Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Commonwealth realms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Returns somewhat sheepishly

Sorry guys - a little too much sherry last night I think... Incidentally, Scotland does contain the word "nation" on its own. It's the sixth word in the first paragraph. The UK is a political union that serves England and its other members very well indeed (though sometimes those other members seem to disagree). But it must not be confused with a nation, because it comprises more than one nation. The article British people has some interesting tables of census results that show that the majority of British people identify more with their home nation that with being "British". This is even true in England, the most "British" of all the nations. The only place it isn't true is Northern Ireland. TharkunColl (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Good on ya mate!--Gazzster (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back, Tharky. GoodDay (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General note to anybody

Does anybody know why the link over there ( --> ) on the archiving section is appearing red even though the content has already been submitted? Thanks --Cameron (t/c) 14:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been fixed. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Australia a crowned republic?

To avoid becoming involved in an edit war I would like to ask you guys a question? Is Australia a crowned republic? I have reverted edits twice already as I believe the statement to be untrue and the sources to be POV. My fellow wikipedian argues that one of the sources is even a monarchist website... What are your opions? In my opion, if Aus. is indeed a crowned republic, it effectively makes all the commonwealth realms, excluding the UK, crowned republics also... Thanks again for your help. --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If Australia is a crowned republic? then so is 14 other commonwealth realms (not including the UK). GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
But you are not sure if Aus. is one? --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope; but it's an interesting word. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Without a supporting source, it does seem like WP:POV and/or WP:OR. I think "crowned republic" is a subjective term in itself anyway; by the true definition of republic, one could say any constitutional monarchy is one. And, really, there's nothing about Australia to make it any different to most other kingdoms, and I would argue it is even less republican than monarchies like Japan or Sweden. --G2bambino (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with you there...--Cameron (t|p|c) 19:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, let's observe that 'crowned republic', as that article acknowledges, is an informal description. And there are no references or citations for the word in the sense in which it is used (i.e., a republic with a head of state with monarchical status). I actually went to the trouble of finding references to describe it as a monarchy withn elements of republican rule. Since the term is an informal one it follows that the references are going to be informal too. But no less real for that. I have shown how to term is used to describe Australia, and I could find many more if you wish. 'My fellow wikipedian argues that one of the sources is even a monarchist website'. Well I hope you checked that before you reverted, because you would find that that is correct. As for applying the term to other realms; my edit does not do that. 'I' do not do that. If you want to draw that inference, it's up to you. I do not.'I have reverted edits twice already as I believe the statement to be untrue'. Well, then, investigate the references; challenge them. As an Aussie I should know my own country. But I do not expect you to trust me. Prove that the term is wrong.--Gazzster (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I would be perfectly happy to leave the article be if the sentence were more like "Australia has sometimes been called....". Regarding your 'informal references' I would urge you to read Wikipedia:Sources#Sources. It is a very interesting article... --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, "sometimes been called," or something to that effect, would be preferable, especially as the term is, as we all agree, rather loose in its applications. If Australia has been referred to as a crowned republic in the past, so be it. But let's not go any furhter than that. --G2bambino (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. But I still don't see how the sources either unverifiable or invalid. Actually, on the basis of unverifiable statements the entire article could be trashed.--Gazzster (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Embarrasingly, I didn't know there was such a thing as a crowned republic; until today. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
As long as you're a republican it can be forgiven = )...everyone knows republicans are grossly ignorant ; p --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Verily, we vyle heretiks bannished from ye Holy Lande. As it is written;'cursed be he kisseth not the feete.'--Gazzster (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
That's easy for you to say, Gazz. PS- what did you say? GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. Feeling a bit biblical.--Gazzster (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
'And so it came to passe: the tribe of Commonwealthe Realmists claimed another payge, so to it contaminate it with its spawne.'--Gazzster (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You make us sound so evil...*evil laugh of evil mastermind* --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Those who enjoy these endless debate about terminology may be interested to note that an Australian High Court judge has described "England" as a crowned republic. As G2 has pointed out, it is a subjective term used to make a point rather than to give a straightforward description, but it does give some context to the comments at the start of this section. (Of course, I also vaguely recall the term being used to explicitly describe Australia but not the UK, but that just illustrates the looseness of the term.) JPD (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say the judge is clearly a fool. England is neither a republic nor a monarchy! --Cameron (t|p|c) 09:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It shows us that he isn't too pedantic when he doesn't need to be. Some of us could learn from that. JPD (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldnt call it pedantic. Accurate yes, pedantic no. It is gross ignorance to mistake England and the UK...and, quite frankly, rather embarassing coming from a High Court Judge. By the way, if anywhere, an encyclopaedia is the right place for pedanticalness, dont you think? --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
There are three types of people - those who mistake England and the UK, those who insist on pointing out the difference, and those who are mature enough to realise that in normal conversation the inaccurate shorthand is commonly used, even by people who know the difference. Generally not in the text of encyclopedia, of course, but some of us take excessive (sometimes even false) precision to a whole new level in that context. JPD (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I am aware of all three kinds of people...I merely dislike the two terms being used interchangably. It does not help to educate the first type of people you mentioned as to their error.--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For an example of an actual (as opposed to a metaphorical, which is surely what we're talking about here) crowned republic, see Holy Crown of Hungary. Despite being a republic, since the fall of Communism Hungary has reintroduced its ancient crown back into its national symbolism and also as a quasi-legal concept embodying the authority of the state. TharkunColl (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] De jure or de facto

Should monarch's reigns be listed de jure or de facto. At the moment some list de facto while other list both. I havent come accross one purely de jure yet, although that is my personal preferance. --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Howabout taking this to Wikipedia: WikiProject Royalty, as we're dealing with all monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, good idea. Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Royalty#De_jure_reigns.2C_Part_II --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accession Council

This talk of de jure and de facto is seriously misleaing. Under English constitutional law prior to the Act of Settlement of 1701, the new monarch had to be proclaimed by the Accession Council, which is basically a special meeting of the Privy Council (formerly known as the Curia Regis, and before that as the Witan). The Privy Council is led by the senior ministers of state who are also leading members of parliament. Needless to say, no Accession Council took place on the execution of Charles I in 1649, so legally speaking England had no king. Incidentally, the Accession Council still meets but since 1701 its role has been ceremonial. TharkunColl (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically, Parliament is the law of the land. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The Accession Council announces the succession, but its authority is not required for a new monarch to succeed.--Gazzster (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed; when the monarchy 'is not' abolished? succession is automatic in the UK. Elizabeth II succeeded on February 6, 1952 (not February 8). GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
That is absolutely true since the Act of Settlement. But prior to that, the council was the legal inauguration of the reign. Which is why monarchs did not succeed immediately. TharkunColl (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
If that's the case? Then there's alot of English monarchs whose reign dates are inaccurate. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
They would hold the council as soon after the monarch's death as they could. In many cases the council was already sitting while the monarch was on his deathbed. This was to ensure a smooth transfer of power. TharkunColl (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Phew! That's a worry off my mind. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Practices changed of course over time. In the earlier part of the middle ages they might leave it till the next day or even a few days. TharkunColl (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Such brief throne vacancies were kept from the public (of course). GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It didn't really matter. In those days the kingdom could trundle along for a few days or even weeks with no one actually running it. TharkunColl (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, Charles II was proclaimed three times: twice in 1649, at London and Edinburgh, and in 1660. [1]--Gazzster (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Not by the Accession Council (at least not the 1649 English "proclamation" - I don't know what the Scottish legal position was). The "proclaimers" were a bunch of royalists heading into exile. TharkunColl (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I see.--Gazzster (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Side note Is it accurate to say that in England, Edward I's accession was the first uncontested? GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
According to this same site [2] the first Accession Council was held in 1603. Before that, the new monarch made the proclamation himself. But of course he or she would have needed the support of the LOrds temporal and spiritual. Which of course Charles Prince of Wales did not have. Dunno about Eddy.--Gazzster (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - the term "Accession Council" is not medieval. The proclamation was simply done by the Privy Council (under whatever name it happened to be called), usually headed by the new monarch himself. As for Edward I being the first uncontested accession, in pre-Norman times there was actually something like a genuine election in the Witan (from a fairly limited number of candidates), so technically most or all were probably contested. TharkunColl (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Altough similiar the Curia Regis are not a continuation of Witenagemot! --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
They had the same function, though the Curia Regis's powers were seriously diminished. TharkunColl (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Seriously so! You got it ; ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you move it here? Each monarchy is different. In particular, the English monarchy never succeeded in rising above the law. I think few other monarchies could claim this. And this is also, no doubt, why the English monarchy has survived. TharkunColl (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put it back here because I don't like having my words moved to a different article. I'm not in the slightest bit interested in foreign monarchies and I don't wish to contribute to their talk page. TharkunColl (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The English & Scottish monarchies merged as the British monarchy in 1707. Therefore, the English monarchy hasn't survived. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't feed the... er.. Thark, GoodDay. --G2bambino (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I was attempting to discuss a serious point. TharkunColl (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
What point is that? The one about your words supposedly being moved when the evidence clearly shows you started this section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty? --G2bambino (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I started it here. Someone moved my posts. TharkunColl (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You obviously didn't look at the link I provided. --G2bambino (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I did but I'm not sure I understand it. My discussion was here until someone moved it. TharkunColl (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Who moved it? I'm getting confused. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
So am I. But I know that this discussion didn't take place at "foreign monarchies" (or ProjectRoyalty or wherever it was) because I'm not sufficiently interested in foreign monarchies to sustain a discussion. TharkunColl (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thark: click on the link I gave above; look at the title at the head of the page; look at the green box of new text at the middle right; and then look above that to see which editor made that change. I think you'll see that it was you who started Accession Council at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty. Nobody moved anyone's text except you moving your own here. --G2bambino (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The Accession Council discussion, is tied into the De jure discussion. It should've remained at the WikiProject Royalty page. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, er, maybe you're right. Sorry. Please feel free to revert back any of them to anywhere. I think I'd better bow out from Wikipedia right now. TharkunColl (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, yes. I was wrong. TharkunColl (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
That's fine; we all make mistakes. I just don't think you should get so angry so quickly. --G2bambino (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Many a time on Wikipedia, I've caught myself posting at 2 seperate articles, with the wrong postings. Sorta like, combing my hair with my toothprush & brushing my teeth with my comb. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Better yet, I've seen people post a talk comment in article namespace! I don't want to know what you'd compare that with... --G2bambino (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yikes. GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Renovation'

Have been 'renovating' the main page so if any (minor) mistakes have been made feel free to correct them. Also, I changed the main pic from the one of QEII to a map showing the Commonwealth realms. Sorry I didnt ask beforehand but have I only just thought of that. I hope you dont mind the change in the main pic but I thought the commonwealth realm map to be more appropriate...and it makes us look less like a Queen Elizabeth fan club (which, incidently, would be great fun, does anyone know any?). --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The map is much better, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is my list of participants apearing at the bottom of the page? It is clearly places at the bottom of the participants section! Can anyone help?I'm so frustrated with it! --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

:Also I have made a new sidebar and header that I want to add only its all going wrong!It's in my sandbox if anyone can be bothered to look at the bloody ghastly thing! --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that look great. PS- How do I place my 'interests etc' next to my user name? GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. I've been pulling tufts of hair out for days! You can click this link to edit your interests! --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
PS: I dont suppose you know why the list isnt appearing in the participants section where I put it?--Cameron (t|p|c) 17:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I've not a clue. The renovations you're doing, are way over my head. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
What a pity. Like the bit about being a republican though! --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
PS: Anyone who happens to read this: It would be nice (more orderly) if everyone took a minute to add their "interests etc" into the chart! Thanks! --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monarch & Canadian passport

I'm not sure if this falls under our scope, but republicans are having a hissy fit at Canadian passport, removing material just because it refers to the Queen, even though that material be properly cited. GoodDay, you really must be ashamed by the behaviour of most of your politically-minded counterparts here at Wikipedia... --G2bambino (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've posted at that article. But, I'm afraid my fellow republicans have got me out-numbered. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw, but I didn't understand your question there. --G2bambino (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I was expressing surprise over those claiming E2 required a Canadian passport. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, no, they're not claiming that at all. They're stating she wouldn't qualify for one by her own passport rules. --G2bambino (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops; like I said, I'm not a legal beagle. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to be. It's just a matter of using what the cites say. --G2bambino (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I see. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You see to be doing quite well on your own! I will keep an eye out anyway = )...--Cameron (t|p|c) 11:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Lucia article

Hi everyone! I am going to try getting Monarchy of Saint Lucia to either good article or featured article level. Any help would be greatly appreciated and would increase our project's reputation! I would be especially grateful for help from anyone who has already worked, (and is therefore more experienced than me!) in the area "of improving articles". Good article criteria can be found here featured article criteria can be found here. After our improvements are made (sources are especially lacking) we can nominate the article for good article status. These kind of activities are especially good for people looking to become admins some day. Thanks --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a worthy project; however, Monarchy of Canada was already up for FA nomination (though it failed, for a few reasons having nothing to do with the quality of the article itself), and is already rated A class by WP:Canada. It might be easier to get that to be our first FA (as Monarchy of the United Kingdom has already been elevated to that point). --G2bambino (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't you think it might have been a good idea to find a bit more information actually specifically about Saint Lucia before starting an article which is almost entirely duplication? JPD (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The information is all correct. Why should it not be submitted? Some governments however (such as the one in question) do not provide much information about their head of state. Which, in my opinion, is rather lazy of them...--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course governments provide information about their heads of state. On the contrary, it is the editors who are often lazy.--Gazzster (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If we looked here [3] for example, we would find the provisions of the St. Lucian Constitution that relate to the Sovereign.--Gazzster (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly..that is all there is! Its about as useful as one of my faberge egg replicas! = )--Cameron (t|p|c) 15:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
There are some interesting things about that monarchy: the Constitution sets down in writing that the GG is obliged to follow the advice of his or her ministers in most circumstances. The GG not only appoints the PM but the Leader of the Opposition as well, which is interesting. So you could make quite a quirky little tome. But please don't copy bucketloads of stuff from Monarchy of the UK or Monarchy of Canada.--Gazzster (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel rather upset about these "accusations". It makes it sounds as though I have added information that is incorrect. Naturally lots of the information is copied from other similar articles. They do share a monarchy after all. Any information found to be inaccurate or untrue can be removed of course or discussed on the respective talk pages. --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It's just that its a bit bland. Like pizza without the topping.--Gazzster (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone suggested it is inaccurate, let alone accused you of anything. Someone with more familiarity with the subject may possibly find some minor inaccuracies, or more likely, some areas with too much/too little emphasis, but the real issue is as Gazzster says. It reads as an article with no content. JPD (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That's precisely it. I have no idea about Saint Lucia! Hence me only adding info's that are the case in all CR's and the few bits that I have managed to find on their website! --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I gave you a head start, mate. I've mentioned a couple of pecularities of the Saint Lucia Constitution relating to the Crown. And I gave you the website.--Gazzster (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Treason to harm the Queen

Would somebody care to add this info to the respective articles on Canadian, Australian, NZ and UK monarchy? I have been looking for an appropriate place in the article but cant find one for the life of me. The links are: Australia canada and NZ. Thanks! --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help

{{helpme}} For some reason the template with the list of members on appears at the bottom of the page not in the participants section...clearly not where I put it. Thanks for any help. --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I fixed the problem. When you use templates in the template namespace, i.e. starting with Template:, you don't need to include Template: in the {{ }}. :) eDenE 17:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It isnt fixed, the table still appears at the bottom of the page! --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The <table> tag was unclosed. Not sure why that should cause this behaviour, but it's fixed. Algebraist 14:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much! --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Queen's personal flag

I have to tell you that the Queen's personal flag (the blue one with the circle of roses) that you have liberally laced all over your WikiProject is completely inappropriate. This flag should only be used in countries where she is not head of state. Countries where she is head of state, ie the commonwealth realms, she uses a banner that uses that countries coat of arms surrounded by a ring of roses - although I believe Canada has a different one. --Bill Reid | Talk 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of the situation. The flag is still appropriate as it is featured in some (but not all) of the royal flags. Also it is country-neutral...The flag stays unless you have a better idea? --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
But you can't use inappropriate images. These images along with say, images of the Westminster portcullis of Parliament or UK logos of local authorities have very limited usage. The image is almost certainly a violation of the queen's rights. You should be aware of this. --Bill Reid | Talk 20:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It has GNU Free Documentation License on the discription page...--Cameron (t|p|c) 21:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I do have to say that I think its use is a bit excessive, especially given the heavy graphics overall. --G2bambino (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The image is a copy from a website that the originator acknowledges. Irrespectively, it is being used in an in appropriate manner. I'm not pointing the finger at you because you are using an image that has been wrongly attributed to someones personal work. I will ask the "author" to produce a proper rational for his image or ask for its deletion. --Bill Reid | Talk 21:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The standard of the Head of the Commonwealth is not really appropriate. But since there is no organisation of Commonwealth realms with its own standard it's difficult to know what (if any) symbol to use. One could use the standard of the Commonwealth of Nations, but that really isn't appropriate either. Cameron, why don't you invent one? It could be a combination of the Imperial Crown and the Commonwealth logo.--Gazzster (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the flag everywhere now. If anyone has a good idea for a replacement feel free to add it (the place looks rather dull now!). Perhaps an EIIR logo would be a good idea? Or even a picture of HM's magical face. Thank Bill for alerting us. --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: Gazzster: I dont think I will go as far as to invent a flag for the Commonwealth realms (I think I would be breaching HM's royal prerogative!) but I may well come up with a new logo for our WikiProject. WP:BROY have their own made up one...--Cameron (t|p|c) 12:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol. I dont know if Betty is a Wikipedian but even if she is, I don't think you'd get a 'visit' from the Beefeaters!--Gazzster (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
PS. Magical face?--Gazzster (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Relevant WikiProjects

Would WikiProject Australia and the State and Territory WikiProjects be relevant for this WikiProject? Kathleen.wright5 13:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Adelaide

In particular I was thinking of the political articles under those WikiProjects and WikiProject Australian Politics WP:AUP. I've also put George V and Edward VIII under Monarch articles, hope that's OK? Kathleen.wright5 00:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It depends how you mean relevant? Would you oblige us with additional info?--Cameron (t|p|c) 14:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldnt add those specific ones to our relevant WP's list. I think our relevant WP list has to be rather selective as otherwise we could end up with a mile long list. Thanks for the other edits! Feel free to join fellow whovian! --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changing the dablink

A proposal to change the dab link on Commonwealth realm articles has been made here. --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been wrapped up and modifications have been made. --G2bambino (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AFd

The article Commonwealth kingdom has been AFD'd. The entry can be found here...--Cameron (t|p|c) 21:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Queen vs the Queen

Just to inform everyone that a discussion is taking place here about the capitalisation of 'The Queen'. The discussion concerns all the monarchy articles throughout the Commonwealth realms. --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations Jza84

As some of you may know our Wikiproject member Jza84 recently applied for administratorship. This morning at 09:55 he passed with a brilliant tally of 83/4/2! Jza84 has kindly agreed to deal with anything on the WikiProject that specifically needs an administrator's attention. Congratulations Jza84!--Cameron (T|C) 11:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monarchy of Canada nominated for FA

The article Monarchy of Canada has been nominated as a featured article candidate. It's already rated as an A-class for Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada, and was a previous nominee for FA, so I don't think it would take a helluva lot of work to get it up the next notch to FA status. I've started cleanup and copyediting, but, obviously, the more attention it receives the better. --G2bambino (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assassination articles

Is there any reason why there is no article about attempts on HM The Queen's life? I noticed most other assassination attempts on notable people have their own article. --Cameron (T|C) 13:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

By all means, create such an article. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There are enough sources, I was just wondering if there was a reason it hadn't been created already. = ) --Cameron (T|C) 13:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
My guess is, 'cause nobody thought of it' before. Perhaps, if the Queen had been wounded, then such an article would've been created, long ago. Again, just a guess. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
PS- I'm looking forward to the new article. GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Potential British Empire WikiProject

I'd like to formally propose a WikiProject be created to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the British Empire. While some articles on the subject of high quality, many others lag behind. It is my opinion that the project in place to handle BE articles, the Empires bureau of the Former Countries project, lacks the resources and attention needed to bring these articles up to the ultimate goal of FA status. It is also my opinion that there is a significant amount of interest and knowledge on this particular subject here at Wikipedia. GoodDay has suggested that such a project be organized as the daughter of this one. If anyone is interested in helping with this please reply here or at my talk page. I look forward to any thoughts/advice -MichiganCharms (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps even making it a sister WikiProject (on equal footing) may be better. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that would work. The amount overlap is going to be very high, I might even propose that this project and the proposed BE one operate as one, if anyone agrees of course. -MichiganCharms (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Very interesting. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to see Commonwealth realm disappear as a tool of organisation. I didn't know a Former Countries project existed. This project could be merged into that.--Gazzster (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Howabout a British Empire/Commonwealth of Nations WikiProject? GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd be very happy with a combined British Empire/Commonwealth project. -MichiganCharms (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Except that a Commonwealth nation does not need to have been psrt of the British Empire. How 'bout Former dominions of the British Empire, abstracting from a consideration of the Commonwealth?--Gazzster (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we could get away with a non-Commonwealth Empire project, but the overlap (being every country sans Mozambique) are so much that is it really worth one without the other? -MichiganCharms (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)