Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48

Requested move 30 July 2023

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

– (light-hearted commentary to engage readers) Greetings to those of you who have stumbled on the talk page of the late Queen Elizabeth II (Because the House of Windsor's website refers to Queen Camilla as The Queen, I will follow this precedent and not refer to Elizabeth as The Queen in my commentary.)! Some of you may be asking, "Why has this random American Wikipedian opened a move request for Elizabeth II, her father, her uncle, her grandfather, her great-grandfather, her great-great-grandmother, two of her third great-uncles, her fourth great-grandfather, and her first cousin ninth removed?" Keep calm and carry on reading my simple answer: My proposed titles better align with several core Wikipedia policies! Hurricane Andrew (444) 18:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

(beginning of serious commentary) First of all, I apologize if the very long explanation that follows is inappropriate. However, because I sense that a very controversial discussion is about to take place, leaving as little room for speculation and interpretation as possible in my request is needed. A long explanation is the only way I realistically see myself achieving this goal.

In light of similar move request for Charles III (of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realm)'s article, I believe that it is time that as a community, the English Wikipedia needs to revisit the way we (All first-person plural pronouns from here onwards will refer to the community of Wikipedia users) are titling our articles on British monarchs, namely the ones listed here. I have felt the article titles in my list on this page above violate the policies detailed at Wikipedia:Article titles (WP:TITLE). I recognize that the onus is on me to convince you that the current names are unsustainable, so please read all of my detailed argument that will follow before commenting. NOTE: Since I am only interested in renaming the English Wikipedia articles and considering the English Wikipedia conventions, how the Wikipedias in all other languages title their articles on British monarchs is therefore irrelevant to this discussion.

To start, let's state WP:TITLE verbatim to our readers:

A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics:

  • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. ...
  • Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. ...
  • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. ...

Now let's analyze how these current article titles for the British monarchs the fail each of the five criteria:

1. Recognizability: A case could be made that the current titles are common enough that even a reader with no knowledge of royalty could recognize their subjects. However, even if this claim were true, our policy on commonly recognizable names concedes that Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. With the exception of Anne's article, all of these titles are ambiguous because they tell us nothing about the realms of these monarchs. Was George V a king of Poland? Perhaps Victoria was an empress of China? Is it true that William IV was a pretender to the throne of Burundi?

As is, most of the article titles in question do not answer these basic questions readers may have about these monarchs' kingdom. Moreover, because of the ambiguity in the titles of the ten British monarchs in question, it is therefore irrelevant that sovereigns such as Elizabeth II or George III are referred to by these exact titles more frequently in sources outside of Wikipedia. That being said, the same policy on commonly recognizable names guides us to resolve the issue with the following words: When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. This brings us to the next criterion, which will help us select that one alternative name for our subjects, the British monarchs.

2. Naturalness: Let's start by dissecting the first part of this criterion: The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for... Even if a Wikipedia reader had little knowledge of royalty, they should have enough intuition to sense that a king, queen, or other monarch (i.e. the title for the sovereigns of Great Britain and the United Kingdom) is a ruler, and a ruler has power over a certain area. In other words, a king/queen/monarch is a ruler of that certain area. To make my reasoning as explicit as possible, this reader senses by intuition that this king/queen/sovereign ruler is not just a ruler with some name, but a ruler of a certain region. From this background, it is not unreasonable to assume that if Wikipedia readers like the one described are interested in learning more about this ruler, they are likely to look or search for them by typing in (ruler name) of (realm/region). On this note, it just so happens that my proposed article titles for the British monarchs follow the structure (regnal name) of Great Britain/United Kingdom. Coincidence? I think not! (NB: British monarchs ruled over Great Britain from 1707 to 1801, and they ruled over the United Kingdom from 1801 onwards.)

And even if my analysis for the first part were completely nonsensical, the structure (regnal name) of Great Britain/United Kingdom as an article title is supported by the second part of this criterion: ...and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. But what would a Wikipedia editor naturally write to link an article on a British monarch from similar Wikipedia articles? (We will assume that these "similar Wikipedia articles" are about articles on British history or monarchs from other countries.)

WP:TITLE sends us in an appropriate direction via the following guidance: When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. Look to the guideline pages referenced. It just so happens that all of these articles on British monarchs are in the "specific field" of royalty, and there is a guideline page on how to title Wikipedia articles on royalty: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) (WP:NCROY). Also, reading through this guideline's talk page, you can see that these conventions on titling Wikipedia articles on topics related to royalty and nobility have been established via previous consensus, albeit at times after prolonged and/or heated discussions.

As for the pertinence to my proposed renamed article titles, WP:NCROY first explicitly establishes that These following conventions apply to European monarchs since the fall of the Western Roman Empire [in 476 or 480 CE]. (but not to the Byzantine Emperors), because they share much the same stock of names. All of the British (and therefore European) monarchs whose article titles I hope to rename are therefore covered by the guidelines on royalty-related articles because every sovereign in question reigned no earlier than 1707 CE and never ruled over the Byzantine Empire. More importantly, Guideline III of WP:NCROY explicitly states that:

...kings, queens regnant and emperors and empresses regnant who are known as "first name + ordinal" ... normally have article titles in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Edward I of England; Philip IV of Spain; Henry I of France.

This language serves as a second piece of evidence that the structure (ruler name) of Great Britain/United Kingdom is a more appropriate name for the article titles of the 10 British kings and queens regnant in question. On top of this guideline, note how the articles on the majority (i.e. 4 out of 6) of the non-British kings and queens regnant of Europe are titled: (These sovereigns are listed in order of their diplomatic precedence)

  1. The Queen of Denmark: Margrethe II of Denmark
  2. The King of Sweden: Carl XVI Gustaf
  3. The King of Norway: Harald V of Norway
  4. The King of the Netherlands: Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands
  5. The King of the Belgians: Philippe of Belgium
  6. The King of Spain: Felipe VI

Next, note how the articles on the majority (i.e. 14 out of 19) of the other kings and queens regnant of current Continental European kingdoms that reigned in the 20th century are titled: (These sovereigns are instead listed in order of their country's English name in alphabetical order)

  1. Kings of the Belgians: Leopold II of Belgium, Albert I of Belgium, Leopold III of Belgium, Baudouin of Belgium, and Albert II of Belgium
  2. Kings of Denmark: Christian IX of Denmark, Frederick VIII of Denmark, Christian X of Denmark, and Frederick IX of Denmark
  3. Queens of the Netherlands: Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, Juliana of the Netherlands, and Beatrix of the Netherlands
  4. Kings of Norway: Haakon VII of Norway and Olav V of Norway
  5. Kings of Spain: Alfonso XIII and Juan Carlos I
  6. Kings of Sweden: Oscar II, Gustaf V and Gustaf VI Adolf

Finally, note how the articles on the two deceased British monarchs whose titles that I am not requesting to change are called:

  1. George I of Great Britain
  2. George II of Great Britain

What is the point of me listing all of these article titles? The point is that because numerous British and non-British European kings and queens' article titles are already structured (ruler name) of (country), it is reasonable to conclude that this format would be a title ...that editors would naturally use to link to the article [on the British sovereign in question] from other articles., a third piece of evidence in favor of this format. Additionally, while titles such as Edward VIII do not follow this predictable structure, titles such as Edward VIII of the United Kingdom (i.e. what is being proposed as an alternative) do adhere to this structure. Furthermore, predictable or not, the aforementioned article title structure is explicitly permitted and recommended by a guideline page that Wikipedia's primary "document" on article titling, WP:TITLE, refers readers to. But is the structure (ruler name) of (country) actually used outside of Wikipedia to refer to the monarchs of Great Britain and the United Kingdom?

Finally, we need to ensure that my proposed article titles for the British monarchs are Such a title [which] usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. To confirm this is the case, we will look at some artifacts on the website of the Royal Collection Trust, which looks after the British royal family's art collection. In particular, the Royal Collection Trust refers to the ten deceased British monarchs whose article titles I hope to rename in the following ways: (These sovereigns will be listed in chronological order of their reign.)

  1. Anne (Stuarts): Anne, Queen of Great Britain
  2. George III (Hanoverians): George III, King of the United Kingdom
  3. George IV (Hanoverians): George IV, King of the United Kingdom
  4. William IV (Hanoverians): William IV, King of the United Kingdom
  5. Victoria (Hanoverians): Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom
  6. Edward VII (House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha): King Edward VII, King of the United Kingdom
  7. George V (House of Windsor): King George V, King of the United Kingdom
  8. Edward VIII (House of Windsor): Not mentioned
  9. George VI (House of Windsor): King George VI, King of the United Kingdom
  10. Elizabeth II (House of Windsor): Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom

Based on the above information, we can therefore confirm that an outside source indeed uses the format (King/Queen) ruler name(, King/Queen) of (country) to refer to British monarchs. However, at Wikipedia, the policy guidelines stated at WP:TITLE allow us some flexibility to determine ...a simple and obvious title that meets these [core five] goals satisfactorily. Using the remaining three criteria, I will further demonstrate that (ruler name) of (country) is indeed the best structure to use when renaming the article titles of the ten British monarchs in question.

3. Precision - As further elaborated on in the explanation for Criterion I of WP:TITLE, the present titles of the British sovereigns listed at the beginning of this explanation do not unambiguously [identify] the article's subject and [distinguish] it from other subjects. To provide another example of how these article titles fall short of satisfying this guideline, consider George IV (of the United Kingdom). There is another king of Georgia with the exact same (regnal) name and number as the British monarch. Would a reader who only knew about George IV of Georgia and wanted to learn more about the latter's reign not be quite surprised if they instead ended up on an article about the British king?

Several other examples of similar phenomena could be envisioned for the other British monarchs, especially those that share. However, by titling their articles with a structure such as George IV of the United Kingdom, this confusion can be alleviated. To illustrate, the hypothetical Wikipedia reader interested in learning more about George IV of Georgia would now clearly know that they have found the wrong person if the article currently titled George IV were renamed to my proposed alternative.

Moreover, a stronger, and related, argument for moving the current article titles to the proposed (preciser) targets arises when we consider systemic bias. Generally speaking, systemic bias must be acknowledged on Wikipedia because as stated in Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:BIAS):

Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, both in terms of the articles that are created and the content, perspectives and sources within those articles. However, the encyclopedia fails in this goal because of systemic bias created by the editing community's narrow social and cultural demographic. Bias can be either implicit when articles or information are missing from the encyclopedia, or explicit when an article's content or sources are biased.

Moreover, Wikipedia's policies on a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) are a far more important guideline than anything else I have cited. Namely, two of the three paragraphs in the lede section of WP:NPOV explicitly state,

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

...

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

Evidently, systemic bias is extremely detrimental to maintaining editorial neutrality on Wikipedia, and by extension, the entire mission of this encyclopedia. But how does systemic bias relate to the current titles of the ten pertinent deceased British monarchs? Let's started by analyzing what the editing community's narrow social and cultural demographic consists of. To help us, WP:BIAS paints us this image of the "average Wikipedian":

The average Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia ... is

  1. white
  2. male
  3. technically inclined
  4. formally educated
  5. an English speaker (native or non-native)
  6. aged 15–49
  7. from a majority-Christian country
  8. from a developed nation
  9. from the Northern Hemisphere
  10. likely employed as a white-collar worker or enrolled as a student rather than being employed as a blue-collar worker.

Although all of these identities contribute to a collective systemic bias on the English Wikipedia, the especially pertinent factor to this discussion is the fact that an "average Wikipedian" speaks English cause systemic bias? To answer this, WP:BIAS further explains that English speakers from English-speaking countries themselves dominate our community:

Despite the many contributions of Wikipedians writing in English as a non-native language, the English Wikipedia is dominated by native English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries (particularly the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia). Anglophone countries are mostly in the global North, thereby accentuating the encyclopedia's bias to contributions from First World countries. Countries and regions where either English is an official language (e.g. Hong Kong, India, Pakistan and other former colonies of the British Empire) and other countries where English-language schooling is common (e.g. Germany, the Netherlands, and some other European countries) participate more than countries without broad teaching of English. Hence, the latter remain underrepresented.

Now, let's go back to our hypothetical situation on our Wikipedia reader interested in George IV of Georgia, as opposed to George IV (of the United Kingdom). How does the current article title on the latter express systemic bias against this editor? Even though King George IV of Georgia and King George IV of the United Kingdom hold the same title (and same societal rank), the king from the Anglophone country, the United Kingdom, is the one called "George IV" on Wikipedia! In other words, as a consequence, intended or not, of the current way that George IV of the United Kingdom's article is blatantly titled, our mainly native English-speaking community is sending the message to our readers that they are automatically going to be more familiar with him, an Anglophone monarch, than George IV of Georgia. Even worse, bias is explicit when an article's content or sources are biased. The article title on George IV of the United Kingdom, as well as those of the other nine relevant British monarchs, is a form of explicit bias for the reasons described in the previous three sentences.

To summarize, the ten current article titles on deceased British monarchs (e.g. George IV) violate WP:BIAS, which means that the titles also violate WP:NOV, a policy that is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. As if that were not enough justification to rename these articles, WP:TITLE explicitly states that neutral point of view is a consideration in titling articles in the third paragraph of the lede: [WP:TITLE] is supplemented by other more specific guidelines ... , which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view.

Now, how do we rectify this bias? First, we change the targets of George III, George IV, William IV, etc. so that they lead to disambiguation pages, NOT articles, as illustrated by the last eight bullet points at the list at the top of this explanation. Not only do these new targets put the British monarchs on an equal and neutral footing as the other kings in the world that share their (regnal) names and numbers, but they also neutralize the number of clicks needed for a reader to get to their intended article of interest.

To further illustrate the latter point, as the articles are currently titled, a reader who types in "George IV" in the search bar on Wikipedia and wants to read about George IV of the United Kingdom will arrive at their destination in one click. In contrast, a second reader who types in "George IV" but wants to learn about George IV of Georgia has to click through three pages:

  1. The article on George IV of the United Kingdom,
  2. The disambiguation page on George IV, and
  3. The article on George IV of Georgia.

Under my proposed renaming, both aforementioned readers will equally click on two links to reach their target:

  1. The disambiguation page on George IV, and
  2. The article on the George IV of interest (of the United Kingdom and of Georgia, respectively).

Second, we rename the article titles for the ten British monarchs in question to a title that ...unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects, as WP:TITLE dictates, to alleviate any bias. Let's reconsider the titles for the British monarchs that I quoted from the Royal Collection Trust:

  1. Anne: Anne, Queen of Great Britain
  2. George III: George III, King of the United Kingdom
  3. George IV: George IV, King of the United Kingdom
  4. William IV: William IV, King of the United Kingdom
  5. Victoria: Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom
  6. Edward VII: King Edward VII, King of the United Kingdom
  7. George V: King George V, King of the United Kingdom
  8. Edward VIII: Not mentioned
  9. George VI: King George VI, King of the United Kingdom
  10. Elizabeth II: Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom

As they are, these titles explicitly and clearly tell readers that these ten sovereigns were kings or queens (regnant) of the United Kingdom. Moreover, these descriptors about the deceased British kings and queens distinguish them from any other monarchs that may share their (regnal) names and numbers. However, is there a way to shorten these titles for Wikipedia purposes?

4. Concision - Precision is a central guideline. In addition, WP:TITLE notes that respect to precision, Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. As we begin determining if the titles from the Royal Collection Trust are more precise than necessary for Wikipedia, WP:TITLE guides us once again to WP:NCROY, this time explicitly: Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects, such as Primary topic, Geographic names, or Names of royals and nobles [WP:NCROY].

When reading the guidelines on WP:NCROY, Guideline I becomes especially relevant to this move request: 1. Article titles are not normally prefixed with "King", "Queen", "Emperor" or equivalent. (As an aside, having read the aforementioned sentence, it becomes clear that at is, the title Queen Victoria is a violation of this guideline. Moreover, this title does not unambiguously define that Victoria was also an empress regnant.)

Returning to our titles from the Royal Collection Trust, we see that the latter four as they are do not follow this guideline. Removing "King" and "Queen" accordingly from the quoted descriptions, we now have the following new article titles:

  1. Anne: Anne, Queen of Great Britain
  2. George III: George III, King of the United Kingdom
  3. George IV: George IV, King of the United Kingdom
  4. William IV: William IV, King of the United Kingdom
  5. Victoria: Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom
  6. Edward VII: Edward VII, King of the United Kingdom
  7. George V: George V, King of the United Kingdom
  8. Edward VIII: Not mentioned
  9. George VI: George VI, King of the United Kingdom
  10. Elizabeth II: Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom

Evidently, the current article titles for most of the deceased British monarchs (e.g. Elizabeth II) are shorter than their proposed alternatives (e.g. Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom). However, as detailed in Section 3, the current titles are a violation of WP:BIAS and WP:NPOV. Moreover, the "Concision" section of WP:TITLE directs us to to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area. Even after shortening some of these article titles, these nine suggested descriptors still explicitly tell Wikipedia viewers that they will be reading about a monarch of the United Kingdom. That being said, are our modified titles consistent with how we refer to other monarchs of Great Britain and Continental Europe?

(As another aside, in the spirit of conciseness, my proposed article titles refer to these monarchs' realm as a short form of the official kingdom name, United Kingdom, as opposed to the full form per an explicit guideline in WP:TITLE: For instance, the recognizable, natural, and concise title United Kingdom is preferred over the more precise title United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.)

5. Consistency - This criterion, which is the most central to this move request, will also help us determine if our proposed renamed article titles for the ten deceased British monarchs in question satisfy Criterion 4, namely if The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject....

Let's revisit the current article titles for the 20th-century sovereigns of Continental Europe and the two British monarchs whose article descriptors I do not hope to change: (Again, these sovereigns are instead listed in order of their country's English name in alphabetical order)

  1. Kings of the Belgians: Leopold II of Belgium, Albert I of Belgium, Leopold III of Belgium, Baudouin of Belgium, and Albert II of Belgium
  2. Kings of Denmark: Christian IX of Denmark, Frederick VIII of Denmark, Christian X of Denmark, and Frederick IX of Denmark
  3. Kings of Great Britain: George I of Great Britain and George II of Great Britain
  4. Queens of the Netherlands: Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, Juliana of the Netherlands, and Beatrix of the Netherlands
  5. Kings of Norway: Haakon VII of Norway and Olav V of Norway
  6. Kings of Spain: Alfonso XIII and Juan Carlos I
  7. Kings of Sweden: Oscar II, Gustaf V and Gustaf VI Adolf

What conclusions can we draw from this list?

  1. None of these article titles use the format "(ruler name), King/Queen of (country)" as we have derived at the end of the Criterion 4 explanation.
  2. The majority (i.e. 13 out of 18) of the article titles for monarchs with regnal numbers follow Guideline III of WP:NCROY: ...kings, queens regnant and emperors and empresses regnant who are known as "first name + ordinal" ... normally have article titles in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Edward I of England; Philip IV of Spain; Henry I of France.
  3. All 3 of the article titles for monarchs without regnal numbers follow Guideline IV of WP:NCROY: Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is used only when it was in official use, as with Juan Carlos I (not Juan Carlos, King of Spain). When there is no ordinal, the formats John of Bohemia and Joanna of Castile ... are used.

Interestingly, the article title structure "(ruler name) of (country)", as I hope to use in my move request, seems to be the preferred format in the listed titles, recommended by Guideline III of WP:NCROY, and recommended by Guideline IV of WP:NCROY. Coincidence? I think not!

With these observations in mind, let's bring the proposed new article titles for the deceased British monarchs in question, with and without regnal numbers, in line with WP:NCROY:

  1. Anne: Anne of Great Britain
  2. George III: George III of the United Kingdom
  3. George IV: George IV of the United Kingdom
  4. William IV: William IV of the United Kingdom
  5. Victoria: Victoria of the United Kingdom
  6. Edward VII: Edward VII of the United Kingdom
  7. George V: George V of the United Kingdom
  8. Edward VIII: Not mentioned
  9. George VI: George VI of the United Kingdom
  10. Elizabeth II: Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

From these revised suggested titles, it is realistic (i.e. practical) create a proposed title by recognizing a structural pattern for Edward VIII, considering the following language from WP:TITLE: We follow patterns from article titles for similar topics to the extent that this is practical. At long last, a perfect match arises via the process we have explored in this explanation and the titles I initially proposed:

  1. Anne: Anne of Great Britain
  2. George III: George III of the United Kingdom
  3. George IV: George IV of the United Kingdom
  4. William IV: William IV of the United Kingdom
  5. Victoria: Victoria of the United Kingdom
  6. Edward VII: Edward VII of the United Kingdom
  7. George V: George V of the United Kingdom
  8. Edward VIII: Edward VIII of the United Kingdom
  9. George VI: George VI of the United Kingdom
  10. Elizabeth II: Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Via all of the preceding paragraphs, I have strived to emphasize a central point. This central point is that using the structure "(ruler name) of (country)" for all deceased British monarchs:

  1. Establishes a format ...that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles per Criterion 2 of WP:TITLE,
  2. ...unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects per Criterion 3 of WP:TITLE,
  3. ...is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects per Criterion 4 of WP:TITLE (as removing the "of country" part of this structure and just having a ruler name will beg the question of where this sovereign reigned), and
  4. Above all, ...is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles (in this case, of late modern and contemporary Continental European monarchs) per Criterion 5 of WP:TITLE.
  5. In turn, having this consistent pattern helps to create a ...description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize, per Criterion 1 of WP:TITLE.

Thank you very much for your time and participation. Although I hope that a move to my requested targets will ensue from this discussion, I recognize that such a decision will come from the consensus that emerges. Also, to respect our policies on bludgeoning, I will not comment further on this matter after this initial explanation is posted unless I am pinged.

That being said, to conclude this explanation, I will leave a few clarification notes:

  1. In addition to the five criteria elaborated on and WP:NPOV, WP:TITLE also states that verifiability [WP:TITLE] is supplemented by other more specific guidelines ... , which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, [and] No original research... I will concede that I am unsure if basing proposed article titles on the Royal Collection Trust contravenes either one of these two core content policies. If so, I would appreciate being pinged to be informed of this matter.
  2. A legitimate concern can be expressed regarding the fact that my proposed titles do not account for other realms that the British monarchs in question ruled over (e.g. Ireland, Hanover, and Australia). However, a subsection of Guideline III at WP:NCROY explicitly states that only the primary realm of the sovereign in question should be accounted for in their article title: 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. It is often desirable to give the other states compensating prominence in the introduction of the article. Because I am approaching this move request from the primary lens of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, it is therefore appropriate that "of Great Britain/the United Kingdom" appear in these article titles. Moreover, there is nothing stopping us from mentioning the secondary realms of each British monarch within their article. (This is already the case in Anne, Queen of Great Britain's article, in which the infobox descriptor explicitly acknowledges her as a Queen of Ireland.)
  3. In addition, only including the primary number and realm associated with a European sovereign in an article title has already been established as a consistent precedent across monarchies, per Criteria 5 of WP:TITLE. To illustrate: (Once again, these sovereigns are instead listed in order of their primary country's English name in alphabetical order)
    1. Christian X of Denmark also ruled over the (former) Kingdom of Iceland, but his Wikipedia article title omits any mention of the latter realm.
    2. (Kings) William I of the Netherlands, William II of the Netherlands, and William III of the Netherlands all ruled over Luxembourg as grand duchies. Yet their Wikipedia article titles are devoid of any reference to their latter realm and title.
    3. Charles XIV John and Charles XV of Sweden were referred to as Charles III John and Charles IV in Norway, a secondary kingdom. However, Wikipedia fails to acknowledge the latter two ordinals in the article titles for these two sovereigns. (At this time, I will not take a stance on the suitability of the article titles for these two Scandinavian monarchs. However, I am happy to collaborate with members of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, WikiProject Sweden, and WikiProject Norway to determine an alternative title if the need arises.)
  4. I am aware that there was consensus to move many of the article titles on the British monarchs in question to their current targets. Nevertheless, our policies on consensus explicitly state that Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. As I mentioned at the beginning of my explanation, a concurrent discussion is ongoing on Charles III of the United Kingdom (yet another British sovereign)'s talk page with a similar rationale. Additionally, some complaints were made on the talk page of George III (of the United Kingdom)'s article about the appropriateness of the move to a target without specifying his primary realm. Therefore, I believe that now, more than ever, is an appropriate time to consider any unheard sentiments.
  5. Finally, as a comment to any administrator viewing this explanation - Is there a way that we can combine my move request with the concurrent ongoing move discussion on Charles III's talk page? I had been wanting to rename the Wikipedia article on Elizabeth II and her predecessors since even before that discussion commenced, and I formulated my rationale independently of that user's request. However, our core grievances are similar, and combining the discussions will create a unified front for editors to express and debate their opinions. And it is my sincere wish that the outcomes of these discussions for all British monarchs sans George I and George II will create a better titling process for all post-classical European monarchs! Hurricane Andrew (444) 18:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Survey

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

BCorr|Брайен 15:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


Follow me to join the secret cabal!


Crunch, crunch!

Here are some chips to go with your fish!

Great Mercian (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This proposal is attempting to make "Elizabeth II" a disambiguation page, so it would not even be a redirect to this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
That seems very much like a matter of "we'll cross that bridge when we get to it", as we presently have no idea if the Prince of Wales will choose William as his regnal name, or if he'll even survive to accede to the thrones of the Commonwealth Realms. (Also, shouldn't the question be posited in an associated "discussion" section?) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. I see no reason to speculate about something that may of may not happen many years from now. If all of that happens, we will decide what to do then. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This is all in the realm of speculation (WP:CRYSTALBALL). We'll decide what to do with William's and his wife Catherine's articles once they sit on the throne. But, a quick look at William V shows that there are no kings listed among them, and the Prince of Wales' page beats them in terms of views. We'll see what happens in the future and make a decision based on our policies and guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME, WP:TITLECON, etc. Also, note that reigning over multiple realms is but one of the arguments presented to avoid adding "the United Kingdom" to these monarchs' names (another one is obviously WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Felipe VI rules only over Spain and his article's name has no territorial designations. Keivan.fTalk 22:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Notification

Discussion about notification. Like the one at Charles III, consensus it was mostly appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment And frankly that was a bad decision on your part, and it shows you are maybe little too invested in these types of discussions, since you did the exact same thing with the second Charles III discussion. Like, what, am I going to be pinged about every move discussion involving a British monarch from now until the end of time? Take a step back, get some perspective. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 03:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
    As someone who’s pinged for both, I see no issue with it. The Kip (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment And another thing, when you only bother to notify people from the previous discussion, all you're doing is polarizing this discussion, because your only making an effort to bring-in the people who have strong opinions. Try being a little more balanced, maybe put out some notifications on relevant Wikiprojects or something. Like try drawing in some people who haven't made up their minds yet. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 03:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I notified the people who commented on the ongoing Charles III discussion because this is really just an extension of that same discussion. And I assumed anyone who was interested in participating in that discussion would also be interested in participating in this discussion as well. And I think putting some notices about these discussions at relevant Wikiprojects is a fine idea. Feel free to do that if you wish. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment So why didn't you post a notice at the Monarchy of Canada page? Monarchy of Australia page? Monarchy of New Zealand page? Did you post it at any of the Commonwealth realms who would be affected by this change to their monarchs' pages? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
    Rreagan007 did not post a notice at the Monarchy of the United Kingdom talk page, so I don't see their lack of notification at any of the other Commonwealth realms' talk pages to be an issue. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
    If you want to notify there, go for it, but I don't think there is a shortage of contributions here and in the discussion at Talk:Charles III. There has been pretty broad participation.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
  • "That's a fine idea, YOU do that if you want to" - that's definitely a response in the spirit of canvassing. Yeah I'm just going to say it: it's canvassing if you *only* make an effort to notify commenters from the previous discussions. And no, I do not care about the specific wording of WP:CANVASS. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 05:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
    Sorry, let me qualify this comment a little. "Canvassing" in this instance doesn't actually mean what you think it means. This isn't a pro-move/anti-move bias thing, there's more than that type of bias with how you notify people for a discussion. In this case it's an involved vs uninvolved type of bias that is being introduced. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 05:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I find this type of mass-notification to be entirely appropriate, since all parties were notified regardless of vote. Frank Anchor 12:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I was pinged too, and found it useful. It does not necessarily polarise a discussion: it widens it beyond those who may receive notices by bots, so gives a wider consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
    I was also pinged and found it useful. I believe that the more interested editors opining on a matter such as this, the better the consensus. Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
    I agree that the mass-ping seems appropriate here. The same convo started at the last RM and most people were fine with it there. It's clear that the intent was not to canvas, and the pings in this case were limited to people participating in an ongoing RM about a nearly identical subject. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 18:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
  • What a stupid thing to object to! Richard75 (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
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.

A list of prime ministers

Alright, I'll keep it brief unlike the people above me, and I hope if you are commenting that you do too.

Most monarchs have their list of prime ministers. I know there is a different page that you can access this information at, but it's nice to have it on the monarch's page too. And please don't use the "there's too many prime ministers to list" excuse. Go look at Margrethe II's page. I hope this can also be done for King Charles' page. StrawWord298944 (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

There are more than 10 times more countries and 10 times more prime ministers in Elizabeth's case compared to Margarethe's. That is clearly inappropriate for an infobox. DrKay (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Why not a simple “See list” link to the article on the list of her prime ministers? AKTC3 (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I created the U.K. PM box for Queen Victoria (who saw just about as many U.K. ministries as E2R) because the chronology made it made it much easier (at least for me) to understand the discussion of Victoria's governmental role and her relations with different Prime Ministers (such as, for example, Disraeli compared to Gladstone). But I tried to make the table as small, compact and unobtrusive as possible while still conveying the relevant information, with a link to a far vaster List of her U.K. and Imperial PM’s. On the other hand, I omitted the overseas premiers who were then far less important than today. But Commonwealth PM’s today (when not consulting the president of a republic) consult, not directly with the monarch, but with the monarch's Governor-General, usually a senior respected local official or political leader rather than a British-born Royal or noble. See Queen Victoria#Domestic and public life. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The prime ministers of Commonwealth Realms other than the UK still meet or hold calls with their monarch. Place of birth and nobility has nothing to do with it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Would be rather difficult & possibly over-loaded, to include every prime minister (UK, Canadian, Australian, etc), TBH. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
We could just link to List of prime ministers of Elizabeth II like the Victor Emmanuel III of Italy infobox does with the list of his prime ministers. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I think an RFC on this ought to be held, as it should be covering bios of George II to Charles III's infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I thought that's what's been there all along. I had to check just now, after reading your remark. That's the neatest solution. I see no argument against it. I say give it a try and see how it's received by the other editors. If there's pushback, it can be discussed here, per WP:BRD. RfCs are completely unecessary at this point. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
If you are going to add prime ministers? I'd recommend you do so for the infoboxes of George II to Charles III. Would seem out of place, to add such lists to only one monarch. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Why not George I too? Sure, it was just the one, but Walpole should get a mention in George's infobox if the other PMs get them in the others'. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah. Walpole did become the very first British prime minister in 1721, during George I's reign. An office which later sprouted many other offices titled "prime minister", throughout other constitutional monarchies 'and' republics. GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm opposed. I see no reason for it, and no other encyclopedia does it. Infoboxes are already filled with details that are either irrelevant, over-simplified, contentious, disputed, or decorative. This appears to another example of a parameter for the parameter's sake or an attempt to reduce articles to lists and tables. DrKay (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Have to agree with DrKay, on this. It would be just too cumbersome to have in the infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't see the problem. For presidents in semi-presidential republics, such as Emmanuel Macron, prime ministers are listed. I don't see why it should be any different for monarchs with prime ministers. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This particular proposal is for Charles III, not all monarchs. By my count, Charles III has had 17 prime ministers to date, and he's not even been in office for a full year (15 Commonwealth realms, each with a PM, and UK and NZ have had 2 PMs during Charles's reign to date). Macron has had 3 PMs in 6 years. Margrethe II has had 25 in 51 years, in just 3 areas of the Danish realm. It would overload the infobox to have 15 additional lists, even if collapsed. At most, there should be a link to the Wiki page listing Charles's prime ministers. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
That's why there're articles such as List of prime ministers of Elizabeth II. We only have to put that link in the infobox. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
That's not the proposal in the OP, which specifically suggests Margarethe II as the model. Her infobox has 3 collapsed lists.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
And while we're making lists, what about the Canadian provincial premiers and the Australian state premiers? They are first ministers holding office from the monarch. Why not include them as well? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
It's what Neveselbert suggested above.
Discussion about which prime ministers to include in those list articles should be had on the relevant talk pages for the articles. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 14 August 2023

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

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. WP:BOLD WP:INVOLVED closed. Most recent discussion was closed just ten days ago, and there is no reason to believe consensus will have changed since then. Boldly closing the discussion now, to avoid wasting community time. BilledMammal (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

– per WP:NCROY. Also, having the British monarch at the base name is a violation of WP:RECENTISM, WP:NPOV and WP:WORLDVIEW. We shouldn't be biased towards a monarch from the UK when monarchs from other countries are equally notable. History6042 (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

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.

Image?

Why does she have an image where she is young in the 1950s, but Prince Philip has one from 1992?

To me, it would make more sense to have one from around the middle of her reign. Like this one?

She was old for most of her reign. Most people have only known her as old: The median inhabitant of the UK is 40.7 years old (born ~1982), the median inhabitant of the world – 30 years old (~1992). Synotia (moan) 16:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

There was an RFC about what the infobox image should be after her death. There was a consensus for the 1959 portrait. DDMS123 (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
That may have been true at the time, but plenty of people since then have said that they don't like the 1959 portrait.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
@Ianmacm, the consensus was still for the 1959 portrait. DDMS123 (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Had no idea that once she died, people would be changing the main photo so soon. Sigh. Lady Meg (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I would support the removal of the current image, but a consensus was made. Maybe the discussion needs to be formally brought up again? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Given the fact plenty of people have said they don't like the 1959 portrait, I think a new consensus needs to be reached. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I support being able to bring up a new discussion again.
Wikipedia in some languages ​​uses pictures of the Queen in recent years 2401:E180:8852:A403:AE3C:D883:2AC2:3414 (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Change the photo of the een. it is also absurd not to use her coronation photo if you are going to use one from the 1950s. It is not a good photo.--86.144.191.159 (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Please read the FAQ Dronebogus (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
@Synotia As someone who actually voted for the current option, I'd like to point out a couple of things about it:
Part of the consensus was that, after Queen Elizabeth's decease, the infobox shouldn't be limited to recent images anymore. This can be seen in articles for other similarly-deceased world leaders: for instance, Bhumibol Adulyadej, Pope John Paul II, and Baudouin of Belgium have images from the early part of their reigns, while Queen Victoria, Franz Joseph I of Austria, and Pedro I of Brazil have ones from the later part.
For me at least, the infobox image should try to reflect Elizabeth II's reign as a whole, not just on her very old age. However, she did rule for so long that, even when pared down to the most notable parts (decolonization, the move to modernize the monarchy, increasing media interest and the issues relating to that,) you still have a period of 30 years to get a portrait from — from roughly 1960 to 1990.
In the old discussion's case, one of the options was a portrait from 1986, but I (and I think many others as well) wanted to avoid it because it was a portrait of Elizabeth II as Queen of New Zealand, not the United Kingdom. Given that the rest of the options were images from the 21st century or from her coronation, the 1959 portrait was really the only good option given at the time. This was just three years after Suez, too.
Of course, I would welcome reopening this discussion if someone finds a good portrait from the 60s or 70s, but for now, I recommend retaining the current image. Yo.dazo (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
And by Pedro I, I actually meant Pedro II of Brazil. Apologies. Yo.dazo (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Nah, 2A00:23EE:1148:1A77:5CC1:82DB:7907:D43E (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
what about this one, taken for her Silver Jubilee in 1977. It captures near the middle of her reign and i think associated with a woman who many more will remember, the people remembering her of this era are in their mid-late fifties now, as opposed to in their mid seventies with the 1959 portrait.[9]https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw203919/Prince-Philip-Duke-of-Edinburgh-Queen-Elizabeth-II?LinkID=mp01454&wPage=11&role=sit&rNo=227 89.19.79.123 (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
@89.19.79.123 This is technically her as Queen of Canada, but while looking through the Gallery I also found other portraits from the same time period. Like this one from 1975, for example: https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw203988/Queen-Elizabeth-II?LinkID=mp01454&wPage=11&role=sit&rNo=223
The more important issue with this image, I think, is the copyright: the National Portrait Gallery makes it clear that they don't actually own these images, and that their original creators should be contacted for permission instead. This, compounded with the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute some years back, is probably why avoided portraits like this in favour of ones they could already find in the Wikimedia Commons.
In summary, these portraits are probably the best ones to use for the infobox, but we do have to ask for permission from the copyright holder first. If that gets sorted, I will support the picture change. Yo.dazo (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
does it have to be a formal portrait or are other images allowed? this one is in the commons, from her 1976 US Visit.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=elizabeth+ii+1976&title=Special:MediaSearch&type=image
@ 89.19.79.123 (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
@89.19.79.123 It doesn't have to be, though it would likely be strange — one wouldn't really expect that the best 70s-80s public-domain portrait of Elizabeth II would be by White House photographers during a state visit, or formal portraits from other Commonwealth realms. I'd still recommend asking permission for one of the National Portrait Gallery images.
In any case, and for the sake of further discussion, I'll also link here this image of hers from another visit in 1983: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:President_Ronald_Reagan_and_Queen_Elizabeth_II_(cropped).jpg Yo.dazo (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
who can ask permission? that's also a good photo, but yes having her on a cropped image of her as opposed to a formal photo is a bit strange. The only thing is the photo of her while she was alive was on an engagement in 2015 and not a portrait. I personally don't think it matters what country she is representing, but I understand if people go to look for her it is usually as Queen of the UK as opposed to of one of her realms and thus she should probably be shown as such. 89.19.79.123 (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
@89.19.79.123 I think anyone can — although since I don't really contribute to Wikimedia Commons, I can't really help in explaining how to do things there.
If you want to, you can ask for help in Wikipedia:Teahouse, perhaps they can explain better how to license and upload images to the Commons. Yo.dazo (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree. There's no point having her as a young woman since the vast vast majority of people will never have seen her like that. I haven't, I'm 18, and only ever remember her as old. My parents, going into their fifties, won't remember her like that. My grandparents barely will. So why use that photo? 85.255.233.76 (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
She's about 33 in the photo, not really a young woman. She's just pictured here in her prime. Also, it's a bit disingenuous to say the vast majority of people will never have seen her like that when you consider how widely her younger face has been printed on stamps and currency. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Odd no one brought up the way she's facing in the RFC ...MOS:PORTRAIT Moxy- 00:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I really don't see what difference it makes whether she is looking at the text or the cup of coffee on my desk. Lots of lead image portraits look to the right. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

An ever-changing image of Elizabeth II, from 1952 to 2022 would've sufficed. But, I don't think we've the technology. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

We could code it for a different image on a daily basis. But thid would require consensus for multiple images and may confuse readers and editors alike.. thinking that the image keeps getting changed. Moxy- 02:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Change it to a picture from later part of her reign as she’s globally remembered or use the main picture from her coronation. This photo is bad, the argument for doesn’t make sense. Personally I think the coronation photo is the best one if you wish to use her youth and remember her that way. 2A00:23EE:1148:1A77:5CC1:82DB:7907:D43E (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Agree. 86.144.191.173 (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment Tempted to agree that the RFC in the funeral week was a bit premature to make an immovable consensus for all time - since a query about the image has come up quite regularly on this talk page, it does suggest a degree of scepticism about the choice of image. Bob talk 13:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Comment Would suggest that holding the RFC so close to her death, when emotions were high, may have skewed the results towards the "glory years" that stands very much in odds to the majority of her reign. If a photo closer to the middle of her reign was found (and also done with Philip, think it's better if both images used are from a similar period given the relationship) then I would support a reopening of the issue to discuss it. Apache287 (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Changing the photo to one when she was young is beyond absurd. A great part of her fame is her longevity and for decades she has been quite visible as an elderly woman. And there is no lack of quality photos of a more mature Queen.
Also, the entire idea of changing a photo because somebody has died is absurd. Str1977 (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
the idea of having a dead person notable for 70+ years represented by an image from their final few years seems absurd JM2023 (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I did not participate in the RfC, but I have read over it and it looks like it was a pretty thorough discussion that considered all of the options. Consensus can change, but I think it's unlikely to have changed on this particular issue in this amount of time. Based on all the options presented at the last RfC, I would still choose the lead image that is currently being used. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The only way of seeing if consensus has changed is to see if consensus has changed. The previous discussion was a structured vote. It is not too unlikely that another vote will choose something else. Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for a late response. The delicate question in situations like this always; how long do we wait for another RfC? I think the current image is fine, but at the same time, some of the arguments above about WP:RECENTISM seem pretty compelling. Is there any cost to doing another RfC? NickCT (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

"The Queen"

@Peter Ormond and GoodDay: Pinging you to discuss the "the Queen" content added by Peter. I think it's reasonable to include that in many contexts, in many parts of the world, during a certain period, it is reasonably likely that saying "the Queen" would be understood as referring to Elizabeth II. The sources are okay. But is there some kind of a neutrality or dueness problem? Not seing any major problem myself, so I've reverted the removal, but I could be wrong. —Alalch E. 22:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty: What about Macron's statement "To you, she was your Queen. To us, she was the Queen" (emphasis mine). She wasn't the queen of France. —Alalch E. 22:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
No, but she was the sovereign of one of France's closest countries. France has no queen, so when the French say "the Queen", they aren't referring to their own queen: and they won't exactly be referring to Margrethe II of Denmark either. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, they won't be referring to Margrethe II of Denmark, they'd be referring to Elizabeth II, the most famous female monarch for decades upon decades. —Alalch E. 22:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
That's a worryingly Anglocentric position to take. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
It's just the reality. —Alalch E. 23:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Not really. If you wanted to focus on the UK, though, "the Queen" is now Camilla. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Depends of the temporal point of reference, that is, on the context. So if one were to speak about events during, say, the second half of the twentieth century, it is not only in the UK, but, which is the point, also outside of the UK, that saying only "the Queen" would be often (not always, not everywhere, not absolutely certainly) understood as referring to Elizabeth II. —Alalch E. 23:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Sure. But, in the second half of the nineteenth century, it is not only in the UK, but, which is the point, also outside of the UK, that saying only "the Queen" would be often (not always, not everywhere, not absolutely certainly) understood as referring to Queen Victoria. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback thus far, maybe Peter Ormond will have something to add to the discussion, because I don't at this point. Sincerely —Alalch E. 23:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Best we not attempt to display her as being more important than other female monarchs. Also, it has an air of recentism to it. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a summary article and this bit of trivia doesn't deserve to be here. It can go in the article on her titles and honors, which is linked from here. DrKay (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Whether it's accurate or not, it's an insignificant detail for a broad article such as this anyway. So I agree with the removal. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2023

Change "trained and worked as a driver and mechanic" to "trained as a driver and mechanic" in the section titled "Second World War".

There is no evidence that she worked as a driver or mechanic. See the unanswered question asking for evidence, archived at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive_47#ATS_service,_and_work_record Worker in a hive (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done There are 5 other sources given at the end of that sentence, 2 of which are publicly available, so I checked them. They support the word 'worked'. DrKay (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry this is a bit long, but I find researching the subject very interesting and great fun.
The first public domain source is the Time article titled, "The World War II Auto Mechanic in This Photo Is Queen Elizabeth II. Here's the Story Behind the Picture" (25th May 2018) https://time.com/5287517/world-war-ii-queen-elizabeth-photo/ which reproduces a primary source photograph depicting Princess Elizabeth in training. A differently cropped version of the image can be seen at the Getty images site where it is described as "Royal Mechanic, Queen Elizabeth visits her daughter Princess Elizabeth, who is training as an ATS mechanic at a training centre in southern England, April 1945. At this stage she is a Second Subaltern of the ATS (Auxiliary Territorial Service). (Photo by Popperfoto via Getty Images/Getty Images)." https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/queen-elizabeth-visits-her-daughter-princess-elizabeth-who-news-photo/115969178?adppopup=true
King George VI, Queen Elizabeth, and Princess Margaret visited the ATS training centre in April 1945 https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/king-george-vi-queen-elizabeth-and-princess-margaret-visit-news-photo/115969176?adppopup=true The Time article relays the date of the visit of the King and Queen to be 9th April 1945: "An Associated Press report on the April 9 visit dubbed the future sovereign “Princess Auto Mechanic.”"
Her training course ended on 17th April 1945 https://collection.nam.ac.uk/detail.php?acc=1998-02-70-34 Note this source is incorrectly labeled "Timetable for No 1 Mechanical Training Centre, Auxiliary Territorial Service, week four, 6 to 12 April 1945", and interestingly/oddly the week starts on Friday.
It is a well-meaning, misinterpretation of the photograph to infer it depicts Princess Elizabeth working as a mechanic after her training course, because the evidence of the end-date of the course is not presented in the article. Given this extra information it can be seen that the Time article does not support the claim that she "trained and worked as a driver and mechanic", if "worked" is to be interpreted as something additional to "trained".
Also this Time article misunderstands that if Princess Elizabeth had been working as a mechanic it would have been while serving in the ATS: "This particular photo, however, is unusual because of what her job was when she wasn’t[sic] serving in the Auxiliary Territorial Service (ATS), a women’s army auxiliary branch." I can't make out the cap badge she is wearing (would have expected to see a prominent middle-T of an ATS badge).
Some further, observations of photographs of Princess Elizabeth in the ATS....
Many photographs can be found at Getty site, or the National Army Museum on-line collection https://collection.nam.ac.uk/results.php?searchType=simple&resultsDisplay=list&acc=1994-07-291 or at the Imperial War Museum site https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/12-photographs-of-the-royal-family-in-wartime
The Pathe newsreel at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2grMaRttws shows similar images. I've found two photographs that are documented with exact dates: 10th April 1945 https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/princess-elizabeth-driving-an-ambulance-during-her-wartime-news-photo/980972380?adppopup=true , and 12th April 1945 https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/princess-elizabeth-learning-basic-car-maintenance-as-a-news-photo/591976894?adppopup=true which are around the 9th April of the King & Queen's visit as reported by the Associated Press. There might be some ambiguity regarding date-taken, date-published, and date-recorded in the archives.
Where a photograph is not documented as being of Princess Elizabeth's training course, and is also vaguely dated as "1945" or "April 1945" we cannot say if it is from the training period or after it.
Some evidence of the relationship of these photographs to each other might be gleaned from the repeated appearance of two vehicles, often shown parked in the same relative positions. The first is an Austin 10HP 'Tilly' light utility vehicle with war department census number M1136086 on the side of the bonnet, and the drivers-side arm-of-service marking is a black square (indicating RAMC? or division HQ?) with top stripe NoITCMT, and a passenger side L-plate and black-and-white quarter checks. The second is an Austin K2 Red Cross ambulance with WD census number A1212251 and the same arm-of-service markings and L-plate. While it might be tempting for British military vehicles markings nerds to join-the-dots, this evidence is inconclusive.
I have not found any photograph, ATS document, or other primary source documentation in the Getty, NAM, and IWM online collections that indicates Princess Elizabeth worked as a mechanic for the ATS after the end of the training course. Of course, I might have missed something, or there might be a source to be found elsewhere.
Moving on the the second public domain article from The Independent (22 April 2020) titled, "Our Queen at War: Princess Elizabeth’s role in the British armed forces during the Second World War", written by Sabrina Barr. "Sabrina Barr is Lifestyle Writer for The Independent. She enjoys writing about feminism, body positivity, social issues, wellbeing, relationships and current trends." It's illustrated by some of the photographs I describe above. It refers to "The monarch’s position as a driver and mechanic during the war was explored in a documentary that aired on ITV in 2020, titled Our Queen at War.", which I have not evaluated because it is behind a paywall.
In the section, "What did her Second World War service entail?" it says, "After passing the military driving test, she became a driver for the Second Subaltern Windsor Unit. The princess also learnt how to repair vehicle engines as a mechanic in her unit."
These two sentences, taken at face value, support the idea that Princess Elizabeth worked as a "driver for the Second Subaltern Windsor Unit", and worked in her unit where she "learnt how to repair vehicle engines as a mechanic in her unit."
The phrase "driver for the Second Subaltern Windsor Unit" is such an interesting combination of rank and unit (Princess Elizabeth being a Second Subaltern herself) that I googled, and the earliest use of the phrase I could find was in Gender, War, and Conflict, Laura Sjoberg (2014) Chapter 2 "Where are the Women" a discussion of the absence of women in the film Saving Private Ryan, with a reference to Craig 2008, but the references of the book are not in the pages available on Google books so I could not follow that up.
My understanding (from my broader reading of other sources) is that after passing her military driving test (which from other accounts I understand entailed driving a fully loaded truck from Camberley to Central London) she was awarded the rank Second Subaltern (on 24th February 1945) in the ATS. She had the rank of Second Subaltern during the rest of her training, as documented above.
The Independent article continues with reference to Life magazine, and repeats the familiar events of the training course at No 1 Mechanical Training Centre, including a visit from her mother, "One day, she received a visit from her mother, Queen Elizabeth, who watched as her daughter explained what her role entailed." illustrated by the same photograph as the Time magazine article of the 9th April visit of the King and Queen.
So we have Barr's account that states that Princess Elizabeth worked (after her training) as a "driver for the Second Subaltern Windsor Unit", and worked further in her unit where she "learnt how to repair vehicle engines as a mechanic in her unit." This conflicts with Lacey's account from the archived question, and the stackoverflow answer, where she acquiesced to the King's wish that she concentrate on royal duties. Two conflicting secondary sources. Worker bee in a hive2 (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((Edit semi-protected)) template. DrKay (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
OK. Hopefully I've provided enough for the web sources to be regarded now as being not of the highest quality. I've read the book sources and can provide a better description of why they do not support "worked". I'll do that by creating a separate topic calling for consensus. My previous question on this matter was ignore, so I hope to generate enough interest this time. (new username because I have been locked out of Worker bee in a hive and Worker bee in a hive2 - I remember the passwords but they don't let me log in). Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Call for consensus on Change "trained and worked as a driver and mechanic" to "trained as a driver and mechanic" in the section titled "Second World War".

I'd like to develop a consensus before editing.

The book sources do not support the claim that Elizabeth "worked" (other than in training) as a driver or mechanic. All the book sources are available at archive.org so can be checked (you need to register to read the books but it's free). Sources "worked as a mechanic and driver"

Bradford 2012, p. 45; Bradford, Sarah (2012), Queen Elizabeth II: Her Life in Our Times, Penguin, ISBN 978-0-6709-1911-6 https://archive.org/details/queenelizabethhe0000brad Archive ISBN 9780670919116 Back cover: 978-0-670-91911-6 Contents: Chapter 4, Windsor War p34-p58

From p45 to top of p46: "But it was not until the spring of 1945, a short time before her nineteenth birthday, that she was at last allowed ‘out’ to join the Auxiliary Territorial Service, always known as the ATS, as No. 230873 Second Subaltern Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, and was enrolled on an NCO’s cadre course. She had already been given instruction in driving and in maintaining the various vehicles she would have to drive on the course, and on the morning of 23 March 1945 she put on her hideous khaki uniform—cloth-belted tunic and skirt, khaki stockings and heavy flat regulation shoes, and presented herself to her father for inspection. Princess Margaret was jealous—‘madly cross’; as Princess Elizabeth used to complain to Crawfie, ‘Margaret always wants what I’ve got.’

But if it seemed like freedom to Princess Elizabeth, it was closely guarded. While she was driven back every evening to spend the night at Windsor, the other women slept in dormitory huts. At lectures she was surrounded by officers, with the lower ranks sitting behind. At the intervals between lectures she was ‘whisked away’ by the officers and lunched in the officers’ mess. Later she managed to extricate herself from her praetorian guard and join the other women for a break: ‘These cups of tea are getting a nice chatty institution,’ Corporal Eileen Heron wrote. ‘She talks much more now she is used to us, and is not a bit shy.’ The course ended on 16 April 1945, just before her birthday; she told her new friends how sorry she was that it was over. ‘She says she will feel quite lost next week, Eileen Heron recorded, ‘especially as she does not know yet what is going to happen to her as a result of the course. She would love to join HQ Crawley Rise as a junior officer.’[17] But being an expert driver and being familiar with the workings of the combustion engine were not to be essential parts of Princess Elizabeth’s future, and this pioneering expedition into unfamiliar territory outside the castle walls lasted only a few months, as the King, of course, had known it would. As head of the armed forces and Churchill’s confidant at their weekly lunches, he knew perfectly well that when his daughter had started in the ATS the end of the war could not be far off."

The chapter ends from bottom p46-p47 with: "Elizabeth’s only real taste of life outside Windsor Castle had come towards the end of the war when she had joined the ATS, but even then she did not share the experiences of her contemporaries. She slept at the castle and was chauffeured to training every weekday. She learned to drive and learned the workings of the combustion engine and became a fast and skillful driver on the private roads at Balmoral, but the scope of her life was extremely limited. She met and talked to international figures like Eleanor Roosevelt and General Eisenhower, but she remained in a royal cocoon, shy, reserved and cautious with outsiders, devoted to her close family, an apparently ordinary figure in an extraordinary situation. Women of her age had jobs, worked on the land and in factories and as code-breakers, served in the armed forces (although not in the front line), went on espionage missions to occupied Europe. Princess Elizabeth’s life experience barely extended beyond the castle circle. It was, perhaps, a good preparation for a dutiful and circumscribed life."

Lacey 2002, p. 148; Lacey, Robert (2002), Royal: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Little, Brown, ISBN 0-3168-5940-0 https://archive.org/details/royalhermajestyq00lace Archive ISBN 0316859400 9780316859400 Back cover: 9780316859400 Contents: Chapter 11 Princess in the Tower p127-p138 p148 is about the secret engagement of Elizabeth to Philip (George VI had insisted the engagement his daughter's not be announced until after the tour of South Africa where she would turned 21 on 21st April; the engagement was announced a few months later on 10th July 1947). Perhaps page number is from the large-print version. The correct page numbers are in the Chapter 11 Princess in the Tower, from bottom p136-p137: "By 1944 there was no reason why the 18-year-old should not have been out mixing with her contemporaries, engaged in some sort of war work. Yet it was not until the spring of 1945, on the eve of her nineteenth birthday, that her father finally allowed her to join the Auxiliary Territorial Service: No. 230873, Second Subaltern Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor.

The eleven young women on her Vehicle Maintenance Course at Aldershot were told it was the first time in history that a female royal had ever attended a course with ‘other people’. They were under strict instructions not to reveal her identity and were bursting with curiosity to see what she looked like.

‘Quite striking’, noted Corporal Eileen Heron in her diary ‘Short, pretty, brown, crisp, curly hair. Lovely grey-blue eyes, and an extremely charming smile, and she uses lipstick!’

The princess was equally eager to get to know her coursemates. But while they slept in huts at the all-female base, Elizabeth was chauffeured back to dine and sleep at Windsor. Every lunchtime she was ‘whisked away’ by the officers to lunch in their mess, and at lec~ tures she was placed in the middle of the front row, with a protective sergeant on either side.

She did her best in the circumstances.

‘When anyone is asked a question,’ noted Eileen Heron, ‘she turns round to have a good look at the person concerned. It is her only opportunity to attach names to the right people.’

By the end of the three-week course on 16 April, Elizabeth had managed to escape from her over-protective mentors with the other girls. ‘These cups of tea are getting a nice chatty insti- tution,’ noted Corporal Heron. ‘She talks much more now she is used to us and is not a bit shy... [She] says she will feel quite lost next week, especially as she does not know yet what is going to happen to her as result of the course.’

The princess had been learning how to service and maintain army vehicles. Her long discourses on pistons and cylinder heads over dinner at Windsor became something of a family joke. She told Eileen Heron that she was hoping to join ATS headquarters later that summer as junior officer, where she would have worked in an office with other young women on transport organisation.

It was not to be. Less than a month after her course ended came VE day - 8 May 1945. There was ATS work aplenty in the months of demobilisation that followed, but George VI wanted his daughter back home on royal duties. He did not see her future as working in an office, even a military office, alongside other young women, and Princess Elizabeth bowed to his wish.

Marr 2011, p. 100; Marr, Andrew (2011), The Diamond Queen: Elizabeth II and Her People, Macmillan, ISBN 978-0-2307-4852-1 https://archive.org/details/diamondqueeneliz0000marr Archive ISBN 023074852X 9780230748521 9781447201977 1447201973 9780330544160 0330544160 Back Cover: 978-1-4472-0197-7 Contents: p100 is in Part 2 LILIBET p73-120: "Elizabeth had obstinately petitioned her father to allow her to do war work more substantial than the odd radio broadcast or ceremonial position and she finally got her way when she joined the Auxiliary Territorial Service. In the ATS, she learned to service trucks, drive cars, take apart engines, and perform some of the drilling she would spend her adult life observing from podiums. It was a very rare chance for her to mix with others of her age, though she was never quite allowed to forget her position, being whisked away after training sessions and rarely enjoying frank conversations with the others. She tried to make friends and hoped to do more; but Hitler fell first. In practical terms her contribution to the war effort was showmanship: to have a pretty young princess in military uniform, wielding a spanner, made fine propaganda."

Pimlott 2001, p. 75; Pimlott, Ben (2001), The Queen: Elizabeth II and the Monarchy, HarperCollins, ISBN 0-0025-5494-1 https://archive.org/details/queenelizabethii0000piml_c9b6 Archive ISBN 0007114354 9780007114351 0002554941 9780002554947 0007114362 9780007114368 Back cover: 0-00-711435-4, 9 780007 114368 Contents: p.75 is in Chapter 4 p56-p77 covering 1939-1945; Chapter 5 p78-p101 covers 1945 from VE Day to 1947 Bottom of p74 p75 "There remained the question of whether she would enter one of the women’s services, and if so, which. Early in 1945, it was decided that she would join the Auxiliary Territorial Service. It was not the obvious choice. In view of her family's naval traditions, the WRNS would have been more natural. The King and Queen were apparently reluctant: there is no reason to doubt Crawfie’s account of an eager and determined young woman wearing down the resistance of her parents.[76] At the end of February she was registered as No. 230873 Second Subaltern Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor. The rank was an honorary one, but the training in driving and vehicle-maintenance she underwent at No. 1 Mechanical Transport Training Centre at Aldershot, was genuine. She enjoyed this sole, brief experience of communal education. Several decades later, she told the Labour poli- tician Barbara Castle that it was the only time in her life when she had been able seriously to test her own capabilities against those of others of her age.[77] After six weeks she qualified as a driver, and at the end of July, a few days before the final end to the war, she was promoted to Junior Commander.

‘The Princess is to be treated in exactly the same way as any other officer learning at the driving training centre,’ maintained the official report at the outset.[78] To back this up, the Queen requested that photographers should not be given any facilities.[79] This, however, did not deter the press, and during her short stay at the Centre she was photographed more intensively than at any time since the Coronation. As a result, she was scarcely just one of the girls. If it was not quite true, as a 1957 assessment put it, that ‘the rule of seclusion was main- tained and she did not mix with her fellows on the course,’[80] the extent of mucking in, on equal terms, was limited. She kept to the routine of the ATS mess, took her share of duties, and acquired the basics of driving, car mechanics and maintenance. But she returned to Windsor every night to sleep. She also became an unwitting man- nequin for the uniform of the service - pictures of her with a spanner, at the wheel of a lorry, leaning on a bonnet, or peering purposefully and fetchingly under one, appeared in the newspapers and magazines of every Allied nation.

In such matters, it was always impossible to disentangle a private motive from the public effort. Since the enrolment of a royal princess could not be kept secret, her participation in the ATS inevitably became part of the morale-boosting display of the Monarchy. It was a similar story with other initiatives that started spontaneously." continues with description of the Royal Christmas plays.

Chapter 5 p78-p101 covers 1945 from VE Day, where no work is mentioned. Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment at NCROY guideline

Your input at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#RfC:_Should_the_guideline_explicitly_accept_Elizabeth_II,_Carl_XVI_Gustaf,_etc_titles? would be appreciated. Thanks! Surtsicna (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

13 US presidents

@Celia Homeford: It would probably be good to include that she met 13 US presidents in the body and then restore that bit in the lead. Source. I'm just not sure where to put it. What do you think? —Alalch E. 18:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Just as a point of fact, not a point about whether it should be included, it should be 13 sitting presidents. She met 14 presidents in total. DrKay (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Her meetings with the popes are mentioned in the lede. I wonder where in the article those meetings are discussed. Maybe the ones with the US presidents can be introduced there; depends on the context of course. Keivan.fTalk 23:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
You can Ctrl+F "five popes" to see where they're discussed in the body. The presidents could be introduced somewhere in the vicinity of that, probably in the preceding paragraphs. —Alalch E. 23:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of that technique but I was using my mobile phone so it wasn't really possible to pull that off. My point is that if it can be introduced into the paragraph without disrupting its flow, then we can put it in the article's body and that would resolve the issue with the "lede". Keivan.fTalk 01:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I won't object if it is put back now that it's been added to the article body. Celia Homeford (talk)
That part in the lede focuses on her activities as queen. So should we mention that she actually met 12 sitting US presidents? Because she met Truman in 1951 when she was a princess. Keivan.fTalk 17:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Picture

It’s been a year. Why hasn’t that rubbish photo been changed? This is the late Queen and you have a distinctly bad photo. 31.50.88.233 (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

See the FAQ. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:William IV related to the recent move discussion here. This is for the information of those who may wish to participate there.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

"Acceleration of decolonisation"

I see nothing whatsoever in that section to justify the heading. Having sort of gleefully discovered its existence, one would expect to see something about E2R having contributed in some discernible way to decolonization somewhere. The section should be heavily reduced, removed or justified. If not, I will be shortening it myself. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how a problem in the heading justifies altering the section. The heading should be changed not the section. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm with Celia Homeford on this. The content is fine. The only thing that possibly needs to change is the heading. Keivan.fTalk 15:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I've changed it to "Lead-up to the end of the Empire".—Alalch E. 12:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
OK but the whole section as worded is till irrelevant to a biography of Elizabeth II. Where is the relevance? She visited Yugoslavia. She didn't care for one leader. Her government changed. She had to fly home once. She supported a (colonial era!) governor general. Could someone please, well-sourced, adjust the text for some sort of relevance? This is a biography, not a story about non-connected, even contradictory, political details. Has anyone ever given Elizabeth II any specific credit for events that would lead up to the end of the empire? That would be very nice. Add it and source it, or change the heading again! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The whole h2 section is like this, this subsection isn't any different. It's a prose-ified and essentially disjointed timeline of noteworthy moments in her reign. It isn't supposed to credit her with decolonisation just as the Thatcher heading isn't supposed to credit her with Thatcher becoming prime minister. The names and placement of subsection headings is arbitrary and exist only to group the long string of paragraphs into groups of 3-5,6,7. The subheadings are essentially cosmetic.
For example, take the paragraph that starts with "In May 2007, citing unnamed sources, The Daily Telegraph reported that Elizabeth was "exasperated and frustrated" by the policies of Tony Blair ..." in the subsection "Golden Jubilee". What does that have to do with her Golden jubilee that occurred five years prior. Obviously, the heading is there just to psysically divide content and is not there to describe the content of the section. —Alalch E. 17:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
A solution: Special:Diff/1174625136 —Alalch E. 17:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I think that makes it worse. The other headings at least were personalised to Elizabeth's reign, and not just decades. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I prefer the chronological headings. I think they make it clear that these are the events of her reign , as it occurred over the decades. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Should we have an RfC? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Probably (almost certainly), but let's keep this open just a little longer to see if we should do some quick work on the content after all before giving more consideration to the headings before content (which wouldn't be the best order). —Alalch E. 18:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The issue I brought up in initiating this section looks like it has been solved now. As long as there is no heading that clearly infers that Elizabeth II was in some way instrumental to decolonization, along with nothing whatsoever in text to substantiate that she was, I'm OK with the current version. No reason for an RfC on this particular issue. New section, in that case. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

"From Elizabeth's birth onwards, the British Empire continued its transformation into the Commonwealth of Nations.[1]" is perhaps not an objective point of view. It seems to give an active, rather than reactive, role to the British Empire. The word "transformation" is quite vague, but it is quite difficult to describe succinctly the different processes by which different nations became independent of the Empire, some peaceful, some not. Not all of the British Empire transformed into the Commonwealth. Some of the countries that gained independence from the British Empire joined the Commonwealth. Some did not. From the point of view of the former colonies that did not join the Commonwealth, the British Empire did not transform into the Commonwealth.
I do not think it is clear that the supporting citation [1] has Marr quoting from the Queen's personal retrospective point of view of the dismantling of Empire, and particularly (from her unique perspective) the role of Monarchy ('the Crown'), from the time of her grandfather's Silver Jubilee in 1935 to that of her speech at her Silver Jubilee banquet in 1977 at the Guildhall, 'I have seen, from a unique position of advantage, the last great phase of the transformation of the Empire into Commonwealth and the transformation of the Crown from an emblem of dominion into a symbol of free and voluntary association. In all history this has no precedent.' It does quite accurately describe the changing role of 'The Crown', but as a view of the dismantling of Empire it is partial (in both senses of the word) by omitting the countries that did not join the Commonwealth. Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
The citations and literature stating that the Commonwealth is the successor of the Empire is immensely vast. A summary sentence that is representative of the literature is all that is required here. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Most of the countries that left the British Empire which didn't join the Commonwealth, joined the Arab League (Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Somaliland, Sudan, UAE, Yemen). Ireland, Israel, and Myanmar(Burma) did not join the Commonwealth. Previously 1919 Afghanistan had gained independence as the British Empire gave up the Great Game. It would be enough to tacitly acknowledge that some countries had a different view by just saying most (or the vast majority) of the nations which became independent of the British Empire chose to keep ties/links with Britain by joining the Commonwealth. I had thought of adding they joined the Commonwealth with their own monarch or the British monarch as head of state, or as republics, but that might not be necessary if I were to change next sentence: "By the time of her accession in 1952, her[change to the British monarch's] role as head of multiple independent states was already established".

How about...

Between 1945 and 1968 the vast majority of colonies of the British Empire became independent nations, most of which chose to join the modernized Commonwealth of Nations . [2] [3]

This would be an improvement because 

Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't see that as an improvement. 1945 is nothing to do with Elizabeth and like 1968 is an arbitrary cut-off. It also lumps all the countries together as 'colonies', which is inaccurate. There was a range of self-government and some parts of the Empire were dominions or protectorates not colonies. It's more accurate to say there was a slow transformation not set arbitrary limits. It also contains vague weasel words like 'vast majority', 'most', and 'modernized'. DrKay (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the introduction of the section about Elizabeth's early reign, which I see as describing the changing Commonwealth and Empire which Elizabeth inherits.
Do you agree with my interpretation that this is the purpose here? And what period do you see as relevant?
1945 and 1968 are used by the source I quote (Louis), "Largely as a result of Macleod's momentum, all of Britain's remaining twelve African dependencies except Southern Rhodesia were independent by 1968. The number of people under British rule in the two decades after 1945 was reduced from 700 million people to 5 million, of which 3 million were concentrated in Hong Kong." The author deems these to be significant dates because the change in such a short historical time-frame is so fast and dramatic. It's not at all a slow process.
Compare taking Louis's range of 1945 to 1968 with the current version which is vague in not mention the dates of comparison from the supporting source, Marr's report of the speech comparing the Empire and Commonwealth of Elizabeth's Silver Jubilee 1977 with her grandfather's in 1935. 1935 and 1977 are arbitrary points at which to observe the changing Empire and Commonwealth. The current version extends consideration to a period not entirely justified by the source. I can see why it might be tempting to choose Elizabeth's birth as a starting point for a longer perspective, given that the 1931 Statute of Westminster extended self-government in the dominions of the British Commonwealth of Nations to be no longer subordinate to Great Britain. However 1931 is not strictly covered by the source, Elizabeth's account of what she had seen, even though she was educated in constitutional matters from a young age, I'm doubtful about what a five-year-old Elizabeth would seen of the passing of the Statute of Westminster, or of The Crown being regarded as an emblem of dominion.
Taking events chronologically, the significant developments in the Empire are the end of the British Mandate in Mesopotamia (Iraq) in 1932, and Egypt (except the Suez Canal) becoming independent in 1936. Though Darwin is wary of equating constitutional change with the end of empire in The End of the British Empire: The Historical Debate, 1991, which describes Egypt and Iraq as still being "under the thumb" of the British Empire. Neither Egypt or Iraq were invited (or sought to) join the Commonwealth (because that wasn't the purpose of the Commonwealth at that time).
The next significant date in the development of the Commonwealth that Elizabeth inherits is in 1949 where it changed its terms of association, which according to the source was "both innovative and bold in a number of ways", allowing membership without acknowledging the British Monarch as head of state, along with the dropping of 'British' from its title (the source "Celebrating thecommonwealth@60" has the Commonwealth describing itself as being 60 in 2009). It is not a weasel word to describe the Commonwealth from 1949 as "modern", or perhaps, as John Darwin puts it, rather floridly, as "re-imagined".
In the period 1945 to 1968 the dominions were already independent, and were already members of the Commonwealth so that's why I did not mention them becoming independent. I'm wary of the word 'protectorate' as a euphemism for colony. Would 'territories' be an acceptable alternative to 'colonies'?
I agree 'vast majority' or 'most' are vague and far from ideal. The current use of "transformed" is more vague, and overstating what happened in failing to acknowledge that parts of the Empire did not transform into the Commonwealth. I suggest that in both cases, vagueness arises from our both seeking brevity. Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I used "inherited", should have said something like "assumed the role" as Head of the Commonwealth. Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
To start with, Louis isn't a good source for this article. This is not a history of the British Empire. It is a biography of Elizabeth II. That's one of the reasons it starts in 1926 and ends in 2023. The article should be sourced from biographies of Elizabeth II. DrKay (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
You have inspired me to think, since this section is about the reign of Elizabeth then it should confine itself to her reign. It is being too ambitious, trying to cover too much in a couple of sentences, hence the problems with vagueness. Other topics should be covered elsewhere. We should rein ourselves in (excuse the terrible pun). Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
How about the simple, clear, and precise
At her accession in 1952, Elizabeth assumed the position of Head of the Commonwealth, a body of eight states. Of the the nations that gained independence from the British Empire, fifty two had joined the Commonwealth by the seventieth anniversary of her accession.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/70-years-the-queens-role-in-the-commonwealth/
The source says
"The organisation now has a membership of 54 countries, with nearly a third of the world’s population. Only two members—Rwanda and Mozambique—were not formerly part of the British empire." So I took the liberty of subtracting 2 from 54 to get 52.
One problem I can see is that 70 is arbitrary. Perhaps we could find a source that tells us how many countries in the Commonwealth by the end of her reign.
I really would like to preserve the liberty of quoting from other sources than biographies of Elizabeth II. Some of the biographies (not naming any names) are not of the highest academic standard. Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
There is also the issue of the countries that were once part of the British Empire but joined indirectly, (can't remember the name of the state that got independence from Australia and joined the Commonwealth). There's also cases like Cameroon, where most of Cameroon was a French colony, and only a small bit was part of the British Empire. Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Cross checking with Pimlott p182
"Apart from the United Kingdom, six self-governing nations - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon - retained the British Monarch as head of state."
The distinction being between Head of the Commonwealth (8) and head of state (6). Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations say 56 members "The most recent members to join were the Francophone African nations of Gabon and Togo on 29 June 2022, who along with Rwanda and Mozambique are unique[sic] in not having a historic constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom or other Commonwealth states." so 52 members at the end of Elizabeth's reign.
So now I've re-written to
At her accession in 1952, Elizabeth assumed the position of Head of the Commonwealth, a body of eight states. Of the the nations that gained independence from the British Empire, fifty two were members of the Commonwealth at the end of her reign.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/70-years-the-queens-role-in-the-commonwealth/
I removed "joined" because it is not quite accurate. A membership count is simpler. Dominions didn't actually join (and in Ireland's case it left). Zimbabwe joined but was suspended & withdrew. Malaya merged with Singapore. Tanganyika and Zanzibar merged to form the United Republic of Tanzania. Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
And a further source to justify 56 - 4 = 52 in 2022, at the end of Elizabeth's reign.
https://thecommonwealth.org/news/gabon-and-togo-join-commonwealth Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Doh! It's 51. I was counting the UK as a nation that gained independence from the British Empire. 56 members - 4 (non-empire) - 1 (the UK) Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
The complexity of your comments here demonstrate that it is best to stick with the current brief summary. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
It seems more complicated than it is. My fault. I'll hold my horses until I have something more considered to say. Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Celia Homeford here. This section is a chronological summary of major events in QEII's reign. As soon as we start putting "descriptive" headings in, we're starting to editorialise. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting descriptive headings. I was trying to suggest something better than
"From Elizabeth's birth onwards, the British Empire continued its transformation[vague] into the Commonwealth of Nations. By the time of her accession in 1952, her role as head of multiple[vague] independent states was already established." Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
But the history of the transformation from Empire to Commonwealth, with some countries leaving, and some with no previous connection to the Empire joining, is very complicated. Elizabeth did not have a direct role in that, other than as Head of the Commonwealth. This is a biography of her, and trying to squeeze that complicated history, which affected many different nations and Britain itself, into a paragraph about her, is just too complicated. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Indeed Elizabeth did not have a direct role in the transformation of the Empire into the Commonwealth (and other states). As you say her role was Head of the Commonwealth. And she was Head of State of some Commonwealth countries. The complications you mention, it was I who raised them in my Black Hatting of my suggestions for improvements. I thought the part of this article based on Elizabeth's description of the transformation could be improved. As my admittedly rather obsessive and pedantic efforts at precision have met with considerable opposition, and therefore have been an embarrassing and abject failure, I've decided to let the matter rest. Forgive me, I'm not a very experienced Wikipedia editor, a bit autistic, and from a mathematical background. I shall take some time to learn more about the Wikipedian culture. Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Marr 2011, p. 272
  2. ^ Louis, Wm. Roger (1999). "The Dissolution of the British Empire". In Brown, Judith; Louis, Wm. Roger (eds.). The Twentieth Century, The Oxford History of the British Empire Volume IV. Oxford University Press. p. 330. ISBN 978-0-19-924679-3.
  3. ^ "Celebrating thecommonwealth@60". Commonwealth Secretariat. 26 April 2009. Archived from the original on 4 August 2009. Retrieved 29 July 2011.

last name

I have noticed her last name: Windsor is not included on this page... 185.130.156.203 (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

see Infobox - about three-quarters down: House name, Windsor. DeCausa (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Prime Ministers

Why are the prime ministers that served under Elizabeth not listed, unlike with other monarchs like Margrethe II of Denmark?

Should they be included in the infobox? Fm675 (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This was discussed before & the view was, there's simply too many prime ministers to list, for the infobox. Also, we don't list them, in the infoboxes of her predecessors. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
For one thing, Elizabeth had 179 of them. Surtsicna (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
So why not just link List of prime ministers of Elizabeth II? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
That's quite a funny one. I interpreted the question as prime ministers of the United Kingdom. —Panamitsu (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm opposed. I see no reason for it, and no other encyclopedia does it. Infoboxes are already filled with details that are either irrelevant, over-simplified, contentious, disputed, or decorative. This appears to another example of a parameter for the parameter's sake or an attempt to reduce articles to lists and tables. DrKay (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC) restated 17:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Divorce date?

The page seems to list a divorce in 1995 with Prince Philip and the same is on his page? Getting mixed up with Charles and Diana maybe 46.69.47.174 (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. this was recent vandalism, and has now been corrected on both pages. Again, Thanks. Moons of Io (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
How can there be vandalism if the page (or article) is protected? Please explain. 74.15.254.221 (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
There are multiple levels of protection. IPs can't edit some articles, but those with accounts or those with 500 edits can edit them. —Panamitsu (talk) 06:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC of interest

(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 20:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Portrait

The formal portrait doesn't seem appropriate given that it's not more recent. There are at least hundreds of pictures that could be posted instead. 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:598A:2436:8AEA:18 (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

After a subject dies, concern isn't about their portrait closest to death. It is simply a matter of what is the most iconic image (without copyright restrictions). Could you provide any images that you think would be more appropriate? —Panamitsu (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
We've had multiple discussions on this topic & the consensus is the 1959 image. GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Updating of Image

THE STICK HAS BEEN DROPPED.
There have already been 2 RFCs on this. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 20:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

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.


Should we update the Queens photo to a more modern photo of her? Sizzlepop1 (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

No. There was a discussion for this back when the Queen first died and consensus indicated to use the current image. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 13:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Or even see the entry labelled "Portrait" just above this post. 😀 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Or even better, the FAQ. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 16:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Hiding behind this “consensus” idea is a bit ridiculous. I’ve seen numerous discussions about this over the last year. An awful lot of people don’t seem to think the current photo is the most appropriate, or a particularly good picture. Sounds very much like a small group of contributors have decided to keep the current photo and refuse to accept they might be wrong. The current photo has surely been questioned enough times that it might be worth reconsidering your “consensus”. There are better photos. It shouldn’t be this complicated. 2A00:23C7:7809:E401:A16B:9F46:BAD2:B87A (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
While consensus can change, there is a precedent for the official portrait to be used for a monarch after their death. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 16:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
However given the lengthy discussion held that brought us to this point, I highly doubt you have any points that weren't brought up during the discussion. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 16:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
My primary point would be that the consensus was made a year ago, in the immediate aftermath of Her Majesty’s death, and that since then the current photo has continued to divide opinion (among contributors and non-contributors) to the extent that concerns around its appropriateness continue to be raised. Questions and concerns have not gone away, and as long as the current photo is in use, probably never will. To my mind that fundamentally undermines the idea of there being any genuine consensus, resulting in the matter becoming a needless distraction. Not being a Wikipedia contributor myself, my apologies, I’m not trying to be difficult here. I appreciate there are copyright issues around what images can and can’t be used. I’m just trying to provide sincere honest feedback. I have read the entire discussion from last year. I know there is an understandable reluctance to reopen the discussion. 2A00:23C7:7809:E401:A16B:9F46:BAD2:B87A (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Did you have another image in mind? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
if I were in charge, I'd just go back to the image we used prior to her death, namely File:Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015.jpg. Sure, it doesn't represent how she was earlier in her reign, but then no image possibly could cover the whole thing. The idea that she just switched instantaneously from being "The Queen" to being just any other historical monarch upon her death is a strange one to me. Almost everyone alive today recalls her in her "old lady" phase, and it would be far less likely to attract controversy if we just went back to that IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Dunno. There's no policy that governs this, so we just need to go off of WP:ILIKEIT arguments, which aren't the best. Not a criticism of you, Amakuru, just noting the flawed premise of these discussions. If someone wants to write a guideline, MOS:CHANGINGLEADIMAGESOFDECEASEDMONARCHSTOYOUNGERPORTRAITSOFTHEMSELVES is always open. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The age of the Queen in File:Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015.jpg is irrelevant. It is technically and artistically a ton better than the current image.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

We already had about two RFCs on this & both results were the same. Let's not continue any further. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

Retitle the section "Issue"

Watching The Crown I was confused about who was who in the British Royal family, so I looked up Queen Elizabeth II's Wikipedia article to see who her children were. I had a hard time finding that information because the section titled "Issue" didn't immediately strike my eye as relevant. I wouldn't presume to edit this page -- but wouldn't it be better to retitle the "Issue" section as "Children and grandchildren" or "Family." (Okay, this is trivial, but I have a thing about Wikipedia articles being accessible to readers with limited knowledge of the subject.) Smallchief (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

We use "issue" in the infoboxes of bios, where there's children of note. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Surely that's only true for the infoboxes of members of royal families and similar, not everyone. See, as a purely random example, Frank Sinatra. HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth is the queen of the England or known as queen of the kingdom of England 69.67.135.104 (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@69 - she was Queen of the United Kingdom and lots of other places throughout her lifetime: 32 altogether, 15 at the time of her death (including the UK). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
There hasn't been a King or Queen of England, since 1 May 1707, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Monarch Charles III absent from Balmoral at passing of his mother.

The fact that Charles had left Balmoral as Prince of Wales and returned as King Charles III is noteworthy in its own rite and not trivia. Editing content to say otherwise is disrespectful and potentially seen as republican vandalism or at the very least, short sighted. Jaymailsays (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

"republican vandalism"—really? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Indeed! An editor indicated that the absence of Prince of Wales from passing of the Queen, was trivial matter. Admittedly mushroom picking was seen as such, but ascending to the Monarchy as King, isn't. Jaymailsays (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
How is it republican? Or vandalism? As far as I know it's not calling for the abolition of the monarchy. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
This the first I've heard, that he wasn't by his mother's bedside when she passed. BTW - How's opposition to your proposed addition, a republican motive? GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
"First I've heard" The broadsheet citations have reported the heir to the throne was picking mushrooms when she died! https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/news/king-charles-queen-death-balmoral-mushrooms-b2477942.html Jaymailsays (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, apparently the claim comes from a biography by Robert Hardman, the same person who was behind Charles III: The Coronation Year. Keivan.fTalk 20:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I reckon a fella learns something new, everyday. GoodDay (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jaymailsays - The Mirror is a tabloid. This is a featured article, which requires high-quality, reliable sources. I would have said that the onus was on you to gain consensus for its inclusion, but given the nature of the source it wasn't even verified in the first place. You'll need a new source first, and then you can move on to getting consensus. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I have Reuters as a source https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/plane-carrying-coffin-queen-elizabeth-lands-london-2022-09-13/#:~:text=The%20plane%20landed%20at%20RAF,residence%20of%20Balmoral%2C%20aged%2096. and used BBC source for coffin from Balmoral to Edinburgh. Irrational undoing of edit and one more will put your status at risk. Jaymailsays (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Lay off the threats. You've not covered yourself in glory here. You cannot use The Mirror as a source in an FA. You might be able to get away with it on a different article, or maybe even a GA. Not here. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I find it hard to see this issue as anything but the silliest trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. It's trivia. @Jaymailsays: throwing around grossly inappropriate claims against established editors that it is vandalism (see WP:VANDAL for what that actually means) or republican motivation to revert your edits attempting to introduce a rather silly trivial point (which is clearly against consensus) are WP:PAs. You are the only one in this thread at risk of being blocked. DeCausa (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
It's off-topic and would fit in better at Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. There is also a problem with saying that something is in a news source when what it is doing is quoting Robert Hardman's new book.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Horse racing

Why is there no mention of her fondness for horse racing and the horses she owned? Seems a big omission Lankyant (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It's been split off to Horses of Elizabeth II, and is just mentioned here in a line or two. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Shouldn't that line or two link to Horses of Elizabeth II? Lankyant (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think we can link it in the text without disrupting its flow. It's linked in her template though along with other relevant pages. Keivan.fTalk 21:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I've added it here.[10] Celia Homeford (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
More