Wikipedia:Peer review/Monarchies in the European Union/archive1
Monarchies in the European Union[edit]
I'd like to make this a FA, but I'm unsure as to what exactly I should add. Former monarchies would be too complicated and unscientific, as there'd be no specific grounds on which to exclude monarchies which controlled only part of the territory of today's states. I've been thinking about including a section about the actual political powers of the monarchs in the respective states, but apart from that, I'd need suggestions. Ideas, anyone? Thanks in advance! —Nightstallion (?) 15:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Is the bit on support for the monarchy in the British Commonwelth really relevent in an article on the Monachies of the European Union, since these counties aren't part of the E.U.? Also I think the Current Monachies section would look a lot neater if there were proper headings for each nation rather than just bolded names in the text. Links to main articles here e.g.:British_monarchywould be helpful --Greeny 01:19, 04 July 2006
- Well, I thought it would be relevant as the Commonwealth Realms are all in personal union, sharing a head of state and all that... And I had been thinking about sub-sectionising it, but that would make for very short sections, wouldn't it? —Nightstallion (?) 05:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- The Roman numerals seem a bit funny; most articles don't seem to use them. Nevertheless, if kept, Benedictus XVI and Carl XVI Gustaf should be fixed. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- While I would have preferred using the Roman numerals for stylistic reasons, the fact that they don't seem to work for many people and the fact that they don't exist for XVI has made me give in, I've changed it. ;) Any other suggestions? —Nightstallion (?) 11:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- The manual of style recommends not using superscript for ordinals (20th not 20th for example). Other than that, the list seems very good. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 14:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Mh. But isn't it technically *wrong* not to use superscript ordinals? I'm no native English speaker, but I learned it that way... —Nightstallion (?) 16:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. The only guide here is usage, which varies; English has no Academy. To my eye, and I am a English-speaking pedant, superscripts are slightly archaic. Septentrionalis 16:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Mh. But isn't it technically *wrong* not to use superscript ordinals? I'm no native English speaker, but I learned it that way... —Nightstallion (?) 16:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- The manual of style recommends not using superscript for ordinals (20th not 20th for example). Other than that, the list seems very good. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 14:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- While I would have preferred using the Roman numerals for stylistic reasons, the fact that they don't seem to work for many people and the fact that they don't exist for XVI has made me give in, I've changed it. ;) Any other suggestions? —Nightstallion (?) 11:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)