Talk:List of ministers under Margaret Thatcher

Comment

I think it would be better to have thin lines between each position. It's sometimes hard to tell at first glance which people held which post. Proteus (Talk) 18:49, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Given the number of huge reshuffles of the Thatcher cabinet, I feel like this current format isn't very useful for seeing who was in the cabinet at the same time as each other. This old version, while not as nice looking in terms of the table, seems more useful in that it is much easier to determine who served in cabinet at the same time as who else, and in what position, while the current version is really not any more useful than just looking at the lists on the articles for each position. Does anybody agree? john k 00:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. --Cjnm 16:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• I completely agree, and have been bold and appended the older version to the new one. Best of both worlds? Hope this is ok, do advise of any objections. Ta. Peeper 10:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The modernisation of the economy?You can't really call the privatisation and the unemployment Thatcher caused modernisation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.78.144 (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Misleading title

The main table, headed "The Ministry", is not the entire ministry. It is just the Cabinet. There were many more members of her ministry than that. We need to either add those details, or change the heading (and the title of the article) to "Cabinet". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This has been fixed with the merger listed above. RGloucester (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

MERGER

I have merged Conservative Government 1979–1990 into this article, as it was simply a lister of ministers within the Thatcher government. That list belongs here, because, as noted above, the former table did not contain all ministers, and hence did not properly represent the “ministry”. This is now resolved. RGloucester (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of the pages for specific British governments have (1). a page with only those ministers who actually sat round the Cabinet table, (2). a page which also includes junior ministers. Compare Callaghan ministry and Labour Government 1974–1979. I feel that there are advantages to having both - some people will only want to see Cabinet members, while some will want to know the identity of Thatcher's Vice-Chamberlain of the Household. I therefore propose to revert this redirect. Alekksandr (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

“Ministry” means all members of government, not just the cabinet. Furthermore, Cabinet members are easy to find in this list, since they are bolded and emphasized. There is no reason to have one barebones article with just the cabinet members. This provides a comprehensive list and eliminates redundancy. The reason the 1974-1979 one remains is due to the fact that it is harder to split, as it includes both the ministers of the Callaghan and the Second Wilson ministries. RGloucester (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I have further converted this article into a “List of Thatcher ministers” for her whole “reign” as that is what it now serves as, in relation to First Thatcher ministry, Second Thatcher ministry, and so on…I defend this change because the charts on “Ministry” pages bold the cabinet members and put them first, making them easy to find. Two lists are not necessary. This is simpler and un-confusing. RGloucester (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the page you mention, Conservative Government 1979-1990, never had just a list of cabinet members. RGloucester (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Title retained as per WP:LISTNAME Mike Cline (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

---

List of Thatcher ministers 1979–1990 → Thatcher Ministry – In common with other articles named after Prime Ministers in Category:British ministries Opera hat (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Orig. time stamp 13:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• This probably needs discussion as it's not clear whether "ministry" should be capitalized in this context. Both usages exist in the category (eg. Cameron ministry, Chatham Ministry). At first sight, Thatcher ministry seems more correct. Jafeluv (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Moved from WP:RM#Contested technical requests. Favonian (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What about First Thatcher ministry, Second Thatcher ministry, and so on? This is not the same as the other ones. It is just a full list, because her term was so long. No history either....128.148.5.92 (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. The "X Ministry" title is peculiar, nobody in real life uses the phrase in modern times. If you talk of the Thatcher Ministry it will be assumed you mean something like the period she was a minister, or the Dept of Education while she was secretary of state snatching milk, or something. If the article is a list article it need to be titled "List of...". A better title might be "[List of] ministers of/in the Thatcher government (no dates needed). Sussexonian (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This page is not one of the “ministry” articles. It is an article that has a list of the ministers that Thatcher employed throughout her premiership. The ministry articles are First Thatcher Ministry, Second Thatcher Ministry, and Third Thatcher Ministry. The “X Ministry” title is used by many sources, including Dodd’s Parliamentary Companion. It is the traditional method of naming the terms of British PMs, and is also used in Australia and Canada (see List of Canadian ministries or List of Australian ministries). If you want more information about that title, please see Talk:List of British governments. RGloucester (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You didn't make a vote. Seems like an oppose. Sussexonian (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Move discussions are not votes. There's no need for a "support" or an "oppose" if your comment makes it clear. Jafeluv (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.