Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 10

Need consensus: Proposed move and the decapitalization of "r" in R/realm

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Vote Closed!

Opened per discussion above on 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC) by Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em}

The expected close of !vote will be 00:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC) per the agreed 7 day period

Proposal: To move the article from Commonwealth Realm to Commonwealth realm and for the decapitalization of "R" in the word "R/realm" throughout the article, unless when used to describe a particular place (i.e the Realm of Whatever).

Guidelines:

All messaging must be adhere to WP:CANVASS
Please comment on the article and not the contributors
All comments and !votes must adhere to WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA, WP:EQ, and all related policies and guidelines
If you have to comment on a user, please do not comment on them on this talk page
Please include a reason along with your !vote, if possible, and restrict all other comments to the comment/discussion section.

Support

Support. GoodDay 23:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. That-Vela-Fella 00:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The royal Web site[1][2] unambiguously defines both "Commonwealth realm" and "Commonwealth realms" (small r) as referring only to those countries of which Elizabeth II is Queen. Similarly, legal scholars writing in Cambridge University Press' and the Commonwealth Secretariat's legal journals use "Commonwealth realms" (small r) only in reference to those same countries. The evidence seems quite clear. Jonathan David Makepeace 21:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Reginmund 01:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (mild). Lholden 01:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC) I'm indifferent to this issue, however, it does seem that a Wikipedia article should follow Commonwealth Secretariat practice. --Lholden 01:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (mild). john k 01:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC) I don't feel incredibly strongly about this, but I prefer the uncapitalized form.[reply]
Support. Were it not for all the fuss, I'd have been okay with leaving the article's title as-is, because I can see that part both ways. However, if forced to choose then I choose "Commonwealth realm". I more strongly support the part about usage within the article. (See my comment in the Discussion). -- Lonewolf BC 03:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (very weakly). While there is no definitive proof of which variant is correct (since both have been found in official sources), I feel it is more important to have a functioning article than it is to push one's opinion to the very end, so I am supporting the motion despite the fact that "Commonwealth Realm" appears to be the most used variant online and despite the fact that using this variant provides more utility to the reader. I am more than a little saddened that others do not feel as I do on this and instead have deliberately subverted the Wiki process in order to push their opinion, but I see no other way to move the article forward at this point than to support what I see as a poorly reasoned proposal. Oh well. -- Hux 06:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Lholden, following established practice. —Nightstallion 07:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The proposed usage is safer, less controversial, avoids the appearance of inventing a new term. Ultimately I maintain the term, capitalised or not, is iffy, but I'll compromise on this one.--Gazzster 07:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support TharkunColl 07:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superfluous caps are evil and so 19th century. Current usage is lower case. Type 40 19:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The main test for me is whether the article could begin with "The Commonwealth Realm" (instead of "A Commonwealth Realm" . It can't because there isn't an entity called Commonwealth Realm and therefore the r in realm needs to be lowercase. Moriori 01:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blur4760 16:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven.Harris ^{(T | C)} 21:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Therequiembellishere
Oppose. I am not convinced. I thank all users for researching this. However. I have to agree with Chris Bennett. I will of course abide what ever result reached here Brian | (Talk) 01:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the title should be capitilised --देसीफ्राल 08:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sources show the capitalized version to be as correct as the uncapitalized; however, context matters when deciding which form is better to use. Within Wikipedia is it of greater benefit to readers to clarify the term by capitalizing it, as Commonwealth lawyers have done, to differentiate Elizabeth II's realms in the Commonwealth from those realms under other monarchs within the Commonwealth. --G2bambino 14:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Unnecessary; current usage is more precise and unambiguous; proposed change contradicts FCO usage, more authoritative than Commonwealth Secretariat (which does not deal with monarchical issues); poorly framed (no defined criteria for passage, no prior consensus that the result should determine action); passage (even reposing it) shows approval of what should be completely unacceptable behaviour. --Chris Bennett 16:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per G2mabino. Why can't it just be based on context? JRG 00:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- there is no effective difference in meaning between Realm and realm. To assert so only muddles the issue further. ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Chris Bennett's reasoning here has convinced me that my earlier rationale for supporting the motion was not reasonable. -- Hux 06:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close of vote
Result: No Consensus. -- Hux 22:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Comment/Discussion

comment The 'sources' presented on August 10th (the Commonwealth Secretariot) is my reason for supporting the 'move'. GoodDay 23:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Here are those sources again:

The Commonwealth Law Bulletin is published by the Commonwealth Secretariat. They lowercase "realms". The Cambridge Law Journal is published by Cambridge University Press. They also lowercase "realms."

Anne Roland. "Appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council: A Canadian Perspective", Commonwealth Law Bulletin, (The Commonwealth Secretariat), 32:4, page 579

"Initially, all Commonwealth realms and their territories maintained a right of appeal to the Privy Council. However, as with Canada, over time, many members began to see the Judicial Committee as being out of tune with local values, and an obstacle to full judicial sovereignty. Australia effectively abolished the right of appeal from the Commonwealth Courts by the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 and the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975, and from the state courts by the Australia Act 1986."

Rodney Brazier. "Royal Incapacity and constitutional continuity." Cambridge Law Journal, (Cambridge University Press), 64(2), July 2005, pages 363 and 372

"As will be seen, a Regency is effected by a much more formal process than that which is involved in appointing Counsellors; a Regency cannot be declared by the Sovereign alone, but is done by others—indeed, the Sovereign might not agree that a Regency should be declared, but has no power to prevent it; a Regency provides a single deputy, whereas plural Counsellors are appointed; a Regent is subject to few limitations on his or her powers, whereas Counsellors are subject to many; the declaration of a Regency must be declared to the Privy Council and to the Commonwealth realms, but no such communication announces the appointment of Counsellors."

"And, if the latter, would the material time be when the declaration was received by the Clerk of the Privy Council, or when the Clerk communicated it to the Privy Council113 (presumably at a meeting convened for the purpose), or when it had been communicated to the Commonwealth realms?"

Jonathan David Makepeace 01:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment "Commonwealth realm" is a common noun because it designates a class of entities, like Commonwealth member, British city or Midwestern state. It is not a proper noun because it does not designate a specific entity, like New Zealand, Edinburgh or Illinois. Wikipedia's Naming conventions (Capitalization) state:

"For page titles, always use lowercase after the first word, and do not capitalize second and subsequent words, unless: the title is a proper noun. For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper noun that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence."

The citations above from the Commonwealth Law Bulletin and the Cambridge Law Journal demonstrate that the "realm" in "Commonwealth realm" should be in the lower case. Indeed, the British monarch's Web site[3][4][5][6] doesn't capitalize it either, even though they capitalize many words normal people wouldn't, like The Queen (in the middle of a sentence). And, in case you think the Queen's Web master made a mistake, neither does the Queen's Press Secretary:

Press Secretary (to Queen Elizabeth II). "The Queen’s Gold Medal for Poetry 2002," Buckingham Palace, April 23, 2002

"Originally the award was open only to British people, but in 1985 the scope was widened to include people from the Commonwealth realms. Recommendations for the award of the Medal are made by a committee of eminent men and women of letters, under the chairmanship of the Poet Laureate."

The Commonwealth Secretariat, Cambridge University Press, the royal Web site and the Queen's Press Secretary all lowercase the "r" in Commonwealth realm.

Jonathan David Makepeace 01:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The usage proposed, here, for within the text of the acticle, largely accords with an observation I meant to offer in the all the debate on this: The plural is not capitalised, but the singular is capitalised, at least when used in reference to a particular country. Thus New Guinea (say) is a Commmonwealth Realm, but many former British colonies have remained Commonwealth realms. Whether or not the singular ought be capitalised when used indeterminately, I am less sure: Is it a "Commonwealth Realm" that is a country within the Commonwealth of Nations that has kept the monarchial tie, or is that a "Commonwealth realm"? I somewhat lean toward the former, myself, but I also think that the difference is niggling and have no great objection to the adoption of the latter for use in the title and within the article. -- Lonewolf BC 03:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Allow me to provide a counter example. See Buckingham Palace's answer to Tina - Australia: "A Commonwealth realm, of which Australia is one, is a country where The Queen is the Sovereign." I can provide more if needed. Jonathan David Makepeace 11:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Jonathan. 'Commonwealth Realm' implies a proper noun, a particular form of a general entity. I'd argue that there is no association of states called the Commonwealth Realms. There are realms which happen to be in the Commonwealth. They are all completely sovereign states, and being in the Commonwealth does not give them any constitutional unity; no more than republics in the Commonwealth have any constitutional unity.As noted, I think the very term, capitalised or not, has an ambiguous meaning.As Ive also stated, I will defer on this point and not pursue it. --Gazzster 07:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that two of the Support votes to date give reasons which amount to saying "I'm voting this way because the proponents have made a lot of noise and won't stop pursuing the matter until they get their way". That's actually my main reason for opposing the motion: I will not put my name to this destruction of process. --Chris Bennett 18:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I perceive the situation differently. In an attempt to persuade, others have offered more and more evidence until opinions began to shift. I believe that you sincerely hold your opinion, but I am concerned about the student at Cambridge University who turns in a paper to a professor who "knows" otherwise. Wikipedia isn't here to shape the world. It's here to reflect it. That's why evidence is so important. A student who uses "Commonwealth realm" will be able to justify it both grammatically and by pointing to Cambridge University Press, the Commonwealth Secretariat and the royal Web site. Jonathan David Makepeace 21:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, yet, the student who uses "Commonwealth Realm" will be able to justify it both gramatically and by pointing to the Royal Styles and Titles Acts, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and Hansard. So the point of which form is correct, which has previous usage, or which is gramatically correct is completely moot: they both are/do. --G2bambino 21:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good scholars, at Cambridge or anywhere, make great efforts to interpret evidence critically: to assess the context in which it appears, the motivations of the original authors, the significance which was attached to the data at the time etc. Just piling it on as though all citations were of equal weight and relevance is bad methodology. Even a superficially critical analysis of the royal website you set such store by, for example, readily shows that it is more more concerned with PR than accuracy. --Chris Bennett 22:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. As both forms are permissible (by JDM's own admission), the decision of which to use comes down to which is better for the context in which it will be used. Commonwealth lawyers and legislators, and the FCO, in this instance, provide examples of the use of the term within contexts similar to Wikipedia; i.e. where the one specific set of realms must be distinguished from all realms in general. They capitalized the "r" in "Commonwealth Realm" for ease of understanding, and Wikipedia should do so as well. --G2bambino 22:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are three types of members within the British Commonwealth of Nations. They are,

(1). Queen's Realms within the Commonwealth,

(2). Local Sovereign's Realms within the Commonwealth,

(3). Republics within the Commonwealth.

The term Commonwealth Realm (or Realm within the Commonwealth) is ambigious and blurs types (1) and (2). The term Realm was only introduced in 1953 so as to calm fears that a Dominion (with a Governor-General, and ruled by the British Monarch) was subordinate to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (without a Governor-General, i.e., ruled by the British Monarch alone). A Governor-General is just a Figure-Head of the British Monarch Figure-Head of State (i.e., a Figure-Heads' Figure-Head).

There is no effective difference in meaning between the words Realm and realm . To assert so only adds confusion and misunderstanding to an already muddled issue. The term Dominion IS DIFFERENT IN MEANING from the term dominion , as the Dominion of Canada, Dominion of New Zealand, Dominion of India, Dominion of Pakistan, Dominion of Ceylon, Dominion of Fiji adopted Dominion as part of their long-form name(s) (i.e., Dominion is part-and-parcel of their Style and Title).

In my opinion Realm and realm have the same meaning, and this issue is moot.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the issue is most certainly moot. Which is why we're discussing it. TharkunColl 10:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TharkunColl. There are several definitions of the word moot. The meaning that I was refering to is listed below,

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot

2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.

There is no effective difference between the terms Commonwealth Realm and Commonwealth realm. No country has adopted Realm as apart of their offical long-form name. The closest invoked use of the term is the Realm of New Zealand. The term was adopted via a Royal Letters Patent issued by the Government of New Zealand in 1983. However, this was NOT an Act of Parliamment of New Zealand (or Great Britain and Northern Ireland), nor was it a Royal Proclaimation of New Zealand (or Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

To effect an offical change of the long-form name of a country within the British Commonwealth of Nations the following Order of Predecence of the ranking (highest ot lowest) of legislative instruments has been traditionally layed out as follows,

Royal Proclaimations, HIGHEST RANK

Acts of Parliament (i.e., a Statute),

Royal Letters Patent,

Royal Warrants,

Orders-in-Council (i.e., Cabinet Dcouments),

Private Communications LOWEST RANK.

The Dominion Parliaments (post the Statute of Westminster 1931) have sole authority to change the long-form name of their respective countries. To do so requires a legislative instrument of rank of an Act of Parliament (and perhaps an accompanying Royal Proclaimation). Some examples of the countries that have exercised this right are as follows,

Union of South Africa (1910) changed to Republic of South Africa (1961),

Irish Free State (1921) changed to Republic of Ireland (1949),

Dominion of India (1947) changed to Republic of India (1950),

Dominion of Pakistan (1947) changed to Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1956).

The Colony of New Zealand offically became the Dominion of New Zealand iva a Royal Proclaimation issued by the Parliament of the United Kingdom Great Britain and Northern Ireland on September 9, 1907, and coming in force on September 26, 1907.

Like it or not, the offical long-form name is still the Dominion of New Zealand (or the Dominion of New Zealand and its Dependencies), and its un-offical short-form name its New Zealand (or New Zealand and its Dependencies).

In short, their is NO Realm of New Zealand, NOR Commonwealth Realm of New Zealand, there is ONLY Dominion of New Zealand. Bickering over weither one should have Commonwealth Realm or Commonwealth realm is futile and fruitless. There is NO DIFFERENCE between the terms.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not this again, ArmchairVexillologistDon, we have ended this. The country New Zealand (or even if your right, and it is the Dominion of New Zealand) is a member nation of the Realm of New Zealand. The Realm of New Zealand is not a country, has we have debated before; it is a political entity which the Queen of New Zealand is Head of State. This is proven by Law after New Zealand law. Brian | (Talk) 06:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brian New Zealand. Yes ... THIS AGAIN. Why? Because the term Realm versus realm is being debated here. Frankly, I believe this debate is stupid, and fruitless. The term Commonwealth Realm means the same as Commonwealth realm (i.e., there is no effective difference between Realm and realm).

Now, as per your characterisation of the Realm of New Zealand as "political entity" but not a country? Well thanks for a prime example of political science "double-speak". A "political entity" ... well in this case IS A COUNTRY. Rather it is here a country (i.e. New Zealand) that does possess DEPENDENCIES (i.e, and its Dependencies), explicitly written as New Zealand and its Dependencies . The so-called Realm of New Zealand defined in the Royal Letters Patent of 1983 is nothing more than a euphemism for the Dominion of New Zealand and its Dependencies previously founded via the Royal Proclaimation of 1907.

euphemism

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=euphemism

1. the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt.

2. the expression so substituted: “To pass away” is a euphemism for “to die.”

ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArmchairVexillologistDon, the Cook Islands and Niue are all but completely independent nations (ie NOT Dependencies), all these nations have in common, we share the same Head of State which means same citizenship etc (New Zealand Passports for example are issued by the Realm of New Zealand, not the New Zealand). What you need to get your head around is the Realm of New Zealand, are the places in which the Queen of New Zealand is the Head of State in Cook Islands, New Zealand, Niue, Tokelau and the Ross Dependency. Anyway, this is unrelated to this Realm/realm debate. Brian | (Talk) 07:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brian New Zealand. The Cook Islands and Niue are offical termed as Associated States of New Zealand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_state

The offical status of Tokelau will be decided in a Referendum in November 2007.

Dependencies (or Possessions) are made up of,

Associated States, HIGHEST RANK

Territories,

Trust Territories,

Protectorates,

Protected States,

Dependencies. LOWEST RANK

Thus the MEMBERSHIP within of the Dominion of New Zealand and its Dependences are,

Dominion of New Zealand,

Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau (to confirm status in Nov 2007),

Ross Dependency

In other words NO the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau are NOT INDEPENDENT COUNTRIES (they are dependent on New Zealand).

Additiionally, the Dominion of New Zealand formerly administered in trust the Territory of Western Somoa. This former New Zealand Dependency (specifically a Trust Territory) is now an INDEPENDENT COUNTRY with the offical long-form name of the Independent State of Samoa.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ws.html

ArmchairVexillologistDon 09:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArmchairVexillologistDon, you misread me. They are all but independent nations. New Zealand has no control over those 2 follow member states of the Realm of New Zealand. Trust me, I live in New Zealand, and know people from the Cooks, so I do know something here Brian | (Talk) 10:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brian New Zealand. I am very sorry, and I wish to humbly apologise. I did indeed misinterpret your post, and I am sorry for that. I did not mean to impune the knowledge of your own country that you possess as a New Zealander. The Dominion versus Comonwealth Realm debate is a touchy issue for me, and I took my comments to far.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks ArmchairVexillologistDon. Brian | (Talk) 06:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said above; if we want to be correct according to NZ Laws, it would be "Commonwealth Nations of which [the Queen is] Sovereign" Brian | (Talk) 00:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I greatly appreciate Chris Bennett's contributions to the debate, I would argue that the Wikipedia context is more similar to that of the law journals than the FCO websites (which cannot really be considered authoritative anyway, especially but not only because we are not talking about an official term, according to laws in the UK, NZ or anywhere else). We are talking about an academically used term in an academic context, where it is not normal to use capitalisation to resolve . It is true that if the two words "Commonwealth realm" are taken simply at face value there is some ambiguity, but this is true of many specialised terms. The use of capitals to make such a distinction, while used in some contexts, is not the approach I prefer in general. In this particular case it is not at all necessary, because while it is conceivable that someone might think a "Commonwealth realm" is a realm in the Commonwealth, the term has never been used with this meaning outside talk page discussions on Wikipedia. The other meaning, however, is well established in academic literature and official websites. It is enough for us to state in the first sentence the accepted meaning, and not imply that any otehr meaning has any currency. I am not participating in the vote, as people have said they are supporting simply because of JDM's behaviour. JPD (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dominion was taken down in 1953 to become a Realm, your basing that it isn't goes against historical and geopolitical fact. Therequiembellishere 13:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple of questions based on others' comments above.

G2bambino, can you cite an example of anyone using the term "Commonwealth R/realm" to include countries like Swaziland that do not have Elizabeth II as head of state? I have so far be unable to find any. Indeed, I have cited two prominent legal scholars who used "Commonwealth realm" to mean only those countries of which Elizabeth II is head of state, one of whom is the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada, the other being a constitutional law professor at the University of Manchester and informal constitutional advisor to the Queen's Private Secretary. So far, the only people who seem to be confused about the meaning of "Commonwealth realm" are certain people on this Wikipedia talk page.

IIRC it was Tharkuncoll who wanted to extend the term to cover places like Swaziland.

As has already been explained to you many times, this is an article written for an encyclopedia -- a context that should not assume pre-existing knowledge. Scholars writing articles for Commonwealth law journals can and should expect their readers to understand the concept. --Chris Bennett 20:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bennett, constitutionally, which is the higher authority in the Commonwealth realms: the Queen or the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office? And which of the two is supposed to be non-partisan, and which concerns itself primarily with promoting Britain's image, public relations and interests abroad?

Well it certainly isn't the web design company that was hired to put together the monarchy web site.

I find it hard to understand how the capitalization of "Realm" by the FCO could be interpreted as a partisan act intended "to promote Britain's image, public relations and interests abroad". I suppose that someone who thinks a listing of Commonwealth Realms is evidence of hidden racism ([7]) is capable of reading anything they want into such data.

I suggest you stop the rhetorical questions. We already know what your views are. --Chris Bennett 20:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan David Makepeace 19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest, as I have before, that the authority competent to label a nation and define how the label is used is not Buckingham Palace, the British Foreign Office or the Commonwealth Secretariat.The ultimate authority is the realm itself. All the realms are absolutely sovereign, and there is no authority higher that can decide what each realm (or Realm, whatever) is to be called. They alone have the right to do so. Has each realm agreed upon a common usage? I don't know. I suspect we would have to do a lot of research and find out what the sovereign bodies (in effect, the Parliaments) of each realm have to say on the matter. My concern is thqat if we continue to use Commonwealth Realm for the sake odf editorial convenience, we are, in effect, inventing a new term. If you run Commonwealth Realm on a google search, Wikipedia references come up first. So there is a real concern that we are actually setting up ourselves as authorities.--Gazzster 21:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's a consensus?

By the way, what passes for a 'consensus'? 2/3 majority ('bout 67%)? Do we set our own 'passing bar' or does Wikipedia have one? GoodDay 15:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is agreement to abide by the outcome -- see WP:Consensus. This vote will not result in consensus, however it turns out, unless it is consensus through exhaustion, as I said a while back.

You will note that the absence of any agreed criteria for passage, and the absence of any agreement on the significance of the vote, are among the reasons I gave for opposing the motion. I opposed even resubmitting it, since it not only will it not result in consensus, it has already been voted down once; but apparently that doesn't matter.

Read WP:VOTE. You may find it interesting. Especially the line reading:

Voters often expect that a majority or supermajority will automatically win the argument, or that the result will be binding — which is not the case.

--Chris Bennett 18:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We better establish what 'percentage' is required to 'move' this article (in order to avoid a dispute when this 'vote' closes'). GoodDay 18:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus is something that is only valid if you happen to agree with it. TharkunColl 18:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!! Tharkuncoil, that is the BEST DEFINITION of Wikipedia Consensus that I've ever heard.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So howabout it folks, is 2/3 majority enough for passage? GoodDay 18:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed you at the relevant WPs. I think they are very sensible, and I see no reason to override them. In any case, the time to discuss these points was before the motion was put to the vote, not after people have already voted. --Chris Bennett 18:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of it 'til now. GoodDay 19:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you had. You put this exact proposal to me on my Talk page on 12 August two days before Nat Tang put the motion to the vote. But my complaint about this is not directed at you, it is directed at Nat, who IMO jumped the gun by putting the motion to the vote without establishing whether it could actually achieve anything, or how it would do so. --Chris Bennett 21:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct (now I remember/plus I checked my history), I brought the suggestion to you, JDM & G2bambino. GoodDay 21:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is currently protected from editing, and I propose that we allow the administrator who protected it to determine whether an appropriate consensus has been reached. Mackensen (or some other administrator) will, afterall, have to lift page protection in order for anything to happen. Why argue when it's out of our hands? Jonathan David Makepeace 18:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats resonable, the Adminstrator(s) will decide. Good observation. GoodDay 18:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, in other words, there will be no end to this debate. It's clear that a majority vote does not end a dispute, and the now exhausted will pick up steam again sometime in the future and may tip the majority the other way.

If it were up to me I might just start this all over again. We each seem to have our evidence well gathered, and I think it would make sense if we arranged all of it in an order of importance starting with a) government publications (law, Hansard), b) academic publications, and then c) websites. The last category should be looked at separately to decide which is more authoritative (for instance, I don't necessarily believe the Buck House webmasters are necessarily more constitutionally versed than the FCO's). Proper nouns, etc., etc., are a moot point and no longer need discussed. What we need to determine is which circumstances shown in our evidence are most like Wikipedia, and what format is predominantly used in said circumstances. Then maybe we could decide which format is to be predominantly used throughout this encyclopaedia and which is relegated to a footnote or perhaps a separate section on the actual usage of the term. --G2bambino 20:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waste of time. JDM knows what's best. He's made that very clear. --Chris Bennett 21:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge law journal and the Commonwealth law bulletin have already made the academic usage abundantly clear: Commonwealth realm. And the Queen's Press Secretary has already made it clear what Buckingham Palace thinks: Commonwealth realm. You have to admit, I'm in pretty good company. Jonathan David Makepeace 22:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What to do now?

I did actually remark several days ago that something like this would happen- the vote would be disregarded- and I was howled down for daring to suggest it. Uh, water under the bridge.

Not that I saw. I thought -- and said -- that you had accurately described why this vote was flawed (even though you didn't seem to think it was flawed). Besides, the first time we voted on this motion -- was it only two weeks ago?? -- that result was disregarded, brutally and without compunction. So please cut out the imputations of bad faith. --Chris Bennett 23:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out where I have imputed bad faith to anyone.--Gazzster 23:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think sending this to an admin again is useful. He or she will only send it back - we do not have enough information to allow him to make a decision. Now, this isn't a disaster, so let's not get frustrated. Its a good time to pause, breath and take stock. It's OK to disagree, and, as G2 has said, good evidence has been gathered on both sides.But what we need to do is decide what authority will suffice to decide the issue? So I'd suggest we refocus our discussion on this point. Read my last posting in the last section for my answer to that question.

To the suggestion that issues of grammar are of no consequence, made by G2 and others, I would reply that yes, they certainly are. Words,letters and punctuation marks are symbols: the slightest change in capitalisation, the adding of a hyphen, a semi-colon, etc, sdubtle as they are, can make all the difference and even change the meaning of a word entirely. So points of grammar are certainly pertinent to the discussion.

So, authorities for this issue?--Gazzster 22:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: my point about proper nouns was related to the fact that we seem to have established that both usages are correct; therefore whether or not the term is a proper noun doesn't seem to be the deciding factor of whether or not to capitalize "realm" here. --G2bambino 22:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've already established that there are authorities for both usages. Rather than rehashing that ground yet again, the right question is which usage better serves the needs of the article. --Chris Bennett 23:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I think we can all agree that the first intent is to make an article that is understandable to readers who come here with no pre-established knowledge of the topic. To do so, it would seem to me that we need to go to the origins of the term itself and work from there. To my knowledge, the use of "realm" emerged in the early 1950s - the first official record I can think of is Elizabeth II's British proclamation of accession in which the UK and the other countries of which she had become queen were referred to as "this Realm and her other Realms and Territories," which, of course, formed the basis for her titles in each of the Realms, as laid out in the Royal Styles and Titles Act, the following year. --G2bambino 23:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, we have not established that 'both usages are correct'. What we have established is that both are used. Which, if either, is correct, has not been established. There is no argument about the accuracy of 'realm'. The discussion is about capitalising R in conjunction with an adjective, 'Commonwealth'. This the RS and T Act does not do. And the capitalisation of Realms here could very well be simply a point of grammar. In a title all major words begin with a capital in standard English usage. As noted before, Wikipedia seems to waive this. But I will return to an earlier point: the ultimate authority for defining a nation is the nation itself. So if we can discover that all the realms agree on a common usage, we can use that.--Gazzster 23:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gazzster: "The discussion is about capitalising R in conjunction with an adjective, 'Commonwealth'." The phrase, "Commonwealth Realm", does not contain an adjective. It is noun+noun. We know this because we can rearrange the phrase as "Realm of the Commonwealth" and the meaning is identical. Similarly, "sheep farmer" is noun+noun because we can say, "farmer of sheep". Conversely, "cold beer" is adjective+noun; we obviously can't say, "beer of cold".

Grammatically, this argument is about whether or not "realm" should be capitalized when used on its own in this context. If it should then it automatically follows that the appropriate article title is "Commonwealth Realm", just as the title of the article about the English language in the Commonwealth is "Commonwealth English". -- Hux 07:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respectively, I beg to differ. Commonwealth in Commonwealth Realm, is an adjective, or more technically, an adjectival noun. Commonwealth here qualifies Realm. It therefore performs the function of an adjective. True, the adjectival form is the same as the noun. But this is not unusual in English. Compare rose , which is both the noun for a colour, and the adjective as well; or sovereign, which is both a noun, as in 'the sovereign ' and an adjective, as in ' sovereign' lord', or ' sovereign will'. We cannot rearrange the term as you describe without adding 'of', precisely because two nouns juxtaposed without a qualifier make no sense.

As to your second point, I, also, with respect, disagree. Realm by itself, capitalised or not, is a different issue; it is only capitalised if it is at the beginning of a sentence, or if it a proper noun, or if it forms part of a title, eg., the Realm of New Zealand, or Elizabeth II, Queen , etc, etc, and of her other Realms and Territories. Commonwealth Realm, even though it is noun qualified by an adjectival noun,forms, in its entireity, a different noun in its own right. It is not simply a Realm; it is a Commonwealth Realm. The title of the sovereign does not attempt to qualify realm. So the question as to whether the R here should be capitalised or not becomes a different issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gazzster (talk • contribs).--Gazzster 11:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're aware, but there is not inconsiderable debate in English linguistics as to what "adjectival noun" refers to. Traditionally it refers to adjectives that act as nouns (e.g. in the phrase, "youth is wasted on the young," "young" is a noun, even though it is ordinarily an adjective), but some linguists have expanded the phrase to refer also to nouns that act as adjectives. So, as with the validity of "Commonwealth Realm" versus "Commonwealth realm", there is no definitively correct answer here as to whether "Commonwealth" in "Commonwealth Realm" is an adjectival noun. However, unlike "C R" vs. "C r", it's not really all that important to this discussion so we need not dwell on it! ;)

The second point is much more relevant, but again there is no absolutely correct answer. With respect, I object to the way in which you appear to present your opinion as fact on this point. One can't reasonably lay down the law and say that Realm "is only capitalised if it is at the beginning of a sentence, or if it a proper noun, or if it forms part of a title", when there are official sources that capitalize it in none of those situations. The key point remains, as far as I can see, that if it can be shown that "Realm" should be capitalized on its own in the context of the Commonwealth, then it stands to reason that it should remain capitalized in "Commonwealth Realm", and I've yet to see anything that casts that reasoning into question.

"The title of the sovereign does not attempt to qualify realm. So the question as to whether the R here should be capitalised or not becomes a different issue." I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. What "title of the sovereign"? -- Hux 12:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the first point; I agree that there is no really no point in pursuing the nuances of the grammar. To the second, I would repeat that 'Realm' by itself, is unqualified. By itself, it means a territory ruled by a monarch. Why it should be capitalised, I cannot say. There is not enough information. Unless, of course, as I have said, it forms part of a title. As to the third, the title of the sovereign referred to in the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953. And in this act the context of being in the Commonwealth is not referred to. In fact, the sovereign's title, 'Head of the Commonwealth' is separated from 'Realms', making the context of 'Realms' unclear. --Gazzster 13:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us have agreed that either usage is correct, depending on the style being used by the publication using the term. (I would also maintain that the issue of whether it is a proper noun is relevant depends on what style is begin used.) While Gazzster is right to say that if the term were an official legal title, the authority would have to be from all of the realms. However, this isn't an official legal title in any of the realms. It is an academic term used to describe (not define) a group of countries with a particular shared consitutional arrangement. It may be based on the use of the word "realm" in the Royal Styles and Titles Act, but it itself does not come from any legislation. It was made up (probably by some constitutional lawyer), and has gained enough usage (outside Wikipedia) for it to be right for us to use it. While we should be careful about it's use in other articles, allowing for naive readers and so on, the obvious thing to do with this article is to make it clear that the term is a descriptive term with this meaning. JPD (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the term "Commonwealth R/realms" is not itself spelled out in legislation; I was saying we should start with the origins of the term and see if that leads us to whether it should presently have "realms" capitalized or not.

The actual origin seems to be EIIR's British proclamation of accession; the Royal Styles and Titles Act followed that. From the proclamation we can ascertain that the UK itself is defined as a realm, along with the other countries that have EIIR as monarch. We can also see that the original use of the word, in both plural and singular form, and in the context of the Commonwealth and of EIIR's countries, shows a capital "r." This obviously wasn't done haphazardly.

Somewhere along the line the word "Realms" had "Commonwealth" added in front of it. Whether or not this act necessitated the cessation of the capitalization of "realm," I don't know. But, I certainly don't see how it would. --G2bambino 20:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think JPD is trying to say that we already know that "Commonwealth realm" is a common noun because the Queen's Press Secretary, Cambridge University Press and the Commonwealth Secretariat don't capitalize the "r." Common nouns are sometimes capitalized in British legislation and, apparently, at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but they shouldn't be capitalized on Wikipedia because Wikipedia (like the Encyclopedia britannica) doesn't capitalize common nouns. In other words, it would be misleading to capitalize the "r" in "Commonwealth realm" on Wikipedia because in this context it would imply that "Commonwealth realm" is a proper noun, when we know it is not. Do I understand you correctly, JPD? Jonathan David Makepeace 21:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most of my main points were completely independent of the capitalisation question. I was saying that the term "Commonwealth R/realms" is not an official term, and although it is related to the use of "Realm" in title and other places, it does not follow directly from any official proclamation/legislation/etc., but is a term that has been constructed in an academic context. You will not find it in the legislation of any of the realms, where the notion is spelt out as "Her Majesty's Realms" or words with similar meaning. The article should make it clear that the term is a convenient academic term, not an offical term, no matter what we do with the "r".

If we do look at the origin of the term as G2bambino suggests, starting with the use of "Realm" at the start of QEII's reign, we see that the word "realm" was used and capitalised as part of a title. This tells us nothing about normal capitalisation of the word. The word is inconsistently capitalised in Hansard (more often uncapitalised), but capitalisation does seem to be used by the FCO, if noone else, to distinguish between Her Majesty's Realms and realms in general. This may be appropriate in the context of a British (or other Commonwealth (realm?)) government department, but would be silly in a more international context, and when people were wrote about the concept in a broader and more academic context, they didn't consider a capital to sufficiently make the distinction, and so coined the new term "Commonwealth R/realm" to refer to these particular realms. This means the realms are distinguished by the modifier "Commonwealth", not by the capitalisation of the "r", and so the capitalisation is not important. We could argue over whether the "Commonwealth" is modifying the original word "realm" as an alternative to capitalisation or being added to the specific term "Realm" for extra clarity, but that is a fairly pointless argument. The key point is that the presence or absence of the capital R does not make any difference.

I personally would prefer to follow the academic usage with lowercase "r", but it's not a big deal. It is possibly true that doing this would help avoid giving the impression that the term is an official title, but it is not as simple as JDM suggests. While it is true that WP does not capitalise common nouns on the whole, it does have exceptions for names of species, for example. Apart from effort involved in changing, I see no benefit in retaining the capital, but there is no major problem, either. JPD (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JPD: "While it is true that WP does not capitalise common nouns on the whole, it does have exceptions for names of species, for example." It also has exceptions that closely match this article in context. Act of Parliament, for example which, according to the guidelines, should really be "Act of parliament". -- Hux 17:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! Bulls-eye! Parliament is a common noun, yet Act of Parliament is the standard spelling (i.e., a capital p, in Parliament). Good-one Hux!!

ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it is the capitalisation of "Act" outside headings that is more surprising in this case. The word "Parliament" in this case was at least originally a short title for a specific body, and you can find many academic references to an "act of Parliament". That capitalisation of "Act" is indeed similar, although not identical to this situation. The reason I mentioned names in species is because in that example capitalisation is not only common practice, but there is actually an agreed guideline to capitalise. JPD (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no effective difference between Realm and realm

This whole debate is the "crown-and-glory" of a non-event for a non-entity, the non-entity being a Commonwealth Realm (or Commonwealth realm).

Domain

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/domain

c.1425, in Scottish dialect, from M.Fr. domaine, from O.Fr. demaine "lord's estate," from L. dominium "property, dominion," from dominus "lord, master, owner," from domus "house" (see domestic). Form infl. in O.Fr. by M.L. domanium "domain, estate."

Realm

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Realm

2. the domain ruled by a king or queen [syn: kingdom]

Kingdom

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Kingdom

3. the domain ruled by a king or queen

Dominion

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dominion

3. one of the self-governing nations in the British Commonwealth

and

c.1430, from M.Fr. dominion, from M.L. dominionem (nom. dominio), from L. dominionem "ownership" (see domination). British sovereign colonies often were called dominions, hence the Dominion of Canada, the formal title after the 1867 union, and Old Dominion, the popular name for the U.S. state of Virginia, first recorded 1778.

and

2. A territory or sphere of influence or control; a realm.

Now let us connect-the-dots ... Realm of the Commonwealth is simply a joint-euphemism for Kingdom/Dominion ... nothing else! Nobody has shown ANY FORMAL LEGAL DEFINITION of this so-called term. Commonwealth Realm or Commonwealth realm so what? They have the same meaning. Additionally we are arguing over the SPELLING of a EUPHEMISM!

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to cause offense, attempting to solve this debate by pointing to dictionary definitions is futile. And trying to prove an argument about terminology that derives from the UK and the former British Empire by pointing to a dictionary of US-English is more futile still!

PS The phrase is "crowning glory", not "crown-and-glory". ;) -- Hux 07:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that it is an informal name to attempt to label a thing which does not really have a name, and perhaps, should not. But I would object to Commonwealth Realm on the grounds that it might appear to make it a formal entity. You are right; I suspect there is no formal definition for the entity we are describing, that is, a realm that shares the same person as sovereign with 15 other realms.And that is the root of our difficulty. The truth of the matter is that they are all completely independent sovereign states. The only union between them is a personal one. Being in the Commonwealth does not affect each's constitution one iota. The one argument for Realm that approaches being compelling is the argument from editorial convenience. But it is just as convenient to use a lower case r. And it avoids attempting to create a legal definition where other authorities have avoided doing so. And I will repeat what I said before; the ultimate authority is not the Commonwealth Secretariat, nor the FCO, nor Buckingham Palace. The ultimate authority on this matter is each of these sovereign realms. How do they define themselves? And is there is a consensus amongst these nations? If not, do we really have to use Commonwealth Realm or Commonwealth realm at all? --Gazzster 06:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gazzster, thank you for your thoughtful comments, I appreciate them alot.\

No prob.--Gazzster 08:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Styles and Titles 1801 (usage of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland)

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1801

"... by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland [King], Defender of the Faith."

Royal Styles and Titles 1876 (addition of Empress of India)

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1876

"... by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland [Queen], Defender of the Faith, Empress of India".

Royal Styles and Titles 1901 (addition of British Dominions beyond the Seas)

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1901

"... by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas [King], Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India".

Royal Styles and Titles 1927 (usage of Great Britain, Ireland instead of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland)

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1927

"... by the Grace of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas [King], Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India".

Royal Styles and Titles 1948 (Emperor of India deleted)

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1948

"... by the Grace of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas [King], Defender of the Faith."

Royal Styles and Titles 1953 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland re-inserted; usage of Realms instead of British Dominions)

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1953

"... by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories [Queen], Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith ".

Above are the changes in the Royal Style and Titles from about 1801-1953. Upon close inspection one will see that the changes reflect ONLY the BRITISH SOVEREIGN, and indirectly the Royal Domains. The last change of 1953 DOES NOT ABOLISH the term DOMINION, as most people here at Wikipedia try to peddle!!.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm correct, it's still Dominion of Canada. GoodDay 18:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy GoodDay. Yep my opinion as well,

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Unitary Kingdom,

Dominion of Canada (post-1867) is a Federal Dominion,

Commonwealth of Australia (post-1901) is a Federal Dominion,

Dominion of New Zealand (post-1907) is a Unitary Dominion

Dominion of Newfoundland (1907-1949) was a Unitary Dominion (annexed to the Dominion of Canada in 1949),

Union of South Africa (1910-1961) was a Unitary Dominon,

Irish Free State (1921-1949) was a Unitary Dominion,

Dominion of India (1947-1950) was a Federal Dominion,

Dominion of Pakistan (1947-1956) was a Federal Dominion,

Dominion of Fiji (1970-1987) was a Unitary Dominion.

Independent State of Papua New Guinea (post-1975) is a Unitary Dominion (oops! It is not a Federal Dominion).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see why we're side-tracking to the dominion issue. Are you reviving the proposal that the word dominion can be substituted for Commonwealth realm?--Gazzster 22:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JDM's response to the vote

A vote has been held "To move the article from Commonwealth Realm to Commonwealth realm and for the decapitalization of "R" in the word "R/realm" throughout the article, unless when used to describe a particular place (i.e the Realm of Whatever)." The result was 14 (63.63%) in favour to 8 (36.36%) opposed.

User:Hux, who voted against the proposal, characterizes this as a lack of consensus. It does, however, fall into the 60-80% range associated with possible consensus.

Please note that I closed the vote and listed it as "no consensus" specifically because it had been previously argued that a two-thirds majority would signify consensus and the majority turned out to be below that threshold. Therefore, "no consensus" would seem to be an accurate representation. -- Hux 11:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP naming conventions and WP verifiability

However, even an overwhelming page consensus in the other direction would not override Wikipedia:Naming_conventions which state: "Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne and Art Nouveau, but not Computer And Video Games)."

By not capitalizing "Commonwealth realm" the following sources prove that the expression is neither a proper noun nor is it almost always capitalized.

Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that those advocating the capitalization of the "r" in "Commonwealth realm" to demonstrate that it is a proper noun. They have manifestly failed to do so. In fact, quite the contrary, it is plainly a common noun that was capitalized exactly once because of a fluke in one British government office's particular style, as demonstrated under British Foreign and Commonwealth Office below.

Academic, peer-reviewed sources

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources states that "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science."

Anne Roland is Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada.[8]

Anne Roland. "Appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council: A Canadian Perspective", Commonwealth Law Bulletin[9], (The Commonwealth Secretariat), 32:4, page 579

"Initially, all Commonwealth realms and their territories maintained a right of appeal to the Privy Council. However, as with Canada, over time, many members began to see the Judicial Committee as being out of tune with local values, and an obstacle to full judicial sovereignty. Australia effectively abolished the right of appeal from the Commonwealth Courts by the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 and the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975, and from the state courts by the Australia Act 1986."[10]

Rodney Blazier is a professor of constitutional law at the University of Manchester and an informal constitutional advisor to the Queen’s Private Secretary.[11]

Rodney Brazier. "Royal Incapacity and constitutional continuity." Cambridge Law Journal[12], (Cambridge University Press), 64(2), July 2005, pages 363 and 372

"As will be seen, a Regency is effected by a much more formal process than that which is involved in appointing Counsellors; a Regency cannot be declared by the Sovereign alone, but is done by others—indeed, the Sovereign might not agree that a Regency should be declared, but has no power to prevent it; a Regency provides a single deputy, whereas plural Counsellors are appointed; a Regent is subject to few limitations on his or her powers, whereas Counsellors are subject to many; the declaration of a Regency must be declared to the Privy Council and to the Commonwealth realms, but no such communication announces the appointment of Counsellors."

"And, if the latter, would the material time be when the declaration was received by the Clerk of the Privy Council, or when the Clerk communicated it to the Privy Council113 (presumably at a meeting convened for the purpose), or when it had been communicated to the Commonwealth realms?"[13]

The British monarch's Web site and Press Secretary

Elizabeth II is the head of state of all 16 of the Commonwealth realms. Her Web site does not capitalize the "r" in Commonwealth realms:

"A Commonwealth realm, of which Australia is one, is a country where The Queen is the Sovereign. The Queen is Queen not only of the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, but also of the following realms: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St Christopher and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu."[14]

"Some countries within the Commonwealth have The Queen as their Sovereign, whilst remaining independent in the conduct of their own affairs. They are known as Commonwealth realms."[15]

Those are but two of many examples.

And, in case you think the Queen's Webmaster made a mistake, the Queen's Press Secretary also renders the "r" in the lower case on official press releases:

Press Secretary (to Queen Elizabeth II), The Queen’s Gold Medal for Poetry 2002, Buckingham Palace, 23 April 2002:

"Originally the award was open only to British people, but in 1985 the scope was widened to include people from the Commonwealth realms."

Again, that is but one of many examples.

British Foreign and Commonwealth Office

The expression "Commonwealth R/realm" appears exactly once on the Website of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office:

"As a Commonwealth Realm, Belize shares the same language as the UK and its political institutions are rooted in UK practice."[16]

The plural, "Commonwealth Realms," appears nowhere on that site.

However, the UK FCO always capitalizes the word "realm" when referring to one of their own monarch's realms, e.g.:

"On 7 July 1978 the Solomon Islands became an Independent Realm within the Commonwealth with The Queen as Head of State."[17]

Does Wikipedia also need an article on "Independent Realms within the Commonwealth?"

"PNG is a Realm within the Commonwealth with a democratically elected government based on the Westminster model."[18]

Or maybe "Realms within the Commonwealth?"

The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not, however, capitalize "realm" with reference to other monarchs' realms:

"From AD500 – 1100 the realm of Sweden developed from a loose union of two main tribes – the dominant Svear in the East and the Goths in the West."[19]

WP neutral point of view and WP manual of style

Thus, following the UK FCO's practice of capitalizing common nouns only when they refer to their own monarch's realms violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

It also violates Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Institutions.

Encyclopedia Britannica

Not surprisingly, the editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica do not follow the UK FCO practice of capitalizing the word "realm" when referring to realms of the British monarch, though, interestingly, they never use the expression "Commonwealth realm" in their articles on dominions (of the Commonwealth), the Commonwealth, Elizabeth II or the United Kingdom.

p. 98 in vol. 21 of the Macropaedia in the article on the United Kingdom: "This loosening of the previous connections was taken a stage further in 1949, when India stated its wish to assume the status of a republic but to remain within the Commonwealth. The other members gave approval. The crown thus became an institution applicable to individual Commonwealth countries, which remained realms, but not to the Commonwealth as a whole."

Action

I ask that an administrator move "Commonwealth Realm" to "Commonwealth realm" to bring the page into compliance with Wikipedia Naming Conventions, NPOV, Manual of Style, Verifiability and the consensus represented in the vote just held.

I agree. I propose we act on the principle, that, if in doubt, the safer course is to be followed. The safer course in this case is to use a lower case r.--Gazzster 07:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, on the grounds that WP naming conventions are not "carved in stone" (to use the article's words), nor are we bound to follow one set of sources over any others. --G2bambino 15:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: The UK FCO uses the expression "Commonwealth Realm" exactly once and in a way that explains why others (especially academics--the sorts of people who normally edit encyclopedias) don't do the same. Jonathan David Makepeace 00:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually an argument for retaining the present usage. Since the conventions are "not carved in stone", we could equally change it. No, I am not saying we are bound to follow one or the other. I am saying that in a case where there is no clear course (which I disagree is the case here, but I'll go along with the ambiguity) the safer path ought to be followed. Lower case r is safer, because it is unambiguous, and does not give the appearance of the controversial proper noun. The article will not suffer.--Gazzster 21:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend my comment to be an argument in favour of retaining the present usage; it was in retort to JDM's reliance on guidelines to argue in favour of changing the present usage.

I suppose what is safer is a matter of opinion. For instance, I don't see "Commonwealth realms" as unambiguous, wheras there can be little question as to what the "Commonwealth Realms" are; which is why, I imagine, "realms" was capitalized in this context in the first place. --G2bambino 14:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Commonwealth Realm" actually suggests ambiguity where none exists by making people wonder "how is that different from what the Queen and academics mean when they write 'Commonwealth realm'?"

And how are people supposed to draw the non-existent distinction you are drawing when speaking to one another? "Commonwealth big-r Realm" vs "Commonwealth little-r realm"?

Far from preventing confusion, I would suggest that "Commonwealth Realm" actually creates it, as well as violating NPOV, Wikipedia Naming Conventions, Manual of Style and Verifiability. Indeed, the confusion caused by "Commonwealth Realm" illustrates the need to conform to those policies.

Jonathan David Makepeace 02:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a new observer in this discussion, I think the article should stay with the R capitalized. I trust the British Foreign and Commonwealth office over the Queen's website (I would trust the US DoS over the President in similar debates). I also have no idea what the big deal here is. New England ^{Review Me!} 21:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's 'no consensus' to move the article (title & content) to Commonwealth realm (see above 'archived' consensus vote). Therefore, the dispute is effectively over -- Article stays at Commonweal Realm. GoodDay 22:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly more evidence of a consensus to move the page than there is of one to keep it where it is. The best way to provoke an edit war is to close down debate. Jonathan David Makepeace 00:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the discussion is not over. And with respect, no decision has been made to leave the page where it is. There's a pretty sizeable majority that wants it moved.And even if it isn't moved, it dosn't mean the discussion must cease. --Gazzster 22:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just nobody 'edit war'. GoodDay 23:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the page is currently out of synch with talk page consensus, but I intend to work on deepening that consensus. Those who oppose edit wars should join me in that effort. Jonathan David Makepeace 23:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion spamming

I suspected that if the result of the vote did not meet JDM's expectations he would simply repost his argument, in detail, yet again, as a means to continue ramming his opinion home. Unfortunately, my suspicions have been confirmed. This kind of "opinion spamming" is distinctly unwiki, imo. Everyone reading this discussion is already well aware of the reasons why he wants the page to be moved, so the only purpose in continually reposting those reasons is to batter people into submission. This is not reasonable behavior. It's the equivalent of someone in a town hall meeting shouting over other speakers and demanding the same thing again and again and again. This is not consensus building.
JDM, please just answer me this: is your mindset on this issue something along the lines of, "I'm right, my detractors are wrong, and I will not stop until I get my way"? Because virtually every indicator here is that the answer is "yes". Every single time your views have failed to carry the day you've ignored that and taken another route to get your opinion into the article. You've indulged in repeated edit warring (though to be fair you were not the only one), you've escalated it to mediation, then to arbitration, and at each stage you've continued to repeat the same arguments. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that this attitude is fundamentally opposed to the spirit of Wikipedia, so I ask you: at what point do you intend to stop? Does that point even exist in your mind? -- Hux 11:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to stop when this page is brought into compliance with Wikipedia policy. I have just pointed out that the UK FCO uses the expression "Commonwealth Realm" exactly once and in a way that explains why others (especially academics--the sorts of people who normally edit encyclopedias) don't do the same. Would you care to respond to that new information? Jonathan David Makepeace 01:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I intend to stop when this page is brought into compliance with Wikipedia policy." I see. So now it's important to abide by Wikipedia policy whereas before, when you were getting banned for edit warring on this article, it was presumably not. You'll excuse me if I find it rather difficult to respect the honesty of this statement when you've demonstrated repeatedly that you only care about policy when it suits you.

"Would you care to respond to that new information?" Sure. 1) That the FCO uses the phrase "Commonwealth Realm" once is not particularly relevant. (If it is then I can just as easily point out the fact that it never uses "Commonwealth realm" at all.) The evidence provided by the FCO is that it capitalizes "Realm" in this context routinely and if that capitalization is accurate then it follows that the phrase should be "Commonwealth Realm". 2) Contrary to what you assert above, the FCO does not use the expression "in a way that explains why others...don't do the same". Your own link above shows that. I will assume good faith at this point and suggest that this was simply a misreading on your part. If it was then it would be wise for you to go back and remove this erroneous assertion. -- Hux 14:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt dismiss this latest exchange so quickly. We have actually made progress. Several of us lately seem to be coming around to a consensus that there is no clear answer to the vexed R vs. r controversy. At least not for the purposes of editing a Wiki article. That's fair comment I reckon. The idea of retaining the present usage for editorial purposes has been raised. However, it is just as convenient to use a lower case r, and it avoids the controversy.

As to JDM, I think you have to recognise that he has the right to stick to his guns. A question may be raised time and time again, as many times as an editor wishes, and even after a consensus has been reached. And there are other editors on this page (I will not name persons) who have in the past engaged in persistent interventions and even edit wars. If the editors who have reached consensus do not want the issue raised again, they may choose to ignore the editor. This is clearly not the case here. As many editors as not consider the issue worth looking at again. If that is their wish, let them. Now I am not accusing you of scapegoating- I assume good faith- but that is the appearance of what you are doing; making one editor the focus of your disquiet. Now you can accuse him of underhanded motives, but unless he has actually violated policy or the rights of another editor, you cannot challenge his right to pursue his point.Please also recognise that several editors agree with him, not because they have been browbeaten, but because they honestly concur with his arguments, perhaps independently and/or have come up with arguments of their own.If you think he has violated policy, report him. Otherwise do not try to burden us all with your accusations. --Gazzster 21:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gazzster:"As to JDM, I think you have to recognise that he has the right to stick to his guns. A question may be raised time and time again, as many times as an editor wishes, and even after a consensus has been reached." I fully understand and agree with this. Please note that I'm not taking issue with his right to hold and express his opinion. I'm taking issue with the manner in which that opinion is being expressed. Wikipedia talk pages exist to foster discussion and consensus about articles. Spamming the page with one's opinion over and over again is the antithesis of that purpose. To illustrate my point, take a look at this edit. Now take a look at the next ten edits after that, all of which are by JDM and half of which are postings of the same argument in response to various people's comments. Do you honestly think that kind of behavior is reasonable?

"do not try to burden us all with your accusations" I'm not accusing him of anything. I'm simply expressing my disagreement with some of his recent actions on this page. -- Hux 14:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

OK, Im gonna go out on a limb here. Wikipedia states that editorial consensus is a common agreement rather than a democratic decision. It suggests 60 - 80 % as evidence of such an agreement (though this is purely a guideline). With 14 votes to 8 before the close of voting, I suggest that we have reached the minimum in the guideline. And even if we don't want to call that consensus, our discussion has made important progress; several of the Rists have conceded that authorities are divided as to which usage should be used. So I suggest we have at least reached consensus that R can be replaced without any loss of integrity to the article. If this is the case, and, if small r is used more often than not, it is not only harmless, but safer, to replace R with r. So I announce my intention of doing it in three days after this posting. --Gazzster 23:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree with you more, Gazzster. However, I have just offered an analysis of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office usage that explains why others (especially academics--the sorts of people who normally edit encyclopedias) don't do the same, which may deepen the current page consensus for the change. I suggest holding off on implementing the current consensus to let that new evidence sink in. Jonathan David Makepeace 23:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope your extra research will be helpful, but I think the point has been made well enough. Still, I'm happy for discussion to continue. Somebody is going to have to risk an edit soon. But an edit war is to be avoided if we can. Let's decide what we agree on and work from there. I suggest:

1) It is agreed that both R and r are used in official sources. 2) r is used more often than not. 3) the editorial argument for using R does not hold, for it is equally convenient to use lower case, which reflects the more common usage, and avoids the 'Common Noun vs Proper Noun' controversy.

Yes?--Gazzster 00:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Commonwealth Realm" is used exactly once because of a fluke one nation's foreign office's style, that office being subordinate to the British monarch, whose Web site, Press Secretary and constitutional advisor, plus the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada, all say it should be "Commonwealth realm." In addition, capitalizing the "r" violates several Wikipedia policies.

The fact that this page has not been fixed illustrates beautifully why bias in Wikipedia is very much in the news these days. Jonathan David Makepeace 02:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JDM: How on Earth does titling a page, "Commonwealth Realm", as opposed to, "Commonwealth realm", indicate bias?? -- Hux 16:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was you who wanted to deepen the discussion. I was all for editing.Personally, I would rather that other editors agree on the three points I raised b4 we edit. But, on the other hand, a vote was taken, and the rist position won out. I suppose there is no reason not to move the article immediately and change all the higher case Rs to lower case.My fear is for an edit war. But that may not be avoidable.--Gazzster 03:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gazzster: I agree with #1, disagree with #3 and strongly disagree with #2 - it has not been established that 'r' is used more often than not. In fact, I presented evidence that the reverse is true when I pointed out that 84 of the first 100 entries for the phrase on Google present it as "Commonwealth Realm". As far as I'm concerned, the best way to have proceeded with the article would've been to keep the established status quo (which was working perfectly well before this whole issue exploded) and simply note that both variants appear in official sources. Unfortunately, however, it seems we're back to the same situation as before: the second the page gets unprotected the edit warring begins. *sigh* -- Hux 16:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

OK. I've done the dirty deed. Someone had to, I suppose. Ive requested a move of the article from admin. Ive also edited the article to reflect the vote. Seem to have ***ked up the map somehow- no idea how, maybe someone knows how to fix that.--Gazzster 03:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I disagree with this, however, lets just end this. I am a admin, so have moved the page, and fixed the map. Brian | (Talk) 06:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the 'archives' #3 to #9? GoodDay 14:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know.--Gazzster 15:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...

what happen to the archives? nat^tang 19:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alreday asked that question (see above). GoodDay 19:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

haha...i didn't see it... :P nat^tang 19:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y Fixed it...SOMEBODY forgot move everything when the article was moved... nat^tang 23:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that's better. GoodDay 23:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point?

- What's the point of having a poll, which closed with "no consensus", if people are simply going to ignore that result, move the page and change all instances of "...Realm" to "...realm", all the while saying that there is consensus?
- What's the point in a person first saying that they will accept the "no consensus" result, but then deleting that comment from this page and, immediately afterwards, making exactly those types of edits, not only to this article but to a wide range of related articles where the phrase appears?
- What's the point in proposing something with a three day time limit and then making those sweeping changes less than ten hours later?
- What's the point of making these kinds of sweeping changes the second the page protection is lifted, knowing full well that the discussion is very much ongoing, knowing full well that it is likely to precipitate yet another edit war?
- What's the point, once all this has happened, in archiving the entire contents of this talk page?

Earlier, Chris Bennett referred to certain actions on this article and on this talk page as the "destruction of process". At this point, I wholeheartedly agree with him. Frankly, I'm disgusted. Contentious situations like this are not meant to be resolved this way, not by a long shot. It's simply not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. -- Hux 16:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have to say this but...Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy...so the rules, guidelines, and processes aren't what made Wikipedia Wikipedia...that is what the WP:IAR exists....I agree that "Contentious situations like this are not meant to be resolved this way"...but that's how Wikipedia will always work and that's how it was designed to work...as an free encyclopaedia that anyone could edit...built in with disputes and conflicts, disagreements and tempers...and we're only human...so it's natural...anyways, I really don't know how to answer your questions up there, but the article move was a perfect example of someone following the only Wikipedia rule set in stone: WP:IAR... nat^tang 17:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with you and, with respect, I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of WP:IAR. It isn't there to give people a free pass to justify any and all edits that run counter to established Wiki principles. It's there so that people realize that no matter how authoritative a policy may seem, it is not set in stone and that cases can arise where it is better to ignore the policy than to adhere to it. I strongly suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means and Wikipedia:WikiLawyering. (You may notice that the latter is particularly relevant to some of the justifications given for the "'R' to 'r'" position.)

Further, Wikipedia was clearly not designed to work this way (i.e. the way in which this specific issue is playing itself out). The implication that we should simply ignore "rules, guidelines, and processes" when we feel like it, on the basis that Wikipedia is "built in with disputes and conflicts, disagreements and tempers" is a weak argument. Those policies themselves came out of the very same process of discussion -> consensus that is the basis for all WIki content. The very fact that they have survived such rigorous examination is proof of their worth.

Finally, I fail to see how you can possibly say that the article move is "a perfect example of someone following the only Wikipedia rule set in stone: WP:IAR", when that move was justified...on the basis of policy! -- Hux 18:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What bugs me (a little) - Nat Tang (a non-voting editor, who opened the voting) should've closed the 'voting' and declared consensus or no consensus. Hux's closing the vote, would've been the same as JDM closing the vote (or for that matter, any of the voting editors) -- That could've created more tension. GoodDay 19:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We held a vote, with the intention of moving or not moving the page. The vote to move succeeded 14 to 8; a hefty majority. Whether a consensus was declared or not is irrelevant- the minority will always claim that consensus is not reached. According to them, consensus is everyone agreeing. But how often does that happen in Wikipedia? Changes still get made though and people get pissed off. Unavoidable really. A discussion began as to what to do. I appeared to be the only one wanting to continue the dialogue and arrive at some further consensus before moving. I was going to wait 3 days. And JDM, whos got some flak through this whole thing, wanted to 'deepen the discussion'. I changed my mind; a clear majority wanted the change. There seemed no point in delaying. I made the request of admin. An administrator, and a contributor to this page, Brian, made the change within the hour, adding that he did not agree with it. I did not specifically request Brian or any other editor to make the change. If he thought that our request violated Wiki policy, he would not have done it. If you don't like what's happened, appeal to administration. And as I have said before, if you think an editor or editors have abused the process, report them. You may succeed in having the move overturned, though I doubt it.--Gazzster 22:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with Gazzster; take it up with Administration. GoodDay 22:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, another way of looking at it is this: we were quite happy for admin to handle it a week or so ago? Well, it has.--Gazzster 22:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gazzster: "We held a vote, with the intention of moving or not moving the page." With respect, no, we didn't do that at all. All that was done is that a question was presented and voted on. There was no discussion about what result would precipitate what action (or inaction). And in any case, the purpose of such votes is merely to illustrate where the discussion stands with regard to consensus. There's a good reason why Wikipedia is not a democracy goes into detail about the folly of using votes to actually conclude discussion and provide a mandate for change.

"Whether a consensus was declared or not is irrelevant- the minority will always claim that consensus is not reached. According to them, consensus is everyone agreeing." Saying this demonstrates a failure to understand how consensus works and, worse, it implicitly insults everyone in that minority group by implying that they are incapable of reaching consensus as the result of occupying such a voting position. Very bad form, in my opinion.

"If you don't like what's happened, appeal to administration. And as I have said before, if you think an editor or editors have abused the process, report them." Why do you keep on saying this? I'm simply voicing my views, just like everyone else. We all have the right to do that, provided that in doing so we are not being deliberately disruptive.

"we were quite happy for admin to handle it a week or so ago" Who is the "we" in this statement, because I certainly wasn't part of that group. As I recall, the "we were quite happy" situation was a case of something like five editors who all hold similar opinions deciding in a matter of hours that they were happy with it. -- Hux 12:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hux, respected colleaugue (and I saw your compliment to me on Talk: British Monarchy, thank you - I hope I may return it soon) you are making a complaint. Sure, you can express your complaint. Your complaints are clear enough to you, but to some others they are contestable. But besides complaining you have done nothing. Now the deed has been done. Discussion will not now overturn the decision. And I really dont know why we held a vote if there was no intention of moving or retaining the article. If Brian thought the process had been undermined such as to prejudice the vote, he would have, or should have, refused to move the article. I am suggesting now that if youre not going to pursue the matter, fine. But if you do want to, have recourse to Administration. But has the article suffered for the change?--Gazzster 12:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as Brian himself says below, he chose to move the article as a means of ending this discussion, so I can only assume that he either didn't read or chose to ignore the arguments about underhanded behavior, along with fact that the vote closed with no consensus (due to the lack of the pre-agreed super-majority). But in any case, I felt that a lot of things had gone on that were decidedly contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and I wanted to point them out. I only continued to respond because people questioned my points and I felt the need to clarify, that's all. I don't intend to keep spamming this page until I get my way because I don't think that's a reasonable way to conduct oneself. So, future events notwithstanding, this is the last time I intend to mention it here.

One thing though: I take issue with your assertion that "Discussion will not now overturn the decision". As you yourself said above, "A question may be raised time and time again, as many times as an editor wishes, and even after a consensus has been reached." This is an accurate reflection of the fact that consensus can change. I predict - and welcome - the continuance of this discussion in spite of the page move because despite the spin from some editors, consensus was not reached on this and it's become obvious that many good editors have, as I said before, simply been beaten into submission and left the discussion. That's a great shame, I think. Let's hope it doesn't lead to yet another editor quitting Wikipedia entirely and leaving us with a user page rant about how the site a den of dishonesty and egocentrism. -- Hux 19:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

Commonwealth Realm → Commonwealth realm

Move from Commonwealth Realms to Commonwealth realms to reflect a vote of 14 to 8 recently closed on the talk page.--Gazzster 03:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, the poll *Starts* when you post the move request to WP:RM... So the poll should close on 30 August 2007. 132.205.44.5 21:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The move was requested on the 19th, and the standard notification says that it should be posted "a few days" before being acted upon. Methinks that five days qualifies as "a few days." Voting isn't normally part of the process, but it did give the administrator evidence of a consensus. Jonathan David Makepeace 23:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a 'visiting' editor, who's continually 'moving the page' back to Commonwealth Realm. Hopefully he/she will discontinue his/her actions. So far 'Nat' is keeping him/her in check. GoodDay 23:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A move protection has been placed on the article for a period of 2 months. nat^tang 03:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I don't know enough about English rules on capitalization, since English is not my mother tounge. -Ulla 22:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has gotten stupid

The article has been renamed. Now, I opposed this move, I opposed it then, as I do now, as I believe Realm is the correct caps; However, I chose to move this article to end this disorder.

I now challenge all those who have been fighting over this article, to do something damn useful and edit this article. Try and get this article, which you have all shown over the last month you care about up to Feature Article status. Lets us work together Brian | (Talk) 04:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good idea. —Nightstallion 16:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]