Talk:Monarchy of Jamaica

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.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 19 May 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Article purpose

See Talk:Canadian Royal Family. This page is a WP:POINT violation by J.J. to protest the (ridiculous!) existence of that article. It ought t o be deleted. john k 05:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It is quite possible you are right, so I've put it on AFD. FrozenPurpleCube 22:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Inconsistancy in article & Afd. GoodDay 23:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

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

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

[edit] Requested move

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

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

Yep they should be "[Country]ish/ian/etc. monarchy" just like British monarchy, as the Commonwealth realms are of equal status. GoodDay 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
As has been pointed out before, the "Demonym monarchy" form does overlook the objective observation that, all technicalities aside, the vast majority of the shared monarchy is British in nature † DBD 00:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
So you support that all articles, including British monarchy, should be titled as "Monarchy in [country]"? --G2bambino 00:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Monarchy in Jamaica is just fine since it is both descriptive and neutral. Questions about the status of the monarchy are dealt with in the article but the title should be as NPOV and as non-contentious as possible. In answer to the question above; yes I should prefer the others to have this form. The British monarchy page is somewhat different because there is no contention as to its status. Having said that Monarchy in the United Kingdom could be argued to be slightly more accurate since the monarchy covers the UK, not just the three countries of Great Britain. TerriersFan 00:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment British is the correct demonym for the UK, not just GB † DBD 12:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Concur with TerriersFans. User:Barryob, it is poor form to move a page during a discussion, but I'm not going to move it back myself until the discussion is over, and a final name chosen. - BillCJ 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have moved it back since the move, in the middle of a discussion, is both procedurally wrong and caused confusion with the templates. I have protected the page from non-admin moves to stop this move warring. The closing admin will determine the ultimate name. TerriersFan 01:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hold up! This discussion, I thought, was first and foremost about deciding on a common title format for all the articles. So, perhaps we should vote first on which format to use. I'll open a poll; I probably should have done this at the beginning. Sorry. --G2bambino 01:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have no problem with the British monarchy being moved but it is does have different considerations. TerriersFan 01:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Such as? --G2bambino 01:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no contention as to its status so the arguments for a move are less weighty than for the other realms where the status is contentious. TerriersFan 01:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "contentious status." --G2bambino 01:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, 1975 Australian constitutional crisis provides a flavour of one situation where the status of the monarchy, and the powers that could be exercised by the governor-general on the monarch's behalf, was contentious. TerriersFan 02:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I still don't understand. In what way did that make the status of the Australian Crown "contentious"? --G2bambino 02:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

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

  • [Realm] monarchy (e.g. Canadian monarchy, British monarchy)
    • Support --G2bambino 01:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Support --GoodDay 20:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Monarchy in [Realm] (e.g. Monarchy in Canada, Monarchy in the United Kingdom)
    • Support --TerriersFan 01:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Support - BillCJ 01:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Support, except British monarchy † DBD 12:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Support for all commonwealth monarchies --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 00:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - well, they're either all the same or they're not and the title of each is decided individually. I can tell you now that "Canadian monarchy" can be directly sourced, "Monarchy in Canada" cannot. --G2bambino 15:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Of course Monarchy in Canada can be sourced. See here, for example, where the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba, one of the Monarch's representatives, uses the phrase when he says "Of course in speaking for the nation or the province, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors do so from outside the realm of politics. We, the representatives of the Monarchy in Canada ..." but does not refer to Canadian monarchy. Interestingly a Gsearch gives 758 hits for Canadian Monarchy here but 10,400 for Monarchy in Canada here. However, that is not central to the debate since the title is simply intended to be descriptive and neutral; I have explained the reasons above. I also suggested that editors might take a different view on British monarchy from the others collectively; that does not require a separate series of polls. TerriersFan 18:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way, what's the main objection to Jamaican monarchy? I'm not clear on this. GoodDay 20:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
In addition to the arguments above it is simply not a used term. There are a miserable 10 8 Ghits for Jamaican monarchy, mostly from wikis here

TerriersFan 20:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, it don't look good for my proposals. GoodDay 20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's a pretty official reference to the Jamaican monarchy: [1]. --G2bambino 03:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Support, except British monarchy.--UpDown 20:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Isn't there a wikipedia policy against naming articles with the adjective form? Biofoundationsoflanguage 19:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Which is the abjective form? GoodDay 19:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
What's an abjective? :) The adjective form would be X-ian Monarchy. Don't know about a prohibition of adjective forms in the naming conventions. - BillCJ 19:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Found it! Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives), the prohibition is against using adjective alone as titles. Example given: Organic would be prohibited (it's allowed as a DABpage), but Organic food and Organic chemistry are allowed. - BillCJ 19:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
So the pages have to be moved back to Monarchy in xxx? What about the British monarchy article? That too? GoodDay 19:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
No, that means the opposite. --G2bambino 21:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Guess that's a 'yes' (concerning the non-British pages) - I'll start reversing the pages tommorow (Friday). GoodDay 21:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend that. Not until there's verification that their format somehow violates a Wikipedia policy. --G2bambino 21:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Awaiting 'verification' then, if there's any. GoodDay 22:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I shouldv'e fixed that; I posted the above before reading BillCJ's post. From his findings it seems "[realm]ian/ish monarchy" is acceptible by WP standards.
What I glean from all of this is that people don't feel all sixteen articles should be titled the same way. That opens up a whole other can of worms. --G2bambino 22:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright, tommorow (Friday) I'll revert my changes -- It's best to have the articles as they were before the protesting. GoodDay 23:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, fine, except for Canadian monarchy, Australian monarchy and New Zealand monarchy where you individually asked for input, and nobody objected. No reason to move those back again. --G2bambino 23:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Will do. GoodDay 23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Same or not the same?

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

  • All. -- Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • All. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • All All articles should have the same format for consistency --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 19:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • All As above. ---- G2bambino (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Exception because, like it or no, that one case *is* exceptional † DBD 19:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • All - -- BillCJ (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

  • I find both acceptable. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • We have a consensus, above, for Monarchy in xxx - the position is clear. -- TerriersFan (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • So, we could say we have a consensus to make all pages, including British monarchy, in the Monarchy in [realm] format. However, have we let this discussion go on long enough? I don't know - I'm just wondering. ---- G2bambino (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep, IMHO it's a consensus -all articles be changed to Monarchy in xxx. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Ya get the feeling, there's gonna be a rumpous at British monarchy? -- GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well... Yes. But, I think there's ample notice of this discussion. I was just wondering if we'd let enough time pass to allow for people to weigh in. I might leave this until a week has passed: November 20. ---- G2bambino (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:RM requires five days which will have elapsed after 20:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC) (approx :-)) TerriersFan (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Continued below. — AjaxSmack 00:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move discussion relocated

Since this discussion now deals with the title format for all articles relating to the monarchies of the Commonwealth realms, this is not the best place for the discussion. (And since it's a policy decision and not a simple RM, the normal five-day "rule" for RMs need not apply.) I have copied it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty and posted links to it at several related pages so that it can gather wider input. The title of this article can then be decided based on the outcome. — AjaxSmack 00:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Smart move Ajax, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a policy decision? Related to what? --G2bambino (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)