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 Ministry of finance (along with the other three). While there are (disputed) arguments that this is a proper name, and that this is actually a dab page in disguise (not disputed), a majority of posters agree that the article is about the general concept. Plus, there's the precedent at Talk:Ministry_of_Defence#Requested_move_5_February_2021. No such user (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Finance → Ministry of finance – Article is about the generic institution and not any specific ministry of finance Primergrey (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC) ==[reply]

• Support - as nominator.Primergrey (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck through above since it's not necessary, and potentially confusing, to express support for your own proposal. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The article title is a generic name, describing all government ministries responsible for financial affairs, regardless of whether they use that title or not (see content). The ministries in the individual countries have a proper names. WP guidance consensus is clear at WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS (specifically MOS:INSTITUTIONS) Davidships (talk)
• 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 finance". 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]

Oppose Proper name. – robertsky (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural suggestion: There are four open RMs about ministries of Religious Affairs, Justice, Finance and Foreign Affairs. Since it was the first one that was requested, I suggest we focus the discussion at Talk:Ministry of Religious Affairs#Requested move 16 February 2023 and keep the others open until that discussion is closed, so we can avoid needing to make the same comments in four different places. (If someone wants to convert all these into a single multi-article RM, I would have no objection to that as an alternative approach.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. However, I see no point to the two separate articles: this one and Finance minister. They should be merged, as should other similar pairs of articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This article is about ministries of finance in the abstract, not a specific Ministry of Finance of [Placename].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]