Talk:Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry

Same as Minister of Science (Canada)?

It looks like this government post was made from the merger of three others. Is it now the same as, or a replacement for, Minister of Science (Canada)? --BurritoBazooka (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, nope, looks like the posts are separate still. The subject of the article is akin to what is called "Minister of Industry" in some other countries. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 19 March 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: not moved. There's a clear consensus to not move this. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry → Minister of innovation, science, and industry – Per MOS's guidance on capitalizing generic job titles (don't). Primergrey (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose – it's not a generic job title, but rather a very specific one, as there is only one Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry in Canada at any given time. In fact I'd say it's not a job title at all in the usual sense of the word, but a title (it's an office to which you get appointed, not a job for which you apply). 29th Canadian Ministry uses capitals for the titles of all ministers, and that seems indeed the most sensible thing to do. Gawaon (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  You actually need to read the guideline in question, not guess what it might cover by the name of a shortcut. The material there applies generally to all such terms, not just those that are literally "job titles".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  It wasn't linked when I wrote that comment, which makes reading it hard. And even after reading it, it's a mess (as you notice below too) and not really helpful. So one should capitalize "was President", but lowercase "was the president"?? What??? These rules are clearly in very bad shape and until they are cleaned up and made more logical and consistent, it may be best to ignore them altogether. Gawaon (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough, though if you mean by "ignore them altogether" something like "go around capitalizing all over the place" that would be a bad idea, since per MOS:CAPS WP's default is always to lower-case everything we can possibly lower-case – everything that is not "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" (with regard to the specific term with the specific meaning in the specific semantic position in question). Going on a capitalization spree might generate enough controversy to trigger some kind of further action on revising JOBTITLES to make more sense, but it would probably be seen as a POINTy way of getting there. In this case, there's a guideline line-item saying to capitalize in this specific kind of usage, so it's safest to just do it, then raise clarification concerns at WT:MOSBIO. If we're not writing "Barack Obama is a former President of the United States", then there appears to be no defensible rationale for capitalizing "president of the United States" and "minister of innovation, science and industry" even in their own article titles, only when directly attached to someone's name ("Minister of Silly Walks John Cleese"). But if there really is such a rationale, and consensus buys it, then it probably also applies even to mid-sentence usage like "Jones was formerly the Minister of [Something]" as well as to articles titles like Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry.

  Another way of looking at this: The paseablility, applicability, and consensus level of that MoS section is in doubt, which makes an RM predicated on an any debatable interpretation of it in doubt, and when in doubt we do not move away from the established page name per WP:TITLECHANGES. This is ultimately a question that needs to be resolved broadly at WT:MOSBIO or the main WT:MOS, not bickered over one article at a time, or we'll end up with WP:CONSISTENT-failing different outcomes depending on exactly who shows up at which RM discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. Gawaon (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Isn't this a case where "a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description"? If so, MOS:JOBTITLES says to use caps for it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, we wouldn't normally put an article in a title. For my part, I think this is what SMcCandlish is trying to say when he attempts to parse the recently-made-into-a dog's breakfast that is the MOS:JOBTITLES section. Primergrey (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Technically, MOS:JOBTITLES (at the third bullet point) wants us to to capitalize the article title of an article about a unique title/role/office when the article is about that title/role/office in and of itself, even though it otherwise wants us to use lower case when not directly attached to someone's name (thus: "Jones became the minister of [whatever] in 1996"). I think this is another case where that whole MoS section is causing confusion due to inconsistency and needs to be rewritten, and there has been some discussion in that direction already, but it has not gotten done yet. So, as of right now, this should remain capitalized (but only as the article title and probably in the lead sentence and other instances of writing about it as the role/title/job/office as such, not as a description/label of a role someone filled). If JOBTITLES gets cleanup up later (a discussion to have at WT:MOSBIO or WT:MOS), then the question can be re-asked here if necessary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  PS: Even if it were lower-cased, it would be to minister of innovation, science and industry without the serial comma being added as proposed above, unless there's a clear showing most sources add that comma after "science". In the interim, I've ensure that all sensible spelling ("&") and punctuation (serial comma) and capitalisation variants for this exist as redirects.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  So, "Don't use a serial comma until one is widely used in most sources"? Is that a rule? Can't remember to have come across it yet. MOS:SERIAL rather says "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent", which doesn't put such any such burden of proof on the serial comma. However, considering that the current title doesn't use it, that probably shouldn't be changed unless an explicit discussion to change it has found consensus. (The current discussion, as worded in the intro comment, is about the use or non-use of capitals, not about the serial comma, so it shouldn't count.) Gawaon (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. We always capitalise specific, unique job titles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 26 March 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.