Jump to content

Talk:History of monarchy in Canada

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

What's the intent here? There's already Monarchy in Canada, which has much of the same text. Did that get too big, or what? Thanks. --John Nagle 03:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

The article seems quite one sided, particularly the last section. It is also absolutely devoid of sources. Homey 03:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of text from the History section of Monarchy in Canada has been moved here. If any part seems "one sided", add whatever factual and relevant information you feel is missing. --gbambino 04:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so it's been a week since the neutrality of this article was disputed. Seems to be a lack of real dispute, though. Is anything actually going on with this? --gbambino 18:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does this line mean?

[edit]

The Canadian Crown is one of an approximate half-dozen that have survived through uninterrupted inheritance from before the country itself was founded.

It seems to imply that the "Canadian Crown" existed before the country itself was founded, along with about 6 others that also still exist. I can make no sense of this at all. TharkunColl (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too am confused. The Canadian crown's earliest possible date was 1867 - Before that, Canada was a British colony. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comment, I think, petains to the length of time that Canada has continuously been a monarchy. Should it perhaps be modified to read: The Canadian Crown's continunal lineage from the British and French Crowns makes it one of an approximate half-dozen that have survived through uninterrupted inhertiance from before the country itself was founded. --G2bambino (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better; that's more discriptive & accurate line. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Canadian Crown has no lineage from the French Crown. Also, what are the other 5 or 6 crowns that the sentence refers to? TharkunColl (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
February 10, 1763. --G2bambino (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
France ceded control of Canada to Britain. There is no lineage from the French Crown to the British - indeed, it was an abrupt break. And what of those other 5 or 6, what are they? TharkunColl (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend modify the sentence further, leave out the French crown. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the historian stated in his article. --G2bambino (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. What about the "half-dozen" other monarchies mentioned - what are they? TharkunColl (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't a clue. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nor have I. TharkunColl (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone can shed some light on what the other half-dozen monarchies are, and why they're even mentioned at all, the line is completely senseless and I'll get rid of it. TharkunColl (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you read the article and find out? Oh, right... "facts" and "sources" don't matter to you. --G2bambino (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There no link to the article. Can you summarise it? TharkunColl (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a print article. Summary: history of the Canadian Crown. --G2bambino (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are the half-dozen other monarchies? Either we say what they are, or scrub the line. What's the point otherwise? TharkunColl (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Say what they are in the article? Whatever for? I also don't think Monet states exactly what the other monarchies are, though I'd have to check the article, which is presently at my home. --G2bambino (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What possible use is that line? What does it add to the article? And the overwhelming majority of readers couldn't even check it up. Why have it at all? TharkunColl (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of readers can't check up on the sources used in Molecular biology; so what?
The statement is a historian's fact about the history of the Canadian Crown; how is that not relevant to an article on the history of the Canadian Crown? --G2bambino (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't even describe what the historian said, which it especially ought to if the source is offline. It is useless. It gives no information. TharkunColl (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it used to say almost verbatim what the historian said. Why do you make claims about stuff you know nothing about? --G2bambino (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then what's all this guff about half a dozen monarchies that date from before the foundation of their country? If even the historian didn't say what he was talking about, then we should just get rid of it as worse than useless. TharkunColl (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only in your opinion. --G2bambino (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And I'll do so, as well, unless someone else can come up with a good reason not to. That line adds no information to the article, and merely serves to create confusion - i.e. it is worse than useless. TharkunColl (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'd better seek out that other person, then. You're the one contesting this, the onus is on you to prove why the change should be made. Your personal opinion just doesn't cut it. --G2bambino (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, if there's no identification for those 'six other monarchies', then that makes their existance questionable (and thus the source unreliable). Suggest removing the 'other six' info. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, GoodDay, we go by WP:V in terms of reliability. There is no "other six" anyway. Monet says "approximate half dozen." --G2bambino (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G2, why have you changed the line to say that the crown has a lineage to the French crown, when it doesn't? TharkunColl (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it makes no sense, because the "Canadian Crown" was created at precisely the same time as Canada. If an article is demonstrably wrong, then why cite it? Why is some historian's word better, for example, than the Secretary General of the Commonwealth on another issue? TharkunColl (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know that it's wrong. --G2bambino (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is wrong, because what it is saying in effect, is that the Canadian Crown dates to a time before the Canadian Crown was invented. But why is a historian's word better than the Secretary General of the Commonwealth? TharkunColl (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your paranoia, it seems, knows no bounds; now even nice old university professors are in on the great conspiracy to bring down the United Kingdom. You've uncovered an evil plot by us Canucks, Thark! You've found us out! E gads! --G2bambino (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that statement says more about your own state of mind, than mine. I merely asked how come his words are citable, but not those of the Secretary General of the Commonwealth? TharkunColl (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're citable because they come from a source. Your Secretary General comment is citable, in the right context. I've explained this to you at your talk page; you obviously don't care enough to listen, though. --G2bambino (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think those 'six others' might be the First Nations chiefs. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're the crowns of those countries that have never been a republic; i.e. Japan, Thailand, Norway, Liechtenstein, etc. But who cares what anyone thinks they are, it isn't really the point. --G2bambino (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what is the point he's trying to make? It makes no sense. TharkunColl (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It makes perfect sense: Canada is one of very few countries that has continuously been a monarchy since before the formation of its modern incarnation. How hard is it for you to understand things? --G2bambino (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be removed, but I'm not removing it. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have to argue why it should be removed. If I've learned anything from all the content disputes I've been through, many of them with you, it's just that. --G2bambino (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beause the source for it, is unreliable. It doesn't say what those six are. My reason -unreliable source-. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, your opinion is noted but, fortunately or unfortunately, your personal feelings don't decide what a reliable source is and isn't. --G2bambino (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be outvoted, G2. Will you be launching another edit war if I remove it? TharkunColl (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote has taken place, nor has any consensus been reached. If you wish to pursue dispute resolution, go ahead and do so, but it is your responsibility as the person who is questioning content. --G2bambino (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've no intentions of 'removing' material. You guys will have to figure things out - I'm just getting in the way. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Monarchy in society of the First Nations

[edit]

'The history of monarchy in Canada stretches from the pre-colonial times of Canada to the present day'.

'Monarchy has been a concept in Canada since before the first encounters between French and British colonizers and indigenous North Americans.'

May I suggest a problem with these statements? I believe that if this article treats of monarchy in Canada it should restrict itself to the Western concept of monarchy. As the article does say, it was Europeans who called the leaders of some of the First Nations monarchs. But they actually did not have the concept of a single person ruling alone and passing power by hereditary succession. The two statements ought to be ommitted.--Gazzster (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not simply delete material, especially that which is cited. If you have a problem with the content, edit it or discuss how to improve it here first.
I'll have to take a more detailed look at the segments in question later (probably tomorrow), but for the time being can say that there were indeed hereditary chiefdoms amonst First Nations. --G2bambino (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't I delete material? If I can justify it, why shouldn't I, in the interests of a good article? You are equally free to restore them. But if you're inviting a discussion about the material on this page, I'd be happy to participate.--Gazzster (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't "justified" it to anyone but yourself, apparently. Some of that material was definitely cited, yet you deleted it. Why? Seemingly because it said what you believed to be wrong.
I've thought for some time that the pre-colonial segment of this article needed expansion, not reduction. So, working to improve the content there would be more appreciated than it's unilateral removal. --G2bambino (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did in fact examine the cited material. And it did not support the idea that pre-colonial civilisations were monarchies. I am not so crass as to delete valid material because I 'believed it wrong'. I'd thank you to assume good faith. Your latest edits, which I'm still not entirely happy with (but never mind) downplay the idea that there is a continuity between Native American civilisations and Western European civilisation. That is what I was objecting you. If you want to write an article about pre-colonial Canada, by all means do so. It would be interesting. But I suspect it has already been done. Cheers.--Gazzster (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Monarchy, tribal chiefs are mentioned. Don't the chiefs fit the monarchy description? IMHO, the chiefs belong in this article. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't know a lot about the government of Native American nations. I do know that the concept of Western European monarchy does not sit well with indigenous peoples. My objection is to establishing a continuity between pre-colonial, Native American governance and colonial Western institutions. It is quite frankly bizarre. But as I say, the article has been toned down in that regard.--Gazzster (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, monarchy isn't limited to Western Europe. As for continuation of 'native rooted monarchy' into 'european rooted monarchy'? one can always add section headings to avoid that impression of continuation. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But they are two very different concepts. And if you are going to have two sections within an article called 'history of monarchy in Canada', we cannot avoid the suggestion of continuity, can we? When G2 writes about monarchy in this and the curious plethora of other Canadian monarchy related topics, he is talking about an institution whereby a single crowned head, answerable only to God and possessing within him/herself the entirety of authority over a dominion, who passes authority down by primogeniture, governs a nation (sorry about the long sebntence!). 'Monarch' is actually a broader concept than that. But we can tell by contedxt that that is the concept the article is talking about. The First Nations do not have this concept. In fact most aboriginal civilisations have more communual ideas of governance.--Gazzster (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'll have to let you & G2 figure these things out. This topic is getting over my head. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This all seems a rather convoluted way to find out what someone's objections are. None-the-less, I see now that the two links used as cites for the opening sentences of the first section no longer exist; this is a surprise to me. I know there's a process by which broken links can be retrieved, but don't personally know how to do this. If that could be done, it would probably go a long way to settling the current text. In the meantime, I hope people will trust that I did faithfully take what those sources said as a base for the present wording.
Also, Gazzster, I think you've completely misread the title of this article, and thus are confused about the content. The page is called History of monarchy in Canada, not History of the monarchy of Canada; a subtle but important difference. In pre-colonial Canada there were chiefdoms that operated on a hereditary system of governance, which is what we define, in English, as a monarchy. Therefore, there's no reason not to include the First Nations in this article. If the page appears to state something about some continuity between the First Nations monarchies and the present day Crown, it shouldn't. Feel free to fix whatever is wrong, though I've already demonstrated that deletion isn't an absolute necessity. --G2bambino (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your coutesy. I'm certainly not suggesting bad faith on your part. As you say, we agree about the continuity problem. I do understand the difference between titles. But my objection was to the concept of monarchy which seems to be understood here in theWestern sense. By the way, have you suggesting inserting as a section of Monarchy of Canada? Only a suggestion.--Gazzster (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Prince William 1.jpg

[edit]

Image:Prince William 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about other Monarchs who have lived in Canada?

[edit]

This might not be the point of this article, but this is the best place I can think of to post it. What about other Monarchs that have lived in Canada, such as the Dutch queen, during WW2? Several foreign monarchs have lived in Canada, while the British Monarch has not. Shouldn't there be a section, or at least a mention of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned. --G2bambino (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, sorry I somehow missed that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The image Image:PPCLI.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Royal Mail"?

[edit]

Is there any source of the Canadian postal service ever being called the "Royal Mail"? I've looked and I can't find anything.--Ibagli rnbs mbs (Talk) 05:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything either. The photo of the "Royal Mail Canada" mail box seems to bear the royal cypher of King Edward VII, suggesting that a change would have been made between 1902-1910 or afterwards. Although, I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Royal Mail no longer ran postal services in Canada after 1840. I'd be curious to find out. Trackratte (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What About Newfoundland?

[edit]

Not sure I understand the criteria fully for deciding who was or wasn't a monarch of 'Canada'. Queen Anne is mentioned, but during her reign 'Canada' was a French colony and British colonial interests in what became Canada was limited to Nova Scotia and...Newfoundland. But if British possession of any territory that would become Canada is the criteria for this article (as it seems to be in the case of QA), then shouldn't the list of English monarchs go back to the founding of the first English colony at Cuper's Cove on Newfoundland in 1610 for consistency? Corlyon (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new Elizabethan era?

[edit]

Was there an old Elizabethan era? We need a new section heading. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William III of ORANGE

[edit]

I don't think William of Orange can be considered a Stuart. He falls under the Stuart column in the chart section. His wife, Mary II is curiously absent. Perhaps she could be added and House of Orange can be added to the title in the Stuart column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesbro (talk • contribs) 18:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

[edit]

The accuracy of List of Canadian monarchs—and the reliability of its sources—has been challenged by several editors. One solution is to merge the content here by adding a list of monarchs who ruled over Canada to this article. Why do we really need an article that contains lists already repeated in several places at Wikipedia? Especially when very few of the listed individuals were actually monarchs of Canada rather than merely over (part of) it. We can list them here, and the accompanying text can explain how the monarchy developed in its relationship to the Canadian colonies up to and after Confederation. Srnec (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The goal of the current article is to provide a general overview of the history of monarchy in Canada. A detailed list of every sovereign who has ever ruled over Canada is not necessary for such a broad overview. If a reader is interested in reading into more specific information such as a list of all sovereigns throughout Canadian history, then they can easily click on the wikilink in the lead or in the See Also section to view it in detail. Merging a list into a general article does nothing with regards to the list's supporting references except to move a prior conversation from one talk page to another. I think the removal of such fine-grained information from a general information article that is already repeated elsewhere is a much better solution. trackratte (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This aritlce is already too large; if there's to be any merger, it should go the opposite way to that proposed, per WP:SPLIT (though, I do approve of the method used to list the monarchs here). List of Canadian monarchs is well sourced, meaning the 'accuracy' reasoning for merging that list into this article is a straw-man. If explanations are necessary or there's problems with the material at List of Canadian monarchs, it can be addressed through editing that page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Solve the dispute first - not a valid reason or even logical reason to merger. -- Moxy (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the dispute appears to be mostly resolved—we're down to quibbles and I won't quibble further—I still think that having a large list of monarchs for a country with no unique monarch, plus a history of its monarchy and an article on the monarchy as part of its constitution seems a bit overkill to me. I will thus let somebody else close the merger proposal. Srnec (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since the UK doesn't have a "unique monarch", either, then, by extension of your own logic, List of British monarchs should be eliminated as overkill, or, at least, trimmed back to end at George V.
I agree that something should be done about the duplication between this article and List of Canadian monarchs, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May have to fix a ref duplication or two but copy and paste move from main article is the best bet i think. -- Moxy (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm fine with the bulk of the information being at List of Canadian monarchs and having a brief summary here. However, as I said above, I think the way the lineage was presented here was illustrative. That's now been entirely lost. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can talk - was thinking your the one guy that would be ok with it LOL - Would you like me to revert? I think the other page (with its source and notes) is much better for our readers then what was here. -- Moxy (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A simple summary would be the most I would expect at this page. I think that if we find it that important to preserve the previous table formatting from this article then it should be placed at the list page, in addition to the one already present. trackratte (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, am I the only one who thought the way the line was presented here had value? It seemed more easily understandable, especially in regard to the overlapping lines of French and British sovereigns. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it has no value. I do much prefer the way it is currently presented at the list page, but I see no reason why we couldn't have a simplified bar chart showing the same info (overlapping crowns) with, as an example, a simple solid blue bar for the French crown, solid red for the British crown, and a solid white with red outline for the Canadian crown. This way I see it adding some value, without listing any names and thus passing over the same info in less detail as is already presented. trackratte (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing monarchs

[edit]

It appears two Spanish kings are missing (among others) from this article, if it includes monarchs who claimed territory in what would become Canada as it is today. The district of Louisiana was a part of New Spain, and included parts of what is now Alberta and Saskatchewan from 1762 to 1803. That would suggest that Charles III and Charles IV of Spain should be noted. It was also under Charles IV that a Spanish settlement was established on Vancouver Island in 1789. Maps I have seen indicate a Spanish claim to the entire west coast of today's B.C., as well as significant territories inland.

Similarly, Russia claimed much of the B.C. coast and inland areas, including what would become the southwestern part of Yukon Territory, from 1799 to 1825. This augurs for the inclusion of Paul I and Alexander I of Russia (and perhaps Nicholas I, depending on exactly when in 1825 the Treaty of St. Petersburg was finalized).

One minor piece of land may also have us add Margrethe II of Denmark, if not her predecessor, Frederick IX. Hans Island is claimed entirely by both Denmark and Canada. Whether Canada gets it all or it's divided between the two countries, it would be fair to include this monarchy...or are we not mentioning monarchies with whom Canada has or had (as Canada or Britain) a boundary dispute?

Where do non-monarchical heads of state receive acknowledgement? That part of Louisiana which is today's Alberta and Saskatchewan was part of the United States from 1803 to 1818. U.S. Presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe were the heads of state in these years. Yoho2001 (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canada has never had Spanish kings or American presidents. Other countries claims to lands have no effect on who the sovereign of the Canadian nation or state is. Second, no sources that list all of the sovereigns of Canada make any mention to Spanish or Russian monarchs, or to American presidents as being sovereign over Canada, and for good reason. The history of monarchy in Canada does not include "monarches who claimed territory in what would become Canada", but of monarchs heading Canada as a contemporary political entity. trackratte (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of this article speaks "of what is now Canada," suggesting that we're talking of monarchies over lands that would become the modern nation-state. Reading the section "Kingdoms and colonies", there are fairly clear opportunities to insert information. There is also a section called "Monarchies of Canadian territories", oddly at the bottom of the article, even though it speaks of the earliest days and might be promoted. It refers to monarchs "over territories that would become Canadian or over Canada itself". Spanish and Russian monarchs could well be included here. Perhaps there could also be an acknowledgement of non-monarchical leaders over lands that would become Canada, to round out the history. Yoho2001 (talk) 07:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on History of monarchy in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on History of monarchy in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on History of monarchy in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_monarchy_in_Canada&oldid=1207553382"