Talk:Cabinet Office

Politics of the United Kingdom Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article title[edit]

This page was moved from Cabinet Office in December of 2004 to make way for a disambiguation page. The disambiguation page lists the UK Cabinet Office and the Japanese Cabinet Office. This being an English language Encyclopaedia one would expect that the English language usage would naturally be hosted on the unqualified page; otherwise all of the unqualified pages pages would have to be disambiguation pages to encompass all of the possible translations from foreign languages. Jooler 11:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

add: * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and a signature:"~~~~"

Oppose. We can't assume people looking for a "cabinet office" in English must be looking for the UK institution. Jonathunder 05:47, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. English-speaking nations shouldn't somehow be privileged in article titling. Would you have us move Labour Party (UK) as well, as obviously that's better known to an English-speaking readership than the one in Lithuania? User:The Tom 22:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support. Common usage, but include a move of Cabinet Office -> Cabinet Office (disambiguation) first and include link to "Cabinet Office (disambiguation)" on the fist line. Philip Baird Shearer 12:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---Add any additional comments on the "Requested move" below this line ---

We can't assume people looking for a "cabinet office" in English must be looking for the UK institution. Jonathunder 05:47, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

To elaborate a bit on my objection, I think it likely many readers searching "cabinet office" may be interested in the general concept of a government cabinet office, cabinet officer, or department, which most countries have. Also, google searches on the exact term "cabinet office" show institutions with that name in Jamaica and Canada, at least. So I think this should remain a disambiguation page, which will probably grow. Jonathunder 00:58, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Re your first point, that would be lower case 'o' in office. Re your second point, when someone bothers to create those articles that might be an issue, but ATM they doen't exist. also note that the person who moved this page didn't bother to correct the links, so look at Whatlinkshere&target=Cabinet_Office and see how many refer to Canada, Jamaica, Japan or elsewhere? Jooler 01:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

English-speaking nations shouldn't somehow be privileged in article titling. Would you have us move Labour Party (UK) as well, as obviously that's better known to an English-speaking readership than the one in Lithuania?

That's a disambiguation page because of the New Zealand and the Irish labour parties. They are both in English. This is English Wikipedia. Do you think President of the United States should be a disambiguation page because of the "Presidente de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos" ? The must be hundreds of similar examples. Jooler 00:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It should moved under "Common Usage". But I think Jooler that you should change your proposal to a multiple page move, one like the Levellers example as shown on WP:RM#Multiple page moves. Philip Baird Shearer 12:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- That part of the move request isn't required. I could make that move myself now. The request page is for when a page can't be moved by a normal user, but only by an Admin. Jooler 22:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Primary disambiguation. violet/riga (t) 21:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cabinet Office. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327071925/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/98307/guide_to_cabinet.pdf to http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/98307/guide_to_cabinet.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Secretariats?[edit]

This article needs to explain the internal organization. Kaihsu (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is covered already: "the Cabinet Office often takes on responsibility for areas of policy which are the priority of the Government of the time. The units that administer these areas migrate in and out of the Cabinet Office as government priorities (and governments) change". There is no point trying to explain structures which change every month - no reliable source will ever be able to track that, even the Government's own website does not attempt to do that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 November 2022[edit]

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. Consensus that the current article subject is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Cabinet Office". (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 22:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– ambiguous 2601:541:4580:8500:800:5C99:DE9C:3C3A (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per this. The United Kingdom Cabinet Office has had over 90% of the pageviews for the pages listed at the dab page. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added "Cabinet Office (disambiguation) → Cabinet Office" to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not ambiguous. Primary topic by views and by long term significance. For some of the alternatives I've probably just increased the page view count by 50% for this month whilst checking what they say. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per nom, current title is ambigous and less recognizable that the proposal. Even if the article has more page views, it is not primary per long-term significance. Better to move. Vpab15 (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OPpose. Clear primary topic. — Amakuru (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2022 (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.