![]() | A fact from Monarchies in Oceania appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 3 January 2009, and was viewed approximately 13,000 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The only way I can see to make sense out of this is to take Oceania to be a "continent". That is an altogether new idea to me and I suspect to most readers.
The article titled continents begins thus:
and it cites the Encyclopedia Britannica in support of that statement.
If an unconventional definition is relied upon, it should be explained. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
OK... Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The image File:Queen Elizabeth II of New Zealand.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 08:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see why federal territories of Australia should be listed separate to the main entry. Why do they not simply just fall under Australia? The territories are not federated, but they are overseen by the Australian federal government. All of which is irrelevant anyway since the Monarchy refers to a single dominion or realm---they don't fall under a separate representative (Governor-General), so why are they listed separately???
The Pitcairn Islands is there because it's under the dominion of the British Monarch, and is the only territory under the British Crown that is located in Oceania. Since the bulk of the Queen of Australia's territory is in Oceania, you would list it all under "Australia". If you go to the Monarchies in Europe page, you'll see that no, Gibraltar and the Faroes are not listed in the table. Night w ( talk) 08:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The points given are valid, since territories (internal or external) should not be listed separately since they fall under the governance of the respective realm within the Oceania area. Pitcairn would be the only legit one to be there and as stated before, the Cook Islands & Niue are not 'dependencies' but are associated states. I'll do the adjustments accordingly. That-Vela-Fella ( talk) 09:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I made a change to the Succession column in the table. I think the first word in any entry under that column should specify the basics——that is, whether the monarchy is elective or hereditary. In addition, none of the Commonwealth realms to my knowledge have a law specifying primogeniture; instead, they simply maintain that whoever holds the British Crown shall also (by virtue of holding that office) hold their individual Crowns also. Does anybody have any issues or notes on this change? Night w ( talk) 13:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Should the subnational Wallis and Futuna monarchies be mentioned too? Alinor ( talk) 09:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Monarchies in Oceania appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 3 January 2009, and was viewed approximately 13,000 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The only way I can see to make sense out of this is to take Oceania to be a "continent". That is an altogether new idea to me and I suspect to most readers.
The article titled continents begins thus:
and it cites the Encyclopedia Britannica in support of that statement.
If an unconventional definition is relied upon, it should be explained. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
OK... Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The image File:Queen Elizabeth II of New Zealand.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 08:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see why federal territories of Australia should be listed separate to the main entry. Why do they not simply just fall under Australia? The territories are not federated, but they are overseen by the Australian federal government. All of which is irrelevant anyway since the Monarchy refers to a single dominion or realm---they don't fall under a separate representative (Governor-General), so why are they listed separately???
The Pitcairn Islands is there because it's under the dominion of the British Monarch, and is the only territory under the British Crown that is located in Oceania. Since the bulk of the Queen of Australia's territory is in Oceania, you would list it all under "Australia". If you go to the Monarchies in Europe page, you'll see that no, Gibraltar and the Faroes are not listed in the table. Night w ( talk) 08:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The points given are valid, since territories (internal or external) should not be listed separately since they fall under the governance of the respective realm within the Oceania area. Pitcairn would be the only legit one to be there and as stated before, the Cook Islands & Niue are not 'dependencies' but are associated states. I'll do the adjustments accordingly. That-Vela-Fella ( talk) 09:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I made a change to the Succession column in the table. I think the first word in any entry under that column should specify the basics——that is, whether the monarchy is elective or hereditary. In addition, none of the Commonwealth realms to my knowledge have a law specifying primogeniture; instead, they simply maintain that whoever holds the British Crown shall also (by virtue of holding that office) hold their individual Crowns also. Does anybody have any issues or notes on this change? Night w ( talk) 13:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Should the subnational Wallis and Futuna monarchies be mentioned too? Alinor ( talk) 09:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)