Misplaced Pages

Article title format

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

Vote Closed!
Misplaced Pages has articles pertaining to eight of the sixteen monarchies of the Commonwealth realms (seen at this article).

The titles of each are presently in an inconsistent format, being either "Monarchy in X" or "X monarchy." For the sake of consistency, it has been proposed that these articles all be aligned in a regular way through a common title style. Thus, there are seven options:

1. "Monarchy of X", all: Title all articles in the form "Monarchy of X"
2. "Monarchy in X", all: Title all articles in the form "Monarchy in X"
3. "X Monarch", all: Title all articles in the form "X Monarchy"
4. "Monarchy of X", most: The articles are mostly titled "Monarchy of X", with one or two exceptions to be determined individually
5. "Monarchy in X", most: The articles are mostly titled Monarchy in X, with one or two exceptions to be determined individually
6. "X Monarch", most: The articles are mostly titled X Monarchy, with one or two exceptions to be determined individually
7. Individual: Decide the title of each article individually.

Please give your opinion on which way the titles of these eight articles should be set. Choose as many options as you find acceptable.

Poll

1. "Monarchy of X", all

(Title all articles in the form "Monarchy of X".)

1. Support #1. GoodDay (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Support #1 Though there is currently no consistency amongst all monarchy articles on Misplaced Pages, this seems to be the predominant format. There's also no reason why any one or two states should be elevated when equality amongst these countries is established in constitutional law. --G2bambino (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Support #1 TerriersFan (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Support #1 --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 05:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Support #1 --Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 17:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Support #1 or #2 Wiki consistency Brian | (Talk) 19:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Support #1. For the sake of consistency --Lholden (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Support #1, 5, or 7. Exception in #5 for British monarchy. That being said, as G2 suggests, the dominant format for monarchies in general seems to be "Monarchy of X", so standardizing them all that way seems fine. Not worrying too much about standardization, given the complete lack of standardization for monarchy articles more broadly, would also be okay. john k (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Support #1 Most logical usage to describe the state of the given nation's institution & goes along the same line as other places like the Republic of ..., etc. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Support #1 or #2 Wiki consistency Brian | (Talk) 19:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

2. "Monarchy in X", all

(Title all articles in the form "Monarchy in X".)

1. Support #1 or #2 Wiki consistency Brian | (Talk) 19:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Support #2 Seems right Jake the Editor Man _(talk) 19:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(Addendum) A title in this format can also accomodate for any monarchies ever in the country, for example Canada. Jake the Editor Man _(talk) 23:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

3. "X Monarch", all

(Title all articles in the form "X Monarchy".)

4. "Monarchy of X", most

(The articles are mostly titled "Monarchy of X", with one or two exceptions to be determined individually.)

1. Support #4, exception being British monarchy DBD 13:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Support #4 or #6 both seem to be okay. If an article covers the whole history of Monarchies in a country, Monarch y in X is a sensible exception, but Monarchy in Canada should contain historic information on the French Monarchy, First Nation monarchies (where applicable) et cetera. WilyD 16:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

5. "Monarchy in X", most

(The articles are mostly titled Monarchy in X, with one or two exceptions to be determined individually.)

1. Support #1, 5, or 7. Exception in #5 for British monarchy. That being said, as G2 suggests, the dominant format for monarchies in general seems to be "Monarchy of X", so standardizing them all that way seems fine. Not worrying too much about standardization, given the complete lack of standardization for monarchy articles more broadly, would also be okay. john k (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

6. "X Monarch", most

(The articles are mostly titled X Monarchy, with one or two exceptions to be determined individually.)

1. Support #4 or #6 both seem to be okay. If an article covers the whole history of Monarchies in a country, Monarch y in X is a sensible exception, but Monarchy in Canada should contain historic information on the French Monarchy, First Nation monarchies (where applicable) et cetera. WilyD 16:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

7. Individual

(Decide the title of each article individually.)

1. Support #7 TharkunColl (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Support #1, 5, or 7. Exception in #5 for British monarchy. That being said, as G2 suggests, the dominant format for monarchies in general seems to be "Monarchy of X", so standardizing them all that way seems fine. Not worrying too much about standardization, given the complete lack of standardization for monarchy articles more broadly, would also be okay. john k (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Support #7. I don't see any significant benefit of establishing a title consistency here. Certain styles seem to sound better for some nations, but not for others. For example, "Monarchy of Antigua and Barbuda" sounds fine; "Antiguan and Barbudian monarchy" sounds nasty. Conversely, "Monarchy of the United Kingdom" is long-winded and unfamiliar to, well, pretty much everyone, compared with the universally known, "British Monarchy". Frankly, it seems like this is simply one more case of editors trying to "fix" things that aren't broken. -- Hux (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

   • Comment I'm not going to say your points are invalid, Hux, but it would seem to me that "British monarchy" would probably redirect to "Monarchy of the United Kingdom," and the lead of the latter article could say something like: "The monarchy of the United Kingdom, commonly known as the British monarchy, is..." This happens all the time all over Misplaced Pages. --G2bambino (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

4. Support--Gazzster (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. Concur w/ Hux. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Close of vote
Result: Options #1 and #7 gain most approval; #1 with most. --G2bambino (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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.

A further thought

Though wholly opposed to any change in the title of the article British monarchy, if it were changed it would at least leave room for a completely new article entitled "British monarchy", in which we could describe the functioning of the monarchy in all 16 realms over which it reigns, and how this situation came about. There is currently no such article. TharkunColl (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to change the title of British monarchy, please argue on its own talk page. TharkunColl (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Your opinions are noted. --G2bambino (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet again I remind you that no vote here is in any way relevant for any other article. If you want to change the title of British monarchy, conduct your poll on its own talk page. Why won't you do this? Are you afraid you might lose? TharkunColl (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever consensus is reached here, it must be respected by all editors on all the articles in question. There should be no tolerance of resistance from anybody, I hope that's understood by everybody. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You are attempting to ride roughshod over other articles, and it is this that shall not be tolerated. Please do the honourable thing and hold your polls on the pages of the articles you wish to change. TharkunColl (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And if a seperate -vote- at British monarchy was held, and a consensus was reached to 'move', then what? GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl: Given that the British monarchy reigns only in the United Kingdom (as opposed to the Australian monarchy which reigns in Australia, the Jamaican monarchy which reigns in Jamaica, and so on), I don't see how it makes much sense to have an article titled "British monarchy" that describes "the functioning of the monarchy in all 16 realms over which it reigns". All these institutions are separate, irrespective of the fact that the same person heads them all. -- Hux (talk) 09:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were going to be doing approval voting. john k (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait until the (above) polling is completed. What's approval voting? GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ga, I thought I was clear on this. Approval voting is when you vote for every option you approve of. The current format doesn't deny that you can do this, but typically, you have a place for people to sign after every option they are willing to accept. john k (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RM allows for multiple page moves; the discussion takes place on one talk page, not multiple. Whatever's decided here affects them all. --G2bambino (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what I mean. I mean, all the options would be listed here, and people would vote "yes" under each option that they supported. john k (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't commenting on your approval voting suggestion; I was remarking on Thark's demand that a vote take place at Talk:British monarchy as well as here. --G2bambino (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition: John, haven't people in essence been doing what you say approval voting is? They've said yes to the one, two, or three versions they approve of. Seems like the same thing to me. --G2bambino (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In agreement with G2; how many more polls are we gonna go through? PS- Should the consensus be No to X monarchy (as it appears to be so far), I'm hoping Tharky doesn't cause a 'page movement war' at British monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a note suggesting to vote for multiple things. In terms of approval voting, having it explicitly set out encourages people to vote for multiple options, but I agree that starting over again would be a pain in the ass. john k (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Any attempt to move British monarchy without gaining a consensus at that page will be reverted. TharkunColl (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And if a consensus is reached to change it? What then? GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A consensus to change British monarchy on its own talk page I would of course respect. TharkunColl (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That would not be necessary a notice was placed on the British monarchy and WP:RM states that several pages can be moved at once. --Barryob (Edits) (Talk) 00:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the complaint anyways - we've got Monarchy of the Netherlands and Monarchy of Belgium; why the bellyaching. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. If the title "British monarchy" is freed up, I'll write a new article describing the monarchy's role in all 16 realms. TharkunColl (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I to understand Tharky (seeking clarifcation here) your refusal to change to Monarchy of the United Kingdom (if that's the consensus), is because it would be the same as the other Commonwealth realms? GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What you mean an article like Commonwealth realm ? --Barryob (Edits) (Talk) 00:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm articles: Canadian monarchy, Australian monarchy, Monarchy in Jamaica etc. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it will be a combined article, but without the anti-British POV. It will describe the role of the British monarchy in all 16 realms. TharkunColl (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this right you are going to use the British monarchy title to create an article about the monarchy's role in all 16 realms which is already covered in Commonwealth realm? --Barryob (Edits) (Talk) 00:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It only has a small part in that article. And the British nature of the monarchy is downplayed or completely censored, no doubt for political and nationalistic reasons. TharkunColl (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that your idea, Tharky? GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Is what my idea? TharkunColl (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Naming this new article 'British monarchy'? GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, if you change the name of British monarchy then I'll use the name to create a new article. Perhaps, after all, this might be a good thing, as it will emphasise the universal nature of the British monarchy. And, if I may, I'd like to ask - why is anti-British sentiment so popular in countries, i.e. ex-colonies, that were created by the British in the first place? TharkunColl (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit over-reacting - An article gets it's title changed, therefore must create a new article -. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If "British monarchy" ends up getting changed to "Monarchy of the United Kingdom" (a change which I oppose, for what it's worth), then the appropriate thing to do would be to make "British monarchy" a redirect to the newly titled article. Using it for anything else will inevitably mislead readers and reduce the functionality of Misplaced Pages. Whether it's called "British monarchy" or "Monarchy of the United Kingdom", the scope of that article is the monarchy as it currently exists, which applies solely to the UK, and the history of that monarchy, which includes its influence in the various former colonies and territories. And given that we already have an article - "Commonwealth realm" - which specifically details the nature of the various monarchies headed by QEII, having a another article describing the same thing is clearly redundant and should be removed immediately, whatever its title. This has nothing to do with nationalism and everything to do with usability and accuracy. -- Hux (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fear not, Hux. This new article Tharky proposes to create with the title British monarchy, most likely wouldn't exist for very long. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be pointless in my mind the title should be nothing more than a redirect to the Monarchy of the United Kingdom page and TharkunColl please read WP:TALK before you go on about anti-britishness in ex colonies. --Barryob (Edits) (Talk) 00:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You are probably unaware that I've been called all sorts of anti-British names in the past, ranging from a "John Bully" by GoodDay (it took me some time to work that one out, John Bull is obviously still a popular figure in Canada, though virtually forgotten in the UK), to "Brutish" by G2bambino, an epithet usually applied to the British by the IRA and its sympathisers. TharkunColl (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, whatever so-called "new" article (which will be basically a heavily modified copy of the old) will be CSDed and redirected to whatever title has been decided here.  Avec nat | Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  00:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In a posting to G2bambino's page, I referred to Tharky's methods of editing as 'John Bullying' - This was obviously a slight on his Britishness, uttered by my frustrations. I apologies to Tharky & to all other Brits for this statement and will not dispute any punishment deemed appropiate. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

When does the current polling close? GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Tharkun - would a decision to move British monarchy to Monarchy of the United Kingdom, which is in line with, for instance, Monarchy of the Netherlands, Monarchy of Belgium, and Monarchy of Sweden, really be worth protesting to the extent of the kind of major disruption that you are threatening with the "creating a new British monarchy" idea would create? Monarchy of the United Kingdom seems like a perfectly acceptable title to me. john k (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel that it's an attempt - and a pretty unsubtle one at that - to make it more difficult to put information about the overseas realms in the article, by deliberately restricting its scope. It is presumably no coincidence that this very idea was suggested just a few days before this sudden drive for conformity began. I believe that we do need an article describing the role of the monarchy in all the realms. If a person searched for "British monarchy", do you think they're more likely to want information just about the UK, or about the British monarchy's worldwide role? Currently, under heavy influence from G2's POV, the articles hardly even mention the other realms. For these reasons, if British monarchy stays where it is, we should add more information on the overseas realms. If, on the other hand, it is moved (i.e. deliberately restricted in scope), then we should use the now-free title "British monarchy" to do as I have just suggested, which will also contain links to all the individual pages. TharkunColl (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If a person searched for "British monarchy", do you think they're more likely to want information just about the UK ? eh yes is is a shared monarchy it is not just the British monarchy, any info relating to lizzy's role worldwide should be dealt with in the Commonwealth realm article or the relevant article about the monarchy in the said country.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 09:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl: I believe that we do need an article describing the role of the monarchy in all the realms. You're operating under a misunderstanding: there is no "role of the monarchy in all the realms". The British monarchy's current role does not extend to any of the other Commonwealth realms. It is concerned solely with the United Kingdom and its dependencies. The problem here is that you are refusing to accept this fact in favor of the belief that the British monarchy reigns over all the Commonwealth realms, a belief that is trivially proven false. There is no rationale for having an article titled "British monarchy", describing that monarchy's role beyond the UK, when it has no such role.

Currently, under heavy influence from G2's POV, the articles hardly even mention the other realms. I fail to see the problem. In order to be accurate and thus acceptable as encyclopedic information, it should "hardly ever mention" the other realms. They are only relevant in a historical context. I'm flummoxed as to how you seem unable to see this. -- Hux (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This is merely G2's POV that you are repeating. The Secretary General of the Commonwealth has said himself that the 15 other realms retain the British monarch. TharkunColl (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It would seem 'Tharky', that currently you've no support for your idea. It might be prudent to go along with the apparent growing consensus (change all related articles to Monarchy of X). GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the fact of the existence of the Commonwealth realm monarchies, and the connection of those monarchies to that of the UK, is an appropriate subject of the article whatever its title may be. I'm not sure why there should be very much beyond that. john k (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it seems clear that the title change to "British monarchy," if there is to be one, will not affect the content of the article in the least. Also, as already pointed out by others, Commonwealth realm amply covers the pan-Commonwealth role of the Crown.

Thark's hyperventilating over this is telling, and, frankly, his behaviour is getting beyond tolerable. His biases and associated paranoia are showing through clearly in this very discussion. To get some casual outside opinions on this long standing crusade by this user I opened a Wikiquette alert. Perhaps others might want to state something there, about either him or myself. --G2bambino (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Talking solely about this 'Wikiquette' problem, it seems to me that User:TharkunColl is just getting worked up because people are misunderstanding him. It seems to me that he is talking about creating an article about all sixteen colonies as a whole, and is unaware of Commonwealth realm already filling this purpose, or is under the impression it fills a different role. Also, I think people seem to be confusing his views. From what I understand, he is saying that he opposes moving to Monarchy of X, but this section is a separate issue; he wants to create an article for all the colonies of Britain as a whole. His opposition to Monarchy of X is not related to this issue. In any case, whether I am correct or not, it seems people are misunderstanding each other. I suggest everyone reads the original post again. Ignoring the mention of the renaming issue, TharkunColl is describing Commonwealth realm. It seems to me that this entire argument is just a misunderstanding. The Watchtower (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete and Simplify

I've been invited to share my thoughts here. I'd like to make two suggestions:

1) Delete this article. The list of Commonwealth realms is already in Commonwealth realm. Even the title of the article is a superfluity: Commonwealth realm monarchies. 'Realm' and 'monarchy' - they're almost the same, aren't they? I do respectfully suggest that there is a tendency to proliferate articles related to the Windsor monarchy. It can be confusing and leads to strange disputes like this one.It is just not necessary.

2) About the format of the title of Commonwealth realm related articles; we should not impose conformity merely for the sake of conformity. The titles will need to be different from article to article. Each article will have its own particular needs.--Gazzster (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

After so much discussions over those topics, the chances of your suggestions being adopted, are slim. But, IMHO your ideas are intriguing. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Gazzster, this page emerged out of a list that was at Commonwealth realm; I think if you go through the talk archives there you'll see how this came about. In the end, I just wanted to see where one could access a central list of realm monarchies - the institutions, not the countries, which are already listed at Commonwealth realm. --G2bambino (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I take your word for it. I won't go through the archives, though. I do feel though that the article is unecessary. Why is it necessary to create another article because of a nuance between 'institutions' and 'countries'? Personally I think we should simply merge articles on the monarchies of the respective nations into articles about the governments. For example, Australian Monarchy would simply become a section of Government of Australia. The exception of course should be the UK Monarchy. We in Misplaced Pages seem to be the only human beings in the world who are hung up about these things. If you run a Google search, most of the hits for Commonwealth realm come from Misplaced Pages! I have yet to see Australian or Jamaican, or Canadian Monarchy in any other encyclopedia. Neither Commonwealth realm. Misplaced Pages ought to be user friendly. If users wish to know about the status of the monarchy in a country, they will firstly go to the article about that country. And when I see seemingly interminable exchanges like this present one (and yes, I have done my fair share) on this and other pages, I wonder if it's really worth it? Does anyone agree?--Gazzster (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging articles would make them much too long. Why not, also, merge British monarchy into Her Majesty's Government? We obviously have more space and resources than any other encyclopaedia, so I don't see comparisons with others as being apt. --G2bambino (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

For those who may be unaware, G2bambino has also written separate articles for the monarchy in each of the Canadian provinces (see, for example, Monarchy in Newfoundland and Labrador). Isn't this going just a bit too far? TharkunColl (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

All articles are subject to Afd's. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have just then had a look at Australian Government, and there is a section on the monarchy in Australia. It is concise yet comprehensive. Australian Monarchy repeats this information unecessarily. We may have more space than any other encyclopedia (more resources- debateable- it depends on the resourcefulness, and sometimes, the integrity, of the writer?) but must we do do something simply because we can do it? We write articles because we believe they will be useful. Is an article really useful if it replicates material from a more relevant article? --Gazzster (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're doing fair justice to those non-UK articles. There is a brief overview of the monarchies on related government pages, but the detail is hashed out on an article dedicated to the subject. That is the standard procedure on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps with articles like Belizian monarchy there isn't much in the governmental role of the monarchy that isn't covered in the Belizian government article, but there's still added info on cultural, militaristic, financial, historical, and other information at the former; and if there isn't, there could be. There's no reason why short articles like those couldn't be filled out to a state like British monarchy and Canadian monarchy. In fact, additions to the Australian monarchy article were somewhere - though now pushed farther back - on my list of tasks to complete. --G2bambino (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with the existance of these articles, you've every right to tag them with Afds. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that, GoodDay.--Gazzster (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, G2, you're quite possibly right. But I think we need to be frugal about this.--Gazzster (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, but careful, too. --G2bambino (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am indifferent to Gazzster's proposal of deleting all these articles and merging them into the articles on the government. It does seem as though there's probably not too much information which needs to be dealt with in its own article (except, obviously, for the monarchy in the UK itself). I do think that there is absolutely no reason for this article to exist. A table in Commonwealth relam can easily link to both the articles on the country and the articles on the monarchy specifically, if that's the issue. john k (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that this article is not needed. I am also thinking that the articles on Monarchy in each of the Canadian terriorites are not needed either. This seems to be a gross waste of space, should we also have articles on Monarchy in Queensland or Monarchy in New South Wales. We need to be very careful about having lots of articles, to suit certain editors POV, which all seem to repeat the same information. As is said about by Gazzster, other encyclopedias don't have these sort of articles, and they don't have them for a good reason. I personally would be for the merging of all Monarchy in... articles to the Government page (expect British monarchy). Details like when royals visited those countries should be deleted, in my mind it is trivial.--UpDown (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Monarchy in Queensland! Good one, I hadn't thought of that! Yes, I'm afraid this topic is just so overdone, nuanced, spliced, overanalysed.--Gazzster (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

With a heavy heart, I must agree. The Monarchies in Canadian provinces articles should be deleted. Afterall, there's no Monarchy in England, Monarchy in Scotland articles etc; Sorry G2. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's established that as the provinces are co-sovereign there is within Canada ten provincial crowns - read the articles for explanation. I've done my best to concentrate that which would be repeated across individual articles into one, and I'm sure it'll be noted that Monarchy in the Canadian provinces is indeed one which focuses specifically on the topic; i.e. it is repeated nowhere, is cited, and therefore valid enough to exist. The deletion of verifiable facts that don't suit some peoples POV won't be tolerated, but reorganization is certainly always an option. --G2bambino (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Won't be tolerated by whom? Those articles are just too trivial to warrant a separate existence - anything worth saving could simply be added to the articles on the provincial governments. TharkunColl (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Say what you will, but cited and verifiable info is not personal opinion or interpretation and thus stands firm as valid content. Contrary to what you seem to believe, it can't be arbitrarily removed because it offends someone's beliefs. I'll repeat myself, though: reorganization is always an option. --G2bambino (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't true. I could write an article about my pet cat that could be completely true. But those articles are pointless. Sometimes too much info can obscure facts, you know. You might like nothing more than reading and writing monarchycruft, but it doesn't mean that anybody else shares your obsession. TharkunColl (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not unless some outside, reliable source spoke about your poor cat.

As I said, ask for what you want, but I'm not making up what I wrote above, and another thing to remember is that these articles are now part of various Wikiprojects, which would have to be notified of any major change or deletion. --G2bambino (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

By flooding Misplaced Pages with trivial and pointless articles about the monarchy in Canada, you are doing your countrymen a terrible disservice. You are giving the impression they are all ardent monarchists. TharkunColl (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As it deals with Canada, why not take this dispute to Misplaced Pages: WikiProject Canada, see what the view is there. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This is "Commonwealth realm monarchies", it's just as good a place to hold the discussion (i.e. it was good enough for the previous debate). TharkunColl (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, as the dispute is about just one Commonwealth realm. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you mentioned Scotland and England, and someone mentioned Queensland. Might as well keep it here now. TharkunColl (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Contacted the WikiProject for their opinons on this dispute. Since we're not going there, I've invited them here. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

England and Scotland are not comparable to the States and territories of Australia and the Provinces and territories of Canada as Candad and Australia are both Federations the UK is not. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. --G2bambino (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Any info worth keeping can go in the articles relating to the government of the provinces. TharkunColl (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any articles on the governments of the provinces. Didn't bother to check what there is and what there isn't, did you? --G2bambino (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there? What's this then Legislative Assembly of Ontario? TharkunColl (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

An article on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, of course. --G2bambino (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I.e., precisely what you said didn't exist? Any useful info on the role of the crown can go right there. TharkunColl (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I said didn't exist. --G2bambino (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, be pedantic if you will. We could still, nevertheless, put info on the role of the crown in that article. TharkunColl (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely a good Englishman like yourself knows the difference between a legislature and a crown. --G2bambino (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Queen is an integral part of the legislature - the Queen in Parliament. TharkunColl (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not contrary to anything I just said. Anyway, there's a difference between being a part of something and actually being something. You wouldn't, after all, merge the British monarchy article into the one on Westminster, would you?

It isn't just me you have to convince, though. As I already said, there's both the Canadian WikiProject and all the relevant provincial WikiProjects to sway before major changes are made. It's probably not impossible, and restructuring could be of benefit - I don't know - but there's a larger scope of organization to consider here. --G2bambino (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Canadian WikiProject would have prominance over the provicinal counter parts. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Queen maintains a representative in Scotland to perform royal duties connected with the Scottish parliament (often Princess Anne). TharkunColl (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's concentrate on Canada. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's good we're talking about this. I don't want to say that all the realm related articles are wrong. Only that they would appear to be too many, confusing, distracting and unecessary. And I am certainly not suggesting that all the material from the articles (written by dedicated Wikipedians) be deleted. But it could augment material in other articles. Purely as a basis for further discussion, could I suggest the following articles remain?

British Monarchy (or whatever we're going to call it) Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (of course) Commonwealth realm

and perhaps add an article explaining specifically the concept of the shared monarchy, with appropriate links.

Articles related to the monarchies of specific realms (other than the UK) could augment the pertinent sections in the government articles of those realms. --Gazzster (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

add an article explaining specifically the concept of the shared monarchy It already exists: Commonwealth realm

Articles related to the monarchies of specific realms (other than the UK) could augment the pertinent sections in the government articles of those realms. You'd first have to convince people why the UK should have an article but the other countries not. Also, you'd have a hell of a time cramming Canadian monarchy into Government of Canada, not to mention the other articles. --G2bambino (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the UK actually has a monarchy, and doesn't just borrow someone else's. TharkunColl (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, tell it to the government of Canada. --G2bambino (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

We could also have small sections in British monarchy describing the role of the crown in the other realms. TharkunColl (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we'd have to agree that the British monarchy is an institution unique and important enough to keep its own article. Other monarchies, while being constitutionally independent, are historically dependent on the British monarchy. Sections in British monarchy referring to the role of the Crown in other realms is, I think, reasonable, as long as the constitutional independence of the other monarchies is made clear. Such sections should not be long, so as to replicate material from other articles unecessarily. In fact all that would necessary would be an introduction to a link. --Gazzster (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

History has little to do with it, importance is subjective. And again, you underestimate the scope of articles such as Canadian monarchy and Australian monarchy if you think they can be turned into mere subsectios, not to mention the fact that the other monarchies aren't "under" the British monarchy. --G2bambino (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

History has a lot to do with it, you just tell yourself that as it suits your POV. You really need to start adopting a more NPOV approach to these things.--UpDown (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We've no consensus (yet) to delete those Canadian provincial monarchy articles. Also, here's a question - If the UK became a republic, what would happen to the 15 other realms? GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This question has already been dealt with - legally: nothing. Other than that, everything else is speculative. --G2bambino (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

G2, I have not said the other monarchies are 'under' the British monarchy. I defend the concept of their independence strenuously, as you know. But you can hardly deny that the British monarchy is related to the others (especially as they will probably always have the same sovereign as the UK). And from a user friendly POV, links in British Monarchy would be very handy. --Gazzster (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere is the relationship denied. Is that the point, though? You'd be very much muddying, if not flat out misrepresenting, the independence of the other countries if you tried to - though it's physically impossible to do so, anyway - lump them all into an article entitled "British monarchy." As for links, they're already there. --G2bambino (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You misrepresent me. I did not propose to 'lump them all into an article entitled "British monarchy."' Go back to what I actually wrote. If the links are already there, there's no problem, is there? --Gazzster (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I quote you from yesterday: "Sections in British monarchy referring to the role of the Crown in other realms is, I think, reasonable, as long as the constitutional independence of the other monarchies is made clear." I'm sorry if I did not get what you were trying to say, but to me that expresses a desire to reduce non-UK realms' monarchies to mere subsections of British monarchy. This isn't exactly what you earlier proposed, but, I understand that one can change one's mind. --G2bambino (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I also said that sections of government articles would deal comprehensively with monarchy. But given the significance of the British Monarchy it is not unreasonable to have small sections referring to her role in other realms. I said these references need be no longer than an introduction to a link. This could hardly be seen as reducing 'non-UK realms' monarchies to mere subsections of British monarchy.'You say those links are already there. So no need to edit British Monarchy in this regard. Again, please read what I actually wrote. --Gazzster (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Queen maintains a representative in Scotland to perform royal duties connected with the Scottish parliament (often Princess Anne) what ? Princess Anne has sweet FA to do witht the Scottish Parliament any role played by the crown is by the Lizzy as her position as Queen of the UK. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 23:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Strike's one as a pro-English view, don't it? GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Me pro english ? haha you must be joking. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 23:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean you, Barry (sorry). GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I knew the discussion was heated, but I didn't think it would take a turn towards the lunatic. Delete all the non-British monarchy articles and turn them into sections in other articles and footnotes on the British (read: one some like most) monarchy page? Wow.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 04:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of the articles should be merged & redirect, these for instance Monarchy in the Cook Islands, Monarchy in the Solomon Islands. Also the articles on Monarchy in the Canadian provinces should be merged. They are just repeating information to suit POV of certain editors. Please look also at List of Canadian monarchs, another unnecessary article.--UpDown (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, List of Canadian monarchs is a good example of unecessary proliferation. In fact, this proliferation frequently borders on the absurd.--Gazzster (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Guess it's time to start tagging those Commonwealth realm articles (in question) with Merge tags. As for the Canadian provincial monarchy articles? Those need to be tagged with Afds. It's time us editors take matter into our own hands -- Tharky and G2? need to take a long Wiki-break; they have some Misplaced Pages: Ownership issues, to straighten out. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. Do as you please, but don't think people just have to take your word for it. In fact, you'll have to convince a lot more people than me that any of this is necessarily a good idea. Good luck. --G2bambino (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with letting the Wiki community decide. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I have placed a deletion tag on this article. I propose its deletion because

1) It is, in effect, only a list, which is, in any case, a replication of the list in Commonwealth realm.

2) It is not useful; it does not serve any obvious function. It seems to be there for the benefit of editors, not other users.

3) It is not necessary to create a new article from a nuance between a Commonwealth realm and the monarchy which reigns over such a realm. The nuance is so subtle as to make a separate article a superfluituy.--Gazzster (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What shall we do with the (above) poll that's appears to be still open? GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I imagine nothing; it closes in two days, and I doubt the fate of this page will be decided before then. Speaking of that, though, shouldn't a discussion page for this be set up at AfD, per the template's instructions? --G2bambino (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Further: This list isn't replicated anywhere; point 2 is invalid. --G2bambino (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should. I'll do that soon today.--Gazzster (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. --G2bambino (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

When is the 'AFD' gonna be completed - where's the opening nomination? GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the poll has now closed I have completed the afd nomination see here Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth realm monarchies --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 02:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Poll results

One day to go for the Poll, currently a consensus for all articles moving to Monarchy in X. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

For and against appear to be split pretty evenly. That's not a consensus, so no change is called for. TharkunColl (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

9-5, looks good to me (somehow, I knew you'd protest). Anyways, we'll see tommorrow, what happens. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

9-5 is not a consensus. And the true figures are a great deal closer than that, if you add up the votes and comments in the other options. TharkunColl (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The poll results - barring any major change over the next 24 hours - show that two options are favoured. We'll have to decide which two of those to go with; currently #1 is more popular than #7, but, we'll have to see. --G2bambino (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean (if current trend continues), we'll have a second Poll on Options #1 & #7? That makes sense. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There have already been at least two inconclusive polls. It is unreasonable to go on conducting them until you get the answer you want. If no consensus is reached (as is currently the case), then no change is made. TharkunColl (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you know you want ge the answer you want, in a 'final poll' over #1 & #7? GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is that you have already conducted two polls, both of which have been inconclusive. One should have been enough. There is no consensus. TharkunColl (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't fall into his trap, GoodDay. Let's just let due process take it's course. We'll come back to this tomorrow. --G2bambino (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

'Til tommorrow, then. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So you intend to hold a third poll, because the first two didn't produce the answer you wanted? TharkunColl (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Google popularity poll (advanced google search):

• Monarchy of United Kingdom - 32,600 hits
• Monarchy in United Kingdom - 64,800 hits
• British monarchy - 493,000 hits -- Bill Reid | Talk 20:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the 9 votes are for "Monarchy of", not "Monarchy in". Second of all, I think that, given that both Option #1 and Option #7 have shown significant support, a second round of the poll between those two options would be appropriate. john k (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That would therefore be the third poll on this subject (see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject British Royalty). Are we to have poll after poll until such time that enough people tire of them that a consensus is reached by default? TharkunColl (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - What is clear, synthesising the results, is that there is a clear consensus for moving all realms to Monarchy of X except for the British. We should move all the rest now and then have a poll, if required, on the British. We don't need to get into a debate about why the British should be a special case simply accept, pragmatically, that enough editors think it is, and move on. TerriersFan (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't see that at all. One person suggests "British monarchy" be the odd one out; just, his vote was copied three times over when User:Lonewolf BC reorganized the votes. One other thinks "Monarchy of the United Kingdom" seems "long winded," but not that the UK article should be treated differently, in that sense. One definite and one maybe for keeping "British monarchy" as is hardly seems a consensus. --G2bambino (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In agreement with JK and G2, let's have a poll on options #1 & #7. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Barryob has started moving all the articles, save for the British one. I think it's poor form to do this before the poll has officially closed, and before any decision was really reached. --G2bambino (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've no energey to 'revert' those moves, even though the moves go against Option #7. Have no fear, I think there's an editor out there, who'll eventually revert them (within the next few hours). GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. No one should have gone round changing anything, as no consensus had been reached. TharkunColl (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think this is all about arguing about how many angels can dance on a pinhead.--Gazzster (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we've already had two polls and definitely shouldn't have another. The matter is now finished, as far as I'm concerned. No consensus exists, so no change is justified. TharkunColl (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Poll closed

After the requisite five day period, the poll on moving/renaming the Commonwealth realm articles is closed. The result clearly shows strong support for option #1 with 10 supports, however, a good showing for option #7 with five. Also to be considered, though, is that one person supported both options.

To my mind, this shows a pretty clear consensus to go with option #1, with double the support than the next runner up. Thus, another poll between these two options seems needless. What do others think? --G2bambino (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If a 10-5 result isn't a consensus? I don't know what is? GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word "consensus" then. This page might be of use, as well - Misplaced Pages:Consensus. The main point to stress here is that a consensus is not just a simple majority. TharkunColl (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

10-5 is a simple majority?? GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It is simply a majority. It is not a consensus. TharkunColl (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not what you previously said. You said a simple majority wasn't a consensus - Now you say 10-5 is nott a simple majority?? Is 10-5 a simple majority OR not? GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean "simple majority" vs. "absolute majority"? When there are only two options (as in the formula 10-5), there is no difference between a simple majority and an absolute majority. In any case, I was merely intending to say that something that is simply a majority is not a consensus. TharkunColl (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait until the others give ther views on what's a consensus (since you and I don't agree). Yikes!! A poll on the poll results?? GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Another poll is definitely not necessary! Those who are confused, or are under the mistaken belief that "consensus" means "majority", should simply read the Misplaced Pages policy page I linked to above. TharkunColl (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

We've a two-thirds (2/3) majority, that's a super-majority ain't it? GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

While a poll result is not a consensus, the tally here strongly shows what the majority favours. There's two things to consider here, though: 1) a consensus establishes a solution acceptable to the vast majority; as WP:CON says, one or two stubborn dissenters cannot override consensus; 2) the options between #1 and #7 which would be considered a compromise of the two were actually those that received the least support. GoodDay is correct, though: let's see what others have to say. --G2bambino (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What's a consensus?

IMHO, 10-5 in favour of moving all articles to Monarchy of X is a consensus, but others have questioned this. What's it gonna be folks? GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As the two extremes are the two most supported options, there could be said that there's a polarity of views. But, that's rather irrelevant; the views don't necessarily matter, just what is accepted by most as satisfactory, whether it is fully aligned with their view or not. So, the litmus test lies in this: how many other people, besides Thark, are strongly opposed to the alignment of the articles? Already double - double - those who favoured no uniformity favoured uniformity. Of that minority opposed, Thark is, so far, the sole, continual dissenter. He alone cannot stand in the way of making a move that the majority either wishes for or doesn't care strongly about. --G2bambino (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree - all the articles should be moved to Monarchy of X; I'm baffled by Tharky's resistance. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He's stated on his talk page that he disagrees with moving British monarchy, but won't stand in the way of it actually being done. That said, having read through WP:RM and WP:CON, it seems to me that because it was through discussion that the options we voted on were formed, the poll was simply a way to find which one(s) users saw as having the most merit, which is exactly what a consensus is based on. I say we move ahead with the shifting; people will still be allowed to open another RM if they so wish. --G2bambino (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, move all the pages to Monarchy of X. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've moved (I think) all pages to Monarchy of X - If I've missed any, please change them. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you have deliberately flouted Misplaced Pages policy on consensus. And I can only think of a very small number of reasons why you would want to change British monarchy to Monarchy of the United Kingdom. So be it then. TharkunColl (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Going back on your word? Very well. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because of your offensive remarks about my creation of a new article, and also because I specifically asked you not to take my statement as a change of vote. TharkunColl (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

British monarchy

At some point (I can't be bothered right now), I'm going to write a completely now article entitled British monarchy that will describe the monarchy's role in all 16 realms, and link to the separate articles that have now been established. TharkunColl (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You have every right to do so (create an article); just like others have a right to tag it with an AfD. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I tire of your bias. Take it somewhere else. TharkunColl (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, go ahead an create it (you have that right). GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I find your attitude extremely offensive. TharkunColl (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your opinon of me is regrettable (my loss). However, I'm not seeking popularity. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

PS- I see you've reverted the page again. Regrettfully, you may have put yourself into a situation, where I can't defend you. Hopefully, your peers will be gracious in there judgment. Remember - no hard feelings (from me). GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I shall continue to fight until I am extinguished. That is the only honourable course of action. TharkunColl (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)