Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Most of the delete opinions amount to the list being redundant, not useful and possibly misleading. They are offset by arguments to keep the content and its edit history under some title, at least in the form of a useful navigational aid, index or disambiguation type page. In any case the incoming redirects should be checked and possibly replaced by more specific ones. Tikiwont (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of monarchs in the British Isles[edit]

List of monarchs in the British Isles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article doesn't cover any material that isnt already covered on List of British monarchs, List of English monarchs and List of Scottish monarchs. It is also entirely unreferenced and confusing, ultimates completely redundant. --Camaeron (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Camaeron (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Administrator who closes this AfD: A wikipedian notified other wikipedians of the same opion as him/her-self and thus the concept of popular consensus has been breached. I have taken the liberty of "marking" the individuals with a small comment underneath their votes. --Camaeron (t/c) 18:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camaeron, I can understand if you feel under attack over this issue. But, to be clear, what happened was that a longstanding and well-respected Wikipedian informed everyone who had contributed to the last AfD, and put a note, right here on this AfD, to say that he had done so. I have turned it red below, for greater visibility. (Also, for the sake of openness, I'll mention that I was informed, too, and you missed me.)

Having said that, I'm not very clear why those engaged in this discussion have become so vociferous about it. I've explained at (...what felt like great...) length below how Camaeron and TharkunColl can achieve the result they are asking for. If my posting wasn't understood, then please feel free to discuss at my talk page. Best, AndyJones (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I dont feel the slightest bit "under attack", as you put it. It was just rather odd that all of a sudden lots of "support" votes turned up out of no where. Especially as they came from people who themselves arent willing to maintain the page and havent been seen on the pages for ages! Myself and TharkunColl both fully understand what AfD's are for and are fully capable of deciding whether we think the article needs to be deleted or not...--Camaeron (t/c) 21:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: I'm interpreting your apparent defensiveness as a sign that you feel under attack and I apologise if I'm misinterpreting you. With respect, and this is NOT a personal attack, I think you do have at least one lesson to learn about what AfD is for and what it is not for, and it's this: MERGES ARE SIMPLER AND BETTER. That's because:

• Any editor can do them: no Admin required.
• There's never a GFDL problem.
• There is no need to start a discussion, and wait five days - repeatedly defending your position along the way.
• There's no need to involve outside editors: whose opinions you clearly don't respect anyway because they work on other pages.

In short, you just go ahead and do them. That's what you can and should have done in this case. So however this AfD closes, please at least take that lesson away with you. AndyJones (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm just a defensive person. My comments do sometimes come accross more agressive than intended. The reason I put this up for discussion is..I dont believe this page should exist under any circumstances. Not even as a redirect. I am fully aware that I could have merged it at any time. In fact I initially put a merge Template on the page and stated a discussion but then I changed my mind: After all there arent any other monarchy pages, going by geography (see List of monarchs of Europe, List of monarchs of Asia, List of monarchs of America...--Camaeron (t/c) 10:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator...--Camaeron (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As long as the above mentioned articles remain seperate? GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I can see where it might be a navigational aid, but I agree that this stuff has been covered elsewhere. Mandsford (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As was noted at the previous AfD, and again today, the article can serve a purpose. If articles can be fixed, they should not be nominated at AfD: deletion is the last resort. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redundant list serving no purpose other than to repeat content that is already elsewhere. – ukexpat (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after merging anything that isn't already in the three other articles. Agreed this is redundant and is better served as separate articles. 23skidoo (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Material is covered adequately in other lists.--Gazzster (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - while stricly this article is not necessary, I can see more reason for this list than some others which look like being kept. It can be helpful to have an overview of the historical relationships between the various monarchies in that part of the world, leaving the more detailed lists separate. It is like an index for the other lists, and could be made even better. JPD (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and redirect to List of British monarchs. Links on that page will direct to England, Scotland, etc. TharkunColl (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect per TharkunColl. There's no need for this fork. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As in the last Afd. The article needs a make-over but it could actually be useful if worked on. A redirect as suggested wouldn't be appropriate as British Isles ≠ Britain. Bill Reid | Talk 10:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. At this point I notified everyone who took part in the first AfD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Sign, then drive. I mean, Merge, then delete. Bearian (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If I were an admin I would close this per WP:SNOW...--Camaeron (t/c) 12:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: "Merge then delete" isn't an option: it would amount to a GFDL violation. If you merge, the source page has to be kept in order to preserve its edit history. There are work-arounds (such as a protected redirect or a move out of article space). However in a normal case like this one a regular merge is fine. That would leave this article as a redirect to one of the others. AndyJones (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm a bit amazed to see anyone trying to invoke WP:SNOW on a good-looking article that's previously survived an AfD and already has several keep votes and favourable comments. Be that as it may, I'd support a keep or a merge to the other three articles. Has anyone from the relevant project, or anyone who has worked on this page, come along to comment, yet? I'd like someone who knows the topic better than me to comment on whether all the potentially useful information here has already been merged into the other lists. AndyJones (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: By several keep votes you mean just the one do you? I dont know how this page survived its first Afd! Nobody (yet) has given a proper answer as to why it should be kept in its current form! I have edited English, Scottish, and British Monarchs articles and even created the article about the Irish ones. However I have never edited the article that is nominated for deletion as info that could be added there is already at the other previously mentioned pages...--Camaeron (t/c) 13:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Was counting Angus as a Keep, FWIW. AndyJones (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• List of Irish monarchs is largely a duplicate of List of English monarchs (a cut and paste to the point of listing two English rulers who were apparently never Lord of Ireland) and List of Lords of Ireland and List of British monarchs. Were I to act as you did, I'd have nominated it for deletion, beginning with the phrase "This article doesn't cover any material that isnt already covered on ...". Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 14:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - can be improved, but don't throw baby out with bathwater. Deb (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user was notified about the Rfa --Camaeron (t/c) 18:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I understand the reasons for deletion, but I think the list of all monarchs should be kept. PeterSymonds | talk 19:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Deb and the baby's bathwater. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a disambiguation page only. This has not got any better since the last AfD. I think it has a useful purpose but only as a disambiguation page to all the other articles on monarchs in the British Isles as suggested on the talk page as indicated above by Angus McLellan. --Bduke (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user was notified about the Rfa --Camaeron (t/c) 18:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. This is a different list to the List of British monarchs which only covers monarchs since the passage of the Act of Union in 1707. It might be worthwhile to merge the lists but that can be done after discussion on talk pages than here. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user was notified about the Rfa --Camaeron (t/c) 18:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The list itself is fine. Only the text before the list requires some attention and clean-up. There is no need to delete this article--it just needs a handful of dedicated editors. Caponer (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user was notified about the Rfa --Camaeron (t/c) 18:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has great potential. --Sharkface217 03:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What's the betting that a bunch of people who have never worked on these articles will tip the initial overwhelming consensus to delete in favour of keep - so long as radical work is done on it - and then somehow that radical work never actually gets done? TharkunColl (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, the problem here is that we're having this discussion in the wrong forum. AfD exists to deal with articles which somehow abuse the encyclopedia, and it exists for establishing, by discussion, where the boundaries are of what material Wikipedia covers. If you put up an article like this one which is squarely within the boundaries of "encyclopedic", which is comparatively mature, well-thought-out, superficially accurate and enlightening, and with a long history of edits dating back to June 2002, it is hardly surprising that most drive-by editors will see this as a very, very obvious no-brainer keep. Whatever the shortcomings of this article (light sourcing seems to be its main one) I can quite literally show you a million which are worse, just by teaching you how to use the Random Article button. (Also, FWIW, I don't thing any of the keep voters above have voted conditional keep - wikipedia is a work in progress, after all.) What actually happened here seems to be that a small group of editors who work on British history stuff had a brief discussion (which can be seen here). It produced a local consensus that the article was less useful than the other three articles and should perhaps be merged there. Then here's where it went wrong. You could all have taken Camaeron's point seriously: "All the information here could be merged (if it hasnt already been) to the respective pages", which would have led to a considered process of checking the articles against each other over the course of a few days, moving any valuable information to the merge targets, fact-checking them and adding their sources along the way. Then, a discussion would have proceeded on whether the existing page should become a DAB or a redirect, that discussion would have reached a consensus too, and it would have been fixed. The whole thing could have happened fairly quietly and be done by a few hard-working editors with an enthusiasm for the subject. The question of a possible GFDL violation wouldn't arise because no deletion would have occurred. Unfortunately, that's not what happened. Instead, out of misplaced enthusiasm, the matter got brought here to AfD, where - unsurprisingly - the case you considered so overwhelming for deletion didn't strike the community the same way. The AfD opened on the same day as the discussion, and when other options were only beginning to be considered at the atricle's talk page. Of course this is now going to close as no-consensus: where else can it go? The good news, however, is that once this has closed, all the editorial options that were open to the page's editors before this discussion still are: and clearly an editorial solution to the problem will get found. AndyJones (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We come to this stage very often because many editors are just too uninterested in putting the research in to improve articles. We are often very keen on voting 'keep' as long as someone else does the work. And of course the article continues in its dilapidated state because we continue to ignore its flaws. For myself I favour deletion because this particular article replicates list than can be found on their own in other places and where a reader is more likely to search. As a stand alone I will admit it is an interesting overview but I don't know that it justifies itself because of that. We might also note that because these sorts of lists attract a lot of discussion, the talk page for this list will be largely a replication of talk pages on the lists for the separate British monarchs. But I do not like deletion without an interesting fight! And so far all we have heard is basically : 'keep, refer to last Afd'. Come on guys!--Gazzster (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Gazzster. --Camaeron (t/c) 12:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that this article undermines Wikipedia quite badly. Because it's quite old, it has a very large number of links to it from other pages, but someone following such a link looking for a simple, straightforward and infomative list will be sorely disappointed. After wading through loads of introductary and largely irrelevant verbiage, he finally comes to a list that hasn't been updated in any meaningful sense in years, because its eccentric formatting prevents anything but minor changes. A redirect to List of British monarchs would solve all this, because not only is it clear and straightforward, but it also has dablinks at the top to the relevant English and Scottish lists. It also presents portraits and biographical details, something else impossible on this one. And finally, the title of this one is just plain absurd. TharkunColl (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Why do you think the title's absurd, mate?--Gazzster (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not a "list of monarchs in the British isles". It only includes the kingdoms of England and Scotland (and Ireland only where identical to England). No other monarchs of any other historical kingdoms are listed. Indeed, this would be impossible - hence the absurdity of the title. TharkunColl (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Gotcha. Yeah, it should include a list of Lords of the Isles, Kings of Mann, Grand Poobahs of Warzoan-on-Bogg, etc.--Gazzster (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not intended to be a "list of monarchs in the British isles". Its original title was "List of British monarchs". So it only includes monarchs of mainland Britain. It should never have been moved to its current misleading title. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge per my various comments above. AndyJones (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Gazzster - the title is absurd. Very unencyclopedic. The British Isles is a geographical term, while monarchies are political. Let's not mix the two, or it will only add to the confusion. Bardcom (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bardcom. Ireland, Scotland and England, and following the Acts of Union, the United Kingdom, have had monarchs. A group of islands doesn't. The existing articles listed by the nominator cover the subjects perfectly well. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom, or merge if no-one disagrees, otherwise list at "controversial merges" page. special, random,Merkinsmum 18:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as for norm.--Padraig (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Any administrator closing this would do well to look at the article histories with the order in which they were created firmly in mind, so that it is clear which is a fork of which.

• List of monarchs in the British Isles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- created 2002-06-20 (or earlier?)
• List of English monarchs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- created 2002-12-23
• List of Scottish monarchs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- created 2004-10-08
• List of British monarchs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- created 2007-09-20
• List of Irish monarchs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- created 2008-03-19

• Interesting, no? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The List of monarchs in the British Isles page may have the same data that other pages already contain but it is a different packaging of that data, therefore it should remain with some minor editing to be undertaken. I concur with the editor above who referred to this AfD nomination as "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." Let's allow it to remain and make it a featured list in the process. --Jhohenzollern (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A closing admin should also take note that the primary argument for keeping the article British Isles is the fact that it is upheld as a geographic article, and that the term British does not denote ownership (contested). It is stressed that British Isles is not a political term. If this article remains as is, it will lend a lot of weight to the opinion that the article British Isles should be radically overhauled to reflect the fact that the term, while intended to be geographical, is in fact political, and therefore factually incorrect. Bardcom (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article should be judged on its content and usefulness (existing or potential). To recommend the deletion of an article on the basis of its name would be wrong. This article name could be re-directed to some other name, say List of monarchs of Britain and Ireland. Bill Reid | Talk 16:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which would be pretty ridiculous - why not have an article about two other random countries also, say List of monarchs in Belgium and Sweden? Britain and Ireland are seperate countries - the point is that mixing geography and politics is not a good idea, especially when there are already articles in place with the appropriate content. You ask that the article should be judged on it's content and usefulness. That is also my point - why duplicate content using a contentious term? No content will be lost. Bardcom (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do Belgium and Sweden together form a distinct geographical and cultural region with a long shared history? Have they had the same monarch for over 800 years? No. Remember that this lists all previous states as well as current ones. TharkunColl (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Britain" isn't a country; it's an island. There has never (outside mythology) been a country called "Britain"; perhaps you're thinking of the United Kingdom (etc.)? As for mixing geography and politics, what's your opinion on articles such as Geography of Sweden? EdC (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title List of monarchs in the British Isles was not the original title of the article, and was apparently chosen in a misguided attempt to be all-inclusive. It has gone through many, many changes of title - another sure indication of its cobbled together nature. I would first favour deletion. If that doesn't happen, I would favour redirect to List of British monarchs. If not that, how about turning it into a simple disambiguation page, like this User:TharkunColl/Sandbox (it's probably not complete, by the way, as I'm sure there are some lists I haven't found yet). TharkunColl (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your sandbox suggestion isn't a bad idea and does what Angus Maclellan said above. I could go with that. Bill Reid | Talk 17:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I oppose merging this article with List of British monarchs. Why? The English monarchs & Scottish monarchs correctly end in 1707. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So do I! I was talking about his sandbox suggestion (without the British Isles bit which will never grow wings, but perhaps with Britain and Ireland as a substitute) nothing more. Read what I said. Bill Reid | Talk 19:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Bill. I was responding to Tharky's idea; I know you oppose merging. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete . "List of Monarchs of the British Islands" would be an acceptable alternative since the British Islands have a status in law. --Red King (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment That would be wholly wrong, because it also contains references to historical states, including the Irish ones. TharkunColl (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Question: I don't understand: Red King are you advocating deletion of the article because its name is wrong? AndyJones (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ResponseYes, the current title is erroneous and therefore destroys the basis of the article. It's a "when did you stop beating your wife" title - the basic premise is false so everything that follows from it is unfounded. [I withdraw my suggested compromise - as TkC observes, "British Islands" is a modern term so can't be used retroactively. --Red King (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The term B Isles did not exist for most of the period covered here. This is WP:Synthesis. As per Arbcom rulings. Sarah777 (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? Sorry, I don't understand this vote at all. Have ArbCom ruled that the British Isles doesn't exist? If so ArbCom needs to get a grip ;-) Can you explain your point a bit more clearly? AndyJones (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arbcom have ruled that using terms to refer to events that were not used at the time of those events is WP:Synthesis. The term "British Isles" was not in use before 1700 or some such date. Therefore to refer to events in, say 1600, as having occured in the "British Isles" is, per Arbcom, WP:Synthesis. Sarah777 (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, assuming you have reported that correctly, and even though it's not remotely relevant to this discussion I'm going to say this anyway. ArbCom's view is bunk. No-one used the term Paleolithic in the Paleolithic era, yet we have an article on that. History of North America does not start at the date when the term North America was coined, and it would be stupid if it did. The number of articles I could cite that would be rendered ridiculous by this bizarre ruling is huge. AndyJones (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry. Arbcom may be bunk but it's the Law around here. Applying terms that were not in use in times past to events in times past is WP:Synthesis. Sarah777 (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it isn't. If a rule is that stupid, we ignore it. WP:IAR is policy: it's above ArbCom ;-) AndyJones (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hmmm. Sadly an Arbcom ruling is even more above the law than that. You may ignore all rules, but not all Arbcom rulings. Sarah777 (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sarah's characterisation of the situation is bunk, I'm afraid. North America contains a history of the area from long before it was ever called that. TharkunColl (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • • Not too hot at analogies are you? In 1600 things happened in North America but not in the United States. Either way, the Arbcom ruling renders this discussion redundant. Sarah777 (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, clearly the rule as it's been presented here would be absurd to the point of being inconsistent with writing an encyclopedia, which is the core aim of this project, and it therefore could, should and would be ignored. However, is there any meat to this point? Does anyone know which case we are talking about, and can link to what ArbCom actually said? I have trouble accepting that their ruling actually covered my reductio ad absurdum examples above, but it might be helpful to know whether it might impact on this AfD. AndyJones (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Comment Sarah777's spurious argument relates to an Arbcom ruling on the Great Irish Famine article, where she had been attempting to insert PoV claims of genocide by the British against the Irish. Ruling here. This obviously has no application to this case. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • • Sorry guys; nothing "spurious" about consistency. Arbcom ruled on the nature of WP:Synthesis. This is clearly exactly what they were talking about. Events pre-1700 cannot be referred to as having occured in the "British" Isles. Period. Sarah777 (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article is deleted, we would then have to create a new one with the same name simply as a redirect to List of British monarchs, because there are lots of links to it [1]. Still, that's easy enough. Either that or just make it a redirect without deleting. Either is fine. TharkunColl (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title does not match the content, as Tharky has said before. If the article is to be redeemed, lists of monarchs of all the states that have existed in the British Isles would need to be added. Unless anyone is going to put up their hand to do that (which I doubt, since it has survived an Afd unchanged) it should be deleted. At present it repeats lists at other articles. So far no-one has explained why this repetition is useful. I can understand there may be some ownership issues here, but seriously, we need to slash and burn, slash and burn. I wouoldn't even have a redirect here.--Gazzster (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the above comment that the title simply does not match the content. Aatomic1 (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I gave my !vote above, but I am really puzzled why the suggestion, that I supported above, for making this a disambiguation page has not been supported. We even now have an example of how it might look here, although I think putting the Isle of Man under Scotland is not correct. This suggestion has received some small support but nobody has said what is wrong with it. This article was the oldest of now many articles. It has effectively outgrown itself and should be just a disambiguation page. --Bduke (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know why others haven't supported it. But for myself, I see that the article doesn't do what it purports to. So even as a disambiguation page it is pretty useless, I'm afraid.--Gazzster (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why, there are lost of different lists for monarchies in the British Isles. A general disambiguation page may be useful and does no harm. Why delete a long history when it can be left with the disambiguation page. Deletion get rid of a lot of contributions with no record, when they could be preserved. --Bduke (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The title of the article may need to be refactored but I believe the list holds encyclopedic value. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain that last point.--Gazzster (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems perfectly clear to me. Bill Reid | Talk 07:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Hi jarbarf, have you any suggestions for the title? If you keep the article, are you also suggesting that information is duplicated between this article and the other individual articles? Bardcom (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is and clean up. -- Secisek (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for all those who are voting "keep and clean up". Will you be doing the cleaning up? Because that's exactly what people voted for last time, and yet nothing happened. I seriously doubt that any of the editors who regularly work on British monarchy lists will want to or be able to do it, because the formatting doesn't allow any substantive change without messing up the entire list. So even if we got rid of all that useless pedantry at the beginning, the basic list would remain unchanged in its current untidy and confusing state, complete with the same POV and OR it has been burdened with ever since someone had the bright idea of nicking it from the French Wikipedia in the first place. TharkunColl (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and fix any content problems. Article is useful for a huge range of purposes. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to fix them? TharkunColl (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can try to. I would envisage a large dab-type list page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, just like the one I suggested above and created here User:TharkunColl/Sandbox (though it's probably not complete yet)? TharkunColl (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, something like that, though I personally would prefer something more chronologically orientated. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As probably everyone has noticed, Angus's idea was nicked by TC. -Bill Reid | Talk 18:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, though possibly rename. I appreciate that a lot of hard work has gone into this list, and had expected to say "nonethless delete" ... but I have chnaged my mind after studying this and the other lists. There are two things I like about this list: a) the dab list of monarchies at the top, and b) the side-by-side timeline of the two monarchies before 1603, which so far as I am aware does not exist anywhere else on wikipedia. That parallel list is nicely presented and I found it surprisingly interesting, and it clearly serves an encyclopedic purpose.
  However, the content doesn't reflect the name: the list-of-other-monarchies at the top describes the size of the gap, and the main problem of this list is the gap between content and name. I suggest a discussion on the list's talk page to try to find a more appropriate name .. but even if an alternative name cannot be agreed, I would not want the list deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • It will of course have to be speedily deleted after this Afd (or earlier if this isn't resolved in 16 hours) as it is in breach of an Arbcom ruling. Regardless of what transpires on this page - unless the name is changed. Sarah777 (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Which of the speedy criteria would that be under? Just so we are clear? --Bduke (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article in toto is in breach of an Arbcom ruling. This is a WP:SNOW job, in all honesty. Not a single counter-argument yet after 9 hours. Sarah777 (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, as you know, I am only a humble urban peasant, a refugee from a Viking city pillaged by tower-cranes, so I'm a bit slow on the uptake. To help me out, please can you provide a precise link to the arbcom ruling in question, so that I can read the ruling for myself? I hope that if I see what arbcom said, I might understand more clearly how the ruling has such far-reaching effect. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah has gone to rest her weary head, I assume. However, perhaps I can help. The remedy Sarah is referring to is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Sarah777 engaged in original research. The inference being that because the description as the famine as a "genocide" was dismissed as WP:SYN during the RfAR, thus anything that uses retrospective descriptive language must be an example of WP:SYN and not permitted according to that ArbCom ruling. Since the "British Isles" was not so described during the period that some of the listed monarchs were ruling, in Sarah's opinion it falls under that ruling. QED. My personal suggestion is that, before anyone attempts to use this as a precedent, they bring it up at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Clarifications and other requests to ensure they are interpreting the remedy correctly. Rockpocket 04:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: per Deacon and BrownHairedGirl. --Jza84 |  Talk  03:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Bhg, Angus McC and others. However the article should include links near the top to the more detailed British/Scottish/Irish lists, which I don't think it does at present. Ideally the side by side timeline will be extended backwards. It is odd the nominator does not see how much the Irish monarch list he has created would benefit from similar treatment. Johnbod (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC) (brought here by seeing a comment by Sarah777, before you ask)[reply]
• Keep - having come fresh to this debate a short time ago, and going simply by [WP:N] and common sense - it should stay. Useful to present this information in this format. Caveat about references noted, and I appreciate that it is tedious to put them in, however they should be given. Springnuts (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Rename Following the example of BrownHairedGirl, I've reexamined the article and I also see value in the side-by-side table comparing timelines of Scottish and English monarchs over time. Some refactoring may be needed on the article as a whole. I've started another discussion on Title renaming. Bardcom (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other discussion now started on the articles talk page. Bardcom (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and make into a disambiguation page; either something like TharkunColl's version or, as the Deacon suggested, a chronological version. (Which approach to use can be left to the article talk page.) I think the primary value is as a disambiguation page to point the reader to the other lists; there would be too much duplication if the actual content of the lists mentioned were to be repeated here. The value of having a "British Isles" version of the list is because historical kingdoms spanned several of these boundaries. I don't see a synthesis problem with the name because it is natural for an article about the history of a geographic entity such as the British Isles to use the most common current form of the name. (It might be different if the article only covered a historical period in which the term "British Isles" was not in use.) Mike Christie (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with appropriate changes to reduce duplication while preserving the value of a comparative timeline. There's nothing wrong with having a political article with a geographical scope that today doesn't constitute a political unit; to argue otherwise is presentism. Anyway, all history is geography, especially that of the region under consideration. EdC (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC) (note: I was notified, but was watching the page already, as my edit history will bear out.)[reply]

• Keep in order to prevent violation of the GFDL: this is the original Wikipedia article on rulers of different parts of Britain. If it were to be deleted then we would lose the history of material which has since been duplicated in more recent articles such as List of British monarchs, List of English monarchs and List of Scottish monarchs. We are obligated to keep that history under the GFDL. The original title of this article was List of British monarchs. It should be moved back to that title and non-duplicate information from the more recent article "List of British monarchs" should be merged back into it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Henry II, James V, Charles II (for example), were not British monarchs. Up until 1707, it was Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was Charles a European monarch? Yes, he was because the Kingdom of England was situated in Europe. Was Charles a Scandinavian monarch? No, he wasn't because neither the Kingdom of England nor the Kingdom of Scotland was situated in Scandinavia. Was Charles a British monarch ? Yes, he was because the Kingdom of England was situated on the island of Britain. In fact the Kingdom of Scotland was also situated on the island of Britain, so he was the monarch of two British countries. Thus there are two good reasons why he should appear on a list of British monarchs. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we take every monarch that ever lived & put them in an article called List of Earth monarchs? Charles was never King of Europe (no such position) nor King of Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to produce such a list, feel free. After all we have a list of all the countries on Earth, which is not that different in concept. However I probably won't be contributing to it, so I'll leave it to you. I am glad that you understand that Charles was never King of Great Britain. I hope that means that you understand that "European king" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "King of Europe"; that "British king" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "King of Great Britain"; and even that "American president" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "President of the Americas". -- Derek Ross | Talk

My point is, we've already got an article called List of British monarchs, which correctly omits Monarchs of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is a very fine list of "Monarchs of the United Kingdom". Perhaps it should be renamed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had (a half-hour earlier) proposed changing it to List of Monarchs of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, but then I pulled-back. Why? cause we would then need to propose those other articles be changed to List of Monarchs of England, List of Monarchs of Scotland, List of Monarchs of Ireland & List of Monarchs of Wales, which the article List of Scottish monarchs have & would again reject. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that historians never use the phrase "United Kingdom" to refer to Great Britain 1707-1801 - even though the people at the time did, including the Acts of Union. TharkunColl (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy move[edit]

I have archived this section for the following reasons. Speedy moving a page on the basis an interpretation of ArbCom comments regarding a completely different subject is generally inadvisable. Doing so during an active and robust AfD discussion is not going to fly. The closing admin will, I'm sure, take this proposal under due consideration at the end of the discussion, but lets wait until then.

Secondly, the discussion has turned tangential at least and has begun to get personal. They may not be personal attacks, per se, but denigrating countries, states, nations or peoples, or their politics or histories, is not conductive to a civil discussion. Lets keep this polite and on topic. Rockpocket 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom comments regarding a completely different subject - hardly. The Arbcom ruling I an citing refers to the subject of WP:Synthesis. Or are you saying they regard WP:Synthesis as OK on some cases? Sarah777 (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that the middle of an AfD is not the time nor place to unilaterally invoke a tangential ArbCom remedy under threat of a ticking clock. To those people who put time into this article, process is important. Let the AfD run its course, then if needed, debate the implication of that ArbCom decision on the title. Rockpocket 02:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. The move, though well-intentioned, I'm sure, could be interpreted as attempting to close the discussion and declare consensus. The debate was still going on yesterday and showed no sign of finishing.--Gazzster (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. In this case I'll defer to your greater wisdom, not least because I don't appear to have any other option. Clock is stopped. But I really think that we can't just keep dismissing the Arbcom ruling on the nature of WP:Synthesis on the basis that "it applies here and here but not there and there" in an arbitrary manner. (For example the same Arbcom WP:Synthesis reasoning is also a fundamental rule in the "List of Massacres" article). It appears to apply only in a way that facilitates suppression of "non-Anglo" value judgments and is ignored as "nothing to do with" any article where it might frustrate Anglo-pov. This is simply not acceptable. Sarah777 (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you ask ArbCom to clarify what they meant. As others pointed out, their "ruling" cannot be broadly applied to its logical conclusion, or else we could not refer to anything that existed before language. There has to be some context. I have no idea what that is (by itself, the comment from ArbCom itself seems rather bizarre to me), but surely the correct process would be to find out from the horses mouth, rather that attempt to interpret it piecemeal. Rockpocket 02:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read WP:Synthesis. I don't see how it applies here. If we interpret Sarah's point as strictly as that user seems to, we could not have any articles on dinosaurs, Neolithic humans, Homo erectus or Classical Architecture. All of which, in any case, detracts from the pertinent reason for debating the existence of this article:does it serve any useful purpose? --Gazzster (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gazz, I was gonna say those things. Indeed the pre-historic articles wouldn't exist, as there was no known language spoken. PS- the cavemen probably used a few 'grunt' & 'growls', though. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well if we're going to play "who said it first?" then I did. See my paleolithic comment above!  ;-) AndyJones (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah hah!, so you have. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Douze points - you are all correct in this case - the Arbcom ruling was nonsense concocted to deal with a desire to prevent use of the term "genocide" in relation to the Irish Famine and if applied consistently would destroy Wiki! Still didn't stop them using it to build some sanctions. But unless they change it I'll have to keep it in mind and apply as I see fit - surely it is up to Arbcom to change it? Either that or we can ignore it on the grounds that it is crazy - in which case I'll revisit the Famine article and refer to you guys in support. Sarah777 (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take care please, you may want to reread Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The post above weakens your case . -- Secisek (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read them. Not relevant here. All they say is that the rules are sacrosanct and breach of the rules will lead to blocks and bans unless the Wiki-establishment/majority finds the rules don't suit in which case anyone trying to apply the rules consistently may be persecuted. You should give those essays the finger too. My case is watertight - though the Judiciary may well be corrupt. Sarah777 (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it amazing how often phrases like "take care", "warning", "be careful" crop up in free and friendly debate in the Wiki...eh..."community"?! Sarah777 (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the other two members of the court - so, more like the Special Criminal Court than a Diplock Court? - but I'm at least as incorruptible as a British journalist. Does that make you feel better? Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jumper Bumpers: Can we please wait until the AfD has run its course. On behalf of humanity, let's wait (PS- Am I overdoing it?). GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are waiting - the clock was stopped last night. Yes Angus, of course it does - as does that British sense of "fair play" and "love of the underdog" and whatever other stuff they feed the kids! Sarah777 (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.