Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Elizabeth II of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - content should be kept, but might best be merged - SimonP 23:42, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth II of Canada

page is redundant and created for a purely POV purposeAndyL 02:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Please provide page that this is a redundancy of. Mr Bound 02:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep is my vote. This has nothing to do with redundancy or POV. Mr Bound 02:21, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • To answer your question, the article is redundant of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Monarchy in Canada. Elizabeth II of the UK and Elizabeth II of Canada are both, in fact, one and the same. Some parts of this article can be relocated to the first, others to the second. AndyL 02:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • If someone's functioning as the monarch of two separate nations, I think it's unusual enough to warrant a pair of articles. Mr Bound 02:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
          • She's acting as the monarch for over a dozen countries, by your argument we should also have Elizabeth II of Australia, Elizabeth II of New Zealand, Elizabeth II of Jamaica, Elizabeth II of Grenada etc as seperate articles (I suggest you click on those articles and see where they all point). And it's actually not "unusual", in all other cases where a monarch has been monarch of more than one country (including the cases of previous British monarchs), we've had a single biographical article. See, for instance James VI of Scotland and I of England. AndyL 02:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Please also see Elizabeth II of Antigua and Barbuda, Elizabeth II of the Bahamas, Elizabeth II of Barbados, Elizabeth II of Belize, , Elizabeth II of Papua New Guinea, ]], Elizabeth II of Saint Kitts and Nevis, Elizabeth II of Saint Lucia, Elizabeth II of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Elizabeth II of the Solomon Islands, Elizabeth II of Tuvalu all of which redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. AndyL 02:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Changing my vote to abstain on this basis. You made your case, it just took a little while to get me to realize this issue extends past one article. Good research. Mr Bound 02:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
          • Just to note "someone functioning as the monarch of two separate nations" is an extraordinarily common phenomenon in European history. The Spanish thrones were run separately, but ruled by a common monarch, from 1516 to 1713 or so; the English and Scottish thrones had the same deal from 1603-1707, and the English (and then Great British) and Irish thrones from 1539 to 1801. The crowns of France and Navarre were united from 1589 to 1620; the Holy Roman Emperor also held all the various Spanish thrones, the various thrones of the provinces of the Netherlands, the Free County of Burgundy, the Kingdom of Naples, the Kingdom of Sicily, and the Duchy of Milan form 1519 to 1556; the King of Poland was also Grand Duke of Lithuania for most of the period between 1386 and 1569...do I have to go on? 05:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • True. However, the Commonwealth is unlike any other legal entity in history. It combines personal constitutional sovereignty of a Monarch over 16 nations, without any nation claiming privilege over any other, and with an extensive legal framework governing each nation aimed at protecting it from any pretense of forming an Empire. I don't think your point is a bad one altogether, but the Commonwealth Sovereign today is unprecedented in some meaningful ways. Xoloz 06:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Queen of Australia and Queen of New Zealand has existed for some time. However, these, nor Queen of Canada is appropriate either-- see my post below. gbambino
The article is not redundant as it covers only information which is specifically attached to Elizabeth II in her separate role as Queen of Canada. This information is not (and should not be) covered on the page Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, nor is it appropriate for Monarchy in Canada as that page is specifically for the institution of the Crown in Canada, rather than any specific Canadian Monarch. "Queen of Canada" has been suggested, however this will not work either as it is too ambiguous and does not differentiate between monarchs (ie. The future King Charles III of Canada would not be differentiated from the past King George VI of Canada with a page simply titled as "King of Canada.")
AndyL is completely off base in stating this page was created for POV purposes, and throwing out such an accusation shows clearly his ignorance of the status of the Crown in Canada and the Canadian monarch's role. gbambino
I refer to your argument in Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom regarding naming of that article and also to your POV that Eliabeth II is Canadian. AndyL 02:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for directing people to my other points, however, this has nothing to do with The Queen being Canadian, but rather only to do with Elizabeth II in her role as the Queen of Canada. gbambino
  • Redirect (to Queen of Canada). No reason not to have redirects for each of the nations in a Sovereign's realm, at least for the reigning Sovereign. Xoloz 02:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I add now, after lengthy consideration, a Move for this content to Queen of Canada as is the precedent with Australia and New Zealand. The content is quite good. Xoloz 09:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the Elizabeth II of Canada article you will notice that there is quite a lot of informaion pertaining to Elizabeth II and Canada only -- information which is not, nor really could be, contained on Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.
If you don't feel that listing Canadian information in the El. II of the UK article is appropriate (a feeling I do understand), use a Canadian Gov't page, or create a new page under Canadian Gov't. I agree this information is encyclopedic, but it can't be listed this way without establishing a precedent which will likely aid redundancy with respect to Her Majesty's other Realms. Xoloz 03:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Xoloz, there is already an article on Monarchy in Canada. Many of the commonwealth realms, I think, have similar articles (And those that don't should have them added). Any biographical information pertaining to her rule of the various commonwealth realms ought to be contained within the biographical article - we include information about Holy Roman Emperor Charles V's rule of Spain in his article, for instance, or about James I of England's rule over Scotland. john k 05:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
First, as below, some consider "Monarchy" to refer to the Crown as distinct from the reigning invidual Sovereign. Second, the Commonwealth is a legal creature unlike any Empire before. El II is personal Sovereign of 16 nations. I oppose 16 articles on Elizabeth II. I wonder about adding a Queen of Canada article to discribe the Sovereign's role (as an invidual) in Canadian life. Monarchy in Canada might then refer to the legal concept of the Crown, and the complex web that binds Canada to the Commonwealth. On this question, I can't decide, but I have put some thought into it. Xoloz 06:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As I've tried to point out several times, the fact that the queen is personal sovereign of 16 countries is not unique at all. Up until the French Revolution, most monarchs had multiple, completely separate titles. That said, I could see some value in separating Monarchy in Canada from Queen of Canada. But there would be a lot of overlap. john k 14:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As I've said above, while multiple realms combined under one personal sovereign are not uncommon in history, El. II's position is unique legally. The Commonwealth is unprecedented post-imperisl legal construction, in which the personal sovereign absolutely disclaims any imperious intentions, and takes pain to cast herself as Queen of each land. It is also true that Elizabeth is special in that she is not an object of history yet, but a reigning sovereign. We offend the current form of the states presently existing if we do not do justice to her various roles. Xoloz 03:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect: It's foolish in the extreme to create an article like this, unless the same authors are going to make Queen Elizabeth II of Ireland, Queen Elizabeth II of Scotland, Queen Elizabeth II of Gibralter, Queen Elizabeth II of the Bahamas, Queen Elizabeth II of Jamaica, Queen Elizabeth II of the Falkland Islands, etc. Imagine how many more articles would be needed for Queen Victoria! Queen Victoria of India anyone? Geogre 03:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Comment - try removing the word "Queen" from those links and see what they do. At least for the separate sovereign nations (that is, the Bahamas but not Scotland) will get you a redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. -- Jonel 03:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Elizabeth II is not Queen of the Falkland Islands, as the Falklands are a British Crown territory not an independent nation. Also, Queen Victoria would not need seperate pages, as during her reign all British colonies were under the one British Crown, and even British Parliament. Since 1931 the situation has been completely different as the Crown is now one body operating distinctly within 16 seperate independent countries, making Elizabeth II one Monarch who acts disctinctly as Sovereign of 16 nations. gbambino
Her Majesty is Queen of all Her Realms and Territories. The Style "Queen of the Falkland Islands," a territory, is merely disfavored, not incorrect. I'd suggest "The History of the Reigning Sovereign" as a subsection in Monarchy in Canada. The Crown and the Reigning Monarch are distinct, I agree, but are related enough to justify sharing an article if the distinction is made clear therein. My concern is that one or the other of Her Majesty's Realms should not receive privileged treatment before the rest. I dislike Queen El. II of the UK, for this reason, but that name is a necessary practical compromise with a basis in history. Xoloz 03:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, Victoria was Empress of India, and would have considered Queen of India, as a title, to be an insult. The title Empress of India warrants a separate article, because of its historical significance in Imperial politics. Xoloz 03:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Emperor of India john k 05:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This still doesn't address the facts that a) Elizabeth II as Queen of Canada is a seperate role, with a seperate history, to hers as Queen of the UK, and b) by the Statute of Westminster, the UK is not a more important Realm than any of the others. Also, what happens to the previous King of Canada, George VI, and what will happen with the next monarch, Charles III? gbambino
So you are suggesting we have 16 different Elizabeth II articles then? AndyL 03:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps, yes-- it may depend on whether there is enough information to warrant the creation of a page. Though some pages would be longer than others, New Zealand compared to Belize for example, there could indeed be 16 different pages relating to the Queen's 16 different roles and the history attached to each Realm. This would be accurate, and fair (as Xoloz points out, there is a problem with giving the UK a privileged position above the other Realms). The size of the Elizabeth II of Canada page alone confirms that Elizabeth II really does have a distinct history as Queen of Canada. There is no reason why it would not be the same for Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, and other Realms. gbambino
I understand your concerns, Gbambino. UK law states that none of Her Majesty's Realms is privileged. I wish I could rename the main article to simply "Her Majesty Elizabeth II," but this is not practical, given the Monarch's historical ties to England (and thus, the UK.) Sixteen articles, sadly, would risk discriminating against some of Her Majesty's Realms that are less powerful globally. I am afraid that the best solution is the one I suggested earlier. Xoloz 04:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, this area of policy is a mess. There is a page called Queen of New Zealand but not Queen of Canada. You could Rename this Queen of Canada, and have separate sections for Crown/Personal Monarch. This defeats the problem of 16 Elizabeth -- while she does have a distinct role in every Realm, too much information on her person would be redundant. However, since Queen of New Zealand is a precedent, make Queen of Canada.Xoloz 04:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Queen of Canada already exists, it redirects to Monarchy in Canada. AndyL 05:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • So it does. Using Queen of Canada for this is a possibility, however, given Queen of New Zealand and my hope that we wouldn't have sixteen articles about the same person. Sixteen articles about sixteen different roles that are held by the same person -- Queen of New Zealand, Queen of Canada -- that is a different matter. Xoloz 05:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe that there should be an article in Wikipedia about the role that Elizabeth II has played in Canada; it is important. If someone can suggest a better name for the article, I would be willing to change my vote to have Elizabeth II of Canada redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. But only if this content remained separate from Monarchy in Canada and her UK page. -- JamesTeterenko 04:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What is wrong with Monarchy in Canada? Any things specific to Elizabeth II's life ought to go into her biography article. john k 05:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This specific monarch's role in Canada is unique to the other monarchs. I believe this level of detail is too detailed for her biography article. -- JamesTeterenko 06:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a very good article on the role of the Queen in Canada. There is no reason why we can't cross-reference the articles. We could easily have an article on her role in Australia and other places where the Queen has a constitutional role. Capitalistroadster 04:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
God damn it! We have an article about her role as queen of Canada. It is called Monarchy in Canada. We also have Queen of Australia and Queen of New Zealand. As to the other commonwealth realms, I think it is mostly discussed in broader politics articles. john k 05:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No JohnK, Monarchy in Canada is not about Elizabeth II's role as Queen of Canada, it is, and rightly so, about the larger institution of the Crown in Right of Canada, and the/any Canadian Sovereign's role in it-- the page was renamed from "Queen of Canada" to "Monarchy in Canada" for that very reason! Compare the two pages, Monarchy in Canada to Elizabeth II of Canada, and I'm quite sure you'll see the difference I and others here are talking about. gbambino
John K, some might consider "Monarchy" to refer to the Crown which, as you probably know, is a distinct concept from the reigning sovereign as a particular individual. Xoloz 05:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge info into Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and appropriate article on the government and/or recent history of Canada; Redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom; Delete redundant/useless information. Also, as Elizabeth I of England was never (as far as I know) Queen of Canada, isn't this Elizabeth technically I of Canada? -R. fiend 05:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Current UK law, and law in each of Her Realms, addresses this problem. Her regnal number is determined by English order. In Scotland, however, there has been much controversy over this question. Xoloz 05:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Rather dubiously. Nobody complained about William IV or Edward VII, did they? john k 05:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree that the concern is slightly spurious, but some Scots have been seriously making objections since James I, the VI. I am sure somebody was in 1830 and 1901, although they may have been in the Highlands, in hiding. Xoloz 05:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, with useful and uniquely Canadian information going into Monarchy in Canada where it belongs. Lord Bob 05:23, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. The two are the same person, just acting in a different capacity. Aside from that, this is an excellent article. Falcon 05:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and move this page to Queen of Canada and use the standard redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. That makes the most sense. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:51, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not wholly opposed to "Queen of Canada", but it seems to be a convenient yet temporary solution only as there has so far been only one King of Canada (George VI) and one Queen of Canada (Elizabeth II). When thinking ahead I wonder what will happen when Charles III (should he choose that name) ascends to the Throne-- there will then be two Kings of Canada in history; George VI and Charles III. Which will the "King of Canada" article be assigned to? Of course, this situation is some years off, but none-the-less is something to consider.
Also, if there is already a "Queen of Australia" article, a "Queen of New Zealand" article, and there is to be a "Queen of Canada" article, will there then be a "Queen of the United Kingdom" article as well? gbambino
This exists as a redirect to British Monarchy. Xoloz 09:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge & Redirect to her main article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:27, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and redirect - Queen's different legal positions in different regions can be included in the article about her and mentioned about the articles about the regions. They do not need separate articles. Would she be the first Elizabeth reigning in every territory UK acquired after the 17th century? Skysmith 09:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Skysmith 09:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) edit after consideration)
Unfortunately, this does not address the point that if the information on her role as Queen of Canada is included on the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article, then the UK is therefore being given priority over the other 15 Realms, which is not a legal reality, only an opinion. As well, the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article will eventually become immense! gbambino
  • Rename. No objection to the content here - is useful. However, we when we have biographical articles which are named for the person, they are about people, not about their holdings of particular offices. Lots of people hold offices that might want to have main articles about that office-holding-period, not just monarchs. We wouldn't expect to see George W. Bush, Governor of Texas or George W. Bush, President of the United States be different articles, instead we have George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States. If no consensus to rename would support merge with Monarchy in Canada. Morwen - Talk 14:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect into Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. An article for all positions are not needed, just separate sections in one, larger, article. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 14:35, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Anonymous comment (doesn't count towards consensus):

We should keep it in. It is an excellent page about the "Canadian Monarcy" And it is THE page to inform about the Elizabeth's role as Queen of Canada. User: Allard (the Netherlands) posted 13th June 2005

  • I don't think it is anonymous, since Allard tried to sign it. I do think it is a comment, not a vote, because it wasn't signed properly. Xoloz 08:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect - information relating to her role as Queen of Canada should be transferred to Monrachy in Canada so that that article covers the evolution of the institution, including any future monarchs. Information relating to her as a person should go into the main article Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, which does note that she is Queen of other countries as well. Ground Zero 15:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect. Most of the article should be merged with Monarchy in Canada, and then redirect the article to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. I can see the need in having an article specifically about this monarch's relation/visits/influence to Canada, but this title is too confusing to accomplish that. --NormanEinstein 15:21, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. I've changed my mind a bit on this one. I'd like to see the article kept and Renamed to Elizabeth II and Canada. Some of the information in the article, royal visits etc, is pretty good and would be lost in a merged article. With a little rewriting, this article should be focused specifically on this particular queen's relationship with Canada. --NormanEinstein 14:54, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Who was Elizabeth I of Canada? Gdr 15:30, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
    • There wasn't one. Designating her as Elizabeth II in all realms avoids the confusion of James I of England and James IV of Scotland, who were the same person. Ground Zero 15:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Who was Victor Emmanuel I of Italy? Monarchical ordinals do not have to correspond to reality. john k 00:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (no merging). An admittedly quick scan of the contents of Monarchy in Canada and Elizabeth II of Canada shows me that there is nothing useful in the latter to merge to the former. It's already stated on many fronts how she is also the Queen of Canada, and most of the content in this VfDed article can already be seen in all of these articles. --Deathphoenix 17:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)\
    • My suggestion, if the final consensus is to Merge with Monarchy in Canada, is to create a new heading in that article (something like Elizabeth II) to address any concerns people have about including information specific to her. --Deathphoenix 14:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Notwithstanding anyone's views on the monarchy, it seems counterproductive to have two (or more) biography pages on the same person. CJCurrie 18:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. For the same reasons as listed above. Along with the fact that the GG is the final step in any Federal legislation, Elizabeth II's relationship to Canada is merely symbolic. Destinova1 20:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per john k. Martg76 22:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • BTW, isn't she actually Elisabeth I of Canada? Who would be the first Elisabeth other than her? Martg76 22:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No, because her name is Elizabeth, not Elisabeth. And, as noted above, there is not Elizabeth I of Canada. Designating her as Elizabeth II in all realms avoids the confusion of James I of England and James IV of Scotland, who were the same person. Ground Zero 23:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • This argument serves as another illustration of the fallacy of this article. This kind of "confusion" is common practice in the numbering of monarchs in European history. Just consider one of the examples given above: Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor = Rudolf II of Bohemia = Rudolf of Hungary = Rudolf VI, Archduke of Austria. It's always the same person. Redirects and, if necessary, disambiguation pages easily solve the "confusion" problem. Martg76 22:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • If you wish, see my extensive comments on why Elizabeth the II is not quite like historical figures. In sum: The Commonwealth is a unique legal creation, a product of post-imperial thought. Though many rulers have had multiple domains, none has ruled under a constitutional system that so thoroughly disclaims imperial pretention, and has extensive codified laws aimed at making sure no one Sovereign realm takes precedent over any others. Also, Elizabeth lives, and is not a dusty historical figure; she has many subjects who cherish her, and who care deeply about her role in their countries. At the same, I think 16 articles on one person is redundant. As above, I have voted to move this to Queen of Canada. Each country deserves an article on their Queen, and her position, but Elizabeth needs only one article in her name, with her personal bio, etc. Xoloz 04:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Monarchy in Canada, redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. James F. (talk) 23:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Although by design the distinction between the separate legal persons of the Crown in the Commonwealth Realms is blurry, the Head of State of Canada certainly merits an article. It might help to work out a policy on how the different roles should be split between Wikipedia articles, and apply that consistently across the different Commonwealth Realms. The statement "page is redundant and created for a purely POV purpose" is clearly incorrect. User:Peter Grey
    • In VFDs we only consider comments votes by editors with more than 100 edits. AndyL 11:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • From Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion "Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion" 13:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • "but their votes may be discounted" AndyL 13:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • That decision whether to discount rests with the admin., who renders a judgment at debate close, not with anyone else. As always, "may" is not "must," so the decision to discount is an administrative choice. Xoloz 04:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes but it's routine on VfDs to point point out when a poster has made fewer than a dozen edits and has only been editing for two daysprior to joining a VfD and it is routine to discount such votes, particularly if, as in this case, the person has voted in response to a plea for votes on the Monarchist League of Canada message board.AndyL 15:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • With reference to this comment and others like it by AndyL, I would like to cite the guideline of not biting the newcomers. Please don't! We need them to keep wikipedia running, and their opinions are just as valid. These votes you so badly want to discount are clearly not made in bad faith, and your desire to discount them seems channelled entirely towards furthering your opinion of delete. If anything is in bad faith, it is that. Don't be a WikiSnob, please. Falcon 22:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Spinboy 00:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge specifics to Monarchy in Canada, redirect article to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. -- Elisson | Talk 00:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • As a Cdn. Citizen. Elizabeth II of Canada works for me. She is my Queen.

(Unsigned comment by 172.154.199.22) Xoloz 08:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep she is a notable monarch. There is a Monarchy in Canada article however I believe Queen Liz II has done enough for Canada to merit an individual article on her own. JamesBurns 09:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • She has an article on her own, see Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. AndyL 11:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm only guessing that he means an article on her own for Canada on its own. Xoloz 17:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect This information can be placed elsewhere. User 142.110.227.32 14 June 2005
    • (Unsigned -- or rather, defectively signed -- Comment by 142.110.227.32) sign with four tildes please. Xoloz 17:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've seen a lot of votes to merge contents to Monarchy in Canada while redirecting to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. I could be wrong, but I think this breaks the requirements of GFDL. You need to preserve the history of the content, so therefore, I believe if you merge anything from ArticleX to ArticleY, you must also redirect it to ArticleY, not to another article. --Deathphoenix 19:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - The history is preserved as long as the originating article isn't actually deleted. Redirecting to a different article than the one that the information was merged into might make the history more difficult to find (and whoever does the merging should include something to the effect of "merged from Elizabeth II of Canada" in the edit summary), but it's still there. Consider also the case of us merging information from one article into two or more others - the original can only redirect to one of them. That's not a problem for the GFDL. -- Jonel 19:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Also, the "history" of the article only goes back to June 10. It was orgiinally created as a redirect in 2004, but content was only added a few days ago. Not terribly important.

.Ground Zero 20:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge and Redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, regardless of how many roles she has, and what the legal relationship of thse roles are, she is only one person. I think that one article (at most) per person is sufficient. Dsmdgold 22:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If someone deletes it, I shall just have to put it up again. I will not tolerate my monarch's page being just a part of another monarch's page. It clearly makes it seem as if her British realm is above all the rest (which, if you "delete" people would actually READ the statute of Westminster, could figure out is totally untrue). This is a real downplay to the Canadian throne, and sounds like pure republican propaganda to me.Maxwell C. 23:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Watch out. Though the consensus seems to be against it being deleted, if this (or some other VfDed article) were deleted, and you were to just put it up again, this would qualify as a speedy delete as a recreation of previously deleted content. --Deathphoenix 02:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Certainly true, but see my comments above. Unlike dusty historical figures, Her Majesty is an active head of state beloved by many subjects of many realms. I would expect it is likely some wll respond passionately if their concerns are not accomodated. I don't encourage such action, but I am not without some sympathy either. Xoloz 04:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Merging into an article which is alreay 37K long is exactly opposite to the ways of wikipedia to split articles when they grow. This article is clearly big enough to warrant independence. mikka (t) 02:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • In fact, there are only about two paragraphs of the article that aren't already present in other articles. AndyL 02:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What a joke. There's only about two paragraphs of the article that aren't already present in other articles because you moved those paragraphs from this page to those ones! gbambino
Yes, and I moved them before mikka made his comment so my point stands.AndyL 23:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's precisely my point-- your moving them affected people's opininon on the page.gbambino 15:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It evidently influence mikka to vote keep. Are you saying we should discount his vote? I don't think you've thought about the implications of your comments.AndyL 00:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Someone clicking on a link marked "Queen Elizabeth" in a Canadian article will expect to find a comprehensive biography of the Queen, not this article. Incidentally, even if the Queen was styled Queen Elizabeth I of Canada, she wouldn't be, as there hasn't been a Queen Elizabeth II of Canada using the same logic, and you only need numerals for differentiation between monarchs of the same name. Queen Victoria isn't called Queen Victoria I, though if there were to be another British Queen named Victoria at some future point, then both would need a number to distinguish them. Pete 04:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Merge biographical content there, and content related to the role of the monarch generally to Monarchy in Canada. --Michael Snow 05:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • Vote interference, gbambino has been trolling for votes on the Monarchist League of Canada message board[1] (see Canadian Monarchial info on Wikipedia). AndyL 16:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Another baseless accusation which is really, really beginning to reflect badly on you, Andy. I appealed to members of the Monarchist League for input into a discussion. It seems you are frightened by information coming from people who may know more about a particular subject than you do. gbambino
No, this is an attempt to interfere with the vote. You have appealed to people who hold a certain point of view (they belong to the Monarchist League, after all) who are not Wikipedia editors. That is clearly an attempt to sway the vote in your favour. The administrator who ersolves this VfD should take this into consideration when determining the outcome of the vote. Ground Zero 16:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Be careful to get your facts straight before making accusations. I never once appealed for a vote, and, in fact, never directed anyone specifically to this 'vote' page. I'm sure anyone reading my words will be aware of that. I asked for input and help regarding all the articles related to the Monarchy here, specifically stating that factual arguments were needed, and bias was to be avoided. Indeed, I asked for assistance because of the onslaught of Andy's edits, almost all goverened by his deeply republican POV. And lastly, anyone can be a Wikipedia editor, including members of the Monarchist League, whether that suits you or not. gbambino
Of course they can. There are numerous monarchist editors here. The issue is bringing in people who are not regular contributors to Wikipeida for the purpose of getting your way on a particular issue. Your characterization of Monarchist League members as being people who are knowledgeable about the monarchy, and republicans like AndyL as being ignorant of the monarchy are not helpful. Monarchists and republicans both have a point of view. Ground Zero 16:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What precisely is a "regular contributor"? How many times does one have to edit here before their points are respected? "Don't bite the newbies" but don't take them seriously either? This isn't an exclusive club. There are debates going on here which need input from people who are educated on the Crown. Certainly, republicans can also be educated on the Crown, and if they can provide factual arguments, then that is perfectly fine, regardless of whether I agree with republicanism or not. However, what is of concern is that AndyL is actively editing almost every page dealing with the Crown and Canada, and his arguments for a good number of his actions are guided by an ignorance of the institution, and a lot of baseless republican POV arguments which I've heard before. As is completely clear, POV holds no place here, only fact. I did not call on monarchists to bring their POV (in fact, I specifically discouraged it), but rather only to bring knowledge and facts to the debate. I only happen to know monarchists who are well educated on the Crown. If anyone would like the input of a knowledgable republican, please invite them over. gbambino
Gbambino, are you claiming that no votes on this page are the result of your intervention on the MLC board? There is evidence to the contrary, witness Peter Grey. AndyL 16:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I can't stop someone from 'voting' here, but I most certainly did not ask anyone to. As I said, I never even drew anyone's attention to this page. And again, what's wrong with outside opinion? It's already been established that 'newbie votes' hold less weight than those of regular contributors. But really, the votes here don't concern me. Whether this page stays or goes doesn't concern me. What is important is that Wikipedia deals with the Crown, the Sovereign, and her relationship in and with her Realms, in the most accurate and correct manner. That's what the debate about this page was supposed to deal with. gbambino
I thought we were just discussing and voting on what to do with this article. We're writing an encyclopedia, not honouring or dishonouring people. --Deathphoenix 18:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just to clarify things for AndyL and anyone else here right now, I am a regular contributor to the Wikipedia AND a monarchist. I am NOT someone whom Gbambino has just "called up" from the monarchist board to vote here. And since when was the Wikipedia a democracy anyways? I thought the Wikipedia's goal was to provide the most factually correct information possible, NOT to allow people to come and "vote" on the content of articles, and which articles are to exist or not, depending upon their (possibly incorrect and often biased) opinions.Maxwell C. 21:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This article adds information that is specific to the role of Elizabeth II in Canada, how she conducts that role and reactions from Canadians. So there should be an article. If it were redirected to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom we would lose that info. A merge would unduly increase the size of the UK article (especially if other members of the Commonwealth also added similar info). So we'd better keep it. It could be renamed "Queen of Canada" if need be. Sunray 18:54, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
Oh yes, and perhaps we could get a different picture! Sunray 20:23, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
Why would we need another picture? The current one is a cropped version of Her Majesty's official Canadian portrait and looks quite nice.Maxwell C. 00:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The information in this article should be retained somewhere. The discussion of where it is retained and how to link all of the information about QEII should be taken to Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Chuck 21:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep -- The fine points of merging such an excellent body of writing into a single article is enough to make me shudder - the resulting document couldn't possibly have the easy flow and high style this exhibits, and would ignore the fact that such a monarch is indeed two rulers inhabiting the same body. I'd hazard a guess that they even disagree with one another on occasion. <G> The other fact I can't but help thinking over is the extreme effort that merging the two would require to do the task justice. If it's done too hastily, you end up with limping dijointed text. Chronology which intermixes key events for diff nationstates, and possibly repeats of things like the article battleship which commented no less than three times in the space of a screen page on the 21 kt speed of the new steam turbines for the original HMS Dreadnought — I'd be far better editing time fixing something like that, than picking on this excellent effort. [[User:Fabartus| User:fabartus || TalktoMe]] 01:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  1. CommentS: One strength of the Wikipedia is the luxury to keep such things; and more — To keep them well organized. Did you see the article in the Village Signpost Click_here quoting an editor of En. Brittanica that Wiki-articles were too long, and most readers don't want so much information to wade through?
  2. A telling point on a merged output product. Another, similar but disparate arguement can be made for keeping a brief historical name article as many editors are careless and/or ignorant that many such have their own chapter of history. Take a look at Dalian and Lushun for instance -- each name there (and a host of redirected alternate spellings) represents an era in history that such an merged article obscures in the format.
  3. This is not an exact parrallel, but I want a Wiki where one can type (or websearch) using a name in a published book, magazine or other critically edited work by an author of note to find the right information. e.g. Tsushima, Tsu-shima, Tsu Shima, Tsu-Shima are all alternative forms of the same islands/Battle, but which historian was I reading to finally stumble across Wikified Tsushima. It matters not, they are all equally valid, but many such names are being lost. Worse, Wikipedia is becoming gradually decoupled from the extant voluminous body of historical references that have their own contexts.Redirects are fine, but whose to say the Monarchy won't someday be split into seperate ruling Queens? Not I. My Crystal balls not that good.
  4. More to the point, if someone on the web is searching for Freda the Queen of Canada, I suspect more than a little, they are searching from and concerning an interest in her August Majesty's Canadian History, and care not at all, or only a little about her other titles. [[User:Fabartus| User:fabartus || TalktoMe]] 01:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If there are separate monarchs for Canada and the UK in the future, we would, of course, have articles on each of them. but because they are different people. For instance, if Canada decided to make Prince Andrew King after Elizabeth dies, and then she dies, then we'd have Charles III of the United Kingdom and Andrew of Canada as separate articles. But we wouldn't keep articles on Andrew of Canada and Andrew, Duke of York. john k 20:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Postdlf 05:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful article. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 23:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Betsy Windsor. — Dan | Talk 02:47, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redir. Radiant_>|< 09:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful article, not to mention Wikipedia is not paper so why on earth not have separate articles on her from the viewpoint of each of her realms? Apart from which, the redirect to the UK article is demeaning to her non-UK realms (writes a UK-er). -- Arwel 13:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect. There's one person who has different rôles; I can see no reason for multiple articles on her (any more than, for example, we should have one article on Samuel Johnson (lexicographer), Samuel Johnson (wit), Samuel Johnson (poet), etc. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a substantial article in and of itself and if merged into Elizabeth II of the UK would either result in much lost content or an excessively long and unwieldy article. Whig 16:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename. -Frazzydee|✍ 19:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Rename to what? john k 20:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as long as the other article keeps the "of the United Kingdom." --Ibagli 21:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: The above user has made fewer than 100 edits, and the vote should not be counted. (Mind you, *none* of these recent votes should count toward consensus -- the matter has already been decided.) CJCurrie 22:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The voting period has not officially ended since no final decision has been made. Just because it's beyond the normal VFD period, doesn't automatically close it. By the way, IMO "Queen of Canada" is merely symbolic and is a tremendous waste of Canadian taxpayer's money when she or any of the royal family visit. I think if the final decision is to keep, this will open a whole can of worms but I'm not going to vote due to my personal anti-Queen bias where I would say delete. RedWolf 06:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
          • Actually, under the guidelines in Wikipedia:Consensus we have consensus to merge/redirect since more than 2/3 of voters have voted that way. Why this VFD is still open is beyond me.AndyL 15:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I hope that my vote above (for Delete Redirect, my mistake) counts for something, because I am actually a monarchist, and I believe in the Commonwealth. I vote delete redirect because I think this title is superfluous and its content is already covered in several other articles (among them Monarchy in Canada and Canadian politics). The article Queen of Canada, as a redirect, should be more than sufficient, and having an Elizabeth II of COUNTRY_NAME for every Commonwealth country, in my opinion, is superfluous, difficult to maintain, and utterly confusing to a reader wanting to simply learn about her. When we write an encyclopedia, we should also write with the user (reader) in mind, and I think having all these articles is just confusing, especially when you can have Monarchy in COUNTRY_NAME instead. What if, knock on wood, something were to happen to the Queen? Would we then have to create a whole bunch of new articles for George VII of COUNTRY_NAME (as the name Prince Charles will adopt when he becomes king), one for every article that currently exists for Elizabeth II? --Deathphoenix 14:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Indeed, we must keep in mind that this is not a vote on deleting the monarchy or on deleting the current monarch. This is only about whether or not this Wikipedia article should exist separately from other Wikipedia articles on the same person. Ground Zero 14:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge+Redirect, I'm all for having an article on her function as queen of canada, but this is a bio page. --W(t) 15:53, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
  • temporarily keep, and begin a discussion about elizabeth II. i just finished examining pages, talk pages, and edit histories in an attempt to get up to speed on this complicated debate about wpedia's treatment and titling of articles regarding elizabeth II . this Vfd is only part of the debate, and there are a lot of unresolved issues. closing this Vfd because of consensus will only intensify the problem, unless the closing, merging, and redirecting is accompanied by more discussion elsewhere. i dont think there are enough people who are both well educated on the wpedia history of the subject and participating in good faith/NPOV/for-the-good-of-the-wpedia. i dont mean to say there are none, but i think there is not enough as a ratio to the other noise here and elsewhere. for that reason i would support an Rfc over a survey, as vote numbers dont seem too meaningful right now. at the moment my opinion is that there should not be a page titled elizabeth II of Canada except as a redirect. however, i also feel there should not be a page titled elizabeth II of the United Kingdom except as a redirect. is there a reason why we cannot use elizabeth II? i saw it suggested at least once but did not see a response. within the biographical article about elizabeth II, there should be limited information about her relationships with her various regencies interspersed with general biographical data. where there is more detailed encyclopedic information about a given specific country, it should be summarized in a section on the bio page and linked as "main page at X". there is useful, NPOV data currently to be found at elizabeth II of Canada. i would classify elizabeth II of the United Kingdom as some combination of POV and deficient in quality and professional feel. with all that said, i fear that 'merge and redirect' will result in one party of this dispute claiming a victory where none was achieved; hence, my vote to keep until a policy can be forged. Burgher 19:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your points that this is a complex issue for many to deal with, let alone Wikipedia. That one crown operates as a legal institution distinctly yet completely equally in 16 separate countries, and that there is one sovereign who has a personal history in, and relationship with, those 16 nations, is a situation which is is unique to history, and a little difficult to understand at first. Add to this the points that the Crown over the Commonwealth Realms is no longer purely British, yet has no official name either, as well as Wikipedia's existing standards for the naming of monarchs, and it becomes clear that with no precedent it becomes a complex matter to organise and explain accurately in an encyclopaedia. 16 "Elizabeth II of (insert Realm)"s may not be a viable solution, but that eliminates Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Merging the information contained in Elizabeth II of Canada to Monarchy in Canada ignores the fact that there is a distinction between the institution of the Crown in Canada and the actual person who is Sovereign of the Crown, which is correctly handled in the split between Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and the British Monarchy articles.
NOTE This user, User:Burgher, has been on wikipedia for approximately two weeks and has made fewer than 50 edits.AndyL 21:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
NOTE not only are you making my point for me, but you are wrong on both of those counts by a large margin. try "since january" and "fewer than 250" for more accurate versions of "approximately two weeks" and "fewer than 50". i personally see a great deal of content in my vote which could be responded to, would you care to do that? i have to go back a long way to find the last time user:AndyL has done something constructive in this debate. i do apologize for neglecting to sign my vote, i completely forgot. incidentally, none of my nearly 250 edits have had anything to do with this issue, and i learned everything i know about the dispute today, by taking about four hours to read everything i could find. i fail to see why my vote should not count in full without a note like this. Burgher 22:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My mistake, I misread your contributions list though I don't see how that "makes (your) point". If you made yourself even a rudimentary user page it might lead to people not assuming you're brand new. AndyL 23:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm personally not precisely sure how to handle this, yet. But the facts are out there, and, when one gets their head around it, the relationship of the Crown and Sovereign to the Commonwealth Realms is actually fairly straightforward. The problem arises when trying to fit it into Wikipedia. Though, I remain confident that it can be done. --gbambino 21:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/o/t/Wikipedia%7EVotes_for_deletion_Elizabeth_II_of_Canada_dc80.html"