Talk:Britannic Majesty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, an attempt to provide information in a consistent format for articles about international organizations, diplomats, international meetings, and relations between states. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Government, a WikiProject related to the government of the United Kingdom.

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)