Talk:List of New Zealand monarchs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth realms, an attempt to better organise and expand information in articles related to the Commonwealth realms. For more information, visit the project page or check the talk page for on going discussions. |
 |
List of New Zealand monarchs is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. |
| List | This article has been rated as list-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 18 March 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
[edit] New article
Thus another article is born. Looks great to me. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Dont tell the others they will kill me. I couldnt resist, its such a sweet place after all : )...--Camaeron (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Ps how did u find it? --Camaeron (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I found it via the article Monarchy of New Zealand. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I admit, I peeked at your contributions - wondering if you'd create more List of... articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I see no problem with these articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New Zealand vs New Zealander
I won't pretend to have the faintest idea on what is right here...But I created the article as the latter option. Simply because of New Zealander being the demonym. All other articles conform to having a demonym in front of the word "monarchs". See List of British monarchs List of Scottish monarchs List of English monarchs...Thanks for helping me out. --Camaeron (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- New Zealand monarchs, is the correct usage. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm no grammar expert, but - I've found the er isn't often used in descriptionss. You can have Canadian Prime Ministers, Nova Scotian Premiers, British Columbian Premiers, but not Yukonder Premiers or Quebecer Premiers. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Māori
Should we bring the list of Māori kings and queens over to this page? I think that might be a good idea. --G2bambino (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't it undermines the whole page. Note the page says monarchs not diarchs. The Maori Kings arent recognised by anyone. Besides the Maori goverment signed documents recognising the Crown...--Camaeron (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure where they are now (though I could hunt them out again), but there are lists of state leaders that include sub-national monarchs. I believe some of the African states that were previously under the British crown have lists like that. They, of course, make clear that those monarchs were not the constitutional heads of the country, but were still heads of a nation - as in, a people. Those instances seem to parallel the situation in New Zealand. --G2bambino (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Even the word King indicates equality and is confusing to the readers of the article...--Camaeron (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't that depend on how we word things? --G2bambino (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Do what ever you want I trust your judgement in thing monarchy. I wont get involved in this one though as I have no knowledge of Maori monarchy whatsoever..! --Camaeron (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nor do I, do be honest, besides the point that they have no legal standing and are purely ceremonial, though still taken quite seriously. I wonder, though, if it could be taken that because the Maori monarchs are New Zealanders, that they'd fall under the category of New Zealand monarchs, though not monarchs of New Zealand. --G2bambino (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Do what ever you want I trust your judgement in thing monarchy. I wont get involved in this one though as I have no knowledge of Maori monarchy whatsoever..! --Camaeron (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't that depend on how we word things? --G2bambino (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Even the word King indicates equality and is confusing to the readers of the article...--Camaeron (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure where they are now (though I could hunt them out again), but there are lists of state leaders that include sub-national monarchs. I believe some of the African states that were previously under the British crown have lists like that. They, of course, make clear that those monarchs were not the constitutional heads of the country, but were still heads of a nation - as in, a people. Those instances seem to parallel the situation in New Zealand. --G2bambino (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't it undermines the whole page. Note the page says monarchs not diarchs. The Maori Kings arent recognised by anyone. Besides the Maori goverment signed documents recognising the Crown...--Camaeron (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- What's a diarch? GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Monarchy = from mono (greek for one) meaning "one ruler"
- Diarchy = from di (greek for two) meaning "two rulers"
- Monarchy = from mono (greek for one) meaning "one ruler"
See Diarchy or the best example Andorra --Camaeron (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The Maoris do not have a king. The Maori 'monarchy' was invented as a sort of parrallel to the British monarchy. And not all Maoris recognise it.--Gazzster (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Then take that up with the editors of Māori King Movement, not us. --G2bambino (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- You just said you knew nothing about Maori monarchs. I do, and I'm telling you: they are not recognised by all Maoris, and so they cannot be called monarchs of New Zealand. Get up on the wrong side of the bed, did we?--Gazzster (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've been up for 10 hours now, thanks. I don't even remember what side of the bed I got up on. Anyway, who the hell said anything about calling them "monarchs of New Zealand"? --G2bambino (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- 'Should we bring the list of Māori kings and queens over to this page? I think that might be a good idea.' And what's the title of this article?--Gazzster (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure we can both read the title of the article; but, so what? Where's the similarity between "New Zealand monarchs" and "monarchs of New Zealand", especially when "New Zealand" is being used in "New Zealand monarchs" in the same way "Canadian" is in "Canadian monarchs." Or, are Maoris not New Zelanders? --G2bambino (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Aha, so you're understanding 'New Zealand monarchs' in the sense of, any New Zealand individuals who have been styled monarch. Well, OK, let's consider, though I don't know that's the intended scope of the article. But if you wanted to consider the article in that sernse, you would have to include not only the Maori 'kings' and 'queens', but the various chiefs of the traditional tribes, past and present. And if you're going to change these lists from CR related monarchs to all monarchs, you open the way to do the same in other lists. List of Australian monarchs would have to include Prince Leonard of the Hutt River Province (plus others - the Aboriginal nations though had no concept of individual rule). Not trying to get up ya nose mate- just showing you that the suggestion is impractical.And I can say it would a recipe for creating yet more lists: someone will think of List of New Zealand monarchs, then List of Monarchs of the Dominion/Realm of New Zealand, in order to distinguish the British monarchs from the rest. Get's messy. Keep it simple.--Gazzster (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- First off, it was just a suggestion. And, secondly, the suggestion was to take the already existing list of Maori monarchs and put it here. As you're all for merging, I'd have thought you'd support the idea, despite its feasibility. --G2bambino (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- None of which answers what I stated. Of course it's a suggestion.
- First off, it was just a suggestion. And, secondly, the suggestion was to take the already existing list of Maori monarchs and put it here. As you're all for merging, I'd have thought you'd support the idea, despite its feasibility. --G2bambino (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Aha, so you're understanding 'New Zealand monarchs' in the sense of, any New Zealand individuals who have been styled monarch. Well, OK, let's consider, though I don't know that's the intended scope of the article. But if you wanted to consider the article in that sernse, you would have to include not only the Maori 'kings' and 'queens', but the various chiefs of the traditional tribes, past and present. And if you're going to change these lists from CR related monarchs to all monarchs, you open the way to do the same in other lists. List of Australian monarchs would have to include Prince Leonard of the Hutt River Province (plus others - the Aboriginal nations though had no concept of individual rule). Not trying to get up ya nose mate- just showing you that the suggestion is impractical.And I can say it would a recipe for creating yet more lists: someone will think of List of New Zealand monarchs, then List of Monarchs of the Dominion/Realm of New Zealand, in order to distinguish the British monarchs from the rest. Get's messy. Keep it simple.--Gazzster (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'm sure we can both read the title of the article; but, so what? Where's the similarity between "New Zealand monarchs" and "monarchs of New Zealand", especially when "New Zealand" is being used in "New Zealand monarchs" in the same way "Canadian" is in "Canadian monarchs." Or, are Maoris not New Zelanders? --G2bambino (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- 'Should we bring the list of Māori kings and queens over to this page? I think that might be a good idea.' And what's the title of this article?--Gazzster (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've been up for 10 hours now, thanks. I don't even remember what side of the bed I got up on. Anyway, who the hell said anything about calling them "monarchs of New Zealand"? --G2bambino (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- You just said you knew nothing about Maori monarchs. I do, and I'm telling you: they are not recognised by all Maoris, and so they cannot be called monarchs of New Zealand. Get up on the wrong side of the bed, did we?--Gazzster (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
That's why you mentioned it. Don't act so hurt about it mate. I'm for merging when it makes sense. It doesn't make sense here. But you are perfectly free to transfer the list here. I may revert it though. Camaeron, if New Zealand is divided into many territories, which it was, each with a monarch, then there wil;l beb multiple monarchs.--Gazzster (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- At any time when there were multiple monarchs of NZ there, logically, can't have been a monarch of NZ as a whole...--Camaeron (t/c) 22:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- That is exactly what I've been trying to say. Monarch means "The one ruler". There can only be one at any given time...--Camaeron (t/c) 21:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, you can have sub-national monarchs; they've existed all over the world at different times, including now. --G2bambino (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Care to provide an example? I was under the impression vassal-kings weren't called monarchs...--Camaeron (t/c) 22:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there's a bunch of subnational monarchies listed at List of monarchies#Subnational monarchies. I'm not sure if it's correct to call the emirs, sultans, kings, etc., of those royal houses monarchs or not. --G2bambino (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, don't let's change the name. Not now it's in accordance with all the others... --Camaeron (t/c) 21:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
PS: We can emphasize that they aren't legally recognised in the article... --Camaeron (t/c) 21:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
(To last post of Camaeron): Oh, too true. But G2 is suggesting that we take 'New Zealand monarchs' to include any monarch who has 'reigned' in NZ, regardless of whether they reigned over all NZ in fact or name, or not.--Gazzster (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- To what, friend?--Gazzster (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- To putting Maori kings here, I'd imagine. So we won't do it. That's perfectly fine. --G2bambino (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- (To penultimate post of G2) If that's what you want to do, fine; propose it. Request a consensus on what the scope of these sorts of lists should be. But in my opinion you want to complicate things for no appreciable benefit. - Just saw your last post. That's fine then.--Gazzster (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I was kind of expecting to find them here. Given that the Maori Monarchs have actual power over a portion of New Zealanders, while the Monarchs currently on this page are powerless figureheads, I think claiming one is more legitimate than the other is a little silly. That said, I can understand why they aren't going to move here, especially since the Maori King only rules over Tainui. The main reason I'm posting this is to bring up this point: "you would have to include not only the Maori 'kings' and 'queens', but the various chiefs of the traditional tribes, past and present" (Gazzster) Do you have such a list availible? Because the ones currently on the internet are generally poor quality, and the ones on Wiki worse. Please consider making a page for such lists. Also I really ought to point out that the term "Maoris" is incorrect- Where the demonym isn't -ian or -er or derived from -stan it doesn't change when pluralised. You don't talk about "Englishs" or "Chineses".... (The exceptions being Greeks, Poles and Spaniards... Ok it's a poor rule... But 'Maoris' is still incorrect) 130.195.86.40 (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC) (User:Furius)
