Category talk:United Kingdom Monarchs

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Category talk:United Kingdom Monarchs as edited by Philip J. Rayment (Talk | contribs) at 12:53, January 14, 2008. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Note regarding this page

NB: This page was originally the talk page for Category:UK Monarchs. That page was made redundant with articles being recategorised to this category, and was eventually deleted. This category page had no talk page, so I moved the UK Monarchs talk page to here, as being a suitable home for it.

Philip J. Rayment 07:53, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Category name

The following is copied from Alfred the Greatdiscussion page....

May I respectfully request that something be done about the Category "UK Monarchs"? It is just plain wrong to have someone who died 900 years before the creation of the United Kingdom(and who was not even king of a united England) included in this Category. I have moaned about this elsewhere, and if able to edit the Category page I would do so. The British Royalty website has the monarchs listed under "England" up to the Stuarts and UK for Stuarts to the present.

The articles I am doing on the medieval kings I am categorising as Monarchs of England. May I suggest that there be three categories: Anglo-Saxon, England and UK; each cross linked with the others? I intend doing a list of the Kings of the Scots. That will make even more of a mockery of the "UK' tag before 1603. AlanE 19:44, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Out of curiosity what would you suggest calling the primary category that Anglo Saxon/England/UK would be a part of? And also, if this is approved, I would suggest one good location of it would be Biographies>Political people>Heads of State>(your name here). Just my 2 cents. --Colest 20:06, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry. Was out for a bit.... . I grew up with the "Kings and Queens of England". But that was 50 years ago, and Celtic sensibilities would suggest that these days "British" is the way to go. Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish and English all have a "British Passport". The people of what colonies there are left are "British subjects". I think that the official royalty site has the generic term: British. That covers all lines, including Scotland and the various Anglo-Saxon lines (Mercia, Wessex etc. (They may not have been "British" in the true sense of the word but the place was "Britain, or Britannica or whatever). British is the general word for the place that is ruled by Elizabeth.

The Category would be "Monarchs of Britain" or "British Royalty". There could be an explanatory sentence (as there is now in the UK Monarchs site("Below are the lists of all rulers of......"etc There would be all relevant dates, be under appropriate Houses, and with footnotes where necessary. Each name would be the link to it's "personal" site of course. There would be sites for "UK" "Scotland" "Anglo-Saxon" etc, but they would be feeder sites.

If approved in principal I would be willing to stop any other CP work I am doing and work something out on a Word document for discussion. There is a bit of work, especially pre-Conquest. The present "UK Monarchs site (Not this one)gives anyone who is interested some idea. Cheers AlanE 22:54, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

  • Perhaps working with Sysops Hoji or Philip a template for that page can be made with clickable links, etc.? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:27, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

TK, g’day…. I think I may at present continue building the “UK Monarchs” article. This is not this Category site, but an Article site that was created separately and I am able (and allowed) to edit. I will build it to what I consider is satisfactory as a Category site. I was going to build this site up anyway, so that anyone interested in any of the kings and queens of Britain (including Scotland, pre-Conquest etc.) could go there and there would be the clickable link. At any time during the building, (and indeed when it is finished) it will be editable (such a word?) by anyone. I will then ask that it be considered as the Category site, and request that it be titled, say, British Monarchs. I will give a list of redirects so that anyone clicking on any number of different terms would be directed to this site.

At no time will I be doing anything that anyone logged on to Conservapedia cannot edit or revert.AlanE 16:37, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

The only issue I see with this method is that it will not function like all of the other Categories. If I understand you correctly, your plan is to expand the UK Monarchs article to include Anglo Saxons, Scots, etc, and that way it will serve as a springboard to finding the monarch you are interested in. As a result, however, that won't solve the issue you initially brought up, with Alfred the Great still being tagged as [[category:UK Monarchs]]. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting just putting a link to the UK Monarchs article on each page involving a monarch in lieu of putting a category tag, which I think would confuse your average editor. I hope I've understood you correctly, and I hope I've been clear on my concerns about it. However, I can also see the value in your list article as well.--Colest 17:29, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

No. The name would be changed to, say, British Monarchs. However, anyone clicking on "UK Monarchs" "Kings of England" "Scottish Monarchs", or any of a number of terms, would be directed to it. But even if this doesn't get up (and after an hour plowing into early Scotland I almost hope it doesn't! -:))I will still be going into bat for the name change of the current sites. If Alfred is to be listed under "UK Monarchs" then so should Donald II of Scotland who died the year after Alfred. They were both ruling parts of the modern UK. (I'm getting carried away again, aren't I?)AlanE 18:55, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

I do not believe it is wrong to use a modern name for a state to describe previous periods in history of that state. The union of 1707 was imposed by the English, and the modern UK is a continuation of the kingdom of England. Other areas, like Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, were simply annexed by that state. Cornovius 19:06, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

You are right in the "annexation" etc. but no other encyclopedia or reference book I have ever read lists the pre-Stuart monarchs as "UK". As I said (sort of)somewhere yesterday, would we list a colonial governor of 17th century Virginia as being a "United States Governor"? Technically even 1707 is too early for the use of "UK" Great Britain was created then Ireland was added in 1801. But the Royal website lists the Stuarts as "UK" for (I suppose) tidiness reasons. And I don't know any Brit, be they English Scottish Welsh or whatever that refer to themselves as being of the UK. And the Celtic countries are a darnside more British than the perception at least. I have guddled through over 20 books just now, including two encyclopedias, and none of them have UK as the generic term for the pre-modern rulers. AlanE 19:42, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

I think to have separate categories for UK monarchs, English monarchs, etc. would just be confusing. Someone might be looking for, say, Henry VIII. Your point about listing colonial governors under US governors is correct of course, but I don't really see any problem in listing pre-1776 governors under that title, just for completeness. As with England and the UK, colonial and post-colonial Virginia were not separate entities. One was simply a continuation of the other. Cornovius 07:08, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
  • We aim to make CP easy to use for our younger students as well. Switching names isn't a good thing, so please avoid some of the more formal conventions, okay? Thanks for your cooperation. And I notice not all the conversation was moved to here. Please, never just partially move things, especially when you haven't even asked if it is okay to add new categories, etc. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:53, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Rereading this, it seems that there was never much discussion on the option of renaming it British Monarchs. Would that be the way to go? I see the merit in having all the monarchs in the one category (rather than change categories as the kingom changed), but I also see the problem in calling earlier monarchs United Kingom Monarchs. Philip J. Rayment 07:53, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Order of it all.....

We will make a template, click-able, placed on each article, giving users access to whatever they want. This is a tremendous effort! Thanks for undertaking it! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:27, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Good morning. I'll go along with that. (I think) Can I suggest that I start a Heading on my Talk page for things like this? For one thing, there are things I want to say about your previous posting.(But not this morning. I nearly didn't log on at all this morning. I have a roaring cold.) Cheers and thanks for the words of appreciation.AlanE 17:52, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

  • That is fine. We like to keep all convos with the article though. You can email me, like you did before, or catch me on AIM as well. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:43, 13 June 2007 (EDT)