Talk:Commonwealth realm/monarchies

This article was created after lengthy discussion at Talk:Commonwealth realm. Please see the discourse beginning at the "Dablink" section. --G2bambino 19:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation links

A discussion at Talk:Commonwealth Realm, starting at Dablink, resulted in a proposed format for disambiguation links at the head of each of the Commonwealth Realm monarchy articles, as follows:

Moved:

That a dablink be placed at the head of each existing article about an individual realm reading:

where <realm> is replaced by the name of the inidividual realm.

That the phrase "who is also monarch of <realm>" shall not appear in the case of the article British Monarchy

That Commonwealth Realm monarchies be created as a disambiguation page giving a list of realms that possess separate articles.

Those involved in the discussion reached agreement that this proposal was acceptable; Commonwealth Realm monarchies (disambiguation) was created in place of Commonwealth Realm monarchies. However, this dablink format met with objection at British monarchy.

As the dabs at the head of each Commonwealth Realm monarchy article should be parallel, it is advantageous to decide on a common form for each. --G2bambino 19:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I generally support the proposed wording for each Realm monarchy article, recommending some slight alterations, and even then not adamantly. --G2bambino 19:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I support the idea in general. However, I would change the text to read:

-- Hux 11:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can support this, though would change the dash to a period. --G2bambino 14:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see this page got created after all. Before we go ahead with this, I repeat the objection to doing so that I raised on Talk:British Monarchy: What is the problem that Lonewolf BC has with the text? The only objection I saw was procedural, nothing substantive. Unless and until we can verify that the only complaint really was procedural, this discussion will not resolve the issue.

As to Hux's wording, I've capitulated on Talk:Commonwealth realm on mixing up pointers and information. However, I have several other changes to propose to it -- generally, I think the structure and the wording of what we originally agreed is more appropriate and more logical.

a) I completely disagree that the dablink should omit reference to the Commonwealth Realm article. To my mind, that is the first and most important place the DABlink should point to, because that is the common background to the other articles.

b) I think the logical order in an article about a realm is to refer to links about realms before links about the monarch

c) I don't see the relevance of the first mention of Elizabeth II in Hux's wording. The focus here is not the monarch but the other realms.

d) Since Elizabeth II exists as a redirect, I'd suggest doing that rather than piping.

So, I propose:

{{dablink|This article is about the monarchy of <realm>, one of 16 that share a common monarch. For information on this arrangement, see Commonwealth Realm.
For information about other participating monarchies, as well as other relevant articles, see Commonwealth Realm monarchies (disambiguation).
For information on the reigning monarch, see Elizabeth II.
}

(I would prefer "some other" to "other", but so long as we don't say "the other" I suppose "other" is OK) --Chris Bennett 15:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the redirect vs. piping thing and also that there should be a link to "Commonwealth Realm". However, I don't agree that it should be the first thing in the DAB. Remember that the purpose of a DAB is to get the reader to the article they were looking for. I would argue that if someone mistakenly arrives at a monarchy article, what they were most likely looking for was information about the monarch, therefore the link to the monarch should be first in the DAB, hence the structure of my suggestion.

Also, I agree that, "For information about other monarchies of which Elizabeth II is sovereign...", is too verbose and in general I support your version. However, I suggest we change it to, simply, ""For information about the other monarchies..." It expresses the same thing and is shorter. My reasoning for this is that "participating" is not appropriate because it's the kind of word one would use to describe multi-government cooperation in relatively minor things (e.g. joint military exercises), not fundamental, constitutional arrangements.

So, my new version would be:

This article is about the monarchy of <realm>, one of sixteen that share a common monarch - for information on the reigning monarch, see Elizabeth II.
For information about this constitutional relationship, see Commonwealth Realm.
For information about the other monarchies, as well as other relevant articles, see Commonwealth Realm monarchies (disambiguation).

Minor note: from a style perspective, "16" should really be spelled out. Also, the dash is there because the "Elizabeth II" link is a directly follow on from "that share a common monarch". An alternative that would express the same connection between clauses would be a semicolon. -- Hux 17:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not make it a bit more concise & less repetitive, like-

This article is about the monarchy of <realm>, one of sixteen that share a common monarch - for information on the reigning monarch, see Elizabeth II; for this constitutional relationship, see Commonwealth Realm; and for the other monarchies, as well as other relevant articles, see Commonwealth Realm monarchies (disambiguation). That-Vela-Fella 00:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conciseness is fine. I still think the order is wrong -- the monarch should be last for at least 15 out of the 16 realms. I can see a case for placing the monarch first with the UK, maybe the UK DABlink should be different, just as the CR DABlik must be different. The problem with "the other monarchies" is that that phrase means all of them except this one, but there is no information about half of them on the other page. Hux doesn't like "some of the other monarchies" or "participating monarchies". My only other idea is to say just "other monarchies", which is strictly too inclusive but maybe is acceptable in context. I'm open to other ideas. But, unless someone wants to write 8 more articles, "the other monarchies" is wrong.

So, how about the following for Non-UK monarchies:

This article is about the monarchy of <realm>, one of sixteen that share a common monarch. For information on this constitutional relationship, see Commonwealth Realm; for other monarchies, as well as other relevant articles, see Commonwealth Realm monarchies (disambiguation); for the reigning monarch, see Elizabeth II.

And we discuss the UK and the CR DAB separately, once we've solved this one. --Chris Bennett 00:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bennett: "I still think the order is wrong -- the monarch should be last for at least 15 out of the 16 realms." I'm not absolutely tied to the argument that Elizabeth II should be the first link in the DAB. I just think it makes the most sense from a utility standpoint and I don't actually think the British Monarchy article is any different than the articles for the other monarchies in this respect - I would still argue that the most likely error the DAB is there to address is the reader navigating to that page when they are really looking for information about Elizabeth II. But if you're really adamant that the Commonwealth Realm link be first then I won't oppose it.

"maybe the UK DABlink should be different"' given that this entire, massive, multi-page discussion is centered on the argument that the UK isn't any different when it comes to the Queen's relationship to it versus the other Commonwealth Realms, I'd say you'd be opening up a large can of worms by advancing that idea! ;)

"The problem with "the other monarchies" is that that phrase means all of them except this one, but there is no information about half of them on the other page." Again, I think worrying about that to this extent is needlessly pedantic. But if it's such a big deal then we can simply say, "For information about other Commonwealth Realm monarchies...".

So, my new, preferred version would be:

This article is about the monarchy of <realm>, one of sixteen that share a common monarch - for information on the reigning monarch, see Elizabeth II, and for information about this constitutional relationship, see Commonwealth Realm.
For information about other Commonwealth Realm monarchies, as well as other relevant articles, see Commonwealth Realm monarchies (disambiguation).

But I would also support:

This article is about the monarchy of <realm>, one of sixteen that share a common monarch - for information about this constitutional relationship, see Commonwealth Realm, and for information on the reigning monarch, see Elizabeth II.
For information about other Commonwealth Realm monarchies, as well as other relevant articles, see Commonwealth Realm monarchies (disambiguation).

-- Hux 08:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to go with your second proposal, except for the dash. I know you're fond of it, but it really should be a full stop. My only remaining concerns are procedural, based on the painful experience to date.

(a) Lonewolf BC has not participated in this. If we just place this on the British Monarchy page, why won't he (or someone else) raise the same objection he raised last time -- that this must be rejected, whatever its merits, because it wasn't discussed in the right place? Are you willing to broker this with him offline? Or shall we float it there for a couple of days before doing it?

(b) How do we head off the next member of the Strict Constructionist Policy Police who insists that the link must always and forever be spelled out in full? This one seems harder to resolve to me.

--Chris Bennett 14:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bennett: "I'm willing to go with your second proposal, except for the dash...it really should be a full stop." I'm not going to make a big deal about this and if people are really concerned that it must be a full stop then I won't stand in the way of that. However, while a dash, a semicolon, and a full stop are all grammatically acceptable (it's wrong to argue that it should be a full stop), there is a semantic difference between the first two and the last one. I'm advocating a dash/semicolon because I think that the meaning it conveys is more useful: it ties the two parts of the sentence together because they are related. A full stop, on the other hand, separates them, which doesn't make as much sense because, "for information about this constitutional relationship", is a direct follow-on from, "This article is about the monarchy of <realm>...", in a way that, "For information about other Commonwealth Realm monarchies...", is not. (Can you tell you're talking to an English grad yet? ;) ) -- Hux 19:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Lonewolf hasn't participated in this then he can't complain if he has an objection to what's decided on; he's had plenty of opportunity to join in this discussion.

Referring him to the previous discussion didn't help last time round, and Lonewolf may not be the only person to object. --Chris Bennett 15:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that any users who attempt to alter the dabs in future can be directed to here. But, this makes me wonder if we should develop "policies" for the Commonwealth Realm articles; perhaps a Wikipedia:WikiProject Commonwealth Realms as User:GoodDay suggested elsewhere. --G2bambino 15:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to add that I prefer Hux's second dab proposal.

G2bambino: "he's had plenty of opportunity to join in this discussion". You expressed this sentiment before and I don't think it's reasonable. This discussion only began, what, four days ago? That's hardly sufficient time to write someone off and imply that they had their chance to become involved, especially when that person has been extensively involved in previous discussions on this specific issue. I know it's easy to forget, but people do have commitments outside of Wikipedia, and under the circumstances I don't think we should be making these kinds of changes across multiple articles until a minimum of a week has passed, and every attempt has been made to bring people into this discussion who were involved in prior ones.

EDIT: Well, look at that - Lonewolf already said pretty much exactly what I just wrote. I guess I should've read all the new comments first! -- Hux 20:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the discussion on the dabs was begun two weeks ago at Talk:Commonwealth Realm. If Lonewolf wasn't aware of it then, he certainly must have been after I added the new dab to British monarchy; I explained in the edit summary that what I was inserting was as per discussion at Talk:Commonwealth Realm. Beyond even that, as Chris Bennett has pointed out, after reverting the edits to the dab at British monarchy, claiming concerns over the dab's format, Lonewolf then made little to no contribution to the ensuing re-opening of the debate, and not because he wasn't on Wikipedia - I've had dealings with him elsewhere during this period. I'm not sure that he has yet fully voiced any pertinent concerns.

A week is what I had thought as well. --G2bambino 20:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if Lonewolf or anyone else causes a problem the matter can be taken to admins. The record will show that there was widespread requests for input, and a lengthy discussion both here and elsewhere that resulted in a dab satisfactory to those who involved themselves. If, in future, there are any legitimate concerns about the dab, I'd think they could just be raised here and discussed. --G2bambino 17:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few general comments are needed, before getting to the proposed dablinks themselves: First, the time-scale and character that should be expected and desired in a discussion such as this, one affecting many articles, seem not to be understood by all participants. The whole idea is not to reach a decision hastily, among only a few participants, and then promptly act on it and treat the limited discussion as having settled things and anyone who had not (yet) commented as being S.O.L. Give it a week or so. Personally notify editors who are known to be particularly interested, if input from them seems overdue. Be patient. The articles are not going to disappear, and folk may have other things to tend.
Second, this seems like a poor choice as the place to hold this discussion: a newly made page, unlikely to be on watchlists, its form still under debate, its title likewise and suggesting relative unimportance, its character and purpose unsual (if not unique). I don't think that it is even needed, and won't be surprised if deletion is its fate, and before long, taking the discussion with it. Why on earth not hold this discussion at "Commonwealth Realm", which is a well-established article where discussions of this kind (some of them) were already going on? I strongly suggest that this whole discussion be moved to there -- just copy-and-paste the whole thing, make whatever slight adjustments are needed, and carry on with it. Delete it here and leave a note in lieu, and change the boilerplate notices at the other articles accordingly. -- Lonewolf BC 19:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In short,

Don't rush this through.
Please let's move this discussion to "Commonwealth Realm", as being a more public and more stable venue, also holding its fuller context. -- Lonewolf BC 20:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't dispute that the discussion should be left open for a relative while, but links to this talk are featured prominently at the head of every Commonwealth Realm monarchy article, of which the "big ones" (i.e. British Monarchy, Monarchy in Australia, Monarchy in Canada, and Monarchy in New Zealand) are frequently edited, and have regular editors. If you want to put a similar boiler plate at the head of Commonwealth Realm, feel free. --G2bambino 14:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lonewolf BC: I agree with most of what you said. However, I think this is actually a better place for this discussion because I think it lessens the chance of it getting fouled up by baggage being brought in from similar discussions on article talk pages. Thus far, things appear to be progressing usefully and without belligerence. I vote that we reward that by continuing on here. -- Hux 20:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I see your point about "baggage". At the same time, context and "baggage" are two sides of the same coin -- the relevant and the irrelevant, respectively -- and I think that the benefit of the one outweighs the disbenefit of the other. On the other hand, the previous discussion got so convoluted that perhaps few could be bothered to plough through it. However, if agreement is lacking to hold this discussion at "Commonwealth Realms", instead, then that's that. I respectfully disagree, nevertheless.
-- Lonewolf BC 03:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I very much disagree on having a consistent disambig at the top of each article. For example, at the Monarchy of Australia article, the disambig basically repeats the first sentence in the article. There is nothing to disambiguate there, and the text just makes for a poor read. I plan to remove it unless there are strong objections. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title of this article

Since this disambig page is really about Commonwealth Realm issues in general and includes links to articles other than those of Commonwealth Realm monarchies, I suggest we move this page to, simply, "Commonwealth Realm (disambiguation)". Agree? Disagree? -- Hux 08:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler to keep to the original focus and remove the extra sections, which aren't even remotely about disambiguation. --Chris Bennett 14:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Commonwealth Realm (disambiguation)" would imply relation more to the countries than the monarchies. --G2bambino 15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, you're right: I've been mistakenly viewing this more as a category page rather than a disambiguation. Of course, since it's a disambiguation, most of the links in "see also" probably shouldn't be there. -- Hux 19:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the best thing would be to make it "List of Commonwealth Realms". It is not really a disambiguation page at all, which is a page for distinguishing various meanings of the same term. -- Lonewolf BC 17:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Disambiguation pages can also include things that are related (even tangentially) to the term being disambiguated, as long as their inclusion is useful to the reader. -- Hux 19:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a list of Commownealth Realms: Commonwealth Realm#Current Commonwealth Realms. If a "list" title is used, it would be more appropriate to call the article "List of Commonwealth Realm monarchies." --G2bambino 17:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Commonwealth Realms

Can we please unhide the wiki-links to those 15 non-UK nations. Restore the 'in's (replacing the 'of's). Canada, Jamaica, Australia etc, aren't Kingdoms. It's Monarchy in Canada NOT Monarchy of Canada. GoodDay 21:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they're kingdoms - that has been affirmed in discussions elsewhere. Further, you kept "Monarchy of the United Kingdom" when the article is "British monarchy." Regardless, I'd prefer we keep it as it is for stylistic consistency. --G2bambino 21:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When again (for example) was it agreed to move Monarchy in Canada to Monarchy of Canada? GoodDay 21:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the relevance of your question. --G2bambino 21:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm requesting, is to keep the wiki-links 'direct'. I know from your previous edits, anything that appears as showing the UK as first among equals is a sore spot with you. My recent edits are 'direct' showings of the wiki-linked pages and nothing more. At least I'm not trying to put British monarchy in Canada (that would be too pushy). GoodDay 21:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least what you've done now is consistent - though the "Queen of New Zealand" to "Monarchy in New Zealand" one was going a bit far. But, as long as these Commonwealth Realm monarchy articles are going to have different titles, I still prefer each monarchy link here be similar in that they all say "Monarchy of <realm>." Maybe this page should just become a list instead of a disambiguation, thus freeing it from the disambig format policies. --G2bambino 21:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, make it a list. Let's respect the names of those Commonwealth Realms articles; if those pages are ever moved to Monarchy of .... then we can do it your way. GoodDay 22:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it does become a list, then why "respect the names" of the Commonwealth Realm monarchy articles? There's no reason not to pipe them if this isn't a dab page. --G2bambino 22:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, list pages always use the exact title of the article in their links, even more so than DABs and disambig pages. However, since this is a disambig page (at least for now) I don't see a good reason to not use the correct titles of the articles. -- Hux 20:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, sorry 'bout the Cooke Island note (she is Queen of New Zealand). Secondly, simply respect the names. Just because they're not what you want them to be, is no reason to 'hide' them. Trust me, showing the actual names won't do any harm. GoodDay 22:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy in the Cook Islands should not be in the "Monarchies" list - it's not a Commonwealth Realm monarchy. If it belongs on this page at all it's in the "See also" section. Secondly, and more importantly, remember that this is a disambiguation page - we shouldn't be going into major explanatory detail about anything; that's what the articles are for. If Monarchy in the Cook Islands is to stay here then it should simply be a link, nothing else. -- Hux 20:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, I'll go along with that. GoodDay 20:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. The position of the monarchy Cook Islands is the same as the situation in, say, Canada between 1931 and 1953: it was a separate monarchy but not titled as such. The Cook Islands has total control of its own affairs, the Queen's representative is appointed without regard to NZ, and if you look at the 1981 constitution you will see that the NZ Parliament does not have the right to legislate for the Cook Islands (this appears not to be the case for Niue as far as I can tell). They are in voluntary free assocaition with NZ, which handles external affairs and defence -- much like the Dominion situation in the 1920s.

Because of the external affairs issue, the correct way to handle the Cook Islands is the way it was previously dealt with: as an autonomous component of the Realm of New Zealand. --Chris Bennett 16:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. The constitutional position of the Cook Islands with regard to New Zealand is irrelevant - the fact remains that the Cook Islands is not a Commonwealth Realm monarchy, therefore it should not be part of a list titled, "Monarchies", on the page, "Commonwealth Realm monarchies". -- Hux 08:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you didn't understand the point. Let me say it again using the terms of your response: the Cook Islands is a Commonwealth Realm monarchy, but a very special case, because of its constitutional position with regard to New Zealand: it's a separate monarchy within another Commonwealth Realm that shares its monarch with the monarch of that Realm.

You might be interested to review and consider the Cook Islands government page at http://www.ck/govt.htm. --Chris Bennett 16:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I really do think it's you that is missing the point: according to the website of the Commonwealth of Nations, the Cook Islands is not a member of the Commonwealth, therefore it can't be described as "Commonwealth Realm". -- Hux 19:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it's a special case, however we choose to categorise it. While it does not have Commonwealth representation, its territory is part of the Commonwealth by virtue of its relationship to NZ. It's monarch is the monarch of the Commonwealth Realms, and her relationship is direct, exactly equivalent to her relationship to the other Realms. It is a constituent of another Realm that is a member of the Commonwealth. That hierarchy justifies mentioning it in connection with the others in a See also list, and also indicates the appropriate way to do it.

In any case can we agree to just leave this issue on the list of pending issues for the moment? All I wanted to do right now was to register the view that there is a case to be made for retaining it. --Chris Bennett 01:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't really see the point in not discussing it. How long do you propose to leave it hanging unresolved? -- Hux 06:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not until the decks are cleared to make mods to these articles, whch means getting spoilers out of the way. This issue is really about the inclusion criteria and the structure of reference lists, and we can't do anything about those until the dust settles on the Great Capitalisation War. Besides, I'm busy this week. --Chris Bennett 16:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

candidate for deletion

This page invents an expression that enjoys neither official sanction nor common usage. The Commonwealth Secretariat refers to the Head of the Commonwealth as the British monarch[1]. The Canadian government never uses the expression "Commonwealth Realm" [sic] much less "Commonwealth Realms [sic] monarch." The British monarch's own Web site does not use the expression "Commonwealth Realms [sic] monarch."

This content should be moved to the British monarch article.

Jonathan David Makepeace 16:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't accept any of JDM's justification, nor his proposal, I do agree that the existence of this page is questionable. I tried to raise the issue when the page was created, to no avail. I haven't bothered to raise it since, in view of the troll assault going on at the moment. I thought it was better to wait until something approaching sanity returned. However, since it has been raised, however inappropriately, I might as well try to put it on a proper footing.

My problem with this page was and remains the fact that it is a "disambiguating" page that is not disambiguating anything. It is only giving a list of articles about specific monarchies of Commonwealth Realms, to which a whole bunch of additional material has been added for no particularly good reason except that the page exists. Lists of links like this properly belong in the See also sections of the various individual pages related to the various Realms {all of them, not just the British Monarchy page as JDM would have it), and indeed most of them already have these lists or something similar.

To remind people: the reason this issue affects the DABlinks is that User:G2bambino believes that a user of a DABlink in an article about the monarchy of a Commonwealth Realm, say Canada, needs the DABlink because he actually meant to read an article about the monarchy of a different Commonwealth Realm, say Antigua. Personally I don't buy this scenario at all, but no-one supported me (or opposed me, except User:G2bambino), and it isn't possible to disprove it without user statistics. So, in the spirit of compromise, I agreed that we should find a way to address it in the DABlinks, but without adding up to 16 links within the DABlink itself, which everyone did agree was a non-starter.

Earlier drafts of the DABlinks resolved the problem by including links to the See also section of the page. Then we ran into the WP literalism issue, i.e. DABLinks Must Link Outside The Page Containing The DABlink. That's why this page was created. However, in what seems to me to be the only positve development in this ongoing farce, we have since reached a common understanding that that WP policy can in fact be overridden if the circumstances warrant it, if only because the policy itself says so. That being the case, the original justification for creating this page no longer applies, and it is indeed a fair question to ask whether it should continue to exist.

IMO it should not because, as stated above, it is an abuse of the function of a disambiguation page. I can see two other ways to resolve the issue that led to its creation, while keeping cross-references to articles about the individual monarchies in the DABlink:

a) Put a DABlink to the See also section of each page related to these Commonwealth Realms -- i.e. return to the original solution

b) Put a DABlink to the See also section of a specifically chosen page that exists for other reasons, the most relevant one being Commonwealth Realm#See also. On that page we would have just the one internal DABlink.

--Chris Bennett 18:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While JDM's proposal for deleting the page is worthy of consideration, I reject his justification outright because it represents disingenuous cherry-picking of evidence. Having been a part of similar discussions relating to the concept of "Commonwealth Realm" on other articles (e.g. at Talk:Commonwealth Realm), he knows full well that several official sources whose business it is to deal with Commonwealth affairs do use the term, "Commonwealth Realm", so his evidence for lack of official use is clearly flawed and is presented unreasonably.

As to whether or not this page should stay in general, Chris Bennett raises some good points. I agree that as it stands it is not performing as a disambiguation page. However, I think if the Cook Islands link and the "See also" section were removed then it would work reasonably well in that respect.

First, let me be clear that I am not greatly opposed to this page, I just think its an unnecessarily clumsy solution, driven by the insistence of certain editors, which I stress has since been withdrawn, that DABLinks must conform to the letter of policy without exception. I agree with you that JDM's justification is entirely without merit. AS I said, I jumped in to try to direct his motion towards a useful end rather than become a new front in the other war, which I beleve was his intended aim. --Chris Bennett 17:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a solution to the lengthy issues with the DAB links on the various related pages, I think it is a sound one, but it's certainly not the only one. I originally suggested that this page be created for three reasons: 1) so that we would not have to have a long and repetitive "See also" section on all the articles, 2) so that we could standardize most of the content of the DABs on those articles by pointing readers to this page, and 3) so that we could move all the various discussions of such content onto one page where everyone can take part, instead of spreading the discussions across all the pages. Frankly though, I'm still of the strong belief that the bulk of the rationale for all these discussions, and for this page in the first place, is the oversensitivity felt by a very few editors about what a DAB might imply if a reader chooses to read the DAB and only the DAB and somehow manages to take away from it that the British monarchy and the UK in general are somehow constitutionally superior to the other Realms.

You are confusing two issues. The concern that an unqualified reference to the monarch of a non-UK Realm as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom might be taken by an unlearned reader as implying that other monarchies are subordinated to that of the UK has nothing to do with the existence of this page. It is easily resolved by agreeing to pipe or redirect to Elizabeth II. (I think this is actually agreed but there is so much battlefield noise that I don't really know any more. In any case it is obvious that such a solution would not require this page or anything like it.) This page exists because User:G2bambino has a belief, which I do not share, that a user looking up information about one Commonwealth Realm monarchy by mistake most likely actually wanted information about another one. --Chris Bennett 17:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't true. This page exists principally for the reasons I described two paragraphs up - I should know because I was the one who suggested it and I gave exactly those reasons! G2bambino simply beat me to the punch in actually creating the page, that's all. Additionally, the Elizabeth issue was something that this page was intended to solve: my thinking was that instead of putting a reference to her article in the DAB we could simply direct readers to here, given that there's a high chance that a reader going to the various monarchy pages would actually be seeking information about the monarch.

But anyway, this is all rather tangential - I just wanted to clear up a misconception. Let's focus instead on whether this page is performing a useful function and, if not, what could replace it as the best solution to the various contentious issues. -- Hux 19:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the only thing I'm interested in is finding a solution to stop the squabbling. If this page is not that solution then so be it, but if it is then I'd rather keep it for the sake of that then to delete it because it doesn't precisely accord with the function of a disambiguation page. -- Hux 09:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we recognise the existence of issue, and suspend further discussion on it for now, until the far weightier, or at least noisier, matter of R vs r is settled.... Same for the Cook Islands discussion. --Chris Bennett 17:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on "R" versus "r" priority, but I don't see why we can't also clear up the Cook Islands point while we deal with that. It seems a fairly minor issue. -- Hux 19:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's needed is a WikiProject for Commonwealth of Nations. All these articles need it, to help get co-ordinated. GoodDay 15:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued

Now that the Commonwealth realm article dispute is settled; what's to be done with this article? Should we delete it? Rename it Commonwealth monarchies? Or leave it be? GoodDay 13:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, there was no real issue with the existence of this page, but rather there was issue with the common dablink placed at the head of British monarchy. Discussion was instigated to find an appropriate wording, but it seemed neither of the two dissenters ever really participated. --G2bambino 14:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. GoodDay 17:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been one month since this discussion was opened and the boilerplates added to the head of each monarchy article. Though most of us who were involved here before the great "R/r" debaucle got tied up in that debate, it seems telling that nobody else followed the boilerplate links here and offered any opinion. The last format put forward was:

This article is about the monarchy of <Realm>, one of sixteen that share a common monarch; for information about this constitutional relationship, see Commonwealth realm; for information on the reigning monarch, see Elizabeth II.
For information about other Commonwealth Realm monarchies, as well as other relevant articles, see Commonwealth Realm monarchies (disambiguation).

As this seemed to satisfy, to a certain extent, both Chris Bennett and Hux, I can also add my support to it, and there have been no detractors, I shall take the leap and add it to the head of each of the monarchy articles. --G2bambino 15:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say go for it, and we may as well remove the discussion links as well. Hopefully there will be no objections. -- Hux 05:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title format of Commonwealth realm monarchies

A discussion dealing with deciding on the title format for all articles relating to the monarchies of the Commonwealth realms is being conducted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty if you are interested. — AjaxSmack 00:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I support "Monarchy of X" unless an official source calling it something else is available, such as this or this. --Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 00:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]