Jump to content

Talk:List of longest-reigning monarchs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sladnick (talk | contribs) at 22:06, 19 July 2022 (→‎RfC for Queen Elizabeth II). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


14th : Elizabeth II for Jamaica

I don't think that listing Elizabeth II separately as 14th for Jamaica is relevant. Officially, the monarchy of Jamaica has existed since 6 August 1962, date of Independence of Jamaica, but she has reigned on Jamaica for much longer, as Jamaica was part of United Kingdom !

I think we should list Jamaica in the same Elizabeth II entry as for "Australia Canada New Zealand United Kingdom[a]", with a note added beside Jamaica "since its independence on 6 August 1962". Elfast (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list is about monarchs of sovereign states, and Jamaica was not sovereign before 6 August 1962. Peter Ormond 💬 08:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. After Jamaica became a sovereign state on August 6, 1962? Elizabeth II began her reign as Jamaican monarch on that date. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's an inconsistency here somewhere though. If Liz is listed in 4th place covering four separate countries, with the next entry in the list in 5th, then it doesn't seem to make sense for her Jamaican tenure to get its own rank at 14th. I think we need to either have the upper entry occupy ranks 4 to 7, with the next one at 8, or the Jamaica entry should be "unranked"...  — Amakuru (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright the way it is. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is alright the way it is. She was the head of state of Jamaica both before and after its independence. I really think it should be listed with the rest of the nations, like Canada, with a note saying Jamaica gained independence in 1962. If you're going to list Jamaica seperatly, you should list each nation seperatly as well from each date of independence. Ttutcha (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Canada, Australia and New Zealand gained independence before she became Queen, so in each of those realms, including UK, her reign as a "monarch of sovereign state" started on 6 February 1952, the day her father died. Jamaica was still a British colony then, and she reigned over that island in her capacity as British monarch. After Jamaica gained indepencence on 6 August 1962, that country's monarchy became separate from Britain, and she has since reigned as Queen of Jamaica, i.e. "monarch of a sovereign state". Peter Ormond 💬 08:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Ormond: Elizabeth's reign over Jamaica began 6 February 1952 in her capacity as the British monarch, it did not begin on Jamaican independence, she was already reigning, the table in no way implies that it is limiting the monarch's reign to the period in which they reigned over an independent country. El Dubs (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The table is under the heading "Monarchs of sovereign states with verifiable reigns by exact date". Sovereign states are independent countries. Jamaica gained independence as a sovereign state on 6 August 1962. Peter Ormond 💬 02:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Ormond: It does, but I think you are conflating independence and start of reign as the same thing. What is the basis for this? Elizabeth's reign predates Jamaica's independence, this should be reflected in the table for accuracy as the table implies Elizabeth's reign in Jamaica started in 1962, in reality, she reigned over Jamaica before this in her capacity as British Monarch. The table does not require pre-independence periods to be excluded, as the sentence above clarifies that it only requires it be sovereign for "most" of their reign. Even the use of the phrase "most of their reign" hints that a reign can begin prior to independence. El Dubs (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Gooday Bro?! Jackal Himorse (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II (= 70th anniversary) is going to be celebrated in Jamaica. They don't celebrate independant jubilees, because she's their Queen for as much time as for the British. I think it's wrong to consider she's reigned on Jamaica for only 59 years. Elfast (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have a consensus to change it the way you want. So PLEASE, don't change it again, without a consensus to do so. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no consensus with an independant Jamaica entry. But nobody has defended the '14th' number. Because it's absurd, you can't be the 1st and 14th. If we keep an independant Jamaica entry (and I think it's wrong but yes there are people who argues for it), we still have to remove the "14th" number. I'm not the only one who has noted the absurdy of it, and nobody answers about this specific question. If you want to keep it and be coherent, you have to list the Queen as 3rd should also be the 4th, 5th and 6th (Johann II should then be listed as 7th) because Australia, UK, New Zealand and Canada are independants. I'm not the only one who notes the inconsistency, see above, and no answer about the number has been expressed (apart maybe from your "It's alright the way it is." which doesn't give any answer). Elfast (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to lose my patients with you & your attempts to FORCE what you want in the article. Please respect WP:BRD, or is it going to be necessary to report you to ANI? If anything, you should be opening up an RFC on the topic. You're certainly 'not' gonna get what you want, by slow edit-warring. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add here that in the very first line of WP:BRD talks about how it is optional, and not mandated. As such, there's no expectation that anyone "respect" it, nor is it reasonable to report someone for not doing so. With that said, absolutely agree that this is a matter for RFC and consensus. El Dubs (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to read my edit. I haven't ever removed the entry for Jamaica, I'm just editing the number 14th for - (for unranked). Please report if you think it's necessary, but reading the history of the article, I'm not the only one who have done this edit and have been reverted by you, and other people notice the inconsistency in the discussion page. You don't think to consider the point (maybe you think I'm removing Jamaica) and I don't see any answer about this specific point (the number ! not the independant entry). (You seem very stubborn and you don't seem to consider the point. If you report other people will be able to see the inconstitency, so yes report it, I don't know how to do ask for mediation).
You're the one stubborn here as other people noticed the thing above, and others tried to edit it (just for 2022, I'm not going to look for older edits) :
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs&diff=prev&oldid=1073271199
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs&diff=1054499309&oldid=1051443010
And again, to change the number is a compromise between considering Jamaica as a separate entry, and considering Elizabeth as one person (and I'm not sure you've seen that my edit is just about the number, please read it again).
Elfast (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Jamaica should not be a separate listing. The paragraph before the table clarifies it's a list of monarchs for states that are internationally recognised as sovereign for "most" or all of their reign. Note how it clearly indicates that sovereignty and the beginning of a reign are different things. It is not implied that a reign should be shown to start at the beginning of independence or sovereignty.

Jamaica has been sovereign/independent for most of her reign. Her reign started 6 February 1952 where she became Monarch of many locations, Jamaica included. The list in no way implies that a reign starts from the beginning of sovereignty and detailing it as such in this list is inaccurate. El Dubs (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too on this Jamaica should be separate on listing Jackal Himorse (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list is fine as it is with Jamaica ranked separately at 14th. As others here have correctly pointed out, the Crown of Jamaica was established in 1962. Prior to 1962, Elizabeth II was not Queen of Jamaica: She was monarch in Jamaica as Queen of the United Kingdom. The constitutional distinction is essential. Aridd (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on Elizabeth duality

See #14th : Elizabeth II for Jamaica section above. I've noticed the inconsistency with having Elizabeth as 2nd and 14th longest-reigning monarch(s?), and other wikipedians have. But at least one wikipedian (two ? I'm not sure what Peter O. thinks about this specific number question) disagree, the discussion can't go further. There's also the more general issue of having two separate Elizabeth entry (one for Jamaica and one for the other countries), me and others are also against it, but it seems to me that it's less important as it's a presentation issue, not an inconstistency issue. Elfast (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts, it's clear that monarchs do not get separate listings for each state they are a monarch of. This list isn't a list of states that have had the longest reigning monarchs, it is a list of monarchs that have had the longest reigns of states. I think it's important to keep the intent of the list in mind when determining how the table should be set out.
It seems one reason the distinction here has been made is because Jamaica attained independence after Elizabeth's reign started, and therefore it's listed as a shorter reign. However, I'm not so sure the case has been made that reign necessarily starts or changes at independence. When Jamaica became independent, they chose to retain the Monarch, who was attributed a new title. So the question is, is that the start of Elizabeth's reign? I don't think so. She was already sovereign of Jamaica before it was a sovereign independent country.
The second justification appears to be the criteria of the list. It is restricted to states that are internationally recognised as sovereign, which Jamaica attained on its independence. That is completely correct, however the list only states this should be a criteria to be on the list, it does not mean that is when the reign is considered to have started.
The sentence directly above the table: "states that were internationally recognized as sovereign for most or all of their reign." (emphasis mine). "Most" of the reign implies that the list can include reigns where a state was not sovereign for less than half of the reign. And therefore necessarily means reigns can be longer than sovereignty.
Jamaica has been sovereign for most of Elizabeth's reign. Meaning Elizabeth's reign started before Jamaica's independence. The table however, lists her reign as starting on Jamaica's independence. There's no interpretation where this can be correct.
I cannot think of any reason to suggest that Elizabeth was not reigning over Jamaica prior to Jamaican independence. The table needs to accurately reflect this. This is a table of how long her reign is. Not of when her title became "Queen of Jamaica".
My comment is that Elizabeth's rows should be merged, while I think the date of Jamaica's independence is irrelevant to the table, I would see no harm in adding a side note that informs of it. El Dubs (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree It is like doing a ranking of USA Presidents


However placing Grover Cleveland at 33 and also 16 It makes no sense to meh Jackal Himorse (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish : I don't agree. The issue has been raised for months. The discussion isn't going further (Goodday s just saying "It's alright the way it is.", look above). Elfast (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already made my stance clear. Jamaica was under British control until 1962. She was Queen of the UK over Jamaica, until that point. After 1962, her reign as Queen of Jamaica began. Also when she passes, none of her successors will be included in this article, for likely over at least a century. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, her title prior to 1962 was "Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories", Queen "of" her other territories (i.e. Jamaica), not "over" her other territories. El Dubs (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She didn't become Queen of Jamaica until 1962. Before that, she reigned over Jamaica as the British monarch. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her title didn't become Queen of Jamaica until Jamaica was an independent country in 1962. However before that she was still Queen of her Realms and Territories, one of which was Jamaica. El Dubs (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She became Queen of Jamaica in 1962. We're never going to agree on that matter, so it's a waste of time going in circles. Try & convince someone else of your views. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree she became "Queen of Jamaica" in 1962. Can we agree she was Queen of Her Realms and Territories, which includes Jamaica? El Dubs (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She currently ranks 14th in the article as Queen of Jamaica, which is correct. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By this logic, George III shouldn't have the UK, Great Britain, or Ireland listed, because he was King of Ireland for only 40 years, Great Britain for 40 years, and the "United Kingdom" for 19 years. Title changes do not reset the start of a reign. So instead, the table correctly references that George III reigned for 59 years, then it lists the states he reigned over during this period. Elizabeth should correctly reflect that she has reigned for 70 years, then reflect the states she has reigned over during this period, consistent with the other rules that have reigned over multiple states. El Dubs (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're is disagreement on this topic. Elizabeth did not reign as Queen of Jamaica, for 70 years. GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're in agreement. Elizabeth did not reign under that title for 70 years. Luckily, this is not a list of "monarchs who spent the longest time with the name of a state in their title". El Dubs (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Queen of Jamaica, she currently ranks 14th in this article. At this point you're bludgeoning the discussion. You already know, I'm not in agreement with you, so take your argument up with somebody else. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not bludgeoning, just following different ways of thinking about the matter to someone who was discussing it with me. I think these comments have added to the conversation with new points of view. Happy to leave it here. Have a "Good Day". El Dubs (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Request for comment, not discussion. I've made my comment at 22:53 of 8 June 2022. My comment stands. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Supertrinko, per your logic then, she was Queen of Barbados for 69 years? Then she will again get a double listing. Peter Ormond 💬 06:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Ormond:, I agree Barbados should be listed, as it is a state that she reigned over for 69 years and was recognised as a sovereign state for "most" of her reign. However my argument is that each ruler should have one listing, because a ruler has one reign. Elizabeth for example does not currently have 5+ concurrent reigns, she is simply reigning, and has 5+ states under her reign. The length of her reign is from the date the previous Monarch died, until her eventual death or abdication. Elizabeth should be listed once, with the full period of her reign, and within the state column, it should list the states that have been or are under her reign, with the years, just as with George III. If there are too many, this article used to handle this by just detailing "The Commonwealth". El Dubs (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly formatted and ridiculous

If this is an RfC it takes no notice of the conventional format. How on earth is a closer supposed to work out consensus from an unorganised discussion like this?

There shouldn't need to be any discussion at all. This is a list of longest reigning monarchs, not longest reigns. Each monarch gets one entry for their longest reign because otherwise we'd have a mass of partial reigns where various monarchs gained and lost various states within their wider imperial remit, or the name changed halfway through or whatever.

Each monarch gets one shot at the longest reign, we rank them in order, and that's that. --Pete (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyring: I don't know RfC works, I thought I followed the procedure. But I agree, there shouldn't be discussion over this, it's a real simple issue, and there's no real discussion (you can look above, the discussion doesn't go anywhere, as me and others notice the inconsistency and one wikipedian is just answering "No" ; it's as if we were arguing against a spelling mistake). So, how does it work now ? Can we have a vote ? Elfast (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFC has the process and there are pointers toward formatting. Generally speaking the RfC is posed as a question that addresses a specific point without being too wide and vague. Aimed at Support or Oppose !votes. We don't actually vote per se so much as raise matters of logic or fact or Wikiprocedure and the closer gauges support as to consensus or otherwise.
Usually three parts:
  1. A brief discussion of the problem, and a pointed question.
  2. Responses - they should be about a sentence or so with a clear indication of the editor's support or otherwise of the matter being proposed.
  3. Structured discussion so that those who want to discuss Wikipolicy or throw rocks at each other can do so. occasionally discussion leads to editors gaining new information and changing their position but usually it solidifies entrenched positions.
There are also uninvolved editors drawn in, most of whom spend a minute leaving a response and then disappear never to be heard from again. It helps to formulate a question so as to be short and pithy and appeal to the ignorant and simplistic because god knows they aren't going to spend an hour wading through the pages of discussion that have gone before the need for an RfC is felt.
What happens now? Gosh, I dunno. It's kind of late to put in a question and survey area, but I don't think anyone has actually cast a !vote so maybe you can treat what we've already got here as structured discussion and insert one. There's some guidelines on formatting here. --Pete (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can add your options question, right under the RFC tag. Then create two sub-sections - A survey & a discussion subsections. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok done. Elfast (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should we keep two different Elizabeth II entries ?

Look at the discussion above. I think there are two issues : should we keep two different entries, or should we add Jamaica in the first entry with a note about its independence in 1962 ? And, if we keep the independent entry for Jamaica, should we unrank her in this (-) or should she keep the 14th rank ? Let's vote for the first issue first. Elfast (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question 1: Should Jamaica be listed with its own entry or grouped with the other Elizabeth II states?

Option A: Jamaica remains listed separately (there are three sub-options if this route is chosen, see below for previews)

Option B: Jamaica and other sovereign nations with Elizabeth as head of state be all listed together (preview here: [1])

Support option A
Support option B
  • I don't think we need 2 independant entries, as it's a list of monarchs, not a list of reigns. In the merged entry, we can add "(independent from 1962)" beside  Jamaica. Elfast (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC) edit: or it could be "as independent country from 1962" instead. Or we could simplify the countries list as  United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms, just like in the Elizabeth II infobox. Whatever for me, as long as we merge the two entries. Elfast (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support option B. However if we are to add the note "(independent from 1962)" beside Jamaica as Elfast stated above this. Then we should add a similar note beside each individual nation listing that nations date of independence. Ttutcha (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems like the only tenable option. Having separate entries for each country ruled over would make the list quite unhelpful to the reader. -- Visviva (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elizabeth Windsor, in this case, shouldn't have multiple entries as "time reigned" best refers to the total time in which an individual was a monarch (specifically of an independent state in this section) as opposed to the length of time in which an individual held a specific office. Furthermore, merging the entries makes sense given the interlocked nature of the common monarchy of the Commonwealth realms, in line with how it's depicted in her infobox. — chrs || talk 01:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this option. This should be a list of monarchs by longest reign, not a list of countries by longest reigning rulers. Consistent with most of the list except Jamaica. El Dubs (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a simple call to my eye - tables on Wikipedia shouldn't have multiple entries for a single entity --Jonie148 (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option B: it is a list of monarchs, not reigns. One person, one entry. PamD 05:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1956-58 £1 chocolate and violet
Country of productionUK
Location of productionWaterlow & Sons Ltd., London
Date of production1956 (1956)
Nature of rarityUnissued
No. in existence7
Face valueone pound

Question 2: If we choose option A above, how should we rank Jamaica and the other sovereign nations?

  1. Status quo - Canada, NZ, Australia and UK are lumped together, Jamaica is separate (preview here: [3])
  2. Canada, NZ, Australia and UK remain lumped together and Jamaica is listed in 14th place but unranked (preview here: [4])
  3. Canada, NZ, Australia and UK are treated separately, as four separate entries with a joint rank of 3–6, while Jamaica remains in 14th (preview here: [5])

(please cast a !vote here, even if you prefer option B above, so that if option A is chosen we can still determine which version enjoys the most consensus)

Support option 1
Support option 2
Support option 3

Discussion

I think that all has already been said in two sections above. @GoodDay, Skyring, Peter Ormond, Supertrinko, Amakuru, Ttutcha, Jackal Himorse, Emk9, Yourlocallordandsavior, and 2204happy: Please vote Elfast (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC))[reply]

  • What are we "supporting" or "opposing" here? @Elfast: As you say yourself, there are two separate questions here, whether to merge Jamaica in, and whether to rank it as 14th or unranked. Personally I would include Jamaica, but certainly not rank it 14th, given that Canada, Australia and NZ are not similarly ranked as separate countries. So that's neither "support" nor "oppose" really. I've also restored the unranking just now that was agreed to previously, only GoodDay had objected to that and it makes no sense to have Queen of Jamaica in position 14 when Queen of Canada is not in position 3,4,5,6 etc. Either rank the four countries separately, or don't rank Jamaica, tha'ts a black and white choice. It does readers a disservice to retain an inaccuracy like that, even while this RFC is proceeding.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've written

      Let's vote for the first issue first

      , I mean we should vote for

      should we keep two different entries, or should we add Jamaica in the first entry with a note about its independence in 1962 ?

      and if the result is Yes, we keep it that way, then we could vote on the issue about the rank (if we're merging them, the issue about the rank will directly be solved). Thanks for editing it, but I fear it'll be reverted again (maybe we should also vote for ranking now ?). Elfast (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If its OK with you, I'll restructure this RFC to make the choices clear in an hour or two. I've also self reverted earlier change I made and struck per above.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok. Elfast (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the separate Jamaican entry needs removing entirely - she has been head of state both before and after independence. If we vote to merge Jamaica into her current rank 3 then then the separate entry needs removing. Not just have it being unranked. Ttutcha (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Elfast and Ttutcha: there is a mock-up here of how the RFC might look if we ask both questions, with previews of each option available. What do you think?  — Amakuru (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a very good set up for the RFC. All options are there with examples of what each one would look like.  — Ttutcha (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks, I have taken the liberty of restructuring it now, so that we don't get too deep into the other RFC format. @Jackal Himorse, Ttutcha, and Elfast: as you had already !voted on the RFC with the prior wording and I've now removed those !votes, please could you now recast your !votes with your preference under the new structure? (I won't take the liberty of assuming which way you might !vote)  — Amakuru (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Jackal Himorse (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tinkered with the sub-sections, to remove the confusion of 'two' RFC headings. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For those supporting Option B. Honestly, you really want to list 15 countries? At the very least, down size that option to "UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand" (the four oldest realms, which were/are independent the entire 70 years) & put a footnote for the other 11 realms. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would want all 15 yes. I feel it would be not be factually accurate information if some were withheld or to just include a footnote. Plus I feel it's a bit insulting to not include them to be honest. That's part of the problem with her entry as it's listed at the moment in my opinion and is part of what prompted me to make my first comment. Ttutcha (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the first section is about sovereign states. Only 4 realms were sovereign the entire 70 years. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that listing every state would be pretty weird. The list is focused on the Monarch, not the states, so they shouldn't take focus from the Monarchs. With that said, limiting it to the four oldest is unfair on Jamaica. I'd suggest just grouping her to "Commonwealth of Nations". But happy to figure something out. El Dubs (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Listing Jamaica with the four oldest realms would be unfair to Jamaica itself 'cause that would assert the she is their own sovereign Queen for more than 70 years, when actually she is not. Peter Ormond 💬 02:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jamaica recently had a royal visit to celebrate the platinum jubilee. It is not unfair to Jamaica itself because the nation recognises that they have had the same monarch for the last 70 years and hold no value to the 59 years incorrectly entered in slot 14 in this article. Ttutcha (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Republic of Ireland also got a Platinum Jubilee royal visit. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Malaysia and Singapore, each got a Diamond Jubilee visit back in 2012. Peter Ormond 💬 02:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point being that during the visit they recognised she had been their queen and head of state for 70 years not 59. I wasn't saying other places couldn't have royal visits during a jubilee too. Ttutcha (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How did they "recognise" that she had been the Queen of Jamaica and head of state "for 70 years"? Peter Ormond 💬 02:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the clear distinction is limiting her reign to the period she has been titled "Queen of Jamaica", vs the reigning Monarch of the island of Jamaica, which she has been since the beginning. El Dubs (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take it into account the arrangement at List of current state leaders by assumption of office, where her reigns are ordered via realm age, then length of reigns. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Each of these nations was part of a sovereign state both before and after each of them gained independence from the UK. They had same head of state both before and after independence. The other article you have linked is also incorrect and a discussion should be had there also as she was in the same role before the dates listed. Ttutcha (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were not sovereign in their own right. They were colonies of an Empire. Sovereignty was gained on independence. Peter Ormond 💬 00:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were part of a sovereign state though and again the same person was head of the sate they were a part of before and after each of them gained independence. Had there been a different person appointed to that position after independence I could definitely see the point of not listing them. But as that's not the case I do really think they should be included. Ttutcha (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In agreement with Peter Ormond. They don't qualify as being sovereign states during the entire 70 years & so we shouldn't be attempting to make it appear as though they did. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone suggested grouping as 'Commonwealth of Nations'. That's a non-starter as she's not the Monarch of the Commonwealth, which is made up mostly of republics & a few monarchies with their own monarch. GoodDay (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming a bit hard to follow, including where to paste one's response. Jamaica should definitely NOT be ranked. If we can get agreement on that, perhaps we can then decide on how this issue can best be dealt with--Mrodowicz (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though not my first choice, there is another way. List only the United Kingdom & add a footnote for the 14 other Commonwealth realms, with each date for when she became monarch of that realm. The main problem is, she was monarch for 70 years of only 4 independent realms. The other 11 didn't become independent realms until well after February 6, 1952. Why 'only' the United Kingdom, you may ask? Because, (per WP:WEIGHT) it's the realm she resides in, is most associated with & doesn't require a governor general, as a result. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC at the moment is showing that people are happy with option B. I don't think it's a good idea to be putting forward choices at this point that aren't part of that unless the process is restarted with extra options like that included. Ttutcha (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettable, it does appear as though B has more editor support. If adopted? the end result will certainly be an 'inaccurate' presentation. Also, we'll have to give Elizabeth II a 'section' of her own, since we'll be mixing her reigns with non-sovereign-to-sovereign states (those aforementioned 11), with the sovereign states (those 4 aforementioned). Either that or we'll have to rename the section she's currently in. Again, if Option B is adopted, it will require changes to other parts of this article. GoodDay (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If option B is chosen, I think you'd need consensus on the other changes you say would be "required". As there is clear disagreement on your interpretation of what is accurate. These changes have been suggested in the first place due to inaccuracies in the article. El Dubs (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no inaccuracies. Four of her reigns are over 70 years, while her 11 other reigns are less then 70 years. She's not just 1 monarch, but 15. GoodDay (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an inaccuracy and that's in the RfC. Peter Ormond 💬 05:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're in disagreement on that matter. She didn't become Queen of Jamaica on February 6, 1952. Jamaica was at that time, a part of her British reign. GoodDay (talk) 05:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My comment at 05:52 referred to this nonsense. Peter Ormond 💬 05:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider each state a different reign, then why isn't Elizabeth II, Queen of UK, Canada, Aus, and NZ third equal, with Johann being 7th? I think because one monarch has one reign over many countries. But hey, that's just my opinion, that's why we have RfC. El Dubs (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because she was/is the British monarch, Canadian monarch, Australian monarch & New Zealand monarch, for over "70 years". With the other 11 countries, she was British monarch, until they became independent & then she became the Jamaican monarch, Bahamas monarch etc etc. Note, when we list/rank James VI of Scotland's reign, we don't include his 'shorter' English & Irish reigns in his Scottish reign. If we adopt Option B, we'll have to include his tenure as King of England & Ireland. With option B, we'd have to include former realms as well, since it apparently disregards the different lengths of her reigns. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: until now, you have staunchly defended the position of listing Elizabeth only in 2nd as the UK / Canada / Australia / NZ monarch (i.e. four separate positions), with the next entry in 3rd rather than in 6th... while also listing Jamaica as its own entry in 14th position. That is a clear anomaly and illogical formulation. Either it's about her as an individual, in which case she should have one position in the ranking, or its about each of her separate reigns of sovereign nations, in which case she should have five positions in the rankings. Giving her two, rather than one or five, is not logical. Please could you explain why you think that is valid so that we can understand your point of view? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the direction this article is heading in, concerning this topic & my not wanting to bludgeon the discussion. This will be my last response. We should go by the length of reign, not the individual. The article is called the "List of longest-reigning monarchs". GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This all seems ridiculous to me I'm afraid. There is simply no need to list the same person more than once. It's a list of monarchs, not realms. Richard75 (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a couple notes on how if this vote goes a certain way, that other changes will be required. I would anticipate those potential changes would need further discussion before they are accepted. This discussion is purely about the changes in options A and B. El Dubs (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be closed?

Momentum on this RfC appears to have stopped. While there's no rush, WP:RFC encourages not waiting for the 30 day automatic closure by bot.

It states: "If the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion."

I think that's pretty evident here. Option B has 3x the support of option A. If there's no dispute, I propose this RfC be closed and option B be enacted.

Any value in keeping this open? El Dubs (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We've come to a halt, the result is clear. How about another day for anyone to object with reasons and then we tidy it away? --Pete (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. There's no rush, but there's also no reason to leave it for a lengthy period. El Dubs (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it open, until the RFC tag expires. Otherwise, it will look like a big rush to close the door. GoodDay (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving it open until the RFC tag expires is unnecessary IMHO. Consensus here is clear, and there's no value in keeping it open for another two weeks. Per WP:RFCEND, the 30-day cleanup of the RFC tag is intended as a housekeeping job, not in any way to imply that RFCs have to run for 30 days. It also says that "If the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion"; I don't think anyone could dispute that consensus is clear at this point. I will close this myself in the next day or two, under the clause I just mentioned, if nobody else does.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus is so clear? What harm is there in waiting another two weeks? GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Becuase to not do so is to delay what has already been decided. It would be bad form to keep this open when it's clear what needs to be done. Ttutcha (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you'd be closing the door too soon. It ain't gonna hurt anyone to wait two weeks. For all we know, a number of editors could show up & support the status quo. So relax, as there's no need to rush things. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please someone, make the edit on the page, it's more important than the poll. There s no need to wait 1 month to edit the page. If the vote result is going to change, things can still be reverted. Elfast (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just made one. If someone doesn't like this presentation, it will be ok for me if he's changing it, as long as the new edit respects the wish of the majority about having only one Elizabeth entry. Elfast (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just relax. If it ends up the way you want it to (when the RFC tag expires & an outsider closes it & assuming the trend hasn't change by then), then you'll be satisfied anyway. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you're the one who needs to relax by letting the change asked (by many) be made, even if you don't agree with this change. Rfc doesn't have be necessarily closed by an outsider, and doesn't have to be closed after 1 months either, but if you really need some more time to accept it, let it be. Elfast (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let it run its course of a full month. When the tag expires, I'll personally request closure at the appropriate place. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though I still support Option A. I must be honest, I do approve of Elfast's & Skyring's version of Option B & hope it is the version that's adopted, assuming B gets green lighted. GoodDay (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Listing all the sovereign states

Actually, while we're on the topic of selecting Option B as the consensus decision from this RFC, can I just confirm that everyone is happy with the implication from that that all of Elizabeth's current sovereign realms will be listed equally in her entry? i.e. as per my mock-up at Talk:List of longest-reigning monarchs/Option B? Because if we're going to add Jamaica to that list then it is logical that we should add all the entries which would otherwise appear lower down in the list, of which I think there are 15. As far as I know, all of those nations were British colonies at the time of her accession to the throne, so effectively she has been queen of all of them since 1952.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope not, as it would make a very long (top to bottom) entry. If 'B' is chosen? It would be best to go with listing the UK, Canada, Australia & New Zealand (current version), with an added footnote for the other 11 realms. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do support this, however, I would encourage determining whether there's enough support for this. As things stand, people voted for it to list every country. I don't think it would be right to just go against the RfC and implement it a different way. El Dubs (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If option B is the choice, after the RFC is closed (I'll seek closure at WP:Closure request), following the expiration of the tag. I rather hope that @Elfast:'s & @Skyring:'s model would be adopted. Since, I'm guessing my compromise won't be chosen. GoodDay (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose adding that much bloat. Peter Ormond 💬 14:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As to implementing it a different way, the RfC gave a clear example of what Option B intends, and people voted for that option. Therefore that is what will be implemented. People haven't voted for alternatives, they voted for the example given at Talk:List of longest-reigning monarchs/Option B. But, by all means as soon as the RfC is implemented as advertised, start suggesting changes. There's no reason improvement should stagnate after an RfC. El Dubs (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment, I just wish some folks would allow the RFC to run its course & be closed properly (on about July 8), by an outsider. There's no 'deadline', so if there's a consensus by then for any changes, it'll be made. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Ormond: please see above re which states to list. Per El Dubs and per the mock-ups I made before we started this RFC, "Option B" is assumed to include all the states of which she is currently sovereign. We can discuss further if that enjoys the consensus, but it's the option that the people above !voted for. In particular, it was always clear that Jamaica would move up into the #2 slot alongside Canada, UK etc, rather than just scrubbed from the board, and that means the other states go too. It's not "bloat", it's just being accurate.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to remove the dual entries, just remove the Jamaican one. Listing all other realms to the first entry is entirely inaccurate as they were not sovereign in their own right when the Queen ascended the throne. Peter Ormond 💬 17:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the recommendation being adopted as per the RFC and established consensus. If you wish to change it after the fact, you're welcome to start a new discussion and reach a new consensus. El Dubs (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait until July 8, 2022. No sense in having these little edit-wars, between now & then. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For crying out loud, be quiet about 8 July. It's becoming disruptive now. There is *no significance* to that date, you know that because you've been directed to the guideline page explaining how RFCs end. We need to have this discussion now, and I agree with El Dubs. The option B was clearly presented with a mock up including all the places which are now sovereign and where she became queen in 1952. That's what people voted for, and most expressed the explicit notion that she became queen of Jamaica (and therefore elsewhere too) at the same time as Canada.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over something that might be moot in a weeks time, isn't worth getting blocked over. For goodness sake, it's not the end of the world. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC closing

Can we PLEASE WAIT until the RFC tag expires (around July 8) & for an outsider's closing & ruling (after I've contacted WP:Close requests), before any structural changes are made (if that's the consensus by then)? These attempts to 'jump the gun' because one option happens to have a lead at the moment, is becoming tiresome & border line disruptive. IF option B is chosen, there just may be another discussion on 'which' version of B, should be implemented - Elfast's/Skyring's version 'or' Amakuru's version. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's your reasoning for insisting on an independent closure? WP:RFC advises and encourages involved editors to close it themselves, and WP:RFCLOSE states "When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting closure and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.". What is there to gain by requesting closure? El Dubs (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sag rapes, eyer med chin. Seems pretty cut and dried. Contributions stopped flowing in, it was suggested we wait a day, there were no dissenting voices, we waited two days and I closed it. Apparently this was not the done thing despite it being crystal clear. It's bloody ridiculous. HM reigned over Jamaica every day without a pause since the moment her father died. There was always a monarch on the coins and stamps, officials swore allegiance and so on. When George VI died the reign of Elizabeth II began. --Pete (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you're so certain of the end result, the closure/ruling will come quickly by an outsider. GoodDay (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That didn't answer the question. Both processes encourage not going through that process if not necessary, so what is the justification for going through it? I fail to see why others should wait for this process because you decided it is necessary unless you can explain why you think it's necessary. El Dubs (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If by July 8 (when the RFC tag expires)? nothing has changed, in terms of A vs B ratio? Then I'll forego the formal closure process & agree to letting Elfast (who began this entire process) close/rule the RFC. GoodDay (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate it. I also look forward to improving the change once it's been implemented. As mentioned, I think you're quite right that some of the adjusted implementations are probably a good idea. El Dubs (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you get to decide that changes have to wait GoodDay? You say you will forgo the formal closure process? Who says you have the authority to make that happen anyway? I know this probally isn't the place for this but I think you're a bully who thinks they have more authority than they actally do. I don't care if I get banned for making this comment to be honest. I hope I don't. But you are being so disruptive to this whole process when it could have ended a while ago for reasons others have pointed out. Ttutcha (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Call me whatever 'name' or 'description' you like. On July 8, either Option A or Option B (which version of B?) will be adopted. It's no weight on my shoulders, if you're being impatient. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented the clear consensus decision from this discussion, which was from "Option B". Per WP:RFCEND, we explicitly do not have to wait for any sort of deadline on this, and there is no doubt whatsoever about what the consensus is here. Discussion can continue on whether or not to list all of the countries covered by Elizabeth II now, but the prototype that was listed above for Option B clearly includes all of them, and that seems most logical (especially if Jamaica is explicitly shown in that row). Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC is still open until July 8. For all we know, a lot could change between now & then. So, just be patient. GoodDay (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: no, it has been pointed out to you repeatedly that WP:RFCEND does not say what you think it does. The RFC has no end date, the archiving is purely for the purposes of housekeeping. The will of the community is clear here - and it wasn't even exactly what I !voted for - but there is absolutely no reason to delay.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been pointed out to you & a couple of others. That there's no big panic. A lot could change between now & July 8, so stop what you're attempting to enforce. GoodDay (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: no, you keep pointing that out and nobody else agrees with you. July 8 is a completely irrelevant date, because the RFC does not have an end date. How many times do you need to be told that? There is no need to delay the decision on a discussion that has been running for weeks and already has a clear outcome.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First you edit-war your version into the article & then drop a big warning at 'my' talkpage? It's obvious, you'll not stop until you get blocked. I'll leave that for somebody else, to deal with. GoodDay (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you call "my version" is the one that has consensus here. It was already inserted once a few days ago, everyone in this thread agrees it should go ahead, and you have reverted that consensus decision three times now, twice today. I won't be reverting any further, and hopefully you won't either and then neither of us needs to get blocked.... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone agrees with your actions. But again, I'll leave that for them, to decide on what to do about it. GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Version to be implemented

There appears to be some "confusion" over what will be implemented on 8 July. My concern is there will be edit warring on this date over what "version" is to be implemented and this will be used as an opportunity to derail the change and have it go in a certain direction.

Perhaps the delay to 8 July is a good thing, as it gives time to clarify something in the interests of avoiding an inevitable edit war.

The RFC clearly gave the template in the options: Talk:List of longest-reigning monarchs/Option B.

This was clearly laid out in the options people voted on and this is what they voted for. The consensus is not that we should figure out what version to implement, the consensus is that this version should be implemented. Nothing different should happen without a new consensus.

As I've mentioned, I'm absolutely happy to discuss changes after the fact, as refining it is encouraged, but in the meantime, this is the change that should happen on 8 July. There should not be any fighting over which "version" to implement because we all voted on a version. El Dubs (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Option B is the choice. I will certainly join in on the discussion of which version to adopt. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, in the interests of avoiding an edit war on 8 July, If Option B is the choice, then the discussion of which version to adopt has been had. That option is linked in Option B above that everyone voted for.
July 8 is not the start of the discussion on how to implement the change, that discussion has been had.
If Option B is the choice, we should certainly join in on the discussion of what changes can be made to improve the article after the version in Option B has been implemented.
Can I clarify this is what you meant? El Dubs (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can indeed discuss which version to adopt, if Option B is chosen. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have discussed what version to adopt already. See the votes in the above RfC. With that in mind, please do not attempt to prevent the change being made on 8 July by insisting a second discussion be had first. We've entertained your wish to wait until 8 July, you should then respect the RfC. El Dubs (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respect whatever the result of the RFC is on July 8. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC expired

It's up to you all if you think a formal closing is required or not. B appears to be the choice & so I won't be attempting to restore A. As for what version of B to use? I'll leave that to you all to figure out. Personally, I think @Elfast: & @Skyring: version was the best one. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the current version seems best. Peter Ormond 💬 18:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see we could reach a consensus, hopefully now we can move forward. El Dubs (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like there's a dispute over which version of option B, to adopt. Phase II. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's that much dispute, and as noted above the "default" would have to be the option which was actually specified, and as has been implemented in the article currently, given that it was mocked up prior to the RFC starting and should be assumed to be what editors were !voting for unless they said otherwise. If you want to start a new RFC then that's your prerogative but I'm not certain it's necessary. Thank you for your acceptance of option B anyway, GoodDay, there wasn't really a need to wait this long after consensus was clear two weeks ago, but that's water under the bridge now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, I prefer Elfast's & Skyring's version. But, I'm not taking part in the 'dispute' on the page itself, over which version to use. I'll leave it to them & Peter Ormond (who apparently 'now' supports your version), to decide the next steps, if any. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - WP:WEIGHT supports @Elfast: & @Skyring:'s version, as Elizabeth II is most associated with the UK. Also, she & her family resides there. Same can be said for Victoria (shown correctly) & George III (not shown correctly). GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have to make a second vote ? Elfast (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's up to you & Skyring. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: and @Supertrinko: : Don't you think this presentation is better for the reader ? It's the one used in Elizabeth II infobox. Tell me. Elfast (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this is a very good idea to be honest. It lists nations that have a shorter reign in with nations that are still currently increasing in reign length. All nations below Saint Kitts and Nevis shouldn't be incuded. That being said I'm not opposed to having the 'show/hide' button so the table possibly, for some, looks better. However if this were voted for in an RfC, I would vote to keep it as it is right now. Ttutcha (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My only preference is that "reign" should be interpreted as separate from title. That a Monarch has one reign, over many states, not many reigns over many states. How this information is presented, whether all listed together or via a collapsible drop-down, that's a question of style and is not particularly important to me. WP:WEIGHT is a question of interpretation on whether it is relevant to this situation, so it really comes down to what the consensus is. However, I agree that the version that's currently sitting there (the preview that was in option B) is what it should be until a new consensus is built. El Dubs (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see my name being chucked around. My preference is for the UK to be named - because she's not going to be queen of anywhere else if she isn't the British monarch - and perhaps "sundry other places; see her bio for a complete wrangle". Does she have the title of Queen of the Cook Islands? Who knows and WTF would it be doing in a list anyway. Fair suck. --Pete (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"All nations below Saint Kitts and Nevis shouldn't be incuded", yes we could exclude them. As the infobox of the Elizabeth II article has itself to not be overloaded, I think we should use a collapsible drop-down, but I won't launch a second vote about it. (If someone does and notify me I will vote of course). Elfast (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering it, as many other list articles like this (with the monarch, not the reign as its basis), use "United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", per WP:WEIGHT. Rarely have I read or heard of Elizabeth II (for example) being described as the Tuvaluan monarch, or the Saint Kitts and Nevisian monarch. But have read & heard her very often described as the British monarch. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC) GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. Elfast (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holy smokers. If Elizabeth II's entry takes up anymore space in this article? We'll soon have to split her off into a related list article all her own. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, while I tried to make a very slight adjustment, it seems to have spawned other edits to include countries that shouldn't have been, and then someone reverted to the incorrect version before RFC, so I've just reverted to the version by @Peter Ormond:. El Dubs (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna have to say it. I told yas this would likely happen if the B-long version was chosen. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that's like saying we just shouldn't display correct information becuase people will edit incorrect information in. There's a chance incorrect information can be edited into any article on wikipedia. That doesn't mean the incorrect changes shouldn't be reverted. I mean you proved that point yourself a few weeks ago. Ttutcha (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm not going to restore/revert any of it? It's not a weight on my shoulders. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically it's not because of the B-long version, it just needs the criteria clearly set out to remove room for interpretation. El Dubs (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afonso I of Portugal

Afonso I of Portugal is currently listed in the "unknown dates" section as reigning from sometime in 1112 to 6 December 1185. I find his placement there problematic.

His father Henry, Count of Portugal was made Count of Portugal in 1096 with his wife Princess Theresa, Countess of Portugal as co-ruler. Henry died on 12 May 1112 exactly (very much a known date), when his son was a young child. Rather than a regency by Theresa, our articles seem to imply Theresa became countess suo jure. On 24 June 1128 Afonso dethroned his mother through war and became sole count. And to confuse things further on 25 July 1139 he became a sovereign monarch of the Kingdom of Portugal. So I put forward the question of what to do with him.

If we give Afonso the title from 12 May 1112 and recognise his sovereignty, then he suddenly jumps to second place between Louis XIV of France and Elizabeth II of Britain. If we give him 24 June 1128 as the start and sovereignty, than he jumps to the 21st place between James VI of Britain and Conrad I of Burgundy. If we give him 25 July 1139 and sovereignty, than he vanishes from any list (only 46 and 1/2 years). To me there seemingly is no reason to place him in the known non-sovereign known dates and unknown dates.212.79.110.148 (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If he does come here he should belong on the second list Jackal Himorse (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The section is titled with "dependent or constituent states", which the Kingdom of Portugal certainly wasn't. The County of Portugal was under Galician vassalage, but the creation of the kingdom separated it and subsumed it into the new crown. I removed him for now.212.79.110.148 (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored him. Best to a consensus, if you want to delete him. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with GoodDay He doesn't belong on the first list as his State wasn't even sovereign until 1139 Jackal Himorse (talk) 06:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2nd List

I think it should be expanded to be 55 Years to align with the 1st and 3rd Lists 103.137.24.25 (talk) 11:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. GoodDay (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lý Nhân Tông Start Date

His own article says he died on 15 January 1128 meanwhile his Father,Lý Thánh Tông's article says that he died on 1 February 1072 This would give him a reign of around 55 Years and about 348 days Jackal Himorse (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would. If he's moved to the first list then we'll have to remove Mudzaffar Shah III of Kedah (whose dates are unsourced, by the way). Tintero21 (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but Tintero21 his dates are sourced as his own article and his father's article says that the former's reign started on 15 January 1547 and the latter says he died on 15 January 1547 his own article says that Muzaffar Shah III himself died on 3 August 1602 Jackal Himorse (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the dates come from somewhere then the source should be referenced, which is not the case. Tintero21 (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried a Google Search and there isnt really that much on him the most Sources are either Wikipedia mirrors or Random Birth Websites Jackal Himorse (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2022

I just want edit the date of the reigning monarch 103.108.20.109 (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Mustansir Billah

Al-Mustansir Billah is listed in the "Monarchs whose exact dates of rule are unknown", but sources do give him exact dates (15th Shaban, 427 AH – 18th Zilhaja, 487 AH). I believe this source is the only one that dates his death to 6 January 1096; most sources give 29 December 1095 [6][7] [8] [9] [10]. I've also looked into online calendar converters and most of them give 29 December [11][12] [13] [14]. Even if we take into account any discrepancy, his reign still falls between 58y 199d and 58y 207d, which is enough to make it to the first list (as N°18, between Pedro II and Nicholas I). Tintero21 (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Him to the Top List Jackal Himorse (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2022

This monarch Hyeokgeose Geoseogan should be here as he Reigned from 57 BC to 4 AD for about 60 Years 103.137.24.222 (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added Jackal Himorse (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth I

I really like the new look of Elizabeth II but don’t we now need to do the same for Elizabeth I? Samlacey (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She's not on this list, though. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake I meant Victoria that will teach me for not checking! Samlacey (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria

I like what we have done with Elizabeth II but do we now need to update Victoria? Samlacey (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well Victoria was monarch of what is now India, parts of Africa and the Caribbean etc; also George III ruled over areas that are now in the United States and other places. But perhaps the key difference, and why I'd suggest we don't go down the complex rabbithole of adding those places, is that they were never sovereign states at any point during her reign. While Antigua, Jamaica etc. all have been sovereign during part of Elizabeth's reign, albeit not for the whole of her reign. If Bermuda went independent before Elizabeth II's reign ended, then we could add it to her list. But if Bermuda goes independent after her reign ends, when Charles is king for example, then we would add it to Charles but not to Elizabeth. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Charles is never going to feature on this article. Peter Ormond 💬 18:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like what we've done with Elizabeth II's entry (Elfast & Skyring had the best version). That being said, I'd rather Victoria & George III's entries also compressed, with GB/UK shown & a 'collapsed' note for the other areas. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many sovereign states has Victoria ruled over? The changes to Elizabeth II does not change that the listed states need to have been sovereign during the Monarch's reign. It simply expects that all sovereign states are grouped under one reign. El Dubs (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We've included states that were colonies during parts of Elizabeth II's reign, so we may as well add the colonies during Victoria's reign. If we're going to have elongated entries? It should be done for all monarchs on this page, that have reigned as such. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the colonies were never independent during her reign, so it's a different case. I guess the interesting question is whether we needed to include Kenya etc. under Elizabeth II, because she was queen of those places as a sovereign ruler at one point, but on the other hand the 70+ years that we're counting for her for Canada/Jamaica/UK etc. doesn't apply to Kenya as she was only queen there for 12 years (one year of which was as an independent state). It's a confusing question, and one I would have answered slightly differently myself in the above RFC, but nonetheless where we're at now is a vast improvement on the prior status quo where UK/CAnada/Australia/NZ were lumped together while Jamaica was ranked separately.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What we've got is an overly elongated version, which I advised against. Elfast/Skyring's compromise should've been chosen. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We've included sovereign states that were colonies at some point during her reign. Elizabeth has no states listed that were never sovereign, non-sovereign colonies have been specifically excluded. If we are treating Victoria the same, any state that was sovereign with her as their Queen for over half her reign should be added. El Dubs (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the issue comes down to the reign being associated with the natural person of the monarch and the entry details being associated with the legal person(s) of the monarch(s). This is simple enough in the cases of a Union of Crowns; the source of the uncertainty and confusion for Elizabeth II and Victoria lies in the fact that the replacement of a single (indivisble) British Crown by multiple, per-Realm Crowns was an evolutionary process which was not complete until after the Commonwealth already contained republics (and, arguably, monarchies with restored sovereignty). On the one hand, Victoria died before the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster, so you can justify the status quo. Conversely, if you regard the British North America Act as the point of creation of a Canadian Crown that was ultimately to become a different legal person, then you can justfy adding detail entries for Victoria/Canada and Victoria/Australia (if that is not being excessively pedantic about the first 3 weeks of Australia's dominion status), but not for any other territory. Alan Peakall (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Tuvalu since 1952?

Hi everyone, I'm new here. The information about Elizabeth II in the current version of this article is incorrect. The Queen has only reigned for 70 years, since 1952, in four countries. To include Tuvalu (as one example) in the list is inaccurate. If she's "reigned" in Tuvalu since 1952, even though Tuvalu was a British colony/dependency until 1978, then why don't we also include Bermuda and and the Cayman Islands and other UK overseas territories? Each Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state with a legally distinct monarchy. For historical reasons, the person who is the Queen of the UK is also the Queen of Tuvalu, but the Tuvaluan Crown is separate from the British Crown . The article would be truer and more concise if only the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were listed in 2nd place, and if her 60-year reign in Jamaica was listed separately farther down the list. Hobbitron38 (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobbitron38:, see RFC above. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC notwithstanding, the article currently says that the Queen has reigned in Tuvalu as a sovereign state since 1952. That's just incorrect. Hobbitron38 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know it's incorrect. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking more into the past discussions, I do see that the community decided to make a distinction between colonies that became sovereign states and colonies that never obtained sovereignty. I know in your case I'm preaching to the choir, but it seems to me that the advocates of including colonies-turned-countries post-1952 in the same group as the four countries where she actually has reigned for 70 years have missed the point of the article. The Queen is the second longest-reigning monarch in history because of her concurrent reigns that began in 1952. She's also the 14th longest-reigning monarch in history because of her reign in Jamaica. I hope everyone will realize that her other reigns are not ex officio extensions of her British reign and are irrelevant in this context. Hobbitron38 (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already made all those arguments, to no avail. If enough editors decide that Blue is Red? The result is Blue is Red. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm clearly late to the party, but maybe one day the discussion will reopen. Hobbitron38 (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC for Queen Elizabeth II

Currently, the article states that the Queen's reign in all her present realms began when her father died in 1952, which is actually not the case.

The case of PNG and Tuvalu
  • Papua New Guinea Papua New Guinea actually invited the Queen to be head of state on independence in 1975. The country's Constitution states, "Her Majesty the Queen having been requested by the people of Papua New Guinea, through their Constituent Assembly, to become the Queen and Head of State of Papua New Guinea; and having graciously consented so to become, is the Queen and Head of State of Papua New Guinea". Before 1971, it was known as "Territory of Papua and New Guinea". So, to say that the Queen has reigned over the "Independent State of Papua New Guinea" since 1952 as its sovereign monarch is wrong, as there was no entity called "Papua New Guinea" until 1971.
  • Tuvalu Before Tuvalu's independence in 1978, the colony was known as the Ellice Islands, and it was part of a bigger colony called "Gilbert and Ellice Islands". The Constitution of independent Tuvalu states, "On 1 October 1975, Her Most Excellent Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was graciously pleased to establish the Ellice Islands as a separate colony under their ancient name of Tuvalu". So, to say that Elizabeth II has been Queen of "Tuvalu" since 1952 is absolutely incorrect. The Constitution states, "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God Queen ..., having at the request of the people of Tuvalu graciously consented, is the Sovereign of Tuvalu and, in accordance with this Constitution, the Head of State". So, per the Constitution which went into effect in 1978, the Queen is Tuvalu's Sovereign at the request of the people of Tuvalu, not since 1952.
Other issues

Here are few other examples of how the current version of the article is wrong and misleading:

  • Belize Belize became independent in 1981. Before 1973, it was known as "British Honduras". It was a Crown Colony of the United Kingdom, so the Queen reigned in Right of the United Kingdom, not Belize's own sovereign monarch. So, it incorrect to say that Elizabeth II has been the sovereign monarch of "Belize", since 1952.
  • Antigua and Barbuda Antigua and Barbuda achieved sovereignity in 1981. When King George VI died in 1952, the islands were part of the British Leeward Islands, and later in 1958 joined the West Indies Federation, both of which were British colonies. So, it is wrong to say that the Queen has reigned over "Antigua and Barbuda" as its sovereign monarch since 1952.

At her Coronation in 1953, the Archbishop asked the Queen, "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon..?" No explicit mention of many of her present realms like Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu, as these became her realms on independence, not in 1952.

Proposal

The Queen has reigned as a sovereign monarch since 1952 only in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. It's in these realms where she has been reigning for more than 70 years, which makes her the second-longest reigning sovereign in history. Also, these are the only countries left from her Coronation Oath that she is still monarch of. So, including any other countries here is inaccurate and misleading, and it creates clutter and misses the point of the article.

So, I suggest that the Queen's realms be whittled down to just these four realms, and a note may be added about the other realms of which she became sovereign after 1952. Peter Ormond 💬 00:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • @Peter Ormond I completely agree with your proposal. Your penultimate paragraph, in particular, really captures the issue here. Also, thank you for sharing with us some facts about the history of these countries and the Coronation Oath. I learned a thing or two from reading your comment. Hobbitron38 (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Agreed with Hobbitron38 who said what I would have, just more concisely. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'd rather Elfast & Skyring's version, which highlights the United Kingdom (though with a footnote bit showing 'only' Canada, Australia & New Zealand). If that isn't chosen? I'll accept Peter Ormond's proposed version, as my second choice. GoodDay (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are actually supporting the proposal, but want that to be presented in a different way. Peter Ormond 💬 12:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My 'first choice' is a hybrid of Elfast/Skyring & your proposals. GoodDay (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the list is about length of reigning, and lists all locations that came into and left their rule during the time. Variations in dominion are mentioned in George III and Frank Joseph I for example. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Queen is listed in the list of monarchs of "sovereign states". Her case is different from George III and Frank Joseph I. Her many realms were not sovereign when she succeeded her father on 6 February 1952. Peter Ormond 💬 15:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So list them in order of when her reign on them began. Again the list is longest reigning, about how long one was a Queen regardless of variations in dominion the length of reigning remains 70+ years. Mention all ruled and do not erase the history or just because over 70+ years it’s not simple. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Markbassett George III and Franz Joseph are not comparable to Elizabeth II. For George III, the article lists Great Britain and Ireland and then the United Kingdom. That's correct because Great Britain and Ireland were predecessor states of the United Kingdom. The same is true of Franz Joseph. The Empire of Austria was the predecessor state of Austria-Hungary. George III and Franz Joseph reigned over the same places as sovereign states, even though the names of those places changed. Elizabeth II, by contrast, started concurrent reigns in seven sovereign states in 1952. Three of them became republics, and some of her colonies became independent nations later. After 70 years, only four of her original realms are still monarchies. You're right that the article is about length of reign. Her length of reign is only 70 years long in those four countries, hence the other Commonwealth realms are not relevant. Hobbitron38 (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Markbassett Also, your proposal to list all of her reigns in order of when they began does not really make sense. What place would her 39-year reign in St. Kitts and Nevis have in a list of reigns where the shortest is 56 years? To simply state which of her reigns are historically-long and omit those which aren't, as we propose, does not erase history. It is simply to be accurate. Hobbitron38 (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Hobbitron38 I believe you are misunderstanding the table from what your posts say. It does *not* say she ruled Tuvalu since 1952, it says she was a monarch since 1952 and no date is given for when that began at Tuvalu. That other rulers had changing dominions is comparable to that has occurred for The Queen. For all such, the ‘From’ column start of their reigning is the start of their being a monarch, as this is a list of longest reigning monarchs, and the dominions were not continuous for all of them. If you want to show later arrivals, the precedent is to show the year begun or ended for each State in the ‘State’ column and to list States by year that reign began instead of the alphabetical order shown in this section. It would be improper to exclude States and make it appear they did not happen. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Markbassett Because the table (in the current form) says she began her reign on 6 February 1952 and lists Tuvalu under State, the table is saying that she began her reign in Tuvalu on 6 February 1952. That's just the plain reading. For Elizabeth II's entry to be similar to that of George III, there would have to be parenthetical time ranges attached to each Commonwealth realm. However, that would only further highlight the reason not to include the countries that later gained independence. "Tuvalu (1978 - present day)" is a reign of only 44 years, so it doesn't belong in the column about her reigning for 70 years. Tuvalu is irrelevant in this particular case, because she is not the second longest-reigning monarch as Queen of Tuvalu. To put it another way, the Queen of Tuvalu is not the second-longest reigning monarch in history, but the Queen of Canada is. Legally, those are different persons, and that's based on the Statute of Westminster 1931.
    But again, there's no equivalency here between Elizabeth II and George III. Elizabeth II has reigned separately as the monarch of many distinct countries, in some for 70 years and in others for only 40 or 50 years. George III reigned as King in only two countries, which happened to be merged under a new name during his tenure. Hobbitron38 (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Hobbitron38 This list is of longest-reigning monarchs, showing their years of reigning in the Reign column and States with any variation in the States column. As at George III for the Kingdom of Ireland which ceased to exist as a separate State. There is no need for confusion or incomplete information. And failure to list so very many States at all seems a far worse mistake than just a possible confusion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Markbassett I would agree that George III's reign in Ireland should not be featured in the list, because his reign in Ireland only lasted 40 years before that country was subsumed into the UK. Ireland's sovereignty was officially extinguished in 1800 and would not be revived until well after George III's death. His 40-year reign in Ireland does not belong here any more than does Elizabeth II's 41-year reign in Belize, not when the shortest reign in the list is 56 years long. Hobbitron38 (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Hobbitron38 - Clearly we just view things differently- I think the table is years as a monarch and for George III the States should show all dominions ruled or else the table is misleadingly incomplete. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, there's a note now that lists all of her other reigns so that information is not left out. Hobbitron38 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The paragraph above the first table clearly states "recognised as sovereign for most or all of their reign" (emphasis mine). It is very clearly identifying that while it lists sovereign states, a reign does not begin at sovereignty. All states that have been sovereign for "most or all" of Elizabeth's reign should be included. This clearly means including states that are sovereign now, but were not at the beginning of the reign. El Dubs (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I agree with what El Dubs has stated above. The table is a list of "monarchs of states that were internationally recognised as sovereign for most or all of their reign." As I stated in the original RfC she was monarch both before and after independence. Ttutcha (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The list is unreadable now. Wikipedia articles should be useful to the broader public, not just curtailed to a handful of editors, when the two considerations come into conflict. There is no reason why sovereign states over which Elizabeth II was sovereign for part of her reign cannot be included in an explanatory note. Without such a note, in any case, the current poor layout of the article will lead many Wikipedia users into thinking that Elizabeth was Queen over all these realms since 1952 – the technicalities in the intro, which even extensive discussions here have difficulty making sense of, are not enough to clear up such potential, easily avoidable confusion. Sladnick (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion II

Recommend adopting the condensed version by Elfast & Skyring. The  United Kingdom is the realm that Elizabeth II is the most associated with & also the realm she resides in. But with a footnote, which mentions 'only' Canada, Australia & New Zealand. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC). Comment amended 08:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as that version lists realms that have a shorter reign with nations that are still currently increasing in reign length. Listing a four-year Pakistani reign together with a seventy-year Australian reign is not useful and creates a lot of clutter. The Queen has been sovereign monarch equally in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom since 1952, and thus only these realms should be listed. Peter Ormond 💬 00:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. Hobbitron38 (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Peter Ormond.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW - You should've widen this RFC's field, to include politics. At the moment, you only have it linked to geography\history. GoodDay (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness this RFC isn't taking place, over at List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office. Of course, Elizabeth II's placement at that page is temporary & her successor's placement will be slightly different. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence and List of current reigning monarchs by length of reign. Peter Ormond 💬 00:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the article for the list of current reigning monarchs by length of reign correctly sets apart the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Jamaica from the other Commonwealth realms. Hobbitron38 (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was in RFCs on those pages, years ago. Those were the results. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You see what the results of the previous RFC leads to? Someone had added James VI of Scotland's English reign, which was correctly reverted. GoodDay (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what appears to be the emerging consensus that we should only list the realms where she has been queen for 70 years, because those countries are the reason she is in second place on this list. Seems logical. Richard75 (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That other article lists The Queen multiple times to include the States of her reign, whereas this table format lists all the states ruled in one row. One need not give a strongly incorrect impression that she never ruled anything but four States when one can simply continue the precedent of include the years along with the name. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether she ever ruled anything besides the four countries where she's reigned for 70 years, is irrelevant to this article. You want to include all of her realms because she's on the list, but she's only on the list because of four realms in particular, so those are the only ones that matter. Hobbitron38 (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list is in order of how long they were rulers, to be consistent with the other entries where the States changed.
  • e.g. George III ruled 59 years - 40 for Great Britain then 19 for the United Kingdom.
  • e.g. Frank Joseph I ruled 67 years - 19 for Austria then 48 for Austria-Hungary.
  • e.g. Ferdinand III ruled 65 years - 57 for Sicily and losing then regaining Naples.
  • e.g. Phillip I at 67 years - 27 for Lippe-Alverdissen, then 40 for Schaumburg-Lippe. .
Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those examples are not valid comparisons. The monarchs you cite all reigned in the same places, under some different names. George III's reign in the United Kingdom was a continuation of his reign in Great Britain, which was always a sovereign state during his lifetime. He reigned for 59 years over the same country. Elizabeth II's situation is different because she has reigned in dozens of separate countries, some of which existed as countries in 1952 and some of which became countries later. She has dozens of reigns of varying lengths. She didn't reign for 70 years in Tuvalu. Her reign in Tuvalu starts in 1978 when the Crown of Tuvalu began to exist. That reign is not historically-long, but her reigns in UK, CA, AUS, and NZ are. Therefore, they alone belong in this list. Hobbitron38 (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, Ferdinand lost and then regained States, but that’s secondary ... All of these showed the precedent or format of State changes go in the state column, so the basic concern of this RFC is avoidable, a way of how to handle Tuvalu is clear. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't address Ferdinand, but he's not comparable to Elizabeth II either because she has not had any interruptions in any of her reigns. Some of her reigns started later and some of them have ended, but none of them (as far as I know) started and restarted like Ferdinand's did in Naples. Hobbitron38 (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The main point remains the format is year a state entered or left goes in the States column, and is not the years the person was a reigning monarch. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what version is being talked about here. But I want to be sure what we're talking about and I don't see a link to demonsrate whats actally being proposed. GoodDay, could you insert a link here so myself and other can see what you're talking about? Thank you. Ttutcha (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The version Elfast implemented on 20:25 July 8, 2022. I don't know how to link to it. As Skyring/Pete says below - Why make it complicated, when it doesn't have to be. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @GoodDay:, do you mean this one? Revision as of 20:25, 8 July 2022 by Elfast. Check out this edit to see how it's linked. El Dubs (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bit worried about how these RfCs are going. both RfCs have offered one example for the "change" option. Which I imagine is what has resulted in subsequent RfCs. It's clear from the previous RfC that the consensus is Monarch's are listed once. Now how states should appear is the contentious issue, but instead of making the RfC about how to generally define the rules of how states should be listed, this RfC focuses purely on providing one option for Elizabeth II. This could very well lead to a series of RfC of different people offering their options for Elizabeth. If there is to be further discussion after this, can it please be about some general rules on the relationship between states and the Monarch listed. Not offering just one option that is the preference of the person starting the discussion, but a discussion of options first, then an RfC looking for a vote on areas of disagreement. El Dubs (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Just say United Kingdom and link to Elizabeth II for the details. We don't have to put the entire history of decolonisation into one cell of one table. Apart from places where she ceased to reign, such as Pakistan, she has always reigned over these places that later became realms. The monarch's head was on the coins and stamps regardless of what the local constitutional arrangements were. Did Queen Anne have two separate reigns because her title changed with the Act of Union and she ceased to be Queen of England and became Queen of the United Kingdom? Anyone who wants all the picayune details can go look for them in other areas of our wonderful information resource. --Pete (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications to previous RFC participants

@Richard75:, @Mrodowicz:, @2204happy:, @Jackal Himorse:, @Vladimir.copic:, @P1221:, @Elfast:, @Amakuru:, @Aridd:, @67.173.23.66:, @Ttutcha:, @Visviva:, @Chrs:, @Supertrinko:, @PamD:, @Skyring: - You ought to know about the 'new' RFC, in case this page isn't on your watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "Royal Ark" a reliable source for Adilin II dates?

This is the only extensive source for Muhammad Jiwa Zainal Adilin II of Kedah (and the exact dates for his reign) that I've been able to find. In the first page there is a bibliography but it's still hard to verify. Tintero21 (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs&oldid=1099269741"