Talk:Foreign Secretary

message: This page should only list the Secretaries for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.  The previous offices (Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Secretary of State for the Colonies, etc.) should have separate articles. john 23:51 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
:Why? They are vastly equivalent roles! Anyway, this has a precedent elsewhere, see Secretary of State for International Development TreveXtalk 00:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure what the deal was - it was almost three years ago, and there were a lot less articles to take precedents from.  As long as it's made clear that the two offices are different, and that the current office includes the gobbled up Commonwealth Affairs Office (which was itself the amalgamation of the Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office), I don't really care if it's decided to merge. john k 00:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Without the little-used status column the list could be shorter because we could spread out the dates onto one line, though I don't want to (and am not sure how to) make that change on my own. Ddye 02:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the status column, I think it looks much better now, as it is shorter and easier to understand.--86.133.59.208 11:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Any additional comments:
To respond to Skinsmoke: you are right in that "Foreign Secretary" is a common name name and not the full title, but WP:UCN stipulates we use the most comnon name where possible an appropriate. It's for that reason we use United Kingdom, not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and FA Cup, not The Football Association Challenge Cup. YeshuaDavid (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support as nominator. YeshuaDavid (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I appreciate the discussion is now closed, but I'd suggest that this decision is not comsistent with established naning conventions. Wikipedia articles are not based on official names - they are based on commonly used names. See WP:COMMONNAME:
AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 11:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The most important thing is that Foreign Secretary continues to redirect here, i dont have a problem with the full title being used. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Move 

message: :Any additional comments:
To respond to Skinsmoke: you are right in that "Foreign Secretary" is a common name name and not the full title, but WP:UCN stipulates we use the most comnon name where possible an appropriate. It's for that reason we use United Kingdom, not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and FA Cup, not The Football Association Challenge Cup. YeshuaDavid (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support as nominator. YeshuaDavid (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
I appreciate the discussion is now closed, but I'd suggest that this decision is not comsistent with established naning conventions. Wikipedia articles are not based on official names - they are based on commonly used names. See WP:COMMONNAME:
AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 11:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The most important thing is that Foreign Secretary continues to redirect here, i dont have a problem with the full title being used. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I've noticed someone has edited the style for all cabinet ministers and added "Mr/Madam Secretary" - this sounds terribly American so I will change this within the week unless a source is provided to support this style of address.
Loobeloo (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: Which name should be used for Foreign Secretaries who inherited or were granted a title/higher title during their time in office? This would apply to Carmarthen/Leeds, Castlereagh/Londonderry, Dudley, Russell, Grey, Curzon, and Eden (who was made a knight during his last tenure at the foreign office). Currently, I believe all except Grey are listed by their highest title, but I'm not sure that's the best way to do it. It means, for instance, that the word "Castlereagh" does not appear in our article about British foreign secretaries. I'd suggest some mechanism to include both, with possible preference for the form at time of appointment as the main one displayed. john k (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which name to use? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The first part of Lloyd's stint as Foreign Secretary, from December 1955 to January 1957, was under Eden's premiership rather than Macmillan's. The table needs to be updated to reflect this (by someone who is better at editing tables than I am). Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selwyn Lloyd 

message: In this particular case, the name is being used as a title. There is one, and only one, foreign secretary at any given time, and that person is referred to officially as "the Foreign Secretary", because it's their title, which is capitalised as a proper noun, per the MoS regarding titles. Note that if we were to say, in other contexts, "The name of the foreign secretary at the time was...", or "the foreign secretary can..." lowercase would be appropriate, as it's being used as a common noun. It's a fine distinction, but an important one. Please see here for the full entry on this in the Manual of Style. — The Anome (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is only one FS at a given time. When referring to Cameron, Cleverly, Truss, Raab etc you would say eg "the Foreign Secretary visited Moscow" or similar. However, here we're describing an office, so per MOS:JOBTITLES it is lowercase, ie we're describing the office of a foreign secretary (that is, a secretary of state in charge of foreign affairs) and is a common noun. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Read the sentence, which is of the form "The X is a secretary of state". A job title cannot hold a job; it is clearly the person who is being referred to here, not the post. Now, if you were to say "An X is a secretary of state who...", lowercase would be different, as it would be the job title. But doing this just to make things lowercase would be tortuous. — The Anome (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's referring to the position of the foreign secretary, not an individual. Yes, if we were talking about Cameron then "the Foreign Secretary today met with the president of the United States" etc would be completely appropriate. But we're not referring to any one person. It's analogous to  the phrase "" (referring to the responsibilities of a person holding the office of prime minister) versus "" (referring to (for example) Sunak after becoming PM). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also: later in the paragraph we have "" - rather than the "". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tim, MOS:JOBTITLES is the applicable standard. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation of name 

message: Does anyone object to or have changes to these:
*Question 1: Should the incumbent parameter in the Infobox state (A) "David Cameron" or (B) "Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton"
*Question 2: Should the opening sentence of the fourth paragraph of the lead state "The current foreign secretary is..." (A) David Cameron or (B) Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
Are there any other options that should be considered? DeCausa (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. If there are future additions are we really to have "Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton" in full every time? Also you presume participants would want the same in running text as in the Infobox. DeCausa (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a matter of consistency. I would assume that whatever the outcome of the discussion is what would be adopted in future reference? Unless, what is the point of having the discussion for an outcome that would not be of no effect and pointless? TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: So, to be clear, what you want is that every time Cameron is mentioned in the article (if there are additional references in the future) he must be referred to as the full "Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton" and not, for instance, just "Lord Cameron"? That's pointless. Future consensus will determine how that's to be handled given the context of any addition. We have two specific mentions in the article currently. My proposal deals with what needs to be dealt with. DeCausa (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No. He could be referred to as Lord Cameron too but what my point was to achieve consistency part should not refer as "David Cameron" and the other parts as "Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton" or "Lord Cameron" etc. I hope this clarifies what I meant. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn’t. That’s not what your proposed question says. Also, what does “etc” mean? Are there other names that you favour but also haven’t mentioned in your question? DeCausa (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "et cetera" is, here, an invitation for more vagueness. -The Gnome (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for an RfC question