This template is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Should the flag displayed really be the English royal Ensign? All of the other Commonwealth Realms have their own royal ensigns. I know it's a bit difficult to work out *what* flag to put there, but still. . . Slacspeak up! 21:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is either that or the Queen's personal flag (see File:Personal Flag of QEII.gif? Astrotrain 21:48, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I think the Queen's personal flag would be better. Slacspeak up! 23:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Commonwealth Realms don't really have a flag. The closest you could get would be the Union Flag since it was the flag of the British Empire, and I know it has some sort of status in Australia. Southafricanguy (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this template is not going to appear on the articles for the Commonwealth Realms, I feel there is no point in having it. I'm inclined to nominate it on TfD, so that a consensus can develop over whether or not it should be kept. If it is to be kept, it should plainly appear in the articles. But there's no point in adding it against the wishes of the editors of the articles in question. Slacspeak up! 22:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The placement of this template in country articles has caused considerable disquiet, especially with regards to Australia and Canada. Testament to this fact is the breakdown of a never-begun discussion, and the continuing "edit wars" betwixt users Astrotrain and SimonP. I unwittingly became embroiled in an issue I didn't imagine would be so large, and that I was oblivious to, until Clarkk caught me up. To make my views clear, I dislike the proliferation of templates on country articles for reasons of aesthetics and practitibility. The "Commonwealth Realms" template, I think, could be a useful template if it were placed in an article of more direct relevance. Such placement could be in either "Queen of..."/"*Country* monarchy" or "Government of...". So the question I would like to propose, is not whether the template should be deleted but what it should link to. Thoughts?--Cyberjunkie 06:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Also, where should this discussion be carried out? At present, it is spread over numerous user and country article pages, which is hardly condusive to discussion. I seen some suggestions of continuing talk to WikiProject Countries, but the only discussion there really is about "Commonwealth of Nations". Please notify me if a single location is 'out there'.--Cyberjunkie 06:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I noticed what they do in United States is put templates in the body of the article, under the main headings. Does anyone that think this would be a good solution to the problem of "template creep" at the bottom page? Slacspeak up! 00:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not really, because it still enlarges the size of the article overall. And the United States article has only done this once, and contains only three templates, one of which (Related Topics) is standard. Besides, in placing the politics template under the politics section of the article, the editors at United States are proving the point that templates should be placed where relevant - and that is precisely what needs to be sorted out with this template.--Cyberjunkie 03:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
~A Commonwealth Realm by definition is a country so the template belongs on pages associated with the country, not merely its head of state. If a template is relevant to a country it belongs to a country. FearÉIREANNFile:Tricolour.gif\(caint) 20:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree Astrotrain 21:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
The common practice is to put such templates on specific sub-articles. Countries are members of the WTO, but ((WTO)) belongs on the "economy of..." pages. Similarly ((NATO)) goes on the "military of..." pages. The Commonwealth realms should thus reasonably go on the "monarchy of..." pages. - SimonP 21:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Your vandalism of templates is getting tedious and will have to be taken further. Don't act the fool, Simon. You know very well that the WTO is an organisation. NATO is an organisation. However Commonwealth Realms are countries, not monarchies. So they go on the page about the country. But then you already know that, which is why you tried to sneak in changes into the template to redirect the links to countries to pages about monarchies. And why you keep trying to add in non-country topics like the Balfour Declaration and other issues just to remake the template in a way that will allow you to justify deleting it from pages. It is as blatently dishonest and mischievous as when you tried to add in dodgy doctoring to category:Westminster System, etc. Your behaviour at this stage will be raised with others. It is simply part of your own man campaign to bully everyone into doing what you want on templates. FearÉIREANNFile:Tricolour.gif\(caint) 22:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please check your facts. If you look at who originally introduced the new version you will note that it was not I. WTO members are countries just as much as Commonwealth Realms are, so I'm not sure who is "playing the fool" here. - SimonP 23:15, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
The WTO is an organisation. It has countries in it. A commonwealth realm is a country and nothing else. There is no organisation called Commonwealth Realm. Stop being ridiculous.
FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Commonwealth Realms are obviously a group of countries. Why else would this template exist if there were not a group of nations known as Commonwealth Realms? It is clearly not an international organization, but it is still a group of countries. If a commonwealth realm is a country and nothing else and this grouping is irrelevant then please list this template on TFD. - SimonP 23:34, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Commonwealth realms, as you well know, as 16 countries who share a constitutional monarch, though in each the monarch reigns as the native head of state. So it makes logical sense to link each country through the template to others who share a communal monarch, as they all shared at interlinked constitutional evolution. But that doesn't interest you. All you is to delete templates from articles and you make up all sorts of ridiculous reasons to justify your war on templates. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree Astrotrain 12:48, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
So why are the constitutional links of the Commonwealth realms more important than the historical links of the Commonwealth itself or the Francophonie, the economic ties of the WTO or OECD, the military links of NATO, or the political ties of the G8 or UN. That it is not an international organization per se (rather an international institution) does not mean it is automatically more relevant than an organization. I also find it odd that you continue to view my anti-template drive as some fringe majority when my opinion has consistently been supported by others as is backed by several policy pages, while your own "abolish the category system in favour of templates" view is held by no one other then yourself. - SimonP 23:50, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Yet more gross representation. (But then we are all used to that in your campaign.) The constitutional structure of a state is a primary issue, as anyone with a modicum of understanding of history or politics knows. And no, I don't want to abolish categories. I just had to stop you making a mockery of them as in Category:Westminster System where you tried to make up your own Simon says . . versions that existed nowhere on the planet. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you stated that "I think we should bin the ludicrous category system altogether" on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries you were referring to Category:Westminster System? I am a historian by training and I would personally feel that a state's economy is vastly important than its constitutional structure, but that is my POV just as your von Ranke view is yours. I personally don't feel that either of our POVs need to be added to every country article. - SimonP 00:46, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
There is a long list of templates representing a country's connections to other countries that could be added to a country's page presents a serious problem: if all are added, the page becomes unwieldy and violates the guidleine on length of articles. If only some are added, then we end up with a dispute over which ones are most important. It is going to be inherently POV to argue whether sharing a figurehead monarch is more important than being part of an economic association or a military alliance. To avoid this, I think it is best to include the template on branch pages that relate to the nature of the country's connection with other countries. In other words, include the Commonwealth Realm template on the Monarchy in Canada page, include the G8 template on the Politics of Canada page, etc. Ground Zero 12:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not so. Firstly it is ludicrous to link an articles on countries via a template not on countries. Secondly, constitutional functions are by definition the most important link. By definition before one defines how an entity is run, one must the structures by how something is run. This template is as such more important than other templates because it is constitutional, not institutional in nature. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Firstly it is ludicrous to link an articles on countries via a template not on countries." (1) I don't know what this means -- could you please explain this? (2) Please leave out words like "ludicrous", they are unnecessary. Let's try to have a civil discussion here.
On your second point, I understand your point of view that the constitutional functions are the most important things to a country, but disagree with it. In my opinion, the constitutional monarchy in Canada has almost no influence on how decisions are made. A country's economic and military relationships are far more important to what goes on in the country on a day-too-day basis. But that is just my opinion. I am arguing that neither of our views on this should be reflected, but that we avoid getting into an argument over which templates are more important. A new tempalte has been created for the United Kingdom article to address this same issue: it puts the links to the templates relating to international relationships all together on one template. So anyone wanting information on Commonwealth Realms or on the G8 or on NATO can find it easily on the one template. Please take a look. I think that this is an excellent compromise that can bring this debate to an end. Ground Zero 17:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What Jtdirl is describing is the POV of those who follow the institutional/structural approach. This view, often considered to have been first developed by Aristotle, is a perfectly valid one held by many political scientists and also some historians. However, it is far from the only view, or even a majority view. Seeing constitutions as the "the most important link" is far from a universal opinion. - SimonP 17:40, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Seeing as how Wikipedia basically becomes more advanced every month and we can now "hide" or "show" template contents (especially for really large templates), why not create a Commonwealth template with all the countries of the Commonwealth in it (not just the Commonwealth Realms or Commonwealth Republics)? Also was there ever such a template to begin with? 208.138.38.88 04:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Technically since the United Kingdom's monarchies were merged, wouldn't it be one monarchy represented in various separate kingdoms? As opposed to multiple monarchies? CaribDigita (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
\(caint) 23:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
\(caint) 00:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
\(caint) 17:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)