On the contrary. If it were a common linguistic construct I wouldn't have added it. The distinguishment between Australian Majesty and British Majesty is a very fine one. You as an Australian ought to know that! Besides "British Majesty" has had its own article for a while now even though it is no more important than this one. --Camaeron (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- The difference between the Australian and British crowns is not the issue here. This sort of phrase was around a long time before the distinction existed, and doesn't change the fact that these sort of phrases do not need their own article, as they can be sensibly covered in other articles.
- "Something similar exists" is rarely a good argument on Wikipedia. The same arguments apply to "British Majesty" - in fact, in that case, the point is demonstrated by the fact that the content is alrady covered in another article. This is why I made a similar suggestion about that article even before I commented on this one. JPD (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are two questions here. The first is how this information is presented. It would make sense for these specific terms to be mentioned at Monarchy of Australia and, as is already the case, Monarchy of the United Kingdom and Style of the British Sovereign. It would make sense for the general construction, covering Australian, Brittanic, French, Danish, etc., to also be discussed in one article. The best place for this is probably Majesty, which currently almost suggests misleadingly that this practise is a peculiarly British thing.
- The second question is then what should be the target of the redirect here. That decision should be based on which redirect would be most useful. In the relatively unlikely event that some enters [His/Her] Australian Majesty in the search box (or follows a wikilink, I suppose), would they be expecting an explanation of the form of address, or information about the monarchy of a particular country? JPD (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)