (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ministries/Governments
Prior to April 2012, this page had one column for Cabinet members and one for Full list of ministers. See eg | here. 'Cabinet members' usually linked to a page with only those ministers who actually sat round the Cabinet table, while 'Full list of ministers' also included junior ministers. Compare Callaghan ministry and Labour Government 1974–1979. I feel that, so long as both pages exist on wikipedia, it is best for this list to link to both - some people will only want to see Cabinet members, while some will want to know the identity of Callaghan's Vice-Chamberlain of the Household. I therefore propose to reinstate the following under 'Extended articles' (working backwards from the present)

The old revision of 'Conservative Government 1990–1997' which appears at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservative_Government_1990%E2%80%931997&oldid=471123927 - see talk on that page

The old revision of 'Conservative Government 1979–1990' which appears at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservative_Government_1979%E2%80%931990&oldid=487519387 - see talk at Thatcher Ministry

Labour Government 1974–1979

I also propose to revert the naming of the following pages, as set out on their talk pages

Eden ministry

Third Churchill ministry

Alekksandr (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, if anyone feels that there should be only one list of all the members of each Ministry/Government, and that it should appear under the heading of '[Name of Prime Minister] Ministry', or 'First/Second/Third [Name of Prime Minister] Ministry], I feel that they should consider doing the following (working backwards from the present): -

1. Add the junior ministers into Brown ministry

2. Add the junior ministers into Blair ministry

3. Consider whether the following need to exist, in addition to Thatcher ministry, and if not, merge them: -

a. Conservative Government 1987–1990

b. Conservative Government 1983–1987

c. Conservative Government 1979–1983

4. Transfer Callaghan's junior ministers from Labour Government 1974–1979 to Callaghan ministry - the latter currently contains only his Cabinet. NB that the link to the former has been deleted from this page.

5. Transfer the junior ministers of the second Wilson government from Labour Government 1974–1979 to Second Wilson Ministry - the latter currently contains only his Cabinet. NB that (as stated in the previous paragraph) the link to the former has been deleted from this page.

6. Create a page Douglas-Home Ministry, which is currently a redirect to Conservative Government 1957–1964 and transfer Douglas-Home's Cabinet and junior ministers from the latter to the former.

7. Create a page Macmillan Ministry which is currently a redirect to Conservative Government 1957–1964 and transfer Macmillan's Cabinet and junior ministers from the latter to the former.

8. Amend this page to refer to Attlee ministry rather than Labour Government 1945–1951

9. Transfer the junior ministers of Churchill's 1945 caretaker government from Caretaker Government 1945 to Churchill Caretaker Ministry - the latter currently contains only his Cabinet.

10. Transfer the junior ministers of Churchill's 1940-45 Coalition from United Kingdom coalition government (1940–1945) to Churchill War Ministry - the latter currently contains only his War Cabinet.

11. Transfer the junior ministers of Chamberlain's 1939-40 government from War Government 1939–1940 to Chamberlain War Ministry - the latter currently contains mainly his Cabinet.

12. Transfer the junior ministers of Chamberlain's 1937-39 government from Fourth National Government 1937–1939 to Fourth National Ministry - the latter currently contains mainly his Cabinet. And consider renaming the latter 'First Chamberlain Ministry'.

13. Transfer the junior ministers of Baldwin's 1935-37 government from Third National Government 1935–1937 to Third National Ministry - the latter currently contains only his Cabinet. And consider renaming the latter 'Third Baldwin ministry' - that page does not currently exist.

14. Create a page 'Second MacDonald National Ministry' or Second National Ministry, which is currently a redirect to Second National Government 1931–1935, and transfer the Cabinet and junior ministers of MacDonald's 1931-5 government from the latter to the former.

15. Consider whether First National Government 1931 needs to exist, in addition to First National Ministry, and if not, merge them. And consider renaming the latter 'First MacDonald National Ministry'.

16. Create a page Second MacDonald Ministry, which is currently a redirect to Labour Government 1929–1931, and transfer the Cabinet and junior ministers of MacDonald's 1929-31 government from the latter to the former.

17. Create a page Second Baldwin Ministry, which is currently a redirect to Conservative Government 1924–1929, and transfer the Cabinet and junior ministers of Baldwin's 1924-29 government from the latter to the former.

18. Create a page First MacDonald Ministry, which is currently a redirect to Labour Government 1924, and transfer the Cabinet and junior ministers of MacDonald's 1924 government from the latter to the former.

19. Create a page First Baldwin Ministry, which is currently a redirect to Conservative Government 1922–1924, and transfer the Cabinet and junior ministers of Baldwin's 1923-24 government from the latter to the former.

20. Create a page Bonar Law Ministry, which is currently a redirect to Conservative Government 1922–1924, and transfer the Cabinet and junior ministers of Bonar Law's 1922-3 government from the latter to the former.

21. Create a page 'Lloyd George Ministry', which does not currently exist, and transfer the Cabinet and junior ministers of Lloyd George's 1916-22 government to it from United Kingdom coalition government (1916–1922). NB that there is a redirect to the latter page from 'First Lloyd George Ministry' - I do not know why, since that was also his last and only Ministry.

22. Create a page Second Asquith ministry, which is currently a redirect to Coalition Government 1915–1916, and transfer the Cabinet and junior ministers of Asquith's 1915-6 government from the latter to the former.

23. Transfer the junior ministers of Asquith's 1908-15 government from Liberal Government 1905–1915 to First Asquith ministry - the latter currently contains only his Cabinet.

I think that a century's worth of amendments is enough to be going on with.

Alekksandr (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue is as follows: the “Ministry” pages should include all members of “government”, not just the cabinet. “Ministry” includes ALL members of government. Furthermore, the two pages that did exist prior to my mergers for these couple of articles essentially replicated themselves: they both contained lists of cabinet members. It was just that there was one that contained junior ministers as well (usually the “Party Government xxxx-xxxx” articles, but sometimes the ministry articles: there was no consistent standard). I decided to begin the process of creating a consistent standard, following the “Ministry” pages of Australia and Canada (see List of Australian ministries). The UK articles have been messed up, inconsistent, bare bones, and poorly formed for ages. It is about time that redundant articles get merged, edited, and brought up to par. Furthermore, the new “Ministry” pages, in their present form, highlight the members of Cabinet. They can still easily be found, it is just that now everything is consistent.

Furthermore, there was the problem that some articles only had ministry articles, while others had “Party government xxxx” articles. By creating consistent naming and pages, this resolves that issue. I have so far completed this process for Churchill War ministry through Brown ministry, except the Douglas-Home/Macmillan period and the Callaghan/Wilson period. I have not done those because it will take more work to separate the large tables which include the ministers of both PMs in each period in the same table (see Conservative Government 1957–1964 and Labour Government 1974–1979).

Most ministry pages that I’ve created include cabinet only lists as well, if they existed prior to a merger or creation. I can make more of these lists and include them in the Ministry articles if necessary.

The inconsistency of the pages that existed was a shame on wikipedia, with no easy way to know which article would lead to what. By holding all these articles, merging them together, sorting them out, and renaming them, and creating a consistent standard to start with, we will be able to remove that shame. I will hold off on any more mergers. RGloucester (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it was I who originally created many of the 19c. "Party Government XXXX" articles, using the format given in British Historical Facts. But I agree, there's no real reason to have separate articles for the Cabinet and the full list of all ministers. I think a section at the head of each article summarising the Cabinet would be useful, rather than having to trawl through the full list to see who's typed in bold, but there are now quite a few templates that do this, e.g. Template:Walpole ministry and Template:Churchill Caretaker Ministry. Opera hat (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:Opera hat) What's the justification for organising these lists by Prime Minister rather than by party? I would have thought there should only be separate articles if the entire government left office, rather than just the Prime Minister. At present the article Eden ministry (previously Conservative Government 1955-1957, which I didn't create) seems to say that all the ministers were reappointed to their offices in April 1955, which is not what the source says. Twentieth Century British Political Facts splits the mid-20c. Conservative period in office into two: 1951-1957 (Churchill and Eden) and 1957-1964 (Macmillan and Douglas-Home). If that's what the principal (only?) source does, I don't see why wikipedia should do things differently. Opera hat (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The traditional method of organization for British ministries is that each time a new government is “formed” i.e. after each election, a new ministry begins. That is regardless of whether the ministers remain the same. There are many advantages of using the traditional ministry format. First off, clearer and more concise: most people think of governments in term of their prime minister, I.E. Thatcher government or Thatcher ministry rather than “Conservative government 1979-1990”. It also avoids conflating two different premierships, which can be dangerous if they have different “visions”. I.e. both Chamberlain and Churchill were conservatives, but they had vastly different war policies. See List of Australian ministries for an example of how this works. They’ve got it more right than those who invented the system… I’m working on verifying the facts in all articles as we speak. You can go on and correct that if it is indeed wrong. This format, being traditionally correct, being used by the Dominions (if I may use that term…), and being concise, in that the Prime Minister is who we associate a government with, seems to be the way to go. RGloucester (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Traditional" and "traditionally correct" according to whom? [citation needed] (And WP:Other stuff exists in Australia is not an argument.) Opera hat (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

On this basis ('after each election, a new ministry begins') you would need to have the following as separate ministries (working back from the present)

1. Third Blair Ministry, 2005-7

2. Second Blair Ministry, 2001-5

3. Second Major Ministry, 1992-7

4. Fourth Wilson Ministry, October 1974-1976

5. Third Wilson Ministry, March-October 1974

6. Second Wilson Ministry, 1966-70

7. Second Macmillan Ministry, 1959-63

8. Second Eden Ministry, May 1955-1957

I feel that this would not be the best way of doing it.

Alekksandr (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * For the purpose of this encyclopedia, it is only necessary to separate ministries that are 1) not consecutive and 2) have vast differences of composition or great importance. Elections are noted in the article. But Prime Ministers have to be separated. Macmillan and Douglas-Home shouldn’t be conflated. In the eyes of the public, they are construed as different. If we have more information on each ministry, and it is of great importance, we can start to separate them. But at this time it would be counterproductive. Things that should be maintained, however, are the separation of Prime Ministers, and non-consecutive ministries.

The usage standard that I’d instate is the following:


 * 1) A new PM = a new ministry article.
 * 2) Each ministry article contains a cabinet shortlist and a full list of ministers.
 * 3) Non-consecutive ministries are denoted "First Name ministry” and “Second Name ministry” and so on.
 * 4) PMs that served for multiple consecutive ministries should only have one “Name ministry” article, unless there is good reason to split them. This is currently done for the Thatcher articles (First Thatcher ministry). This is even though that “officially” a new ministry (or government) starts after each election.
 * 5) Elections should be denoted in these consolidated ministry pages.

This is the standard I currently accept, and I think it is reasonable and smart. RGloucester (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you've got this idea that parliamentary elections have any relevance to the composition of HM Government. It is not necessary to be a member of either House of Parliament in order to be one of Her Majesty's ministers - in fact during a dissolution (while a general election to the House of Commons is held) none of HM Government has a seat in Parliament at all. They do not cease to hold their offices because there is no Parliament, and so they are not reappointed when the new Parliament meets. Indeed, it is perfectly possible to be a minister without a seat in either House, even while Parliament is in session: e.g. William Ewart Gladstone, who remained a member of the Cabinet in 1845-6 despite having lost his seat at Newark on appointment as Secretary of State for War and the Colonies and not returning to the Commons until 1847. Though this may have been unusual in a Cabinet minister, it was quite common in the nineteenth century for Scottish and Irish law officers to be members of the ministry despite not holding seats in the Commons or the Lords. Opera hat (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that they do not. But, officially, a “ministry” begins after each election. A new ministry is not necessarily composed of different ministers. It can be composed of exactly the same members as prior to the election. But a new ministry is still begun (in name). Nevertheless, this is relatively irrelevant for what we are dealing with here. RGloucester (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to provide some sources, I'm afraid. I have never heard before that "officially, a ministry begins (in name) after each election". A ministry has no official existence: it's just a word used to describe collectively the government ministers in office at any given time. "Government ministers" themselves are just paid employees of the Crown through their departments in the same way as civil servants. The fact that some of these employees resign and are appointed depending on which party has a parliamentary majority (and sometimes not even then) is a mere constitutional custom. Hardly anything in the famously nonexistent British Constitution is "official". Opera hat (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The word I intended to use was “conventional” or “traditionally”. You are right that it is not exactly a written rule. I think you are aware that after each election, even if the former PM’s party won it, he must still go to the Queen and “form” a new ministry, in the way he would if he had just won for the first time. The ministers may not change, but he has “officially” gone through the process of a forming a new ministry. RGloucester (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * H'm, like in 2005. I actually wasn't aware of that. I still don't think that means there should be separate articles, though. Opera hat (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say there should only be separate ministry articles if all (or nearly all) of the ministers left office, not just the Prime Minister, or if an existing government formed a coalition with other parties (as in 1915). On this basis there'd be a better argument for splitting Whig Government 1835–1841 at 1839 than for splitting Conservative Government 1957–1964 at 1963. But really it's not for wikipedia to make these decisions, it's for wikipedia to reflect what the published sources say - which at the moment articles like Eden ministry do not do. Opera hat (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don’t think I would say it is Wikipedia’s job to reflect published sources, but to instead present facts (from published sources) in the most accessible way to those who read it. And while I understand where you are coming from, I still think that, to the layman, a government is thought of as being a “product” of the Prime Minister, so-to-speak. In other words, when the PM changes, a different “government" begins. Nevertheless, I think the compromise avaliable is to replace the current naming “Conservative Government 1957-1964” with one similar to “Macmillan and Douglas-Home ministries”. Even though that seems unwieldily, it could work. And would allow consistent usage. We would simply redirect “Macmillan ministry” and “Douglas-Home ministry” to that page (along with the existing naming). What do you think of that?  RGloucester (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of these ministry/government articles appear to be ultimately based on the lists in the Palgrave Historical Facts series, viz. English Historical Facts 1603-1688 (London 1980); British Historical Facts 1688-1760 (London, 1988); British Historical Facts 1760-1830 (London, 1980); British Historical Facts 1830-1900 (London, 1975) and British Political Facts 1900-1979 (London, 1980), later reissued as Twentieth Century British Political Facts 1900-2000 (London, 2000). I've got copies of the 1688-2000 volumes. These works divide the ministries (also variously called administrations or governments, both equally valid terms) by Prime Minister or political leader(s) until 1830, then by party thereafter. It is entirely appropriate to distinguish the different government by leader in the earlier volumes, as the current party system did not really develop until about the end of the 18th century and Pitt and Liverpool were still calling themselves Whigs into the 19th century. However, after 1830 the compilers of these sources evidently regard the party classification as more important than the leadership, and the ministries of Grey and Melbourne 1830-34, Palmerston and Russell 1859-1866, Derby and Disraeli 1866-1868, Gladstone and Rosebery 1892-1895, Salisbury and Balfour 1895-1905 are not separated (though Wellington and Peel 1834-1835 are). Note that in these cases the Prime Minister usually died or retired and his successor took over in a smooth transition without a major government reshuffle. Moving into the 20th century, British Political Facts does split Campbell-Bannerman 1905-1908 and Asquith 1908-1915, and Thatcher 1797-1990 and Major 1990-1997, but has Bonar Law and Baldwin 1922-1924 as continuous, ditto Baldwin and Chamberlain 1935-1940, Churchill and Eden 1951-1957, Macmillan and Douglas-Home 1957-1964, and Wilson and Callaghan 1974-1979. As at the moment there are no sources given which would support any other format, I would say these divisions should be preserved in the corresponding articles on wikipedia. Opera hat (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the article titles: it may well be that it is more common to speak of "Salisbury's second ministry" than "the Conservative government of 1886", or "the Attlee ministry" rather than "the Labour government of 1945", but again, until alternative sources have been provided to support this usage I think we should stick with the sources we've got and use the party label and the date, not the Prime Minister's name. See WP:OR, WP:Verifiability, etc. Opera hat (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see there was a fairly inconclusive discussion about this back in 2007: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 11, which touches on some of the same points. Opera hat (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not think that WP:OR or WP:Verifiability apply here, as the facts we are presenting in the articles are compliant, and so would the title, simply because it is a style of naming in common use. The title would not be "original research" but a common name that is more concise. Wikipedia prefers common names to those of academic sources, as you know (WP:AT). Nevertheless, I went to the library to take a look today. The 2009 edition (and those before) of Dodd's Parliamentary Companion organizes it as follows: it separates periods between when parliament has assembled, and when it has dissolved. Hence, Parliament assembled on 17 June 1987 with Margaret Thatcher as PM. It was not dissolved until 16 March 1992, a while after John Major had come to power after her resignation. Nevertheless, it calls this period the "Thatcher and Major Ministries". It further separates them into the "Third Thatcher" and "First Major" ministries. It does however, also make note of when the majority of a ministry's members remain the same, through the use of brackets, even if parliament had been dissolved in between. Now, I would not advocate adopting the "assembled/dissolved" policy, as that could get extremely confusing. But it is clear to me that standard of ministries named after the PM does exist, and has been used many times. Another book I found An Encyclopaedia of Parliament, states that "writers referred to Governments led by a particular Prime Minister as the 'Aberdeen Ministry' or the 'Derby Ministry', etc." It also notes that this standard was in use throughout the 19th century, but is not as common now, though it remains the "documentation standard". Nevertheless, I think it would be acceptable to name the article in question “Macmillan and Douglas-Home ministries”. This would establish a consistent standard, simple to understand, comprehensive, and worthwhile. Otherwise, we could use "so-and-so ministry" articles as they are for periods where there was only one PM, and use the "government standard" for those like the ones you mentioned. I would, however, advocate a change in name to "British government xxxx-xxxx" to eliminate the ambiguity of Labour/Conservative without a national qualifier. That's not my preferred option, though. Honestly, I think the best standard to follow is List of Australian ministries. It works well, is simple, and get's the job done. RGloucester (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is annoying that both Canada and Australia have comprehensive lists of ministries on the websites of their parliaments e.g. this. They list ever ministry, from start to finish, and every member, and even give a brief history. Britain, on the other hand, has no real comprehensive source. Send a letter to your MP! RGloucester (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. My new “plan” would be to leave articles that contain two PMs for good reason alone. But for articles that contain only one PM, they should be named “xxx ministry”. For those that contain more than one, they should be called “Party Government xxxx-xxxx”. The current lists reflects this. I am still cleaning up many articles. I haven’t got to last block that has ministry and government pages. Eventually, those will be merged. I’ve added cabinet shortlists to articles which did not previously contain them as well. RGloucester (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See the new section I created below….RGloucester (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Cabinet templates
There doesn't seem to be a suitable talk page to discuss this, so here seems as good as anywhere.

At present there isn't really any standard format for the templates used for Cabinet ministers, with some including offices and dates...

... while others are just a list of names:

Thatcher I Cabinet

The first lot are certainly more informative, but are they a bit long and unwieldy for a template? It seems a bit redundant to have two for David Cameron, though the second one would be better renamed as "current United Kingdom Cabinet" as it doesn't include Laws, Fox and Huhne. Opera hat (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

New conventions
The consistent usage plan I feel we should embrace is as follows:


 * 1) Articles that cover the ministries of one PM should be titled “Name ministry”, e.g. Major ministry.
 * 2) Articles that cover the ministries of two or more PMs should be named “Party Government xxxx-xxxx”, e.g. Labour Government 1974-1979.
 * 3) PMs are combined in an article because the primary source, Butler’s British Political Facts, lists them that way.
 * 4) That was done (in the source) because few ministers changed in the ministry, even though the PM changed.
 * 5) Each article of these types should contain a cabinet shortlist and a full list of ministers, along with a brief history and image.
 * 6) The use of the term “ministry” is sanctioned by sources such as Butler's British Political Facts and Dod’s Parliamentary Companion.
 * 7) “Ministry" refers to all ministers of a government, not just the cabinet, but does not include the Civil Service.
 * 8) In the event that a PM served non-consecutive terms, his ministries should be titled “First Name ministry”, “Second Name ministry” and so on.
 * 9) Ministries traditionally begin after each election, even if the same Prime Minister is reelected. For our purposes, we shall consider consecutive terms worth one “ministry article”.
 * 10) There are exceptions, for example, Margaret Thatcher has been granted First Thatcher ministry, Second Thatcher ministry and so on.
 * 11) These are determined by the relative importance of each term, and the length of the PM’s time in office.
 * 12) Ministries with a special historical name, e.g. First National Ministry, should be titled as such.

I have continued to touch up articles, add images, merger them, and so forth, following this plan. This has cut waste, given us better articles, and given us a consistent plan of usage. Please help out if you can, by touching up articles on this list, and by helping merge and rename the Victorian ministry articles, which are currently quite a mess. Thanks. RGloucester (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The introduction to Chapter I (Ministries) of Twentieth Century British Political Facts, page 1, explains that "(t)his section has been sub-divided chronologically at changes of Prime Minister, except when few other offices changed hands as in 1902, 1923, 1937, 1955, 1963 and 1976; further divisions are made for the drastic reconstructions of 1915, 1931 and May 1945". If we're following the source then the following articles should be merged: First National ministry and Second National ministry; Fourth National ministry and Chamberlain war ministry; Third Churchill ministry and Eden ministry; and First Thatcher ministry, Second Thatcher ministry and Third Thatcher ministry. I particularly don't see why the last three should be an exception, given that the information given is already included in List of Thatcher ministers 1979–1990 and Premiership of Margaret Thatcher. Opera hat (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The various national ministries are split out of pragmatism. Especially with regards to Chamberlain's war ministry, it just "makes more sense" to the reader to keep them split. I think it is ineffectual to treat the source's organisational strategy as gospel. In cases where it pragmatically makes sense to split an article, or where an article functions well in its preexisting format (Eden and 3rd Churchill), then we should not change it. Also, as a point of reference, Dodd's splits the national ministries and the thatcher ministries. With regards to the Thatcher ministries, they are split simply to have more digestible chunks of information. Because of the length of her term, and the sheer amount of ministers involved, it makes sense to split the articles into three, so it is easier to find everything. If we were to merge all three, including the history portions, the article would be overly long. Eden and Third Churchill could be merged, but I don't honestly see the point in doing that work, since the current articles function well as they are (from a pragmatic perspective). If you would like to merge them, please go ahead. RGloucester (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I’ve completed all the mergers. If I’ve missed any, please tell me or do so yourself. I’ve also updated the chart, rebuilt the template, and touched up a few more articles. RGloucester (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Asquith war ministry/Coalition government 1915-6
See my proposal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Kingdom_coalition_government_(1915%E2%80%931916). 'I suggest that this article should be renamed 'Asquith war ministry', by analogy with Chamberlain war ministry. See also | Talk:List_of_British_governments, paragraph 1 - 'Articles that cover the ministries of one PM should be titled “Name ministry”, e.g. Major ministry.' Alekksandr (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Or possibly 'Asquith coalition ministry', as his Liberal government lasted several months into WWI. Alekksandr (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don’t know, with this one. I don’t think there was an official “war cabinet” formed, so I don’t know if we can call it a war government. I’ll check Dod’s later. RGloucester (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it actually wasn’t a war government. He actually had to resign as a result of not forming one….see War Cabinet, from that article :"During the First World War, lengthy Cabinet discussions came to be seen as a source of vacillation in Britain's war effort. In December 1916 it was proposed that the Prime Minister Herbert Asquith should delegate decision-making to a small, three-man committee chaired by the Secretary of State for War David Lloyd George. Asquith initially agreed (provided he retained the right to chair the committee if he chose) before changing his mind after being infuriated by an article in The Times which portrayed the proposed change as a defeat for him. The political crisis grew from this point until Asquith was forced to resign as Prime Minister; he was succeeded by David Lloyd George who thereupon formed a small War Cabinet”. So it isn’t a war government. I think it should probably be termed “Second Asquith ministry”, because of the way he held onto power. RGloucester (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest renaming United Kingdom coalition government (1915–1916) as “Second Asquith ministry”. Alekksandr (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Wellington caretaker ministry/Tory Provisional Government 1834
See my proposal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tory_Provisional_Government_1834. 'I suggest that this article should be renamed 'Wellington caretaker ministry', by analogy with Churchill caretaker ministry. See also Talk:List_of_British_governments, paragraph 1 - 'Articles that cover the ministries of one PM should be titled “Name ministry”, e.g. Major ministry.'

Alekksandr (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I’ve completed this move, as it isn’t controversial in any way.RGloucester (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposals
I feel that, based on the plan set out above: -

Whig Government 1846–1852 needs to be merged into First Russell ministry.


 * Completed as uncontroversial. RGloucester (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Whig Government 1835–1841 needs to be merged into Second Melbourne Ministry

Third Melbourne Ministry should perhaps be merged into Second Melbourne Ministry. '4.PMs that served for multiple consecutive ministries should only have one “Name ministry” article, unless there is good reason to split them.’
 * I’ve completed these as uncontroversial. RGloucester (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Would the Bedchamber Crisis not have been a good reason to split them? Opera hat (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Coalition Ministry should perhaps be merged into Godolphin-Marlborough Ministry
 * Not sure about which title to use for this one. I think it is known to history as the “Coalition Ministry”, but I’d have to do some research. RGloucester (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merged to “Coalition Ministry” as that is how it is known to history. RGloucester (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Alekksandr (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments are welcome at Talk:Coalition Ministry. Opera hat (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Bedchamber Crisis
I don’t know if that really warrants a split…Peel never really formed a government, so there was no “real” interruption to Melbourne’s ministry…perhaps more note of the crisis could be placed in the Second Melbourne ministry article? RGloucester (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the chart?
I don’t know what happened, but, for some reason the chart is messed up. Despite this, no one has edited the page. Furthermore, if one looks at past revisions, it seems they show up as messed up, even though they were not. Did the template itself change? If so, what can be done to fix this? RGloucester (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Blair and Major
Hello,

Looking at the table, I see Thatcher gets three articles about her governments and Cameron now has two as a result of the recent election. Since this is the case, why doesn't Tony Blair get three articles since he was elected three times and I assume formed three governments? In the same vein, shouldn't John Major get two articles for his government since he won the 1992 election and I assume formed a new government after that? - Thanks, Hoshie 02:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They should do, but no one has taken it upon themselves to write the articles. If you're open to doing so, feel free. The problem with Blair and Major has been on the todo list at the UK politics Wikiproject for years. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Coalition/National Ministries
Why is the coalition government of 2010-15 referred to as Cameron I, while the various coalition & national governments of the 1930s and 40s are not referred to as whichever instance of MacDonald, Baldwin, Chamberlain, Churchill, etc? P M C  15:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * They are called 'national' because that was the specific way in which they were referred to at the time, a product of the National Government (United Kingdom) principle. This is also how they are recorded in Dod's. Much like the Who? Who? Ministry, some ministries have had special names. This does not apply to Cameron's first. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)