Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Commonwealth realms/Archive/March08

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Congratulations, It's a WikiProject

Now we've a place to co-ordinate our discussions on the various 'Commonwealth realms'. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Any of you any good with templates? Its driving me mad...--Camaeron (t/c) 19:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Seek out other Templates, go to their 'edit versions', to see how it's done. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Have done it now see here. I only created the first one the others already existed. But..the first one is the most important. By typing {{Template:WikiProject Commonwealth realms}} we can "claim" articles. That way we will redirect some wiki_traffic to our page...--Camaeron (t/c) 20:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I see, cool. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The usage of British

Perhaps this topic is the core of alot of disagreements on the Commonwealth realm articles. Where & how, should the term British be used on non-UK Commonwealth realm articles? Should it be use at all? This legal VS common usage should be solvable. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically, what will the WikiProject propose? GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

British should only be used in context with British-monarchy related topics. All 16 realms are equal de facto but as the monarchy is originally British it can sometimes be used wider than it's meant to be and is a bit of an exception. The term "Commonwealth realms" should be used when referring to all states with ER as head of state. --Camaeron (t/c) 21:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but there are instances where the common usage of British monarchy, British Royal Family, etc., is used in a wider, pan-Commonwealth realm scope; i.e. in the opening paragraphs of articles on the present members of the Royal Family. I inserted a disclaimer of sorts in the leads of Monarchy of the United Kingdom and British Royal Family to attempt to explain the different uses in different contexts, but I'm not sure how successful it is at dispelling confusion (and I'm really not sure how many readers of the article on, say, Prince Andrew, Duke of York will click on the link to British Royal Family and read that the term British Royal Family might mean something different beyond the United Kingdom). I've toyed with the idea of putting British Royal Family and British monarchy in quotations in those particular instances where the terms are technically misnomers, but remain skeptical that such a move would be accepted. --G2bambino (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly a powder keg issue. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the point is that it shouldn't be, and there must be a way to deal with it in an accurate manner. --G2bambino (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
There are several ways in which the Dreaded Adjective can be used:
  • to describe the first nationality of the monarch
  • as a descriptive term indicating the historic roots of the monarchy; it is often used this way by official organs of government within the realms themselves.
  • as an expression of public perception. Thus members of the public in a realm will not infrequently call the monarchy British.
  • as describing the common monarchy, based geographically in London, as G2 has said.
But I don't think we should get anxious about the Dread Adjective. As long as it is easiy understood in context there should be no problem. It's just a word, after all.--Gazzster (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Historic roots are fine, and, as I've said, the explanation of context, common usage, etc., has already been outlined in two articles. However, I see a problem in that those explanations are often far distanced from where the term is being used, and thus have little effect. As for "first nationality": purely subjective personal opinion. --G2bambino (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I know I'm going to regret this, but...you don't think the Queen is British?--Gazzster (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course she's British. What of it? --G2bambino (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If you are talking about the Queen of England..then no she isnt. Her website says she doesnt have a passport...--Crazy_Anne (Eh..eh..eh) 09:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank god I don't live in your world, where what I am is defined solely by a government document. --G2bambino (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Poor old thing.--Gazzster (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I dont know how she gets past passport control...I wouldnt let her...Democracy means everyone is equal. Thats what make the order of predecent illogical and wrong--Crazy_Anne (Eh..eh..eh) 09:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Amen, Sister. I feel sorry for her grandkids; strapping young modern men living in a mediaeval tradition.--Gazzster (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I dont know about strapping...more like...Is wikipedia censored?--Crazy_Anne (Eh..eh..eh) 10:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh! Are you entertaining such thoughts about the gods lol!? I tend to agree actually.--Gazzster (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 ; p Lol, I didnt know you were that kind of man...; p --Crazy_Anne (Eh..eh..eh) 10:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This is interesting, I'm intrigued. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I know this isnt in the slightest appropriate but do you get Little Britain in Canada? --Cameron (t/c) 16:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure; but I'm a big fan of the Blackadder series. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, very cleverly made..= ) --Cameron (t/c) 16:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, give me Brit humour over American any day.--Gazzster (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Userbox, talk page banner etc?

Just wondered if anybody plans to make these things in the short term? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The talk page banner I made day ago: {{Template:WikiProject Commonwealth realms}}. (Until now) I hadnt made a Userbox, thanks for alerting, have just made it: {{Template:WP Commonwealth realms userbox}}. Don't have much time at the mo, so if there is a prob feel free to change anything about the userboxes etc. Our templates page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Commonwealth realms/Templates! (see also our "navigation" on the main page!)Thanks again --Camaeron (t/c) 18:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
PS: Please feel free to add the banner to any related pages. I only had time to add it to a few so far...thanks! --Camaeron (t/c) 19:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Rejoice!

Rejoice, two articles under our care (List of Australian monarchs, List of New Zealand monarchs) have been kept after an AFD debate. a big thanks everyone who helped keep the article and/or made constructive comments! --Camaeron (t/c) 19:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Royal Family

I just added Australian Royal Family (and all the others) to our "to do list" (which can be found on our navigation, on the main page).I got the impression it had been rather controverial in the past. But I still think it is necessary...We have List of Australian monarchs and Australian monarchy articles...why not one about the Australian Royal family? There is plenty of information purely about various royals' visits to countries and various patronages. Perhaps, (if you all agree) we ought to create one and see if it gets nominated for deletion...That way if it succeeds we can create the others...if not, we know not to create any more. Any ideas? Thanks --Camaeron (t/c) 19:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In the past, there was a Canadian Royal Family article (that I had 'then' opposed). Now, I think such a page should be created again, so it can help shorten the Monarchy of Canada article. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I just looked..they really do have a lot of info there about the Canadian RF...I dont see why it shouldnt have its own page. There are much shorter pages after all...--Camaeron (t/c) 16:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
PS: I will post a short message on the talk page before we do anything, OK? --Camaeron (t/c) 16:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I already have (a few days ago). So far, nobody has responded though. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a bit of a difference between a Canadian Royal Family article and an Australian (Jamaican, Tuvaluan, New Zealand) Royal Family article: the former is sourced, the latter aren't, yet. Plus, the scope of such articles remains in question; royal visits, styles, etc., are already covered elsewhere (at least for Canada and Australia). I think there's enough material in the section at Monarchy of Canada to support a stand alone article, but I'm not sure about any others. --G2bambino (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I rather think you are right...the Queen certainly does have a special fondness for Canada...--Camaeron (t/c) 18:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
PS: a preview of the page can be seen here...--Camaeron (t/c) 18:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
New Zealand have a small part of the article dedicated to the Royal family. Jamaica have quite a large one! --Camaeron (t/c) 18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
What article is that you're talking about? --G2bambino (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Their respective monarchy articles...--Camaeron (t/c) 19:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see. But, still, neither are sourced. --G2bambino (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Very true...I think we ought to give it a while first though...I have posted a comment in Canadian monarchy and said something like I would wait a while for replies...--Camaeron (t/c) 22:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Camaeron, for all I know you're a top bloke and you seem an editor with integrity. But may I casually ask what you could possibly give to an 'Australian (NZ, Tuvalan, Saint Kitts & Nevian, etc) Family' that is not in British Royal Family? --Gazzster (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It's actually Cameron from now on...At the moment we are only discussing creating the page "Canadian Royal Family". Perhaps you would like to compare the articles British Royal Family and Wikipedia:WikiProject Commonwealth realms/Sandbox. You can see a lot on info in the latter that is not included in the former...--Cameron (t/c) 19:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. I won't get into the Canada thing. Canada is always a special case apparently.--Gazzster (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Not really, it just appears to be the page with the most (sourced) information about the R.F. --Cameron (t/c) 21:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Specifically in Canada, that is. --G2bambino (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Royal Family article: advice, comments and criticism

I feel we need it, as Monarchy of Canada has become too long. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Please view the preview of the page here before commenting. Thank you...--Camaeron (t/c) 18:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel we need it, as Monarchy of Canada has become too long. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is essentially what Canadian Royal Family looked like before, with a little more info added since.
To get the article reinstated I think we'd have to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. --G2bambino (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm outraged that article got deleted, it look brilliant! --Camaeron (t/c) 18:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I was one of those who called for its deletion (back then). But, times have change. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this again, I now realise the article was never deleted, but only made into a redirect and permanently locked as such. So, Wikipedia:Deletion review isn't needed. Instead I've left a comment at the article talk page and at the locking admin's talk. --G2bambino (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, though User:JzG has been active, he hasn't paid any attention to my unlock request, so, though I'm not sure it's the right place to go, I've filed deletion review here. --G2bambino (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure it was the right place to go but thanks anyway G2. Im getting rather impatient now. you see. Lets get this show on the road! --Cameron (t/c) 15:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Template

I've added the template to the English and Scottish lists' talkpages as well, since they are the predecessors of the British list. TharkunColl (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks TharkunColl...--Camaeron (t/c) 19:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

May I ask to what your name refers? A reference to the "Staff-man" perhaps? --Camaeron (t/c) 19:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's alive!

I have created a portal for this page at Portal:Commonwealth realms. --Cameron (t/c) 21:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that really a good idea? JPD (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Poll

General poll for the establishment of a Candian Royal Family article:

Support

  1. --Cameron (t/c) 15:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. --GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. --G2bambino (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC) (as the original creator, how could I not?)
  4. --Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 01:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. --Gazzster (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC) The only differences between a Canadian family and British Royal Family would concern styles and royal visit, both of which could be in a truncated version of the Royal Family section ofv MoC.

Neutral

  1. WP:DRV is the place. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Is it? The article was never actually deleted; it was only made into a redirect and permanently locked as such. --G2bambino (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

No bother now, anyway. The idea of reinstatement is being shot down with all the same pointless arguments as for which the article was deleted in the first place. --G2bambino (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Scope of this project

Does it include former Commonwealth realms? I assume it should do. Would it even include Ireland, which left the Commonwealth before the term "Commonwealth realm" was invented? Or India or Pakistan for that matter? Is the term Commonwealth realm restricted only to those countries of which Elizabeth II is or has been monarch, or any of her predecessors as well? TharkunColl (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually added the temp to the list of Irish monarchs. There arent really article on Indian monarchy...if you find any you can add the temp...of course.... = ) --Cameron (t/c) 16:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There would only be one, very brief, monarch of an independent India - George VI. Who also, incidentally, fought a war against himself as monarch of Pakistan. TharkunColl (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
So, we are including former Commonwealth realms? GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why not, but only within the span of time that the country was a Commonwealth realm. My question, though (which stems from a discussion about Ireland at Talk:Commonwealth realm) is: at what point do we deem a country to have become a Commonwealth realm? Is it when the country became an independent kingdom (even though it would still at that time have been referred to as a Dominion), or is it when the term Commonwealth realm came into usage around 1950? --G2bambino (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
That might present difficulties as the UK and its legal predecessor states have been independent for some 1500 years (since the fall of the Roman Empire). TharkunColl (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Save, of course, for when those predecessor states were conquered by the Normans, the Angles, and the Saxons. But, your point is taken. I should rephrase my question, then: do we say a country became a Commonwealth realm at the passage of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, or when the term Commonwealth realm came into usage around 1950? --G2bambino (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd go with 1931. Why? the UK Prime Minister wasn't called the UK Prime Minister until years after Robert Walpole's tenure. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I would rather go with independence to be honest, whatever term happened to be in use at the time. And since history is my chosen area of study, when the Normans conquered England they didn't annexe it to Normandy - it remained a separate state in personal union with Normandy, so technically suffered no loss of independence. The direct line of independent states, one succeeding the other, can be traced back to the founding of the Kingdom of Wessex in 495 by Cerdic, ancestor of the Queen. An independent polity has existed continuously from then until now. TharkunColl (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
However, those former Kingdoms were never Commonwealth realms. Also, if we use 1950? then that excludes the 'Irish Free State' as such a realm. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
They were never called Commonwealth realms because the term hadn't been thought of. I think the first legal (as opposed to informal) mention of it was at the Queen's coronation in 1953. So that would have to be the date if we were to go down that route. TharkunColl (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, we should use 1931. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Would that be 1942 for Australia? And how about the UK - the 1931 act did not alter the sovereignty, constitution, or independence of the UK in any way. TharkunColl (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It's just my choice; But I'll go along with what the Project decides. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes GoodDay, that's right; the idea of a British Commonwealth didn't even exist until the mid-1880s.
The definition of a Commonwealth realm is given as: "countries within the Commonwealth [that] have The Queen as their Sovereign, whilst remaining independent in the conduct of their own affairs."[1] If, as in all other references, "The Queen" can be altered to "The King" during the reign of a male monarch, and seeing as we can't say a Commonwealth realm could exist before the British Commonwealth itself did, then the period between the 1927 Balfour Declaration and the 1931 Statute of Westminster seems about the right time to say the Commownealth realms came into existence, though the non-UK ones were still referred to as Dominions, and the UK itself having no other style, at that time. --G2bambino (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I do beg your pardons but I fail to see the relevance of this discussion. Surely the orignal question has been answered. Why do we need to know when the C. Realms came into existence? --Cameron (t/c) 17:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
To determine the historical scope of the project, and which former realms should be included. TharkunColl (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see...--Cameron (t/c) 18:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Now why is there always an argument about when such and such became a Commonwealth realm? Because CR is by and large our invention. Sure, the term is used a few times, eg., by the site G2 quotes. But beyond a name thereis very little, and a sort of culture of Commonwealth realms seems to have been generated by Wikipedia. But if you want to use it, you can define it quite simply. A Commonwealth realm is a realm within the Commonwealth of Nations. So any nation that is or was a monarchy, and is or was a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, is a Commonwealth realm.-Gazzster (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I can never figure out why you always say Commonwealth realm is an invention of Wikipedia. Sources, beyond the one I linked to above, make it blatantly clear that's not the case. Of course the term isn't widely used, but it works as an organisational tool in this encyclopaedia. What else would one use to describe all those states of the Commonwealth that are in personal union under one monarch? The states of the Commonwealth of Nations in personal union seems a bit long-winded, and is a neologism to boot. So, why, when Commonwealth realm means exactly the states of the Commonwealth of Nations in personal union, not use the term? --G2bambino (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I don't deny the term is in use. But Wikipedia is the only forum I know of that treats it at length and makes it, as you say, an organisational tool. So it follows that most of the exposition about it will come from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an organ of academic research: it is a quasi-democratic (more oligarchic I'd say) forum, with all the flaws and academic dangers that accompany such a forum. --Gazzster (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Mmm.. okay. But, as I asked, what's the alternative? --G2bambino (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't use it at all. I would simply have articles about nations stand on their own.--Gazzster (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
They, of course, do stand on their own. But, given their common history, form of government, and, well, common head of state, do you deny the legitimacy of a project to guide these common threads within Wikipedia? --G2bambino (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Why oligarchic? Besides a country can be democratic and oligarchic. Most countries are more than one form of state...(the UK probably holds the record for being the most!)...I think CR's have more common culture than most people think. Ever wondered why anglophone countries seem to share much more than just their language? They share a culure too (sure they have their diffences but these are comparatively small). It was all because of the British Empire...Nowadays they are all equal and influence each other...The UK exports things like American Idol and America's got talent...Ironically Canadians export programmes to England that are about English hisory (the Tudors) and Australians export Dame Everage...So yes..I would say they share a culture...and I would say the term CR is widely used...I mentioned the term earlier on in conversation (I think my parents must have had half the Commonwealth round for a dinner party earlier!) and nobody objected or queried the use... --Cameron (t/c) 23:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I was using 'oligarchic' to refer to the method by which edits and discussions are managed. As Rumpole of the Bailey says, 'a blunt instrument for getting at the truth' (he was referring tho to judges and juries).The USA and the UK have a common culture too, and the US used to have a British monarch. I am suspicious of this mania for categorising everything. It's academically worrying, and, ironically, very un-British. --Gazzster (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean, you object to WikiProjects? GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Not in principle. It depends which one or what it purports to do. They do tend to be run by the oligarchies I mentioned. And balance becomes difficult when a small number of users with similar ideas and viewpoints owns and directs a project.--Gazzster (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
But membership is open to anybody. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but take the Royalty projects for example: dominated by the same people, divided into a small number of cliques. The amount of information and interpretation that gets injected into these projects is actually very small.--Gazzster (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you (sorta) weary, this WikiProject might promote consistancy too much across Commonwealth related articles? GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, this is the method Wikipedia has established to manage articles. And if I want to contribute and stay here, I have to operate within Wikipedia structures. But that doesn't mean I'm not wary of WikiProjects promoting 'consistency' to promote a certain viewpoint and idea. In my opinion, the unity of what are called the 'Commonwealth realms' is one of these. Doesn't stop me being interested in them though.--Gazzster (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
As I've mentioned at your page. I do sorta understand how WikiProjects can become 'homebases' for agendists (I'm wary of Wikipedia: WikiProject Scotland). -- GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It is undoubtedly true that the Commonwealth realms share a common culture - with regional differences of course. Speaking as a British person, I think few of us would ever describe Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc. as "foreign" in any real sense. But the same also holds true of Ireland and the USA, which have repudiated all ties with the British state. Furthermore, there are many more recent Commonwealth realms that really are foreign in language, culture etc. TharkunColl (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Now Thark, old buddy, we disagree on many things, but your point 'Speaking as a British person, I think few of us would ever describe Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc. as "foreign" in any real sense' is a valid viewpoint. It is an example of a viewpoint that is rarely considered; usually howled down in fact.--Gazzster (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Well of course I don't consider them as foreign. They are kin. TharkunColl (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Quite. Whereas whenever you suggest unity under one monarch you are quickly and repeatedly reminded about the distinct crowns and labelled as some sort of imperialist.--Gazzster (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that is the lot of any parent when its offspring grows up and tries to find its own way in the world. TharkunColl (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes. And like any youngun, takes a while to be grateful to Mummy; for good government, liberty, rule of law, etc.--Gazzster (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, the rebellious teenager phase. The USA left home but now we're friends again. As a parent we learnt from that and treated its younger siblings better, even when they hated us. TharkunColl (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
And all children think they'll be better parents, don't they? But look at the USA and Iraq, the Australian treatment of Aboriginals, etc.-Gazzster (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
In our young days too we treated others badly, like the Welsh, Scots and Irish. Just because we could. TharkunColl (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Speaking as a Briton also, I would call people from the US foreign...but nevertheless not so foreign as, say, a Canadian or Australian...even though the governments are completely seperate..there remains a kind of unity... And regarding "Oligarchy": We are balanced..we do have non-monarchists too...GoodDay and Lholden...to name just two...--Cameron (t/c) 17:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not accusing anyone in particular of being unbalanced. And I dont dis WikiProjects per se. But the kind of balance is not just monarchist/republic; it is about bringing a broad range of views and information to a topic. But because the same people tend to be involved, the same range of arguments and information will be brought to a Topic. There does not tend to be a true exploration of ideas and broadening of minds.--Gazzster (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm unbalanced, but that's got nothing to do with Wikipedia; giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Standard dab-link for Commonwealth realms

At the moment the standard dablink for all CR reads: "This article is about the monarchy of ***, one of sixteen that share a common monarch; for information about this constitutional relationship, the other Commonwealth realm monarchies, and other relevant articles, see Commonwealth realm; for information on the reigning monarch, see Elizabeth II." I really think we could so better than this...any ideas? --Cameron (t/c) 21:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it could be better? What do you have in mind?--Gazzster (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You want to make it more compact? GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow that was a quick response...Yes more compact...I was thinking something along the lines of " *** is one of 16 states that share Elizabeth II as monarch. For information about this constitutional relationship, see Commonwealth realm. For more infomation about the reigning monarch, see Elizabeth II.". What do you think? --Cameron (t/c) 22:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine, but isn't it almost exactly the same? How about: X is a Commonwealth realm reigned over by Elizabeth II.--Gazzster (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Whatever gets the traffic moving. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
What about a compromise: * is a commonwealth realm. For the common monarch, see Elizabeth II. For the contitutional relationship, see Commonwealth realm...--Cameron (t/c) 17:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd be careful with this matter; the present structure of the dabs is the result of a very lengthy discussion that took place in various places back in July of last year (I'm sure Thark will remember it well). That's not to say I'm closed to altering it again, but perhaps a review of the earlier talks is needed. --G2bambino (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I would be interested in reviewing the discussion. Would you be so kind as to tell me as to where it took place? --Cameron (t/c) 20:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Oof.. um.. it was kind of all over the place, dispersed across Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Talk:Commonwealth realm, Talk:Monarchy of the United Kingdom, and maybe some other places as well. There was a bit of a poll at the end that seemed to decide the final format, but it took place at an article that has since been made into a redirect. I'll try to hunt it down. --G2bambino (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I have been looking too, but to no avail...--Cameron (t/c) 20:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.