Talk:Official residence

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Scope of this article

Should this article contain 1) former official residences and 2) guesthouses? --Ji ang 05:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The white house

How does the white house compare to other offical residence!

Canadian provincial premiers

Is there a list somewhere of Canadian provincial premiers' residences? Wl219 11:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

There seems to be an issue regarding royal use of certain buildings. I've relegated the royal use of some of the residences to 2nd, behind vice-regal use, as the vice-regals do occupy the houses much more than any royal. However, if Hillsborough Castle cam be listed here as a royal residence, then there's no reason why any of the Canadian ones should not be. The Queen and all other members of the Royal Family reside in these buildings when they are in Canada or the relevant province.

This also seems to be an extention of the discussion at Rideau Hall. I imagine whatever is resolved there can then be similarly applied here. --G2bambino 19:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The solution at Rideau Hall, should be applied at this article (it covers the grey area). GoodDay 23:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real without hacked AL-shiekhMikaeL63 (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That I hope in this future on 2023 AL-shiekhMikaeL63 (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Residences in Australia

The wording "and royal" is incorrect. No royal persons reside in government houses in Australia. The government houses are owned by the various governments, for the use of the various vice-regal office holders. Members of the Royal Family often stay at theses houses during their visits to Australia, but it is misleading to call them "royal residences". --Michael Johnson 21:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No royal persons reside in government houses contradicts Members of the Royal Family often stay at theses houses. As these houses are a) owned by the crown, b) where the monarch's direct personal representative lives, and c) where the monarch and any other members of the royal family reside when in Australia, how can they definitively not be royal residences, abeit such a function coming secondary to the vice-regal one? --G2bambino 22:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No contradiction at all. I often stay with friends in Sydney, but I reside in Melbourne. Your conclusion that these are "royal residences" appears to be original research, and I invite you to provide an official source where these houses are referred to as "royal residences" --Michael Johnson 22:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but do you own your friend's house?

I have sources that describe the Canadian residence Rideau Hall as being the Governor General's and the Monarch's seat in Ottawa. Given the parallels between Canada and Australia - indeed, all the other Commonwealth Realms - it's not a huge leap to apply the distinction to the other residences elsewhere. In a completely technical sense this may constitute WP:OR, but I certainly don't see it as "novel narrative or historical interpretation," which is, of course, the definition of OR. I know that edits without footnoted sources, as long as they are grounded in what would be construed as obvious fact, are acceptable at Wikipedia; as we have three established facts in this case, I think the designation of the residences in the kingdoms of Australia, Canada, Belize, New Zealand, etc., as royal is neither unfounded nor misplaced. --G2bambino 22:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for admitting this is original research. However please don't try to undermine OR by referring to this as a "technical" breech, being technically correct is what an encyclopaedia is all about. What the entries are doing is provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms. The fact is the Monarch does not "reside" in Australia, therefore there are no "residences". I have no comment about Canada, as I do not feel qualified to comment. However I do note that while there are many parallels between Canada and Australia, there are also very many differences, beginning with the basic structure of the constitutions. Lastly regarding your comment regarding ownership the Queen does not own these houses. You are correct in claiming they are owned by The Crown, which as the Wikipedia article points out is a separation of the literal crown and property of the nation-state from the person and personal property of the monarch. In this case the nation-state maintains Government Houses as residences and workplaces for vice-regal persons, not for the Royal family. You of course are still welcome to provide a source that proves me wrong. --Michael Johnson 01:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the monarch resides in Australia when in Australia. A house owned by Elizabeth in a personal capacity wouldn't be considered an official residence. Houses owned by the Crown are owned by her as soverign. Buckingham Palace is owned by her as sovereign of the UK; are you going to argue it is therefore not one of her residences?

As I've said, cites aren't necessary for every iota of information placed in Wikipedia; but, if sources are to be so stringently needed to say the official residences of monarchies like Australia, Canada, and the like are royal residences, I certainly hope that extends to every building on this list. Somebody better dig up a source that affirms the White House is a presidential residence! --G2bambino 01:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a straw man argument. It is common knowledge that QEII resides at Buckingham Palace, that the US President resides at the White House, and Professor David de Kretser resides at Government House, Melbourne. And indeed sources are readily available for all of these statements. It is not common knowledge that QEII resides at Government House Melbourne. Moreover, there are no sources I can find that support that supposition. --Michael Johnson 01:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there's some mention of her staying in Government House last time she was in Victoria.

I also wonder: EIIR only spends a couple of weeks a year at Holyrood Palace. She's hardly ever at Hillsborough Castle at all. Yet, the status of both as royal residences is never in doubt. Thus, the amount of time the monarch spends in the building seems to matter little to the building's status as one of the monarch's, and thus royal, residences. --G2bambino 01:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. The length of time the monarch stays in a building has no effect on it's status. Hoolyrood Palace is maintained by the Crown as an official residence for the Monarch. Government House Melbourne is maintained by the Crown as an official residence for the Governor of Victoria. The house next to mine is maintained by the Crown as a residence for another of it's "servants". All these statements can be verified. If a member of the Royal Family was to stay next door, it would not turn it into a "royal residence". Various members of the Royal Family have spent time in the armed forces, resident at various military bases owned by the Crown. Those bases don't suddenly turn into "royal residences". They remain military bases. Please provide a source, or just drop it. --Michael Johnson 02:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source, or just drop it. Charming.

I never once stated that because a royal has stayed in a place it suddenly becomes a royal residence; talk about straw men. Of course, you know that Government House Melbourne is maintained by the Crown as a residence for the Monarch when the Monarch is in Victoria; just like Holyrood and Hillsborough, GH in Melbourne is where the Monacrh always stays when in the state. Not at a hotel, not at a barracks, not in a tent, she stayes at Government House because that's the residence maintained by the Crown for her when she's there, and for her governor in her absence.

But, I guess you'd better get busy on digging up sources; there are hundreds of buildings here that someone's purported to be the residence for this or that dignitary without a cite to back it up. Is Kadriorg Palace really the residence of the President of Estonia? --G2bambino 02:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to bring some closure to this. You have made a claim, and you were asked to provide a source to support it. Instead you continue to argue the toss. I think it fair, using the Australian colloquial, to ask you to either "put up or shut up". Back to your latest contribution. When the first Government House was constructed in Australia in 1788 the idea that George III would have taken up residency there would have been seen as absurd. No visit by a monarch to Australia was even proposed until after World War 2, and the first did not occur until the mid 1950's. So for the first 170 years of Government Houses existing in Australia, they were built and maintained solely to house vice-regal persons. The Monarch never came into consideration. It must also be pointed out that the Monarch is not unique in staying at Government Houses, this privilege is at least offered (and usually accepted) by any Head of State visiting an Australian capital city. Lastly to your latest straw man, I only edit or challenge edits where I either have personal knowledge or sources to back me up. If I suspected the entry regarding Kadriorg Palace had been placed there on a personal whim, I certainly would demand a source. And yes, ideally all edits to Wikipedia should be sources, although I admit this utopian state is not likely any time soon. --Michael Johnson 03:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose it is obvious that the idea of a Monarch being present in Australia at the end of the 18th cent. would have been considered quite implausible. However, other royals were present in the country prior to WWII, and resided at Gov't House(s) during their time there, as expected. Things have also developed since that time to a point where the monarch can journey to Australia far more easily, and thus is present, and residing in her Australian residences, more often. Ditto for her relations.

Per supposed straw men: expecting that stringent standards be applied equally is hardly a ruse; as is also said colloquially: what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Personally, I ascribe to the belief that if something is obviously correct - by logical conclusions drawn from information available - then there's little reason to exclude it. However, if each and every fact or assertion absolutely must be supported by a source, then that should apply to everything, not just one select section. I agree that we shouldn't hold our breath in wait for a footnoted utopia, but this is exactly why I believe in the former, above, as opposed to the latter.

Finally, having lived in Oz I suppose I should've remembered the Aussie propensity to be blunt. Not always a bad trait, but sometimes doesn't come across too well via text. --G2bambino 14:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, I don't mind it being described as a 'royal' residence. I guess the big 'stink' about it is - a lot of people in the Commonwealth realms 'inaccurately' view Elizabeth II as a foreigner (Britain's Queen), instead of (in this case) Australia's Queen. It continues to be a 'grey' area to many. GoodDay 23:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put GoodDay's comment to rest. I have no problems describing QEII as Queen of Australia. That is a red herring as far as this issue is concerned. And, sorry, but what you mind or don't mind doesn't really come into it. --Michael Johnson 01:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hear! Hear! It's a complete red herring, and no one has been arguing this on any such basis. -- Lonewolf BC 01:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, it was just opinon (nothing written in stone). Goodluck with the article folks. GoodDay 19:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monachist POV?

G2bambino (aka Gbambino, aka Gbambino06) has dug up a couple of authors who have made the "royal residence" claim in passing, while writing about something else, with respect to Rideau Hall, the official residence of the Canadian Governor General. These low-quality references are not enough to establish the claim as a fact, even for Rideau Hall. They establish that such a thing has been claimed. That is all. Official sources say no such thing. They say straightforwardly, at the outset, that Rideau Hall is the official residence of the Governor General, and one that I've seen mentions, well down into its text, that the Queen stays at Rideau Hall when she is in Ottawa. The lack of good sources for the supposed fact, and its lack of mention in official sources where one would expect to see it if it were true, are fairly good indications that Rideau Hall is not an official residence of the Queen, and that the claimed "fact" is an insignificant, hair-splitting detail if it is true at all. I can see mentioning the fact that such claims have been made, in the Rideau Hall article. Presenting the claim as a fact there is not on. Presenting it, or even mentioning it, everywhere Rideau Hall crops up in Wikipedia (e.g. this list) is silly. Extending the "fact" to other countries is right out; even if it were true for Canada, other countries might easily take a different line.
It is noteworthy that G. has been pushing this point-of-view for quite some time. Other editors have turned it back from the more prominent articles in the past. So he's been spreading it among less-watched articles, instead. As best as I can make out, he didn't even have any sources, to begin with, but has dug around until he came up with someone who had published the opinion that suited him -- those low-quality references. These days, one can find someone who has published darn near any opinion. That doesn't make the opinion a fact. -- Lonewolf BC 00:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references meet WP:RS; that is all that matters, not your personal opinion of them.

Just because a fact is little known does not make it untrue or unworthy of mention.

Rideau Hall being the residence of the Governor General is not, nor has ever been, in question. --G2bambino 01:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not reliable sources -- not with respect to this point. With respect to their actual subjects, perhaps.
I'm not saying that little-known facts are untrue. Quit with the straw men. I'm saying that this claim, being poorly sourced and having substantial counter-indications in the form of lack of mention where one would expect it to be mentioned if it were true, cannot rightly be treated as a fact.
Not only is the fact that RH is the official residence of the GG not in question, but there has been no question of its being in question. So why bring it up? -- Lonewolf BC 01:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources meet WP:RS. As such they can be used as sources for the information being inserted.

Other sources do not mention the same fact. Now, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying these sources matter more than the ones I have because you think they do, and because they don't mention the fact my sources do, the fact isn't true. Well, again, you are deciding what work is more valid than the others. I rather think that's your POV, and I also doubt that a website necessarily trumps published parliamentary journals or historical accounts written by official historians and achivists. Perhaps those who put together the websites you refer to don't know the royal role of Rideau Hall, or, maybe don't want it to be known. That doesn't mean what the sources I've provided say is wrong.

You brought up Rideau Hall being mentioned as the official residence of the Governor General, not I.

I have no problem with pointing out in the Rideau Hall article that Rideau Hall's status as the Monarch's residence in Ottawa (or, perhaps the more ambiguous term "seat") is a little mentioned point. But given the reliability of the sources, the point cannot be censored. --G2bambino 02:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they do not meet the requirements of "reliable source", because there is no sound basis to suppose that they are reliable with respect to the particular point at hand. In fact, given the apparent eccentricity of the view, as evidenced by the scarcity and nature of sources for it, there is good reason to think that those sources are not reliable in that particular regard. And yes, official government websites and standard reference works are more authorititive than in-passing (nearly parenthetical) remarks in a magazine article. Your "understanding" of me is so far off as to suggest willful sophistry. However, this discussion should move to Rideau Hall

On a side-point, although I brought up "GG's residence", I did not bring it up is such a way as to suggest that the fact of it was in question, which is what you were suggesting I did. Rather, I contrasted the straightforward and prominent mention of that fact in authoritative sources, on the one hand, with the lack of mention of "monarch's residence" in those authoritative sources, on the other hand -- with even a statement contradictory to "monarch's residence", in the official Rideau Hall website.

-- Lonewolf BC 19:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We go by WP:RS, not your personal opinions.

As per contradictions from the GG's website, there are none. The Queen stays at Rideau Hall when she visits Canada. If I owned a villa in Tuscany I would stay at it when visiting Italy; doesn't make the villa any less mine. --G2bambino 19:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question which you beg is whether these sources meet the requirements of "reliable source", in this particular. Your false analogy notwithstanding, the words in Hall's official website are inconsistent with the "monarch's official residence" thesis. However, these things should be mooted at the Hall's article. -- Lonewolf BC 02:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RH website says RH is where the Monarch stays when visiting Ottawa; my analogy points out that this information does not contradict the point that RH is the Monarch's residence in Ottawa. Evidently you can't debase this. And, actually, it just dawned on me that the RH website's words could be construed as affirming that RH is the Queen's official residence in Ottawa - RH is obviously and purposefully designated as the place she resides at when in the capital city.

As per WP:RS, there are no conditionals. WP:RS is simply a guideline that helps us judge whether or not a source is suitable for use as a basis for assertions made in Wikipedia. It asks that sources generally be: "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; [or] mainstream newspapers." Two of my three sources certainly fall within those requirements.

What this discussion boils down to, in relation to this list, is whether the fact that Rideau Hall is the Queen's Ottawa residence, where she officially stays when in that city, is relevant enough for mention. I argue as this list puts after each residence, in brackets, who the particular building is dedicated to serve, completely regardless of the amount of time said person resides there, then there's no reason not to state RH is the Queen's Ottawa residence. --G2bambino 21:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, can't this dispute wait, until the Rideau Hall dispute is settled? GoodDay 23:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're rather tied together, I think, but not identical. But, yes, you're right. I imagine that whatever happens at Rideau Hall will have effect here. --G2bambino 14:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean

User:Lonewolf BC changed the "North America" heading to "North America and Caribbean." This doesn't work on account of some Caribbean islands (namely Trinidad and Tobago) are part of the South American continent (and are listed here as such.) --G2bambino 23:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I changed the heading to "North America and Caribbean", the Caribbean countries were all in that section. As I said in the edit-summary, "Change heading b/c Caribbean coutries are not really part of N. Am. (or S. Am., either). Putting w/ S.A. would be a better fit, I think. Or make 'Caribbean' section." The countries concerned are not part of either continent, but they form a natural group that should be kept together. They could have a section of their own, or they could go with either continent, with the section-heading changed accordingly. In any case "West Indies" might be better than "Caribbean", because the Bahamas lie outside of the Caribbean Sea, unless I'm mistaken. -- Lonewolf BC 06:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Trinidad and Tobago was in the "South America" section when you made the change.

The countries concerned are indeed a part of a continent - regard Australasia, which is entirely island nations save for Australia (though, even it is technically an island). List of countries by continent places all Caribbean nations (including the Bahamas) within North America, though Geography of Trinidad and Tobago says the country sits on the South American continental shelf. I'll have to clarify that one at Talk:List of countries by continent. --G2bambino 14:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, T&T was in the "North America" section at the time I made that "North America and Caribbean", as is easily checked by the diff. Austalasia is a not a continent, but a geographic grouping used in lieu of a continent. Both islands of Trinidad and Tobago are on the South American continental shelf, and are geologically part of South America. That notwithstanding, they are not part of the South American landmass, (i.e. they're islands) and are historically and socially West Indian. The Caribbean (or West Indian) islands are not really part of any continent, but form a natural group, to which T&T belongs. -- Lonewolf BC 16:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that it was User:Muzi who moved T&T to the North America section; you are correct.

Okay, as per continents then, the to do list here said that the countries should be listed by continent; however, perhaps we need to rethink this and go by region, following Template:Regions of the world. Does that seem plausible? --G2bambino 18:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch or King/Queen

Is it to be "King" or "Queen" for the occupants of certain royal residences, or the more gender neutral "Monarch." I only ask as some of the last edits made it inconsistent. --G2bambino 23:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch was added for the monarchies that allow 'male/female succession', where's 'King' was used for 'male only succession' monarchies. GoodDay 23:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. What about princely and ducal houses then? --G2bambino 14:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing should apply -- if succession is 'both gender' use monarch, if it's 'male only' use prince or grand-duke. GoodDay 18:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I was somehow under the wierd impression that princely and ducal states couldn't be defined as monarchies. --G2bambino 19:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite alright, no harm done. GoodDay 19:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS- as for Leichenstein? Only after the 'male' line (direct & indirect) is extinct, is a female allowed to succeed (starting with the monarch's daughters). That's why, I didn't change prince to monarch (in that situation). GoodDay 21:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divide

As this list is extremely long and unwieldly, would it not be a good idea to split it into smaller lists on dedicated articles, which can all be linked to from here? --G2bambino 22:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Division, would be more suitable. GoodDay 22:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the problem with lists, they get long. But if you divide them they immediately become less useful. You have an index to help navigation, leave as it is. --Michael Johnson 00:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's a ToC, but it is itself extremely long. I imagined that what this would become is a list of links to the list of official residences in each region. It's not just navigational problems that make me see merit in this move; the page is so long editing it is even a hassle. Can the drawbacks of splitting really outweigh the benefits? --G2bambino 14:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several countries moved to Western Asia

I moved Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, and Turkey from Europe to Western Asia. The first four countries are entirely located in Western Asia, while Turkey has 97% of its territory in Asia, and its capital Ankara, where the current official residences are located, is in Anatolia, therefore indisputably in Asia. I also moved Iran from South Asia to Western Asia because South Asia is synonymous with the Indian Subcontinent, of which Iran is not part.Wfgiuliano (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USA

Why there's are few of official residence of President/Chancellor of the Universities in USA. I thought this list is for official residence of a nation's head of state, head of government, state/ province governors.Muzi (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Official residence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University presidents' residences

Why are some University presidents' residences in the USA included in this list, since they are not related to the government? --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Official residence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Infoparl/english/issue.asp?param=130&art=820
Added archive https://archive.is/20061009183138/http://www.gg.ca/citadelle/index_e.asp to http://www.gg.ca/citadelle/index_e.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Official residence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland

The former royal palaces of Edinburgh Castle, Linlithgow, and Falkland are all in Scotland but are listed [20200407] under England. Could someone with better skills with the markup language please move them at some point? Thanks. I may manage at a later date. Random noter (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are not listed under England, they are listed under United Kingdom#Former. Other places such as Hillsborough Castle are also under the UK. I can foresee problems with subdivision given the interwoven history of these islands. - Arjayay (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should have hierarchical sections as follows (omitting any that are empty):

Europe/England

Europe/England/Former

Europe/Northern Ireland

Europe/Northern Ireland/Former

Europe/Scotland

Europe/Scotland/Former

Europe/Wales

Europe/Wales/Former

It would also be helpful to add the location of each building (city or county). Verbcatcher (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Malacanang palace view.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Government House in Baku.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Fachadalaranjeiras.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14 non-UK Commonwealth realms

I've checked over the list & from what I've read. Canada is the only Commonwealth realm that has its monarch as an official resident, along with the governor general. Meanwhile the other realms have 'only' the governor-general as the official resident. Quite unusual. GoodDay (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the already ongoing discussions at those pages are the best place for those discussions. trackratte (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - @Trackratte: recently (boldly) changed the intro, to apparently support the idea that an individual doesn't have to reside/live in an official residence. I can't find the discussion held, to gain a consensus for such changes to the intro. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That bit was actually there before, so is a restoration of a previous status quo not something wholly and boldly new. I also do not see any record for consensus to have had that bit of information removed in the first place.

Second, unless you think that the fact that a specific individual doesn't have to live in an official residence in order for it to be an official residence is particularly controversial, I'm not sure as to what the point you're trying to make is.

I mean, there are a host of American official residences that go unoccupied by mayors and governors. Buckingham Palace is currently not being lived in at all by the King, by his publicly made choice, and won't be for years now due to renovations. The Prime Minister of New Zealand doesn't live in that positions official residence. Most famously, the current Prime Minister of nearly a decade has never lived in the official residence. None of these examples have any impact oncesoever on the status of the residence itself as an official residence.

And finally, something like this official residence is a guest house, so doesn't have anyone living there ever at all and purposefully so, and it is still a designated official residence.

There is also Blair House which is a designated official residence of the US President, but again, is for guests so never has anyone actually living there.

All of which is to say, it is abundantly clear that what makes something an official residence is it being officially designated as such, and whether or not anyone is specifically living there has zero relevance as to its official designation. trackratte (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buckingham Palace is undergoing renovations & King Charles III still resides only in the United Kingdom. He doesn't reside in Canada, Australia, or any of the other non-UK commonwealth realms. I've not the time to do it. But, there's a lot of clean up required on this page. Imagine trying to convince Australians that their monarch has an official residence in Australia? It certainly won't stick, in the intro of the Australian governor-general's residence page. Perhaps later on, I'll open an RFC up on this page, concerning this topic. No big rush, right now. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would simply offer to stay on topic. No one is saying he resides in Canada or Australia, and this article is about official residences generally, and so has little to nothing to do with where any one person lives, let alone Charles III. What the Government of Canada designates as an official residence has nothing to do with where Charles III lives or with Australia once so ever, and is also something incredibly niche for a general list article such as this. I would offer that any discussions as to what does or does not constitute an official residence properly belongs on the Talk page of that building's Talk page, not here.

In any event, the only criteria for something to be an official residence is that it be officially designated as such. trackratte (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sometime later this year, I'll open an RFC on this topic. More input from many others, is best. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

OR, ILIKEIT, stonewall, RfC, repeat. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never presume the input of others. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't bother with an RFC on this matter, @Trackratte:, nor will I revert any changes you've made, on this page. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]