Talk:Elizabeth II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Elizabeth II is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 2, 2012.

Infobox image update[edit]

The Queen in June 2014

Isn't it about time the image of the Queen used in the infobox was updated? I know its a "Featured Picture" and should be used within the article but its nearly 8 years old and it doesn't even focus on the Queen. I have one recommendation, though its not a featured pic, its age appopriate and the best recent image available of the Queen.--Stemoc 14:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

What does the present image focus on, if not the Queen?
I see no change in her appearance over the last seven and a bit years. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • sigh* infobox images should focus on the face/features of the person, long shots or side shots are not deemed good enough for use in infoboxes (unless there are no other options, the queen has quite a few)--Stemoc 00:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The people in the background are hidden in the older image, whereas this one has a distraction over her right shoulder. The other image is a featured picture, and is of higher resolution; the pose and composition are fine, and there is no obvious difference in her appearance. On balance, the older picture has more going for it. DrKiernan (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I see no problem with the picture used at the moment. Everyone can recognise her from 8 years ago; she's not changed in any significant way that would warrant a change to a picture which I personally think looks worse. SamWilson989 (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Elizabeth in March 2015

I thought I would restart this discussion with a different one I just found, any opinions. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

If it's possible, might we not use one of the Karsh ones from the early 1950s, it makes her look fabulous. Ericl (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Karsh died in 2002; his photos won't be out of copyright in the UK until after 2072. DrKiernan (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2015[edit]

In the fourth paragraph of the introduction to Her Royal Majesty's page, you will find this sentence: 'She has seen major constitutional changes, such as devolution in the United Kingdom, Canadian patriation, and the decolonization of Africa.' I request that a change be made so that the sentence will read as follows: 'She has seen major constitutional changes, such as devolution in the United Kingdom, Canadian patriation, and the decolonisation of Africa.' The s/z disagreement between the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be upheld in Her Majesty's page. The use of a 'z' in 'decolonisation' is unacceptable for use in the page that details the life of Her Majesty the Queen. This change should be undebated within the intelligent community, as it is only logical to spell the word as requested. PeterNoone1964 (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed Of course we should be using the British spelling, thank you for noticing. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The z form is also used in Britain. See Oxford spelling. DrKiernan (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The Queen has been called "Lilibet" by close relatives[edit]

That's a fact. DrKiernan wants "was called Lilibet" with the motivation given that everyone who called her that is dead. Respectfully doubting that DrKiernan knows for a fact that they're all dead, cousins, in-laws etc - her husband certainly isn't - I suggested this compromise: has been called. That too got nixed with the summary "unfamiliar idiom" as if "has been called" isn't English. English is my first language and I've taught it for decades. Thus, I don't get it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not want "was called" and have never inserted it. You did not write "has been called". DrKiernan (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're right. I misquoted you, and myself as well, here, and I hate that when it's done to me. Was tired when I wrote it. Hope you're OK with how I'll word that now in the article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I still think it is misleading. Her close family are her children, grandchildren and son- and daughters-in-law. None of them call her Lilibet. DrKiernan (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
How about "As a child she was known as 'Lilibet' by her close family."? We know that Lilibet was a nickname used by her parents and sister, but we don't know that it's something her husband or her cousins, in-laws, etc have ever called her. Her current close family very likely doesn't call her that anymore. Psunshine87 (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
But Serge is saying that they continued to call her that. How about the way it is in the article now: Called Lilibet by her close family, she was cherished...? It's in the early life section and does not use the present tense, which satisfies my concerns, and yet does not explicitly imply that she is no longer called that. DrKiernan (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
👍 Like --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

DrKiernan insists repeatedly that a person qualifies as a moment. This is a grammatical error, so I request further information regarding the reasons for his errant insistence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epigogue (talkcontribs) 08:36, 15 April 2015‎ (UTC)

You were replacing a parenthetical comma with the word "and", which made it appear as though Lord Mountbatten and Prince Philip's uncle were two different people instead of the same one. I have simply removed the comma, so that it reads "Prince Philip's uncle Lord Mountbatten". DrKiernan (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2015[edit] (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Esquivalience t 13:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Unencyclopdic speculation of the future[edit]

A statement in the end of the biografi states (prince Charles) is now is expected to continue to increase. Even if is is supporterd by proper sources, I see it against Wikipedias principles to speculate over the future (and who is it really that "expects"). Yger (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)