Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian monarchs

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete and no consensus to merge or do anything else. Hence, the status quo remains. Daniel (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian monarchs[edit]

List of Australian monarchs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
List of New Zealand monarchs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (also redirect List of New Zealander monarchs)

The Australian article claims that "the sovereign's Australian role is now completely separate from the same person's role as monarch of the other Commonwealth realms". It does not explain how the role is different. But in any case the list of Australian and New Zealand monarchs is identical to that of the other Commonwealth nations that accept the British crown as head of state, so these articles are totally redundant. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Australia & New Zealand have their own 'Head of State', the Queen of Australia & the Queen of New Zealand. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list is not identical to all other Commonwealth nations. Some like Canada will list French monarchs. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firstly: per GoodDay and Secondly the New Zealand list and Australia list are not identical. Perhaps you should have actually read them first: Victoria and Edward VII are the first monarchs respectively. These articles are an opportunity for information to be added about the specific states that may not be deemed important enough to be included the list of British Monarchs.

Here are a few arguments to consider:

  • The realms are sovereign, and as such, deserve might be expected to have would usually have their own lists of heads of state, either within an article on the office of head of state or as a stand-alone list, as per all other sovereign states.
  • We avoid confusing the distinction between 16 monarchies.
  • Commonweath realm lists that would consist of one person would follow those new non-realm states which themselves have lists of one, two or three persons.
  • Redirecting to the UK's list creates the contradictory implication of a foreign office of head of state over sovereign countries.
  • Context makes separate lists necessary.
Please explain this.--Gazzster (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Camaeron (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the list somewhere, as each country on Wikipedia has a list of its heads of state, regardless of number or duplication. My preference is for a list separate from Monarchy of Australia for purely editorial reasons; 1) list articles tend to be treated differently, and thus separated from, prose articles, and 2) Monarchy of Australia would be, without the list of monarchs there, 92KB long, and thus over the recommended size, whereafter it's advised to split into smaller articles anyway. (The user who started this AfD obviously has misconceptions about the subject matter.) --G2bambino (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is a stupid list, but it is a stupid list because it is a stupid constitutional arrangement not because the article is faulty. Nick Connolly (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now, that's a candid way of putting things. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The list is unecessary. It is already at Monarchy of Australia; one list suffices for the shared monarchy (the one at List of monarchs of the UK would answer, but list at MoA is fine). Should every CR have a list? If so, 12 out of 15 would have only one monarch, E2. In short, it is inefficient and weird to publish multiple lists of the same monarchs, with the same information. Wikipedia is the only forum where this is done. I would prefer deletion without a redirect.
Comment. Inefficient? WP:NOTPAPER. StAnselm (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Multiple lists replicate the same material for no supportable reason when one list can serve the same purpose. Fewer words, same objective= efficiency.--Gazzster (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the argument that this list is the place to give specific information about the distinctly Australian monarchy I would say that all such info is already at Monarchy of Australia, at length and in great detail. That is the natural place to look for it
  • To the argument that the realms are sovereign and so merit separate lists I would say that the sovereignty of the realms will vary. Australia became independent between (roughly) 1942 and 1986. How then, should we determine the number of monarchs in the list? For the other realms the no will likewise vary. As said, 12 of them will have only one. One is not a list, and is patently ridiculous to make a list of one.
  • To the argument that MoA is too long, I would say: Monarchy of Australia is by far a more natural place to look for information than a List of AM; if MoA is too long, why don't we make that more concise, rather than creating yet another article?; what could be said of MoA might also refer to Monarchy of Canada, which is even longer.
  • As I see it, this is about presenting information efficiently, not about promoting the dignity of the realms. And I would note that to the casual observer, the proliferation of CR articles is bewildering, evwen embarassing. I wouldn't mind betting that most hits on these articles come from us, its creators and editors! --Gazzster (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Obviously one monarch does not contitute a list and thus those type of "lists" are not created...--Camaeron (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At last! Someone has addressed this point! Thank you! So no-one create List of Monarchs of Kitts and St Nevis, please!--Gazzster (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try not to ; p --Camaeron (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such (one monarch) articles won't be created. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? One president lists have already been created. The list has to start somewhere. --G2bambino (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, G2, in a deletion discussion, we are particularly talking about standalone lists, not sections in another article. Having said that, if I were writing such an article I would mention in the intro the fact that there has only been one, not create a list type section just for the sake of some sort of uniform format. JPD (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. I was talking about stand alone lists. --G2bambino (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everytime I take a step ahead? I take two back. It's like being in a giant web. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Gazzster has said, this is about information, not sovereignty, and so any arguments based only on the fact that Australia/NZ are sovereign or that the Queen's role in each is distinct should be ignored. These facts are made clear in the appropriate articles, having yet another one which does not spell it out as well doesn't help at all. There are two possibilities for such an article. Either it is simple duplication of part of the List of British monarchs, or it contains appropriate Australian/NZ context and explanation. In the first case, this article is absurd and vitually useless, in the second case, it wouldn't really do justice to the situation unless it were part of articles like Monarchy of Australia or History of monarchy in Canada (I don't see how it helps to have List of Canadian monarchs separate from this).
  • If these lists had been suggested/created in order to reduce the length of the Monarchy articles, an issue G2bambino has raised, I would suggest that we consider making it part of a separate History article, reducing the History section as well. As it is, however, it looks like it is simply a badge of sovereignty, a purpose which Wikipedia articles should not serve. JPD (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, plus merge/redirect. I've added some more to List of New Zealand monarchs (the correct title, which this article is now at), to show that it is distinct from other comparable articles... but I still fail to see how this page can provide anything which the more comprehensive Monarchy of New Zealand cannot, and as such I would support its redirection to that page. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no necessary reason why the next Monarch will be the same for Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. StAnselm (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but it will be, for at present all the realms are in accord over the Act of Settlement. Could the Parliament of a realm theoretically annul the Act in their monarchy? Yes, (theoretically) but rather than do that it would most probably abolish the monarchy. And in practice, a change in succession would depend on whether, say, Prince Harry would accept the throne of Realm X when his papa and brother have been passed over. And it would also depend on whether the UK Parliament would allow Harry (or whoever) to accept his or her new title and leave the UK (always assuming they would want to leave)>. No, it is pretty certain the succession will be the same in all realms.-Gazzster (talk) 06:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To lift the mood in this heavy debate, perhaps we should append this little ditty to every CR article:

She is Canadian!

For She Herself has said it

And it's greatly to Her credit

That She is Canadian

That She is Canadian!

And yet She's a dinkum Aussie

Of the Kiwis, Jamaica, a boss, She

And let's not forget Grenada

Or Saint Kitts or PNG!

But in spite of all temptations

To belong to a single nation

She remains Canadian-

She remains Canadian!

(At this point, 16 flags are unfurled, fireworks explode, the initials ER rise out of the sea, and a bar of God save the Queen plays)--Gazzster (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow it's gonna be great. The biggest party 16 nations ever partied! See you there G2 Bambino! --Camaeron (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'll pass on the invite, thanks. I somehow don't trust an avowed republican to put on a party for EIIR. --G2bambino (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offence to Gaz but as a republican he wouldnt be invited... = ) --Camaeron (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll be there- any excuse for a party! (As long as HM is paying!)--Gazzster (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not make MoA more concise? Why buy exactly the same coat as you already have when all you need to do is dry-clean it?--Gazzster (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Delete After looking at Monarchy in Australia, I don't see that the Australian monarchs article is is anything more than a "colorful poster". What an eerie coincidence. The British monarchs of the 20th century had the same names and reigned at the same time, and the illustrations show that these people were similar in appearance. It's a colorful poster to illustrate something that can be expressed in one sentence, that Australia's head of state is, legally, the Queen of the United Kingdom . The New Zealand article goes a bit further, by adding Maori leaders. However, I can see room for the Australia article to go beyond the "DUH" quality that it has now, with additions to show the Queen's visits to Australia, messages directed specifically to the Australian people, acts of the Governor-General on behalf of the Queen (like the guy who fired the prime minister back in the 70s), and protocol when the Queen visits her Dominion, such as where the royalty resides when they're visiting. As long as the article isn't being guarded by some zealot who thinks that this is "perfection", it might work . As G2bambino notes below, the monarchy article is getting lengthy. If there's a spinoff, these handsome illustrations can be added to that. Mandsford (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the latter half of your comment. However Australia's head of state, legally, is the Queen of Australia not the Queen of the UK...--Camaeron (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Then that would be a conditional delete, as it would depend on future actions at Monarchy of Australia, which is currently already over the recommended length for articles. --G2bambino (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did you just add to Monarchy of Canada?--Gazzster (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because there was information to add to it. Why else? I'd love to take some out of the article, though. Will you help me in getting Canadian Royal Family reinstated as a separate article, Gazz? --G2bambino (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you're not going to get busy slimming down CM (which is longer than MoA), you can hardly argue here that MoA is too long.--Gazzster (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"CM"? Anyway, I'm not arguing MoA is too long, Wikipedia tells me it is. --G2bambino (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How? I haven't seen a 'this is too long' tag there. You've said MoA is too long several times, mate. IF MoA is too long, so is CoM. What's good for the goose, etc.--Gazzster (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is "CM" and "CoM"? Look at the head of the page when you open the edit window; it says "This page is 95 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." --G2bambino (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's good for MoA is good 4 MoC, that's all I'm sayin.--Gazzster (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uuhh... If you mean by "CM," "CoM" and "MoC," Monarchy of Canada, then yes, you're absolutely right. --G2bambino (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool.--Gazzster (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate Canadian Royal Family? Sure, why not? GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These lists are useful. The only other idea I would considerer over this would be to merge them all into a new article called List of Commonwealth Realm Monarchs. But I do like the individual lists as they stand, otherwise it would mean that the British list would also have to be merged there. After all they are all independent countries deserving of their own list, even if they do all agree on using the same monarchs. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to explain how they are useful? Useful information would deserve a list, but simply being an independent country doesn't. JPD (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were a school kid doing research on these topics wouldn't you find them helpful? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How many school kids are asked to research Australian monarchs? If they were, they would go to UK monarchs first, obviously.--Gazzster (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should say that because I did exactly that the other day... = )--Camaeron (t/c) 22:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Australian school kids went to a list of British monarchs to research the Australian crown then they'd be poorly educated little Vegemites. --G2bambino (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully our little Vegemites are not initiated in king worship, British or Australian. But we're talking about the List, not the Australian crown. You do try to shift ground when its shaky.Can't blame you.--Gazzster (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, just a couple of generations of politician worship. I wonder now, though, who it really is who got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. --G2bambino (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they were asked to research the monarchs themselves, then anyone with any knowledge at all could quite sensibly look at British monarchs to find the info. You might instead look at Monarchy of Australia, which would be more sensible if, as G2 mentions, the topic was the Australian crown rather than the monarchs. Either way, this list doesn't provide any information that isn't given (often with more helpful context) in other, more obvious places. So, if I were a schoolkid, I wouldn't find them helpful. JPD (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Huh? --G2bambino (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A table which said which monarch ruled over which realm could be more useful than a whole series of articles covering almost the sme info. For example the first of the tables in List of Australian monarchs deals with the House of Hanover - information which is duplicated elsewhere in Wikipedia. Why not instead have a table which says Victoria of the House of Hanover ruled over Australia, but indicate she did not rule over NZ; however Edward VII ruled over both. Expanding for the other Commonwealth realms and having clear links back to the other duplicated info in the table elsewhere. To have multiple articles speaks of provincial minds in my view - it is playing with semantics to differentiate QEII for NZ, Aust and the UK - for NZ and Aust she is QEI but you would get nowhere in putting forward that view - not least becuase she is commonly known as QE2. We have a monarchy and an article on that monarchy for each country is appropriate explaining Australian, New Zealand, canadian peculiarities - but treating the one monarch as a different one when it comes to lists like these and duplicating the info seems to be going too far in my view. One list is better annotating variations as appropriate - eg when countries came under the monarchy and when they left.--Matilda talk 23:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate thinking outside the box, and a singluar, pan-realm list has been discussed, I see a problem in that proposal; namely: The UK is a Commonwealth realm, so where would this list that covers all realms begin? --G2bambino (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Name it a list of monarchs for Commonwealth realms excluding the UK - ie define it accordingly and link to the list of British monarchs for those looking to a comprehensive list. Otherwise it would begin with the earliest monarch recognised as presiding over a Commonwealth realm other than the UK. If we were talking about only Aust and NZ it woudl be Victoria - I am not talking about only those 2 countries but all past and present Commonwealth countries other than the UK and noting that it predates the formation of the Commonwealth - can one refer to the British Empire these days? --Matilda talk 00:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm... I find that a bit arbitrary; as in, I'm left asking: for what reason is one realm separated out from the rest? --G2bambino (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is hardly arbitrary that the UK monarchy is excluded - it has greater length and it determines the other monarchs - no other monarchy in this system will have a monarch other than the UK monarch while they remain part of the system. Arbitrary means not attributable to any rule or law; accidental; capricious; uncertain; unreasonable - none of these apply to the exclusion of the UK monarch from a list. What I am proposing is we have no more than two lists. With potentially a list for each Commonwealth realm, we have a greater probability of errors and inconsistencies in the lists. --Matilda talk 03:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the UK doesn't determine other monarchs, not for more than 75 years. And why does the greatest length win immunity? So, it's still rather arbitrary - i.e. without governing reason - to remove one realm from a list of realms. It seems even more arbitrary to be okay with two lists but not more. --G2bambino (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please point me to the previous discussion where a singluar, pan-realm list has been discussed? Thanks Matilda talk 04:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did mention such a thing once, but as something to be avoided.--Gazzster (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was at Talk:List of Australian monarchs. I don't think it should necessarily be avoided, I just don't think it's possible. --G2bambino (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, JPD says what I want to say with his usual clarity. Cheers!--Gazzster (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see, G2? The argument for simplification does not come from republican sentiment, but from a genuine desire for economy and clarity. And it doesn't just come from me, JPD and Tharky.--Gazzster (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um.. I never said it did. --G2bambino (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These lists are redundant. Wikipedia does not need multiple copies of this same detailed information, where essentially the copies differ only in that all of them but one are truncated (to varying degrees) in relation to that one. All that is needed is this: In the "Monarchy of..." articles, note when each other national list picks up the British list, give a simple listing of the monarchs concerned, and refer the reader to the British list for fuller information. The politically-based notion that we are affronting national dignities unless we give each of the countries concerned has its own list-article, partially repeating the British list's details about dynasties, consorts and so on, is not a legitimate concern in writing an encyclopedia.
    -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just curious everyone. If this article gets deleted? does that mean all similiar articles get deleted? GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean List of British monarchs etc. then it's a definate no. Usually only the nominated page is deleted. Occasionally the respective redirect pages are deleted too...but never more than that...--Camaeron (t/c) 15:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and not every case is the same. --G2bambino (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reassurances, people. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion would of course establish a precedent for deleting the other articles, but, as has been mentioned before, articles stand alone. Decisions for one article are not necessary applied to others. We would have to establish deletion pages for every list and go through this process each time. I would imagine though, that the argument, 'we did it at the Aus list because of X' would throw some weight toward deletion.--Gazzster (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the same argument in support of having a list for each country somehow doesn't stand? --G2bambino (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning (or evening, or midday, or whatever it is over there), G2! Don't see the similarity, bud.--Gazzster (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent. It was dismissed by you and JPD as a reason to have a list for each country, but now you're saying it's okay as a basis to delete lists. Just making an observation is all. (And it's evening here now; night before a long weekend too, so beer is calling me away from this computer. Damn work!) --G2bambino (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Long weekend here too! Yay for the secularisation of religious holidays! I didn't say precedent was a basis for deleting lists. I said it may lend weight to the argument to do so. And precedent may add some weight to each realm having its own list. But I (and others) don't believe that weight tips the balance.--Gazzster (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Summary[edit]

Time for a summary. Please note I am not attempting to close the discussion and declare consensus. I am going to make a tally and a summary of the arguments pro and con deletion. My idea is that we get more scientific about this and debate the value of the arguments. But new input, especially from users who have not commented yet, is of course still welcome.

For deletion 4 votes

  • List repeats list at Monarchy of Australia and other articles. A single list a more efficient manner of presenting info. A redirect,as an alternative, would suffice.
  • Monarchy of Australia answers the need for info about the distinctly Aus. monarchy well enough.
  • Confusion between 16 realms is unlikely. The distinction is made clear throughout Wikipedia.
  • Divergence in lines of succession is highly unlikely, if not impossible.

For retention 7 votes

  • Each sovereign nation has its list of heads of state, so why not this one?
  • Doesn't replicate the list of other monarchs of other British/former British monarchies exactly: different first monarchs, and the lines of succession may diverge in the future.
  • Avoids confusing distinction between 15 former British monarchies and the UK monarchy.
  • MoA is too long; another article is needed.
  • Lists should be open to the addition of non-British persons; thus the lists will not be copies of each other.

Merge 2 votes--Gazzster (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Australian_monarchs&oldid=1068861725"