Talk:Commonwealth realm: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 32: Line 32:
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
}}

==Rhodesia==
Rhodesia was never a Commonwealth Realm. [[User:Hebel|Gerard von Hebel]] ([[User talk:Hebel|talk]]) 17:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


== Realms by region ==
== Realms by region ==

Revision as of 17:09, 14 July 2023


Rhodesia

Rhodesia was never a Commonwealth Realm. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Realms by region

The number of these is long enough that they're a bit of a laundry list, and I think might be clearer with some geographical structure. An extra section doing that might be useful, but currently I'm leaning towards just adding a "region" field -- "Europe", "Oceania", "Caribbean", etc -- to the main table of them. Any thoughts either -- or indeed some other -- way? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda confusing, as the Caribbean is within North America. Instead of region, continent would've been the better choice. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the column to be consistent throughout, as opposed to being a mix of larger continental and subregional groupings.
That said, while I don't think a column for regions is necessary, I'm not opposed to using smaller subregional terminology if we're keeping said column. I'm just of the opinion that if a subregion is used for some entries, subregions should be used to denote all (subregions of Oceania that could be used include Australasia, Melanesia, and Polynesia; North America into Caribbean and Northern America; and UK in either Western/Northwestern Europe or something). Leventio (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given a choice, I would delete the new column - region/sub-region. IMHO, it doesn't add much, accept confusion. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I've reverted and removed the column until there's consensus. It seems a pointless addition resulting in unnecessary debate. Adds nothing. DeCausa (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, while we're on the topic of needless columns... In the same vein, is there a reason why we list out populations? In the same manner of how I don't see listing regions as helping to contextualize the topic, I don't see how listing populations helps contextualize the topic (like, does the reader really need to know the population of Belize to understand what a CR is?) Leventio (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I disagree with that. It absolutely does provide context for readers to see which realms are substantial and which are just a few thousand people. It gives a profile of the wide range within the organisation. DeCausa (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I can get behind that rationale. Leventio (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Same editor as starting this long slow loop back to the status quo, per wiki tradition.) I think population is indeed in exactly the same conceptual category. Both are helpful in putting each element of the set in some sort of context with the others. Both have useful "tabular" properties: being able to group the regions, being able to sort the populations. In contrast, the prime minister column is a random additional factoid, and the governor-general is a bizarrely out of logical and expositional order inclusion. Sensibly it should include both the former, and exclude both (or certainly one of) the latter. 109.etc (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually honestly, the more I think about it, the more I cannot get behind that rationale, as that is essentially the same argument being presented for the regions column. The only difference in rationale you've provided compared to the one for the regions column is that one is only giving a "profile of the wide range" of localities, while population gives a "profile of the wide range" of sizes in population. I reiterate again, neither of these are providing any real context to the article topic itself (that is, what is a CR).
Quite frankly, much like geography, population plays no role in a country's status as a Commonwealth realm, nor does it affect their relationship with one another. Whether or not a country is "substantial" or "just a few thousand people" is completely irrelevant to contextualizing the topic in itself (the fact that Tuvalu has a tiny population compared to the UK plays no role in their status of CRs, nor does the size of a population change the dynamics of how the concept works). It has no direct role in the concept itself, and like with regions, populations do not provide any real context as to what a CR is. Honestly, I'd see it as akin to just listing the "total area" of a country (which I'd guess if someone wanted that included could argue it "profile of the wide range" of the geographic sizes of countries that the term encompasses).
With regard to describing the variety of CRs that exist, I think the section lead that the table is in already adequately provides a "profile of the wide [population and geographic] range within the organization", making it unnecessary to include a population/region columns in the table itself. Leventio (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the population column. If it's kept? it needs to be updated. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More concretely: as the governor-generals are only even discussed in a much later section, what say we split the table into two parts? The "geographical" stuff where the existing table is, and the "political" where the GG explanation puts it in proper context? 109.etc (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is an explanation needed for why the UK doesn't have a governor-general?

BTW - Though there's an off-wiki source provided. It might be helpful to add a footnote, explaining why the United Kingdom doesn't have a governor-general. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that explains why? DeCausa (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a source provided, I thought. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where? DeCausa (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the N/A bit, where there's not British governor-general, box. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That source just says that UK is not one of the countries with a Gov-Gen. I thought you wanted to say why the UK doesn't have one. That's not a source for that. DeCausa (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A footnote, explaining why the United Kingdom doesn't have a governor-general, would help readers. The monarch residing in the UK, would most likely be the explanation. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:OR without a source. DeCausa (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The United Kingdom is the 16th Commonwealth realm but does not have a governor-general since the Queen fulfils the function of head of state in practice." (emph-add.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Source is slightly out-of-date (oops, repubalypse), but good enough for that purpose. There's a slight (if sadly common) structural issue that the concept of governor-general and viceroy are discussed, and linked to our plentifully sourced and info-dense articles on those topics in section 3.2... having just thrown it out there as a use in section 1. Not really clear if those latter two columns are even especially well-placed. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what the hell you are talking about or what source you are referring to. Less is more. if you have a source, just link to it. DeCausa (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it to the both of you, to figure out 'how' to explain why the UK doesn't have a governor-general. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one that riased it. You're the one - the only one - that said it needs to be explained. If someone has a source then we can look at it. otherwise you just raised a dead end. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(yaec)The source already in the article, as GD already said. Your sweary confusion surprises me. (A little.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a source there. I was merely suggesting adding a footnote in connection to the source, for readers. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, no there isn't; you're wrong. The source you refer to does not say why the UK doesn't have a Gov-Gen.
IP, your posts don't tend to be understandable because you seem to be more interested in being "entertaining" than communicating. What is "repubalypse" supposed to mean? I suggest you cut down your posts and make your points succinctly if you want to gain consensus support for what you propose. As far as "The source already in the article" is concerned I'm not going to trawl through the 117 citations looking for what you claim is the source. As far as "as GD already said" is concerned, I've already shown that GD was wrong about that and that citation isn't a source for t. I hope that's clear for you. DeCausa (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you (I think) agree with me IP 109. But I must concur with @DeCausa:, your posts here (and at Charles III's talkpage) are becoming increasingly incoherent. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We'll just let the readers figure it out for themselves, I guess. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

additional columns

What do you think about introducing additional columns into the table in the Current realms section? I mean the following:

  • Area
  • GDP
  • GDP per capita
  • HDI
  • Governor general since
  • Prime minister since

Moreover, for population/ area/ GDP, I'd like to have a total row showing the sum for all the realms alongside with percentage of the global population/ area/ GDP. Grillofrances (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion that occurred above may be of interst to you (Talk:Commonwealth realm#Realms by region).
While there isn't agreement on what sections should be included, there is a general sentiment that the columns should serve some purpose in contextualizing the topic itself (Commonwealth realms), and not just be a list of loosely associated facts about a particular state (stemming from WP:NOTCATALOG). In saying that, from that last discussion, an (informal) understanding was sort of established that we should try to avoid adding columns that would cause unnnessary debate over their necessity/utility. Leventio (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it's better to remove columns about governor general and prime minister, replacing them into area & GDP to:
  • allow sorting showing which countries are bigger/ more powerful
  • have more stability
If we decide to keep governor general, and PM, IMO it should contain their photos. Grillofrances (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, to reiterate my argument last time, I believe providing a listing of populations and area sizes serves little purpose in fleshing out the concept of what a Commonwealth realm is. All the realms are equal in status, and their size/population plays no bearing in how these Commonwealth realms operate/how their relationship is with one another. IMO, these details is essentially adding trivial fluff that serves no purpose in better informing the reader on the concept of a CR, and if the reader was that curious on the details of the specific country (i.e. demographics, geography), they can click said link to read about that specific country. We do not need to cram all that detail into this article (after all, this is not a list article like List of sovereign states... which for that matter also keeps its parameters limited).
With regards to the PM and GG stuff, I honestly do not care about their inclusion (I can see the rationale for both sides, at least for the GG). But I do not think it requires a photo. Listing their names is sufficient. Leventio (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

map with names

What do you think about modifying the map showing the realms to include every realm name, possibly also with the flag?

I mean, for large countries to place such details within a given country territory while for small ones to have an arrow linking details with the territory.

Then, we could see in one place the location of every realm. Grillofrances (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean something like this: Grillofrances (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all the 15 realms, it looks in this way: Grillofrances (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just updated the article, adding this map under the previous map. Grillofrances (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's unnecessary and untidy clutter. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&oldid=1165356997"