Talk:Letters Patent, 1947

Is this a problem?

Two longstanding and active editors who have both contributed much to a range of articles, are now at odds over recent edits about links. It looks pretty obvious to me that the links as revised by Surt. are an improvement, hardly worthy of discussion.[1] Can we let that be and move on? See also 'Should it be "Queen Elizabeth II" or "Queen Elizabeth II"?[2] Pipe of peace?[3] Qexigator (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Mies.'s explanation there sufficiently explains (to my mind) the unpiped version, with the title and name thus: "Queen Elizabeth II". So, back to status quo ante. Qexigator (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to add your opinion there, whatever it may be. I'm fairly convinced it's going to take the participation of more editors than just Surtsicna and I to resolve this; neither of us is going to convert the other. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I may have been foolish to comment here, but I am reluctant to join in there, where old hands are ding-donging WPs. The question whether to use "King/Queen" depends on context (seen from the reader's point of view) but whether to blue or not is another thing. Qexigator (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Nothing foolish about expressing your opinion, Qexigator. It may be foolish not to.

I'm sure you would prefer "Queen Anne" to "Queen Anne", and "King George VI and Queen Elizabeth" to "King George VI and Queen Elizabeth" (as in this instance). "queen Victoria" and "Queen Victoria" read the same, but one is preferred over the other; the fact that "other stuff exists" and "it reads the same" does not entitle anyone to revert improvements made by users who care about such things. Surtsicna (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, it may seem to look better to blue up, but if that requires piping, better not. New readers will soon enough catch on, that normally the blue bit is the name of the article. But where that doesn't work, a pipe may be unavoidable. It's a matter of adapting to the context, and I'm hoping the status quo post can be graciously dropped. What is really, really bad in my book (regardless of any WP permitting or any "other stuff") is using a pipe link which hides the name of the linked article (say, to ease the flow or save a few words), so that the reader cannot see it on the face of the article, and it does not respond to the search function. Qexigator (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Some big WP:OR and WP:Primary issues here

A lot of the second paragraph under the "misconceptions" section, from the third sentence and onwards runs afoul of WP:OR and WP:Primary, among other citation issues. I'm not going to remove it for now out of the hope some secondary sources can be found to salvage it. Some issues I want to note:

• The statement, "nearly all references to the Queen were removed from the Governor General's website, citing the 1947 Letters Patent as 'transferring all the duties of Head of State of Canada to the Governor General' ", only being supported by an archive of the GG's website under Jean

• Statement saying "This opinion seems to have surfaced under former Governor General Adrienne Clarkson" and only citing the memoir as a source.

• The Globe op-ed cited also doesn't support the link drawn by this article that Clarkson's misunderstanding was connected to Jean's statement that she was the head of state

CASalt (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

On second though, neither of these sentences about Clarkson and Jean are integral to the article, it's probably better if they are just removed. Other parts of the article also rely on primary sources, but they are buttressed by secondary sources, and it's arguable that the secondary sources support these statements so I'll just leave those parts alone. CASalt (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)