Talk:Britannic Majesty

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Stub‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

British Royalty

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Merge

Shouldn't this be a redirect to Monarchy of the United Kingdom? The term is already mentioned there, and is itself hardly deserves an article, as it is simply an example of a common linguistic construct. JPD (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 (and important) one. You as an Australian ought to know that! --Camaeron (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What has the difference between Australian and British got to do with the reason I gave? The British phrase is best covered (and already is) at Monarchy of the United Kingdom, the Australian at Monarchy of Australia, where how to distinguish between the two is also discussed. Similarly "French majesty" does need an article of its own, nor does "Danish majesty" and so on... The construct is common in diplomatic language, and while its lack of use elsewhere justifies redirects, it doesn't justify a whole article. JPD (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation elsewhere with Camaeron has made me think that Majesty would be a better merge target than Monarchy of the United Kingdom. Can anyone see a reason not incorporate this article (about perhaps the most common usage of the XXXic Majesty form) in that one? JPD (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't too offended by those articles being deleted as they are very rarely used, hence the lack of interest...But if you merge this article I will make more of a stand. Britannic Majesty is used a lot and really does need its own page...--Camaeron (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps instead of telling me you will take a stand (I did not intend to be offensive), you could tell us why you think "it really does need its own page". Yes, it is used more than similar forms, as far as I know, but I am not suggesting that any information be deleted, just that both this article and the Majesty article would benefit from being merged. The Majesty article is currently quite short and could do with expansion, while the information here would benefit from a broader context. JPD (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]