Talk:Elizabeth II

Is she the Duchess of Edinburgh?

Does she have that title? TheUnknown285 (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, put it's not shown as she's now monarch. PS: This discussion should be at the 'bottom' of the talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Now moved. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The title Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth and Baroness Greenwich are still part of her full title. See Titles and Honours of Queen Elizabeth II. Surtsicna (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Territories

She is also Queen regent of her nations' territories, this is not mentioned in the introduction. Flosssock1 (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's implied, given that it would be impossible for her not to be sovereign of her nations' territories. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Howdy Flossock1. Elizabeth II is Queen regnant, not Queen regent. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Long time no speak GoodDay. Ofcourse she is, I apologise, I was in a rush. And thanks Miesianiacal, it was just an observation. Flosssock1 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Howdy. We haven't heard from you, since the last time we heard from you. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that would make sense wouldn't it :) Flosssock1 (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 13:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   The lead needs building

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'll take a look over the next few days and then make some initial comments. SilkTork *^YES! 13:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

I'll make some comments as I read through, and then summarise. SilkTork *^YES! 09:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Stable. There have been some recent edit wars. Nothing massive, but the article has been changing back and forth. Because of that even if everything else is fine with the article I will still be putting this on an extended hold, perhaps one month, to ensure that the article is stable. SilkTork *^YES! 09:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Images pass GA criteria for tags and captions. Not GA criteria, but among some very high quality images there are some very poor images - the one of the Queen at Trooping the Colour is particularly bad, while the lead image and the one with George Bush are quite brilliant. The layout of some of the images, particularly the first two, needs looking at, as they make the article look cluttered and untidy. SilkTork *^YES! 10:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I've tidied up the images. SilkTork *^YES! 11:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Coverage. This is quite a big topic, and I will need to do some research into the subject to see if the coverage at present is adequate and is what a general reader would expect. My initial feeling is that some material from Ancestry should be included here - while there is mention of her parentage in Early life, I feel it would be appropriate to have a dedicated section to explaining why this person is Queen of the UK, and also some mention of that should be in the lead. I feel that a section on what responsibilities and rights she has as Queen would also be appropriate and expected. I don't think there is excessive detail in any area, though the "Continuing evolution of the Commonwealth" section may need attention for choice of material - how much of that is essential, and is actually related to the section title? Consideration could be given to differentiating between her role as Queen and her personal life as these seem to be blurred at the moment - her pet dog biting her is personal life, for example. SilkTork *^YES! 11:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • There is a section on ancestry already which is mainly composed of an auto-hidden table. I think that table is more than enough for the scope of an article as broad as this. As to why is she the Queen, and her responsibilities and rights, I believe these should be covered in detail in a separate article, probably Monarchy of the United Kingdom; the present article is focused on the person, not necessarily her job. Nergaal (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• The lead needs building up considerably. This is a major topic, and the lead should reflect that. See WP:Lead. I think that other GA MoS aspects are acceptable. SilkTork *^YES! 11:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• There is a slight inclination toward praising Elizabeth. The 1980s section, for example has: "Elizabeth's personal courage, as well as her skill as a horsewoman, was shown in 1981..." followed by "Thatcher described the Queen as 'marvellous' and 'a perfect lady'...", while her controversial relationship with Diana is mentioned in a manner which paints Elizabeth in a very positive light: "The following year, she attempted to save the failing marriage of her eldest son, Charles, by counselling him and his wife, Diana, Princess of Wales, to patch up their differences". Also I am uncomfortable with "endured a state visit by the brutal communist dictator" - I can see that the source says "brutal dictator" and "less agreeable", however, I feel such language should be toned down in an encyclopedia. "As head of state she had to accept a state visit by the communist dictator..." would be more acceptable. SilkTork *^YES! 11:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Monarchs & members of their families tend to get praise, weither they deserve it or not. Not certain, if we need mentioning of praises. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Achieving WP:NPOV is very difficult, and is a common reason that articles do not meet GA criteria. Aiming for NPOV is important for Wikipedia, though notoriously difficult to achieve because the people who work on a subject are already pre-disposed to thinking positively of that subject and are not always aware of their bias. The incident I mentioned was about the Queen being shot at. The incident was not about the Queen displaying courage or horsemanship - that was the opinion of an observor which is secondary to the incident itself. If there is an overall assessment from her entire career that she has shown courage or is a skilled horsewoman, and this is a common term applied to her, then that would be appropriate to mention in the section on her personal characteristics - Public perception and character. These are reliable sources which report the incident in a neutral manner: [1], [2], [3]. What is noted is that they remark that the Queen was visibly shaken, but regained her composure. A suggested wording: "During the 1981 Trooping the Colour ceremony, six blank cartridges were fired at the Queen from close range as she rode down The Mall on her horse "Burmese". Nobody was hurt, and the 17 year old assailant, Marcus Sarjeant, was later sentenced to five years imprisonment." Accurate, informative and neutral. SilkTork *^YES! 14:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, your proposed wording is neutral & acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Prose is clear and readable with no jarring errors. Passes GA criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 11:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is well referenced, and sources on the whole do check out; though I will continue to check during this review, my expectation is that what is said here on the article has been said in reliable sources. SilkTork *^YES! 11:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• While I agree that the article text is reliable, the material in some of the linked templates is not. For example, the order of precedence given in the template at the bottom of the page is disputed. Different sources give the Duchess of Cornwall either second or fourth; the Countess of Wessex either before or after Princess Anne; and Princess Michael of Kent either before or after Princess Alexandra. I presume, that as with media files, the GA criteria should apply not only to the article itself but to all its components? DrKiernan (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the article title & introduction is still contentions for some. Elizabeth II is a monarch of 16 countries & she's most identified with one of them, the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The introduction/lead will need building and as part of that, yes, it would be appropriate to look at the question of focus as well as content. What is the issue with the title? It appears to comply with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). SilkTork *^YES! 14:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Some prefer the title as Elizabeth II, note the numerous 'page move requests' over the last few years. Some prefer the lead to read 'Queen regnant of the United Kingdom and fifteen other realms'. As for myself? I'm content with the current title & intro. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay is a Canadian republican and so prefers the current title because it favors his viewpoint by portraying the current Canadian Head of State as a foreigner. Similarly, Canadian monarchists want to drop the "United Kingdom" for similar reasons. There are also issues about British nationalists wishing to retain "United Kingdom" to favor their own POV. Apart from the neutrality angle though, there is also an issue about prose: the title is unnecessarily long as the country modifier is redundant. There is no need to disambiguate by country. DrKiernan (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume you have proof of my political motives, concerning the article title? GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: My opposition to changing the article title, is not politically motivated. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a rather absurdly chauvinistic view, isn't it? All four of her grandparents were born in the UK, as were 5 of her 8 great-grandparents (with a sixth who lived in the UK from the age of 4 onwards). If this were anybody but the monarch, it would surely be considered racist xenophobia to say she's not British, wouldn't it? At any rate, I'd want to add that Elizabeth II's greater "identification" with the United Kingdom is not simply a matter of perception, but of reality - she lives in the UK and is actually regularly involved in its day-to-day governance, whereas in all the other commonewalth realms her residual powers are exercised 99% of the time by the Governor-General. The current wording, which treats the UK as equivalent to all the others seems problematic. It is not POV to say "the UK and fifteen other realms" - it is POV not to say that. john k (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Another silly remark. I do wish you would stop cluttering the discussion here. Actually as far as the (unwritten) constitution is concerned the Queen as at liberty to be a black lesbian Jew if she so wishes. The only specific limiter in legislation (by Act of Parliament) is that the Monarch must not be Catholic. Apart from that, the reigning Sovereign may be Muslim, a Jew, a black Jew, a black lesbian Jew, or if acceptable to the Accession Meeting of the Privy Council (in which all sixteen Realms are represented), a green alien from another galaxy. Enough 'Red-Kneckism' please. Ds1994 (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Silly it indeed is; it reeks of an outdated, narrow colonial attitude. I wonder what he makes of the Queen's upcoming address to the UN, which she is making as monarch of all her realms equally? She must be nuts, clearly. ;) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please retract some of your comments. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? There is nothing stated that is incorrect? The British have an unwritten constitution and is based mainly on convention. This provides a remarkably degree of flexibility. The only limiter as state is the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the Line of Succession. I also find the original reference to a 'black lesbian Jew' to be quite offensive, and such prejudice is specifically legislated against here in the United KIngdom.Ds1994 (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The comments on North Americans. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the words "North America" anywhere in there. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

They had already been removed, before my request for removal. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Well, a retroactive tisk-tisk to Ds1994, then. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• In the Early life section, in the part "Elizabeth was the first child of Prince Albert, Duke of York (later King George VI), and his wife, Elizabeth", but Elizabeth who? I don't know what would be more correct, to put Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon or Elizabeth, Duchess of York and then add (later Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother).Jibco (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

On hold

This is a very presentable article on a difficult and high profile topic. There have been five previous attempts to get this article acknowledged as a decent article; while each attempt failed, the process itself is useful as it identifies weaknesses and encourages people to make improvements. The main blocks previously were citation issues, which appear to have been resolved. I feel this article is very promising, and this attempt has a very good chance of succeeding. Edit warring and reverting has been an issue recently, and that has to be borne in mind while working on improving the article. If there are edit wars or excessive reverts during this review, then I will close it as a fail.

The article meets most of the GA criteria. The three areas of concern are:

• The lead needs building per WP:Lead
• The language and choice of material needs checking carefully to ensure neutrality. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• The coverage needs expanding to cover areas such an ancestry and responsibility, and possibly other others; personal life details need extracting from the sections about her role as the queen and placed in a personal life section.

The above three areas are actually quite difficult, and I anticipate this is going to take more than seven days; however, I will put on hold for an initial seven days to see what level of enthusiasm there is to push this forward. I am prepared to get involved and help out. Any questions, please ping my talkpage. SilkTork *^YES! 12:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I would tread very carefully around the lead; what's there now is a delicate npov balance that was achieved some time ago and has been stable since. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I am becoming aware that there are a number of issues here. I hope we will be able to develop the lead in a careful NPOV manner. SilkTork *^YES!

Constitutional role

I just started a new section on the role Elizabeth II has to play. This has been removed. I do not understand all the issues here, so I am not clear on why that was removed. As a general reader I would want and expect some detailed of the roles and duties of Elizabeth II. Let us discuss how to construct information in the article on those duties. SilkTork *^YES! 16:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A brief version would be alright, which covers all 16 realm roles. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This was the fairly crude cut and paste I did from Monarchy of the United Kingdom#Constitutional role. I trimmed it and changed Monarch to Elizabeth or the Queen, but did little more than that. Can we use it as a starting point? SilkTork *^YES! 16:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's yet to be established that the section is even desired. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the criteria is that the article should remain focused on the topic. The topic of this article is Elizabeth II not the Monarchy. The Monarchy is covered in other articles. Similarly, we don't add an explanation of the role of the President of the United States to Barack Obama's article, instead we have an article on Barack Obama and an article on the Presidency. Elizabeth's biography and the article on the Monarchy should follow the same format and the same division of material. DrKiernan (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Constitutional role

Main article: Monarchy of the United Kingdom § Constitutional role

In her role as the Monarch, Elizabeth is the ceremonial Head of State so oaths of allegiance are made to her, and her image appears on postage stamps, coins, and banknotes. She takes no direct part in Government, and acts of state done in the name of the Crown, or personally performed by her, such as the Queen's Speech and the State Opening of Parliament, depend upon decisions made by others, such as the Government, and the Church of England. Her role is largely limited to non-partisan functions, such as granting honours. Constitutionally, she will act only upon the advice of the Government; her practical functions in that regard are only "to advise, to be consulted, and to warn".

Whenever necessary, she is responsible for appointing a new Prime Minister. In accordance with unwritten constitutional conventions, she must appoint an individual who commands the support of the House of Commons, usually the leader of the party or coalition that has a majority in that House. The Prime Minister takes office by attending the Monarch in private audience, and Kissing Hands, and that appointment is immediately effective without any other formality or instrument. In a "hung parliament", in which no party or coalition holds a majority, the monarch has an increased degree of latitude in choosing the individual likely to command most support, but it would usually be the leader of the largest party. According to the Lascelles Principles, if a minority government asked to dissolve Parliament to call an early election to strengthen its position, the Queen could refuse. When Harold Wilson requested a dissolution late in 1974, the Queen granted his request as Edward Heath had already failed to form a coalition. The resulting general election gave Wilson a small majority. The Queen could in theory unilaterally dismiss a Prime Minister, but the last monarch to remove a Prime Minister was William IV, who dismissed Lord Melbourne in 1834.

No reverts

In order to make progress on this in a constructive and harmonious manner, there should be no reverts. It is highly likely that I or someone else will make future edits that will cause concern for one editor or another. Please bring concerns here to the talkpage. I am totally impartial and will listen to advise and rationales. If there is a genuine reason why an edit should not remain, then be assured, it will not remain. But let us discuss it first. SilkTork *^YES! 16:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems like it will create a rather messy affair, both in the article and on the talk page. Is WP:BRD not a sufficient policy to govern this? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No, because people could be Bold and replace the material and then we have an edit war. What we need here is discussion and explanation and mutual respect. Reverting is sometimes felt as an aggressive act, and can aggravate a situation. Discussion and consensus are the Wiki way. SilkTork *^YES! 16:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

One revert does not an edit war make. But, we shall see what others think. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right. But unfortunately that's where an edit war starts. So, no reverts please, and nobody is then tempted to revert the revert. SilkTork *^YES! 16:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you have it the wrong way around, reverts to the previous consensus version are fine. It's reverts of reversions that are unwise. The burden of proof (for want of a better term) is on the person who wishes to move away from the present consensus to gain consensus before making a contentious edit. It is the original version that has precedence over the new version until a new consensus is formed. If we do it your way, then we'll have the page moved to "Elizabeth II" and "Supreme Governor" removed from the lead in no time, and no-one would be able to revert it. Oh wait ... Yes, let's do it your way. Now, where's that move tag ... DrKiernan (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Doc is correct, the onus is on the pro-changers. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Queen's role and reverting

I have checked the history. The Queen's role in government has been in the article from the start. There has been a section or subsection marked Role in government from 2003. In July last year DrKiernan removed that section, based on this comment on the talkpage which generated one response which was fairly neutral. If people wish to apply "The burden of proof (for want of a better term) is on the person who wishes to move away from the present consensus to gain consensus before making a contentious edit," then I don't see how consensus has been achieved by that comment to undo a section that has been in the article for over 6 years. The section has for many years been a viable part of this article. I wasn't even aware there had been such a section, but one of my first observations was that there should be in an article on a monarch some information on the monarch's role - this is fairly basic stuff. We will make more progress on this article if we at this point agree that there will be no reverts. Under DrKiernan comments above I would be entitled to revert his own removal of the Role section as it was a contentious edit done without consensus. However, I would rather we discussed the matter. My observation of the history of this article is that there has sometimes been an inclination for viewpoints to be asserted by reverts rather than open discussion. I would want, during this GA Review, for there to be discussions not reverts. If people feel they are unable to prevent themselves from reverting, please let me know and I will close the Review now. SilkTork *^YES! 10:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Some editors feel that anything 'only' mentioning Elizabeth II's role in the United kingdom, is a breach of NPoV. This is related to the past page-move requests, the Infobox's content & the article's introduction ('16 realms' instead of 'the UK and 15 other realms'). GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to editors' feelings. What do reliable sources say? That's usually the way to sort out difficulties - or do the sources say different things? SilkTork *^YES! 02:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You've completely ignored the argument to remove the section, and instead try to force your point by mounting a subtle personal attack. Currently, you are the only one trying to insert the section and everyone else who has commented is against it. The removal and the revert have consensus. DrKiernan (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You could have hundreds of sources for Elizabeth II's role as Monarch of the United Kingdom, while just a few sources for her roles as Monarch of the other realms. There'd still be cries of NPoV breach, if you added that section. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. If it is the case that there are issues over NPOV, and editors are unwilling to follow reliable sources, then it is unlikely for this article to meet GA criteria within a reasonable space of time. I suggest this article needs dispute resolution assistance before another GA review. An experienced and neutral editor who is used to content disputes should be asked to look into the issues regarding this article. When the issues have been resolved, another GA review can be requested. Unless there are objections, I will close this GA review as a fail tomorrow. SilkTork *^YES! 19:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I've no probs with having the section added. Of the 16 realms, the UK is the one that's the most identified with Elizabeth II. But that's just my opinon. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Summing up

I cannot follow very well what still needs to be fixed. Could you quickly point to what is still left to do? Nergaal (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• The lead needs building per WP:Lead
• The language and choice of material needs checking carefully to ensure neutrality. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• The coverage needs expanding to cover areas such an ancestry and responsibility, and possibly other others; personal life details need extracting from the sections about her role as the queen and placed in a personal life section. SilkTork *^YES! 02:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Closing

There are content issues regarding this article which appear to be unresolved. Unless there is an objection, I will close this review tomorrow and suggest people seek out an uninvolved editor, perhaps from Wikipedia:Editor assistance, to look into the content issues. When the content issues have been resolved, the article can be nominated for GA again. SilkTork *^YES! 19:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no objections from me. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Closed. SilkTork *^YES! 09:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Constitutional role

I don't agree with this section. It will be expanded to include the other realms, which will cause conflict. It's against the previous consensus: Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 17#Role in government. The article is about Elizabeth Windsor the person not the role of the monarch, which is covered in the articles on that subject. DrKiernan (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, such a section is at Monarchy of the United Kingdom. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was precisely my motivation for removing it. Elizabeth's role in numerous goverments is extremely complex and isn't even unique to her. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We could have a brief section though, which would be linked to the section at Monarchy of the United Kingdom, Monarchy of Canada, etc etc. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point. Nor do I see an equivalent section in the bio articles for other monarchs. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's because no other monarch has an equivalent role. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no concensus in 30 days of much discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II — Those editors whose attention span extends back into the mists of history, or January 2010 to be more precise, may vaguely recall that there was an abortive discussion over moving this subject, the only just-Elizabeth II we have an article on that anyone might have heard of, to just-Elizabeth II.

The arguments in favour of the move remain much as they were. Shorter but still unambiguous. Least amount of wounded national pride (obviously there's nothing can be done to please people who have a problem with the "II"). In line with the general guidance for titling articles. Probably other things which will be mentioned below I'm sure.

The arguments against remain the same too. Doesn't meet some obscure, badly written, and poorly thought-out guideline hidden away in a corner of Wikipedia behind a door marked "Beware of the Tiger", etc. Some other stuff too that someone will be along to tell you all about shortly.

Clearly there are many other articles which could be moved for the same reasons (Elizabeth I of England → Elizabeth I; Edward VIII of the United Kingdom → Edward VIII; George VI of the United Kingdom → George VI; blah; blah; blah), but this isn't about any of those. Points will not be deducted for repetition, hesitation or deviation, but it would be good to avoid these pitfalls all the same. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support, for here & for the all the English, Scottish & British monarch articles, where possible. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support for exactly the reasons stated by Angus. -Rrius (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The UK is the Queen's primary realm by almost any standard except the strict letter of the law (and this article is not a constitutional treatise). It's the realm where she lives, has a personal involvement in government, and is her oldest realm, from which all the others are offshoots. It's the realm she's most famous for being queen of. And - looking at it from a different angle - out of all the realms the UK is the greatest power in the world - militarily and economically. ðarkuncoll 00:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And so? We're not going to imply that the UK isn't where the Queen is primarily involved in by moving this to Elizabeth II. Also I don't see how the UK being the most powerful nation out of the 16 realms makes any difference. I wonder what your stance would be if the Queen lived and worked primarily in Jamaica instead of the UK. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 12:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support The propsed move eliminates the pro-British POV inherent in the present title without causing confusion with any other monarch. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose First, because the criteria for article names exist to aid readers in finding whom they seek, and thus consist of common usage in conjunction with related factors, e.g. specificity (so not "The Queen") and suitability (so not "Queen Liz"), and consistency (so "Firstname Ordinal# of Realm"), etc: Second, because I am not convinced that the intent of this effort is to use the most common name so much as to substitute in the most common name which promotes a POV principle -- even though the principle in question (equality of a monarch's various realms) is one I support & promote, but which I believe is best explained directly in the article rather than subliminally through selection of a title that's misleading (by suggesting that these monarchs are not widely associated with one of their realms more than with the others) and out-of-synch with names of other monarchs in this sequence: third, the laboriously evolved and evolving Naming conventions seems the appropriate place to first discuss a change (or exception) which may have wider implications than this article. FactStraight (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I rather think that if any POV is operative here, it's anti-British POV. How can it possibly, by any reasonable stretch of the imagination, be POV to say that the Queen is British? ðarkuncoll 00:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You always fall back on that argument, conveniently forgetting that nobody ever said the Queen isn't British. The point has always been that she isn't just British. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Since we're just talking about the adjective "British" here, then I would assert - with strong evidence from current citizenship law - that the Queen is indeed British, and nothing else. There is no logical reason why someone cannot be Queen of Canada say, and yet not actually hold Canadian nationality. The only thing that would prevent this would be a Canadian law doing so, and I know that such a law does not exist. ðarkuncoll 08:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Queen isn't subject to citizenship law; acts of parliament only bind the Crown when they say they do, and neither the British nor Canadian citizenship acts say any such thing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Google news archive might help here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Even though it's wrong, "Queen of England" is so common that it should get a mention in the first paragraph (pointing out its inaccuracy, of course). But once again, it shows the practical reality of the situation. ðarkuncoll 00:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• How can you say that when she clearly has a Belizean accent? -Rrius (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• The argument against this, such as it is, is consistency. Her ancestors are, perforce, Henry IV of England, James I of Scotland, Charles II of Great BritainCharles II of England, George I of Great Britain - any shorter names would be ambiguous. That sets up a systematic naming pattern - consistent across Western Europe; the treatment of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom should follow it. Otherwise we will wind up expecting the reader to understand - before he looks up any royal article - that Henry VII is ambiguous and Henry VIII is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Who's Charles II of Great Britain? GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Emendavi. Although he did reign from Cornwall to Caithness - eventually. (But did GD have any actual trouble seeing who was meant?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to get off track, but Charlie 2 was monarch of England, Scotland & Ireland seperately. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, to say he was "separately" monarch of those places ignores historical reality - he was head of a unified government for all those places. Furthermore, his official title was "King of Great Britain...(etc.)." ðarkuncoll 08:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

He usually called himself K of GB. His 2 separate independent realms usually called him K of E &/or S. Peter jackson (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Articles should not be named on the basis of consistency for consistency's sake. Elizabeth is better known as "Elizabeth II" than as "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". That really should be enough. As to your point about expecting users to know that "Henry VII" is ambiguous and "Henry VIII" is not, that is absurd. We are not expecting any such thing. A typical user will search for "Henry VII" or "Henry VIII". In the case of the former, the search would be dealt with using a dab page; in the case of the latter, the user would be brought to the correct page. It is actually the status quo that involves unrealistic expectations. Current naming conventions assume the user searching for a monarch knows the subset of conventions used for royals. Even regular users of Wikipedia are led astray when they search for "Charles I (England)" or "Charles I (King of England)". -Rrius (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as it will be inconsistent with so many other article titles for monarchs. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, but so what? Why does that inconsistency matter? -Rrius (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Inconsistency always matters; it makes article placement less predictable. How much it matters is the question at issue; if it did not matter at all, we could go to random numerical strings, as the Britannica does.
  • "But there's an redirect" is no argument in these matters; it always cuts both ways. Anyone who searches for Elizabeth II will be promptly redirected to this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    • No, inconsistency does not always matter. There are more important considerations. The whole royalty and nobility naming convention is inconsistent both internally and with the normal naming conventions. What's more, if predictability is truly the root problem, "Elizabeth II" is the one that is predictable. "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is only predictable if you are among the small subset of people who are familiar with how articles about royalty are named. Finally, you brought up redirects, I didn't. Please don't argue against points that weren't made, it wastes time. -Rrius (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Why shouldn't I argue against points that weren't made, when Rrius has just spent a paragraph doing so? Consistency always matters; it is not the only thing that matters; and both of these are policy, and always have been practice. When Rrius stops burning straw men, perhaps he will say something germane. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm afraid you aren't reading what I'm writing. You said that consistency is important. My first and second sentences address that point directly. My third sentence notes that the very guideline whose principles dictate the name you support retaining is itself inconsistent both internally (royal articles are treated differently from noble ones) and with broader naming conventions. I should have thought the relation of that to your point about consistency was self-evident. You said that consistency is important because it provides predictability. My fourth sentence notes that predictability actually supports moving the page. My fifth and sixth sentence responded directly to your out-of-the-blue point about redirects. So where, exactly, did I spend a paragraph addressing points that weren't made? Where exactly were the straw men? What exactly did I say that wasn't germane? Perhaps if you took care to actually read what was written, we wouldn't have this problem. Finally, if you want to quibble about whether consistency is important in cases where something else trumps it, I'll concede that point, but it is obviously the case that consistency must sometimes bend to other considerations when they dictate an inconsistent result. I believe this is such a case, and you have said nothing to explain why consistency is more important than the other considerations. -Rrius (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • "Consistency matters, even where something else trumps it." Precisely so. Insofar as Rrius has written denying this, he has not been germane; until he gives reasons to suppose that something else trumps it here, he will have been vacuous. The burden of proof is on the one who proposes a change, which is why we require consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
          • First of all, you don't appear to know what "germane" means (and your understanding of "vacuous" is suspect). I have already told you why I think the other considerations trump consistency, at least twice. At heart, you think consistency is important here because it brings predictability. I have told you that I believe "Elizabeth II" is more predictable than "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". To your first point, where you took a quotation out of context, let me make this perfectly clear: I originally said that inconsistency doesn't always matter. You then said that it does matter, even when it is ultimately ignored in favour of some other consideration. I then conceded that your formulation is better, but made clear that I believe this is such a case where other considerations trump consistency. Now, are you ready to actually discuss honestly instead of taking me out of context and lying about what I've said? -Rrius (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have no clear idea if this claim is true more or less as stated and neither, I suspect, does the editor who made it. If renamed, this article won't be obviously inconsistent with Clovis I or Akihito or Suleiman the Magnificent or Theodosius II or Brian Boru or Atahualpa or Hywel Dda or Qin Shi Huang or Kubilai Khan or Shapur II or Aurangzeb or Muhammad bin Tughluq or Ramesses II whole slews of other monarchs. I picked those examples because I believe they are representative of large groups of other monarch articles. I suspect, but cannot prove, that the real standard on the ground for naming articles on monarch may well be WP:NAME rather than WP:NCROY since only a small minority of articles come from the region where the name pool is, and was, so limited. The mindless pursuit of consistency may require that this article be moved. At which point, I suspect, the issue will refocus on consistency-within-British-monarchs. We'll see. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Why not Clovis, as primary usage? Aside from that, the examples outside the Mediterranean aren't in the same format; they don't have Roman numerals. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose and I suggest that this should be closed immediately on the ground of abuse of procedure. We very recently had what was substantially the same move request, and after considerable discussion it was clear that there was no consensus for the move. Formally, the previous request applied to three monarchs, not just one, but it escapes me in what way there is a substantial distinction. PatGallacher (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest two monarchs (actually two articles) is a substantial difference. Arguments could be made about this one that did not apply with equal force to the others. Accusations of abusing process are not terribly helpful, so perhaps we could assume good faith here. -Rrius (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose If we are departing from having a convention in favour of the best common name supported by sources, as was justified in the recent Mary Queen of Scots move, then this article should be at Queen Elizabeth II, and nothing else, as the stand out by a mile single best first guess choice of what a common name for this person is. MickMacNee (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose her numbering comes through the English throne, so she should either remain as is, because of the primacy of the English throne in the UK, or be renamed as Elizabeth II of England. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The English Throne no longer exists. Comments like this should not be counted when closing the discussion, as they are factually incorrect --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 12:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

you're dead wrong the numbering comes from the English throne. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes & no. When Scottish MPs raised the issue in the Commons in 1953, the government responded by saying that all monarchs since the union of 1707 had used the larger of English & Scottish numberings. So, if al-Qaeda wipe out most of the royal family & Lord Severn becomes king, is his article to be called James VIII of Scotland? Peter jackson (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose and Quick Close This debate has already taken place, and none too long ago either. I personally like the request because she is the reigning monarch for a large number of countries and although there is no disagreement that the principal realm is the United Kingdom, I don't see any reason to thumb the other realms either. However, I am going to oppose on the basis that rehashing discussion so soon after the last one is none too productive and sets a poor precedence. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that this issue comes up so often is very troubling, it shows that something must be done about it. Close this one, and another will begin soon. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 12:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Something had been done. It was discussed in full and there was no consensus. Permitting requested moves to me made over and over again, in order achieve an intended change, is rather inappropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This is more limited than the last discussion: that one applied to three monarchs, this one doesn't, so it is more focused. -Rrius (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the 5th move discussion(early July 09, late July 09, late July 09 again,Dec 09) that has taken place in less than a year. This is the 4th that has involoved Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II. My view is that is excessive.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

But shines a light on an inherent problem with the title that will likely never go away so long at the title is as it is now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There will be people who prefer a different location regardless of where the article title is. This is far from the only article where there is such a disagreement. The real problem is the incessant raising of the same subject time after time after time instead of giving things a rest for a while, and umpteen RMs that give the impression of trying to grind down opposition in the hope of getting it through. Maybe we need vote against endless votes. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That type of concerted organisation hints at a conspiracy theory. I highly doubt that's the case. If it's true, though, I feel left out, as nobody invited me to join. :( --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support in principle though, for the first time in my wiki-career, I agree with MickMacNee. If we're going to depart from procedure, we might as well go the whole hog and give the article a title that is unambiguous, common and appropriate for an encyclopaedia- Queen Elizabeth II. It also saves on the national bias arguments and avoids the constitutional nit-picking. It's not overly pertinent, but it would be interesting if someone could compile viewing stats for all the redirects to this article (there must be quite a few). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support for all the usual reasons - if we did need to disambiguate, then "of the United Kingdom" would be the least evil, but we don't need to, so let's get rid of the unsightly and unnecessarily biased tag.--Kotniski (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Query: What queens called Elizabeth (either king's wives or in their own right) have other countries had? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

See Queen Elizabeth (and 5 empresses of the same name may be found in a list under Elizabeth). FactStraight (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support The disambiguator is unnecessary, as Elizabeth II is the prime use of that term, and the suggested location redirects to the current title. The disputed guideline permits exclusions anyway, such as the List of rulers of Lithuania and List of Polish monarchs, and states that an unambiguous name without a country can be used. The article titles relating to English monarchs already reflect changes in the styles of the monarch: prior to the Union of the Crowns, monarchs are "of England"; after the Act of Union 1707, monarchs are "of Great Britain"; after the Act of Union 1800, monarchs are "of the United Kingdom". There is no inconsistency if article titles also reflect changes in the styles of the monarch since the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference of 1953 when separate titles were adopted for each realm. DrKiernan (talk) 08:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The logic of going by the most commonly used name would compel us to rename this article "Queen of England". The form "Elizabeth II" is actually quite rare, and even something like "Queen Elizabeth" is far more common - or, in the Commonwealth realms themselves, perhaps the most common term is simply "The Queen". It's this sort of problem that necessitated the guidlines being created in the first place. ðarkuncoll 08:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be the most commonly used unambiguous name. That would be Elizabeth II, I think.--Kotniski (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

But the same could be said for Henry VIII or Richard III, say. It seems to me that the convention to omit the country when the monarch has a famous nickname, such as Alfred the Great or Ethelred the Unready is sensible, but to do so with a number - can anyone point to any other article that does this? It would set a very bad precedent. We'd have all sorts of people arguing that all monarchs in history who ruled more than one country should omit the country name. ðarkuncoll 09:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And why would that be a bad thing? If there are good arguments in those cases too, then any precedent set would be good, not bad. (We presumably recall Sir Humphrey's interpretation of dangerous precedent - if we do the right thing now, we might be forced to do the right thing again in the future.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it's been 12 hours since Napoleon I was moved, and no-one's complained ... yet. DrKiernan (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but they will now you've told them about it... ;)--Kotniski (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Napoleon I looks just as stupid as Elizabeth II as a supposed common name. Per my reasoning above, that clearly should have been moved to Napoleon Bonaparte. MickMacNee (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what planet people live on if they think that very common real-world names like this look stupid, but that the Wikipedia made-up names (almost never encountered anywhere else) look perfectly acceptable.--Kotniski (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support, Elizabeth II or Queen Elizabeth II is the best name for this article. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is a made up title, sounds odd, and also implies something to the readers. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 12:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It implies - well actually, it states - that she's Queen of the UK. Since this is the truth, that's exactly as it should be. And there's nothing made up about it, either. ðarkuncoll 13:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't - it states that she's the second of the UK. Since she isn't the second anything of the UK (she's that country's first Queen Elizabeth, and probably the several millionth Elizabeth), it is factually incorrect. It could be justified if it was what she was commonly or officially called, but it isn't.--Kotniski (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting how thark implies that her being Queen of anywhere other than the UK isn't the truth. Oh, but then, he has said exactly that before; something about Jamaica, Australia, Tuvalu, Canada, & etc., not being "real" monarchies. Such a 19th century attitude. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If the Name # idea is adopted for all multiple realm monarchies? It's gonna be interesting at Philip II of Spain, Philip III of Spain & Philip IV of Spain, who were all (1580-1640) monarchs of Portugal, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Referring to her as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is not factually incorrect; the UK is the successor state of the Kingdom of Great Britain which is the successor state of England and Scotland; Elizabeth II is thus properly numbered after the previous sovereign Elizabeth. Besides, if calling her Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is factually incorrect, then calling her Elizabeth II is entirely incorrect as well. If she isn't Elizabeth II of the UK, in what country is she Elizabeth II? There are good arguments against the move and good arguments in favour of the move, but please let's not push it so far as saying that calling her Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is incorrect or that she is the only Elizabeth II that has ever lived. Surtsicna (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

She is Elizabeth II, certainly, in all of her realms. But she isn't "Elizabeth II of" anywhere, strictly speaking, she's "Elizabeth II, Queen of (wherever and all the others)". Taking it upon ourselves to omit the word "Queen" in (one selected variant of) this formula is where we enter the world of original research. (OK, I'm sure we're not literally the first to do it, but it's never become anywhere near widely accepted.) And even if this obscure other Elisabeth II spelt her name Elizabeth, that shouldn't affect how we title the obviously primary article. --Kotniski (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, there is no reason to give the UK any priority here. Its not stopping anyone finding the article. --Snowded ^TALK 13:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No reason to give the UK priority - that's an argument against the present name, surely?--Kotniski (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. So, is this meant to be just an exception or are we going to throw this dubious notion of preëmptive disambiguation out the window? — Kpalion^(talk) 13:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: While it is true that the primary meaning of "Elizabeth II" is Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, it is not true that Elizabeth II would be completely unambigious and that Wikipedia has no article about an other Elizabeth II. There is, for example, Elizabeth II, Princess-Abbess of Quedlinburg. Again, this Elizabeth II is the Elizabeth II, but let's not push it so far as saying that she is the absolutely the only Elizabeth II. Surtsicna (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Princess-Abbess of Quedinburg's name is Elisabeth II, not Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The difference of a single letter is not distinctive enough, since it's the same name we're talking about, and in any case the Elisabeth to whom you refer could quite properly be called Elizabeth by English speakers. ðarkuncoll 18:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's gonna be interesting in the future, in Belgium. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Try as I might, I can't get my head around that statement at all. ðarkuncoll 18:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

See Princess Elisabeth of Belgium. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Princess Elisabeth of Belgium is supposed to become Queen of Belgium one day. However, she won't be Elisabeth II, so I don't understand the argument completely myself. Anyway, the name Elisabeth is commonly Anglicized to Elizabeth (especially when dealing with royalty) and vice versa; the queen is sometimes called Elisabeth II (in Canadian French-language documents, for example) and the princess-abbess is sometimes called Elizabeth II. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thus, if somebody wanted a completely unambigious title that excludes "of the United Kingdom", one would have to choose Queen Elizabeth II. Surtsicna (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of the Elizabeth I of England article, sorry 'bout that. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, for consistency with other monarchs. If anything the title should be Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth realms. The UK wasn't named in her proclamation, it was This Realm, and Her other Realms. Roke (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was mentioned in her proclamation. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In the Canadian proclamation, yes. Not in the British proclamation, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support per common name. The naming conventions on royalty are a crock of specialist shite that has little resemblance to common usage. older ≠ wiser 23:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

  If that's what you believe then raise it at WP:NCROY rather than here. Don't just say "people raised it there and were blocked", if nothing came of proposals there it was nobody came up with an alternative naming convention which was sensible, workable and had widespread support. PatGallacher (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  I have commented on that in the past. I've no interest in banging my head against walls though. Entrenched interests have made the bar for changing that guideline next to impossible, even though any reasonable interpretation of the repeated discussions on that page would show that the guideline has at best only weak support. The bar for establishing consensus to change to something is such that the status quo remains, even though there are many objections. It is entirely reasonable to object on a case by case basis to the application of a stupid guideline. older ≠ wiser 15:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  You might be on slightly stronger ground if you made it clear exactly what alternative guideline you are proposing. What is it? PatGallacher (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  As far as I'm concerned, WP:UCN takes precedence over the ridiculosity of the naming conventions on royalty. older ≠ wiser 19:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support per common name. Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Miesianiacal and others. I agree with MickMacNee that Queen Elizabeth II would be preferable, but Elizabeth II is vastly better than the current title. Alkari (?), 27 February 2010, 08:24 UTC
• Oppose No, leave it alone! It's been fine for the amount of time in which this page has been in existance so I fail to see the need to change it now. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The current title is non-neutral and contains wholly unnecessary disambiguation. Most arguments against are arguments from inertia and are unconvincing. Ucucha 13:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support 'Elizabeth' is so completely recognizable by anyone as to be unambiguous. So of course is 'Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom'. But the latter is unecessary when the first is clear enough, and satisfies the objection that she is equally monarch of the other realms.--Gazzster (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment It is clear that HRM has a very long, long, long title. This is especially true if one attempts to add them all up. :-) But, the one which I think remains consistent is "of the Commonwealth of Nations". I understand the motives for wanting to drop "of the United Kingdom" or any other of her realms, but would "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth of Nations" be a better compromise instead? Since "Commonwealth of Nations" is recognised in all of her realms (Constitutional Monarchies), the British overseas territories, and the Commonwealth itself? She is after-all Head of the Commonwealth and I believe that all places that have a title for HRM also recognise the "of the Commonwealth of Nations" title too? CaribDigita (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that doesn't work. She is queen of 16 of those 54 nations. But we can't even refer to her as "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms", because that makes those 16 form a single crown, when there are in fact 16 separate crowns. As for the remaining 38 Commonwealth Nations that are not Commonwealth Realms, she is most definitely NOT queen of them. She is Head of the Commonwealth, but most definitely NOT Queen of the Commonwealth. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 15:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support per COMMONNAME. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I have already voted to oppose. It is not clear whether people are arguing that she is a special case, or that they think the naming conventions for monarchs are wrong. If the latter, this should be raised at WP:NCROY. The most serious argument is that "Elizabeth II" is unambiguous, which it is. However this applies to a large number of monarchs e.g Louis XVI of France, James V of Scotland. Should we remove the pre-emptive disambiguation from all of them? This is not unworkable, it is the naming convention used by the German-language Wikipedia (although most major Wikipedias in other languages use the same convention as us) but I prefer our existing convention. However such a major change should be raised at WP:NCROY. PatGallacher (talk)

I would say both things are true, Queen Elizabeth II is special and the Monarch naming conventions are wrong. Many have tried to get the naming conventions changed, sadly progress is always blocked. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Wikipedia naming conventions on monarchs should not get in the way of common sense. Elizabeth II is without doubt the most common name of the subject of this article although i would rather it be Queen Elizabeth II but we can not expect miracles here. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - as per BritishWatcher. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per reasons stated extensively in the preceding debate. "of the United Kingdom" is fine with me, it is just technically incorrect. - Darwinek (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support while she is "of the United Kingdom" she's not solely that nor is it name in common use, Elizabeth II has some consistancy is recognisable across all realms and removes any bias concerns, but what of Elizabeth R as in

ROYAL PROCLAMATION reciting the altered Style and Titles of the Crown. London, 29th May, 1953 (British and Foreign State Papers, vol. 160, p. 2; citing the Eleventh Supplement of The London Gazette of 26th May, 1953.)

BY THE QUEEN

A PROCLAMATION

ELIZABETH R.

— http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1953

The current article has problems that causes the continual repeating of this discussion as such we need to find an acceptable solution. Gnangarra 13:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"Elizabeth R" (for "regina", queen) was presumably also used by Elizabeth I, and thus is ambiguous. Ucucha 13:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Put me down as a supporter as per COMMONNAME. Bjmullan (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Support but also split -- The convention of "Name Ordinal# Realm" doesn't work when the realm field takes more than one value at the same time, so there is a problem with our initial rule. We have enough information about her to keep more than one article, so in this case, I think the title Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom should be information about her role and place in the UK (as the name suggests) and we should move the general biographical information to it's own page. ----Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

And what would the name of that new page be? This seems to just move the problem sideways, as the fundamental issue would not be addressed. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Either just her name or "of the Commonwealth", there are pros and cons for each of them. My suggestion would require more talk, but I don't think that having her main page be here is a good solution either. ----Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support The current name is inaccurate and misleading since it implies the subject of the article is only Queen of the United Kingdom. Xandar 23:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, see WP:NCROY: "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; Philip II of Spain, not Philip I of Portugal, although there should be redirects from these locations."

• Support - inherent POV in the current name. And just as specific notability guidelines never trump GNG, I think WP:NAME should overrule WP:NCROY where ther eis no ambiguity. dramatic (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose; I support changing the ridiculous styles-and-titles naming convention. But it needs to be changed by the consensus of contributors in that space, not by making a decision here that renders their convention null and void. Hesperian 01:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

One or two exceptions doesn't render anything null and void; guidelines are expected to have occasional exceptions (as the guideline template states).--Kotniski (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If people were just arguing that she was an individual special case then it might not be worth getting into a huge argument. However, some people are putting forward arguments which would have implications for several other monarchs. Should we abandon the pre-emptive disambiguation by country for all monarchs where this is not strictly necessary? Even more problematic is the argument that we should abandon the naming convention that, in cases of monarchs of multiple countries, we give them the name of the country with which they were most closely associated. This would have implications for several monarchs, and in some cases raise the question of how we do disambiguate them from other monarchs with similar names. I am not happy that, after some discussion at WP:NCROY, nobody was able to come up with a reasonable alternative naming convention, so some people have just "turned guerrilla" against the present naming convention. PatGallacher (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure we could happily abandon the pre-emptive disambiguation for - at the very least - those monarchs who have unique name+numeral combinations and are not commonly referred to by the name presently implied by the convention. This seems far more "reasonable" to me than what we have at present. (There's also the problem about including "King/Queen" when there's no numeral, but that's a separate issue from the one here.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that creates a very large grey area. I don't know whether Louis XVI of France is more often described as such or just as Louis XVI, I expect it depends on the context. This could lead to lengthy wrangles over several monarchs. One reason why we have naming conventions is so that we have a default option for how we name people, even if we end up deciding to deviate from it in a few cases. PatGallacher (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support per User:Miesianiacal's reasoning. And also DrKiernan's reasoning. Outback the koala (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per COMMONNAME. Flamarande (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. It's the common name, and already redirects to this article. We are here for our readers not to impose artificial rules for the sake of 'consistency'. If this has implications for other monarchs, so be it. Quantpole (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no reason to depart from the usual naming conventions for monarchs; a naming convention is needed because of the multiplicity of monarchs with similar titles. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the whole discussion, because more than enough reasons have been given to why this article should be one of the exceptions to that naming convention (there are already exceptions anyhow). Also, the Queen is the only notable and primary meaning of Elizabeth II. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 11:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I may as well say something here, just for the heck of it (not that anyone will listen, but still...). I'd like to point out that, like all of our naming conventions, WP:NCROY lists it's primary criteria as: Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem.. That sentence is the first actual advice which appears on the Naming conventions (royalty) page, there's a good reason for that. It's generally agreed that Wikipedia:Use common names is, if not the most important consideration, at least the first consideration that we should have. Real, significant, and protracted disagreements about article titles tend to occur for topics where there really isn't a common name, but that's not universal (take a look at the significant issues around Catholic Church/Roman Catholic Church if you're feeling particularly adventurous... masochistic would probably be a better characterization). The main point is that we should title our articles to make it as easy as possible for our readers. In the area of Royalty the "rules" outlined in NCROY do facilitate the aim of making our articles easy and intuitive for readers to locate, which is why the formulaic article title construction outlined in that guideline are generally accepted. The fact that the formula works in most cases doesn't mean that we need to slavishly follow it everywhere, despite any apparent differences which may make a specific article an exception. For all of the reasons that I've outlined here, the proper action to take would be to rename this article to the proposed "Elizabeth II", meaning I Support the proposal. This does not, and should not, be used to repudiate the conventions in NCROY in my opinion, since for the majority of article (in terms of quantity) the normal convention will be most useful. This particular article is special is all, since the subject is so widely recognized (at least, in the Western world). I understand the argument to retain the current title, but in this single instance it's simply misplaced.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per common name and NPOV.--Ibagli (Talk) 00:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. What makes the British monarchs any more special than monarchs of any other country in the world? Woogee (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh... The fact that the last four were not just British is a good start. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand? Woogee (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

They reigned/reign as sovereigns of more than one independent monarchy; wore/wear more crowns than just a British one; were/are head of more states than the United Kingdom; etc., etc. No monarch of any other country since at least 1931 has been in such a position (barring the similar but quite different circumstances for Andorra/France). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the things I find most annoying, that a person cannot even be bothered to read the article at hand before coming along and opposing the move request. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 11:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely he realizes thats an argument in favour?!? Astounding... Outback the koala (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, it's amazing how all of the support editors have to resort to name-calling and offensive attacks since they have no other constructive arguments for their position. Woogee (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ironic, isn't it, how you just attacked every single "supporter" here for something that's never been done. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Try not to paint all the supporters with the same brush. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny how you don't repudiate the attackers. Woogee (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not everyone shares your definition of "attack". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be sure to use such language towards you and all of the other supporters of those comments the next time we have a discussion, and expect you to agree that my comments are appropriate. Astounding. Woogee (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - As per Sam Blacketeer and Labattblueboy's positions. Off2riorob (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per COMMONNAME. Plus the fact that she is monarch over other entities. I am less concerned about the consistency issue, since many other monarchs have disambiguation issues but this one does not (and I would not have a problem with just naming other articles without the "of xxx" in similar situations. Rlendog (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Pmanderson's arguments (way) above. This is a case where the benefits of consistency outweigh hypercorrectness or the (debatably) common name. — AjaxSmack 03:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, also the use of "UK" implies she is not a monach in other areas. 195.149.136.85 (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • This IP has been blocked as an open proxy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I'm amazed at so many editors making heavy weather of this move. They have latched onto on single policy describing how a name should be formatted, whilst completely failing to read the third sentance which says to use the common name! 213.185.226.47 (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • This IP has been blocked as an open proxy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support If there was more than one "Elizabeth II", then we would need a longer title to ensure that the correct pasge gets displayed. However the chances of there being 2 notable "Elizabeth II" are as rare as hen's teeth. 82.46.99.9 (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • This IP has been blocked as an open proxy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Three IPs supporting within twenty minutes—that's surprising. Ucucha 23:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    • On the one hand, one of them has only four edits, and the other two have no other edits. On the other, ISPs are from the UK, Gibraltar, and Sweden. -Rrius (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
      • It shouldn't be that surprising, since the page has (very nearly) reached the bottom of the queue at WP:RM today.
        — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure that's the explanation - presumably it's still at the bottom of the queue and IPs aren't flooding in the whole time. If this one goes to a numbers game, then I think we have to discount any !votes from IPs (and note that I'm on the side that agrees with them).--Kotniski (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
          • I've blocked these three IPs as confirmed open proxies - they are all the same user, and possibly the same user as another supporting user. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
            • Humm... well, my only point above was that I've seen similar things happen fairly often at the "end" of RM's. I used to comment on these all the time (I probably should start again...).
              — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I came here to close, seeing the page is on the backlog, however after reading I find myself having an opinion of my own, so I cannot do an impartial view. One of her titles might be "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", but does anyone actually use it? Not that I have ever heard or seen in the media. Thus I would say that that the common name we always seen and read would be more like "Queen Elizabeth" or "Queen Elizabeth II".  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Donno if its too late for me to support the change but I find Elizabeth the second applies commonly outside the united kingdom (She is Queen of Canada..) as Queen Elizabeth II as Ron mentions above. That to me would make Elizabeth II a more perferable article title in my own opinion Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Closing time

It's been about 5 days & once again, there's no consensus to move. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus now seems to be building up in support of the move slowly. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 13:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay and Knowzilla, please leave the assessment of consensus to the person who closes the discussion. Ucucha 13:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. An !vote can deliberately be left open until some moment when one side or the other is leading, and then be summarily closed. But that would undermine the poll's accuracy while contributing to the rancor which already surrounds this issue (as illustrated by the dismissive way in which the con argument was stated when this poll was opened: Whatever happened to the sense of duty and restraint Wikipedians felt to put questions neutrally and to fairly present the arguments of differing sides in a dispute, expressing one's own preference, and the rationale for it, subsequently and separately?). Consensus, not momentary majority, is the criterion for implementing change here. IMO, part of the reason "consensus now seems to be building up in support of the move slowly" is that those in opposition, always on the qui vive in anticipation that some of the advocates re-open this issue with unwonted frequency (as noted early on here by PatGallacher and Labattblueboy), therefore weigh in early in the debate with their !votes and rationales lest silence be misconstrued as consent, which does not diminish their arguments and should not sway the outcome. FactStraight (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's funner this way. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol. xD

Ok Ucucha. :] --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 15:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In any event, we're only hitting 7 days now; closing two days ago would have been premature. -Rrius (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hum, I'm curious, how do we know if there is enough consensus to move the article or not? Is it a majority (50% + 1) of people in favor with solid arguments; about 60% or more in favor with solid arguments? --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 14:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we currently seem to be running 18:9 in favour of the move (discounting one oppose vote where the rationale given was for a support). The main (only?) substantial reason for the opposition seems to be "for consistency with other monarchs". Does this mean we ought to look at a more general reassessment of monarch article titles (for example, encouraging omission of the realm in all unique/primary topic cases)? This ought to leave everyone satisfied - we would still have about the same level of consistency (given that the realm is already omitted in various cases), while allowing this article to be moved to its natural title (and presumably those who support that would also be supportive of other similar moves). --Kotniski (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If there's that much of editors in favor, with good arguments, then the consensus is enough to move the article, right? This discussion has been open for about a week now, and it's about closing time. Do we request a non participant admin to move the article? --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 14:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I could respond to that at a lot more length, but I will just say that whatever the merits of such a proposal it should be raised at WP:NCROY. PatGallacher (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It is up to an admin to close this matter and to determine how !votes and arguments should be weighted. That admin should assign appropriate consideration to the fact that on March 6 several persons who had previously !voted in favor of the January effort to move this article were canvassed to vote during this discussion (and some have done so), while no simultaneous invitation was extended to those who !voted against the move. FactStraight (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please support that last allegation with diffs? Ucucha 15:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus, is a loosely defined thing on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Found the alleged canvassing here. Six users where asked about their opinion; all supported the previous move request; three have turned up again to support. Ucucha 22:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Now four. FactStraight (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to count my vote given that I was canvised and not watching the page. I just wanted to give my two cents. ----Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It was the third such notice I have recieved in the last week or so about discussions that I have previously participated in, the notice was neutral in wording I had no reason not to WP:AGF in its posting. This article is on my watchlist and I would have commented at some stage anyway, the thing is the current name is going to have a purpetual rfm every month/two months, at some stage a closing admin is going to need to make the hard decision. I have no problem with my opinion being discounted this time because of the notice, besides there will be another rfm if the move doesnt happen this time. Gnangarra 03:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much with the wording of the notice, but rather with the selection of people notified: all supported the move the previous time around. If Knowzilla had notified everyone who commented in the previous discussion, there would have been no problem (indeed, it may be a good idea for him to do so anyway). Ucucha 03:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I never looked at any previous discussion for their names. Those six people were some of those whom I remembered as having participated in previous move discussions. I didn't invite them to come support this move request either, all the messages I sent simply notified them of this discussion. I apologize if it looks like I've been trying to gather "support votes", but that was not my intention. I merely thought they may be interested in participating in this discussion, regardless of whether they would support or oppose. I didn't go back through previous discussions and ensure that all six of those people I notified supported all previous move requests. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 05:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Current count (unofficial) is 26 Support and 15 Oppose. Seems like a consensus to me... Bjmullan (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

When did that small a support percentage become anything close to a consensus? Woogee (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, when did a 63% majority be anything other than consensus? Bjmullan (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, for one. Woogee (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is better: something supported by 63% of editors or something supported by 37% of editors? You may not think an admin with 63% support should pass, but are you really arguing that one with 37% support should remain one? DrKiernan (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You guys should go and read Wikipedia:Consensus when you get a chance (actually though, Consensus is written better). Beside that though, vote counting isn't going to solve anything over the long term, here or elsewhere. Read through the comments, beyond the votes, and then come back here and post a reply with "I think that this should be closed as <result>, because <reason>." Vote counting is why this RM request continually comes up.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The rationale is the same as it has always been:

1. Per policy at Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names: it is the commonest unambiguous name used in most english-language reliable sources.
2. In the case of Elizabeth II, disambiguation from other monarchs or articles by adding "of a Country" is unnecessary: Elizabeth II is the prime use of that term, and the suggested location is a redirect to the current title.
3. Uniquely, Elizabeth II has been Head of State of 32 independent countries. No other person in history has ever held the office in so many separate nations. The current article title chooses one of these in preference to the others. Some editors perceive this as non-neutral. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article titles where disputes arise over the neutrality of article titles, "the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources" should be used.
4. In 1953, separate titles were adopted for each of the Queen's realms, so she is "of Australia" in Australia, "of Canada" in Canada, etc. The article titles relating to British monarchs already reflect changes in the styles of the monarch. Prior to the Union of the Crowns, monarchs are "of Scotland" or "of England". After the Act of Union 1707, monarchs are "of Great Britain". After the Act of Union 1800, monarchs are "of the United Kingdom". There is no inconsistency if article titles also reflect changes in the styles of the monarch since 1953.
5. The main argument against the move is adherence to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Sovereigns guideline, but the guideline is advisory only and permits exclusions where necessary or appropriate, such as the List of rulers of Lithuania, List of Polish monarchs, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Single name. DrKiernan (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

   In regards to point #5, like all of the NC guidelines, the NCROY guideline actually states as its first criteria to "use the most Common English-language name", so it's not even about "permit[ting] exclusions where necessary or appropriate", since this wouldn't actually be an exception.
   — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

   Yes, the fifth point can be reworked in line with that. DrKiernan (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Survey of reliable sources

Media

Canada

• Globe and Mail: Elizabeth II 110, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom 1
• National Post: Elizabeth II 112, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom 0

Ireland

• Irish Times: Elizabeth II 438, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom 0

United Kingdom

• Financial Times: Elizabeth II 170, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom 0
• The Economist: Elizabeth II 21, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom 0
• The Guardian: Elizabeth II 730, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom 0
• The Times: Elizabeth II 797, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom 2

United States

• Chicago Tribune: Elizabeth II 41, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom 0
• Christian Science Monitor: Elizabeth II 411, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom 0
• Los Angeles Times: Elizabeth II 71, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom 0
• MSNBC: Elizabeth II 135, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom 0
• Newsweek: Elizabeth II 115, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom 0
• The New York Times, last five years: Elizabeth II 331, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom 0
• Time Magazine: Elizabeth II 662, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom 0
• Washington Post: Elizabeth II 22, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom 0

Encyclopaedias

• Britannica: Elizabeth II
• Columbia Encyclopedia: Elizabeth II

International organisations

• Commonwealth of Nations: Elizabeth II 15000, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom 0
• United Nations: Elizabeth II 73, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom 0

Challenge

For those contemplating this move consider/justify moving in reverse from Elizabeth II to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, a name which ignores her position and association with every other country in which she is head of state.

1. is that what would be expected of neutrally written international encyclopeadia,
2. would a UK encyclopeadia call her "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom"

So what are the arguements to jusify for reversing the move?

1. disambiguation, is there a usage thats as equally/sufficiently well known to cause confusion ie Perth
2. common name, is there name the subject is better known as
3. neutral(WP:NPOV)
4. as the subject is living does WP:BLP come into play, is it offensive, or likely to cause harm
5. is it verifiable

I'll let everyone else answer these questions Gnangarra 03:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Answers:

1. Many don't consider this article neutrally written.
2. I don't know, how many UK encylopedias are there?

Answers:

1. I'm not sure.
2. Her common name is Elizabeth
3. Again, many would argue the article is British PoV
4. We'd need to ask the Queen, which title she finds the least offensive
5. Most likely

GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Common name is clearly Elizabeth II. Go ahead, everyone, search for "Elizabeth II" and "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". Google searches are imperfect, but when the numbers are overwhelming, they need to be dealt with. There are 2,770,000 hits for "Elizabeth II", but only 35,900 for "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". For the latter, a large portion (most?) belong to the "Wikipedia and its clones" category.

As for neutrality, I don't understand GoodDay's point. I can't see how a lack of neutrality in the article means using a non-neutral title. The answer to a lack of neutrality is fixing it, not reinforcing it. -Rrius (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Answers:

1. This article title is certainly not neutral, and those who see Wikipedia as neutrally written may not expect this article to be at this title if we want complete neutrality.

2. I've yet to see any encyclopedia have it's article on QEII at "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" expect Wikipedia (and those websites which copy WP).

Answers:

1. There is no other person who was known as Elizabeth II as notable as the Queen.

2. Elizabeth II, Queen Elizabeth, or Queen Elizabeth II, is what the Queen is best known as.

3. Again, it's not neutral (the current title).

4. I'm pretty sure HM would prefer the article title to be at "Elizabeth II" rather than "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", which marks her off as only "of" one of her realms, and not the others, and the Queen has always wanted her realms to be equal in relation to her.

5. Not sure what about what your asking about? Is it if the new title is verifiable/if the answer to the preceding question verifiable?

--~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 13:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The core question

I see this as all boiling down to one question. We want to standardize article names as much as possible, and the rules for monarchs, which differ from the standard rules, say to use the name of the most common realm and no other realms. The name Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is the one that matches the word of the rules. I see two situations where we would deviate from the standard naming conventions for monarchs:

1. Will the name "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" cause this article to be confused with another one? I think we can all agree that the answer to this is no.
2. Is there a title that reflects the extent of her realms by which she is overwhelmingly well known? I think we can again agree that the answer is no. Inclusive titles like "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth" exist, but they are not her common title the way something like "Alfred the Great" is his common title. We could still use something like "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth", but not for this reason, we would have to be using it because of question 3.
3. Will choosing name the name "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", and thus saying that we see the UK as her "most commonly associated" realm, imply that we are taking sides in a debate when we could avoid doing so? Here is the tricky question. She is certainly best known for being queen of the UK in the UK, and the UK is certainly her biggest realm. However, the rest of her realms put together have a higher population than the UK. Is she better known for being queen of all of those places put together than she is for being queen of the UK? Maybe, but maybe not. If you ask who she is to a random educated person from a country that has no close connection to any commonwealth realm (like someone from South America or Japan), will they say that she is queen of the UK, or will they say that she is queen of a bunch of countries?

--Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Answers

1. It wouldn't be the end of the world.
2. The United Kingdom is the realms she's most identified with.
3. Same as preceding answer.
   

GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Answers

1. It's no indeed, but the neutrality issue is the main one at hand here.

2. Not sure about "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth" if it may imply that she is Queen of the Commonwealth whereas she is Head of the Commonwealth. "Elizabeth II" is an okay title for the article, but for one thing: This article should not stay at "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" for sure.

3. If you ask someone, it all depends on just how educated they are, and if they are educated or not a in a certain field. An only averagely educated person may think she is "the Queen of England", because even some encyclopedias, and famous news channels and newspapers call her that, even government officials of countries which are not Commonwealth realms have made that mistake sometimes. Only if they're well educated and well aware of world politics, etc, for example, would they know that Queen Elizabeth II is sovereign of 16 nations in the world. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 13:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Before someone restarts this argument…

If someone wants to bring this up again, maybe it would be better to go to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). There is never going to be consensus to deviate from the standard rules here, so if there is a problem with how Wikipedia names its articles about monarchs with multiple realms, we should get the rule itself changed. ----Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that suggestion is that there is a determined cabal of editors who seek to defend the status quo for no better reason than that is the status quo. No one can actually justify the convoluted "[Name] of [Place]", which is not adhered to at many articles already; they just "don't see the need to change". This, despite the fact that "[Name] of [Place]" is rarely the most common name and just as rarely the most likely way the name would be written in an article (thus requiring a pipe link for almost every instance of a name. Leave aside that, for no principled reason, the naming convention treats kings and queens differently from other monarchs. In the end, the problem we are seeing here and elsewhere is that the naming convention states we should preemptively disambiguate monarchs, and sets a specific style for doing so without ever explaining or justifying either decision. -Rrius (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So those who do not share your view are members of a "cabal" determined to thwart you for no reason whatsoever other than that we prefer the "status quo"? It cannot possibly be that some of us see NCRN's naming conventions as an imperfect means of addressing multiple issues concerning royalty article names which, nonetheless in our view, is better than the alternatives we have yet heard? So there are no sincere differences in opinion among reasonable Wikipedians? We obstinately defend a set of article naming conventions for "no principled reason", which have never been "explained" or "justified" (despite seven years of discussion and evolving consensus as attested to by the 19 archives at NCRN)? No wonder you try to persuade us ignorant, insensitive, stubborn, dishonorable, irredeemably malevolent and lame Wikipedians with such earnest and persuasive arguments as disregard, argumentum ad nauseam, contempt, incivility and open resentment. No doubt Jimbo Wales will descend from Mount Olympus to relieve your suffering by exorcising us from Wikipedia forthwith. Meanwhile, is there any approach to reaching consensus -- other than "we're indisputably right and you're abjectly wrong!" -- that you want to consider giving a try? FactStraight (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if the minority (who have a friendly admin who will always close this as no consensus, in spite of being unable to spell it or, more importantly, give any kind of rationale for ignoring the clear majority view) made some sort of move towards reaching a consensus that would at least have majority support, instead of stubbornly resisting any proposals for change whatever. What do you propose?--Kotniski (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be an ass. I'm not being paranoid. Rather, I'm judging the merits of arguments put forth at recent discussions. The arguments advanced for opposing specific article moves is that they would violate NCROY and create inconsistency. Discussions related to changes to the conventions themselves reveal a group of people on one side who support change, but oppose each other on the shape that change should take. The other group simply say they don't see a need to change, and refuse to actually defend the merits of the current system. In addition to the lack of any recent justifications in discussions, the conventions themselves offer no explanations. For instance, the convention most relevant to this move request is No. 3 under "Sovereign": preemptive disambiguation. The convention itself notes that it is an exception to standard naming convention rules, but simply fails to explain why such an exception is necessary. My frustration is with a system where a committed group of editors (if "cabal" makes you pissy, how about "faction"?) support the status quo without making any real effort to explain what's so great about it, but are helped along by disunity among those who oppose the current conventions, either in general or as applied at various articles. -Rrius (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have requested advice from the Arbitration Committee about how to proceed from here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Elizabeth II. DrKiernan (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

*Chokes on his food* What the..? No consensus?!? When well over two-thirds of the editors in this discussion were of opinion that the article should be moved? Amazing, just amazing. What does consensus on Wikipedia mean then? Or is something here not right... --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 16:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is simply that I do not properly understand WP:Consensus, but I confess to being rather puzzled. By my count, there were 23 support votes, nine oppose votes, one "oppose" with a supporting rationale, and one "weak support but also split"; furthermore, some of those who opposed "Elizabeth II" nevertheless indicated a desire for change. Clearly there will never be 100% agreement on a contentious issue such as Her Majesty, but it would seem to me that there is fairly clear consensus here. Alkari (?), 10 March 2010, 00:41 UTC

Closing admins who have not been engaged on one side or another of the debate assess and determine consensus in cases of serious contention. Not only is that because article names are not changed based upon a count of votes but upon the gravamen of arguments pro and con, but also because those involved will tote votes and assess consensus differently. If I were making the decision here it would reflect the fact that some votes and arguments were selectively solicited, resulting in additional votes for one side (votestacking), and their votes were immediately followed by a chorus of calls for the polling to be closed and a decision rendered based upon the enhanced count -- tainting and skewing, in my opinion, this move request. More importantly, my assessment would reflect the history of argumentation of this issue here and at NCROY), which has now involved repeated attempts to eliminate "of the United Kingdom" portion of this (and Queen Victoria's) article that have resulted in several failed attempts at change there and here including, most recently, admin actions being effectively challenged, and imbuing the debate with an unwonted sense of urgency, admitted determination to prevail (rather than to strive for consensus), attempts to substitute majority as the standard for change rather than consensus (whereas previously, when that majority was not perceived, other grounds were cited as compelling), failure to assume good faith toward those of differing opinions, incivility that rises to the level of intimidation, resort to methods other than consensus to impose the desired change (an arbitration case being filed immediately upon initial closure of this poll with the clear intent to drop "of the United Kingdom" by fiat despite the ongoing talk page process by which disagreements are normally resolved -- not to mention the unusually short interval since the last !vote on this issue). But I have been an open advocate in this debate and am no admin, so my interpretation of this debate will not and should not, decide the outcome. Nor should the insistence of others involved, howsoever sincere and passionate, be determinative here. FactStraight (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It might just be me, but it seems like the above is merely a barely veiled attack specifically on the move supporters for their supposed incivility, bullying, and devious scheming, thereby oddly carrying out (albeit subtly) exactly what it purports to condemn. I believe editors have the right to question the system when the system produces what seems to be an odd result; it may expect too much when trying to fit page move requests under WP:CONSENSUS. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The best way to change things? is one article at-a-time. See Mary, Queen of Scots for an example. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the cabal has an evil plot to keep the status quo, but I do think that NC(RN) should be changed. I don't see any good reason why NC(RN) should deviate from Wikipedia's standard disambiguation style of parentheses. If it were up to me, NC(RN) would disambiguate using like so: Henry IV (England) and Henry IV (France). --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been harping for Name # (country), as a disambiguator. But, it's not getting traction. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't appreciate the argument that we need to obtain a consensus for the naming conventions. For a start, we would most likely have to argue the case for and against any number of heads of state (eg. is Charles Habsburg 'of Spain' or 'of the Holy Roman Empire; is Nicholas Romanoff Grand Duke of Finland or Tsar of Russia). That would take ages and most likely the cause would end before it had even begun. And secondly, but most importantly, articles stand on their own. This is an important wikipedia principle. Articles are not bound to follow the conventions where the conventions do not suit. We can feel perfectly free in dispensing with the convention. Note they are 'guidelines', not rules.--Gazzster (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If we changed the standard for monarchs to Name # (country), then they would match the disambiguation style of all of the other articles in the encyclopedia and we could end the fight on this page because ERII wouldn't need disambiguation until another throne gets two Elizabeths. If the issue ever comes up again at NC(RN), GoodDay, you have my support. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that the closing editor has reverted his closure of the move request discussion. But, for how much longer should it go on for, and once again, what exactly is enough consensus to move this article? Surely if more than two-thirds of participating editors support the move, then it's more than enough --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 12:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, consensus is, if I understand it correctly, a result agreed upon by all; a compromise, if need be. However, having myself been overruled on numerous occasions simply because I was in the minority, I know first hand that consensus is regularly dispensed with in Wikipedia. I'm also unsure as to how a dispute like this could ever meet the requirements of WP:CONSENSUS; how does one compromise in a case like this? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I do know one thing, whatever the result of this current move request, we must all agree to cool it, for (at least) 6 months. Too many of these requests in a short span of time, cane come across as tentatious. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom seems to think we should continue discussion with a new request; as a request for comment. DrKiernan (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the way to go. We've exhausted the move request method. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I still vote that we make monarchs dimabiguate the same way as every other page. To WT:NC(RN), my good chums, ahoy! --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

We're now approaching 3-weeks (since the request was made). When is the RM gonna be closed & when are we gonna have a RfC? GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The RfM can be resolved without the need for an RfC, the thing is an RfC is no more productive to finding a solution than a continuation of this RfM. The RfC is just a step on the way towards an ARBCOM ruling, something the broader WP:NC is long over due for. Gnangarra 16:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Exception

The opposition to renaming of this article hinges on the presumption that the change is intent upon forcing a change to the naming convention for monarchs. We should all know and recognise that while conventions exist to guide in the creation of articles they are only a guide and that circumstance will/do occur where the guide is unable to provide a satisfactory resolution. The question is how can the change be recognised for what it is an exception to the rule(guide), the closing Admin can make such a clarification when closing the RfM which would negate proposals to change the guide based on this decision. This addresses both the problems with this articles title and the concerns over ripple affects across other articles, all it needs is for those concerned about Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) to acknowledge this RfM as an exception rather than a wedge. Gnangarra 16:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this constructive suggestion. My preference for the current article title is threefold: 1. For me, it best complies with the "most common name used in English" principle when balanced, as is typically done, with other factors in choosing article titles. Otherwise, Diana, Princess of Wales would be at "Princess Di" and Elizabeth II would be at "The Queen" (at least in English Wikipedia). 2. I consider that NCROY does not contradict the "most common name used in English" premise but implements it in light of the naming challenges unique to royalty: rare use of surnames, repetitive use of first names, frequent but disputable historical changes in names, titulature and reputation. NCROY has, over 7 years and 14 archives of discussion, laboriously raised, researched, debated and documented those challenges in an ever fallible but increasingly cogent effort to identify -- not prescribe -- which principles and formats most often comprehensively address the conflicting issues. So I do value the consistency with which NCROY informs our decision-making process. 3. That said, although I strongly support the efforts of editors, particularly those in non-UK realms of Elizabeth II, to reduce the misconception that she is only, merely queen of Britain, I do believe that she is in fact most strongly associated with England and Britain. Therefore an article move motivated by the desire to deprecate that fact, although understandable, misappropriates Wikipedia by enlisting it in a socio-political struggle which it is Wikipedia's duty to report upon and reflect the outcome of -- not to influence. I strongly believe that it is a mis-reading of Wikipedia's NPOV policy to argue that an article name should not reflect the association of a monarch with one realm more than others. I think in Wikipedia neutrality means giving no undue weight in articles, that is, objectively reflecting whatever is the prevalent and documentable association, not denying, hiding or minimizing it in any way. When most English-users no longer treat the UK as Elizabeth II's primary realm in reputable sources, WP should do likewise, but not until then. Choosing Elizabeth II as article title would take her out of the usual naming format for European monarchs by applying Wiki's "most common name" rule not to enhance ease in searching as originally intended, but to reduce the perception of her disproportionate association with one of her realms, even though that association is accurate. It is an abuse of process to promote a reality different than that which exists in the belief that doing so is more "fair" and therefore more "neutral" than reporting an unfair reality. Because Wikipedia has growing use and therefore influence, this burdens the struggle of those who are trying to ensure that Elizabeth's realms be treated equally vis-a-vis their common monarch. I acknowledge and regret this, but don't feel it justifies naming this article in a way that is inconsistent with current reality and Wikipedia's commitment to objectivity. The alternative I've proposed is that a section of the article (and others), properly sourced, be included which addresses the perception and treatment of the Commonwealth realms relative to their Queen, and any ways in which that treatment is inaccurate and/or subject to change or evolution. In light of the above 3 points, I would support a change to "Elizabeth II" as a one-off compromise that is agreed and understood not to deprecate NCROY's applicability otherwise, nor to create a precedent. Unfortunately, based upon the sincerely held differing convictions of others in this discussion, I do not think most of them can agree to such a compromise, since they will want to ride the momentum of a change here. But if they can, I will -- and gladly, even though I genuinely do prefer the article as it now is. FactStraight (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Just to let the editors know, this discussion has been adressed at the ANI noticeboard so hopfully the admins will see it close this discussion which (as far as I can see) should go for a no consensus decision. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No consensus? How so? When two-thirds of participants support the move? In fact, nevermind the !voting, the arguments in favor of the move are far greater in number and importance than those against. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 11:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Issue

I'm referring to the table in this section with a column labeled Divorce, complete with cells waiting to be filled. I suggest that column be retitled as Notes, which could be filled "Divorced (DD/MM/YYYY)", "Died (DD/MM/YYYY", "Created [Title] of [Territory] (DD/MM/YYYY) etc. Makes the table field a bit more flexible and probably a bit 'safer' as a BLP. I've seen the article is under review for GA status so I'll refrain from being bold and leave my suggestion to ferment. Nice work btw. Paul ( Paul Roberton (talk)) 02:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bad idea, but I'm sure I see the BLP problem. -Rrius (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Image war

There is an edit war brewing over the placement of some images. I don't understand the sides involved because neither side seems to be doing much more than claiming policy favours their position. From the edits, I am almost certain Ohms law is wrong in his belief that policy supports putting an image immediately before section headings. From WP:MOSIMAGES: "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading." That seems clear to me. The other major dispute seems to be whether an image should be on the right or left when it starts a section. I prefer the right because it is more aesthetically pleasing and allows the reader to scan along the right side of the page when looking for specific section titles, but I don't see where policy dictates using either side. The closest thing I know of is the rule that the article should have an image or infobox at the top of the page to the right of the text. I realise that may not encapsulate the full area of contention, but, as I said, the details have been sparse to this point. Therefore I invite those involved in the dispute to explain their positions and everyone else to comment. -Rrius (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)