Talk:Second Kishida Cabinet

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Why do you call it the second Kishida cabinet? Isn't this his first time?.

Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Third Kishida Cabinet

The 2nd Kishida Cabinet has been replaced as of today. https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2022/08/ee92908726d4-japan-pm-to-reshuffle-cabinet-ldp-leadership-as-public-support-slips.html - Indefensible (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Indefensible: It should be "Second Kishida Cabinet (reshuffled)" instead of "Third Kishida Cabinet". Please see the Japanese version ja:第2次岸田内閣 (改造).--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 07:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  It makes no sense to call this the 2nd cabinet and not "reshuffled" when only 1 person changed from the 1st cabinet, and then to call the new cabinet "reshuffled" but still the 2nd cabinet when a majority (14) were changed. The naming seems pretty arbitrary. - Indefensible (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  • • @Indefensible:The ordinal changes only after an election of the Prime Minister. [1] [2]. --Mike Rohsopht (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

      I guess that makes sense. Thanks. - Indefensible (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merged.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

---

@Number 57, Impru20, Vacant0, Siglæ, Rowei99, Μαρκος Δ, Checco, Scia Della Cometa, Yakme, Vacant0, Braganza, Kawnhr, Chuborno, Davide King, Nick.mon, Erinthecute, HapHaxion, Helper201, Vif12vf, PLATEL, Morgan695, Tyrosian, and Elg3a-1: I propose merging Second Kishida Cabinet (First Reshuffle) and Second Kishida Cabinet (Second Reshuffle) into Second Kishida Cabinet. I think the content from Second Kishida Cabinet (First Reshuffle) and Second Kishida Cabinet (Second Reshuffle) can easily be merged into Second Kishida Cabinet, and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Second Kishida Cabinet. There isn't a precedence to create pages based on reshuffles of cabinets, as there hasn't been a page created on them until Kishida did so. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge. Pages for shuffles keep popping up on Wikipedia and I'm not sure why — every time they get noticed, they get merged right back into its parent ministry (eg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Canadian cabinet reshuffle and 29th Canadian Ministry. for more examples of shuffles being covered on the ministry's page, there's also Sunak ministry and Borne government). This looks to have exactly the same issues: there is simply not enough here to justify a split. All the tables and infoboxes are masking that all there really is to these pages is the background sections, which can comfortably fit onto Second Kishida Cabinet (maybe with a bit of trimming; this section on the First Reshuffle page looks to include a bunch of unnecessary info). — Kawnhr (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge. There are times when reliable sources may consider large reshuffles as different governments/cabinets. This is not what we are seeing here but, rather, the creation of different articles for each reshuffle as such, which is mostly absurd. A government is going to get either minor or major reshuffles during its tenure, and that is entirely normal; we don't need separate articles for each one. In this case, there is an obvious duplication of content which is unneeded and unwarranted. Impru20^talk 17:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge. No need for a new article for every minor cabinet reshuffle. If necessary it can be a section on the article of the main cabinet or as a new row for the applicable minister/ministry. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 13:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Devil's advocate pitching a "but": I do not want to actually get involved in the debate, and can live with the result either way. But just from experience, I want to drop a note of caution for fellow authors: There is a valid reason why post-war/state constitution cabinet reshuffles are treated completely separate by both the cabinet itself (e.g. on the kantei website) as well as many media or the Japanese Wikipedia. They are very often not "minor reshuffles", but complete reorganizations of both the structure of cabinet posts, i.e. how various portfolios are grouped or newly introduced/abolished altogether, as well as the people or factions occupying those posts. In contrast, constitutionally-technically new cabinets, especially, but not exclusively after an incumbent PM has been reelected, are not rarely 1-to-1-continuations, without any change in posts or personnel; such cabinets are often only new cabinets by constitutional formality, not in actuality (a fairly recent example would be Kishida I vs. II, with only one election-decapitation-related party politics change [Amari/Motegi/Hayashi] and otherwise full continuity; in contrast, the first reshuffle of Kishida II was a major rotation). The (practical editorial) problem is: Especially when not only the ministers, but also the ministerial posts undergo major changes (or in exceptional cases [Obuchi reshuffles], even the parties forming the government, or in the most extreme case, the 2001 reform of the central government, when all ministries were regrouped), this can become very messy in terms of designing a halfway readable single list/table/article. [But probably not impossible, so if you go for it and succeed, I may eventually borrow the layout into de.wp.] Internal party politics/the LDP calendar and electoral (at time: pseudo-/non-)politics/the constitutional calendar just happen to be in regular misalignment in Japan. In any case, happy debating/deciding/editing to all, Asakura Akira (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

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.