Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Commonwealth/Archive 1

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)

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)

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 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)

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 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 --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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. --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 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)

'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)

--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)

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)

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 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)

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)

Help
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  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)

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)

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) WikiProject Australia and 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)
 * A merger or rather an expander of the project would probably be the best option. As Michigan has already said: If we don't merge the two, we will constantly be cluttering each other's talk pages anyway as the topics overlap quite a lot. I am prepared to make the changes to the project page as soon as we have agreed on the new scope and name for the project. How about Wikiproject:British Empire and Commonwealth. We needn't really add the "of nations" bit as 99.99% of commonwealth mentions are commonwealth of nations. I will post a message on the member's talk pages who haven't commented here yet. It ownly seems fair and civil. = ) --Cameron (T|C) 18:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * However you guys want it, is fine with me. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the title Cameron proposed, as to scope... we could say everything from the French and Indian War to Monarchy in Barbados. That is to say, anything that fits the bill. -MichiganCharms (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's really only a name change anyway. Most of the members here comment on pre-commonwealth issues anyway. Pre commonewealth issues have even been brought up on our talk page! --Cameron (T|C) 13:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the name change. Seems like a logical step, and one that would add some focus to a significant part of our project's remit. :) --Jza84 | Talk  17:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Expanding the scope of the project, and renaming it as something like Wikiproject:British Empire and Commonwealth, seems okay at first glance. But I do wonder how we'll decide what falls within the project's reach. For example, if Monarchy of Jamaica does, would then also List of kings of Lesotho and President of India? --G2bambino (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd propose we do that on a case by case basis. For example, the kings of Lesotho are not as relevant to the subject as the President of India. -MichiganCharms (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there exists degrees of relevance. Other projects have a scale for importance, but the article is either relevant to the project or it isn't. If a country is in the Commonwealth then all the topics associated with it become relevant to a WikiProject on the British Empire and Commonwealth. Perhaps the scope shouldn't be as wide-ranging; Governments of the British Empire and Commonwealth, or something like that? --G2bambino (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Both the terms "british Empire" and "Commonwealth" already (mainly) indicate articles of a political nature. I agree with you in theory but I don't really want such a long name! (Imagine having to type that in the search bar every day!) --Cameron (T|C) 11:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe British Empire and Commonwealth necessarily speak of politcs on their own; there is much related history and culture as well. How about: Wikiproject:Commonwealth governments? The Empire bit might be unnecessary as the Commonwealth is the descendant of the Empire anyway. --G2bambino (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's more or less what we cover at the moment, don't you think? The whole point is to officially (we have already done so unofficially) embrace a larger scope. --Cameron (T|C) 13:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry to say that I actually don't think so. Presently, this project only covers sixteen countries, and there's no explicit reason not to take more than just monarchy articles into our scope; a Commonwealth realm is a country, not a system. You all are proposing we widen this even further to take on all articles related to fifty-three countries, still without limitation on the related subject matter. Perhaps we should decide what the jurisdiction of the project would be before deciding on a name. --G2bambino (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why we're here = ). How about WikiProject:British Imperial and Commonwealth governments? --Cameron (T|C) 13:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually don't find the increased scope a problem. I do believe there is a degree of a relevance that must be used... we can't claim Bollywood has anything to do with the Commonwealth just because it's Indian cinema. With a greater scale and scope, it makes recruiting easier. We can post a notice on say WikiProject India or WikiProject Canada, we can advertise. With greater scope comes a major expansion. I don't view this as a problem. -MichiganCharms (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. British Empire is basically the forerunner to the Commonwealth anyway. Although the scope will become larger, I think the new name will attract more members also. You needn't worry G2, our scope won't be changing all that much, so as to include Bollywood = ). Looking at some of the above threads, you can see we have even discussed pre-british empire topics (eg Charles II)! --Cameron (T|C) 17:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced. WikiProject Canada, for example, covers no less than 3320 articles, including those on cities, counties, geography, transportation, culture, history, and the like. On the other hand, there is a specific wikiproject for Canadian governents, that has 532 articles. I think something that's going to take on the entire Commonwealth will be too big to handle, let alone the Commonwealth and the Empire. --G2bambino (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, just create a seperate WikiProject & call it WikiProject British Empire. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hold your horses! Creating a whole new project is a lot of work! I need at least a 3 days to create a design! --Cameron (T|C) 19:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Canada has members devoted to each of those things. However, a project on just the Empire (where the scope is fairly clear) would probably be a better choice. It would of course be a sister to this project. -MichiganCharms (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's for the best. Though I can't help thinking it is going to have all the same members a very similar design and an overlapping scope! --Cameron (T|C) 20:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's OK. There's other WikiProjects that overlap each other. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Now to the next question... who among us is going to create it? I nominate Cameron, this project is absolutely gorgeous! -MichiganCharms (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Cameron can handle it. Personally, I haven't the slightist clue as how to create a WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a mo, chaps! Is the suggestion to scrap this project because it is flawed or of limited scope? I really don't think there has been enough discussion. But 'British Empire'? The realms under EII are not part of the BE. I thought the point of a project about the Commonwealth realms is that they are unique institutions; neither imperial dominions nor republics; and that treating them under the Empire or the United Kingdom or British Monarchy does not answer this unique consideration. --Gazzster (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If I'm understanding things correctly now (they seem to change very quickly!), the idea is to create a new project that focuses on the Empire, while this one remains as is. --G2bambino (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's waht we're discussion now. = ) --Cameron (T|C) 15:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliments *blushes* but the design really is rather simple. I'm afraid if I create a new one it may end up looking the same as this one (which is my first ever design :S). --Cameron (T|C) 12:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: This is what a quick colour change would look like. (I haven't changed all the text or links as it is only a draft). --Cameron (T|C) 13:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused, which maybe a result of having joined my first wikiproject, this one, today. Why does creating something called "WP:British Empire and Commonwealth" mean we'd have to do Bollywood articles. Couldn't we use that name and then say on the front page of the project that the scope is government, politics, and the like? Even if we were not to so limit it, aren't the project's priorities those of the members? In other words, Bollywood and the like would only become active articles in the project if people interested in such things joined it? Again, I recognize I probably just don't know what I'm talking about.

PS - If we use something like the name above, I'd prefer "British Empire and Commonwealth nations" or "Commonwealth of Nations". It's a little less Anglo-centric, which may help attract editors from other articles to the cause. -Rrius (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Judging by our member's tastes I don't think any of us likely to bring Bollywood related topics here but the talk page is not reserved for members. G2bambino is worried that other users could bring their bollywood chat here because bollywood is in india which in turn was a part of british empire. Do you view the project as anglocentric? In actual fact just over one quarter of the project members are actually british. Though if you're talking about anglocentricisms on our project page feel free to edit them. They are probably due to the fact that I maintain the project page. = S --Cameron (T|C) 19:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I wasn't clearer. I just meant that the title sounded a little anglo-centric because "British" seems to modify "Empire" and "Commonwealth". Even if "British Commonwealth" is acceptable, I think it would be off-putting to editors at some articles within the scope of the project.


 * As G2's worry, I guess I just don't see why it is a worry. If we don't want to work on any page or group of pages, we don't have to. Any discussion we don't want to be a part of we can skip it. If we were to say on the front page that the scope is limited, we could push the conversation over to the most appropriate project or article. -Rrius (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Have no fear. This WikiProject shall remain in tack (including the name). A new WikiProject on the British Empire, is being considered. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * At one point it was about changing this project's name, which is the alternative I support (I'll explain that later). My point did not have to do with that, rather it was just about the proposed name, regardless of whether it became the name of this project or another. I think editors at, e.g., India or South Africa, would be put off by something that looked like "British Commonwealth".


 * As to whether to change the name of this project or begin a new WP:British Empire, I don't know what would be left for this project between British Empire and BRoy. -Rrius (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Commonwealth realms are (sort of) the successor the Empire so this project handles topics after the end of the British Empire. Admitted, WikiProject British Empire could attract far more members and would have a much wider scope than this one. --Cameron (T|C) 20:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a straw poll is in order. I have notified all members of the project as to our discussion even though we have a disclaimer saying "members are not informed about discussions and are advisec to add the talk page to their watchlist" so they needn't be contacted again. --Cameron (T|C) 20:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a straw would do. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Establishment of new Wikiproject British Empire

 * 1) --Cameron (T|C) 20:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Don't want to have worked on the draft for nothing. = ) On a more serious note I think the two Wikiproject should have a special relationship. --Cameron (T|C) 20:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) They make good sister WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) As long as it is just the Empire and not the whole Commonwealth, sure, why not. -Rrius (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Expand Wikiproject Commonwealth realms to include the new project

 * 1) -Rrius (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC). What would be left for this project? I missed the spot where everyone fell in line behind G2 and dumped the Commonwealth part. That was pretty important. So, er, sorry.

Still Don't Understand

 * I obviously don't understand what we're discussing. Please indulge me. Why a Wikiproject BE and what connection would it have with this project? An umbrella project? What practical effect would that have on this project? I'm sorry, but I still don't feel the idea has been explained and discussed enough.
 * Expand Wikiproject CR to encompass a British Empire project? Is that right? If so, how can that be justified?--Gazzster (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have certainly had my problems, but I think I have it down now. The BE project would be aimed at politics and government issues related to the BE, so an article like India would be within its scope, but only with respect to the parts from the British East India Company entering to independence. I leave it to others to say whether I've finally got it right. -Rrius (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you. If you're right, shouldn't the proposed name be narrowed down. Say British Empire: politics and government? Because there are areas such as culture, technology and the natural sciences.--Gazzster (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Culture of the British Empire? I don't think we will have to deal with that. Each member country has it's own WikiProject to deal with culture and the likes...the same goes for the other points you raised really. --Cameron (T|C) 11:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Creation of WikiProject British Empire
An administrator has confirmed for me that there are no requirements for the creation of a WikiProject. Therefore I am going to be bold and create WikiProject British Empire. All discussions about the scope can be discussed on it's talk page. --Cameron (T|C) 17:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Odd text
Can anyone else see that odd text in different languages at the top of the page, or am I hallucinating? --Cameron (T|C) 17:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Where? I can't find it. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, it's gone I must have been hallucinating. = ) --Cameron (T|C) 19:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to expand scope
Propose the scope of the project be expanded to include the major overseas territories of the United Kingdom as well. John Carter (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  22:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"British Dominions beyond The Seas, King"
Hey all, I've been noticing that when that portion of former monarchs styles is mentioned it is usually piped to Commonwealth realm... shouldn't it be to Dominion? As I understand it, the two are not the same constitutional concept. --- (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Grey area, I reckon. While constitutionally there may be little to no difference between a post 1953 realm and a pre 53 dominion, there is certainly a shift in concept. A dominion was a sovereign nation within the British Empire and so by allegiance, if not legally, under the leadership of Britain. The concept of a realm within the Commonwealth is that of a sovereign nation in fellowship with Britain as an equal. But as I say, it is hard to draw the line between the two. There was never a definite break in ideas. Perhaps Dominion should redirect to Commonwealth realm.--Gazzster (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Gazzster is right, but while there are separate articles, those links probably should go to Dominion. JPD (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Expand the project
Any thoughts on expanding the project to become WikiProject:Commonwealth (of Nations)? --Cameron* 17:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea (as it will include the Commonwealth republics). GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe, still the same old GoodDay then, eh? ;) --Cameron* 17:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, ya better believe it. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense.--Gazzster (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, as soon as I get some spare time I'll start making the changes. --Cameron* 10:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's official! :) --Cameron* 12:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Jolly good. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Coats of Arms
Hi all. The coats of arms of each commonwealth realm (I don't have the fortitude to attack the nations, too) are a bit of a mess. I'm happy to get started on them in a week or so, but I'd definitely appreciate some help gathering references. Anyone? Prince of Canadat 20:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to help, but I'm not good at coat of arms stuff. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well really all I need is help finding official (I'd rather not use Geocities sites as a reference, for some reason) websites (usually gov't or tourism sites) for each realm that discusses national symbols etc. Prince of Canadat 21:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My guess is Cameron and/or G2bambino can help. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I should be able to help. I seem to have navigated my way through the commonwealth government sites one by one. The smaller states have tiny website with virtually no info. On some of them, I couldn't even find a reference to say EIIR is their head of state! Nevermind, we'll do our best, that's all that matters. --Cameron* 19:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thank you! I won't be getting to it for a bit.. I still have half a dozen provincial arms to get to, and then the capital cities.. Commonwealth is next on the list after that. If you could dump the links you have in my sandbox, maybe? Prince of Canadat 20:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder if there's a book on heraldry somewhere that covers all existant coats of arms; rather like Burkes Peerage for titles and nobility... --G2bambino (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Each heraldic authority has an armorial, and there have been some armorials published (Canada's, for example, is slowly being digitized). Prince of Canadat 22:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I will wade through sites, just tell me which countries you want me to research. Perhaps I am asking for a master list of arms that need improvement or improved references. -Rrius (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Errr... all of them really, barring UK and Canada (which are relatively well-cited, and much easier to find info on). The island nations are the absolute worst, perhaps you could hunt for those? Thank you! Prince of Canadat 22:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make sure not to duplicate effort. If someone else is researching Barbados, it doesn't make sense for me to be researching the same. -Rrius (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Silly me. Well, I'll need references for the following.. perhaps you could fill in the ones you're hunting for? Most other countries already have decent articles or enough references for me to clean up from. Prince of Canadat 00:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * {|class="wikitable" border="1; color:black;" cellspacing="5" cellpadding="5"

!Country !Who !Links
 * Jamaica
 * Barbados
 * Bahamas
 * Grenada
 * Papua New Guinea
 * Solomon Islands
 * Tuvalu
 * Cameron
 * 
 * Antigua and Barbuda
 * Cameron
 * &
 * Saint Kitts and Nevis
 * Already there, added ref tag
 * 
 * Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
 * Rrius
 * 
 * Belize
 * Rrius
 * 
 * }
 * Tuvalu
 * Cameron
 * 
 * Antigua and Barbuda
 * Cameron
 * &
 * Saint Kitts and Nevis
 * Already there, added ref tag
 * 
 * Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
 * Rrius
 * 
 * Belize
 * Rrius
 * 
 * }
 * Rrius
 * 
 * Belize
 * Rrius
 * 
 * }
 * }
 * }

The Tuvalu link has other COAs listed also. --Cameron* 12:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Fellow Project Members
Just like to say. I'm confident, that two of our fellow Project Members, who are currently having disagreements on articles covered by this Project, will patch up their differances. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm keeping out of it now. I think they both ought to make up and forget the whole matter. ;) --Cameron* 19:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured list: List of Irish monarchs??
List of Irish monarchs is being currently under featured list review. Everyone is invited to make comment and/or !vote on the subpage. !Votes are appreciated as featured list review doesn't get all too much traffic. Thank you! Best, --Cameron* 19:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Realm monarchy articles' dablink
User:Dlatimer has caused some issue over the monarchies of the realms series of articles in regards to the common dablink. User:Cameron suggested discussion on the matter be brought here, but the hidden instruction at the head of each monarchy page does specify that any changes be debated at Talk:Commonwealth realm. One had previously been started there a couple of months ago, with some interesting observations and proposals; perhaps it is time to look at this issue again. --G2bambino (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Although I admit some discussion has taken place, I think consensus is far from reached. I think here is the best place to discuss this matter. A change to such an important dablink ought to be discussed quite a bit. ;) --Cameron* 11:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Dlatimer, however, is not even going to cooperate so far as agreeing on having the discussion here. Shall we force it here, or acquiesce to his demands? Personally, it's six and half a dozen to me; the hidden note says discuss at Talk:Commonwealth realm, while the project is here. Either way there's a sacrifice and a bonus. --G2bambino (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss it at commonwealth realm then. As long as we can keep it in one place. As you can see I reverted Dlatimers actions due to lack of consensus. It will however need to be discussed to see whether consensus has changed. Regards, ;) --Cameron* 19:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:EROY
For those interested in older royalty (ie before Anne of Great Britain), WIkiProject English Royalty has just formed. --Cameron* 12:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Commonwealth realms
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I think there's been a mix up with the Bob Marley article though! ;)

Monarchs
Some might find this interesting. I've made a little chart to show progress on articles on the kings and queens of England(/Great Britain/United Kingdom). For simplicity I've left out some of the more disputable ones like Matilda or Jane, and I haven't bothered with the house of Saxe-Coburg. Lampman (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the British monarchs Scottish predecessors? GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the list from WikiProject England, GoodDay. They only cover English and British ones. ;) --Cameron* 08:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, that's mis-leading. GoodDay (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, since Scottish monarchs would be outside their scope. WikiProject England has a more complete list going back to good old Egbert of Wessex. --Cameron* 13:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The British monarchs should also be outsid the scope. This list should end with Queen Anne (i.e. the last Monarch of England). GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's up to them to decide I suppose. The altered version I created ends at Anne. ;) --Cameron* 15:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer your version. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Monarchy of the United Kingdom
Is at featured article review, please come and help boost it up to current featured article standards. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Monarchy of the United Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Monarchy of X articles' Infobox titles
Hiya fellow members. I've noticed throughout the Monarchy of xx articles (ex: Monarchy of Canada, Monarchy of Australia etc), we use Queen of X as the Infobox's title; shouldn't we use Monarch of X? The Queen title gives the impression, that future monarchs of these realms shall bear the title Queen (which wouldn't be the case, when the monarchs are 'male'). GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a possibility. But what's there now follows on the other non-realm monarchy articles. --G2bambino (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the non-Commonwealth realms; I hadn't thought of those. In that case, Queen of X can stay. Afterall, we can always change it to King of X when necessary. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been moved to WikiProject Royalty. You are all invited to discuss further there, as that page is viewed by more wikipedians. --Cameron* 13:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Templates for Deletion
A number of templates relevant to this Project are up for deletion/merger at Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 3. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The result of all three templates was keep. --Cameron* 22:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

G2bambino's departure
A WikiProject member G2bambino is currently blocked for 3-weeks & has left Wikipedia. Suggest we wait until his block expires, before deciding on removing his membership. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is practice to "remove" anyone from WikiProjects. I believe one simply adds a short note. However, I think we should wait untill the block is up and then decide as you said. --Cameron* 22:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a note of retirement will do. Hopefully G2 will choose to return, upon his block's expiration. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Leave it. His seat is still warm.--Gazzster (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Nations
Whatever came of that idea for Wikiproject:Commonwealth of Nations? --Gazzster (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hate to have to tell you but you're already a member! :) See WikiProject Commonwealth! Best, --Cameron* 13:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * lol! When did I do that? I must have been on the juice that night.--Gazzster (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Duh! I see now. Don't mind me!--Gazzster (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Constitutional Crisis (C^3)
2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute might need some non-Canadian perspective... and since it might be used as precedent in other Westminsterian Parliamentary Democracies... I thought I'd ask here. 76.66.194.58 (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it a Constitutional crises, btw. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth English
I was wondering why Commonwealth-English redirects to British-English, wouldn't a separate template be in order? Template talk:Commonwealth-English 76.66.195.159 (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. British English is of course confined to the British Isles (and even there, is not uniform). In fact, I'm not sure there is such a thing as 'British English'. There's the Welsh variant, the Scots variant, the various dialects of the North, and of thec South, etc, etc. There is certainly no such usage as 'Commonwealth English', and there should be no such template. Though I think we should go to the template to discuss it.--Gazzster (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)--Gazzster (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Games
Is there a wikiproject, or a taskforce for the Commonwealth Games? 76.66.195.190 (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope but WikiProject sports (WP:SPORT), would be a better place for info than here. We're all rather more politics orientated here. :) --Cameron* 17:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)