Talk:Danish Realm/Archive 1

Archive 1

“The international community" part

To Peter Alberti ZBukov discussion. Folketinget, (the Danish parliament consist of 179 members, 2 of them represent the Faroe Islands and two of them represent Greenland. The parliament is therefore the parliament of the kingdom, and the state minister is the head of government of all the kingdom, see the two home rule leaders as governors and the state minister as a president and you will have the relative importance of them. Unlike other part of the kingdom, the part you call Denmark, the two north Atlantic part have a much greater internal autonomy and as you have stated it is not constitutional protected and Folketinget can de jura overrule any decisions made by the local governments.

Something I have as an objection to “The international community” part. It says that “Greenlandic governments is involved in the renegotiation of the Thule airbase”. I would like you to give a source to that information for I believe that it is based on the fictional tv-show “Borgen” and not an actual historical event. Rphb (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the tv-series (except perhaps that the tv-series is inspired by reality). The sentence about Greenlandic involvement refers to the negotiations that took place in 2004. See this and this for example. However, it does seem to be extraordinarily difficult to find any sources that contains an elaboration of what the exact results of that negotation was. The media seens to have only covered the preliminaries, not the actual results. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Danish realm as the English title with the most support. It is clear that neither "Rigsfællesskabet" nor "Rigsfællesskab" are used in English. "Danish realm" may be a poor translation of the concept, but it's the one we have. Should someone come up with an English term which garners more support, we can move it to that. Aervanath (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Rigsfællesskabet → Danish realm –relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC) I can't really see why this page is named Rigsfællesskabet and not the Danish Realm.

The Danish Prime Minister's office translates Rigsfællesskabet as the Danish Realm, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, other ministries does the same],

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives's direct translation seems a bit over the top. Scandinavian words can sometimes be rather long and spesific, and there's not really any point in translating as directly as he has done here. Ebben (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hmmm... I don't know what's the best for this. Danish realm used to redirect to Kingdom of Denmark- I redirected it [1] to Rigsfællesskabet the other day since we merged the kingdom page into Denmark. The one example I found of Danish realm being used as a link looked as though the Rigsfællesskabet article was the best target for that link.
• The Rigsfællesskabet article is meant to describe the political relationship between the parts. There's obviously no good translation of the name in English, but I'm reluctant to support since Danish realm reminds me of Kingdom of Denmark and I don't want to see that article go in that direction. The title should describe its topic, and I'm not sure that Danish realm does that... Rennell435 (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Given comments below, I will go with my first feelings on this and oppose. Maybe Danish commonwealth would be better, but Danish Realm to me just sounds like "Kingdom of Denmark". Agree with Peter that there is probably no proper translation of the term. Rennell435 (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know much about this topic, but it went across my watchlist for some reason. This may or may not be useful, but I noticed you have "Commonwealth of the Realm" as a "translation" on the page, and in the thread above. Could you use something like that, or "Commonwealth of the Danish Realm" / "Commonwealth of the Realm (Denmark)", to avoid the connotations that are worrying some commenters? Sorry if that's not any use - it's all I've got, right now, and I do notice one person has commented that this translation might be "over the top". Begoon ^talk 06:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose at present. "Danish realm" seems to be just a fun way to say "Kingdom of Denmark", separating it from Denmark proper in texts. I don't think it's a good title for an article describing the relationship between the different parts of it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thinking further, I would not oppose a move. Part of the reasoning for the deletion of the Kingdom page was that it was redundant to this page. As the term Danish Realm when used definitely includes all 3 areas, as opposed to Kingdom of Denmark, it wouldn't be as confusing. If it is moved though, content should still focus on the relationship between the parts. CMD (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the title definitely needs changing in some way. The suffix '-et' means 'the' and so the word Rigsfællesskabet becomes The Rigsfællesskab, if we're using English grammar. The title at the top of the article should be simply Rigsfællesskab. Most articles on Danish words ending in '-et' do this (e.g. the Folketing article).
  But if we're looking for an English language title then "Danish Realm" seems odd. The word 'Realm' is the same as 'Kingdom' (and we just merged the Kingdom of Denmark article)- so we'd be making a pointless distinction between two synonymous terms. We'd be better off with a variation on Commonwealth of the Realm* or perhaps we could use United Kingdom of Denmark (which is sometimes used, according to the article). *I agree with the point that we shouldn't be over-literal though. We'd be best getting in some more Danish speakers to ask their opinion. Peter (Talk page) 15:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Relisting comment Editors should be specific with any alternative suggestions and explicitly seek pro/con consensus on suggested alternatives so an informed decision can be made at closing.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per my earlier comment - there's not really an equivalent English term. Peter (Talk page) 16:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Googling for Rigsfællesskabet/Rigsfællesskab turns up nothing in English, not on Google News, not on Google Books, and not even on the sites for the Copenhagen Post or Denmark.net. So this word needs to be translated. If the Danish government uses "Danish Realm", per nom, that's good enough for me. The Danish word is also an awkward neologism, so that problem is not a translation failing. Kauffner (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It certainly needs changing, and "Danish Realm" is clear enough (and, per Kauffner, is used by the realm to describe itself). As a matter of interest, though, what was wrong with "Kingdom of Denmark"? It's analogous to Kingdom of the Netherlands, which we also have. Why was it changed? Moonraker12 (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not analogous. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is (theoretically) an equal union of constituent countries, with each having their own constitution under a joint charter. The Faroes and Greenland are more analogous to autonomies. CMD (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah! I see what you mean. Moonraker12 (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support (retaining existing name as redirect). This is the English WP, so that artile titles should generally be in English. In terms of the UK, I suspect that the status of Greenland and the Faroes is more similar to Jersey or Gibraltar, which are possessions of the British crown: I do not think that the Faroes conduct their own foreign relations. In view of the discussion (above) of the translation of ther term, Danish Commonwealth might be a suitable transalation. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose that particular new title, but no objections to a move to an English title. There seems to be a lot of confusion in the comments above. First of all, Danish Realm is not a translation of the term Rigsfællesskabet and the links to various government sites listed in the nomination do not use it as a translation of that term so please stop claiming they do. Danish Realm is a translation of the term Danmarks Rige as used in §1 of the constitution. A more common translation of Danmarks Rige is Kingdom of Denmark. That term always refers to Denmark+Faroe Islands+Greenland (except in some historical contexts, back when the borders where different but that's another story).
  The term Rigsfællesskabet does not refer to Denmark+Faroe Islands+Greenland but to the political relations between the three. Its historical context is the Faroese independence referendum, which despite being successful was simply declared invalid in Copenhagen. In the negotiations for home rule that followed the term Rigsenheden was introduced in the preliminary versions of the home rule act. Rigsenheden roughly translates to the unity of the realm and the term was used to emphasize the monolithic structure of the realm and to make a barely concealed message of "don't you dare try something like that again". The term Rigsenheden was removed in the final version and instead the term Rigsfællesskabet was used less officially to make it clear that the realm was no longer a monolithic structure but more of a community, i.e. something with multiple parts.
  Rigsfællesskabet is not easily translated properly. The prime minister's office translates it to The unity of the Realm in the link given in the nomination, but that is obviously not quite right and misses the historical background to the point where it could be seen as offensive to Faroese people. Danish Commonwealth or Commonwealth of the Danish Realm or maybe Community of the Danish Realm is the best I can come up right now. 95.166.78.149 (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It certainly looks to me like the government is translating this subject as "Danish Realm". Whatever term the government uses, we retain the option adopting an improved translation. Community of the Danish Realm gets 8 Google Book results. That number might not sound impressive, but there are also dozens of other books that use variations along the lines of "Danish community of the realm." Here is a quote: "The Danish Realm or the Danish Commonwealth - the terminology is clear neither in Danish nor in English"[2] I'd prefer a variation on "Danish Realm", since official sources seem to avoid the word "commonwealth." Kauffner (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

95.166.78.149: Let’s not make heavy weather of this. Rigsfællesskabet may be a difficult word to translate, and "Danish Realm" may not be an exact rendition of it; but the point of a title here is to make it easy for English speakers to find, or at least give them an idea of the content. A Rigsfællesskabet could be anything from a land-mass to a brand of biscuits, for all we know.

The term "Commonwealth of Nations" isn’t exactly easy to define either, yet we have a good idea of what it is; and we have names for other entities that bear very little relation to the meaning of the title (Democratic People's Republic of North Korea for instance, which stretches the notion of democracy, and republic, to extraordinary limits; or the Holy Roman Empire, which was famously "neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire" by the time it was finished)

If the word truly has subtleties beyond the term chosen to render it, the obvious remedy is to add an etymology section to explain it.

I would suggest the proposed term is adequate, and much better (for the English WP) than the current title; if there is a better rendition lying around we can always discuss it further, after we find it. Moonraker12 (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Remember to try the plain form Rigsfællesskab, which gets a lot more hits on Google than Rigsfællesskabet. Rennell435 (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Danish realm → Danish Realm move proposal

Since the move went ahead, I think the title should be moved to Danish Realm. See [3] and, in non-official references, [4], for example. 'Realm' with an upper-case is clearly favoured, and I think we should follow the example of other wikipedia articles (i.e. Realm of New Zealand). --Peter (Talk page) 15:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hope this can be seen... --Peter (Talk page) 17:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense, part of a singular proper noun. CMD (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a minor move which isn't at all controversial, so perhaps if a couple more people agree it can be moved quickly? One minor problem is that I've already created the Danish Realm article (which most links now point to), but it's only a redirect, so I assume it will be easy to delete, or perhaps the content can be moved over to it another way. --Peter ^{Talk page} 18:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I say you should move it, per WP:Bold. I don't think a redirect without any edit history will stop a move. CMD (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I should copy the text over to the other article? Isn't that unrecommended because it leaves the page history on another article? I'll move the article straight away if the redirect can be deleted first. --Peter ^{Talk page} 15:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Often a move will just overwrite a redirect. I'd try, but since it's your suggestion, just do it. If it doesn't work, you can just ask an admin. CMD (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It worked. --Peter ^{Talk page} 16:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Danish Realm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111016031852/http://www.dst.dk/HomeUK/Statistics/Key_indicators/Population/pop.aspx to http://www.dst.dk/HomeUK/Statistics/Key_indicators/Population/pop.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Danish Realm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070811092408/http://www.dnag.dk:80/ to http://www.dnag.dk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Limit external links

@BALMAINM: Thanks for your contributions to the article. I've reverted most of this edit since, per WP:ELMAYBE, "long lists of links are not acceptable" because, per WP:LINKFARM, "excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia". Regards.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

In Danish

The correct English term is indeed - the Danish Realm. But this has not come from a literary translation. But if we do so, then the Danish correct term "Rigsfælledskabet" better be explained in parts, "rige" means "country, nation", which in genitve becomes "rigs" means "country's, nation's". And "fælledskab" which means "fellowship" - and we have now "rigsfælledskab" . The last "-et" changes this noun to decisive form. And a literary translation of "Rigsfælledskabet" becomes something like "the country's fellowship" or perhaps "the nation's fellowship". But the translation used, is not based on a literary translation. Or i.o.w "Danish Realm" = "Rigsfælledskabet" , without any reference to Denmark itself !
Germanic languages with exception of English put words together, especially nouns. And the Scandinavian branch of Germanic languages changes the end of the noun rather than using an article (Danish have however also the possibility to use decisive articles. "the car" can either become "den bil" or "bilen" while it in Swedish would be "den bilen" or just "bilen") Genitive -s are used without apostrophe since plural also typically is done by bending the end of the word also. ("The cars" in Danish becomes "bilerne" or "de biler"). Boeing720 (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The Danish Realm vs. The Unity of The Realm

There are some major discrepancies in the article that needs to be resolved. As it is, The Danish Realm (Det Danske Rige) and The Unity of The Realm (Rigsfællesskabet) is equated as if they are synonyms. This is not the case, which is also evident in the refs and sources (of course).

As this page is named The Danish Realm, at least the lede should explain what The Danish Realm comprise, instead of jumping right ahead to explaining what The Unity of The Realm is. Yes, The Unity of The Realm is related to The Danish Realm by geography and history, but it is not the same thing. The history of The Unity of The Relam should be described and explained in the body, including how it was and is related to The Danish Realm. It is not the main subject of this page obviously.

Just noting as there has recently been some editorial activity about this issue. RhinoMind (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

My only edit is about what The Danish Realm is called in Danish language ! You simply cannot use what a Danish PM says in English. And you cannot use a word by word translation. I trust the Danish Queen in not making errors about the name of the Danish Realm , in the Danish language. Please be a little less Rhino minded. RhinoMind :) Boeing720 (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you trying to argue that we should close this article about The Danish Realm, because the Queen haven't mentioned Det Danske Rige in some of her official speeches? Is that your idea? RhinoMind (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Some useful sources

Here are some more solid background about Det Danske Rige and Rigsfællesskabet (a rather recent concept): "Rigsfælleskabet - en statslig enhed uden symbolpolitik". (I assume you can read Danish) RhinoMind (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Also: The Danish version of a main ref (no.14 currently): "Rigsfællesskabet" from The Prime Minister's Office. Here Det Danske Rige is also mentioned. User:Boeing720 has questioned that fact. RhinoMind (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Current source states (in Danish) "Færøerne og Grønland er dele af det danske rige." - But this is a sentence which simply means "The Faroe Islands and Greenland is a part of the Danish "rige". (the last word is exactly the same as "Reich" in German, "rijk" in Dutch, "rike" in Swedish, and country (?) i English. And this is not the Danish name for this constellation. At least not IF this article is about the three areas together (Denmark proper, the Faroe Islands and Greenland - and out of the 179 seats in the Danish parliament are two coming from the Faroes and Greenland each). Isn't that what this article is about any longer ? Whithin formal Danish exist only the following three as proper names 1. "Danmark" (Denmark), 2. "Kongeriget Danmark" (Kingdom of Denmark) and 3. Rigsfællesskabet (Danish Realm). Just "Det danske rige" is incorrect, if being formal. I'm not arguing about anything but its Danish name. And "Rigsfællesskabet" is the common way to talk about this subject. And in any case is "Det danske rige" formally wrong. Boeing720 (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Summarize your points, please

I can't parse your whole back-and-forth here. Can you each make a bulleted list of things you want and don't want in the article?--Anders Feder (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I can only say that stating that this constellation in the Danish language to be "Det danske rige" isn't correct. The normal Danish word for the relationship between Denmark proper and Greenland & the Faroe Islands is "Rigsfællesskabet". That's all. A word by word translation (back) from English "The Danish Realm" to "Danske riget" or "Det danske rige" isn't the issue, when it comes to what the original Danish word is. To be absolutely clear - (In Danish: Rigsfællesskabet) - is what I suggest. Boeing720 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Boeing720 (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

And to RhinoMind, your link is indeed good for this article, but it explains what is meant by "Rigsfællesskabet". Boeing720 (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

My understanding of the dispute

There seem to be two separate issues that are being conflated and confused:

1. whether "Det Danske Rige"/"Danish Realm" and "Rigsfællesskabet"/"Unity of the Realm" are synonymous or not, and,
2. whether the Danish name of the Denmark/Greenland/Faroes relationship is "Rigsfællesskabet" or something else.

--Anders Feder (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

My own view on the two separate issues is:

1. I agree that "Det Danske Rige"/"Danish Realm" and "Rigsfællesskabet"/"Unity of the Realm"/"Rigsenheden"/"Commonwealth of the Realm" are not synonymous. The former term has a centuries long history while the latter does not. I also agree that the article should explain this difference.
2. The official name of the relationship between Denmark/Greenland/Faroes is "Rigsenheden"/"Unity of the Realm". The popular and most often used name of that relationship is "Rigsfællesskabet"/"Commonwealth of the Realm".

--Anders Feder (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Denmark, Kingdom of Denmark, the state of Denmark, the country of Denmark, the Danish state, Denmark's Realm, the Danish Realm are all synonymous. Kingdom of Denmark being the official name. They are not synonymous with The unity of the Realm (Old Danish: "Rigsenheden"/new Danish: "Rigsfællesskabet"). It is an informal name of the relations and administrative subdivision within the state, which consists of one part, Denmark proper, governed directly by the Parliament (Folketinget) and two regions, Greenland and the Faroe Islands, governed by their own elected assemblies on areas of government devolved from the Parliament. I don't see how this can create so much confusing unless people are mislead by their personal or political beliefs.--Kisualk (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Det Danske Rige

The Constitution of Denmark uses the term "Danmarks Rige" (English: Denmark's Realm) for the polity it applies to. Although it doesn't specifically enumerate the components of that polity, it obviously includes Greenland, Faroes and Denmark proper. The essentially synonymous expression "det danske rige" (English: the Danish realm) is used in the sentence case form in "Betænkning afgivet af forfatningskommissionen af 1946" (the formal report submitted by the constitutional committee of 1946 to the Danish parliament, on which the 1953 constitution is based).[5] This expression is also used in the work "Dansk Statsforfatningsret" (1954) by Poul Andersen, but I am not currently able to determine if it used in sentence case or title case form since I don't have online access to it. It clearly is a formally correct expression since it is used in these important sources, but it does not normally seem to used as a proper noun (i.e capitalized).--Anders Feder (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops! The other link Rhino has provided actually gives him credit, here is "Det Danske Rige" used. Congratulations, RhinoMind. It feels like a hard hit! However it is also states that current Danish uses "Rigsfællesskabet". So I still think this is the better choice. Boeing720 (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging this and my effort in digging up the ref. I have now exchanged the ref for Det Danske Rige in the lede with the Danish version of the ref, while the English version is used later in the lede. Also the fact that the book I mentioned in the new section on Literature has Det Danske Rige in its very title, should more than suffice. RhinoMind (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If you want to create a new page titled Rigsfællesskabet (or The Unity of the Realm), then please go ahead. With time we could hopefully extract useful information from such an article to be implemented in this article about The Danish Realm. RhinoMind (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

An additional twist on this confusing situation is that the history of the Danish realm already lives in the Denmark article. There has been recurring disagreement over how that article and the present article should relate to each other.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. yeah I know, I have followed the issue across several pages. Also the Kingdom of Denmark redirect and other issues. I was perhaps overreacting to Boeing720's edits, because of that. Some editors have persistently mixed things up. A few of them have political motivated agendas (of several and often contradicting views) and it is a real pain in the bum. I guess the best and most constructive approach is to collect solid sources and then work from that. RhinoMind (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Rhino, please correct me if I'm wrong. Are you saying "The Danish Realm" = "Det danske rige", but the "The Unity of the Realm" = "Rigsfælleskabet" ? Shouldn't the latter be "The Unity of the Danish Realm", by the way ? (just a question) You have also provided a good source (which I presume to be reliable) which uses "Det danske rige", but which also states that "Rigsfællesskabet" have become a more popular form, since the 1990's - and are the same thing, in Danish. The source neither gives support of "The Unity of the Realm" (inl. "Danish" or not) = "Rigsfælleskabet", so this means there is no difference between "The Danish Realm" / "Det danske rige" and "The Unity of the Realm" / "Rigsfælleskabet". Logically - since your good source just differ the Danish terms "Det danske rige" and "Rigsfælleskabet" by popularity through the times. So, what has our guidelines to say about a strict formal rarely used name vs a commonly used name ? "Det danske rige" is also ambiguous, and may well either be taken for Denmark proper - and might also give a certain feeling of full Danish ownership, as if we were discussing Bornholm or Zealand, while (in Danish) "Rigsfællesskabet" is absolutely clear and means the current relationships between Denmark proper and Greenland & the Faroe Islands. I'm still in favor of "Rigsfællesskabet" - unless some guidline stipulates something else. Boeing720 (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The source does not say what you claim it says. Specifically, it does not say that "Rigsfællesskabet" is a form of "Det danske rige". Rather, it says that "Rigsfællesskabet" is a more popular term for the same concept denoted by "Rigsenheden".--Anders Feder (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Rigsfællesskabet

Rigsfællesskabet (English: The Community/Commonwealth of the Realm) is the term that almost without exception is used in daily parlance, newspapers and even in parliament for the constitutional relationship between Greenland, Faroes and Denmark proper. However, it is not the proper legal term for this construction. The Home Rule Act of the Faroe Islands of 1948[6] (English), for instance, uses the term Rigsenheden (English: Unity of the Realm), as do The Greenland Home Rule Act of 1978[7] (English), albeit in sentence case, reflecting changes in Danish grammar since 1948. The term "rigsfællesskabet" was used in the preparatory works for the Greenland home rule act, but not in the final law as it was published. According to "Nationale symboler i det Danske Rige, 1830-2000: Fra fyrstestat til nationalstater" (2003) by Inge Adriansen, "rigsfællesskabet"/"the community of the realm" seems to have entered into popular use in 1993 after a legal scholar in a dissertation suggested that the common identity implied by the term "rigsenheden"/"unity of the realm" was illusory.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Denmark and the EU

Hi. The whole article is missing some basic information about the relationship between The Danish Realm and The Kingdom of Denmark, as stated in the headline-tag for the article. But how is The Kingdom of Denmark related to the EU? As I understands it both Faroe Islands and Greenland does not have the same relations with the EU as Denmark have? This is also what the article says at the moment.

I was inspired to write this, when I saw this edit. Should it be reverted? If not, I believe we need some credible sources. RhinoMind (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I made the edit because it is the state, Denmark (official name: Kingdom of Denmark) that is the member of EU, same as Nato etc. Unlike Nato, Greenland and the Faroe Islands were allowed to choose not to be in the EU. Finding a credible source is rather difficult as the EU uses common country names and not official names. Finland, not Republic of Finland. Sweden, not Kingdom of Sweden. Denmark, not Kingdom of Denmark etc but try and look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states --Kisualk (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself here. First you claim that it is The Kingdom of Denmark that is a member of the EU and later on you cliam that it is Denmark and not The Kingdom of Denmark that is a member of the EU. Which one is it? You would need to provide a credible source for the Danish EU membership that explains the name of the member state properly. Also, your wiki-link doesn't lead anywhere. General: Please find credible sources for this issue, otherwise we can not write anything about it. RhinoMind (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The trouble is this page uses the name "Denmark" to describe both Denmark proper and the Danish state. Denmark proper is not a member of EU as it is not a legal entity. It is the Danish state, that is a member of the EU, although EU law does not apply to the regions of Greenland and the Faroe Islands inside the Danish State. EU uses common country names (Denmark), not official names (Kingdom of Denmark). Does that make sense to others than me? My preferred solution would be to use Wikipedia's common practice of using the common names for countries. In other words, Denmark means the Danish state and Denmark proper the part of the Danish state, which is geographically located in Europe. That makes a lot of sense to me.--Kisualk (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Rhino. Why causing troubles over nothing. "Denmark proper" is the country which is located on Zealand , Jutland etc. "Denmark proper" is an EU-member, the two other parts of the Danish Realm isn't. This have been allowed by Folketinget (the Parliament) which have two members each from Greenland and the Faroe Islands. The Queen (or Monarch) is head of state in all three parts. Solely "Denmark" refers to just that, it's "just" common speak but generally very well accepted and may (if being extremely thorough) refer either to the Kingdom/Realm or to "Denmark proper". I think we should keep Denmark and Danish Realm (or possibly return to Kingdom of Denmark instead of this one) we simply cannot have "Denmark proper" as an article name. Compare with Finland and Åland islands. Boeing720 (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

First of all this page is incorrectly named the Danish Realm. This page is about the administrative diversions of Denmark, where Denmark proper is governed directly by the parliament and Greenland and the Faroe's have their own local elected assemblies, which govern on limited internally maters devolved from the parliament. This arrangement is called "Rigsfællesskabet" in Danish as seen on this article's right side. The official translation of "Rigsfællesskabet" into English is "the Unity of the Realm". Secondly, it is not Denmark proper, that is a member of the EU. It is simply not possible since the EU is an union of sovereign states, a confederation. Thus it is Denmark as a state, including Greenland and the Faroe's, that is the member of the EU. Although the EU have agreed to that EU law does not apply to Greenland and the Faroe's. It's a bit the same what we see with Brexit, just the other way around. It is not Scotland or England who are members of the EU. The member of the EU is the UK.--Kisualk (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"governed by The Unity of the Realm"

@RhinoMind: In this edit, you claim that the Danish Realm is "governed by The Unity of the Realm". What is your source for this claim?--Anders Feder (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

State law issues (Danish: Statsretslige forhold) that is, which is also specified in the article lede. Everything is in the sources. I believe the body does the job of explaining the further details of this, including the various homerules etc.. if more details are needed we could include them there. RhinoMind (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@RhinoMind: "State law issues"/"Statsretslige forhold" is a noun phrase, not a source. Is there a source for the claim and if so, what is its title and author?--Anders Feder (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

read the lede and the refs there. Please. If you have a better translation of Statsretlige forhold be my guest. RhinoMind (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

By demanding that others find sources for your statements and refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors you are proving yourself to be a tendentious editor. It isn't other people's job to find sources for statements you've added to the article. Since you haven't provided a source for the claim, it can be freely be removed from the article.[8]--Anders Feder (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Ref no. 14: "Overordnede spørgsmål om hjemmestyre-/selvstyreordningerne hører under Statsministeriet.", Ref no. 18: "[Rigsfællesskabet] er betegnelsen for det statsretlige forhold mellem Danmark, Færøerne og Grønland, som tilsammen udgør Det Danske Rige.", external ref: Rigsfællesskabet. I am becoming bored with lazy, self-righteous and destructive "editors" on Wikipedia. They are increasingly degrading the content and wasting other editors time with stuff they could have figured out themselves, have they cared to study the subjects they choose to engage in. What a waste. Don't take this as a personal insult, it is a general comment to how Wikipedia has evolved recently. I thought you were above that really. RhinoMind (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

We are all tired of lazy, self-righteous and destructive "editors" on Wikipedia and you are being one right now. If you don't have a source for the claim or don't have a perfect translation of it, that's an honest problem that is easily resolved by your being forthcoming about it. Waving your hands and pretending to have a source while not presenting one is not - that's simply being disruptive.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I have tidied up the legal matters in the lede now. Mostly based on Adriansen, while also introducing the Danish Constituion. If you don't agree on the word "governed", please propose another. RhinoMind (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Rhino Mind - this is a question (nothing else) - do you think this article (under current name) shall deal with the relationship between, on the one hand, Denmark , and on the other Greenland and the Faroe Islands ? Boeing720 (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

No (short answer)

I don't know how you arrived at that idea? An anonymous user has just changed the infobox title to The Unity of The Realm from Danish Realm and I reverted him (also anonymously unfortunately).

There should be some information about the relationship you mentions. The Unity of The Realm is an important concept in relation to The Danish Realm. I have recently inserted new text in the lede to explain why. The headline tag is still relevant however, as the body hardly mentions The Unity of The Realm at all. RhinoMind (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I arrived at that idea by study the current information in the article. I just believed it to be an article about Denmark's relationship with Greenland and the Faroe Islands , including for instance geography and history. There is a table under the headline "Population and area" , in which The Kingdom of Denmark is a tally of it all. I'm still not certain at all, that we need to complicate matters with for instance an other article "Unity of the Danish Realm". But I strongly feel that Rigsfællesskabet within Denmark, is the overwhelmingly most important issue. And that word, nowadays, is used colloquially at all levels of society (at the very least in Denmark proper). While Det danske rige is both ambiguous and a bit archaic. I feel that there is an encyclopedic call for articles about Denmark proper, Denmark and another for what normally is called "Rigsfællesskabet" in Denmark, an article which ought to deal with the relationship as mentioned as well as what this article deals with. So what about the following suggestion for the very first sentence -

.

"The Danish Realm (Danish: formal, Det Danske Rige; daily parlance, Rigsfællesskabet) is a realm and a by laws constructed relationship, comprising Denmark proper, The Faroe Islands and Greenland." (or something in that direction)

I realise that you want to differ between "The Danish Realm / The unity of the Danish Realm". But couldn't that be explained further down the lead ? As the Kingdom of Denmark was removed, it doesn't feel to be in order to create a separate article "Unity of the Danish Realm", as you have suggested earlier. Perhaps the removal of Kingdom of Denmark was made a bit too hasty ? And here we are... Please consider my suggestion, isn't it possible to have one single article about the realm-fellowship, what's geographically included, and all its legal matters, or simply "the lot". (if absolutely necessary under a different title). Boeing720 (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for explaining your ideas. I don't have time for a long answer, but I strongly rejects (and rejected) that The Unity of The Realm becomes the primary subject of this article. You and others were trying to do exactly that and in the process eliminating the concept of The Danish Realm altogether. That is not a credible way forward for an article named The Danish Realm. Should be obvious. That was the basic problem that I reacted against and why I suggested the creation of a separate article on The Unity of The Realm. The Danish Realm > The Unity of The Realm as a concept and in legal matters as well. Now thoroughly documented in the refs and sources. RhinoMind (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add that I plan to include some historical info on The Danish Realm. That should hopefully cover how The Danish Realm is linked to The Kingdom of Denmark. Just noting. RhinoMind (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I just want to explain that I haven't worked with any "other" ever. I just know (and is stated in most of your sources, as well) that regardless of the Danish Realm or the Unity of the same - is both in common Danish just referred to as "Rigsfællesskabet". Suggested ideas yesterday was made in order to see if we possible could find something out. Boeing720 (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like have the name changed as well. The info box uses the Danish word "Rigsfællesskabet" which is The unity of the Realm. The body uses the Danish Realm which is "det danske rige" in Danish. They are not synonymous.--Kisualk (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I am ok with keeping Rigsfællesskabet in that box. Det Danske Rige is an archaic name in Danish and in the whole of The Danish Realm. the lede explains how the term Rigsfællesskabet entered the languages and it is now by far the most commonly used name in daily parlance for The Danish Realm. Det Danske Rige (or Danmarks Rige) is nowadays only used in formal legal matters. If there were room for two native names in the infobox, we could perhaps mention both Rigsfællesskabet and Det Danske Rige, but there is only room for one native name right now and in this case Rigsfællesskabet is the most important and widely used of the two. RhinoMind (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

We need to decide whether to use the formally correct terms or what people use in daily parlance. Many people say many wrong things and it doesn't make it right because "it is known". If we keep "Rigsfællesskabet" in the right box, the English name above should be The unity of the Realm. The unity of the Realm, as the name implies, is about keeping the unity of the Danish Realm or in other words the administrative relations of the state within the Danish Realm.--Kisualk (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Yes, as you say is is a matter of providing the formally correct term (in Danish) or what is used in everyday parlance. I have provided my answer and view on this issue in my comment above.

2. No, using Rigsfællesskabet does not imply that we need to use The Unity of The Realm in English. Why not? Because Rigsfællesskabet, as an unofficial term, is used for both The Unity of The Realm and The Danish Realm at the same time. It's a mess, I know, but that is how it is. Please read the lede (and refs) carefully - those refs also taught my a few things. The Unity of The Realm (Rigsenheden) is nothing more than a legal construction within The Danish Realm and it is not synonymous with it. RhinoMind (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I have the odd feeling we are close to agree but we end up talking past each other. Your sentence "The Unity of The Realm (Rigsenheden) is nothing more than a legal construction within The Danish Realm and it is not synonymous with it." says it all. I agree 100 %. So what is the controversy about using the formally correct names so we don't get so confused? I would like Wikipedia to be place where you can go and learn something and not just have your wrong assumptions confirmed.--Kisualk (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

About the Infobox issue: We have been discussing the infobox lately and whether it should state the term Det Danske Rige and/or Rigsfællesskabet. There were three name options in the Template:Infobox country: conventional_long_name, native_name and linking_name. From the template page I can see that there are more name-options and I have inserted the common_name option now here in this article. I hoped that would display both Det Danske rige and Rigsfællesskabet in the infobox, but unfortunately common_name is hidden for some reason. If we could find a name option for the infobox that both showed Det Danske Rige and Rigsfællesskabet we would have solved the issue about what name to show. Hope someone can help us out?

As I have stated above, if we only have the option for displaying one name in the infobox, it should be Rigsfællsesskabet. I have made arguments for it in the thread above. Please have a look if you do not agree and haven't read it already. RhinoMind (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC) We could also discuss whether the "Infobox country" really applies to this page at all, but I am not aware of any better infobox template available. RhinoMind (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It is my belief that this page is about The unity of the Realm (Rigsenheden/Rigsfællesskabet), as the page describes and refers to the devolved powers and legal status of Greenland and the Faroe Islands. In other words as mentioned by RhinoMind the legal construction within the Danish Realm and not the Danish Realm itself.--Kisualk (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The name of the article is The Danish Realm, So the article is about The Danish Realm obviously.

You are welcome to write up another article about The Unity of The Realm specifically, but if you ask me, basic information about The Unity of The Realm could/should equally well be included in this article. RhinoMind (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes and no. The title is the Danish Realm and info box says Danish Realm but uses the Danish word for The unity of the Realm (Rigsfællesskabet) and the article´s content is primarily about The unity of the Realm as well, not the Danish Realm itself. This article is clearly specifically about The unity of the Realm but needs a name change.--Kisualk (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I am preparing to correct the name as I think we are all more wiser now. Before I do so, I would like to know if there are someone against.--Kisualk (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC) I will start to implement the changes now.Kisualk (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The unity of the Realm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140520041600/http://um.dk/da/politik-og-diplomati/international-politik/globalt/norden-og-arktis/rigsfaellesskabet/ to http://um.dk/da/politik-og-diplomati/international-politik/globalt/norden-og-arktis/rigsfaellesskabet/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Propose a name change - e.g. "Royal Union" for example

"Rigsfællesskabet", which works fine in Danish, becomes way too unwieldy if translated in the verbose way that it is currently. "Fællesskab" can also be translated as union instead of unity, and "rig" can also refer to the kingdom, or the presence of royalty in general; the term generally does not get used for republics. I propose that we change the name to something like "Royal Union", "Royal Union of Denmark", or "Danish Royal Union". R3troguy420 (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The unity of the Realm is the official term used for "rigsfællesskabet" http://www.stm.dk/_p_10988.html Kisualk (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization (the vs The, Realm vs realm)

the Danish Realm, the Danish realm, The Danish realm or The Danish Realm?--Adûnâi (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The Danish Realm. #1 according to source #2 It's a name. All three words included. RhinoMind (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 15 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 08:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The unity of the Realm → Kingdom of Denmark – As far as I can see, the situation with Denmark is in some way similar to the Netherlands case. There we have the article about the "metropolitan Netherlands" - Netherlands and the article Kingdom of the Netherlands about a sovereign state and constitutional monarchy itself. Therefore for consistency reason I propose to rename this article to Kingdom of Denmark and change the lead in similar fashion as it was done in Kingdom of the Netherlands article. Eondie (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The new lead

This article is about the sovereign state. For the constituent country, see Denmark. For other uses, see Denmark (disambiguation).

The Kingdom of Denmark (Danish: Kongeriget Danmark; commonly known as Denmark, is a sovereign state and constitutional monarchy in Europe, the Arctic and the North Atlantic.

The kingdom has three parts—Denmark proper, the Faroe Islands and Greenland. Most of the kingdom's affairs are administered by Denmark on behalf of the entire kingdom. Consequently, the Faroe Islands and Greenland are dependent on Denmark for matters like foreign policy and defence, but are autonomous to a certain degree, with their own parliaments (Løgting - the parliament of the Faroe Islands and Inatsisartut the parliament of Greenland). Legal matters in the Kingdom are subject to the Danish Constitution. Beginning in 1948, The Home Rule Arrangements transfer political competence and responsibility from the Danish political authorities to the Faroese and later the Greenlandic political authorities. In 1978, The Unity of The Realm was for the first time unofficially referred to as rigsfællesskabet. The name caught on and since the 1990s, both "The unity of the Realm" and the Danish Realm itself have increasingly been referred to as simply rigsfællesskabet (Faroese: ríkisfelagsskapurin; Greenlandic: naalagaaffeqatigiit) in daily parlance.

The Faroe Islands and Greenland have been under the Crown of Denmark since 1397 (de facto) when the Kalmar Union was ratified, and part of the Kingdom of Denmark since 1814 (de jure). However, due to their separate historical and cultural identities, these parts of the Kingdom now have an extensive degree of self-government and have assumed legislative and administrative responsibility in a substantial number of fields.

The Danish Constitution stipulates that it applies for all parts of the Kingdom of Denmark and that legislative, executive and judicial powers are the responsibility of the Danish Parliament, the Danish Government and the Danish Supreme Court. The Faroe Islands received home rule in 1948 and Greenland did so in 1979. In 2005, the Faroes received a self-government arrangement, and in 2009 Greenland received "self rule", thus leaving the Danish state government with virtually no influence over internal affairs devolved to the home governments of Greenland and the Faroe Islands.

Discussion

In the section #The new lead I propose the new version of the lead, feel free to edit it. If the article is renamed, we will replace the lead to this. --Eondie (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• oppose Some editors have an infatuation with what they call "consistency", and I am no fan. The primary guideline for Wikipedia articles will always be truthful, relevant, reliable and proper content. Consistency can never overrule these basic necessities. Some time ago, editors changed the name of a river in my city, just for consistency reasons. It was the most absurd thing. But it taught me that editors with consistency-infatuation are more common than I thought, and I will counter the absurdities whenever I see them.

The question is: Is this redirect suggestion really absurd then? I can follow some of the argumentation, but as long as Kingdom of Denmark redirect to Denmark, it doesn't work. For obvious reasons I would say? This is not the only argument against a redirect, but it is the most obvious one. RhinoMind (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed. There is a very good case for a new title for this article. Danish Realm, as it used to be, would be my guess as the best title; it seems to have been moved without formal discussion from the title agreed at a former RM. But Kingdom of Denmark should continue to redirect to Denmark, as overwhelmingly the main thing people are thinking of when they write the term. For what it's worth, I think Kingdom of the Netherlands should redirect to Netherlands too for the same reason. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support "Danish Realm" per Necrothesp's reasoning and the article's own lead. The present title is confusing, and doesn't even match the spelling in the lead sentence. It seems to be about a concept (a philosophical relationship involving personal sovereignty) rather than something more tangible (an actual legal entity and meta-polity), so I also agree with the general direction of the lead rewrite. The term "[u|U]nity of the Realm" should be explained in a section in this article the appropriate redirects going directly to it, but its a poor idea as the main article on this aspect of Danish boundaries/territory/law/governance/history. Anyway, moving to "Danish Realm" and rejiggering the lead to match this will be much more WP:CONSISTENT with our treatment of states and nations and such in general.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose proposed name, support Danish Realm, but I don't really have a strong opinion on the latter. This articles describe the delicate relationship between Denmark, the Faroe Island and Greenland, with a particular focus on the legal aspects and distribution of powers of this construct. When people in Denmark talk about Rigsfællesskabet, they talk about this relationship. A change in title would lead people to believe that this article describe the history, geography, politics, economics, demographics and culture of the Kingdom of Denmark, but it doesn't. I believe most readers searching for "Kingdom of Denmark" would expect to find "Denmark". I don't really know about the situation in the Netherlands, but I think we should be careful to extrapolate from that, as every country has its own hurtful and complicated history to deal with. ― Hebsen (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually scrap that support for move to Danish Realm. The situations is complicated, as the discussion earlier on this talk page suggest. "Danish Realm" is a direct translated of Danmarks Rige, and refers to the area within Danish jurisdiction. "Unity of the Realm", a direct translation of Rigsfællesskabet refers to the legal construct within the Danish Realm that defines the relationship between the three parts. As of right now, this article is mostly about the latter. A move to Danish Realm should be discussed on its own merits, not within a totally different move request. ― Hebsen (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    • The actual Danish name Rigsfællesskabet would be a better choice than the unnecessary English translation we currently have. But I still think Danish Realm is most appropriate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support the proposed or “Danish realm”. The current begs “which realm”, and in the English Wikipedia, an English or British realm would be presumed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Kingdom of Denmark is Denmark's official name. The unity of the Realm is the English name used by authorities and it's a political arrangement within the Danish state. Hebsen explains it very well. Source: http://www.stm.dk/_a_2752.html Kisualk (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Support "Danish Realm". Since Denmark is a kingdom, "Denmark" and the "Kingdom of Denmark" logically refer to the same thing. This proposal is apparently based on the Dutch situation. The Dutch constitution provides a justification for a Netherlands/Kingdom of Netherlands distinction. Despite that, I suspect that most readers find it confusing. Colin Gerhard (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead following move

I have changed the first paragraph of the lead following the move. I would say it needs more work. I also think there are lot of things that are repeated, like that Greenland and the Faroe Island have home/self rule, and the name rigsfællesskabet. ― Hebsen (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

If we wait for two months, another request would most likely come up. This time perhaps to change the page-title to "The Unity of The Realm", or maybe to redirect the whole thing to the "Kingdom of Denmark". I shouldn't be laughing, as this back-and-forth is a pain in the neck, but I can't help it. RhinoMind (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The unity of the Realm

One thing missing in the previous discussion whether to move the page or not is that the official name is "The unity of the Realm"! The unity of the Realm is a political arrangement to maintain unity within the Danish Realm. The Danish Realm is a way to say the Danish state with the common name Denmark and the official name the Kingdom of Denmark. It's important to remember that when Greenland and the Faroe Islands became Danish in 1814, they were not immediately incorporated into Denmark. Hence the expression "Danish Realm" which refers to the time when Denmark formed a realm with territories such as Greenland and the Faroe Islands. Today, "the Danish Realm" is an archaic term but it's used in a diplomatic sense, because it's not well liked to straight out say Greenland and the Faroe Islands are part of Denmark. So is this page about the historic Danish Realm or the arrangement within the Danish state known as the unity of the Realm? Kisualk (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This is about the arrangement within the Kingdom of Denmark as it stands today. I see the historic perspective, and think a hatnote would help. It is my impression that Unity of the Realm is not an official term (i.e. the Danish rigsfællesskabet is not), though it is the preferred term by officials and all others within it. But that does not really matter whether it is official or not, see WP:COMMONNAME. During the Trump-Greenland saga, Danish Realm was the preferred term by english-speaking outlets. ― Hebsen (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It literally starts with "This article is about the current realm" And most of the newly added content also seems to point to the realm and not the specific arrangement within the realm. The page is turning more and more into a Kingdom of Denmark page, which we already have. Is this what we want? With regard to American media usage of "Danish Realm" I understand it as it's referring to the kingdom. I would prefer this page explained the political system of the unity of the Realm and the history behind it. But more than that feels redundant and just creates more confusion on a complicated topic. Kisualk (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I have really tried to keep the "Population and area" and "Historical background" sections succinct and limited to things relevant to the realm. Is there any specific things you wish to have trimmed of? I understand the worry that this might turn into a kingdom article, and I wish to avoid that too. I would say the biggest difference is that in a kingdom article, the subject is one thing (the kingdom), while in a realm article, the subject is three things (Denmark, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland) and the relation between them. That is at least the direction I have tried to take this article. Compare the infobox now with the one mid April. ― Hebsen (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's possible to trim the content, when we are in agreement of describing the political arrangement within the realm. But if that's the case, we should not use "Danish Realm" as the title. Even though they can and are being used interchangeable, Danish Realm and the unity of the Realm are two different things as I attempted to give an explanation of in my initial comment. "Danish Realm" should be a redirect to the "Kingdom of Denmark", which already links to a detailed description of the unity of the Realm (this page) as well as to the historic Danish realm/monarchy. Kisualk (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a few side notes on terminology. "The Unity of The Realm" is the English name of Rigsenheden, the official name of the legal construct governing the Danish Realm (Det Danske Rige). Rigsenheden is also unofficially called rigsfællesskabet, and this is definitely the most widespread term in Denmark, Faroe Islands and Greenland. All this used to be solidly sourced in the leed. RhinoMind (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I would say that "Unity of the Realm" is the English version of rigsfællesskabet, not Rigsenheden. You are right that it used to be in the lead, though four of the three sources did not support it. I would say it does not belong in the lead as it is a purely legal term, but that there should be a name section that should contain it. ― Hebsen (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I have now created a name section. Feedback would be appreciated (or better just make adjustment yourself). Also note that I have changed the bolded name in the lead from "rigsfællesskabet" to "unity of the Realm", as we should use the English names, unless the Danish name is use in English (see WP:UE). Feel free to discuss this change. ― Hebsen (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

To answer RhinoMind and others, Rigsenheden was first used to describe the arrangement of home rule in the Faroe Islands. "The unity of The Realm" comes from this term as it literally means Rigsenheden. Later from 1979, when Greenland also got home rule, rigsenheden changed to rigsfællesskabet, but in English it still is "the unity of the Realm". Rigsfællesskabet/the unity of the Realm are the names used by authorities publicly, but they are not official in a legal sense (used in laws etc). Kisualk (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Could not have said it better. RhinoMind (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Faroese independence referendum in 1946

Hebsen, with regard to the 1946 referendum and the following dismissal of it, I would like to ask if you have any sources confirming, that void votes are not included in the count of total votes cast? In the current reference, Hans Andrias Sølvará says 50.7% of the valid votes were in favor of secession, not 50.7% of the votes cast. Indeed, the Danish electoral system includes void votes in the votes cast. Even the Faroese version of the Wiki referendum page includes void votes and thus uses the 48.7% number, so I think it's safe to use it here, naturally with a better explanation. Hans Andrias Sølvará also says, that the official reason as to dismiss the result by the Danish government was that it was unconstitutional to unilaterally declare independence. If we are in agreement, I'll expand further on the political aspect as well. Kisualk (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

(moving to a separate section) I think the sentence should be refactored to include the word valid, that will save all the troubles. Yes, void votes are included in the total number of cast votes, but not when calculating percentages. I don't have a source on that for the specific referendum in 1946, but that is how it works nowadays (2015). I think the number 50.7 will be most helpful to use, as the bottom line was that there was more in favor of independence than against.

You are right that the Sølvará source states that the official reason was that it was unconstitutional, I missed that. Things were complicated, so I just went with "dismissed" to be brief (I needed another source for that statement). Go ahead with the expansion. ― Hebsen (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 19 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move buidhe 05:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Unity of the Realm → Danish Realm – As it used to be. Much clearer name, and it seems to have been moved without formal discussion. The present title is confusing, and seems to be about a concept (a philosophical relationship involving personal sovereignty) rather than something more tangible (an actual legal entity and meta-polity) Nearman (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Sources (and the article itself) tend to use "unity" in lowercase, so I changed the few uses of it with initial caps. 62.165.198.73 (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRECISE. It appears from the Danish Prime Ministerial sources that the unity of the (Danish) Realm is the principle that Danish law applies in the Faeroes and Greenland unless devolved. Here, the "unity of the Realm" could apply to many similar arrangements, for example those of the United Kingdom and the Roman Empire, so "Danish Realm" is better.

Unity of the Danish Realm is possible, but the article defines other aspects of the Danish Realm (e.g. its geography), not just its unifying principles. 62.165.198.73 (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the term "unity of the Realm" is used for such arrangements in general. It is, however, specifically used within this context. That said, it is still imprecise that the title does not specify that we talk about Denmark. ― Hebsen (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, mainly on the basis that this article is mostly about the internal relationship within the Kingdom of Denmark, which "Unity of the Realm" typically refers to. It (or rather, the Danish term "rigsfællesskabet") is the preferred term within the realm, as it frames the Kingdom as a community, where Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands are (somewhat) equal partners, making the term less offensive that "Danish Realm". In international media, "Danish Realm" is more used, and I would say there are two causes: (a) it automatically underline that we talk about Denmark, which is nice, and (b) the context is typically international relations (e.g. Trump trying to buy Greenland), where sovereignty is paramount, not the internal affairs. On balance, I would say the content of the article makes "Unity of the Realm" the most appropriate name. I would support "Danish realm" if the article was more about the history of the Realm and its international relations, compared to now where it is mostly about legal matters and devolution. ― Hebsen (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support. We should have the word Danish in the title. To translate "rigsfællesskabet" to "Unity of the Realm" and use as title is like having a country which calls itself "The republic" maybe in opposite to a previous situation, and then we have an article "The republic" about the constitution and political principles of that country. I should prefer Danish unity of Realm or Unity of the Danish Realm. (We do have a redirect called Kingdom of Denmark to Denmark, which confusingly is both about the country Denmark and the Kingdom of Denmark (incl FO+GL)). I support the change, better than previous.--BIL (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support any title with "Danish" and strongly oppose any name without it, per precision Red Slash 21:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support as I proposed in the RM above. Clearly the best title. The current title is meaningless to English speakers and is merely a literal translation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support as said previously here, it is clear, understandable, and is not meaningless unlike the literal Unity of the Realm. It also clearly shows a distinction as opposed to the Kingdom of Denmark itself. 88.85.37.202 (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose (maybe) Hi. I will just use my voice to put some facts into this discussion. Something everybody can use.

All this back-and-forth is just giving credit to my longstanding opinion that 3 pages are needed:

• Denmark - as i is now
• Kingdom of Denmark - including info about The Danish Realm (Det Danske Rige). The term Danish Realm is tightly related to the Crowns possessions throughout history. Not limited to the legal relations between Greenland, Faroe Islands and Denmark in modern times.
• Rigsfællesskabet - installing the Danish term for this page.

Unfortunately, every try at creating pages on either The Danish Realm or Kingdom of Denmark, has been redirected to the Denmark article. Over and over again. Which I think is wrong of course. And it shows that implementing the suggested page-name-change would most likely reactivate all those problems. RhinoMind (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, this page here is about the legal relationship, as clearly explained in the very first sentence. If you need to read something on Wikipedia about The Danish Realm (Det Danske Rige), then why not create a page for it? You don't need to take this one down. RhinoMind (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So why did this end in a move?

Does a move only come down to summing up supports and opposes? What about the issues raised? The ones I pointed out have not been answered at all. And they are still haunting the new page after the move. So, what's up with that? RhinoMind (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

As the Talk page shows (scroll up), these matters have been voted back and forth several times by now. Sometimes supports wins, sometimes opposes wins, and sometimes a third redirection is discussed or settled upon. What is the purpose of having all these votes if a new vote comes up every now and then? RhinoMind (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The page were moved because there were consensus for it. Many editors found the previous title meaningless, and though that the title should indicate that we talk about Denmark. I kinda agree on those points, which is why my oppose was weak. There are unresolved issues, but it would be too ambitious to think they can be solved by a single move request. This move undo a previous move in 2017 after a long discussion, but I am not so sure it would have been moved, if there had been a proper move request, so I don't think we should worry about the consensus changing all the time.

I don't know what the best solution would be, but I don't see the need for both an article on the Kingdom as a whole, and one on the Danish Realm/Unity of the Realm. The unity as a legal construct should be seen in context of the realm. On the crown possessions, there should be a mention and a link to the Danish overseas colonies in a history or background section in this article, but that requires that someone write it. ― Hebsen (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is basically to expand this Danish Realm article into a long history about The kingdom of Denmark. I agree that the Danish Realm and The Kingdom of Denmark is tightly interconnected: One can not be described or understood without the other. But then we are back to an article about the Danish Realm/Kingdom of Denmark. With time this will be redirected to the Denmark article, it has happened over and over again for the last 8 years. We have been there before. And rigsfællesskabet will be put away as a small insignificant paragraph in this article, completely out of proportion to the real world. RhinoMind (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Look, none of the above participants have any interest in improving this article after the current move to reflect the new title and focus of this page. Its just random thoughts and opinions/feelings about the whole thing from editors uninterested in improving anything about the subject. I can't take it seriously, although the consequences of their move-votes are pretty serios and far-reaching. RhinoMind (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. It is difficult to find a good solution to this issue, that we can all agree on, which is why we haven't already. We can have a small background/history section in this article it this turning into a Kingdom article. I don't think it should be long. We should also remember that we are here to serve the readers, so if some (even though they don't edit this article) think the title is confusing, it probably is. ― Hebsen (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this constant change of titles and redirects and what have you comes down to disagreements, really. It is just the result of random editors coming by and wanting to change stuff for god knows what reason. Some are just confused and don't know much about the subject, some probably politically biased and wanting to push a certain agenda, and then some who wants to put everything into wellknown boxes, because they believe Wikipedia is all about consistency. Many reasons. But none of them improves anything. They just leave after the mess they cause.

No, we are not here just to serve random readers. First off, because we are also readers ourselves. But most importantly because we as editors should care about content and facts. And presenting subjects that we care about and knows about in the best way possible. To change an article about an important legal construct into an article about a kingdom is just mad. RhinoMind (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I would also like to read more about the Kingdom of Denmark and The Danish Realm, but then why not make an article about it? Why do they need to take down an article about rigsfællesskabet for this to work out? It just not right or helpful. RhinoMind (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Essentially, one imperfect and imprecise term was replaced with another. It is better, but still not exactly the best. The discussion should have gone on for longer, and other alternative phrases brought up, instead of simply going for the first half-decent phrase that someone brought up. I've mentioned previously my wish for a proper English term that accurately and clearly describes the relationships between the three countries, such as the Royal Union of Denmark. To simply revert back to the ghastly Unity of the Realm, or switching to the native Danish rigsfællesskabet, would be to throw in the towel. R3troguy420 (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The correct name is The unity of the Realm. It's not an union like in the UK. A compromise could be The unity of the Danish Realm Kisualk (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

As Kisualk says, there is an official English term and that is "The Unity of the Ream" (Danish: Rigsenheden). It is used officially by the Prime Minster's Office as all the refs also shows. We can not make up terms ourselves. That would be OR (Original Research). What we can do is add specifications in some cases, which comes down to "The Unity of the Realm (Denmark)" fx, in this case. Perhaps? I am not totally confident about it, because it somehow emphasizes Denmark. I think the official term "The Unity of the Realm" is fine, but the Danish everyday term Rigsfællesskabet is even better, as I explained earlier. RhinoMind (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 18 October 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Somerby (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Danish Realm → Kingdom of Denmark – Following the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 1#Kingdom of Denmark. The kingdom of Denmark is much more common in reliable sources. It is slightly more ambiguous, however, this is not a problem, since there are good links between two articles. From Danish Constitution: in English and in Danish.

Section 01
This Constitutional Act shall apply to all parts of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Section 01
The Constitutional Act applies to Denmark, the Faeroe Islands and Greenland. Special home rule arrangements for the Faeroe Islands and special self-government arrangements for Greenland have been passed by law. These arrangements give the Faeroese and Greenlanders far-reaching autonomy in respect of their own affairs.

danish:

§ 1
Denne grundlov gælder for alle dele af Danmarks Rige.
Kommentar:
Grundloven gælder for Danmark, Færøerne og Grønland. Der er ved lov gennemført en særlig hjemmestyreordning for Færøerne og en særlig selvstyreordning for Grønland. Disse ordninger giver færingerne og grønlænderne et vidtgående selvstyre.

Regarding similar articles: there are two similar cases: Kingdom of the Netherlands and Realm of New Zealand. As you can see, there is no one single approach. Somerby (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support By the way, I noticed that the flags are different for the Kingdom of Denmark (state flag) and Denmark (national flag). Vic Park (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This page has had the name changed many, many times. It's been going around from Unity of the Realm, Kingdom of Denmark and Danish Realm, and I personally don't think we should keep moving it around. "Danish Realm" as article name makes it clear that it is a different thing than the country of Denmark - which is a constitunional kingdom. Having the article named "Kingdom of Denmark" could be confusing for people not familiar with the conditions around the relationship between Denmark, Greenland and the Faroes. "Realm" would also be a better translation of "rige", in my opinion. Kaffe42 (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Dear Jonas, but even in the official translation of the Danish constitution from the Danish parliament, Danmarks Rige is translated as the Kingdom of Denmark. Denmark is only one of the parts of the Kingdom of Denmark, albeit the main one. --Somerby (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and retarget Kingdom of Denmark to Denmark once more. That's what most people would think of when they hear or write Kingdom of Denmark. The individual country in Europe, not the polity including Greenland and the Faroes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  User:Necrothesp, please distinguish the "That's what most people" statement you wrote from the same statement with the phrase "Kingdom of" removed. Georgia guy (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  No, no idea what you're talking about. If people hear either Denmark or Kingdom of Denmark they would think of the large peninsula and associated islands at the northern end of Europe, not those plus the Faroes and Greenland. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm talking about one of the sentences in your Oppose vote. Georgia guy (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  User:Necrothesp, going by what most people think, should we rename the page of the United Kingdom to just England? The page for the United Kingdom is also not the "English/British Realm". If people have trouble with not understanding the difference they are already helped by the hatnote This article is about the sovereign state. For metropolitan Denmark, which is only a part of the Kingdom, see Denmark. The Kingdom of Denmark is the common name and the formal name. The Kingdom is the generally applied term and also the formal constitutional term. Yes, the mixing of the Kingdom and the Country is confusing, but that is intrinsic to the concept where the country often harbours the institutions of the Kingdom --Somerby (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Obviously not, because most people know what the UK is. Most people realise that England is only one part of the UK, which consists of four separate countries, all with different names (none of which are actually called the United Kingdom). As opposed to Denmark, which consists of one country actually called Denmark plus two territories called something else. Do you see the difference here? -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose and retarget Kingdom of Denmark to Denmark. It's common practice to redirect official country names to the common (shorthand) name. This page is about the Unity of the Realm (rigsfællesskabet), which is the relationship between the state and the self-governing parts in the state. Kisualk (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and redirect the Kingdom of Denmark article to the Denmark article. GoodDay (talk) 05:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Denmark which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

About formal names

I'm far from certain, but have assumed "Kongeriget Danmark" (Kingdom of Denmark) to be the name. How is "Danish Realm" retranslated back into Dansh ? (not looking for trouble, just desire to know) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.73.248 (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The Danish Realm or more correctly "the unity of the Realm" is rigsfællesskabet in Danish. Kisualk (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Kingdom of Denmark

It should point to Denmark, not this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:9002:E06A:E480:33C4:738A:4E41 (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Does Canada currently border Greenland / the Danish Realm?

Please see Talk:Hans Island § Does Canada currently border Greenland / the Danish Realm?. Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 21 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Danish Realm → Kingdom of Denmark – Correct official name of the sovereign state. Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Have you read the previous proposal, at #Requested move 18 October 2021? CMD (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nothing has changed since the last RM. Redirect Kingdom of Denmark to Denmark, which is what it commonly refers to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, since there is a relist and no new arguments have been presented. I will add as well that a discussion on the title of this article should be secondary to a discussion on the article's structure, contents, and purpose. CMD (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support Danish situation is similar to the Dutch case: Kingdom of the Netherlands. See also official translation in the Danish Constitution [9]

  This Constitutional Act shall apply to all parts of the Kingdom of Denmark. Section 01 The Constitutional Act applies to Denmark, the Faeroe Islands and Greenland. Special home rule arrangements for the Faeroe Islands and special self-government arrangements for Greenland have been passed by law. These arrangements give the Faeroese and Greenlanders far-reaching autonomy in respect of their own affairs.

  --BlackBony (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The Danish system has many differences to the Dutch situation, but at any rate the official name of the Kingdom of Denmark is not in doubt. The question is, is the purpose of the page to be just a state page? Based on the current structure, it is not, as it is an article specifically focus on constitutional structure, not a general country article. This article was originally title Rigsfællesskabet, which was a bit more specific to this topic, but of course was mostly unintelligible to an English audience. CMD (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - the "Danish realm" & the "Kingdom of Denmark" should be re-directed to the European country. GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I think I've heard "Danish Realm" more than the "Kingdom of Denmark". Regarding GoodDay's comment, it would be inappropriate to redirect this to Denmark given that the Faroe Islands and Greenland are pretty much autonomous and have their own constituent parliaments – that's what differentiates "Denmark" and the "Danish Realm". --SHB2000 (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support per BlackBony's reference from a reliable source. As for the common name, I am not certain, and no one else here has actually provided evidence to support common usage either. Judekkan (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.