Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Edward VIII abdication crisis/archive1

Edward VIII abdication crisis
This was a Featured Topic nomination - rst20xx (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a complete topic that satisfies all of the FT criteria. I have informed DrKiernan, the main contributor to these articles, of this FT nomination. DrKiernan has informed me that he is busy, and gave me his permission to nominate this topic. I am sufficiently familiar with the subject matter to be able to address any objections that may arise. Regards. BomBom (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral — Although these three articles are the most important ones related to the topic, I wonder whether the absences of some of the lower importance articles constitutes a gap. Looking at Category:Edward_VIII_abdication_crisis, there seem to be a couple more article with critical information, such as His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - I was going to say much the same thing, I feel that excluding His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, Executive Authority (External Relations) Act 1936 and Succession to the Throne Act 1937 constitutes a notable gap - rst20xx (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support The acts of parliament are not that important to the topic. As I understand it, they were passed for the perpose of achieving what is stated in the lead article. Zginder 2008-09-01T17:34Z (UTC)
 * Weak oppose See also: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topic_candidates. I would possibly include His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, and also George VI of the United Kingdom. I don't think the individual Commonwealth Realms legal documents are actually a significant hole in the topic. They were legal formalities, if you want to include them, you need to include every single individual act that each Commonwealth Realm had to pass to ratify George VI as King. We don't need every single article in Edward VIII abdication crisis to be FA/GA etc, though they could be supplementary in the future. Woody (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't there were bills for Commonwealth Realms other than the UK and Canada. I remember reading somewhere that those are the only two whose privy counsels have power over the line of succession.  All of the Commonwealth other than Canada are included in the UK act.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Bill says that "Canada, Australia, the Union of South Africa, and New Zealand" had to assent to the Bill under the 1931 Statuate. It doesn't seem that they passed Acts through Parliament, other than Canada. So, I strike that part from my comment. Woody (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't think the non-inclusion of the legal documents in the topic constitutes a gap. The article about His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 doesn't contain any information that isn't already included in the fifth section of the main article about the Edward VIII abdication crisis. The reason for which there is a separate article for the Act is that someone simply decided to create it. Moreover, I think it's impossible to make the article about the Act attain GA or FA status because, simply put, there is nothing more that can be put in it. Any expansion of the article will probably lead to the addition of information about the context in which the act was passed, which means paraphrasing the main article about the crisis itself. As for the Canadian Act, it's not a core part of the topic in any way, since it was legally unnecessary (Canada had already consented to the British Act under the terms of the Statute of Westminster 1931) and was solely passed to highlight Canada's equality with Britain. The Irish act is not of major importance either with regard to the abdication crisis itself. It would be of fundamental importance if the topic were about Irish constitutional law or the issue of who was the Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949. BomBom (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "The article about His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 doesn't contain any information that isn't already included in the fifth section of the main article about the Edward VIII abdication crisis. The reason for which there is a separate article for the Act is that someone simply decided to create it... Any expansion of the article will probably lead to the addition of information about the context in which the act was passed, which means paraphrasing the main article about the crisis itself." If this is completely true, and you are sure that it always will be (as any other stuff that could be added would indeed be paraphrasing the main article), then it seems to me that this article (and the other two?) are needless, in which case they could be merged into the main article (I'm trying hard here not to encourage the practise of merging for the FT, which I'd generally oppose, but your assertions suggest that in this case, no information would be lost). But if you are to merge them in, you need to do so before the FT, not after - rst20xx (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Close with no consensus to promote - sorry this took so long to close, as you can see, things have been a bit hectic round here lately - rst20xx (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)