Talk:Undersecretary

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-04-22. The result of the discussion was keep.

The US doesn't really have an equivelent of Permenant Secretary because the top positions are shuffled every election. But if there was to be equivelent it be the Deputy Secretary (not an undersecretary). Makgraf 09:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

Is there really any difference between an "Undersecretary" and an "Under Secretary"? The latter appears to be a list of examples of the former. bd2412 T 15:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. BD2412 raises a good point, but I see a different solution. It seems that each jurisdiction has its preference between "Under Secretary", "Under-Secretary" and "Undersecretary". While the posts in the various places have slightly different responsibilities and characteristics, they are all basically the same word, and it makes sense, to me, to keep them in one main article - but clearly identifying which version is used where.

Instead of merging the two pages, the disambiguation page showing a list of undersecretary positions should be made into a List page. Onanoff (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the list article to List of Undersecretary Positions (using the spelling provided by the OED), and added see also links between them. There may be a better, more specific template but I couldn't see one. If nobody objects, I would consider this proposal resolved Iamoctopus (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poland hatnote

@IgnacyPL: hello, I hope you are doing well. Regarding your reversion of my edits: I'm not sure if you've looked at the page in its current state? The hatnote is not supposed to look like that, with those square brackets. That's because the {{main}} template is not designed to work with interlanguage links. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]