Talk:Ministry of religious affairs

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

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
  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
  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
  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

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

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]