Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Name of WikiProject

I wander if this WikiProject should be renamed to -WikiProject: Commonwealth Royalty? GoodDay 16:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, more than a thousand years' worth is British, the Commonwealth has had royalty for a tiny fraction of that... But that's just my opposition – I wonder what others think. DBD 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that taking a purely historical, as opposed to current, point of view? The British monarchy's roots lie deeper in the UK than anywhere else, for certain; however, in contemporary reality that one monarchy is no longer purely British. In certain contexts, calling either the institution or the family only British is quite incorrect. --G2bambino 19:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
No it is taking a sensible and reasonable view. Although the Royal Family is shared, is remains mainly British. For a start, the members live there, are British themselves and is how they are known the world over. Start banding about created phrases like "Commonwealth Royalty", and it will only confuse people, and support your normal pro-Canadian POV. While of course it is important to mention the monarch's role as Queen of 16 countries, this does not apply to her family. As I've been recently informed, only Canada have formally a Royal Family, making this insistance even stanger. They are known the world over as British, live there, work there, are British and a suggestion to change this, makes Wikipedia look pathetic and highly-biased. --UpDown 08:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Your points make no sense. Elizabeth II is known the world over as the Queen of England. Should we change her article and all references to her to reflect this? That would, after all, be sensible and reasonable from your standpoint.
What does make sense is acknowledging the facts:
  1. The person who is monarch of the United Kingdom is also, separately, monarch of 15 other countries.
  2. The Royal Family of that monarch performs official duties on behalf of not only the United Kingdom government, but, separately, for the governments of the 15 other countries of which the monarch is monarch.
  3. The Canadian government, and, indeed, the Queen herself, acknowledge the existence of a Canadian Royal Family
  4. The monarch and Royal Family have a longer connection to the United Kingdom
  5. The monarch and Royal Family are (probably because of point 4) predominantly perceived by the general public as being British
To ignore any of the above is what sheds light on a bias.
I agree that "Commonwealth royalty" is misworded; there is more than one royal house in the Commonwealth. "Commownealth realms royalty" might be more appropriate as it limits the scope to only the 16 countries that share the crown, monarch, and royal family. "British and other Commonwealth realms royalty" is accurate, but just seems too wordy. --G2bambino 15:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Would it be alright with this WikiProject, if 15 sister-WikiProjects were created? - WikProject Canadian Royalty, WikiProject Australian Royalty etc, or is the possibility of 16 related WikiProjects conflicting each other, too great? GoodDay 15:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You know, I was just thinking about that. But, besides wondering about whether the scope of articles is big enough to warrant such a creation, this wouldn't solve problems that arise at articles where the context goes beyond one particular country. What might be valid is your earlier suggestion of a brand new WikiProject relating to the Commownealth realms as a whole, to which this BRoy one would be subordinate. Is that feasible? --G2bambino 16:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
There would be almost nothing to put in such projects - and literally nothing at all if one wished to exclude information already included in this one. A point you "forgot" to mention above is that the reason why those 15 other realms have the Queen as their head of state is precisely because she is the British monarch, and Britain is the former colonial power. I oppose any name change or subordination of this project. TharkunColl 16:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Then the amount overlap alone shows the limited scope of this project's title. --G2bambino 16:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Articles relating to the British monarchy will cover a period of 1500 years or more, only a tiny proportion of which will cover the period since 1931. It's those other putative projects that will be very short on content. TharkunColl 16:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Then I'm not sure what you mean; it was you who said a Commonwealth realms WikiProject would contain nothing not already covered in this one. That, to me, shows overlap. --G2bambino 16:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but out of the two, this one would also contain a massive amount more. Only a small proportion would deal with events since 1931. TharkunColl 16:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I honestly can't see a problem with creating a WikiProject Canadian Royalty. The core of these disputes is quite apparent aswell- Ownership of the monarchy. GoodDay 17:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Ownership of the monarchy is indeed precisely the point. It was the English parliament that asserted ownership of the monarchy with the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and sealed it with the Act of Settlement of 1701. TharkunColl 17:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
And since then things have changed. --G2bambino 17:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I assure you that succession to the throne is still governed by the Act of Settlement - a fact of some controversy in our age of religious and sexual equality. TharkunColl 17:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but that doesn't prove how nothing has changed. --G2bambino 19:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It's apparent this WikiProject won't be renamed, that's acceptable. Is there a better place we can argue monarchy ownership? GoodDay 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind where, as long as we don't have to do it on three different pages! TharkunColl 17:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, we'll keep it here, since I can't think of another place. GoodDay 17:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Are there not sixteen different monarchies? Each country "owns" its own monarchy, who just happens to be the monarch of 15 other countries. As for the name of this WikiProject and the articles it encompasses, from past royals up until now, the only thing they all have in common is that they all are or were members of the British Royal Family. George IV wasn't a member of the Canadian or Australian or New Zealand royal family. Leave it where a common name can apply to it all. Charles 21:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we're debating the WikiProject's Name anymore. It's remaining at British. GoodDay 22:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Late to the party, but I just wanted to add, in case this idea is resuscitated, that "Commonwealth royalty" would also include the Sultan of Brunei, the King of Lesotho, the various monarchs of Malaysia, and the kings of Swaziland and Tonga. That would clearly be a different project from this one. john k (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Who's monarchy is it?

As pointed out above, we've a major problem concerning these disputes (see above). Who's monarchy is it, the Brits or the whole Commonwealth? GoodDay 17:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinon, it's the whole Commonwealth's monarchy (or monarchies). How this came about isn't important, what's important is that it exists. Elizabeth II is equally Queen of the UK, Canada, Australia etc. GoodDay 18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I must also admit though, common usage demands that British be in place. GoodDay 18:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
How it came about is the very essence of why it exists. It is no accident that 15 countries around the world choose to recognise the British monarch as their own. But the statistics prove that it is merely a transitional phase from colony to independent republic. More than 50% of those countries who have experienced this are now republics. TharkunColl 19:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Edward VIII's abdication had to be approved by all Commonwealth realm Parliaments (not just the British Parliament). GoodDay 19:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
How anything came about is the essence of why it exists, but in this case: so what? The present situation is one of a shared monarchy; the UK does not have full control over that institution at this time. Hence, it is the UK's monarchy, but it is also, equally, every other Commonwealth realm's as long as said country remains a Commonwealth realm. --G2bambino 19:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It is not a case of "So what?" at all. The Royal Family live and work in Britain, and are themselves British. The common usage is overwhelminghly British Royal Family. Of course with that you've argued the normal "Queen of England". Thats totally different. Common usage doesn't apply in that case because its totally wrong, and also its not exclusive usage, she is often known as Queen of Britiain, or Queen of UK etc. The British Royal Family are never referred to as anything except "British Royal Family" (I'm talking about the Family, not the Queen). To make references to "the Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms" is an invented title made by you to suit your POV. Queen Victoria was Empress of India, should we therefore say that her children were members of the Indian Imperial Family? The British Royal Family should always be referred to as that, anything else is invented, illogical and POV.--UpDown 08:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
That is indeed a case of "So what"?
  • The Royal Family live and work in Britain. So what? Where they live isn't really relevant; they work outside Britain as well.
  • The Royal Family are British. So what? They're also defined as subjects of the Canadian monarch.
  • The common usage is "British Royal Family." So what? Common usage is not always correct.
  • The British Royal Family is never referred to as anything except "British Royal Family." So what? Of course the British Royal Family would be called the British Royal Family. The point is, though, that the same group of people are called the Canadian Royal Family in different contexts.
The only assertion you make that aren't a case of "So what?" are:
  • References to "the Royal Family of the United Kingdom of the Commonwealth realms" is an invented title. Completely wrong. It is a description appropriate to certain contexts.
  • Referring to this group of people as anything other than British Royal Family is invented POV. Completely wrong. Sources support that this same group is also called the Canadian Royal Family; from the Queen's own mouth, not less.
With no pertinent and valid evidence to support your assertions, I'd be careful in accusing others of promoting an invented POV. --G2bambino 16:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I cannot believe the above, I really can't. How you can say "So what" when you admit the British Royal Family are always called that. When, outside Wikipedia, do you hear mention to the "Canadian Royal Family"? No often, if at all. It really is time you accept that the Royal Family is primarily British, though history, current situation and everything. I really have had enough of your POV. And "the Royal Family of the United Kingdom of the Commonwealth realms" is an invented title, you created it. --UpDown 08:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The Royal Family is primarily involved with the UK; no one has ever disputed that. It seems then you're fighting a non-existent battle. --G2bambino 15:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I've considered taking this dispute to an MoS page - Problem is, which one? GoodDay 17:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps taking this to a Mediation Committee is the next step? GoodDay 15:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, one of the problems here is a failure to understand the difference between a legal construct ("the Crown" of any given country), and the actual person. This is not surprising, I think, for people who live in countries where the actual person is largely absent. If they lived in Britain they would realise just how ubiquitous the monarchy really is, and then they would be in no doubt that the monarchy is primarily British - in almost everything it says and does. TharkunColl 16:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's disputed their primary involvement with the UK. Why keep bringing this argument up? --G2bambino 17:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Because it is extremely relevant to the issue at hand. Please don't just reply "No it's not!". Try and justify your opinion. TharkunColl 17:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It's relevant, but not disputed. So, allow me to rephrase myself: why bring up a non-existent argument? --G2bambino 17:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Tharky, nobodies arguing that E2 & family are living in the UK, performing most of their duties in the UK and are identified mainly as British. Nobodies arguing that. GoodDay 17:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The fact that what the monarchy does is primarily British means that the monarchy is primarily British. It's actually very simple and obvious. Please attempt to refute this without just saying it is a "non-argument", or whatever. TharkunColl 17:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Nobodies ever argued that the monarchy was viewd mostly as being British. GoodDay 17:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This depends; "monarchy" is a broadly defined term. The Crown is shared equally. The monarch is shared equally, though is most directly involved in the UK's affairs. The Royal Family is shared equally, though they most often act officially on behalf of the UK. So, yet again, nobody's disputing either the Queen's or her family's primary association is with the UK. --G2bambino 17:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I still don't understand the reason for resisting 'Commonwealth realms' being mentioned on these royalty articles. Particularily when we're accepting usage of United Kingdom ahead of it. GoodDay 17:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I know. It completely baffles me as well. --G2bambino 17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The Commonwealth realms Compromise

Given it alot of thought. I feel we need a compromise for all Commonwealth realm related articles. Here's my idea - 1)For British related articles we use the line United Kingdom and fifteen other Commonwealth realms, 2)For Canadian related articles Canada and fifteen other... , 3)For Australian related artirlces Australia and fifteen other... etc. Any other suggestions? GoodDay 19:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed a fine proposal, except for its inability to deal with those articles where the context isn't as specific, such as articles on the members of the Royal Family, or commonly shared institutions, or burial plots. In those examples the description that combines both clarity and accuracy is "...of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms"; a composite of the "British-first" and "Commonwealth-shared" facts. --G2bambino 19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
For articles that are about the whole Commonwealth, I have no particular objection to "United Kingdom and fifteen other Commonwealth realms". But in articles about Britain, and its monarchy, there is simply no need to mention the other realms. We don't say, "Gordon Brown, Prime Minster of the UK, First Lord of the Treasury, Minister for the Civil Service, MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath" every time we mention the British Prime Minister - we only mention his other titles if they have a direct bearing on the article in question. In other words, we should not give those other titles WP:Undue Weight. TharkunColl 19:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Noone has proposed the other realms be mentioned in every instance; could you please heed that important point. Only in certain contexts would it be appropriate and/or necessary; just as it would, at points, be appropriate and/or necessary to mention all of Gordon Brown's offices, or, at least, say "Gordon Brown holds the premiership of the United Kingdom as well as a number of other government related offices."
In areas where the scope is more broad is where the other realms would be mentioned; for instance, in the opening of a Royal Family member's page: "[XX] is a member of the Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms." The dab at the head of British Royal Family then explains the shared nature. In other, more specific contexts, however, "British Royal Family" or "Canadian Royal Family" will be acceptable. --G2bambino 19:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the fifteen thing, we already know there's sixteen realms. GoodDay 19:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If this compromise is turned down, we may have to go to Mediation. I'm not a fan of making deals like this, but it maybe what's needed to break this continous 'logjam'. GoodDay 19:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The main problem is the insertion of POV into articles that have nothing to do with the Commonwealth at all. If we had an article about a member of the royal family opening some supermarket somewhere in the UK, would we have to say "and the other Commonwealth realms"? No, such a notion is preposterous. TharkunColl 19:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
As that is British-specific, no, that would not be necessary. --G2bambino 19:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, now if the royal opened a supermarket in Australia, we would use Australian. The compromise can be tweaked for such incidences. It's our compromise to mold, I just felt we needed a base to begin with. GoodDay 19:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
In such an article, it would also need to be stated that the "Australian" royal family is also the British one. Otherwise we would simply be confusing and misleading our readers - i.e. giving them the impression that Australia has its own monarchy. We must always assume that our readers are ignorant of the facts - this is, after all, an encyclopaedia. TharkunColl 00:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Only if it's stated in other articles that the "British" Royal Family is also the Australian one. Otherwise we would simply be confusing and misleading readers - i.e. giving them the impression that Britain had its own monarchy. --G2bambino 00:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, forgive me for stating the bleeding obvious, but Britain does have its own monarchy. TharkunColl 00:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it shares a monarchy with fifteen other countries; within the UK it's British, within Australia it's Australian. --G2bambino 00:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
And how often is it "within" Australia? TharkunColl 08:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Whenever "it" acts regarding Australian affairs. --G2bambino 15:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
And how often is that? I'm not referring to people acting on behalf of the monarch, but acts of the monarch and her family in person. If you added up the duration of such instances for all of the other Commonwealth realms, it would still be dwarfed by the amount of time the monarchy acts in the UK. That is why the monarchy is still primarily, overwhelmingly, British, and will doubtless remain so. It has nothing to do with constitutional theory. TharkunColl 18:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about, Thark? As I said earlier, "monarchy" is a loosely defined term. The monarchy, as an institution - let's call that the Crown - acts all the time, in every realm; it's the perpetual source of all governmental authority in each of its jurisdictions. The Queen is the personal embodiment of the Crown, and the holder all that authority, and so she is Queen of all her countries equally, all the time. Because she has more personal contact with her British ministers than with her other ones doesn't preclude either this fact or the fact that when she exercises any authority or duty on behalf of a particular state she does so 100% as monarch of that country, not automatically as monarch of the UK.
Similarly, the members of the Royal Family may act more often on the direction of the British government, but that doesn't mean they don't "belong," per say, as much to any of the Queen's other countries. As subjects of the Queen of, say, Canada, members of the Royal Family are called upon by the Canadian government to represent the Queen of Canada at certain Canadian events, either locally or abroad. As they act for Canada in exactly the same manner as they do for the UK they're easily defined as the Canadian Royal Family, and have been.
Mentioning the Commonwealth realms in certain appropriate instances does not confuse or undermine the primacy of the UK in the everyday lives of the Royal Family members; so, again, concerns about the UK's primacy are irrelevant. --G2bambino 18:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Just as a thought experiment, what do you think would happen if Prince Charles constantly bombarded the Canadian PM and members of his cabinet with an endless stream of notes and suggestions about environmental policy, architecture, housing, this, that, and the other? And more to the point, why doesn't he? Why does he only choose to attempt to influence the British government? TharkunColl 18:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

An interesting thought experiment (and I don't know how much he does do that), but it's really not pertinent to the discussion. --G2bambino 19:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It is indeed pertinent. Prince Charles, by his actions, obviously feels that the British government is more "his" to influence than governments in the other realms. TharkunColl 19:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not really pertinent because your first question is a hypothetical, and your following statement is a supposition. --G2bambino 19:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's widen it out then. Do you know of any example of the Queen, or a member of her family, attempting to influence the Canadian government? In the UK we have the famous example from her Silver Jubilee in 1977 when she gave a speech with a thinly veiled criticism of the government's plans for devolution for Scotland and Wales (though why she didn't do it this time round is another question - perhaps she liked Blair better than Callaghan). TharkunColl 19:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it's not relevant. --G2bambino 19:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
If you don't agree with my argument, then you should try and refute it. Continually dismissing it as irrelevant is doing your case no good at all. I feel that my argument is very relevant, and you should try and engage with it on those terms. TharkunColl 19:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
You haven't made an argument; at least not one that pertains to this discussion. What Charles personally thinks is neither knowable by us, nor influential in any dispute against the proposed wording that's the subject of this discussion. Ditto for the Queen. I suspect you're beleaguering this "the royals are predominantly associated with the UK" point; i.e. you're still fighting a non-existent battle. --G2bambino 20:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No it is the British monarchy, other countries have since its inception taken it up. But is British.--UpDown 08:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
For non-Commonwealth realm related articles, we should go with British as Commonwealth would raise questions at those articles. GoodDay 19:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Depends on what country the monarch/royal family member is acting on behalf of. --G2bambino 20:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, country being represented. GoodDay 20:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If the suggestion to say on, for instance, Prince Andrew's article, "is a member of the Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms" - then I totally disagree. G2bambino admits above they are always known as the British Royal Family, never as anything else. How you can ignore this common usage is beyond me it really is. When common usage is as widespread as this, and with good reason to, it must be followed. We cannot simply invent what they are called. They are called the British Royal Family, it really is as simple as that. In cases where the commonwealth is relevant fine, but in article about the individual or graveyards it is not relevant in opening line. Common usage prevails. And please remember the link to British Royal Family immediatley explains is a shared Monarchy. --UpDown 08:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Putting words in my mouth is very poor form and undermines your credibility. I did not say they are "always" known as the British Royal Family; I said they are predominantly referred to as such. You also demonstrate that you aren't interested in hearing anything other than that which you want to; otherwise you wouldn't say completely inaccurate things like "they are called the British Royal Family, it really is as simple as that." Presented evidence proves you wrong. --G2bambino 15:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no presented evidence that they are known around the world as "the Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms". There is lots of evidence and sources that they are known as the British Royal Family.--UpDown 17:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No, there isn't evidence of them being called "the royal family of the United Kingdom and the other Commownealth realms"; I've said as much elsewhere. Then again, there's no cited evidence of John Buchan being called "a Scottish novelist, best known for his novel The Thirty-Nine Steps, and Unionist politician who served as Governor General of Canada." You see, Wikipedia isn't a collection of quotations. But, if you'd like to play that game then you'll have to accept "the Britsh Royal Family and Canadian Royal Family," which is accurate, and cited, but still ignores the evident role of the royals in the Queen's other realms. --G2bambino 17:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Cease fire

Why, why; why oh why is there such a kerfuffle? This project is not a place for this conflict – it is entirely irrelevant to its work. It matters not what we call the project, nor who "owns" the monarchy (which, by the way, is a ridiculous concept). This discussion will go nowhere because no party is willing to give. Everyone, please cease and desist – perhaps concentrate on editing – bring articles up to spec, etc. What say we? DBD 16:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, DBD, I neglected to address you: where would you suggest this be resolved? Perhaps GoodDay is correct to seek out the establishment of a Commownealth realms WikiProject. --G2bambino 19:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Well I agree in theory. But it is G2ambino, and to a lesser extent GoodDay, who started and caused this disgrement. No one else is hell-bent on insisting mentioning the Commonwealth realms at every opportunity. And I am not prepared to let them get their way when it is so blantantly POV, incorrect and anti-common usage.--UpDown 17:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Really, do grow up, and desist with your manipulation of other people's arguments. --G2bambino 17:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, he's got my jist – although he could have put a finer, subtler point on it, he is not entirely wrong on the last part. DBD 19:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand. --G2bambino 19:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I understand. Increasingly, more editors prefer not to add Commonwealth realms to every related page then those who wish to. Basically G2, you and I are loosing this argument. Our hopes of gaining a consensus (even on my proposed compromise) isn't catching on. It's best to accept what's being more commonly used - British -. If not we might be bordering on 'tentative editing'. GoodDay 20:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like the most practicable solution, sir DBD 20:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
GoodDay: That's what I suspect he's saying, but I can't fully grasp it; it just doesn't compute. From my stance, I see that nobody is able to prove "...of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms" as being wrong, or even misleading. All that's been presented is a lot of baseless assertions that then turned to unfounded attacks on our motives. Thus, there isn't really an argument to lose; in an argument your opponent actually has to debate against your points, not debate against imaginary points they created in their own minds. This is exactly why you can't understand their opposition to the propsed wording: there have been no logical arguments against it put forward, just ceaseless foot stomping. --G2bambino 20:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
A related addition: the point that all those opposed to the inclusion of mention of the Commonwealth realms in appropriate situations are all of a UK extraction might be more than coincidental, and may explain the emotional, illogical reaction to the proposal. --G2bambino 20:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It's over my friend, we've lost. Frustrating as it is, common usage and international recognition wins out. I know when I'm beat. GoodDay 20:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
That's bolloks; common usage and international recognition were never challenged. All that was put forward was a proposal to acknowledge, in appropriate contexts, the wider scope of a certain institution. No valid reason was put forward to say why that should not be done. As I said, we haven't lost because nobody actually debated us. --G2bambino 20:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, thricely whoa. Hang on there – not everyone has rejected all of your proposal out of hand – I personally am absolutely fine with appropriate mentions of the official status of the Commonwealth realms in the appropriate articles. And, as for the name of the WikiProject, it's unfortunate that including "and the Commonwealth realms" pushes the length of its title into the territory of unwieldly-ness. And as for the insinuation that myself, or any of the other contributors, are biassed against the inclusion of the Commonwealth's status and joint Sovereignship, and especially that that would be on account of simply being British – that, dear sir, makes you guilty of the very "crime" of which you would accuse others. Please, do not assume bad faith. DBD 21:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Then I am certainly completely confused! In terms of this project name: I could support a change, but really have little passion about the issue, and hence asked you, with genuine desire, where this debate might better take place. As far as I knew, the contest here, for some time now, has indeed been about the mention of the other Commonwealth realms, not in this project title, but in appropriate articles; yet, above, you seemed to support UpDown's assertion that to do just that would be "POV, incorrect and anti-common usage."
I was tentative about expressing my observations of the national characteristic common to all those so far opposed, or seemingly opposed, to the mention of the other Commonwealth realms in certain frameworks. Hence, I was careful and said it might be more than coincidence, and was perhaps worthy of consideration in tandem with the irrational responses coming from others (not you). I am trying to assume good faith, but piecing together some of what I see come out in discussion is what makes me smell bias so strongly, from one editor in particular.
I do hope, though, that we can clear this up. --G2bambino 21:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
And I couldn't help noticing that those who wish to diminish the status of the British monarchy are from former British colonies. Far be it from me to suggest that they may have that collective chip on their shoulder that is so common amongst colonials, and which seeks to belittle the mother country at every possible opportunity - like a rebellious teenager biting the parental hand that gave it life and existence in the first place. TharkunColl 23:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
One wonders who you're talking about; nobody here has "diminished" the British monarchy. You do seem to spend a significant chunk of your time fighting ghosts. --G2bambino 23:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No, this is your typical debating tactic - you deliberately interpret words and phrases according to your own POV. When I say British monarchy, I mean precisely that - namely, the monarchy that reigns over the UK and 15 of its former dominions. If you counter with the suggestion that the British monarchy is merely limited to the UK, you will, indeed, be attempting to diminish the British monarchy. TharkunColl 23:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Then you do the same; however my "POV" is backed by sources, yours is not. No edit I have done, or propose to do, diminishes the British monarchy. --G2bambino 20:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino, you comment on myself and TharkunColl being from the UK is a pointless one. You and GoodDay are both from Canada so I could say the same back. You seem to be unable to accept argument, constantly saying things like "baseless assertions" and "there isn't really an argument to lose; in an argument your opponent actually has to debate against your points, not debate against imaginary points they created in their own minds" and "there have been no logical arguments against it put forward, just ceaseless foot stomping". All these are what you are doing. We have presented many points, you just ignore them. Common usage demands British Royal Family. We seem to have a majority, so I suggest we end the disussion with that as a guideline. --UpDown 08:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This is precisely why I called for cease fire. This is no longer a debate, discussion or proper argument – it has become a spat. Stop it all of you.

Now, I strongly suggest you all agree (in as few words as possible) to the following amenable compromise, before I call in mediation:

  • In return for never having to read this ridiculous clash of POVs again, I will personally edit the Project's front page to include guidelines on the mention of CR etc in appropriate articles, and add a guideline like:

  • Where appropriate – i.e. in any case where the monarchy, or an aspect thereof, is/was shared between Britain and any other state independent therefrom – it will be necessary to make specific mention of the Commonwealth realms, at first specifically, but more generally thereafter. The main state on which the article concentrates (Britain unless stated elsewhere) will be used most often throughout the text, but only as primus inter pares, and never to the exclusion of all others in the article

  • Please say we can agree, or compromise, here? DBD 09:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
One question first. Does the above mean articles on members of Royal Family (except monarch) should read "British Royal Family" at opening line not "Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms", as should Royal Burial Ground and similar articles. If yes, then I agree. If no, I don't.--UpDown 12:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Where appropriate, yes, but please recognise that there may be cases where "Commonwealth realms" should be there. So that's an "enough yes for you to agree" :D DBD 12:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to be picky, but this is important to me. On, for instance, articles on the children/grandchildren of The Queen and for her cousins, what would you put? Would you add Commonwealth? --UpDown 19:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
That depends – I'd say in the cases of Charles and William, since they're in the direct line to the CR crown, and possibly Philip, because he accompanies the Queen on her CR tours – but the other royals have even less to do with the other realms, so I probably wouldn't make mention in the text – rather link British Royal Family, where the situation is explained DBD 19:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I too would say Philip, Charles, and William and Harry as they are in direct line to the throne. However, I would include the Queen's other children and a couple of her cousins; essentially only those who undertake duties at the behest of the Queen's non UK governments. If that's acceptable then your proposal seems more than adequate to me, DBD. Cheers. --G2bambino 20:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Acceptable indeed – but remember the watchword. Appropriate. Huzzah! Solution! DBD 22:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I've always mentioned the link, which as you say explains all. This is why I don't see it is necessary to mention Commonwealth in these circumstances. For Charles the current opening is as it should be. But with all others it should just read British Royal Family, the common usage and reflecting the historical and current situation. --UpDown 19:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox discussion for monarchs and royalty

Please have a look here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Royalty#Template:Infobox Monarch issues, new template. Charles 22:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes to some Commonwealt realms

Updating changes here -I've done the following: Monarchy in Canada, Monarchy in Australia, Monarchy in Jamaica and Monarchy in New Zealand to Canadian monarchy, Australian monarchy, Jamaican monarchy and New Zealand monarchy. It's a gradual process. GoodDay 21:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ran into a slight bump at Monarchy in Jamaica; if anybody wants to complete the changes (of all 16 articles) go ahead. If anybody chooses to revert, go ahead. Just be sure they're all consistant. PS- I've been a little fatigued these last few days. GoodDay 19:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino and I, have moved a few more pages from Monarchy in xxx to xxx monarchy. GoodDay 18:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Complete: All the existing Monarchy in xxx pages, have been moved to xxx monarchy. -Note- There's yet to be created Bahamas monarchy, Barbados monarchy, Grenadian monarchy, Papua New Guinean monarchy, Saint Kitts and the Grenadines monarchy, Sait Lucian monarchy. GoodDay 18:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
There's current on exception - Monarchy in Jamaica. GoodDay 19:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Continued below. — AjaxSmack 00:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Title format of Commonwealth realm monarchies

The following discussion was copied from Talk:Monarchy in Jamaica. It deals with deciding on the title format for all articles relating to the monarchies of the Commonwealth realms with a choice of [Realm] monarchy (e.g. Canadian monarchy, British monarchy) or Monarchy in [Realm]. Please read and continue the discussion below. — AjaxSmack 00:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Previous discussion

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

Vote Closed!

Title

I have moved the page back to Monarchy in Jamaica for consistency with all other similar articles. If this is not acceptable then all pages should be considered for a move together. TerriersFan 17:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we were kind of in the process of moving them all: Canadian monarchy, Australian monarchy, and this was Jamaican monarchy. Neither GoodDay nor myself had got around to doing the others. So, I suggest this be put back to "Jamaican monarchy again." --G2bambino 18:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
If this has been discussed elsewhere, it would be a could idea to have included liks to that discussion in the initial move. At this point, please provide a link to the discussions here before attempting another move. The current title was the result of discussions in the AFD process for these pages, and the consensus then was that "monarchy in X" was the preferred pattern for the titles. Moves involving a range of articles ought to have the consensus of more than 2 or 3 editors, and each article sould have had a notice that the moves were being discussed before hand. Thanks for your patience, and willingness to allow other editors to participate before proceeding with further moves. - BillCJ 18:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see where the AFD discussion concluded that "Monarchy in X" was preferred for titles beyond this article; and, even then, only because it's what the other non-UK realm monarchy articles used. The others have changed, so it only seems logical that this one follow suit, as it did before.
As for previous discussion, User:GoodDay opened one each at Talk:Canadian monarchy, Talk:Australian monarchy, Talk:New Zealand monarchy. Afer some months there was no opposition to his proposal, so, with my prompting, he went ahead and made the moves. This, so far, hasn't proved contentious in the least. --G2bambino 18:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
There was no discussion here and there should have been. When a batch move is proposed then it is better practice to raise a formal WP:RM proposal so an overview can be taken. TerriersFan 18:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, well, okay. It just didn't seem that moving this article would cause much issue as, fankly, few people actively edit it. --G2bambino 18:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
A few more related pages have been moved from Monarchy in xxx to xxx monarch (it's a gradual process). Therefore, this page should be changed (again) to Jamaican monarchy. GoodDay 18:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Uh, the main problem here is that this is the third title in six months for this page, and I think some of the other pages have had more than 3 renames. Also, while some discussion has taken place on one or two pages before the moves, the other pages are generally being moved without discussion. How often do we need to move thse pages? In my opinion, these pages have been moved too many times. I'm seriously considering requesting that these pages be move-protected to prevent another rash of barely-discussed moves. I'm pretty sure someone out there is going to object to "Jamaican Monarchy", if for no other reason than that fact the the Monarch doesn't even live there, and ditto for the other pages. We have redirects for a reason, so please, let's try discussing and choosing ONE title format, and stick with it this time! - BillCJ 18:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
All the other existing Monarchy in xxx pages have now been moved to xxx monarchy. Currently thus, this page is the lone exception. PS- I agree completely about the numerious movements, let's settle it. GoodDay 19:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The best way to "settle" it is to have a unified (across the various articles) consensus, which doesn't exist as yet. If you don't do that, when the issue comes up again, you'll have no consesnus to rest on, and we'll have to go through this all over again. This move does not have my support, but I'm not stopping anyone from going ahead and moving the page either. I just don't believe this issue is "settled" in any way that would preclude another round of non-consensual moves. - BillCJ 19:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Can't one have a benign consensus? After all, as I said, the issue was raised at three of the most popular articles and not a single person commented, either way. They've since been moved, and still nobody has commented. I don't recall there ever being a guideline set up that we're somehow opposing by doing this, and, in truth, most of the "Monarchy of [country]" articles only started with that title because they followed suit from "Monarchy in Canada." I can't see there having been any discussion as to why "Monarchy in Canada" was titled as it was. In the end, they should all be the same: either "Monarchy of [country]" (which includes making "British monarchy" into "Monarchy in the United Kingdom") or "[Country] monarchy." There's no reason for them to be different. --G2bambino 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Three times?? How many more "benign consensuses" are you going to have? It's not a consensus once someone objects. You can't have fiat decisions on one or two pages, and then claim consensus when someone objects on another page. As to there not having been discussions before for the previous moves, doesn't that "benign consensus" then prevent your moves now? - BillCJ 20:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I take it, then, your answer is "no." --G2bambino 20:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand, I'm just too fatigued to change them all back (thus another movement). PS- There's a discussion concerning Commonwealth realms at Wikipedia: WikiProject British Royalty, it sorta ties in here concerning Commonwealth realm equality. GoodDay 19:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Why even think about changing them back? --G2bambino 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with BillCJ - the set of articles need proper discussion by a WP:RM proposal. I am going out for a few hours and I am happy to raise one on my return. TerriersFan 19:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, in truth, they're not a set; there's nothing that states they all must be titled the same, and, in fact, they never have all been titled the same. Discussion about moving Monarchy in Canada, Monarchy in Australia and Monarchy in New Zealand took place at their related talk pages, and the proposal was met with no opposition; so the move of those pages was valid. However, I see no problem with discussing making these articles into a set, of sorts, and deciding on a common, across the board, title format. --G2bambino 20:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If it'll satisfy everyone, let's bring this to WP:RM, even though the article have already been moved. GoodDay 20:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed; as long as it's about establishing a common title form and then moving what articles to where. --G2bambino 20:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The collection of articles concerning the monarchies of the Commonwealth realms have always been, and continue to be uncommonly titled, having either a "Monarchy in [country]" or "[Country]ish/ian/etc. monarchy" format. This discussion regards deciding on a common format that all present and future realm monarchy articles should adhere to, and then making the appropriate changes.

I support the making of all article titles into a "[Country]ish/ian/etc. monarchy" format; it more consisely expresses that the article is about the monarchical insitution of that particular country, as opposed to a foreign body, which "Monarchy in [Country]" implies. --G2bambino 20:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep they should be "[Country]ish/ian/etc. monarchy" just like British monarchy, as the Commonwealth realms are of equal status. GoodDay 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
As has been pointed out before, the "Demonym monarchy" form does overlook the objective observation that, all technicalities aside, the vast majority of the shared monarchy is British in nature DBD 00:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
So you support that all articles, including British monarchy, should be titled as "Monarchy in [country]"? --G2bambino 00:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Monarchy in Jamaica is just fine since it is both descriptive and neutral. Questions about the status of the monarchy are dealt with in the article but the title should be as NPOV and as non-contentious as possible. In answer to the question above; yes I should prefer the others to have this form. The British monarchy page is somewhat different because there is no contention as to its status. Having said that Monarchy in the United Kingdom could be argued to be slightly more accurate since the monarchy covers the UK, not just the three countries of Great Britain. TerriersFan 00:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Concur with TerriersFans. User:Barryob, it is poor form to move a page during a discussion, but I'm not going to move it back myself until the discussion is over, and a final name chosen. - BillCJ 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have moved it back since the move, in the middle of a discussion, is both procedurally wrong and caused confusion with the templates. I have protected the page from non-admin moves to stop this move warring. The closing admin will determine the ultimate name. TerriersFan 01:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hold up! This discussion, I thought, was first and foremost about deciding on a common title format for all the articles. So, perhaps we should vote first on which format to use. I'll open a poll; I probably should have done this at the beginning. Sorry. --G2bambino 01:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Such as? --G2bambino 01:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no contention as to its status so the arguments for a move are less weighty than for the other realms where the status is contentious. TerriersFan 01:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "contentious status." --G2bambino 01:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, 1975 Australian constitutional crisis provides a flavour of one situation where the status of the monarchy, and the powers that could be exercised by the governor-general on the monarch's behalf, was contentious. TerriersFan 02:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I still don't understand. In what way did that make the status of the Australian Crown "contentious"? --G2bambino 02:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Poll

First, to decide on the title format for all articles relating to the monarchies of the Commonwealth realms. Please state which of the following two styles you prefer for the titles.

By the way, what's the main objection to Jamaican monarchy? I'm not clear on this. GoodDay 20:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
In addition to the arguments above it is simply not a used term. There are a miserable 10 8 Ghits for Jamaican monarchy, mostly from wikis here

TerriersFan 20:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, it don't look good for my proposals. GoodDay 20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's a pretty official reference to the Jamaican monarchy: [1]. --G2bambino 03:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Which is the abjective form? GoodDay 19:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
What's an abjective? :) The adjective form would be X-ian Monarchy. Don't know about a prohibition of adjective forms in the naming conventions. - BillCJ 19:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
So the pages have to be moved back to Monarchy in xxx? What about the British monarchy article? That too? GoodDay 19:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
No, that means the opposite. --G2bambino 21:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Guess that's a 'yes' (concerning the non-British pages) - I'll start reversing the pages tommorow (Friday). GoodDay 21:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend that. Not until there's verification that their format somehow violates a Wikipedia policy. --G2bambino 21:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Awaiting 'verification' then, if there's any. GoodDay 22:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I shouldv'e fixed that; I posted the above before reading BillCJ's post. From his findings it seems "[realm]ian/ish monarchy" is acceptible by WP standards.
What I glean from all of this is that people don't feel all sixteen articles should be titled the same way. That opens up a whole other can of worms. --G2bambino 22:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright, tommorow (Friday) I'll revert my changes -- It's best to have the articles as they were before the protesting. GoodDay 23:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, fine, except for Canadian monarchy, Australian monarchy and New Zealand monarchy where you individually asked for input, and nobody objected. No reason to move those back again. --G2bambino 23:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Will do. GoodDay 23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I did not realise there was a discussion on the name of the page the only reason I moved it was to match the other articles but I do prefer Monarchy in realm title for all countries. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 00:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Vigeur. On Canadian monarchy, Australian monarchy and New Zealand monarchy, they are included in this move poll, with Canada being specifically in the examples given. THe only possible exception stated was British monarchy, and I'm for moving it to Monarchy in the United Kingdom]] also, for consistency. - BillCJ 01:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
No, you're not – that particular move has not been agreed. DBD 01:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Chill :-), he's just expressing a view, the titles will be decided by the closing admin in due course, taking account of the balance of views. TerriersFan 01:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I've moved back all the page to Monarchy in xxx except for the Canadian monarchy, Australian monarchy and New Zealand monarchy (as those articles are still under dispute). PS- we've yet to create Monarchy in the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu. GoodDay 15:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Um, no, they're not under dispute. The decision to move those individually was made after sought opinion was expressed and without controversy. ---- G2bambino (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
A decision was made but they are now wrapped up in this broader poll. -- TerriersFan (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Not really, the point of this poll was to decide if all the articles should be of the same title. The decision seems to be: no. If there's to be no consistency, then each can be decided individually, as has already been done at those three articles. ---- G2bambino (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. The emerging consensus is that all the realms should be titled consistently with the possible exception of the British Monarchy. Just because things are not going as you would like is not a reason to splinter a perfectly reasonable poll. -- TerriersFan (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Then we'd best start discussing why there should be some bizzarre exception for the British monarchy article; as the poll stated, the decided format was to apply to all articles; it was only some participants who added on the extra special case for the British monarchy page. ---- G2bambino (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Cetainly I wouldn't want the United Kingdom to be somehow seen as special. It should be treated the same as everywhere else. And 'British' is a much looser term than just 'from the United Kingdom'. -- Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
It would just be silly to have some articles with the realm monarchy title and others with the Monarchy in realm i favour the latter for all realms that inclues having a Monarchy in the United Kingdom page. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 18:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
It's seem 3 general opinons have emerged from this Poll 1)have 'all' articles as Monarchy in xxx 2)have all articles as Monarchy in xxx -except British monarchy and 3) Have each article decide for itself, Monarchy in xxx or xxx monarchy. That about right? -- GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
No, what is emerging is that all articles should be Monarchy in xxx except for the British for which a separate discussion is needed. I count it at 5-2 so far. -- TerriersFan (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • (De-indent) I'm not where G2B gets the idea the 3 articles were exempt from the poll. the First line in the poll: First, to decide on the title format for all articles relating to the monarchies of the Commonwealth realms. Please state which of the following two styles you prefer for the titles. (Emphasis added.) You did not express any problems with the word all until after the results of the poll. So please, stop being disruptive, and allow the pages to be moved in line with the others. - -- BillCJ (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? What part of "all" are you not understanding? I set up the poll, so I apologize that it wasn't clear enough in its intent, but the point was that all articles be in one form or another. It seems they are not to all be in one form or another; hence, there's nothing to move the pages in line with. ---- G2bambino (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Until this squabble is settled, my fingers are tied. I'm not gonna change articles, only to have them reverted -- make up your minds. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Same or not the same?

Let's then decide first of all whether all the articles should be the same or not be the same in terms of their title format; some have expressed a desire for the British monarchy article to be somehow set aside as a special case, others disagree with that; I am of the latter group. Whether "Monarchy in [realm]" or "[Realm]ian/ish monarchy" isn't of great importance to me (though I prefer the latter), but I believe whichever is used it should apply to each page; no exceptions. ---- G2bambino (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We've got a consensus for all/no exceptions, now what do we want? Monarchy in xxx or xxx monarchy'. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ya get the feeling, there's gonna be a rumpous at British monarchy? -- GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well... Yes. But, I think there's ample notice of this discussion. I was just wondering if we'd let enough time pass to allow for people to weigh in. I might leave this until a week has passed: November 20. ---- G2bambino (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:RM requires five days which will have elapsed after 20:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC) (approx :-)) TerriersFan (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::::The consensus here is very clear on the matter - The British monarchy will have to be moved to Monarchy in the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

All Exception
5 3

Close of vote
Result: All No Consensus

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

Further discussion

What about "Monarchy of X"? Obviously, there's some kerfuffle about adjectives, so why not retain the possessive with an "of"?--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 08:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be equally acceptable to me. --G2bambino (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Why not? Because the possessive might imply (sole) possession of the monarchy, which only one can legitimately claim DBD 14:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Well then, here's the slightly confusing part where we have to make a choice: there is one shared monarchy but it is "divided" into sixteen. By my reading, "Monarchy in [xxx]" says the shared monarchy in that country, and "Monarchy of [xxx]" says the branch of monarchy operating solely in that country. Technically, either is correct. However, as someone has noted below, "Monarchy of [xxx]" is the predominant format for monarchy articles. --G2bambino (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
No more than List of Co-Princes of Andorra claims sole ownership of the President of France. My issue with leaving the British monarchy possessive while making the other ones "in X" seems to harkin back to the time before the Statute of Westminster when the monarch was merely the British monarch in a certain colony.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 19:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Again though, we're talking about all the Commonwealth realm monarchies (including the UK). GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It should also noted that other Monarchy pages on wikipedia go by the monarhcy of x format see Monarchy of Belgium and Monarchy of the Netherlands --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 19:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Great point Barry, you've hit a home run. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Are we getting close to closing this discussion & adopting Monarchy in x for all the articles? PS- I still got that guizing feeling in my gezzard, their gonna be an hassle when we 'move' British monarchy to Monarchy in the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
There's no way I would support such a move. What's the point? Simply a desire for uniformity at all costs? TharkunColl (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The consensus reached, is quite clear on the matter. British monarchy will have to be moved to Monarchy in the United Kingdom, any resistance would cause havoc & headaches (and who needs that?). GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes; the required five day period is up today, though to be safe I'd leave it 'till the end of the day (Eastern Standard Time??). Though, I think "Monarchy of [xxx]" is, as pointed out, the established precedent, not "Monarchy in [xxx]." --G2bambino (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Correct, Monarcy of x. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence of a consensus that "British monarchy" should be moved, except repeated statements by GoodDay that there is one. john k (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The poll above shows a 'current' consensus to move all articles to Monarchy of x; at least that's what I thought. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree all of them should be moved to Monarchy of x --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 18:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Given that several people expressed a desire for an exception for the UK, I don't see how that makes a consensus. john k (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Specifically, five people expressed a preference for no exceptions, and two for exceptions. In addition to those two, Tharkun has now expressed opposition, and I would join in that. That's not a consensus. john k (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Could the 'two' of you (JK & Tharky), please say so at the 'Poll' above? It would make it easier to keep count. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. Ther requisite 5 days are up. Even if Thark was against - though he didn't register his vote in the poll above - it would still stand at 5 to 3 in favour of the move. --G2bambino (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
And isn't that just typical of your attitude - use any method you can to suppress dissent. Well, I've voted now, so to describe your proposal as having a "consensus" is to be plainly absurd. You are trying to impose a mindless uniformity on an article where none is necessary or desirable. If you want to change British monarchy, you must achieve consensus on its own talk page, not here. TharkunColl (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
5 to 3 is still a majority. It may not be desirable to you, but more people feel you are wrong in that opinion than think you are right. If you wish to have the page moved again, you'll have to start another move request, per Wikipedia:Requested moves. There is no need for any discussion to take place at Talk:British monarchy, this vote was opened and conducted exactly as WP:RM dictates. Nothing is rendered invalid because of faulty process. --G2bambino (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I was just going to say, Tharky will never accept it. But he beat me to it. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Err, who wants to move the British monarchy article? I'm in no mood for page movement wars. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I know. I'm thinking about contacting an admin. --G2bambino (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
A naming convention requires a consensus, not a mere majority. 5-3 is not a consensus, and, as such, nothing has been agreed to, and we continue the current (non-)policy of having no general rules on this subject, until such time as a consensus can be had. If you want to move British monarchy in this context, go over there and do a requested move, as there is not any consensus for a change in general naming policy. I would add that, even if there was a consensus here, you would, as Tharkun says, still have to do a move request on the individual page, as Wikiprojects have absolutely no authority to determine naming rules. john k (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
This was set up exactly as WP:RM dictates, with all the appropriate notices set in the correct places, including at Talk:British monarchy. The discussion and poll obviously shows that the majority of people who chose to involve themselves felt that all the articles should be titled the same way. That in no way changes any naming policy, and, in fact, pulls all the titles more in line with the only applicable guideline: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers). Further, what counts as a consensus if not a majority? --G2bambino (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that all realms exluding the UK be moved to Monarchy of realm as this is the standard for other monarchy pages and then set up a WP:RM on the British monarchy page and ask for input there. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 03:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to quote wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Consensus:
In practice, a lot of people look in on an issue and check to see if a (mere) majority exists in favor of their position. While this quick and dirty rule helps you to figure out what to spend your time on, it is obviously *not* the same thing as finding the actual consensus (or what it will end up as). To do that, you actually need to carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves (including any additional concerns that may have been raised along the way), the basis of objection of those who disagree, and in more complex situations, existing documentation in the project namespace should also be checked. If you are volunteering to carry out an action on the basis of rough consensus, only this thorough approach is acceptable.
Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and discussion should continue in an effort to try to negotiate the most favorable compromise that is still practical. In situations with a deadline, a perfect compromise may not have been reached by all participants at the deadline. Nevertheless, a course of action should be chosen that is likely to satisfy the most persons (rather than merely the majority). Running roughshod over the (then) minority is the best way to get yourself into almost unlimited amounts of trouble. Besides, next time someone from that minority might be the final closer, and you might be one of the people in a minority, so it's a good idea to be a gentleperson at all times and set a good example.
So, no, majority is not the same thing as consensus. john k (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
In this case, though, the question was an either-or situation; either they are all the same or they are not all the same. There can't really be an in-between scenario there. --G2bambino (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it's actually not an either-or situation. It's a proposal to create a new convention. If there's no consensus to create such a convention, then there's no convention. That's how it works. The burden is on those wanting to change things to demonstrate a consensus in favor of change. In the lack of such a consensus, things stay how they are until a consensus can be achieved. john k (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you tell me what lies between "all the same" and "not all the same"? --G2bambino (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, obviously if you put it that way, there are two options. That being said, we have identified at least three ways these articles can be called (X Monarchy, Monarchy in X, and Monarchy of X), with no clear sense that there's a strong consensus for one over the other - Barryob has just again expressed a preference for "Monarchy of X". Furthermore, obviously "not all the same" features a number of possible ways to do things within itself. There is clearly no consensus for any general, uniform policy. In general, it is unwise to have sequential polls in which first one decision is made, and then another one. In a case like this, it is best to offer a number of different options, each of them already complete, and use approval voting to find out which one is acceptable to the largest number of people. As it is, all we know is that five people prefer "no exceptions" to "exception for the UK", but this isn't really sufficient to give a full idea of what is the solution that would have the most support overall. I think starting over with a much clearer and more transparent voting system would be the way to go. john k (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Days ago, I started changing these pages over to x monarchy, so as to match British monarchy. Naively, I didn't think anybody would mind. But now (thanks to my stupidity), things have fallen apart. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
John, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "more transparent"; as though this one was somehow covert. Regardless, I did see early on that the survey was somewhat unfocused; that's why we narrowed it down to first deciding whether all should be the same or not all the same, and that much still seems clear. I think it would be a waste of time to start that part of this project all over again, but could see the merit in extending debate about what format the titles should follow. --G2bambino (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It'd have been better to have full options, rather than deciding one thing, and then another. I wasn't meaning to suggest anything covert, just that this was done in an awkward fashion. john k (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, well then, yes. I'd have to agree with that. --G2bambino (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
So is it a consensus or not (concerning all Commonwealth monarchies) to move to Monarchy of x? Make up ya minds people. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
PS- I've moved Canadian, Australian, Belizan & New Zealand monarchies to Monarchy in/of xx (tried to fix mistakes on in/of, but couldn't). GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
GoodDay, please don't move anything until this is settled. --G2bambino (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was settled, as far as the non-UK realms were concerned. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It appears not; the last poll was too confused. I suggest we start again. --G2bambino (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, let's start over again. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Start again

In the spirit of getting this done right, I suggest we start from scratch. I will place a boilerplate at the head of each article - not the talk, but the article - directing people here for discussion. Before I do so, I want to see if the boilerplate is acceptable. I propose:

It has been proposed that the articles pertaining to the monarchies of the Commonwealth realms
all be titled in a consistent format, which may or may not result in the moving of this article.
If you have an opinion on this matter, please see the discussion at Talk:Commonwealth realm monarchies .

Obviously the discussion would take place at that talk and not here; I feel it's more appropriate and an unbiased location.

Comments? --G2bambino (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed fully; off I go to 'Commonwealth realm monarchies'. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is fine. I suggest we work out what the options in such a discussion should be. I would suggest the following choices, with decision to be made by approval voting (i.e., everyone can vote for as many options as they want):

  1. All at "Monarchy of X";
  2. All at "Monarchy in X"
  3. All at "X Monarchy"
  4. All at "Monarchy of X", except the UK, which stays at "X Monarchy"
  5. All at "Monarchy in X", except the UK, which stays at "X Monarchy"

Are there any other options that have shown any support? If so, they could be added. A procedure like this would be the most likely to generate a result which has general consensus, I think. john k (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say one glaring omission is the option in which none are the same. I wonder, though, if there are too many options there to start with. Wouldn't it be more systematic to ask first if they should all be the same or not be the same, and then decide on which of the three formats should be applied? Consistency was, after all, the initial point of this exercise, and I think it remains such. --G2bambino (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "No Change" would seem appropriate, as well. In terms of format, I think that in a situation like this, approval voting for a wide range of options is much more likely to come to a mutually acceptable result. In terms of consistency, there are obviously a couple of perspectives. I think almost everyone would agree that all the former colonies should have the same format, since their monarchies are virtually identical. I think the issue of whether the UK should also be consistent with the others is more controversial, and should be dealt with separately. If, in the approval voting, a small number of options seem to be getting most of the votes, we can get rid of the others and vote on the top two, or something, later. john k (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, why not add: All at "Monarchy of X", except the UK and Canada, which stay at "X monarchy"? Or any variation thereof? It seems here that singling out the UK alone has already been accepted as a valid option; yet, why? That's why I agree with your point: in terms of consistency, there are indeed a couple of perspectives: consistent or not consistent. We should decide on which of those first, and then, if they're not to be consistent, which should be different and why. --G2bambino (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Because the UK is different from the others. Treating the others as a group makes sense. Treating the UK alongside them may or may not make sense. I think, for instance, that there is an interest in making the UK relatively consistent with the pages for other European monarchies. Those articles are not, at present, consistent with one another (some use "Monarchy of X" and some use "X monarchy"), but there are various reasons why we might want to make an exception for the UK. Beyond that, of course, is the fact that several people have already expressed a preference for an exception for the UK. Nobody has expressed a preference for an exception for anyone else. If you want to propose other possibilities, go ahead, but I think there should be one vote, where all options can be explored, rather than multiple votes. john k (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I've started this up at User:G2bambino/sandbox; I think the three options I've listed give ample choice without being too specific. I won't place it anywhere 'till we agree it's acceptable. --G2bambino (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's take this to Commonwealth realm monarchies, shall we? GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

::::::OK we'll haggle here: All those articles should be X monarchy, so as to avoid the friction at British monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the overseas realms should have their title in the form Monarchy in x, because this more honestly reflects that fact that they don't have their own independent monarchy, and instead continue to recognise the British monarchy. TharkunColl (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

::Give your opinon at Commonwealth realm monarchies, that's where this discussion's being continued. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Nevermind. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The poll isn't open yet; I shouldn't have placed it there. My apologies. --G2bambino (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I tweaked it...I think it's much better to offer as many options as possible to start with. john k (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
So many choices still looks a bit overwhelming. But, hey, we can't get anywhere unless we try. Let's go for it. --G2bambino (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Baffled

I honestly do not not see why we should change. I'm not being difficult: I genuinely cannot see what is the difference between, say, 'Australian Monarchy' and 'Monarchy in Australia'?--Gazzster (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're baffled? you've come to the right discussion. Seriously though, it's an article consistancy and Commonwealth realm equality thing. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I keep my fingers crossed that it's more for consistency than equality; though equality amongst the realms is tangentially related to this. Let's see how the vote unfolds. --G2bambino (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Consistency is a worthwhile goal - although it's worth noting the complete lack of consistency in our other articles about monarchies. For instance, we have Norwegian monarchy and Monarchy of the Netherlands. john k (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's be realistic. Speaking as somebody who grew up in the US (along with 2/3 of all native English speakers), I was completely unaware that Canada and New Zealand were kingdoms until very recently, but I was taught at a very young age that the UK is and has been for 1000 years. The commonwealth realms themselves are not equal or consistent, so why do the articles have to be? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 01:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you're gettin at. What do you mean by the Commonwealth realms are not equal or consistent?--Gazzster (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just that one of them has been around for a millennium, actually houses the Monarchy of the Commonwealth, and is much more well known to actually be a kingdom. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 04:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Know what you mean. I'm an Australian. I do take the point that the Australian monarchy is distinct from the UK one. Elizabeth is called Queen of Australia here. But I'd never call Australia a kingdom and I don't think anyone does except here in Wikipedia. We've always been called a Commonwealth. The whole monarchy in the Commonwealth realms thing is really overdone here.--Gazzster (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_British_Royalty/Archive_2&oldid=1146689988"