Jump to content

Talk:Elizabeth II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 92.22.43.60 (talk) at 14:34, 19 September 2022 (→Article quality). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleElizabeth II is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 2, 2012, and on September 19, 2022.
Did You KnowIn the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 29, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 15, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
January 26, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
August 26, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
January 26, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 22, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
February 23, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
May 21, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 31, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
February 4, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
September 14, 2011Good article nomineeListed
February 21, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 2, 2006.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Queen Elizabeth II (pictured) once worked as a lorry driver?
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 9, 2015, June 2, 2022, and September 8, 2022.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 2, 2004, February 6, 2005, June 2, 2005, February 6, 2006, June 2, 2006, June 2, 2007, February 6, 2008, February 6, 2009, February 6, 2010, February 6, 2012, February 6, 2015, February 6, 2017, February 6, 2019, and February 6, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

RfC on popularity and support for the monarchy claims in the lead

Should the lead section sentence "However, support for the monarchy in the United Kingdom has been and remains consistently high, as does her personal popularity." be changed to "In the United Kingdom, support for the monarchy remains high but has been declining in recent years. Elizabeth's personal popularity has been and remains consistently high."? (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No sources have been provided to oppose this change nor have the sources I provided been refuted in any way. Three people are either indifferent to or open to changing the sentence, with 2 in some form of opposition.
The material in the article is outdated and an update to it is warranted. There've been no replies here in 3 1/2 days. I'm ending the RfC and applying the change to the lead, with citations. DeaconShotFire (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to close an RFC you started & then unilaterally make a ruling on it. You wait until the RFC tag expires on 22 August & then seek closure at the proper board. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Misread the last 2 rules on the RfC page. Let's have it run its course then. DeaconShotFire (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Note: RFC closer should see Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive_44#Revert_image_change and six other threads on image below it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: - the proposal just has not met WP:ONUS of providing cites showing any noted drop for Elizabeth II nor showing it WP:DUE mention, and the vague phrasing gives a false impression of significant shift and/or low approval. The NPR cite above gives her approval at 80%+ in 2022, Really this is not a vital thing as it's not like she is standing for election or that her rule is greatly affected by minor shifts. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A drop of approximately 10% in 10 years is not substantial? The phrasing also doesn't have to be set in stone. The sentence maintains that her personal popularity is high, while mentioning declining support for the institution of which she is the figurehead and most recognisable member. You haven't refuted any of the sources I provided suggesting that the information in the article is outdated. DeaconShotFire (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely not any substantial change nor any impact. The minor variation over 30 years is not widely remarked upon like something of importance would be, nor did the trivial variations affect her life. The Diamond Jubilee 10 years ago did mark a minor peak -- but it is hardly significant as seen by there just was not much notice of it. It is not WP:DUE any remark, let alone wandering off into offtopic remarks not about Elizabeth II. Look at the chart in Ipsos and it is just 30 years of not much change and no importance. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's got nothing to do with her then surely we should remove any mention of the monarchy as a whole from the article. Clearly that's an absurd idea because it's entirely relevant to her.
    "The Diamond Jubilee 10 years ago did mark a minor peak -- but it is hardly significant as seen by there just was not much notice of it." - No source to back this up I guess, ignoring the 5 that I've posted above countering exactly that statement.
    "It is not WP:DUE any remark, let alone wandering off into offtopic remarks not about Elizabeth II. Look at the chart in Ipsos and it is just 30 years of not much change and no importance." Again -- no explanation for why you think this is unimportant. Not that whether you think it's important is relevant; I'm alleging that the information in the article is outdated -- and you claim that new data conducted by Ipsos and YouGov is not important enough to include, therefore we should leave the article as is? DeaconShotFire (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I can explain again. Yes, leave it alone or removal would be fine, and the support for monarchy just is phrased separately from her and is not a big debate so trimming that out would also be fine. The proposed statements are not fine. In 70 years it seems approval rating is proven insignificant by having no major variations, no effects, and no major coverage. One could even add the 2022 links to the existing text as there just is not much going on here.
    I did not ignore the 5 cites shown, but observe that the Diamond Jubilee was a minor peak and the rating simply returned to the norm shown in the 30 year chart, so a statement summarising that solely about the minor decline is a misleading distortion of that material and an incorrect implication of cause. I again note it all seems an UNDUE issue because 5 cites out of tens or hundreds of thousands of Diamond Jubilee links available just is microscopic. Approval rating in her case just has not been anything of great change or impact or public coverage. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the proposed wording regarding the monarchy ("remains high but has been declining in recent years") appears accurate, brief and well supported by the sources DeaconShotFire points to at the top of this survey. The sources explicitly describe this shift as being a significant feature of/challenge within Elizabeth's reign, evidence of due weight. I agree the current wording regarding the monarchy generally ("has been and remains consistently high") is poorly supported, likely outdated and contradicts the sources raised above, while being a better reflection of Elizabeth's personal popularity. Jr8825 • Talk 10:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I don't think the new wording is right. The article text says the popularity was lowest in 1997, which is believable and cited. Popularity was high before then, it then sank to a low point in the late 1990s, it then rose again. This new sentence doesn't appear to reflect that. Even at the low point, support for the monarchy was still far higher than for republicanism. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Polls are open to so much interpretation, from the questions to the results, that it's best to leave them out of an encyclopedia, unless maybe it's an indepth analysis considering many polls and poll results over many years. It certainly shouldn't be in a lede. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment* If anything, the statement should at least be cleaned up to remove a few redundancies. "However, support for the monarchy in the United Kingdom has been and remains consistently high, as does her personal popularity." Kerdooskis (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, If you look at Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom#Opinion_polling, support dropped in 2019 after the Andrew episode and has since been fairly stable at a lower (but still quite high) level. As such, saying it's "declining" does seem inaccurate.--Llewee (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, I've debated on this sentence before, and at the time we ended up not changing it. This was in mid-to-late May this year. I added 2 opinion polls to the article from 2020-2022 and that meant that the sentence could be kept intact. This issue has been thoroughly discussed very recently, and AFAIK there has been no major change in the popularity of the monarchy. I see no reason as to why it should be changed now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Comment: I would suggest editing that statement to "However, she remains a consistently popular monarch", or something similar (with appropriate citation), and removing all reference to the popularity of the monarchy itself. The popularity of the monarchy is actually a concept quite separate to the popularity of Elizabeth as a monarch. Many of the things that have influenced the popularity of the monarchy (Prince Andrew, for example) haven't really involved Elizabeth directly. This would, happily, spare us the obligation of assessing whether the British Public are currently royalists or republicans. Elemimele (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue she is more or less the embodiment of the monarchy. Plus, not everything in the article is directly or has to be directly exclusively about her. The article goes on to talk about increased criticism of the royal family as a whole in the 1980s, and states that Elizabeth's own personal popularity is credited with Australia voting in 1999 to keep their monarchy. DeaconShotFire (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Her personal popularity is inevitably linked to the popularity of the monarchy itself. From what I can tell, Elizabeth seems to be consistently popular, unlike some of the royals. I don't see any good reason to change the language in the fourth paragraph. Векочел (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Her personal popularity is inevitably linked to the popularity of the monarchy itself." This is a sentence that argues for my side. If they're linked, it should be mentioned.
    You also haven't refuted the evidence I've posted above that the information in the article is outdated. DeaconShotFire (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please let the RFC run its full 30-day course. Then seek closure at Wikipedia:Closure requests, when the RFC tag expires. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photograph for after her death

Responding to requested closure:
  • Consensus for some variant of option C.
  • Consensus for using a retouched version rather than the original version. (a naive look at the section would suggest otherwise, but some people are re-voting there opposed to any C-variant, which skews the vote. Of those who commented between original vs retouched, retouched had clear support.)
  • Unclear consensus on which retouched version to use (full v crop v crop 3:4). Mainly due to various derailings in that sub-section
I would suggest doing the "1959 official portrait, restored" sub-section again, but keeping it tightly focused this time. Alternatively, the 3-option poll in this link with the current image could be a good way forwards. I'd recommend no immediate change while the process continues, my experience on here is that giving people ample opportunity to comment results in less conflict. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


This might be a tad bit early to discuss, but I think we can get ahead of the curve and discuss pictures that are appropriate to use in the infobox following the Queen's death. There are a quite a large number of photos on Commons and a bunch of these from different parts of her life are included on the right side of the screen below.

  • (Option A: Portrait from 1943)
    (Option A: Portrait from 1943)
  • (Option B: Portrait from 1953 Coronation)
    (Option B: Portrait from 1953 Coronation)
  • (Option C: Official portrait from 1959 tour)
    (Option C: Official portrait from 1959 tour)
  • (Option D: Official portrait from 1986)
    (Option D: Official portrait from 1986)
  • (Option E: Official 2011 New Zealand portrait)
    (Option E: Official 2011 New Zealand portrait)
  • (Option F: Current infobox photograph prior to death)
    (Option F: Current infobox photograph prior to death)
  • (Option C1: A tighter cropping)
    (Option C1: A tighter cropping)
  • (Option C2: Full image with natural brightness)
    (Option C2: Full image with natural brightness)
  • (Option G: Coronation with Prince Philip portrait)
    (Option G: Coronation with Prince Philip portrait)
  • (Option H: Coronation)
    (Option H: Coronation)
  • (Option H1: Coronation cropped)
    (Option H1: Coronation cropped)
  • (Option I: Head shot from 2012)
    (Option I: Head shot from 2012)

I'm not exactly sure which one best would represent the queen, but I think that this talk page would be the best place to find people who would have an idea about what photo would be best. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I reformatted the gallery to prevent the images from leaking into other discussions. Matma Rex talk 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC))[reply]
I vote for Option D. Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 18:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option F, it’s a fairly iconic look for her even if it’s at the end of her reign. Dronebogus (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don’t see a single vote for A (way too young, barely recognizable) B (black and white) or G (not focused on her). C2 (low quality copy) also seems redundant. Maybe remove them? Dronebogus (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for Option D. The image in option F was convenient for identification of the Queen as a living person, now that she is deceased, I think the more formal, official look presented in option D is appropriate, and also reflects on her better than a picture of her in her eldest years. ~XyNqtc 21:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option D is objectively the best option after some slight tweaks RODEBLUR (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option D is probably the best compromise agewise. She still looks relatively young, but she also already looks like her 90 year-old self. That being said, this image is as sharp as a river stone—I would actually prefer Option C or even just retaining Option F just for the sake of picture quality. Yo.dazo (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option D seems to be the best suited here and gets my vote. I have no qualms about Option E, but many people seem to not favor it as it features QEII in New Zealand. I'd vote for an official portrait later than D (if available) but right now this seems to be appropriate. Lord Clayton7 (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option D as it was taken roughly at the halfway point of her reign, so seems the best overall summary. Apocnowt (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option C, one of the more iconic photos of her, as well as being an official one. Unbeatable101 (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option C1 or H1 Are both highly representative Stuffmaster1000 (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option C or D. More appropriate to use an official portrait. Steepleman (t) 07:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option D or E I think it's better to use a portrait where she is more recognizable to everyone. H3nrique Bregie (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option H1 She was a queen, why not use a photo fro her coronation. EmilySarah99 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Options D, E, or H1. All three of them are higher quality, from an official capacity, in color, and/or follow MOS:PORTRAIT. In case for those who don't know, Wikipedia generally prefers portraits where the subject is facing the text (see JB Pritzker as an example). InvadingInvader (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option C 4me689 (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's early to discuss, as doctors say they are concerned for her health. They usually downplay royal health issues, meaning we may have a London Bridge announcement soon. BTW my vote goes on option C Μιχαήλ Δεληγιάννης (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

THE CURRENT ONE. Or option E.. no idea why you people feel the need to change celebrity photo's to a historic one once they’ve died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glassware3 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC) strike sock[reply]
I am not an expert on this, but I think there are a variety of potential reasons. Having never participated in such a decision, I can imagine that it is extremely difficult to choose an infobox picture that adequately and respectfully represents the most notable and complete picture of a person's life, particularly if such a person has had such a long and accomplished life as the Queen has. Since the infobox is the first thing a reader sees when they open the page, the image needs to broadly and accurately reflect the subject matter about which they are getting ready to read.
Take Mickey Rooney for example. Editing consensus could have chosen a more recent picture of him as an old man, but they went with a younger one that more concisely summarizes the notability of his acting career. The same would need to be true here.
Regarding the actual discussion about which picture to choose, I am leaning towards C or D at the moment. I like A, but it was taken before she was crowned Queen. B is not the greatest picture (in my opinion). E was taken in the context of New Zealand specifically, which would be seen as out of place. And my arguments against F are summarized above. As I am writing, I think I have to give my final vote as D. (Is there a specific WP policy that might help dictate the decision?) TNstingray (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is there a policy that says that when someone dies we should change their picture to an older, historical one? I've noticed it in other articles, such as Muammar Gaddafi. — Czello 14:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally from what I can tell its changed to a picture from the most significant era of their life, take Ronald Reagan for example, his official presidential portrait in 1981 is used for the lead image rather then an image of him at the end of his life. Tweedle (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I suppose the question is what the most "significant era" of Elizabeth's life was — Czello 15:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her whole reign was significant, that’s why I say just keep the current one Dronebogus (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C gets a vote from me personally but I guess its a little too soon to decide what photo to use I guess. I would not go with Option B though if C was excluded, I don't really know how to explain but it just looks odd as a lead infobox photo? C is better as a portrait and closer in her reign to when she was coronated so that's why I would go with that choice. Tweedle (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option F. Keep the current image. There may come a time down the line when it would be appropriate to change to an earlier image as suggested, but I think in the short term, at least until the mourning and all the rest of it is concluded, I wouldn't advise changing. Our readers know her primarily in her current guise, and I can even imagine some might find it a little offensive or insensitive to suddenly switch away from the monarch they know at such a time.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with this for the time being. Tweedle (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C in the event of London Bridge falling. Polyamorph (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option F. Enough will change when the day comes. The current image represents the way people think of her today. There has been no rise and fall, no marked decline; this is someone who has been consistently prominent for many decades. In the long term, this photo, or one of her most recent official photos, may remain the best one. Roches (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option F - I understand and agree with the idea of using an image most representative of her, but I'm not entirely sure her in her full regalia is most representative. She has attended many important formal official events in her various hats for quite a while now, and while we usually do portray monarchs in their regalia, I would suggest the current image might actually be the most representative we have available currently. That said, Option E is a close second, I do understand the issue with it being a NZ-centric circumstance, but I suspect that wouldn't actually matter to most people, and sans a similar recent UK portrait being available, I think it's a good choice, especially because of how high quality it is, and in my personal opinion it does have the benefit of her looking incredibly dignified in it. 90.198.253.144 (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding in two croppings of Photo C to consider, labelled as C1 and C2.

I'd personally consider both to be better than the original option C, with the tighter cropping having the benefit of being slightly more like her portraits on things such as stamps and coins, while the latter looks slightly less awkward (my own opinion) in how she is positioned when the added context is included, and has a slightly more flattering colour balance. 90.198.253.144 (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C1 would be my choice as it's a close up shot. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also included a third additional option from me, if we wanted a photo from around her coronation, I think this is a higher quality one (and in colour) than Option B, I've labelled it as Option G. 90.198.253.144 (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion was it should be the portrait of herself in this year Asphonixm (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option C, fully expressive and recognisable Wase134 (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Commons expert, but is there any way to license this portrait? It’s her last one, made this year. I think getting an official portrait made in her last years of reign would be the best, as it is more recognized by users and current generations. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option C. While a less official image was nice during her reign, as is the case on other pages a more official and earlier photo is much more appropriate for her page. Max3218 (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option D. Both C and D are excellent images of her, however, I believe D strikes the best balance between youthfulness and recency. It is from the middle of her reign and recognizable. CalcarineSulcus123 (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Option H, for the reasons pointed above. Darth2207Lucas (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+ After seeing other responses, I would like to add that the argument that "readers will recognize her as an old woman" is recentist and is not the standard for other recently deceased bio subjects. ~ HAL333 18:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option F. She is actually popular in her 'old' style, unlike other rulers. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For those with a preference for newer photos, I have added a head shot from 2012 and labeled it Option I. In the image, the queen has nothing obscuring her hair and is wearing the Prince Albert Sapphire. If someone can do a better job of cropping and rotating it, please do so and replace my submission. Miklogfeather (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s washed out and she looks abnormally cranky. Dronebogus (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C, it's a great portrait, and I prefer to show her in her younger years. Sea Cow (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D, in my opinion Option C suffers from the unnatural background, while Option D seems to be much more natural despite her being considerably older. The 1980s were also closer to the center of her reign than the other options- three decades after her coronation and four decades before her passing. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D, Also, I'll be tallying up the options to date:
A: -
B: -
C: 39 votes
C1: 3 votes
C2: -
D: 20 votes
E: 3 votes
F: 16 votes
G: -
H: 3 votes
H1: 2 votes
I: -
Rob3512 (Talk) 18:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s seems to me that a general consensus on option C has been gained as it received significantly more votes. As such, someone with extended access should implement that change (even if discussion continues on this talk page) Max3218 (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's still about evenly divided. A total of 42 people support either C or C1, while, combined, the others hold the support of 44 users. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably makes sense to do some kind of a run-off vote, since many of the options were added after voting started. Morgan695 (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It probably would have been a better strategy to poll whether people were more inclined towards portraying her as young, middle aged, or elder, and then start suggesting images from that time period. At present, the field is too divided for this threat to plausibly reach acceptable consensus. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current consensus looks something like “Not the current photo”, with C being marginally more popular than D. A follow-up to better sort between those might be warranted, but the discussion thus far clearly has established a consensus to not use Option F. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is seemingly becoming a debate between C and D. I’d support C because it better quality than D. Dronebogus (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also counted 41 votes for C not 39 Max3218 (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option E or Option F. I'd personally prefer a more recent photo of the Queen Pepper Gaming (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1959 official portrait, restored

  • Official portrait in full, retouched
    Official portrait in full, retouched
  • Official portrait (cropped), retouched
    Official portrait (cropped), retouched
  • Official portrait (cropped w/3:4 ratio), retouched
    Official portrait (cropped w/3:4 ratio), retouched

Since Option C appears to be the popular choice I took the liberty of uploading a new version. It's a copy of the original, uncropped official portrait which I've lovingly restored. Sorry I didn't get around to this sooner but I do think that those who voted for Option C may appreciate a professionally restored version, and I apologize for making the voting more complicated. (For those of you who don't know me, I'm responsible for the current infobox image. I have 20+ years experience with Photoshop and photographic retouching. I have made every effort to restore the image while staying true to the original portrait.) nagualdesign 00:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem unusual. However, the red and gold curtains in the background were chosen by the official portrait photographer and were definitely no accident. The colours hold cultural significance.[1] This is what the photographer intended, his superiors in the Canadian government were obviously happy with it, her Majesty approved and, in my opinion, cropping a historical photograph is a little shortsighted. nagualdesign 11:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. I do support this, as I said, the red did just seem to come from nowhere and distract the eye a little. Sanctaria (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support even though I voted D initially. This definitely looks better in hindsight. Rob3512 (Talk) 16:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • support Yeah I would support this. It looks very striking like a modern photograph. Given that she has been a notable figure at least since she was ten-years-old then showing at this age not long after her coronation might be the best time to choose.--Llewee (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added a cropped version of the restored portrait above. I like it a bit more than the uncropped version and I think it's closer to the original Option C that most people were supporting. In any case, I think it's safe to change the image to the original C (for now) pending further discussion on what sort of crop we'd like, so I'm going to do that now. The higher quality restored photograph is better than the original C in my opinion, so I don't see this as the original C permanently taking that slot. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I like your crop of the retouch, cuts out more of the background noise and focuses on the subject more. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with this change. C (either original, C1, or this retouched version) has, imo, clear support as a replacement. Sanctaria (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Portraits for Wikipedia infoboxes are generally cropped to a ~3:4 aspect ratio, so I recommend doing that. Good work with this. — Goszei (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Goszei: I've created that crop and added it above. It looks a lot like our original option C, but without the vignetting at the top and with a generally higher quality. Thank you so much nagualdesign for your high-quality restoration of the portrait from an original copy. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity sake, it looks like this change was reverted on the basis that an editor felt like there wasn't consensus to change from Option F. I've requested uninvolved closure at WP:RFCLOSE. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't cast a vote because it seemed a little self serving (I still prefer the original, Option F, or alternatively my restored image) but I have to say that I definitely oppose using any of the cropped images. The caption under the uncropped image, if it was used, would read something like "Official portrait from 1959" and serve as a resource for people who come to Wikipedia for exactly that. Whereas the caption for the cropped image, if used, would have to be something like "The queen in 1959" since it is no longer the official portrait, and anyone looking for it would have to dig through several links before arriving at the full image on Commons, assuming that they even know how to do that and they know that the portrait is available somewhere. We're not just decorating a page, ideally we're providing a readily available resource. As I wrote earlier, this is a historical photograph. The idea of subsequent generations chipping away at it to suit their own contemporary aesthetic ideals, losing the parts that they don't personally appreciate, pains me deeply. Vote however you wish but please try to think beyond yourself. </rant> nagualdesign 18:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose She's not looking at the camera at all. The photo is not an official portrait of a propper kind, the angle is very odd. Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since image options were added and/or removed over the course of this RfC, I don't feel like editors got a chance to see all of the available options at once. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Options A-F were available at its beginning, so something like "consensus for !F" can be ascertained. I don't think anybody other than the proposer is really considering Option G or option I, but I understand that for Option H (and variant) and for Option I. This also wasn't really an RfC, though it's certainly attracted wide participation. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comment above, agreed that Elizabeth isn't even looking at the camera. This picture was taken when she was refereed to as "Queen Elizabeth II of Canada". "Official portrait of Queen Elizabeth II before the start of her 1959 tour of the U.S. and Canada as Queen of Canada." How does this represent her status as Queen of the United Kingdom? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    She wasn't just Queen of the United Kingdom. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support since this retouched portrait looks great. H3nrique Bregie (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If we are to use option C as the photograph, I think we had better use @Nagualdesign's restored version of it. Preferably the full version.
Παραλλάξιος (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the uncropped version, I agree with your reasons regarding that. The restored version looks fantastic. Unbeatable101 (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As per GoodDay I believe we should restore the 2015 image for the same reasons Pepper Gaming (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I do also oppose this.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: her color solo coronation picture (Option H1) would look better. Also, MOS:PORTRAIT states that a subject should be facing the text, as VNC200 brings up. MOS:PORTRAIT also states it's discouraged just to flip the picture as well. The Coronation picture is historically significant and follows MOS:PORTRAIT better. The 2015 image also could work, as it has the most historical consensus as of the project, but I think the best image would be H1 based on MOS:PORTRAIT and its historical significance. This isn't a bad image, but maybe belongs further down in the article instead of in the infobox. InvadingInvader (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Arms & Badges - Royal Arms of Canada, A Brief History". Royal Heraldry Society of Canada. Retrieved 10 August 2019.

@HandIsNotNookls, TheScrubby, and Sea Cow: Please note that a consensus has not yet been achieved, either on which version of the 1959 image to use or whether to change to it at all. It is wholly inappropriate for any editor to take it upon themselves to change the infobox image at this time. I suggest a straight discussion between options C and F above (i.e. "Should the infobox be changed to the image from 1959?") as the next step to reaching a clear consensus, from which the discussion can be closed and only then the infobox changed (if that is what is decided). U-Mos (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a fair reading of the whole discussion is that there's a clear consensus that we should no longer use F and a rough consensus for some form of Option C. I've opened a request at RFCLOSE with respect to this, seeing as it's been challenged. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that consensus seems to agree with not using the current image, it probably would not be appropriate to change it until a new one is agreed upon. Doing so disproportionately benefits the new image. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doing so disproportionately benefits the new image is not exactly something I agree with; we might want to change an image to something close to the final image we want. If this happens to be something like "Option C and/or some variation thereof", then why not improve the page now and finalize the particular crop/restoration later? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the discussion is still going strong, why is there a close at this time? Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very much disagree. The number of opposes in this subsection alone indicate a lack of consensus, not to mention the absence of robust discussion specifically between option C (as the clear favourite alternative) and the present image (F) alone. This is nowhere near ready for closure, and I hope any editor responding to the RFCLOSE recognises that. U-Mos (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The opposes above are to the proposed cropping of the C picture. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue. Almost all of them explicitly reject the use of this portrait in any form. U-Mos (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the most recent opposes, Pepper Gaming, GoodDay, and Wehwalt, all need to be struck, since they are duplicates of opposes to C in the main section. It is also worth pointing out that, even with the opposes above, the Cs still have a clear majority and lead. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it’s clear to me as well that the consensus is very obviously in favour of Option C and even more explicitly against Option F, and nearly all of the Oppose comments from this subsection are from those who were already against the option/in favour of Option F in the main discussion. I think it’s even more inappropriate that a small handful of users who are in the minority are reverting back to Option F and trying to deny that there’s a consensus and are attempting to drag this out by moving goalposts and adding additional steps not seen in most other infobox pic discussions. TheScrubby (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'd advocate for leaving 2015 up for now, no point in edit warring over it. I don't think F has a snowballs chance if this stays open, I think people are dragging their feet against an image that has over double the support of F, but there is absolutely zero point in disturbing a featured article over an infobox picture. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The move discussion on Charles III was closed within 2 days, even though the conversation was still going strong. I don't think that this is a much different scenario. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone just started a new poll between the two pictures down below. Given that this discussion appears to have run it's course and decided between two images for a second poll, maybe this could be closed as no consensus (even though there is a clear one for C, but people disagree) and the new poll can be used for deciding the image? FrederalBacon (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think consensus is yet established. It's close, but not yet, A majority does seem in favor of C, but the status of this is more like a vote than consensus, and a VERY vocal minority (which seems to be growing) is in favor of the 2015 image. InvadingInvader (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From looking above, there appears to be clear consensus for C. 48 or so for C, 18 or so for F. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WikiProject Current Events - London Bridge Task Force

I wanted to let editors know and invite editors to the WikiProject of Current Events new task force The London Bridge Task Force, which will be working on improving all the articles around the death of Elizabeth II. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Running this article as Today's Featured Article

See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 19, 2022. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continued at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Elizabeth II SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion continues at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 19, 2022 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've started a discussion on whether to run this article as Today's Featured Article on the day of the funeral, which seems to be 18 September. Please feel free to leave views there. Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! AlanTheScientist (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion Tweedle (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a good idea. NatriumGedrogt (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Chongkian (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Direct link to the conversation, if people wish to leave their comments there. Wittylama 07:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just voiced my support for it there. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Time of Death

The British PM, Liz Truss, was informed at 4.30 pm that Queen Elizabeth had died. Hence the press sources stating that her children and grandchildren had travelled to be with her are misleading inasmuch as she had died by the time everyone had arrived, other than Prince Charles and Princess Anne who were present. Billsmith60 (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true the PM knew at 4.30pm we don't know what anyone else knew at the time. It's not for us to do the analysis / original research here. Let's rely on sources. AlanTheScientist (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I'm merely flagging up that the 'official' version cannot be true, as a number of Royal VIPs didn't arrive until 5 pm or after, according to the BBC. Let's see if editors note that point. Billsmith60 (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can't note that point until a reliable source notes that point. Again, that'd be original research.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  11:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Billsmith60 and Ved havet: To my knowledge, we can point out a discrepancy if it is very basic, so long as we stick strictly to facts and sources. That is easily done with footnotes. Though, this has to do both with time and with who, which is trickier than a time discrepancy. However, I will say that I don't see the point in making an example as I don't see any reference to an official statement in the article. If it is somewhere in the article, I would like for it to be pointed out first. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OR, we may only perform "routine calculations" (e.g. calculating someone's age based on their birth date). Concluding if family members arrived before or after the Queen's death based on reports about when the prime minister was told about her passing, can not be classified as a routine calculation. Based on WP:OR, "if you use [well-sourced material] out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". So, using two pieces of material to come to a conclusion not explicitly supported by the source is, indeed, original research and not permissable on Wikipedia.
At the moment though, the article simply states her family travelled to Balmoral, which is obviously correct. Even "travelled to Balmoral to be with her" would be correct, because that was indeed their intention, regardless if they arrived too late or not.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  02:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, only Charles & Anne were with Elizabeth II, when she died. This is shown & sourced at the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II page. GoodDay (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead paragraph is getting too wordy

I suppose it's understandable human nature, if disheartening, that the impulse of so many is to fatten a lead with cruft that doesn't belong there when an article is hot, but please don't do so mindlessly. Read WP:LEAD. Moncrief (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the issue is also that it is simply not very could and reads strangely, dates being repeated, etc. It’s unfortunate as a consensus was built before her death to have an intro of “Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – 8 September 2022) was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in 2022. She was queen of 32 realms at the start of her reign and monarch of 14 of them at the time of her death. Her reign of 70 years and 214 days was the longest of any British monarch and the second-longest recorded of any monarch of a sovereign state“ Max3218 (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch/Queen Regnant: Although I think reaching the consensus first paragraph was great wiki work, reading that paragraph with the eye of an average reader suggests we might be expecting too much or aiming at a rather more educated readership. "Monarch" is a generic term; "Queen regnant" is a specific type of monarch. Although I already understood the terms, I had to do a double take on the second sentence and this early in the entry this may lead to readers finding Wikipedia too highbrow a source: "So she was only monarch of 15?" "So now I have to find out what all these terms mean?" etc Although this leads some readers to the wonders of researching further in Wikipedia :) the majority may simply stop reading because the article requires too much work. Surely the first section/paragraph should provide something akin to a TLDR. Obviously WE know that "queen regnant" means "monarch" and that "monarch" does not necessarily mean "queen regnant", but we shouldn't assume our readers will read straight through that without a double take. To make this a simpler read I suggest that the term monarch is removed as it does the opposite of clarifying. For example this small change might read "During her lifetime she was queen regnant of 32 sovereign states of which 15 remained at the time of her death." or similar. Wordwood (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly supported this paragraph to be implemented right away as it was a vital upgrade that we needed to fix the mess before it in the 24 hours or so after the death. However, you do make a really good point here and I would also support this change to remove 'monarch'. And if "of which" doesn't flow as well I would recommend just replacing 'monarch' by doubling up 'queen regent" to read "She was queen regent of 32 sovereign states during her life and remained queen regent in 15 at the time of her death". A problem we are describing here is the problem with elegant variation. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked it, so that "queen regnant" is shown, only. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding Archie and Lilibet as prince and princess

A discussion has been started here regarding Archie and Lilibet as prince and princess. Thanks. cookie monster 755 21:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what would be appropriate is that, per 1917 declaration (amended later to also include females), it is mentioned that both Archie and Lilibet have the option to claim HRH titles with the ascension of King Charles but that it appears unlikely because of Harry’s and Meghan’s stated want for them to have more ‘normal’ lives. Just one potential idea to address it. Max3218 (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Max3218 I agree, though I see no point in making such an edit (though others opinions may differ) as I expect the sussexes to make a statement soon, especially since that already made a big hoo ha about it at Archie's birth. EmilySarah99 (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

post-1997 criticism

The lede's mention of criticism of QEII stops at 1997. What about her stances on Andrew and Harry/Meghan? What about the recent revelations that the royals were able to quietly veto legislation affecting them? Dawud (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are valid Dawud and such critique should be included. Could you provide suggestions on verbiage and links to sources to support the changes you would like to see? Jurisdicta (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constant image swapping

This is a Featured article that has been constantly tended since its promotion, and yet every editor who wanders by seems to feel the need to insert or swap an image. Please discuss and gain consensus for image changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I find the current image appropriate for the subject as a historical subject of an encyclopedia biography. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend page protection, until/if a consensus is reached on a 'new' infobox image. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about the infobox, which is the subject of an RFC (above at #Infobox photograph for after her death) ... I'm referring to the other seemingly random and ongoing image changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What SandyGeorgia said. And a reminder to editors who wander by that edit warring may lead to blocks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They should. Keivan.f I am unconcerned to know your reason; I am concerned about the nonchalance with which people are changing images here without discussion, and the edit warring. You were reverted once, and you reinstated without discussion. Not a good thing-- particularly not on an FA. Discuss image changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Keep it at the original image prior to all this flip flopping until consensus is reached. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating post above: I am not talking about the infobox, which is the subject of an RFC (above at #Infobox photograph for after her death) ... I'm referring to the other seemingly random and ongoing image changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

To experienced Wikipedians: please understand that when current events impact a high-profile article like this, we draw a lot of attention from new and newish editors. Please view their (possibly misguided) efforts to improve the article in a good light. This is precisely the type of editor that does not read talk pages, and especially not huge ones like this. So, no, I don't agree with the stance I feel is implied here: "these people should know better". Instead we ought to live with these edits (which aren't exactly edit wars) and simply bear it until the interest dies down. The takeaway is: editors need to feel welcomed when they first contribute to Wikipedia. Being told your photo is unwanted and that you should have scoured complicated and, frankly, intimidating-looking "talk" pages is NOT the way to handle new traffic.

Something to keep in mind the next time you (yes you the experienced Wiki veteran) feel frustration over constant and seemingly random changes back and forth over your favorite article. Thank you for reading and best wishes, CapnZapp (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"She was queen regnant of 32 sovereign states during her life and served as monarch of 15 of them at the time of her death"

Should there be a link to Death of Elizabeth II for "her death"? I know it's linked at the bottom of the lead but I think a link here would be great instead. Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 00:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think when her funeral occurs, the lede could be updated to say something like "Elizabeth died at Balmoral Castle, Aberdeenshire, aged 96 and was buried at King George VI Memorial Chapel at St George's Chapel." That would cover both her passing and the funeral, while making the link a bit more obvious for further reading. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media depiction and public opinion

I think the following sentence should be removed from the article "After the trauma of the Second World War, it was a time of hope, a period of progress and achievement heralding a "new Elizabethan age".".

It sounds like FLUFF, and doesn't adds anything to the article. Uwsi (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion is sourced and absolutely adds something to the article, by describing how the post-war period was experienced by the public, which certainly fits within the objective of the "Media depiction and public opinion" section.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  02:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox to long?

Should we simplify the infobox to how it is for King Charles III? That way we don’t have to list out all the countries she was there monarch for? BigRed606 (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No we can't. The number of the Commonwealth realms (not the Commonwealth of Nations) hasn't changed since Charles has become king. For her, it dropped from 32 to 15. Keivan.fTalk 00:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But don’t you think it’s a bit too long? BigRed606 (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too long & has a collapsible mechanism. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On mobile, it does not show up as collapsed and does appear unwieldy. I would support removing it from the infobox and rather linking to the section in the text, but that is unlikely to gain support. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 16:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use your mobile. Use a computer. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried using Template:Collapse-mobile to fix it, but it interfered with the desktop version a bit. I am unsure how to fix it so that both mobile and desktop are fine. Super Goku V (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mau Mau rebellion

This information was removed, with the following edit summary: "rv, no showing there's any connection between the rebellion and Elizabeth other than coincidence of time." Your thoughts?

The Mau Mau rebellion, a revolt against British colonial rule in Kenya, started in 1952—the year Elizabeth ascended the throne.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ "In Africa, the queen's death renews a debate about the legacy of the British Empire". The New York Times. 9 September 2022.
  2. ^ "Cloud of colonialism hangs over Queen Elizabeth's legacy in Africa". CNN. 10 September 2022.

--Tobby72 (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So how does the fact that the Mau Mau rebellion began in 1952 help the reader understand Elizabeth II?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did the rebellion actually have anything to do with Queen Elizabeth ascending the throne? And if so, do you have a source on in what way?  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  18:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say, in a general sense, we should have more on the legacy of the Queen now that she's gone. The sources cited above speak to that (not necessarily the Mau Mau uprising itself). We have "Public perception and character" but I think we need more a legacy section as seen in other similar articles, and that should include some of the recent criticism around the rejection of the monarchy by certain countries/groups, as well as the extensive praise she's received. Another option would be repurposing Personality and image of Elizabeth II into a more general 'legacy/reception' of the Queen type article. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 18:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
El cid, el campeador There will need to be a legacy section added to this article at some point and it may useful to start a fuller discussion on what it should include once things settle down a bit.--Llewee (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt@Ved havet@Tobby72@El cid, el campeador@Llewee I have a reference which relates Mau Mau rebellion with the Queen https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/10/africa/colonialism-africa-queen-elizabeth-intl/index.html.(Ravi Dwivedi (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC))[reply]
That was the one that is cited above, isn't it? The only mention of Mau Mau is that it started the same year Elizabeth became Queen. Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see the same reference was already put by the OP. (Ravi Dwivedi (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Enough for what? Just saying that the Mau Mau rebellion started the same year she came to the throne says nothing about her to the reader. Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt I commented before you replied, and so I have removed my line asking if it is enough.(Ravi Dwivedi (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Infobox image decision

See #Infobox photograph for after her death. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1: Official portrait in full, retouched
    Option 1: Official portrait in full, retouched
  • Option 2: Official portrait (cropped), retouched
    Option 2: Official portrait (cropped), retouched
  • Option 3: Official portrait (cropped w/3:4 ratio), retouched
    Option 3: Official portrait (cropped w/3:4 ratio), retouched

Following through on closure decision above, please vote below via numbered lists. U-Mos (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would we be allowed to vote for more than one option like with the now-closed vote immediately above? TheScrubby (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would be helpful. U-Mos (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru GuardianH VNC200 4me689 St.doggo FrederalBacon TDKR Chicago 101 PD Rivers schetm Lomu KH Idiosincrático nagualdesign, notifying everyone who voted on the closed identical poll above but hasn't commented here that the poll is being rerun--Llewee (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Also GoodDay--Llewee (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Llewee: I don't really care between these images presented they're all much the same. My choice above was for the recent image (option 1), and I have no idea why that discussion was shut down. !Votes were running at 6 for option 1 and 10 for option 2 at the time of closure , which is hardly consensus. The above should be reopened and allowed to run its course. Failing that, just do whatever you want, the process here is clearly broken.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel that discussion was shut down out of process.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I won't object then if someone re-opens it, but good luck to the closer who has to sort then the mess it makes of the original RFC. The logical RFC would have been to first ask if more than one image is an option, and next choose the two only if that RFC succeeded. The way both of these RFCs are it was framed, it's hard to see that we'd be left with anything useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Corrected, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC) [reply]
I agree. Most people either wanted this Portrait or the old photo that was on prior to the Queen's Death. I personally believe we should open up a new discussion for which of the 2 images people prefer Pepper Gaming (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the messiness of the RFC, I thought the close was pretty solid. (Wasn't my choice of photo, but there does seem to be consensus). Picking one of the three here shouldn't be that controversial. All and all, I've seen post-death RFCs do worse. A new RFC can be started any time (hopefully after 90 days...), if there is a change of mind. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree, and have corrected (after three edit conflicts) my post above which referred to the second RFC, closed oddly by Aoi in a way that editors continued responding anyway, and which asked if two images could be used, and then proceeded without having an answer to that question. I see nothing wrong with the close of the first RFC, or in proceeding as suggested in that close (which isn't what the second of the three RFCs was doing). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The aforementioned messiness is exactly why the subsequent RfC was necessary. The original one proposed about 20 different images, with the status quo strangely labelled as "option F". What was needed was a straight choice between the status quo and the proposed alternative, which it seemed like the latter RFC was doing until yourself and Aoi prematurely shut it down. If it's that straight choice, and the community still says change the status quo, then I would accept that, but it's far from clear that's the way the discussion was going. Incidentally I wouldn't be averse to using two images either. That would seem to satisfy both camps.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to Aoi and SandyGeorgia, that second RfC was opened before the first RfC had even been closed, and therefore was opened during an ongoing RfC on the same subject and without consideration given to the closing comment of the first RfC (which of course was impossible given that the second RfC itself was opened prematurely). Alduin2000 (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct (and thus was disruptive ... but besides that, Aoi had closed it in a way that didn't close it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aoi shut it down in a way that didn't work, so I archive top/bottomed the whole thing. Undiscussed RFCs rarely produce anything useful (or better stated, often leave us stuck with worthless conclusions, as happened at the J. K. Rowling RFC of 2021), and it would have been optimal to first figure out what the second RFC was doing ... that is, if there was some support for two images, then launch an RFC that more clearly honed in on that question. In the interim, the original RFC was closed, and the third RFC seems to be following the path recommended by the close. But it sure would be nice if editors discussed how to frame RFCs before launching them; the mess that J. K. Rowling was stuck with for at least a year because people weighed in on RFC content for the lead that wasn't ever supported by sources is fresh in my mind. But again, if someone feels like my archive above should be undone, and can find a way to sort the mess created, I won't object. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in that case let's proceed with the "should there be two images" RFC. I'll happily vote yes to that. This current discussion is a waste of time, given that one of the images has already been put up in the article and we haven't resolved the more fundamental question of whether to allow two images yet. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I follow right, it seems like what people want is a poll of two or three options: a 'younger' photo (option C cropped 3:4), an 'older' photo (current and option D had joint support, going with current probably simpler), and potentially an option of showing both. Is that right? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object :) But I'd rather see a new RFC run a month of so after the funeral and the traffic here subsides. I haven't weighed in on any RFC, as I've been trying to maintain order on a very busy talk page to get us through TFA day, so don't think I should enter opinions, but again, I think these RFCs are a repeat of the J. K. Rowling RFC debacle, where everyone with a keyboard had an opinion, and not all were carefully considered. I suggest an RFC three months from now would return a very different image than what we've got now, and continuously running RFCs now is not the best use of what will be a very busy talk page for the next few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For example, this talk page now is at 200KB, and I can't see any way to keep it manageable, knowing the page will balloon again on 19 Sept, other than to archive the (first, lengthy) RFC leaving a prominent link back to it. Not sure that is a good idea, and not sure what to do, but we've got a 200KB talk page when TFA day is still a week away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: This is getting off-topic, but here is my thoughts. 'RfC on popularity and support for the monarchy claims in the lead' looks like it can be closed through Wikipedia:Closure requests given that it started on July 22nd. Three of the first five sections have not had a reply in five days and could potentially be archived. The Featured Article discussion should be archivable as the only discussion currently active at TFA that I can see is about the picture to use on the 19th. The Redirects for discussion sections could be archived when those discussions end. Finally, auto-archive set to four or five days might do some good. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose all of those options. We should stick to using the 2015 image. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I second this option. I'll open another discussion to get consensus on which of the two photos we should use Pepper Gaming (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1

  1. Please read this before voting. This is the official portrait. It's a historical photograph in full and it would be a disservice to our readers to crop it. The composition was chosen by the photographer, authorized by the Canadian government and endorsed by the Queen herself. The red and gold curtains, which some say are "distracting", were likely chosen because they are the colours of Canada in Canadian heraldry (the colours of maple leaves), with the azure background being representative of Canada's French ancestry. I only learned this because the photograph piqued my interest. Anyone know anything about that beautiful chair yet or shall we just crop that too and forget about it? I spent over 6 hours restoring this photograph because it's worth seeing. We should all get to see it in all its glory. Please don't crop it. It's like cropping the Mona Lisa because you think a 3:4 headshot would work better in the article. If you've already voted for one of the cropped images, please change your mind and vote for this one instead. Sincerely, nagualdesign 16:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. U-Mos (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Παραλλάξιος (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2

  1. For same reasons as above--Llewee (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. To me this one seems the most well balanced, despite the unusual ratio. FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!) 16:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3

  1. This one gets my vote; although part of me prefers the fuller length portrait, the stripes either side are a little distracting as an infobox picture (eliminates option 1), and simplying cutting them off results in an aspect ratio that looks off to the eye (eliminates option 2). H. Carver (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Best suited for an infobox I think. 2 is overly vertical and the peripheral details in the full picture are distracting (I appreciate the argument about staying faithful to the photographer's intentions but they weren't taking a picture to illustrate an encyclopedia either). Al-Muqanna (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It's a tough call, but I pick this because a) at the end of the day, the subject of the article is the most important aspect of a photo and in this one she is most prominent; and b) I am a sucker for good aspect ratios in infobox photos and this one looks the best on that basis. All are fair options, though. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 12:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (edit conflict) Same reasoning as H. Carver; the stripes on the sides of option 1 are distracting, and option 2 has a weird aspect ratio. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 4me689 12:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FrederalBacon (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sea Cow (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. for this purpose (yes, 1 is more historic, and 2 has better proportions) Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Better version. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. TheScrubby (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Best for the infobox, and best as a personal portrait (vs a picture of clothing, furniture, and wall). Thparkth (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Good as the infobox is about the queen, not about the visit to Canada. The story about the picture is worth telling on another page. It can show the full photo in greater detail, both historic original and restored version, describe the visit to Canada, the meaning of the red and gold curtains, the chair, the photographer. Uwappa (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Easy choice. Idiosincrático (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Tweedle (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  16. It's obvious why editors prefer the third option. While I appreciate User NagualDesign's concerns about showing the unedited photo, it is simply a fact that with limited pixels available, the most closely cropped image shows the most detail for the most important part of the image (e.g., the Queen, not the chair). All that said, my vote cast here can be considered as an extremely weak preference - literally any of these images, or almost any other image of the Queen hosted on Wikimedia, would serve just fine. I'm almost tempted to put my vote in for Option 1, just because of User NagualDesign's passionate case, but that wouldn't be my honest opinion. Joe (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I generally dislike the photo (she looks like a waxy 1950s automaton) but we really don't need to see her lower body or the chair, so option 3 is best. Firebrace (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I'll give my support for this version. I think it's the most fitting so far. It also removes some unnecessary details. --KingErikII (Talk page) 20:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I prefer this option Sanctaria (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Going with this option because it shows her face the most. It's not like she is a model or something where her waist is necessary. And taking a look at other features that are cropped out, the frame and lower half of her dress isn't really necessary for representing herself as a whole, imo. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 03:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And also, while I see points that this is a photo of her in Canada, most people who want to see a photo of Elizabeth II would probably less recognize her for just being in Canada. From the original retouched photo alone, most people wouldn't recognize the setting of her in Canada. Since she seems to be noteworthy for events other than just Canada, that is why I think Option 3 is best among the three. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 03:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    More than likely, some, of not all, of the medals and ribbons are Canada specific, as those were typically specific to each country, and if the rest of the photo was Canada themed, I would imagine the medals would be as well. However, considering the fact that discernment would require extensive knowledge of the nuances of royal regalia throughout the realm, I don't think it takes away from the picture at all. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing the Queen is wearing looks Canada-specific to me. The tiara is the Vladimir Tiara, one of her favourites that she wore often. The blue riband and the silver star are regalia for the Order of the Garter. And the two ribbons are Royal Family Orders, the pink for George VI and the blue for George V. H. Carver (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

should we put old version of her?

  • hello there, i think we should do that. because what is the purpose of putting young version of her? is wikipedia belongs to them? no... most poeple on earth know her as old version of her. so we should put old version of him......... ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 17:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, restore the 2015 image. She's most notable for her long life & long reign. Also, we can avoid any disputes over which country's awards/medals she's wearing. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like the 1959 photograph. I do not think it will hurt our readers to be reminded that she was not always old and frail. Surtsicna (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
your comment can work reverse sir. most people know her as old. not young. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 19:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also support using the 2015 version. The 2015 version is more reflective of who she was, and what most people would remember her as looking. Googling "the queen" reflects this stance. More recognisable as to who it is than the one compared to one taken 63 years ago. 82.23.20.168 (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say that I don't believe there's any dispute over what she's wearing in the 1959 picture that's currently used in the infobox - I identified all the regalia in a comment just a little above of here and nothing is out of the ordinary of Canada specific (compared to, say, the NZ portrait where she's clearly wearing a fern brooch). H. Carver (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has been hashed and rehashed and rehashed repeatedly within the last 10 days. The last one was specifically closed as a rehash of the above discussion. The consensus was for C, but people are repeatedly expressing their desire for the old image, and trying to subvert the above consensus by holding a new discussion just days after the first one closed. Can we just stop? F didn't even have the second most support, and people still refuse to accept consensus has changed away from using that image. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When she was alive, there were many attempts (since 2015) mostly by IPs, to change the 2015 image. After a month or so, traffic on this page will slow down & there'll be less calls for image changes. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
there is no harm to discuss ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 12:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we list Scotland in place of death field of infobox?

Please change deathplace of queen from Aberdeenshire, “United Kingdom” to “Scotland”. 2001:56A:F803:8F00:4DDE:3E4D:64B5:D692 (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No thank you. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be "Aberdeenshire, Scotland, United Kingdom" Octagon758 (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too long winded. Best to you "place, sovereign state". GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean as we do with 'Mayfair, London, United Kingdom'? There's no set rules here. It does seem a little long, though pragmatically it'd still fit in three lines (no doubt depending on any number of settings). Maybe an enlightened compromise would be to keep the infobox as is, but say "Aberdeenshire, Scotland" in the final paragraph of the lead section. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Balmoral Castle is already there, with Aberdeenshire, United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that's responsive to the edit actually suggested. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're not showing England, so why show Scotland? GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at a handful of selected biographies from the English (1, 2, 3), Scottish (1, 2, 3), Welsh (1, 2, 3), and Northern Irish (1, 2, 3) portals, it seems that the majority do not mention the United Kingdom at all, and stop at the constituent countries. I find it odd that only some royal biographies deviate from this convention. Thrakkx (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the royal bios, 1707–1800 (GB) & post-1800 (UK), they should use the "sovereign state". GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Disclosure: I am Scottish.) This kind of question inevitably arises when there is political/popular controversy about identity in a particular place and time. I hope we can discuss this here without going all "tribal warfare". Having said that, majority of people in Scotland consider "Scottish" to be their only national identify, and my gut feeling is that if you asked the average English person "What country is Balmoral in?" they would probably answer "Scotland" not "the United Kingdom". Furthermore that "Scottishness" of Balmoral is an essential and defining characteristic, and one that had political and practical consequences for the process followed after the Queen's death. All this to say, I think "Scotland" (alone) would be the correct country name to use if the article were entirely for the consumption of a British Isles audience. Since that is not the case, I favour "Aberdeenshire, Scotland, United Kingdom" (even though this will annoy many of my fellow Scots). Thparkth (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surely "Aberdeenshire, Scotland, United Kingdom, World, Milky Way, Universe". What a waste of time. This is why we have wikilinks - so we don't have to get bogged down in editor sensitivities and POV because it's got nothing to do with reader needs or being an encyclopedia. Balmoral, or Balmoral, Aberdeenshire (at most) is all that's needed. Sheesh. DeCausa (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Because wikilinks" is a terrible stylistic (if one could even so call it) standard to apply. In the first place the text should still read objectively reasonably without them, and in the second, another prominent brand of "editor sensitivities and POV" (alongside a dogged insistence on removing constituent country names) is to see a "sea of blue" and start whimsically removing them, too. For comparison, the Britannica, also with recourse to links to other articles, and with a vastly less bloaty lead section and infobox than Wikipedia's amateur-hour effort, mentions Scotland in both. And they, following Johnson's advice, are after all just doing it for the cash. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We'll stick with using "United Kingdom". GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then should it be considered that George VI, Edward VIII, George V, and other predecessors be changed to using United Kingdom for the sake of consistency? --Super Goku V (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. WP:UKNATIONALS exists. John (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that about nationality of persons? This thread about location. DeCausa (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're pretty closely connected. I was thinking of "It is not possible to create a uniforming guideline, when such strong disagreement exists on the relative importance of the labels. Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency—making every UK citizen "British", or converting each of those labelled "British" into their constituent nationalities—is strongly discouraged. Such imposed uniformity cannot, in any case, be sustained." That's good advice. John (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth the Great

Should the above page link -- either as a redirect or a DAB entry -- link here? At present it doesn't, according to an editor's interpretation of WP:DABMENTION. Related question: should that be mentioned in this article? It's occurred a number of times as a descriptor, but there may be a large element of WP:RECENTISM to those. (Belated notification here due to talk-page protection; note there's also a deletion discussion concerning it, which in the way of these thinks have somewhat turned into a discussion about its contents.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No & furthermore, it should be entirely deleted. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with GoodDay, that needs a delete, it’s literally the exact same list of everyone named Elizabeth who ruled as queen regnant…all two of them FrederalBacon (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prime ministers

Add list of prime ministers link link 170.52.112.145 (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, too long. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
why do none of the british monarch infoboxes seem to have a list of PMs? most articles for other monarchs do, and its easy to make the list shrinkable. see Margrethe II of Denmark. SilverRobinson (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because even a list reduced to 180 people by excluding territories and dependencies is too long. I see the list at Margarethe doesn't even exclude territories and dependencies, so a similar list for Elizabeth II would be hundreds of people. DrKay (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Elizabeth II, despite passing away on 8 September 2022 is still Her Majesty the Queen. Her title is incumbent and the British people still know her as the Queen and she is the only person to have the title as of now. Camilla has another title. The Queen is still HM the Queen so the title part should be amended to show 'Her Majesty the Queen : 02 February 1952- present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c7:6482:aa01:a8f0:e40a:a04d:1dbf (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're requesting. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would think it would be "her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second", as in the proclamation issued by King Charles regarding tomorrow's bank holiday . Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Fashion of Elizabeth II

Can anyone help in contributing to this draft? Thanks. Peter Ormond 💬 20:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edited, thanks for the link! Birdsinthewindow (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Reign of Elizabeth II

Please note discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reign of Elizabeth II. DeCausa (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

balmoral castle

balmoral castle link for her death location links to christian weston chandler 2600:1700:CC40:4380:7009:A7B:196:8185 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Already fixed (vandalism reverted). General Ization Talk 01:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

I suggest that "attaining the oldest age of any British monarch (96), and having the longest reign" be changed to "attaining the oldest age (96) and the longest reign (70 years) that any British monarch has had." This edit would make the sentence flow better. It would also add a small amount of additional information. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request: Info Box Photo revisit

The palace just released a new photo portrait of her majesty which shows her smiling. This new photograph was not available for voting. I propose re opening the discussion and adding said portrait as photo "J." One would not have to search Google long to find it but here is one link: https://akns-images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/2022818/rs_634x1024-220918150932-queen-elizabeth-2.jpg?fit=around%7C634:1024&output-quality=90&crop=634:1024;center,top

While the now current 1959 photo in the info box is a nice one, I really think this new portrait deserves consideration. I respectfully request a recount. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:FF00:8E:2151:8FFF:10A4:5D53 (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images must comply with Wikipedia:Image use policy. What is the copyright status of that image? DrKay (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might just be me, but I don't think that's a great picture for an infobox. I'd personally prefer a more natural, relaxed expression, to give a more accurate depiction of what the subject looked like. FrederalBacon (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a great fan of the current 1959 official portrait for much the same reason. The Queen has a flat and rather forced look on her face, and there are much more natural photographs showing her with relaxed and warm facial expressions. These are more in tune with the Queen's real personality--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and miss the 2015 image, it's such an iconic photo of The Queen and feels a lot more natural. Just because she has passed now doesn't necessarily mean we have to use an old photograph for the infobox. The infobox for her mother uses a portrait of her when she was older and known as "The Queen Mother" as opposed to when she was younger and the Queen Consort. Queen Victoria's infobox also does not use a young image of her for the infobox, despite the fact (like Elizabeth II) she was on the throne at a young age too. A similar thing could happen here with this article. I agree with you that the infobox should have a picture where The Queen looks more relaxed and natural. This new portrait would be a great infobox image, it might be from this year, but feels a lot more natural and captures The Queen's personality better. I hope it gets uploaded to Wikicommons so we can include it in a potential re-count. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox pic date

Have a look at some of the images here. The infobox picture also seems to have been taken during the same sitting in December 1958. Peter Ormond 💬 07:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad, there's no way we can put in a rotational mechanism, which would change the infobox image once every 24 hrs :) GoodDay (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a great feature, and with how fast technology is advancing it could happen in years to come :) --88.108.44.8 (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More mention of media criticism needed in the lead

For the lead to be a bit more accurate, I think mention of post-1997 media criticism is needed, because the media criticism of the family didn't stop at Diana's death. All that's required is an additional sentence saying something along the lines of:

"She faced further occasional republican sentiment and media criticism after scandals emerged involving several members of her family, including Andrew and her grandson Prince Harry." 88.108.44.8 (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was discussed at some point and rejected because sources for linking Andrew and Harry with any increase in republican sentiment were lacking. DrKay (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, although it would be good to mention in some capacity as the media criticism did not stop at Diana's death. Maybe leave out the mention of republican sentiment and just say:
"She faced further occasional media criticism after scandals emerged involving several members of her family, including Andrew and her grandson Prince Harry."
This could work better. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article quality

It's not really at FA level is it? Samples:

  • "Elizabeth's solicitors had taken action against The Sun five years earlier for breach of copyright, after it published a photograph of her daughter-in-law the Duchess of York and her granddaughter Princess Beatrice. The case was solved with an out-of-court settlement that ordered the newspaper to pay $180,000." Why would they pay in dollars? John (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Varied. DrKay (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is usually a summary of the article. Which part of the article does this summarise? John (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Acceleration of decolonisation and Continuing evolution, plus the succession boxes and incidental mentions (e.g Fiji and Mauritius) in later sections. DrKay (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's been 6k+ edits since it became an FA. I guess it's par for the course for a decade old FA. DeCausa (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't great that in order to access the information this supposed factoid summarises, we have to click a "show" button in the infobox, then Ctrl-F for Fiji and Mauritius. It would be nice (perhaps after the fuss around her death has died down) to rewrite this article as a proper biographical FA. John (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II&oldid=1111144537"