Talk:Proclamation of accession of Elizabeth II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

UK Accession Council proclamation

It makes better sense to let the content and sequence of the proclamations be explained by putting the UK first with comment, followed by Canada and then the others. The date of the UK proclamation was 6 February, but late in the day, too late for the ceremonial public readings in the open air (proclamation) at the Palace and in the City of London, which came later. Time differences between UK and Canada enabled the Canadian proclamation to be made on 6th February, before the ceremonial in London. Note that the BBC and other websites muddlle the accession proclamation with subsequent formalities and dates.

The article asserts that the first proclamation of the Queen's accession was Canada's. But that is not shown by the linked sources. This derives from Revision 16:48, 22 August 2007[1] The UK Accession Proclamation and the Canadian Proclamation are both dated 6 February, but the sources do not show which was first by GMT. The Canadian documents as transcribed at the linked website show that the death of the King had been officially communicated by cable soon after it was known in the UK in the forenoon of that day GMT, which would have allowed time enough for the Canadian proclamation to have been read at Rideau Hall before the Accession Council's proclamation had been formally authorised in London and issued for printing in the Gazette as an Extraordinary Supplement later that day GMT. Lacking a source, the words of 17:40, 24 July 2007 would have been more apposite: "In Canada, the proclamation of the Queen's accession... was..." Qexigator (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the sections in alphabetical order, for now.
The fact that Canada issued its proclamation first was sourced; though, oddly, the link in the original reference was at some point changed to an incorrect one. At some other point, the website the reference originally pointed to was changed and the pertinent information is no longer there. However, another CBC reference supports the sentence and I have added it in along with a second ref. --
MIESIANIACAL 03:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, it seemed there was a lost link, and it is good to have sources now in place, and other copyedits done. There may be a relatively small number of the readership having a keen interest in the Canadian proclamation having been the first of the series, but if that is more than trivia it deserves something more in explanation than the bare assertion of Toffoli "The Canadian proclamation of the Queen’s accession was the first one issued and was issued one day before the British proclamation". That seems to be inaccurate. A proclamation is a document ordered to be read in public. The Canadian proclamation was read in public in Ottawa the day before it was read in London. I found nothing about it in the Bell book on 60 years of marriage. Is Toffoli making a point, if so what is it? If the point is worth making it should be mentioned in the lead, in a way which enables the ordinary reader to follow the rest of the article's content. Please reconsider and add if there is anything of that kind. Meantime I have added a note. Qexigator (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--And I have added some detail to Turks & Caicos which, with the fuller information as linked, gives an example of how things were done in other territories. Qexigator (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just Toffoli's "assertion". The page number in the Bell book is given. The assertion is reliably sourced. It's thus inappropriate to delete it, but leave the sources and insert original research questioning what those sources say.
If you feel there's a issue using the word "issued", I suppose another term could be employed. The Bell book states "When the King died, Canada was the first Commonwealth country to proclaim Elizabeth II 'Queen' and 'Liege Lady in and over Canada', ahead of Britain, even..." Not sure if that guides us away from "issued" or not. --
MIESIANIACAL 14:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
We may have been at a cross purpose about this, but if so it has now lapsed. I had found a source for the point about GMT before seeing your revert and was about to remove my previous and make the addition now made. Your revert has made that easier. The GMT information, now duly sourced, makes unnecessary the otherwise valid remark which I had footnoted. Page 143 of Bell does not show on the link. Assertion or not, it is trivial without something more to give it point, when it could be elevated to the lead. Qexigator (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping in line

A tag has been put at top of article about inline citations not properly formatted. If necessary, perhaps another editor will see to this, but frankly, I do not see the prob: if content, source and link OK what's to fix? Qexigator (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the tag to (what I think is) a more appropriate one. There are two issues with the footnotes in this article: 1) The style used is not consistent and 2) the style you're using isn't a recognised one (it omits information usually found in citations). I provided you with links to where you could find the appropriate citation templates, which have fields you can fill in and its all formatted for you. Why you don't use them is anyone's guess. --
MIESIANIACAL 18:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Glad to see External link formatted in due manner. Isn't that single Note a little odd? It looks as though it could do with a format edit, but I'm not sure what or how. Maybe a slow learner, but since we've been having a go at the article (there is still room for improvement as you point out) it is now the better for letting a reader become aware of the perspectives and nuances which affect those responsible in each of the realms in connection with the Perth Agreement intentions and the management of the consequent legislative processes. Under the Crown, the responsible office-holders of each sovereign realm have to be sensitive not merely to their own domestic politics and constitution, but also that of the others, and the historic and ongoing formation and prospects which characterise each polity in the course of time from 18c., and more recently in the present monarch's reign. Perhaps this was more tacitly understood than spoken out in the debate in the senate of Canada. Qexigator (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The exernal link is formatted in the same manner as the most popular of the three methods recommended at Wikipedia:External links#How to link.
I realise you're fairly new here and thus probably aren't aware of all the policies and guidelines that we're to follow. But, even so, I don't understand what prompts you to make edits like this; as I already said, yours is not a recognised way of formatting a citation (see
WP:CITECONSENSUS
.
The quality of the article may depend mostly on the robustness of the text, but not solely. --
MIESIANIACAL 15:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Too brusque: Executive Council is plainly relevant to explain why Privy Council is mentioned in the case of Canada but not others. The point is not self-evident. Omission of Perth Agreement conceded. Cool it about citations: "Wikipedia does not dictate a particular way to insert citations into an article." I have responded about that above. I am sure you mean to be helpful. Qexigator (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'See also' links are another matter.
If you looked at the links I provided you, you'd see that "[i]f the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it" and avoid "[s]witching between major citation styles"; as well, "an article should not be switched between templated and non-templated citations without good reason and consensus" and "[c]itation templates can be used to format citations in a consistent way". I am certainly trying to help; but, your dismissal of what I'm saying and the information I point you to is making it very difficult. --
MIESIANIACAL 16:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirects for blueing

Haven't we had this trifling squabble somewhere before? What was the result then? Why does it matter either way? This (Surt)[2] or this (Mies)[3]? Let us not pretend it is a question of "aesthetics", a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of art, beauty, and taste, with the creation and appreciation of beauty. Let it be status quo: the simpler version, not use redirect for the sake of adding blue, or because father King

King Edward VII likewise. Qexigator (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I can live with having "King George VI" in this instance. The absurd thing, however, is having "King George VI and Queen Elizabeth" or "Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II". Since there is nothing wrong with redirects, as evidenced by their mere existence as well as widespread use throughout Wikipedia, I see no reason to go with the awkward version rather than the sensible one in such cases. Surtsicna (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing absurd about "King George VI and Queen Elizabeth". (Good grief; are you going to rush to Resolute desk to change "Queen Victoria and President Rutherford B. Hayes" to "Queen Victoria and President Rutherford B. Hayes"? It's been grating on readers' eyes for the last nearly nine years!)
What's governing the use of these redirects (and pipes) is indeed personal taste; blue is the preferred colour for a word. "Queen Elizabeth II" is simplest, most direct, and doesn't mess with the destination article's list of what links to it.
Regardless, there's an attempt at
MIESIANIACAL 22:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on

Talk:List of things named after Queen Elizabeth II which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Text of all the proclamations should not be included

I query whether the text of all the proclamations from all the Commonwealth countries should be included. See Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources:

  • Public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are useful only when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia. Public domain resources such as the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica may be used to add content to an article (see Plagiarism guideline: Public-domain sources for guidelines on doing so). See also Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources and Wikisource's inclusion policy.

They could be included in Wikisource, if properly sourced. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted all of the proclamations except the one used in Britain. It is helpful and interesting to have one example, but no need to have all the proclamations:
WP:NOTMIRROR: "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files.[3] Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of: ... Public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations." I have left the references to the various Gazettes, so if anyone wants to check the actual text of one of the proclamations, it is available through the citations. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Making a note here of the version of the article that contains the texts of many of the proclamations. It is useful to have all these proclamations in one place, as while it is possible to open up the individual gazette citations, that is not the same as having them all in one place (I had come back to this article specifically to look up the differences between the different proclamations in light of the impending new proclamations). Carcharoth (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mass bold changes

I wonder if I'll have to open up an RFC on this. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to. You choose to. But, since it's nearly impossible for you to collaborate with me and you're obviously set on undoing constructive edits just to start another conflict, it might be better to involve others. It's telling that you always need an RfC to settle a dispute. --
MIESIANIACAL 17:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Additionally, your RfC options don't refect the changes I made. It was not just a matter of shifting sections. I created a whole new one (which included highlighted reference to your precious UK). --
MIESIANIACAL 17:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Why the RFC? Because since you've returned on a more permanent basis, I'm concerned that you're re-starting an old agenda push. Countless times, it was pointed out to you that per
WP:WEIGHT, Elizabeth II is mostly recognised as the British monarch & most associated with the United Kingdom. But you seem to continue to ignore that. PS - You may make some changes to the RFC-in-question, if it better reflects what you're attempting. PPS - It's nothing personal & never has been, with me. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Accusing someone of pushing an agenda is the definition of personal. Assuming your personal opinion is fact is also personal. Your addiction to drama and conflict is, again, personal. It's not just I you run to RfCs with. It's you who's presently under another topic ban, in part for being unable to grasp how you'd done anything wrong in making personal remarks toward another editor. You need to take a long look at yourself. --
MIESIANIACAL 17:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The RFC is up & going. Since we both know, that I'll respect whatever the result of it is? There won't be any problems. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And here you are not only seeking help from a known ally, thereby breaching
MIESIANIACAL 18:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
DrKay could easily show up 'here' & support B or not bother with the RFC at all. Give DrKay a chance. But alright, I'll try 'not to' contact @DrKay: on their talkpage again, concerning you or the topic-in-general. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're
MIESIANIACAL 18:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't know what position DrKay will take in this RFC. I'm not a mind reader. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can read
MIESIANIACAL 12:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm still angry with the Supreme Court of Canada, for allowing that the UK Parliament can (and did) change the order of succession to the Canadian throne. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: How should the UK and the other Commonwealth realms be presented?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus among participants to have the topmost section be the one focusing on the proclamation in the United Kingdom, followed by a section with the remainder of the Commonwealth realms. Those who supported this option noted that Elizabeth II is better known for her role as the British monarch or as the Queen of England and, as such, it makes the most sense to have the more prominent section be about that nation. While an argument on a lack of neutrality was raised, it found little support. Some participants also noted that the version resulting from option B was supported entirely by a primary source and would veer on
WP:OR. (non-admin closure) Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 21:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]


How should the section & subsections be shown in this article?
  1. Keep United Kingdom as top section. Then have the other realms listed under a separate section or as a sub-section called Other Commonwealth realms. Leave section on royal titles at article bottom.
  2. Create new top section Composition to include general overview, compare typical to UK's anomalous, and merge in section on differences in royal titles; make remainder of UK's section a sub-section of Commonwealth realms, placed in alphabetical order; or a variant thereof.
GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Discusson

A request to participants, in advance. Please don't

bludgeon anyone who disagrees with you in the 'survey' section. The 'discussion' section, is the place to do the the back-and-forth arguments. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

As the creator of this RFC. I apologise in advance to @PraiseVivec: & anybody else, if they at anytime feel as though they're being bludgeoned over their 'survey' position. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

I've requested closure, at the appropriate board. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proclamation of accession of Charles III

Noting here that the editors of this article may also want to help out with the editing of Proclamation of accession of Charles III, with the text of the new proclamation (and the ones in other countries) due to be published soon. Carcharoth (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: I wonder if the intro to this page, should more closely match the intro to the Proclamation of accession of Charles III page. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be funny, that the change of monarchy and the need to write a different introduction over there, led to changes here. It is a fair point, but one that I don't have enough time to consider fully right now (will think about it). Maybe someone will make the changes anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proclamation_of_accession_of_Elizabeth_II&oldid=1204932007"