I see you undid my changes on Perth Agreement announcing it had been implemented on the basis that it was New Zealand only, obviously. Whilst the reference I gave was NZ the time of change has to be simultaneous across all 16 realms. There is now news coverage that Australia has implemented the change from the same point and I have no doubt the changes will be in the public arena across the other realms in coming hours. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- We need reliable sources for each realm that passed its own legislation. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- Mies.: It is puzzling that Canada has not yet put online the commencement proclamation, or if it has, have you a link? Qexigator (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, I don't. But, I think the Canadian government typically isn't as quick to post orders in council online as other countries are. We may have to wait for the next release of the Canada Gazette. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- The last Canada Gazette was issued 28 March. But, the Gazette requires submissions for publication be made six days in advance of the next issue. So, the order in council commencing the Succession to the Throne Act wouldn't have made it into the 28 March issue. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- OK, will have to wait for it. Meantime, is there anything to show, when such a proclamation is made, which time zone is taken to be operative, in the absence of any time specified in it? If the normal rule is followed, that a day begins as from midnight, would that be successive from zone to zone, or is it determined by the local law of the province or territory? It seems to me of no importance in itself, but may help to rebut misguided claims from elsewhere. Qexigator (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have no idea. I've never seen a Canadian law that stated what hour, let alone anything about a time zone, it came into effect. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- When a day begins and ends can be of great importance, for example, when something is prohibited, or when a tax begins, but the Canadian parliament's website makes no mention of the successive time zones, when midnight occurs hours earlier in the east than in the west.. That may be because federal legislation is taken as operating in conjunction with the local time zone which the local legislature has prescribed: Official times across Canada  There are links to local legislation in Time in Canada. So it might be said that the Canadian act came into effect 'across Canada' when 26 March began in the westernmost zone of Canada. Qexigator (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It may be worse than I thought. "Public Acts of Parliament and their enactment proclamations" are published only in part III of the Canada Gazette and there's only been one part III issued so far this year. Thus, I've no idea when the next one will come out (even assuming it contains the enactment proclamation for the Succession to the Throne Act 2013). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
What happened here? --John (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what additional information you're seeking, exactly. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am asking you to provide the rationale for your edit. --John (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- The proper form of address of a baron is "the Lord [X]". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- In a Wikipedia article? --John (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Everywhere. Unless there's a rule I've not been made aware of. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting. Is it a MoS thing? Could you point me to the section that recommends this? I don't think I have come across it before. --John (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- External to Wikipedia. "Non-Scottish barons are styled The Right Honourable The Lord [Barony]." (Quoted from and source available at Baron#Style of address.) Is there a MoS section that directs the elimination of the definite article in Wikipedia? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Would you mind explain why Princess Charlotte of Cambridge isn't the second grandchild of the Prince of Wales?  Would you please explain in clearer language in your edit summaries? 12:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't say she wasn't. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Privy Council and Cabinet
I'm not quite understanding why you reverted my edit. Your edit summary displays the same reasoning I provided for separating the two bodies, that being Cabinet and the Privy Council. By having the former bracketed beside the latter, it makes it seem as though they are the same or interchangeable - specifically it indicates that "cabinet" is the common use term for privy council. That is untrue. As you noted, "cabinet is a committee of the privy council". So why do you think it makes sense to equate the two as interchangeable terms? Nations United (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Would appreciate a response. Nations United (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- My apologies for forgetting about this.
- I don't read the arrangement as you do, especially as the two terms in the infobox link to different articles. Further, even if "cabinet" were the common way to refer to the Privy Council, that isn't helpful in an enyclopædia; it should be clear the Cabinet is different to the Privy Council. Would filling it out to say "chairman of the Cabinet" help? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- This is quite puzzling, as your reasoning for the status quo is, at least how I am understanding it, exactly the same as my reasoning for change. I could copy and paste what you just wrote above to further my own position. I, too, want to make clear that Cabinet is different to the Privy Council, which is why in my edit I separated the two. The current version, which you reverted back to when you undid my edit, puts them right beside each other. This, to me, clearly makes it seem as though they are being equated as interchangeable terms. I do not believe cabinet is the common way to refer to the Privy Council. What I said is that the current status quo version, which brackets "cabinet" right beside "Queen's Privy Council for Canada" makes it appear as though the former term is the common term for the latter, which is a problem. That's why I want to separate the two.
- Also, I'm not sure what you are suggesting with "Chairman of the Cabinet". Could you clarify that? Nations United (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- I get that we're out to achieve the same end. I just, as I said, don't see what's there now the way you apparently do; putting "Cabinet" in brackets says to me the Cabinet is the more specific subset of the Privy Council to which the prime minister belongs. Further, your arrangement, with the Cabinet shown above the Privy Council, implied the former takes precedence over the latter and the Privy Council and Cabinet are entirely separate, which, of course, they are not.
- What I suggested was adding to the current infobox the words "chairman of" directly before "Cabinet", still within the brackets. I'll edit the page to show. Feel free to revert if you don't approve. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, I understand what you're saying. Though I have to say I'm not sure why you would think bracketing something would imply it's a subsection. That doesn't strike me as common practice. Whenever I bracket something, it's to denote interchangeability or simplicity to promote common usage. A subsection in my mind has one term under and indented from the main term.
- Also, I appreciate the attempt at compromise, but I believe putting "chairman of" in front of "Cabinet" in the brackets only makes the problem worse. If your intention is to make sure Cabinet is seen as a subset of the Privy Council - which is absolutely true - that kind of gets lost with your addition of the PM's status in the Cabinet. It now looks completely out of place. Further, specifying the PM's role as chairman does not fit with what that section of the infobox is made for. In other words, the prime minister is indeed a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and the Canadian Cabinet, but he is not a member of: "chairman of the Cabinet". Do you see why that looks kind of awkward?
- For the sake of simplicity and clarity, don't you think it would just be easier to separate the two? I know the Cabinet is part of the Privy Council, but that's not really relevant or necessary to denote in this infobox section. All readers want to know is what groups/institutions the PM is a part of. If we separate Cabinet from Privy Council, that information is clearly delivered without the chance of ambiguity that I myself was caught in when I read the infobox. If you're concerned with the precedence of the groups, I'm completely fine with listing the Privy Council first. It probably does have precedence anyways. Nations United (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Can I take it from your silence that you are now okay with this proposal? I'm hoping we won't have to discuss this for too much longer considering this is such a small change. Nations United (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- How about what I've done at the article now? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- That works too. Thanks for your consideration on this.
- Best, Nations United (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I've restored your version of the quote as a good faith measure. Please provide a justification your version over the full version on the talk page and we'll see what other editors say. AnonAnnu (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Governor Generals of Canada images
If the images of Jules Léger, Ray Hnatyshyn, and Roméo LeBlanc are available on their Wikipedia pages, then why can't they be used on the GG page? If their already on Wikipedia, doesn't that make the images Free Use content? Brucejoel99 (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- To answer your question succinctly: No. Please read WP:NFC and click through to the image file pages for those portraits and look for their copyright status and the words "non-free". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Order of St John
Thanks for helping to clean up the Most Venerable Order of St John page. I'm curious about your edits of the Lord Priors list, though. You've changed all the links like Samuel Vestey, 3rd Baron Vestey to be more like The Lord Vestey (Samuel Vestey). I'm not super familiar with the manual of style on this, but it seems unnecessarily clunky. Is that the official way they're supposed to be piped? Thanks again and have a great day.--dave-- 14:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up my quick drive-by edit of the New Guinea article to reflect the new succession law; I wonder if this outdated info is still lurking on other "Monarchy of..." pages of Commonwealth Realms, seeing as I believe much of the text on all of them is cut and paste from some original. Quick question for you on the wording: you wrote that the law "...lays out the rules that the monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic and must be in communion with the Church of England." Is this not redudant? If someone is in communion with the Church of England, doesn't that mean that, by definition, they are not Roman Catholic? Is this redundancy built into the law itself? --Jfruh (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Canadian Governors General
Hello. I noticed that you undid the capitalisations I did at these articles. Why did you do that, given that standard practice is to have a “The” with a capital “T”?--The Traditionalist (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's not the practice on Wikipedia. Hence, we don't see "The Queen", it's "the Queen". There was a discussion about this (the infoboxes for Canadian governors general specifically) on a talk page some time back and the consensus was to use the lower case "t". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- And, may I ask, what makes infoboxes of Canadian Governors General so special, contrary to any other infobox of any other peer, that they have their own specific consensus? Why does the standard practice for peers not apply?--The Traditionalist (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's a loaded question. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm... when all other articles on peers use this practice, having a special consensus for peers who also were Governors General of Canada looks wrong to me. Does the peer-wide consensus fall below the GGC-wide consensus?--The Traditionalist (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Where and when was this "peer-wide consensus" set?
- Also, there's MOS:JOBTITLES, Talk:John Buchan#Infobox, cap Ts, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive 8#Capital letters. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. A last question and I will leave: does this consensus not apply for Governors General before the Earl of Minto?--The Traditionalist (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- I imagine it would. I suppose those articles just haven't had much attention for a long while.
- I do believe the MoS or the Peerage and Baronetage Project should say something specifically about this, so it's clear and in the open, whatever the "rule" is. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
IDK why this is difficult, but "members of the Commons" clearly in that context requires it to be capitalised, as it is referring to the (one and only) institution. No wiki policy overrides that. Fry1989 eh? 22:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Don't start your combativeness with me, Fry; please. I directed you to the relevant MoS section. According to it, "commons" is capitalised when part of the full title "the House of Commons", but not when alone: "the commons", exactly as "university" is capitalised when part of the full title "the University of Toronto", but not when alone: "the university". If you sincerely have a problem with that, take it up at the MoS page and get it changed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- I have a problem with it because it's wrong. There is only one House of Commons in Canada, and therefore it becomes a subject in "Members of the Commons", whereas "members of the commons" would be equivalent to "members of the universities". It makes it a variable and it is incorrect. Fry1989 eh? 17:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's a false comparison. "The commons", in this case, is not plural. Hence, it is akin to the singular "the university"; at least, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I'm looking for help in writing Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon. I was born many years after the event, but from what i can gather, the Ratcliffe-Gordon disappearance is second only to the Beaumont children disappearance for South Australians and ranks alongside the Beaumonts and the Disappearance of Eloise Worledge for Australian child crime history. Paul Austin (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:GG-OC.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:GG-OC.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. kelapstick(bainuu) 19:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)