Talk:Bicycle monarchy

Comments
Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a dictionary. It is not enough to define the term, you must describe how it came about and why. As such, the fact that this term is an insult and why it is insulting is essential to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurps npc (talk • contribs) 19:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you present some evidence that the term is always intended as an insult then? I have often taken it to mean that the monarchies of certain countries have a more informal 'closer to the people' style than the British monarchy, which could very reasonably be considered a compliment. Please review Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, avoiding weasel words and citing sources for assertions you make in articles. It is better to have a short entry that's little more than a dictionary definition than a longer entry that's simply inaccurate. Please also take care with your grammar and spelling when editing articles. &mdash; Trilobite 13:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have rewritten it with proper sources. All of them are from the BBC, but I suppose that an article on a term with its origins in the British media ought to cite British media predominantly. Bastin8 08:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you Bastin8! &mdash; Trilobite 16:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Dutch and Danish monarchies are actually quite ceremonial and pompous, much more so than their contemporary counterparts in Belgium, Norway and Spain for example. The "bicycle monarchy" designation stems more of ignorance than anything else. Seriously, this article is not encyclopedic and should be deleted.189.19.80.253 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The term may originate in British perceptions of Scandinavian/Benelux monarchies which are not fully shared by the inhabitants of some of those countries, but that has almost nothing to do with whether the article should be deleted from Wikipedia. And Spain is completely irrelevant. AnonMoos (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)