Talk:Ministry of religious affairs

Syria appears twice in the table

Each one with a different name for the ministry? 101.114.50.31 (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to lowercase Ministry of religious affairs (along with the other three). While there are (disputed) arguments that this is a proper name, and that this is actually a dab page in disguise (not disputed), a majority of posters agree that the article is about the general concept. Plus, there's the precedent at Talk:Ministry_of_Defence#Requested_move_5_February_2021. No such user (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Religious Affairs → Ministry of religious affairs – Article is about the general concept Primergrey (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Disambiguation has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Proper name. – robertsky (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. See also Talk:Ministry of Foreign Affairs#Requested move 16 February 2023 comments by Davidships. The term is introduced with an indefinite article, so it is obviously not referring to one unique entity, and some of the institutions identified in the article have names that are very different from the described term. This is an article about a class of institutions, not one particular institution, so it is a common noun. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page is doing two jobs. It's telling us what a ministry of religious affairs is, and it's disambiguating the term "Ministry of Religious Affairs" to Ministry of Religious Affairs (Bangladesh), etc. We should also consider incoming redirects like Minister of Religion: Fida Hussain Bukhari is a minister of religion, but not a Minister of Religion (as he's not a politician), nor even a Minister of religion (as he's not a Christian). Certes (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, the article title is a generic name, describing all government ministries responsible for religious affairs, regardless of whether they use that title or not (see content). The ministries in the individual countries have proper names. WP guidance consensus is clear at WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS (specifically MOS:INSTITUTIONS) Davidships (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a proper name. The page serves as a disambiguation page of various institutions which use that proper name. It is not about "ministries of religious affairs". If it was plural, or listed as plural, I could go for it. But in singular form, it reflects a proper name.

Also, @Primergrey, I think it is rather bad form to split each ministry into separate RMs and force commentators to discover what other pages are being proposed to move, and repeat the same arguments elsewhere, forcing discussion to be fragmented and scattered across multiple pages. It is even poorer form not to even link to the other RMs here. The RMs should have been consolidated into one multiple-move request. If possible, I'd like to request that all the individual RMs be closed and for @Primergrey reformulate his RM request as a multi-page move. Walrasiad (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also found open RMs at Ministry of Justice, Finance and Foreign Affairs. Are there others? Certes (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, but there are plenty of other undiscussed moves to revert if you look through Primergrey's contribution history. 2 of the separate RMs are as a result of UltraSRG not processing the contested technical requests as multipage request. – robertsky (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This one seems to be the first of the four that was requested. Thus, I suggest to focus the discussion here and encourage the others to wait for this one to close. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a precedence can be found at Talk:Ministry_of_Defence#Requested_move_5_February_2021, where the description of a ministry's portfolio is split from the list of the ministries, with the portfolio occupying the lowercase title version (Ministry of defence) and the dab/set index list occupies the uppercase title version (Ministry of Defence). While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS exists, the outcome of the past RM can be applied to here as well given that they are about the same thing, the treatment of the dab/set index of government related ministries, and for consistency in the article titles across similar subjects. In absence of any portfolio description of the ministry, we should not move the set index to the lowercase version. – robertsky (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support it's not referring to a specific ministry of any country, hence its not a proper noun. Estar8806 (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Religious Affairs" or equivalent is essentially always capitalized in the subarticles, so the usage here should mirror that. (The same oppose vote for the other Ministry of XYZs, as well.) SnowFire (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Department of transportation to see how straightforward this is. Primergrey (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This article is about ministries of religious affairs in the abstract, not a specific Ministry of Religious Affairs of [Placename]. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.