Jump to content

Talk:Elizabeth II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleElizabeth II is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 2, 2012, and on September 19, 2022.
Did You KnowIn the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 29, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 15, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
January 26, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
August 26, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
January 26, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 22, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
February 23, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
May 21, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 31, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
February 4, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
September 14, 2011Good article nomineeListed
February 21, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
January 14, 2023Featured article reviewKept
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 2, 2006.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Queen Elizabeth II (pictured) once worked as a lorry driver?
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 9, 2015, June 2, 2022, and September 8, 2022.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 2, 2004, February 6, 2005, June 2, 2005, February 6, 2006, June 2, 2006, June 2, 2007, February 6, 2008, February 6, 2009, February 6, 2010, February 6, 2012, February 6, 2015, February 6, 2017, February 6, 2019, February 6, 2022, and November 20, 2023.
Current status: Featured article

Request for article creation for Reign of Elizabeth II?

[edit]

Wikipedia commonly has articles for the presidencies and premiership of certain world leaders. A 70-year reign cannot be close to being conveniently described in an article purely about the person themselves. Should a separate article be created to truly delve in detail into this 70-year period? --ECSNDY (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Presidencies and premierships are typically periods of consistent policy implemented by a politician. We don't do this for figurehead monarchs. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we have Reign of Juan Carlos I? Peter Ormond 💬 11:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I believe you've been told before, see Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article more or less covers successive Spanish governments' activities rather than Juan Carlos' own actions. Honestly I think it should be renamed. Keivan.fTalk 15:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There might be sources for say, the role of the monarchy under Elizabeth II or similar. It wouldn't just be "Reign of Elizabeth II" though, that's very generic. CMD (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Main Photo

[edit]

I would be in favour of changing the image of Elizabeth II to a photo from sometime in the middle of her reign, as that’s what most people will remember her as.

This photo is on the Commons: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Her_Majesty_Queen_Elizabeth_II_of_the_Commonwealth_Realms.jpg Waverland (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, I have never liked the current photo from 1959 so I'd be mor than happy for it to be changed. Although, I must admit that the 2015 Photo looks better and should be reinstated https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Queen_Elizabeth_II_in_March_2015.jpg Pepper Gaming (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can we not open a new RFC to discuss this? Pepper Gaming (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's unlikely everyone's changed their minds after the very deliberate discussion that was only a year ago. Remsense诉 11:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
18 months ago now, but I agree. Choice of photo for an infobox can be subjective, so I’m not keen on re-opening the issue once a consensus was reached. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely understand that, and if a consensus was reached then that must be accepted. I just think that the photo of the 33 year old Queen is not a good representation for how the majority of the public will remember her, but as you say it is definitely subjective. Waverland (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with @Waverland, But I think it's time to open an RFC. I've never liked the portrait for many reasons (The fact that it is a Painting, rather than an actual photograph is one of those reasons). I'm still not budging from my original opinion (an opinion I formed 18 months ago when the image was first changed). And I feel like it should be changed to at least a Photograph of the Queen rather than a Painting Pepper Gaming (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a painting. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't a painting, then what is it? Pepper Gaming (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I'm stumped. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out it's an early colour photograph. But it also looks like a painting at the same time. It's so confusing Pepper Gaming (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do like the 2015 photo better than this one. Cremastra (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While i agree with you, it’s not a painting, the portrait of the Queen Mother is but this one is an actual photo. Waverland (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it's an actual Photograph and not a Painting? I've always thought of it to be the latter Pepper Gaming (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve just checked and it was take by Donald McKague in December 1958, published in 1959. Waverland (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this SHOULD be reinstated as not many people remember her as a new, young, monarch Realpala (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pepper Gaming said:
"But I think it's time to open an RFC. I've never liked the portrait for many reasons (The fact that it is a Painting, rather than an actual photograph is one of those reasons). I'm still not budging from my original opinion (an opinion I formed 18 months ago when the image was first changed)."
Thank you for letting us know that you reject WP:CONSENSUS and will continue to raise this issue until you get your own way. Duly noted. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last RFC voted for this one by a vote, as I recall, of 16 to 12. A year is long enough for minds to change or new views to come from new editors. I see nothing wrong with a new RFC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1, consensus can change over time. A new RfC would not be against policy.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've already been through this, multiple times. The 1959 image is what got consensus. PS - I highly doubt you'd get a consensus to replace the image, with a portrait. GoodDay (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
completely understandable, but I think you misunderstood what was being said. there was no discussion to replace the current photo with a portrait, rather confusion over whether the current image was a photograph or a painting. Waverland (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All that is needed is the same level of consensus that got this on the page, that is a majority vote in a preference poll. Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay Can I ask what you mean by "I highly doubt you'd get a consensus to replace the image, with a portrait"
Do you mean with replacing the current (1959) image with a Painting/Drawing?
(And to clarify, part of the reason why I was opposed to the 1959 image in the first place was because I originally thought it was a Painting/Drawn portrait Pepper Gaming (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A photo is better than a painting. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I was opposed to the 1959 image for a long time because I thought it was a Painting or a Drawn portrait. Pepper Gaming (talk) 10:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A photo is also better than something that's easily mistaken as a painting. Ric36 (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess we're still getting nowhere with this. Ric36 (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support a change to something in the 2020s Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand how it can be mistaken for a painting. What aspects look painted? The light play on the jewels, the hair detail, and everything else show it to be a photograph. Cremastra (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s bad photo. Change it to the coronation one. 2A00:23EE:19A0:1D71:C5E4:49EA:D3A3:E3B3 (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. Remsense ‥ 论 07:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the coronation pic any better? Ric36 (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support changing the photo. The current photo is not representative of how Elizabeth II is commonly depicted in present-day media. It also just... looks bad. There are better-quality photos available and we should use them. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to have a slideshow of portraits from throughout her reign? That would be great. --Surturz (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We did something like that when we ran the article as TFA on the date of her funeral. Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that even though this conversation is dead, I would like to continue it by putting a series of images of when I believe she was most famous. I also don't really like the current one, as it depicts her when she started to become Queen, rather when most people remember her as. Feel free to nominate many more by putting them on this list, as this is not that many
  • 1 (current image) (1959)
    1 (current image) (1959)
  • 2 (2011)
    2 (2011)
  • 3 (1986)
    3 (1986)
  • 4 (2015)
    4 (2015)
  • 5 (2007)
    5 (2007)
  • 6 (1953)
    6 (1953)
  • 7 (1976)
    7 (1976)
  • 8 (1953)
    8 (1953)
  • 9 (2011)
    9 (2011)
Wcamp9 (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will you have the portrait from 1992? 189.162.192.106 (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Next time a conversation of this kind is dead, please refrain from reviving it. Remsense ‥ 论 02:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remsense, I have avoided continuing on this conversation as I felt that it was not getting anywhere and it was best left alone. However, your rudeness and stubbornness towards anyone who expresses an opinion in trying to improve Wikipedia for readers is hard to ignore. The existing consensus that you claim should be kept was only reached with 28 people, it’s not as if half a million people decided this was a good photo!
If multiple people are raising a question as to how useful/recognisable this photo of QEII is, then I believe the way to address this is by hearing and understanding concerns, and then possibly discuss reaching another consensus. Shutting them down immediately and basically trying to silence other contributors is not the way in which this should be handled. It has been more than 2 years now since the previous consensus was agreed and the previous one was reached in the immediate aftermath of her death, perceptions and feelings most certainly have changed since then. Waverland (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd go for No. 3 in part because it's the middle of her reign but also it's a similar in period photo to the one used for Philip. Looks weird to me how his article uses a photo from 1992 and hers from 1959 when they were a married couple. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I very much like the 1959 photo. Surtsicna (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the 1986 one should be used as its in the middle of her reign Realpala (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also like the 1986 photo; she's recognizable but still looks similar to the coronation photo. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 22:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2024

[edit]

In § Death replace the wikilink to Operation Unicorn with the redirect target Operation Unicorn. This is for the benefit of readers who have already followed the preceding Operation London Bridge link and lets their browsers display the link as "already visited".

The reason for preferring links to redirect pages is in case the redirect page grows into a separate article, the link source will not need to be edited. This is unlikely in this case (are we likely to write that much more about the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II?) and because of the proximity of an identical-but-for-the-section link, the convenience of the reader (which is the whole reason for these policies in the first place) should be prioritized. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. DrKay (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How come her full name isn't given as Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor?

[edit]

It's currently Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, but if I'm not mistaken, Windsor is her last name. Banedon (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. But because the last discussion ended without consensus, we are stuck with the status quo of only given names. DrKay (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II&oldid=1267740161"