Talk:Royal commission

Politics Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 27 June 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Victorian royal commissions. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Anwar Ibrahim#Charges of corruption and sodomy|Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim]] The anchor (#Charges of corruption and sodomy) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Saudi Arabia

It seems to me that royal commissions, in the sense intended by the article, don't exist in Saudi Arabia. SA has an organisation that is translated into English as royal commission, but it is a permanent body, not a royal commission. Putting it in the same article isn't quite right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.95.49.209 (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canada - Spicer and Charest Commissions?

Came here looking for them, since there's no articles of their own; which I think there should be, perhaps more than older commissions like the Le Dain (which I recall in the anglophone media of the time as being spelled Ledain or LeDain in English); there's also the provincial royal commissions, which are many (at least here in BC - the Chant commission on education in the '60s comes to mind). Was surprised not even to find an article on Keith Spicer, but that's a different matter.Skookum1 04:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahon Commission

How could New Zealand's Mahon Commission have been "appealed" to the House of Lords? Surely any request for judicial review would have gone to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? Silverhelm 16:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Can an RC be appealed?

Since a Royal Commission doesn't issue sentences, convictions, compensation orders, what can actually be appealed? Has it happened before? Opal2 09:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Mount Erebus disaster Nil Einne 09:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong

Should the Commissions set up by HKSAR be considered as "Royal Commissions"?--219.73.19.179 14:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commission of Inquiry

Looking at the lists of Royal Commissions, it appears that the term "Commission of Inquiry" is sometimes used interchangeably with "Royal Commission" in Canada and Australia. Is there a reason for this (Republican sentiment, etc.)? In Canada in particular, the two most recent ones have used that formal title. I really think this should be mentioned in the article. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy?

Does there have to be a Monarchy for a Royal Commission to exist? - KitchM (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing—the article's focus is unclear, as it seems to talk about commissions of inquiry in general (indeed, commission of inquiry redirects here]], but calls them 'Royal' commissions, which does not apply to most countries in the world that have such commissions. I believe we simply need to move the article and rewrite the lead to give it a more global perspective. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalent of Royal Commission in other countries?

I was rather interested in how Royal Commission conducts investigations and naturally enough it make me wonder what equivalent is there in the U.S. where I'm from. Obviously, we have Congressional committees investigating various matters but those are legislative commissions, not executive commissions as commissioned by the President like the Royal Commission is commissioned by the monarch on advice of his/her government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief of Staff (talk • contribs) 19:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 August 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved all per nom, as supported by applicable guidelines. No such user (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Capitals should only be used for the full names of royal commissions and not in generic use. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per MOS:INSTITUTIONS. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per stable title since 2004. Is there a way to do an n-gram on this? Randy Kryn (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: Royal Commission is correctly capitalised when writing the name of a specific commission. In that circumstance it is a proper name. For example Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. As Google has no way to differentiate by usage it would not give any useful insight into this matter. This is a matter of grammar and not a common name problem. However since you asked, here is the ngram. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support all these refer to the generic royal commission, not a proper name, and so not capitalized; and as you'd expect sources all use lower case (when not referring to specific commissions) and so lowercase per MOS:CAPS Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

List of United Kingdom royal commissions

It seems that while there is a list of "notable" UK royal commissions on the page there is no link to a complete list of UK royal commissions unlike the lists for Australia and Canada. The British History Online website contains a transcription of the two volumes:

Office-Holders in Modern Britain: Volume 9, Officials of Royal Commissions of Inquiry 1815-1870, ed. J M Collinge (London, 1984) and Office-Holders in Modern Britain: Volume 10, Officials of Royal Commissions of Inquiry 1870-1939, ed. Elaine Harrison (London, 1995)

Each of these volumes contains a helpful Index that lists respectively 137 and 217 royal commissions:

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/office-holders/vol9/pp106-108 and https://www.british-history.ac.uk/office-holders/vol10/pp120-124.

Would it be sensible to create a page entitled "List of United Kingdom royal commissions" based on the above BHO transcripts? If so I'm happy to have a go along the lines of the corresponding pages for Australia/Canada.

--17:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Inspeximus (talk)

That seems to be a useful idea. It just might provoke the creation of articles about some of the more noteworthy (or more intriguing) Royal Commissions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Pages' Changes

G'day, so this is not related to this page directly, but I just wanted to get some eyes on this proposed change rather than it being an obscure decision held behind closed doors.

Requested move 27 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW; nominator seems to have withdrawn and everyone else opposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– This is to expand the scope of the articles, which all encompass a relatively minor subject matter, and make them less niche by giving them the opportunity to expand on others topics (like history) rather than just a general list. Additionally, I did come to this conclusion after looking at the featured lists and finding none have 'List of...' in their title. Moreover, I am open to changing it to 'Royal commissions of (Insert polity here)' IronBattalion (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC) -->[reply]

Oppose. These articles have a clear scope, and this move would muddle them because of a vague promise to somehow expand them one day. I'm not sure how helpful a generalised history would be when most states have had tens if not hundreds of royal commissions on wildly variant subjects - I think any such attempt is doomed to become a random piece of WP:RECENTISM. The energy would be better directed to fleshing out articles on specific royal commissions of interest to the author. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: You should feel free to add history, context, etc. to the pages as they currently are. Adding a bit of a summary for each royal commission would also be something to consider. Then, once there is sufficient information, it may be appropriate to rename the pages but it may also be appropriate to split some of the content off so that we have a general state page and a list page with a small summary at the top. By the way, considering the impact and importance of royal commissions, and the completeness of the records and coverage inside resources like Trove I think that this is an area open to expansion. Gusfriend (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all of them are just list articles. Create redirects from the suggested names. None of these have large amounts of prose for specific coverage. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose these lists fulfill informational, navigation and development purposes that should exist regardless of whether there is an article giving an overview of the topic. That said, there is scope to expand the lead to give an overview of the topic, provided it is supported by reliable sources and starting with "this is a list of ..." is deprecated. Having "List of" in the title makes the purpose of the article clear. If you think that a title such as "Australian royal commissions" is useful, then redirects are cheap. --Find bruce (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per find bruce and drover's wife JarrahTree 04:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Right, seems there's enough opposition where I can safely say that this move request should be closed. To be honest when I proposed this I was thinking of the potential for the legislative history in each state (though knowing nothing about this history) and possibly make it less of a one trick brumby. Thanks for at least appraising the proposal and have a Good day. IronBattalion (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.