Talk:Lunalilo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaiʻi, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Hawaiʻi. Please participate by editing the article Lunalilo, or visit the project page for more details. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a brief summary at comments to explain the ratings.) |
|
 |
This article has been marked as needing attention. | |
- Oppose. There already has been a consensus that Hawaiian monarchs will be under simple and short headings such as Liliuokalani, Lunalilo and Kamehameha I. See further Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style. I find the above request for move an improper one, as "of Hawaii" is unnecessary clutter and is not needed to anything, least of all to any useful disambiguation. Arrigo 09:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Pointless, and will require needless piping. Septentrionalis 21:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 |
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007) |
[edit] moving
although "King" would reflect the gender of the person, because the current heading will simply just not do Antares911 23:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I favor simplicity. There was no other Lunalilo, afaik. (As this was not an European monarch, those guidelines are not applied.) There is no necessity for the heading to show genders, etc. The article tells such things. 217.140.193.123 4 July 2005 06:24 (UTC)
It was requested that Lunalilo be moved to either King Lunalilo of Hawaii or Lunalilo of Hawaii. I among others oppose such moves. As can be seen above, the request received opposition and the poll went stale. Requests denied. Arrigo 13:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Arrigo please stop moving pages if the naming is controversial, in any case. Also do not remove renaming tags if the voting has not been clear and over. Please abide by Wikipedia rules and Wikiquette. Gryffindor
14:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Instead of having to place opinions on multiple pages, we should follow the example of the users over at the Japan manual of style pages and move all related discussions to one place. Thus, I'm requesting that we move all discussions about the naming conventions of Hawaiian monarchs to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style.
- While I'm discussing this, why is it that only two Hawaiian article pages are being proposed for movement? We need a set format for naming related articles. We won't get that when we have an article named Kamehameha V and another article named Lunalilo of Hawaii. 青い(Aoi) 06:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Readers may be interested in to know that User:Antares911 above is the former username of User:Gryffindor (also above). 217.140.193.123 20:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Dragons flight 02:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Royal consorts and monarchs
hi there. i´m trying to get a discussion going to change the rules on naming consorts, monarchs, etc.. it´s a bit of mess at the moment. maybe you wanna join in and give your opinion? feel free [1] cheers Antares911 23:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Kamehameha V and Absolute Monarchy
Can anyone cite their sources as far as Lot (Kamehameha V) increasing powers of his office as well as restoring absolute monarchy. Is there someone going through notes that we have no access to, or is it all just hearsay? We already are aware of the changes that Lot did in the 1864 Constitution from the 1852 Constitution such as Article 48 of the 1864 Constitution where it states: The Legislature has full power and authority to amend the Constitution as hereinafter provided; and from time to time to make all manner of wholesome laws, not repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution. Compare that to Article 45 of the 1852 Constitution where it states: All important business for the Kingdom which the King chooses to transact in person, he may do, but not without the approbation of the Kuhina Nui. The King and Kuhina Nui shall have a negative on each other's public acts.
So how is it that Kamehameha V was trying to increase the powers of his office trying to restore the absolute monarchy when his own predecessors were the ones exercising more of an absolute monarchy than he was? Wasn't Article 48 just one of the articles that clearly points that out? Article 20 of the 1864 Constitution clearly states: The Supreme Power of the Kingdom in its exercise, is divided into the Executive, Legislative, and udicial; these shall always be preserved distinct, and no Judge of a Court of Record shall ever be a member of the Legislative Assembly. Unlike Article 45 of the 1852 Constitution where it mentions the King chooses to transact but not without the approbation of the Kuhina Nui. Mamoahina 08:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
