Talk:Treasury Board of Canada

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.

Proposed mergers

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

The following discussion 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.

I've closed this, there being no consensus for this merger. Moonraker12 (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have proposed that both President of the Treasury Board (Canada) and Treasury Board Secretariat be merged into this article. The article about the ministerial role is mostly about the Board, apart from the list of former Presidents, while the Secretariat article is mostly about the responsibilities of the Board. To me, it makes sense to combine all three (quite short) articles into one, more detailed (not to mention, coherent and up-to-date) article. --RFBailey (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Makes good sense to me. PK T(alk) 15:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. The Board is a political construct; the Secretariat is an administrative one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.53.5 (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, but that's not a reason not to merge the articles. The content about its president and the Secretariat can easily become sub-headings within the Treasury Board article, with redirects pointing to the specific sub-headings. PK T(alk) 13:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Other departments and the ministers they support are not merged (e.g. Minister of PWGS is separate from PWGSC). If you go ahead with this merge you'd need to merge all the other ones as well! I'm otherwise ambivalent. Fishtron (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Horrible idea!!! They are not the same and should be kept different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.126.120 (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Closed: There is No consensus for this merger. Moonraker12 (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2013 (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.

Add topic