Jump to content

Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Infobox

Why is my (and DrKiernan's) linking Queen of the United Kingdom to List of British monarchs being reverted? GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 1) You didn't give a reason for linking to that article. 2) I believe my edit summary answered your question. (Though, also WP:EGG.) 3) Monarchy of the United Kingdom is linked directly below. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Linking to List of British monarchs is accurate & doesn't breach WP:EGG, as it's a differnt article. PS- To avoid a long ping pong match, we'll give others a chance to weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
"Accurate" is a red herring. A person clicking on "monarch of the United Kingdom" expects to go to an article on the monarch of the United Kingdom, not simply a list of British monarchs. Comments 1 and 3 and part of 2 (links to lists of British monarchs are in the lede) remain unaddressed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (& getting sick of them) Frankly, it was my desire to link the entire phrase "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" to States headed by Elizabeth II. After numerous tries, I couldn't make it work (not without significantly increasing the width of the infobox). So, I put a link to that article at the top of the list and added "United Kingdom" back preceding Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
So you're opposing a seperate linkage to Queen of the United Kingdom, because you believ it's UK-centric? GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Given that I retained a link to Monarchy of the United Kingdom, obviously not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The link to Monarchy of the United Kingdom is within a collapsable section & thus could be missed by readers. The link to 'List of British monarchs' is not. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm asking you to restore the linkage to List of British monarchs. We've got a balance between the article title, intro & infobox & it would be cool if you didn't mess with it. PS - I'm well aware that you dislike the infobox heading, btw. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Why should it be to List of British monarchs when there's two links to lists of British monarchs in the lede?
Can the other links in the drop-down be missed by readers? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
There's no link to the article-in-question, in the lead. Furthermore, the linkage we're discussing was not in the collapsable box. Again, please restoe it & the balance to the article. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Your avoidance of the questions can only be taken to mean you don't have answers for them. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Your meddling with the infobox & refusal to restore the link, can only be seen as another example of you pushing your It's UK-centric argument. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
And there is why I find it loathsome to engage with you.
Your (hypocritical) tantrum only further highlights the fact you've once again failed to present anything but repetitive, unjustified, totalitarian demands. I've made an effort to understand your objection. If you won't articulate the problem you have with an edit or arguments defending it, other than "I don't like it", nobody can work with you. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

1) It wasn't necessary to de-link, as there's no linkage in the lead to that article, 2) Your edit summary did not answer my question, as again there's no other linkage to the article-in-question & 3) The link to 'Monarchy of the United Kingdom' isn't immediately available to readers, as it's in a collapsable box. PS- IMHO, you're the one who's editing on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis & being tendations. 21:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, this is the last time: 1 & 2) there is "linkage" (?) to two lists of British monarchs in the lede; there's been no explanation as to why a link to a third list of British monarchs is needed. There's been no explanation as to why "monarch of the United Kingdom" should pipe to List of British monarchs, rather than Monarchy of the United Kingdom. 3) Where the link to Monarchy of the United Kingdom is should be irrelevant to you, since, according to what you've said so far, it's the loss of a link to List of British monarchs that bothers you. See the second sentence of my response to points 1 & 2.
PS- Patent nonsense. All my words here plus the fact I added another mention of "United Kingdom" prove your "humble" opinion incorrect. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
We'll have to let others weigh in, Mies. I fear you & I have too much animosty between us, right now. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Probably, yes. And I have to go get groceries, anyway. But, it might help others if you could explain why you believe "monarch of the United Kingdom" in the infobox must link to List of British monarchs. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
It's Queen of the United Kingdom, btw. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that response could be any closer to total uselessness. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You & I aren't going to agree on this topic, so it's best we let others weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW: This is called drama. It's not a good thing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Noted that the links in the dropdown list of countries in the current version[1] are to the "List of..." if there is such a list. To my mind, that is an improvement, and has resolved the problem about linking to List of British monarchs. [2]. Qexigator (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I disapprove of the changes. However, there's nothing I can do to stop them :( GoodDay (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Now undone.[3], for discussion: so, let's discuss. As said above, it would be an improvement, and not excessive. Qexigator (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see it as an improvement, but rather as simply a further attempt to downplay the United Kingdom's unique position. DrKiernan's version of linking, falls inline with the other British monarch bios, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
What's left to discuss? Some objection was raised, it couldn't be comprehensibly justified, and... Well, that's where things now stand.
Ideally, there should be no links to simple lists of monarchs; such isn't relevant to this biography article. But, if there's going to be a link to List of British monarchs, as GoodDay absolutely insists there be, no reason has been given for why it should be piped from "Queen of the United Kingdom" or why it should be the only simple list of monarchs linked to. It makes more sense to link to the list via a the word "list" adjacent to the link to Monarchy of the United Kingdom and then, to maintain neutrality, do the same for other plain lists of monarchs. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the addition of the links formatted as "(list)" beside the country names is an improvement. I have three concerns. (1) The infobox is supposed to be a clear, concise summary and this one is already complicated. I think further additions add to the confusion and stray into topic areas that oughtn't to be in an infobox. (2) The specific formatting chosen for the list links looks to me like another breach of WP:EASTER because if I see "United Kingdom (list)" in text I might expect the links to be to the United Kingdom and then to a list of the entities in the United Kingdom, maybe constituent countries or territories, similarly with Canada. The links looks as though it will be a list of Canada. (3) With the exceptions of Britain and Canada, the lists are either original research or duplicative of the other lists.
Linking the words "Queen of the United Kingdom" to either Monarchy of the United Kingdom or List of British monarchs is not going to astonish readers either way, nor does it complicate the infobox further, and both articles are appropriately sourced and structured on the topic, and so I have no arguments against either of those links. DrKiernan (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I agree; as I wrote, there shouldn't be any links to lists as they're not directly related to this article (except the specific lists of longest- or oldest-whatever in which Elizabeth is now included).
There is already a link in the infobox to Monarchy of the United Kingdom. So, that leaves the question of a link to List of British monarchs, which takes me back to my point above.
If the infobox is to be a clear and concise summary, it needn't, and so shouldn't, have a link to List of British monarchs or any other simple list. However, it seems GoodDay strongly objects to that, though, it still isn't clear why. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
As I see it, the link to the simple list of British monarchs is better suited at that place than the full article on the monarchy, and likewise for the full listing of the monarchies in the dropdown. If links to Monarchy articles are required, that would be better inline where the countries are named in the first paragraph. That is only to express my preference as "an ordinary reader" looking for the sort of information and links that the article title and content lead me to expect. Of course, others may have other expectations and preferences, but we should not be attempting to steer readers. Qexigator (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
In agreement with DrKiernan. There's nothing wrong with linking Queen of the United Kingdom to List of British monarchs. IMHO, the attempted changes were merely pointy. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
So, there's no arguments against a link to List of British monarchs from "Queen of the United Kingdom" (other than my own), but, are there any in favour of it? If the link to List of British monarchs goes there, where do links to the other plain lists of monarchs go?
Linking to the monarchy articles is another matter. But, I can agree with moving those in the infobox to the lede. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I favour linking Queen of the United Kingdom to List of British monarchs. BTW, what are you talking about "..moving those in the infobox to the lede"? GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I said arguments, not still more parroting of your already well known (yet still unjustified) want. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
If you don't like the position I've taken on your proposed edits, then keep that to yourself & concentrate on convincing others of your argument. This "I don't approve of your responses to my questions" attitude, is getting quite annoying. GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The annoyance is mutual, then. (Everyone can see your drama, by the way.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, not sure what exactly it is now proposed to link, but if asked, I would definitely see the better way of communicating the information for the ordinary reader to link the UK and all other named realms in the first paragraph to their respective "List of..." where there is one, and consider linking instead to their Monarchy articles not so helpful. Qexigator (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that. I think links from "United Kingdom", "Canada", "Australia", etc. to List of British monarchs, List of Canadian monarchs, List of Australian monarchs, etc. would be a case of WP:EGG. Plus, that move would raise the problem of what to do with the country names that don't have a corresponding list of monarchs, which is most of them.
I still don't get why "Queen of the United Kingdom" in the infobox should link to List of British monarchs. Even if we put away the question of WP:EGG, it's the sole simple list linked to and there's already a full list of English, Scottish, and British monarchs, right back to Æthelstan, in a navbox right at the foot of the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, may I stay with the top inlines, first of all, then decide what is left over for the adjacent infobox, and treat the final navbox as for a reader desiring to make a further or advanced search? How can editors decide what ordinary readers would prefer? My own belief/opinion/intuition is that initially, by the quick inline link, the List of British monarchs would be the first information to offer, knowing that from there is an immediate further link to Monarchy of the United Kingdom, if that is what the reader is looking for. I found the links to the Lists for the other countries[4], giving their own monarchical history also helps to give the background to the regal inheritance to which Elizabeth succeeded and for which she, more than anyone else, has personal responsibilty as the years of her reign go by and the political affairs of the realms develop in ways that are reported in the Monarchy and country articles. But, not all countries have a list, and those inline links cannot give parity of treatment to those that don't. An alternative treatment would be to leave the initial inline links as they now are, to the respective countries, and see what to do with the infobox. If we link to lists instead of monarchies where a list exists, there remains the question about parity of treatment, but perhaps that doesn't matter. But again, if for the sake of parity we link all to Monarchy, does that lead to putting above the dropdown box Monarchy of UK instead of List? Now, that leaves me to make a bold proposal: to let the links be as they now are[5] but change the inline link for UK from United Kingdom to Monarchy of the United Kingdom, which begins The monarchy of the United Kingdom, commonly referred to as the British monarchy, is the constitutional monarchy of the United Kingdom and its overseas territories. .... The current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, ascended the throne on the death of her father, King George VI, on 6 February 1952. That serves as a good historical introduction for the emergence of the other realms to independent statehood, in a way that the UK article does not. Qexigator (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

We are in agreement, that Queen of the United Kingdom (in the infobox list heading) has to be linked to 'something', right? GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The country names in the drop-down list in the infobox mostly each link to the article on that country; only the names of the present Commonwealth realms each link to the article on that country's monarchy. So, there's inconsistency in the infobox list.
To remedy that, the monarchy articles could be linked from the names of the corresponding countries in the first paragraph of the lede. All the country names in the infobox drop-down list then each link to the article for that country. Instead of having one anomalous link to a simple list of monarchs through "Queen of the United Kingdom" in the infobox bar, that whole text—"Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms"—links to States headed by Elizabeth II (which I figured out how to do). GoodDay's question above is thus answered with a yes. (Well, not "yes" to those words having to link to something, but, yes, those words link to something.)
If links to simple lists of monarchs are strongly desired (though, I agree with DrKiernan that the infobox should concisely summarise the article, so, there shouldn't be links to lists there), the ones that exist can be linked to through the bracketed and smaller words "monarchs of" following the relevant country name. In all, it would look like this: [6]. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Unacceptable, your proposal appears pointy in nature, as it's trying to avoid a seperate linking for Queen of the United Kingdom. I'm in agreement with Dr.K & Qex: A linkage to List of British monarchs or Monarchy of the United Kingdom, would be more sensable & better for our readers. GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
What you're essentially arguing for is to have Queen of the United Kingdom changed to Queen of the Commonwealth realms. A move which would further upset the balance between the article's lede & infobox. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
A total violation of WP:AGF and completely false. Look again: the first link of the article is "Queen of the United Kingdom" directly to Monarchy of the United Kingdom. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I object to that accusation, which is itself a breach of WP:AGF by you. GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Those proposed links to the content would also be misleading. Our readers will be expecting to be directed to the respective countries, not their monarchies. What is your reason for opposing a seperate linkage to Queen of the United Kingdom in the infobox? Why do you oppos linking Queen of the United Kingdom to either List of British monarchs or Monarchy of the United Kingdom? GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
So far, your arguments haven't convinced me that your proposed edits will benefit this article's content and/or infobox. IMHO, they'll do quite the opposite. I'll let the other participants here, weigh in further. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
How is linking from "Queen of the United Kingdom" in the opening sentence to Monarchy of the United Kingdom any more misleading than it is linking to Monarchy of the United Kingdom (let alone to List of British monarchs) from "Queen of the United Kingdom" in the infobox? It's done dozens of times in many articles. The link to Monarchy of the United Kingdom from "Queen of the United Kingdom" establishes the pattern that follows. "Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia..." is no more confusing than is "Princes William and Harry" or "the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge", which is to say: not at all.
I am, like others here, aiming to improve the article by better organising info and links to other info; that means avoiding inexplicable anomalies and creating parity and consistency as best as possible. In case you didn't notice—no, it's obvious you didn't. What you've failed to notice is I have (despite your baseless accusations of ill motive) consistently tried to accommodate your want for a link to List of British monarchs. As it was (at times, since you flip-flopped) with the exact wording "Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other" in the opening sentence, you're once again being completely inflexible, demanding exact words in an exact place link to an exact article, but never once explaining why. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You've proposed changes to the infobox & content. Those proposed edits (IMHO) will only confuse readers. Also, please remember that I'm but only one editor. I've absolutely no control over what goes in or stays out of this article & therefore can't make demands, but only ask questions. They're others to be heard from. Your proposals will be adopted or rejected, in the end. You must understand, it's you who are requesting changes to the infobox (and now, content) & therefore it is you who must convince myself & others that your changes are beneficial. Per WP:BRD, you were Bold in making your changes, DrKiernan Reverted to the previous long-term stable version & now we're in the Discussion phase. GoodDay (talk) 05:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You're the only one really strongly objecting, here and three reverts of the change were yours. But, you won't, or can't articulate why.
Obviously I'm working with others here. I get that this project is a collaboration. It doesn't seem possible to work with you, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You haven't convinced me, that your proposed changes will benefit the article. I think we should be patient here & allow more input from others. GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Like I said... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, input from others is needed. PS: Have faith in your proposals & your fellow editors. GoodDay (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree what is shown in User:Miesianiacal/Sandbox as well as concern about infobox overload., while "aiming to improve the article by better organising info and links to other info; that means avoiding inexplicable anomalies and creating parity and consistency as best as possible"..." this project is a collaboration...". Qexigator (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree with what is shown in the sandbox for the reasons I've already given above: it repeats information or links to articles that repeat the same information that is already given in a different form and the main link is not what one would expect to be linked from that text. On a subjective level, I find the sea of blue ugly; indeed, IIRC that guideline used to recommend against very long strings of linked text.
It is possible to link "Predecessor" to a list like so, but it would have to be a single list as one word can/should not link to more than one article. DrKiernan (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Proposed link by infobox "Predecessor" best so far, to be coupled with undo links to countries in first paragraph, which duplicate infobox dropdown, avoiding sea of blue. Qexigator (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
+ I have gone ahead here[7], but if not accptable please revert of tweak. Qexigator (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The "sea of blue" is no different to what's there now what was there in the article. Though, maybe there shouldn't be any links from the country names in the lede.
I don't know what information my sandbox version repeats. Could you be more specific?
Was George VI Elizabeth's predecessor only in the UK?
It/s still not clear why there needs to be a link to any plain list of monarchs, let alone the British one; there is still a full list of British, English, and Scottish monarchs on this page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You've not gotten a consensus for your proposed changes to the infobox. Please do not impliment them, until you do. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't need a consensus before I make an edit. A consensus is needed to be sought after an edit made is reverted. You revert (solely my changes) and then refuse to participate in consensus-finding by way of offering only the same boiler-plate demand over and over. You are obstructionist and wearing my patience very thin. You don't seem to have learned anything after your year-long "involuntary vacation" from Wikipedia. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Is this how you're going to get your own way? By bringing up an editor's past & then seemingly threatening that editor with re-banishment? PS: I'm feeling chilled, folks & shall depart this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't indulge loaded questions.
Your past is no secret. Nor is your current behaviour. I know I'm not the first person in the last week to notice your old habits (including falsely painting yourself as a victim of non-existent threats whenever you're criticised) coming back to play. I'm genuinely shocked and disappointed to see it; as though you really learned nothing from a year off and, because of it, here is conflict arising and thriving around you once again. I suspect you flee not because anyone's threatened you (because no one has), but, because you know you've been acting unjustifiably and need to minimise the attention it attracts. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no need for a long list of back history here. What does "let alone" signify? The linked article is called "List of British monarchs", but it applies to all the realms from 1707. The back history of monarchy of, say, UK or Canada is to be found in those countries' articles. Qexigator (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
At the moment, myself, DrKiernan & Qexigator don't support your proposals. PLEASE, stop trying to force them onto the article. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Do DrKiernan and Qexigator know you've taken on the role of their spokesman? You can't justify your abonimable behaviour by conjuring up mythical alliances. Qex thanked me for this edit; I take that as a sign of approval.
Now, you have your link to List of British monarchs. It was moved and you didn't revert that change, so, you must be okay with DrKiernan moving it, just not me doing so (showing this is for you more about me than it is about good editing). You didn't earlier care about links to Monarchy of the United Kingdom. Only now has it become an issue for you. I didn't take it away; I moved it to be with the others in the drop-down list; that's called good organisation. Can you articulate why you don't like good organisation? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what back-story you're referring to, Qex.
I'm sure you know what "let alone" signifies; it's a commonly used phrase. There's a full list of British, Scottish, and English monarchs on this page. As such, if there's going to be a link to a plain list of monarchs, why would it be to List of British monarchs? Its content and more is already here.
If the lines are the same back to 1707, why not then link to List of Canadian monarchs? It, at least, doesn't duplicate in its entirety the aforementioned list in this article.
Of course, there could be no link in the infobox to any plain list. It seems like a viable option to me. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
As writ above There is no need for a long list of back history here.... The linked article is called "List of British monarchs", but it applies to all the realms from 1707. The back history of monarchy of, say, UK or Canada is to be found in those countries' articles. Qexigator (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The lists of British, Scottish, and English monarchs are linked through the navboxes, where the list of Canadian monarchs, and 16 other lists of heads of state, are also linked. The linked wikitext in the navboxes makes absolutely clear what the linked article will be about: there's no possibility of arguing WP:EASTER in those cases. However, having the link in the infobox to the list of Canadian monarchs is likely to astonish readers, who would expect a list of British monarchs not a list of French ones. DrKiernan (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't mean to seriously suggest "Queen of the United Kingdom" link to List of Canadian monarchs; I was only trying to illustrate that the list of British monarchs being the same for all realms going back to 1707 doesn't necessarily qualify it as the only list that can be used. And, on that note, the lists aren't the same back to 1707: Canada has a line of French monarchs up to 1763.
I actually don't want the article, and especially the infobox, to try to accommodate these histories; being brief doesn't allow for accuracy and being accurate doesn't allow for brevity. Hence, I think there should be no links to lists of monarchs in the infbox. Leave all that to the navboxes already here.
Now, there currently aren't any lists of monarchs in the infobox, but there is still the issue of no argument having been presented against linking "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" in the infobox to States headed by Elizabeth II. I think that's a very apt article to link to from that particular location. Further, explanation is still missing for why the United Kingdom isn't included in the drop-down list of realms and Monarchy of the United Kingdom linked to from there, like all the others. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
With regard to the links, because it's clearer and more expected for Queen of the United Kingdom to link to the same and for the first mention of Commonwealth realms to link to the article that explains the term. With regard to the inclusion of the UK in the drop down list, because it's a repetition: the UK and the regnal dates pertaining to it are already given in the infobox. Yes, I can see that you will now argue that the UK should be taken out of the heading and placed in the drop down list, which is probably your aim all along, in which case you should be making that argument instead of playing these silly games. DrKiernan (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
"Silly games", says the individual playing with red herrings. Try addressing my actual proposal, not the one you pretended I made. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I thought I did above. DrKiernan (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

None but a few links?

Given the inline links in the current version[8], and the navboxes, perhaps it would now be acceptable to remove all links from the infobox before "Heir apparent", including dropdown, and the links to Mayfair and UK as the birthplace of her mother, and the "detail" of the Queen's Issue? This is a serious proposal, not tongue-in-cheek. Qexigator (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

+ Including the inline link to "Head of the Commonwealth" in the third sentence of the lead, where the monarchies are listed alphabetically in the navbox. This satisfies what to my mind is the criterion of reasonable ease of linking for the ordinary reader looking for further information. Qexigator (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I will go ahead with this by stages, to allow for peaceable intervention and dsicussion:

  • 1st links to Mayfair and UK as the birthplace of the Queen Mother.
  • 2nd the "detail" of the Queen's Issue.
  • 3rd links in dropdown list of countries.
  • 4th links in dropdown's header.

Qexigator (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I think removing some of this would count as underlinking. As you say, the inline link to Head of the Commonwealth helps people understand the article and the link is relevant. Linking to United Kingdom probably counts as overlinking because it's a "major geographical feature" or "understood by most readers in context". But similarly, Mayfair probably should be linked because most readers will not know where it is, but London probably should not be linked because everyone knows where it is. In the dropdown's header (as of today) both links are relevant and help to understand the article, and so those or similar link(s) should remain. In the actual dropdown, I think some of those links are essential: specifically the links to Ceylon and Tanganyika, because they certainly are not everyday words and most readers will require further information to understand why those words are being used here. DrKiernan (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

In connection with this proposal, and concerns with overlinking and undertlinking, editors may wish to review specimens of the infobox with the Queen's image, after the early primitive and imageless appearance in October 2005[9] As at end of

Given the inline links in the 9 October version of the article, is there overlinking in either or both the other versions of the infobox, or mislinking? Qexigator (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Given that "Issue detail" is a jump link to the Issue section of the article, I will not go ahead with delinking it, and in view of further discussion and revisions, I will not go ahead with more delinking of infobox as at 06:46, 12 October 2015[14] . Qexigator (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't reduce the number of links, but, I did discover that there's a "monarchy of..." page for each country in the infobox drop-down list. Why do we not, then, include the UK among the realms, as it should be, and link all of them to their respective monarchy page. Then link "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" in the infobox to States headed by Elizabeth II. No more inconsistent placement of links to realms' monarchy pages and mixing of links to articles on monarchies with articles on countries' past incarnations.

Whether the links to the monarchy pages in the drop-down list are piped from the country name or not is another matter. I'm fairly indifferent about it; piping keeps things shorter; not piping is more clear. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The header should not form one link because it's clearer and more expected for Queen of the United Kingdom to link to the same and for the first mention of Commonwealth realms to link to the article of that name. In addition, it would create a very long blue link, which is (or should be) deprecated per "sea of blue". It is unnecessary to include the UK in the drop down list because it is already given in the header. DrKay (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I wholly disagree. Elizabeth II is queen and the "United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" are the states she heads as such. Making "and the other" blue doesn't make much of a difference and including the UK among the realms makes sense, not including it doesn't. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I see DrKay's reasoning as helpful in resolving how best to serve the reader. This is not a matter of bigging up one or another country by ranking countries other than alphabetically (or numerically, if that applied), but simply of using links in general, and more particularly in infoboxes with dropdowns, and in the headings and listings put there. The linkings are for readers' ease and convenience, not an attempt to influence their political, historical or social knowledge or understanding. We do our best to resolve real or surmised misunderstanding by composing the npov text, with support from the inline links, and with some of the listing and linking burden being carried by the infoboxes and their links, and the navboxes and their links. Qexigator (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Lovely. Now, how does DrKiernan/DrKay's reasoning serve the reader better than mine? With the status quo, a country is missing from the list of realms in the infobox. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, since you ask, that demand of yours is beside the point, for the reasons given. Qexigator (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
If it were beside the point, I wouldn't have asked. You speak of serving the reader. What service is it to the reader to leave a country out of a list to which it belongs? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The links given are sufficient as intelligibly explained above, and as can be readily seen, that is why your comment was beside the point. Qexigator (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
"It's sufficient" doesn't explain what service it is to the reader to leave a country out of a list to which it belongs. Remarking so much about how beside the point I am seems to be your way of evading the point. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Please AGF, consider my comments more carefully, and allow me to surmise that anyone choosing to think the matter through, including most experienced editors, will concur in accepting that it is more likely than not that an article will better serve the reader when there is a balance between over- and under-linking in the text and its supporting devices (infobox etc). Qexigator (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I haven't proposed any change to the number of links. So, how is your comment relevant? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I know I'm late to the party, and everyone's sick of this debate, but I have been following it for a while (and commented once I think) and am slightly bemused by what the page has ended up with following the RfC above. The direction of travel a while ago seemed to me to be towards focusing on the primary role as monarch of the UK (from which, ultimately, everything else derives). Yet now we have not only a full list, but odd observations inserted about independence and clunky grammar ("Since/from .. is" etc, twice). Nor does the opening mention her role as head of the CofE.
I didn't weigh in at the latest RfC because I didn't see it before it closed, and would not have been that keen on getting involved anyway. Also, I guess I thought that good sense would prevail among existing contributors, since there are quite a few level heads here. Several people seem to have mentioned each of these problems, but ultimately, I guess everyone was too worn down by it all and more focused on the principle of compromise than how that compromise actually ended up reading. Seriously, to someone who was not closely involved in the minutiae of debate, coming at it fairly clear, it reads really, really badly. N-HH talk/edits 10:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

TBH, I'd prefer Queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other.... But, it's my observation, that if we hadn't adopted the current multiple countries version, the Rfc would still be going on & would've gotten nasty. GoodDay (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that, regardless of how that fundamental and eternal debate was resolved, we now have a sentence written by committee which no serious publication would allow past its editors, on grammar grounds alone, and which suddenly and needlessly introduces observations about independence. N-HH talk/edits 11:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll have to let others weigh in on that. GoodDay (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Noted, N-HH's melancholy proposition that Wikipedia is badly written mainly because around 50% of regular content editors and administrators are morons.[15] The version at[16] was acceptable, correct and intelligible for the reasons given at length in the course of discussion. The sea of blue made at 07:06, 17 October 2015[17] was unneccessary and its edit summary was mistaken: If the Countries is named here, then it should be as links. Something else look ridiculous, and weakens the article. And please don't change this again. That editor had previously added a passage about the Queen's approval rating.[18] Qexigator (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@N-HH: - re "The direction of travel a while ago seemed to me to be towards focusing on the primary role as monarch" - Yes! What's so frustrating is that whenever this conversation starts (and it has started many many times), that's always the direction of travel, and then you always get a small group of editors committed to POV pushing who talk the issue to death until we do have this ridiculous "sentence written by committee". This lede is a classic example of how a few bad apples on WP can spoil an article.
@Qexigator: - "was acceptable, correct and intelligible" Sorta a stretch to call that intelligible. Remember, just because it makes sense to you and I, doesn't mean it makes sense to other people. NickCT (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Not all of us or others, such as any non-contributing readers, will agree with opinionated generalities that the present version of the opening sentence is as defective or flawed in content or style as the above comments assert. All that amounts to is that it is not to the liking those commenters. The reasons for it being as it is have been elucidated in the course of discussion, and it has not been formulated by a committee. Qexigator (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Qexigator: - You're right. Not everyone will agree. But then, not everyone has a good command of English.
There are certain facts which are always true when it comes to "intelligibility". Shorter sentences tend to be easier to understand than longer ones. Simpler, more common language is usually better than more verbose jargon. Those things are basic truths. Now, considering those rules, look at the language you're calling intelligible, then compare it to the language in the "UK and 16 others" proposal. Which is easier?
"it has not been formulated by a committee" - Wow. A powerful way to refute a point if ever I've seen one. Perhaps you should have bolded this to make it more convincing. NickCT (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with N-HH that there is a problem with the existing wording, and I believe it is essentially one of grammar - the use of "is... since..." and "from.... is..". Editors here have, in some ways quite correctly, sought to use "is" rather than "has been", in an attempt to emphasise that her role is continuing, rather than in the past. In British English, the current wording is ungrammatical - others may be able to advise whether it is equally ungrammatical in other language variants. A more grammatically correct opening sentence would be: "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is, and has been since 6 February 1952, the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand." But, that is slightly longer. One option would be to ask for advice on the wording, from uninvolved but experienced copy-editors at WP:GOCE/REQ, specifically on the opening paragraph. In that case, it may be better if regular editors here refrain from commenting on that process if it develops. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Ghmyrtle, for that helpfully constructive suggestion. It is not so much the grammar as the flow of the sentence and the information which could be a problem. I agree that "Elizabeth ...is, and has been since 6 February 1952, the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand." is better, thus adapting[19] :
Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926 is, <+>and has been</+> from her accession in 1952, Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. From their dates of independence, she is <+>has been</+> Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. She is also Head of the Commonwealth.
To my mind, it is more helpful to the reader at this point to identify the accession event when her reign began as Queen of UK, and the others named, than the day (which is detailed elsewhere, and visible at a glance to the adjacent infobox), contrasting with the independence of the other separate realms which came later. Qexigator (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
That's certainly an improvement in purely technical grammatical terms, even if it makes it even more convoluted (and just to repeat that there are serious problems with the current version, on both those grounds if nothing else. I genuinely don't see how someone can deny that or assert that it was not designed by committee, given that it emerged out of endless discussion among multiple editors, which is precisely what that phrase means). It's also information that should probably be in the page at some point. Whether it should be the very first sentence explaining who QE is, as opposed to something closer to the far simpler and more focused construction found in every other serious source (Britannica, the royal website etc) is another matter, but as noted that's been broadly decided, for better or worse. N-HH talk/edits 10:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
To my mind, it is not "convoluted" in any adverse sense, and, while not necessarily perfect (what is?) it is suited to the purpose of the opening sentence of this article, whatever may be better suited to others relating to other persons or monarchs. As to designed by a committee, I do not see that as a description of the editing process of Wikipedia articles generally or this one in particular (for better or worse). For that see King James Version (for better or worse, but anyhow without inviting further discussion of Supreme Governor). Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@Qexigator: - re it is not "convoluted" in any adverse sense - That's right. Keep denying the obvious. Soon the queen will come and award you an OBE for your efforts. Then you and your buddies can all join her for a little cosplay and crumpets. NickCT (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
You've made some valid points, but when comments drift into abuse, you lose support rather than gain it. DrKay (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@DrKay: - Point to a better way to deal with this willfully inane behavior. WP policy really fails in situations like this where a couple editors with particular POVs camp on and basically own an article. I've dealt with this kind of situation on a couple different articles and the phenomena is annoying. It's well and good to trumpet civility. It's better to find real resolutions. NickCT (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
It is also inaccurate - the monarch was Queen of the non-white countries listed before their independence, which of course is why she remained Queen after independence. (See for example stamps and coins that say "Queen of Gibraltar."[20]) TFD (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, information about Gibraltar was mentioned at 01:57, 30 September ("Various dates")[21] If that were a serious problem in the present version, it could be avoided by adding a few words thus: " From their dates of independence, she is Queen of <+>the separate monarchies of</+> Jamaica, ...Saint Kitts and Nevis." Would participants in the discussion on this page find that to be an acceptable improvement? Qexigator (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. The "independence" part already there delineates clearly when EIIR ceased being queen of British colonies as the Queen of the UK and became queen of sovereign states. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

((outdent))That is not what expert legal opinion says:

"Under the Gibraltar Constitution, and under UK law, the Governor is the representative in Gibraltar of Her Majesty the Queen, as Queen of Gibraltar. He is not a representative or official of HMG in the UK....These propositions were established by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords in the Quark case..."[22]
"But as long as Gibraltar does not opt to become a Republic and would retain Her Majesty as Head of State of an independent Gibraltar, she would continue to be the Queen of Gibraltar as much after independence as she was before independence."[23]

Do you have any sources that say the law lords and the government of Gibraltar are in error? And why would coins and stamps say "Queen of Gibraltar" if in fact she was not?

Furthermore as the Perth Agreement shows, the queen of each new CR is whoever happens to be Queen of the UK.

TFD (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

OK Mies., but as I understand TFD's point, her reign as Queen in those countries (Jamaica ...) did not begin when they became monarchies. Have you a wording to avoid the possible misreading that she had not been reigning in those countries before independence? Do you advise returning to the status quo ante freeze:[24] "...queen of 16 of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations." ? Or, perhaps more simply "Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other realms." leaving all other information about names and dates and precedence to what is in the remainder of the article, and easily found by the contents of the infobox and navboxes? Would that be a second lap of what has been a lengthy circuit? How could the second lap be shortened? Qexigator (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
For goodness sake, don't even mention that dreaded "queen of 16 of the 53..." version ;) GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
What, then, is your proposed wording to meet TFD's point? Shirk not the participating editor's bona fide npov duty. Qexigator (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, "Queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other..." is best. But, if we can't have that? then the current version should remain. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Yup. I'm with GD here. No "Queen of Sixteen"!
I thought we'd found a good version that we could all live with. However, I am sensitive to the points made above about complex and confusing opening sentences. It reflects the complex and confected nature of the situation. Realistically, she's the British monarch, and from that all else flows. It's accepted that monarchs have many titles and honours. Why not just accept that her notional crowns and thrones of Papua New Guinea and other places are of a piece with her other supposed jobs as Duke of Normandy and Governor of the Church. She doesn't spend her time and lie abed at nights wondering about the finances of Guernsey or the taxi crisis in Canberra. She has others to do that for her.
I'd rather not have anyone upset, particularly those who know their beans in this can of worms, but if we are going to have editor after editor lining up to say that the opening sentence sucks, then that's pretty disruptive. We'll be wrangling over this thing forever. --Pete (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Tentatively and sensitively, I concur with what GD and Pete say. Qexigator (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
1) We removed from the lede mention of the independent countries of which EIIR was, but is no longer, queen. 2) The lede only mentions the Commonwealth realms. 3) The lede does not now cover (and never really has covered) the colonies/dependencies of which EIIR is presently queen of as Queen of the UK. It'd thus be out of place and inconsistent for the lede to make reference to EIIR having been Jamaica's, St Kitts', Tuvalu's, etc. queen as Queen of the UK prior to their independence. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we need to refer to the independence of the "other 12" realms in the opening paragraph. We need clarity, not detail. "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is, and has been from her accession in 1952, Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. She is also Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis; and Head of the Commonwealth." Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Apparently she's Queen of Gibraltar as well. Perhaps we could add Gibraltar to the list. I wouldn't want anyone to feel slighted. --Pete (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's not needed, per se. But, it being present is better than the lede being ambiguous on whether EIIR became queen of all her present realms upon becoming a queen or not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
While we only mention independent states over which the Queen rules, it is misleading to imply that she did not reign over those states before they were independent. And what do you mean by "queen of as Queen of the UK?" What specific section of any law changed her status? TFD (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The lede makes no such implication.
Please see Sovereignty. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Could you be more explicit, please? Are you saying that a nation's sovereignty depends on its sovereign??? -Pete (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The lead says, "From their dates of independence, she is Queen of Jamaica [etc.]" That implies she was not Queen of Jamaica before independence. Compare with "Elizabeth II...is, and has been from her accession in 1952, Queen of the United Kingdom [etc.] The implication is that she was not Queen before her accession. Incidentally could you explain the relevance of "Sovereignty." TFD (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm starting to wonder about sourcing for some of these statements. We don't have a source for the date she became Queen of Jamaica. Undoubtedly she is now, but when, exactly, did it happen? --Pete (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
She became Sovereign of an independent Jamaica on 6 August 1962[25]. DrKay (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Two points. I don't disbelieve you, but your statement is not directly sustained by the source, and we don't have any sourcing in this article for the statement in the lede. Presumably the same applies for many of the other Realms. --Pete (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The source says, "The 1962 Constitution established a parliamentary system based on the United Kingdom model, with The Queen as Sovereign." But Jamaica already had a parliamentary system with the Queen as Sovereign. The Queen's representative, Governor Kenneth Blackburne was re-titled Governor-General and Premier Alexander Bustamante was re-titled Prime Minister. The Legislative Council was renamed the Senate while the House of Representatives kept its name. All legislators kept their positions until new elections were held five years later. Details of the changes can be found in Jamaica's constitution.[26] TFD (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The source says "Jamaica achieved complete independence on 6 August 1962". That's what DrKiernan said: "She became Sovereign of an independent Jamaica on 6 August 1962." Jamaica pre-6 August 1962 was a colony of the UK; as a colony, it was under British sovereignty; under British sovereignty, it was reigned over by the British monarch (Queen of the United Kingdom). Jamaica post-6 August 1962 is an independent country; as an independent country, it is under its own soverignty; under its own sovereignty, it has been reigned over by the Jamaican monarch (Queen of Jamaica). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I see that information about Jamaica as something to be taken into consideration for composing the wording of the first paragraph, and not brushed aside. This tends to support letting the first paragraph make the simple indisputably factual statement: Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926 is Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other realms. She is also Head of the Commonwealth. Qexigator (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
If we stay with current version for first sentence, then the second would be improved by tweaking as proposed by Ghmyrtle above, thus: From their dates of independence She is <+>also</+> Queen of Jamaica... Qexigator (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
No, it would not be an improvement, for the reason I already gave at 18:13.
The problem that supposedly needs solving doesn't exist: the lede does not imply Elizabeth II wasn't queen of the "other 12" as Queen of the UK before they became realms. It's actually just ambivalent: it neither says she wasn't nor that she was. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
By parity of reasoning, the tweak would be unobjectionable, and remove a possible misreading resulting from "ambivalence". Qexigator (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@Miesianiacal - the improvement is that the sentence becomes grammatically correct, rather than incorrect. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You must not have read the comment I directed you to.
Even if the "tweak" will remove "possible misreading", it will only add another; as I said, it won't be clear whether EIIR became queen of those "12 other" countries in 1952 or not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I suggested at some point far back that the second sentence say "from their dates of independence from the United Kingdom..." DrKiernan rightly pointed out, though, that Papua New Guinea did not gain its independence from the UK. So, if you really want to be clear about EIIR having reigned over the "other 12" (I'm only using that phrase out of laziness) as Queen of the UK or of Australia before their independence, your lede should look something like this:
Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is, and has been from her accession in 1952, Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. She is, and has been from their dates of independence from the United Kingdom, also Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis, as well as, from its independence from Australia, Papua New Guinea. She is also Head of the Commonwealth.
--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
That is a relatively minor point that can be clarified in the text. It is too complex an issue, and potentially confusing, to attempt to clarify it through a few words in the opening paragraph. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
If you mean whether EIIR became queen of those "12 other" countries in 1952 or not, it's clear in the lede now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not clear (though it can be inferred) - but the text is ungrammatical. Your suggested wording, though technically correct, is an over-complicated and poor way of starting a major article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course it's clear: Four countries in 1952, 12 not in 1952. I mean, it's technically possible the "12 other" countries gained their independence in 1952, but no one would word the sentences the way they presently are, if that were the case.
Well, you're welcome to make some other suggestion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Mies, you said she became sovereign of an independent Jamaica on 6 August 1962. Equally you could say Blackburne became vice-regent of an independent Jamaica on 6 August 1962, before that he was vice-regent of a colonial Jamaica. But you would not say he became vice-regent in 1962. Again, you keep saying the Queen reigned over Jamaica as Queen of the UK, without explaining what that means, but the legal sources I provided say she always reigned over Jamaica as Queen of Jamaica. Sources also say that the Queen of Jamaica is whoever happens to be Queen of the UK. You still have not provided any sources to support your legal opinions. TFD (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did so explain above. Your misinterpretations of statements on matters of jurisdiction remain without relevance.
It's interesting to consider, though, that, if Elizabeth II acceded as Queen of Jamaica in 1952, Jamaica (as well as St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, Gibraltar, the Falklands, and dozens of other then-colonies of the UK) wasn't mentioned in her coronation oath. Just the independent countries were. Hmm. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
They are included in "your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining." Similarly the Queen's title in each realm refers to "Her Other Realms and Territories" without naming all of them which would be pretty boring.
It is very easy for you to say you already explained something when you never have and to accuse other editors of misinterpreting sources when you have provided no sources and no other interpretations.
Any idea why stamps and coins would use the expression "Queen of Gibraltar" if in fact she was not?
TFD (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, then, please allow me to be more specific: the colonies weren't named, the independent countries were.
Let's not play with straw men. I'm certain you understand the difference between a monarch of a sovereign state and the monarch of that sovereign state acting in right of a jurisdiction within that state. Whatever a lord said about the 'queen of Gibraltar' (no capital 'q'; it's not an actual title (coins don't make royal titles)), it is the Queen of the United Kingdom, acting on the advice of her British Cabinet, who appoints and dismisses the Governor of Gibraltar, not the 'queen of Gibraltar' on the advice of Gibraltar ministers; it is the Queen of the United Kingdom, acting on the advice of her British Cabinet, who has ultimate authority over foreign affairs relating to Gibraltar, not the 'queen of Gibraltar' on the advice of Gibraltar ministers [27]; it is the policies of the Queen of the United Kingdom in her British Cabinet that the Governor of Gibraltar represents [28] and it is to the British government that the governor is responsible [29]. Gibraltar is not sovereign, you see; it is under the sovereign of the United Kingdom. Same for Jamaica pre-6 August 1962. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"Whatever a lord said" is a funny way to refer to a unanimous decision of the House of Lords. Roe v. Wade, Citizens United etc. were just what one U.S. judge happened to say. Now the judges in those cases might have been wrong but you need to present reliable sources. Speaking of straw men, your comment about Gibraltar sovereignty meets that. The highest court in the UK agreed, "The situs of such rights and obligations rests with the overseas governments within the realm of the Crown, and not with the Crown in right or respect of the United Kingdom, even though the powers of such governments fall a very long way below the level of independence." The judge was Brian Kerr, Baron Kerr of Tonaghmore, who is now a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, not really "whatever." You keep presenting the same arguments that competent jurists have rejected. Why not just say that you disagree with what the experts say? TFD (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I never said they were wrong. I've said repeatedly your (cherry picked in some cases) reading of rulings is wrong.
Best of luck convincing people Gibraltar is a sovereign country with its own queen (who's title was proclaimed by coin). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, you never explain what is wrong about my reading. And talk about stawmen - I did not say Gibralter was a sovereign country, I quoted the courts saying, "it is perfectly clear that the question whether the situs of rights and obligations of the Crown is to be found in right or respect of the United Kingdom, or of other governments within those parts of the Commonwealth of which Her Majesty is the ultimate sovereign, has nothing whatever to do with the question whether those governments are wholly independent or not." If you have trouble understanding the decision of the courts, please post a note on my user page. TFD (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully this is the last I'll have to say on this. When you don't accept that Gibraltar (or Jamaica, or any other then or current British territory) is under the sovereignty of the UK ("you keep saying the Queen reigned over Jamaica as Queen of the UK, without explaining what that means, but the legal sources I provided say she always reigned over Jamaica as Queen of Jamaica"), you are indeed arguing Gibraltar is a sovereign country.
Your quote comes from a section of a ruling that regards a country with a vestigial legal tie to another country and what country was responsible for what. When it was said "...such rights and obligations rests with the overseas governments within the realm of the Crown, and not with the Crown in right or respect of the United Kingdom, even though the powers of such governments fall a very long way below the level of independence", what was clearly meant was: some matters ("such rights") are wholly within the jurisdiction of government B ("rests with the overseas governments") and cannot be affected by government A ("and not with the Crown in right or respect of the United Kingdom"), though government B's jurisdiction may sit under the sovereignty of government A's country ("even though the powers of such governments fall a very long way below the level of independence"). So, while there is a queen in right of Gibraltar (the Queen acting through her governor on the advice of the legislature and ministers in Gibraltar) and the Queen in right of the United Kingdom (the Queen acting on the advice of the legislature and ministers in Britain) cannot meddle in many of the affairs of the queen in right of Gibraltar (because the constitution of Gibraltar--entirely a law of the UK (an order in council)--says so), that queen in right of Gibraltar is the Queen of the United Kingdom, operating through her governor, who is appointed by her on the advice of the British Cabinet, represents the policies of the British government (including the defence of and foreign affairs relating to Gibraltar), and is responsible to the Queen of the UK. There is no affirmation of there somehow being a separate, sovereign "Queen of Gibraltar" (or of whatever British territory) equal to the Queen of the United Kingdom. The queen in right of Gibraltar has no title and remains subject to the Queen in right of the UK. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's what the case says about an uninhabited territory: "While instructions may be transmitted to the Commissioner by the Secretary of State he does so, in constitutional theory, as her mouthpiece or medium. He is passing on her instructions as Queen of SGSSI, not acting as Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom." (The Commissioner for South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is the equivalent of governor.)

While you say that Gibraltar is under the sovereignty of the UK, that is not true in constitutional theory. Both the UK and Gibraltar are under the sovereignty of the sovereign, who is the personification of both states. What happens at independence is that the ministers in the UK cease to advise the Queen and she obtains advice only from the former colony's ministers. Her position as queen of the territory is unaffected.

TFD (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Queen of the United Kingdom and 15...

IMHO, the answer is to adopt "Queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms". Of course, others will have to decide that for themselves. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Given the comments of Ghmyrtle and TFD above, and the details in the infobox and elsewhere in the article, there seems to be no good reason against letting the first paragraph make the simple and factual statement: Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926 is Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms. She is also Head of the Commonwealth. Qexigator (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Many good reasons were given above when this was actually under consideration and was (again) rejected. GoodDay is pushing hard on the bounds of WP:CRUSH: "repeatedly [using] the talk page... to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)]
The upteenth RFD was closed on this very issue four days ago. If it is a grammatical or style issue, then fix the grammatical or style issue while maintaining the currently decided leading sentence's meaning. trackratte (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Mies.: I have seen no good reason in answer to the comments of Ghmyrtle and TFD. They, as others, may decide for themselves whether or not to go with the tweak or the rewrite proposed above, irrespective of your last comment. Qexigator (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Likely because you're looking for an answer to comments that weren't made; GoodDay beat this dead horse again, not TFD or Ghmyrtle. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
GoodDay, I agree with your proposal, except that I think it would be best to avoid the term "Commonwealth Realm", which is not readily understood by most readers. "Other independent nations" is probably better. And I would also avoid the term "sovereign state", since the term sovereign is also used to describe the Queen herself. TFD (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, "...15 other indenpendent countries" or "...15 other independent nations", would do. Above all "UK+15", seems to be the solution. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty much forced to agree. The current version looks to be an insoluble minefield of grammar, accuracy and sourcing that has no business being the first sentence in a biographical article. HM is Queen of the UK first and foremost, and lots of other stuff that can be mentioned in the appropriate sections in the body text. While I appreciate the pain that some might feel, the lede is intended as a summary, and the first sentence as a concise tag for the whole. No matter how we cut it, bringing in Jamaica and St Kitts and others with all their minutiae of times and details and sources makes the sentence a long and cofusing one. As an aside, I like the word "realms", because it has a cultural flavour in keeping with the history of the job. --Pete (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Once again I concur with GD and Pete, and with TFD. I may be missing somethiing (it has happened) but I am finding some of Mies.'s more recent comments less and less helpful or even particularly meaningful so far as concerns the points others are making here. As I see it, this is impeding progress in resolving what we would find more acceptable for the first paragraph, which I believe would otherwise have been settled by now. Without going down distracting rabbit holes, I am waiting for a straight answer to I have seen no good reason in answer to the comments of Ghmyrtle and TFD. They, as others, may decide for themselves whether or not to go with the tweak or the rewrite proposed above.[30] Given AGF I must infer that no good reason is available. Qexigator (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Moving on from RfC closure, and in view of the above comments, we may now have two viable proposals for revising the current version of the first paragraph:

  • a tweaked version Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is, and has been from her accession in 1952, Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. She is also Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Head of the Commonwealth.
  • a shorter version Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926, is Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent countries. She is also Head of the Commonwealth.

It appears that the shorter is becoming the more acceptable option among participating editors. Qexigator (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that, if the shorter version is preferred as the opening paragraph, there will still be a need to include the omitted content - the date or at least year of her accession, and the list of independent countries of which she is head of state, elsewhere in the introductory section - for example, by creating a new second paragraph. They are still important. So, I don't really see the point of making the change. I prefer the "tweaked" version. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
(ec)@Qexigator: - "the shorter is becoming the more acceptable option among participating editors" - Is becoming? It became a while back. But regardless, I'm glad you're coming around on this.
On another note; you know Qex, reading through your comments, it's clear you're writing with high degree of English proficiency. While being good with verbiage is a great thing, it's probably a handicap when it comes to recognizing the value of simple English.
I suggest once again that we move for the simple, shorter solution. NickCT (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ghmyrtle: - re " the date or at least year ... elsewhere in the introductory section - Reasonable. NickCT (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The second "proposal" is, of course, not viable, as it contains wording that was just rejected in an RfC closed only days ago. This kind of action is not welcomed; WP:CCC: "proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive". Nobody loves (I don't think) the version that received consensus, but, consensus is not about getting the version you personally think is the absolute best. (That proposal also fails to explain when Elizabeth became queen of anything.)
The first version completely lacks clarification on when EIIR became queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, etc. However, if we're really going to pretend there was such a thing as the Queen of Jamaica prior to 1962 (& etc. for the other "12 other" realms), then there's the following as a possibility (or something like it):
Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is, and has been from her accession in 1952, Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Of those countries' territories that subsequently gained full independence, Elizabeth has continued to serve as monarch of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.
That ties in with the 'Continuing evolution of the Commonwealth' section. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
@Miesianiacal: - re "rejected in an RfC closed only days ago" - That's either a terrible misreading of the RfC or it's willfully deceptive. Could you check the RfC again and retract your comment? NickCT (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, Ghmyrtle, we should look again at the second paragraph in an earlier version, as recent as 14 September 2015, [31] which could be adapted to read (as the second or third paragraph after the proposed shorter version of the first sentence) thus:
" Elizabeth II ... is Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent countries.
<<let the existing paragraph: Elizabeth was born in London ... four children: Charles, Anne, Andrew, and Edward. be before or after the proposed 2nd/3rd>>
Upon her accession on 6 February 1952, Elizabeth became Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Head of the Commonwealth. Today, she is also Queen of the separate realms of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis (in the order of their independence)."
Qexigator (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent countries" is, besides biased, redundant. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for letting us know in so few words how you would like us to take your pov and approach to the discussion. Qexigator (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you must have missed the result of my efforts put to drafting a proposal. It's directly above. At 16:11. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
@Qexigator and Miesianiacal: - I'm actually genuinely grateful Mies puts it in such simple terms. He's touched on the crux his argument. I think we should simply ask ourselves whether we agree the wording is biased and redundant, or whether we disagree. Frankly I think Mies has been pretty lonely in this sentiment. If he's the only one pushing it, can't we just move on? NickCT (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me if I've fallen behind a bit. Perhaps with Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent countries" in the opening, we could then break that sentence away from the opening paragraph & then work on the content of that 'reduced' paragraph? GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

There are, of course, a variety of ways of writing the information as text here. One, which often fails to produce a satisfactory composition, is trying to cram or compress too much into too few words or lines of text. In view of all comments to date, the present version[32] is one which can be seen as reasonably balanced, and seems to have sufficient support to let it stand. Qexigator (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Whatever's best for our readers, is great with me :) GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
It's clearly not best for our readers. A horde of editors have now pointed out how ridiculous the language is. The current version is unwieldy. Breaking it down into shorter, simpler sentences is obviously the way to go. This debate is just going to continuously recycle until the change is made. NickCT (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
If I could solve this potential problem, I would. But, it's out of my hands. GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive_36&oldid=1227715138"