Talk:Labour government, 1974–1979

What has happened to Bill Rodgers as Secretary of State for Transport? This leads me to suspect that other bits may be missing? john k (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger from Second Wilson ministry and Callaghan ministry

I’ve merged these two pages into here, as part of the plan of consistent usage set out at Talk:List of British governments. RGloucester (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Wilson and Callaghan ministries be classified as separate ministries with separate Wikipedia pages and links?

Afterall, the Thatcher, Major, Blair ministries have separate pages for themselves In fact, each cabinet headed by Thatcher and Blair has its own designated page. The same logic should apply in this case as well. CM789501 (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 31 October 2024

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: No consensus - The nominator probably needed to describe in more detail why they thought the move was needed. As it is, minimal discussion over the past week mean no need for a relist. FOARP (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Labour government, 1974–1979 → Labour government (1974–1979) – Per WP:NCDURATION. Would also support 1974–1979 Labour government. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think WP:NCDURATION says anything especially relevant. I suggest Labour government of 1974–1979. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  You're right, I'd been looking at the line: suffixed with a parenthesized indication of the time period, but that seems to not be a specific rule for non-sub-articles of reoccurring events. I would also support your proposal. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: this was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 192 § Using parenthetical disambiguation. Pinging @EEng, David Eppstein, Sb2001, SMcCandlish, Blueboar ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment. NCDURATION was very recently changed to encourage parenthesization of date ranges in article titles. I can find no discussion of this change and I do not think it can be justified by the 2017 RFC. Given the lack of evidence for consensus behind this change I do not think that NCDURATION is usable as justification for renames, and perhaps the edit to NCDURATION should be discussed at the appropriate talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

    PS I started a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Parenthesization of date ranges in (non-disambiguated) article titles. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

    That's not an accurate description of what that addition says, and there was a prior discussion of it before it was added, and no one else has complained about it in a full three months that have passed by since it was added. It does not encourage parenthesization of date ranges in article titles. It merely documents a convention already found in a lot of titles that are segments of other longer-duration topics. This article not about a time segment within a history of a Labour government. Instead, the date range here is a disambiguator to identify which Labour government is being described. The prior discussion of that addition is found at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 61#Naming convention for "subarticles" of histories, with time spans in parentheses. That discussion was explicitly referenced in this edit summary that your diff skipped over. The examples that are provided may help illustrate the type of case being discussed: History of Canada (1960–1981) and List of One Piece episodes (seasons 15–present). Those are articles that cover just a segment of a longer-duration topic. Also see Talk:History of the United States (1776–1789)#Requested move 16 June 2024. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES. No compelling reason to change this has been presented. Any of "Labour government, 1974–1979", "Labour government of 1974–1979", and "Labour government (1974–1979)", in that order of preference, are permissible and meaningfully equivalent. The first is the most WP:NATURAL, the second not unnatural but less WP:CONCISE, and the third is the least natural (we don't resort to parenthetic disambiguation if a natural-English phrase will work). "1974–1979 Labour government" is not how we name articles; it confusingly "buries the lead" about what the subject is until after a bunch of numbers that are probably meaningless to most readers (they usually don't come here with precise date ranges of things in mind, but are more often looking for the chronological information in the first place). If a WP:CONSISTENT argument is viable, to have this article (and perhaps a few others) comply with an overwhelmingly constent pattern across similar articles on governments disambiguated by time period, then use whatever format agrees with that consistency. If there isn't any consistency, then it's time to impose some via a mass RM. PS: The various conflicting formats should all exist as redirects. PPS: Same goes for the other RM just like this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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.