Talk:Monarchy of Solomon Islands

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Monarchy of the Solomon Islands → Monarchy of Solomon Islands
• Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands → Prime Minister of Solomon Islands

• NOTE the GG article has an open move request, see Talk:Governor-General of Solomon Islands -- which is the opposite of this move request -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Closed discussion on aforementioned page.

selbert 10:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

"of the solomon islands" OR "to the solomon islands" OR "in the solomon islands" OR "and the solomon islands" gets "About 260,000 results" in books while

"of solomon islands" OR "to solomon islands" OR "in solomon islands" OR "and solomon islands" gets "About 82,600 results" in books

GregKaye 22:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that collecting search hits is misleading as both terms are valid but for different entities at different times. 'The Solomon Islands' is valid for the administrative area including parts of what is now Papua New Guinea up until 1978 and will also show up for anything happening in the area through World War 2 so this will always have more hits. Since 1978 there has not been a great deal written on Solomons expect for the tensions and RAMSI (Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands). Even now, if writing about, say the marine fauna of the are it will refer to the Solomon Islands (archipelago), which is different. Ex nihil ^(talk) 14:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Google Books clearly indicates the opposite In ictu oculi (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @
  Neve-selbert: Do you have eny evidence to show us that the definite article is not in-fact widely used? Vanjagenije (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Move because the official name of the country is actually Solomon Islands without the definite article and there are reasons for this. The [[Solomon Islands (archipelago) with the definite article are an archipelago in the western South Pacific Ocean. The archipelago forms much of the territory of the nation of Solomon Islands, while the northwestern islands are within the Autonomous Region of Bougainville, in eastern Papua New Guinea. The gazetted UN name of the country is Solomon Islands, the SI Constitution refers to Solomon Islands as does the national anthem and Queen Elizabeth is officially Queen of Solomon Islands not the Solomon islands and her letter of appointment of the Governor General describes the position as the the Governor General of Solomon Islands. The Solomon Islands as the name of the nation is avoided because it describes a colonial administrative area that doesn't actually map onto either the nation or the archipelago. This, together with explanations for the name issue is described in the articles in various places. Most of the content of the articles about both get this correctly but somebody started changing some of the page names a while back to include the definite article thinking this was more grammatical, including I believe the one ones you refer to so it has now become a bit of a mess. For consistency we probably need to change those pages to Monarchy of Solomon Islands and Prime Minister of Solomon Islands. Anything pre-1978 needs to remain 'the Solomon Islands' as this was how the islands were referred to by the colonial administration. It is not a small issue to those that live there. Sure Google will turn up more hits with 'the', probably because of the historical use, but this is an encyclopaedia but the correct use has an objective base to it. Think Cote d'Ivoire or Mumbai. Ex nihil ^(talk) 13:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per more common and natural usage of "the". Number 57 13:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.