Talk:Defence minister

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Defence minister redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Biography / British / European

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article title[edit]

Shouldn't this article be moved to Defence minister, seeing as how the US has no "Defense minister" only a secretary of defense? Earl Andrew 20:09, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't the US have a "Secretary of Defense" who is defense minister/secretary of defense? Anyways, it's rarely a good idea to move articles from/to US to/from UK spelling. -- User:Docu

I feel this artical should be moved to Defence minister for the reason that it is a mis-spelling to English speaking countries outside the US, where the US does not have a defence minister, but a Secretary of Defence. -- 203.220.171.223 10:01, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why are you using caps on "Secretary of Defence", but not on "defence minister"?

Anyways, please check Wikipedia:Tutorial_(Keep_in_mind)#U.S._English_vs._British_English and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling. -- User:Docu

I agree, this artical should be moved or renamed to Defence minister as America doesn't have a defence minister. There is no such thing as Ministries in the US government. If you agree/disagree just say so. -- 203.220.170.92 01:14, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Ministers," like a Defence Minister, generally relate to the Commonwealth more than the United States. Consequently, the "-ence" ending is preferable. -- Emsworth 01:49, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If the article is titled defence minister (as the function), rather than Defence Minister (as the title), personally, I'd rather leave it were it was (defense minister). If you indeed want to use caps, you might want to move it to Defence Minister.

It's highly unusual to link to the ROC one with [[Ministry of National Defense of the People's Republic of China|Minister of National Defence]] just to suggest what is "preferable". There is at least another cited ministry that appears to be changed to an unusual form. -- User:Docu

!!!!![edit]

CHANE DEFENCE TO DEFENSE!!! you can't let the british have there way. Manic Hispanic 00:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There is no US defence minister. All other countries spell it with a c, not just the British. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added "Secretary of Defense" and "Secretary of National Defense" to the article[edit]

I redirect Secretary of Defense and Secretary of National Defense to this page because it makes sense to have a single page with links to all the top defense cabinet offiicials in one place, which allows to tease out the differences. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger with Ministry of Defence[edit]

Since the proposed merge with Ministry of Defence has received no support since October 2014, I will remove the merger proposal tag as no consensus for this. Whizz40 (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]