Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 9

message: Just a comment - Has anyone noticed the inconsistancies of EIIR titles. Some of them have Queen of the the UK then Queen of Canada (for example), while others have Queen of Australia (only). The former seems to support Tharky's views (UK, first among equals), while the latter supports G2bambino's views (all are equal). How did this develop and should we give an explanation for it. GoodDay 18:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were originally all the same.  Then, at some point each country changed the title on their own; when the format of the title was agreed on in 1952/3 the only thing that was to always be consistent throughout the Realms was "of Her Other Realms and Territories" and "Head of the Commonwealth."  The Canadian gov't just hasn't bothered to follow the other Realms in the dropping of the UK from the Queen's title; this may have something to do with the fact that any change in laws touching on the Monarch or vice-regals must be approved by all eleven parliaments in the country. --G2bambino 18:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought it might've been something of that nature. Thanks for the clarification. GoodDay 18:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistant titles 

message: I think some editors are viewing this issue too strictly through the lens of, "this article is X and must remain X", when instead a better way of looking at it might be to think about what the article should be, with regard to usefulness for readers. Here we have a broad group of nations, some of which have discrete monarchs and some of which have E2 as their monarch. I think it makes the most sense for this article to be about all of those countries. The alternative is to have two separate articles, one of which (the one about the non-E2 realms) will inevitably be a deletion candidate due to the group being non-notable on its own, the result being that the reader will be worse off.
Instead, if we have one article covering both groups, it will be able to describe the distinction between them and it will inevitably end up covering the E2 group far more extensively anyway, since its constitutional history is much more notable. In fact, frankly I don't think that doing it this way will even result in significant change to the current content - all it needs is a couple of paragraphs about the situation with the non-E2 realms and it's done. Therefore, I don't think that the attitude, "This article is about the Commonwealth Realms only and it must stay that way", is a very logical or helpful argument.
Yes, it's true that moving to "Realms of the Commonwealth" will not solve the overall "R" vs. "r" issue. However, it will solve the title issue while also making the article better for the reader, imo. That's why I think it's a good idea. -- Hux 18:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But, what is so notable about countries in the Commonwealth that happen to have a monarchical head of state? At least, what could be said in "Realms of the Commonwealth" that couldn't be, if already not, covered at Commonwealth of Nations? --G2bambino 18:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hear, hear.  Once you've listed those monarchies, and said they're in the Commonwealth, what else is left to say?  Nothing, because they have nothing else in common.  The group of monarchies that is the current focus of the article is another matter entirely.  This arrangement is virtually unique, historically, and absolutely unique in its scale; the arrangement is complex, with all sorts of ramifications, some of which are still unfolding; and it's historically important, because it is central to understanding the (relatively) peaceful dissolution of the British Empire, as well as to understanding key issues in the internal politics of several of the Realms. The existence and the focus of the current article is entirely justified, and should not be changed. --Chris Bennett 00:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I think "Realms of the Commonwealth" is a good idea

message: I don't want to interrupt you: Even though the letter R ... oh no I mean r in realm ... is very important, I wonder how you can discuss it so long and even create an RfA for it. Why don't you just change it, whenever you feel like it. If you want, you can do it every day for a year. Who cares? Or maybe you spend some dollars to buy another CPU for the servers or change the r^HR only once a week. ;-) --Raphael1 22:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for making me laugh, now you went and made me spill my 'pepsi'. I had the right one baby, ah huh-ah huh. GoodDay 22:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree that it is a somewhat bizarre discussion. If only we had a real edit war going, we could bring it to WP:LAME (while I do not think that the entire issue is trivial, I can see that it must seem absurd for an outsider). Blur4760 23:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can editors nominate an article for WP:LAME? If so, this dispute would make a good candidate. GoodDay 00:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, jeez. No kidding. --G2bambino 00:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, this argument is utterly lame.  Nearly two weeks of argument about whether to capitalise one word?  It doesn't get lamer! --Chris Bennett 01:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why I'm beginning to lean toward 'deleting' the article. It's starting to go 'beyond' funny. If no resolution is reached by 'August 14', I'll be suggesting an AfD. Heh, even the 'best' sitcoms didn't last forever. GoodDay 01:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks like we are about to make it. Blur4760 07:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  funny? 

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. 
Vote Closed!
Let's try to get some consensus here. I suggest that we leave this section open for voting for at least seven days. Please confine discussion of this to the compromise section above, where it is already taking place.
* Proposal: The article, "Commonwealth Realm", should be moved to "Realms of the Commonwealth".
Please vote below and, ideally, briefly explain your reasoning. -- Hux 06:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason I can see for this proposal is that people are trying to find a way to appease one individual who has a near-pathological obsession about capitalisation which he won't give up until he gets his way, however he does it.  That is an extremely bad reason to make such a change. --Chris Bennett 15:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
====Discussion====	 
I've removed the  template. It's quite all right to go out and ask all talk page participants weigh in so long as you contact all sides equally, which appears to have happened. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yikes, it looks like CB and JDM have taken the 'gloves' off and are head to head. We seem to be on the verge of an 'edit war'. GoodDay 00:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Protected. Mackensen (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it should be. This 'argument' is getting lamer by the hour. If the compromise isn't adopted by August 14 (if there's no resolution by then). I'll be suggesting an AfD, for this article. GoodDay 01:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that's an absurd idea. 99.5% of the content of the article is a) useful, b) notable, and c) uncontroversial. A few editors disagreeing on the remaining 0.5% is no justification for a deletion proposal. -- Hux 06:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct. It's just this dispute has gotten so frustrating, it's even getting me (a republican) upset. GoodDay 19:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for finally protecting the page!  About bloody time!  --Chris Bennett 01:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote: page move 

message: *Agree - "Realms of the Commonwealth" solves one of the major sticking points, i.e. capital or lower case "R" in the title. The article will have to be updated to show a distinction between realms that have their own monarch and those that have E2 as their monarch, but I don't think this will be a problem. In fact I think it would make for a better article as it is the kind of information that would be useful for the reader. -- Hux 06:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yeas

message: I've removed the  template. It's quite all right to go out and ask all talk page participants weigh in so long as you contact all sides equally, which appears to have happened. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes, it looks like CB and JDM have taken the 'gloves' off and are head to head. We seem to be on the verge of an 'edit war'. GoodDay 00:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Protected. Mackensen (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it should be. This 'argument' is getting lamer by the hour. If the compromise isn't adopted by August 14 (if there's no resolution by then). I'll be suggesting an AfD, for this article. GoodDay 01:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that's an absurd idea. 99.5% of the content of the article is a) useful, b) notable, and c) uncontroversial. A few editors disagreeing on the remaining 0.5% is no justification for a deletion proposal. -- Hux 06:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct. It's just this dispute has gotten so frustrating, it's even getting me (a republican) upset. GoodDay 19:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for finally protecting the page!  About bloody time!  --Chris Bennett 01:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. 
I'm trying to see whether there are any points that all (or nearly all) of us agree on.  Do we all agree that Commonwealth R/realm has only one meaning, i.e., a country whose current head of state is Elizabeth II? Jonathan David Makepeace 21:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, R/realm includes 'Commonwealth monarchies' that don't have 'Liz' as their monarch. GoodDay 21:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No - as per GoodDay (though, I'd say it is certainly the lower case "r" "Commonwealth realms" that includes all monarchies in the Commonwealth, whereas the upper case "r" "Commonwealth Realms" includes only those under EIIR). --G2bambino 22:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. Bastin 22:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No - per GoodDay and G2bambino. Nat Tang  ta | co | em 22:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No. - No evidence has been presented that any such term as "Commonwealth Realm" exists. TharkunColl 22:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No - per GoodDay and G2bambino. --Chris Bennett 23:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No - per G2bambino. I also note that once again TharkunColl is being disingenuous - he knows full well that there is evidence for it, because he has been involved in multiple discussions where it has been presented. He just doesn't like that evidence. -- Hux 05:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No - 'Commonwealth Realm', even if realm were in lower case, signifies a realm that is in the Commonwealth. That includes the realms like Swaziland and Tonga which are members of the Commonwealth and have a monarch other than Elizabeth II. Also, there is nothing in the term to indicate that Elizabeth II is the common monarch of these realms, and a term should descrtibe what it signifies. Belonging to the Commonwealth is quite incidental to the quality of the realms we are attempting to group.--Gazzster 06:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
By what authority was this discussion closed less than one day after I opened it?  Jonathan David Makepeace 20:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: seeking consensus : single vs two meanings

message: * Support --Chris Bennett 01:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: ::JDM, I see you made the following comment to Gazzster on his talk page:
:::At this point I am willing to settle for a mention of the diverging styles right at the beginning of the article so that people will know that the British monarch and most academics use "Commonwealth realm."
::The footnote text attached to the first three words in the article that I suggested:
:::(n. 1) The term is also seen uncapitalised, as "Commonwealth realm"; see for example <JDM's favourite URL>. 
::which is what motivated this motion, would give you exactly that.
::The end to this insanity lies in your hands, as it always has.  The motion is a motion to give you what you have told your supporters you would settle for.  So why not do it?  --Chris Bennett 23:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question to JDM

message: Are my eyes deceiving me? Is their now a 'possible' edit war on discussion postings? Better clear this up guys. GoodDay 00:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Commonwealth doesn't use the term and wouldn't weigh in.  We do, however, know what the Head of the Commonwealth's usage is. Jonathan David Makepeace 11:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit War on 'Discussion Page'?