→Main Photo: Reply
|
→Main Photo: Reply
|
||
(36 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skip to talk}} |
{{Skip to talk}} |
||
{{Talk header |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{FAQ}} |
{{FAQ}} |
||
{{British English|date=September 2010}} |
{{British English|date=September 2010}} |
||
Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
{{Top 25 Report|Jul 21 2013|May 3 2015|Sep 6 2015|Apr 17 2016|Oct 30 2016|until|Jan 15 2017|Apr 30 2017|Nov 26 2017|until|Jan 28 2018|Apr 15 2018|Apr 22 2018|May 13 2018|until|May 27 2018|Nov 17 2019|until|Dec 8 2019|Dec 22 2019|Jan 5 2020|Jan 12 2020|Apr 5 2020|Nov 15 2020|until|Jan 10 2021|Feb 14 2021|Feb 28 2021|until|Apr 25 2021|Jun 6 2021|Jan 9 2022|Feb 6 2022|Feb 20 2022|May 29 2022|Jun 5 2022|Sep 4 2022|until|Oct 2 2022|Nov 13 2022|Apr 30 2023|May 7 2023|Dec 17 2023}} |
{{Top 25 Report|Jul 21 2013|May 3 2015|Sep 6 2015|Apr 17 2016|Oct 30 2016|until|Jan 15 2017|Apr 30 2017|Nov 26 2017|until|Jan 28 2018|Apr 15 2018|Apr 22 2018|May 13 2018|until|May 27 2018|Nov 17 2019|until|Dec 8 2019|Dec 22 2019|Jan 5 2020|Jan 12 2020|Apr 5 2020|Nov 15 2020|until|Jan 10 2021|Feb 14 2021|Feb 28 2021|until|Apr 25 2021|Jun 6 2021|Jan 9 2022|Feb 6 2022|Feb 20 2022|May 29 2022|Jun 5 2022|Sep 4 2022|until|Oct 2 2022|Nov 13 2022|Apr 30 2023|May 7 2023|Dec 17 2023}} |
||
{{annual readership|scale=log}} |
{{annual readership|scale=log}} |
||
{{section size}} |
|||
{{Old moves |
{{Old moves |
||
|title1=Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom |
|title1=Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom |
||
Line 165: | Line 166: | ||
::Consensus can change. It's not uncommon to revisit a discussion from over 12 months ago. Particularly one where 'I don't like it' triumphed over 'multiple sources say this'. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 10:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
::Consensus can change. It's not uncommon to revisit a discussion from over 12 months ago. Particularly one where 'I don't like it' triumphed over 'multiple sources say this'. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 10:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::Previous consensus was not the point raised or referred to. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 13:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
:::Previous consensus was not the point raised or referred to. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 13:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::"This was already discussed before & the consensus was to ''exclude'' any surname" = previous consensus raised and referred to. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 13:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{ping|Celia Homeford}} apologies, I thought you were replying to me. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 18:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Ok fair enough; thanks for the link. I didn't recall that there had been an RFC since it was a while ago. Just saw some royals' full names come up recently in the news. No problem. [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 13:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Main Photo == |
== Main Photo == |
||
Line 174: | Line 178: | ||
: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 [[User:Pepper Gaming|Pepper Gaming]] ([[User talk:Pepper Gaming|talk]]) 23:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
: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 [[User:Pepper Gaming|Pepper Gaming]] ([[User talk:Pepper Gaming|talk]]) 23:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
::can we not open a new RFC to discuss this? [[User:Pepper Gaming|Pepper Gaming]] ([[User talk:Pepper Gaming|talk]]) 11:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::It's unlikely everyone's changed their minds after the very deliberate discussion that was only a year ago. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 11:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::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. [[User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz|Mr Serjeant Buzfuz]] ([[User talk:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz|talk]]) 14:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::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. [[User:Waverland|Waverland]] ([[User talk:Waverland|talk]]) 14:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I completely agree with @[[User:Waverland|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 [[User:Pepper Gaming|Pepper Gaming]] ([[User talk:Pepper Gaming|talk]]) 19:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::It isn't a painting. [[User:Tim O'Doherty|Tim O'Doherty]] ([[User talk:Tim O'Doherty|talk]]) 19:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::If it isn't a painting, then what is it? [[User:Pepper Gaming|Pepper Gaming]] ([[User talk:Pepper Gaming|talk]]) 20:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I don't know. I'm stumped. [[User:Tim O'Doherty|Tim O'Doherty]] ([[User talk:Tim O'Doherty|talk]]) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Turns out it's an early colour photograph. But it also looks like a painting at the same time. It's so confusing [[User:Pepper Gaming|Pepper Gaming]] ([[User talk:Pepper Gaming|talk]]) 10:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::While i agree with you, it’s not a painting, the portrait of the Queen Mother is but this one is an actual photo. [[User:Waverland|Waverland]] ([[User talk:Waverland|talk]]) 19:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::So it's an actual Photograph and not a Painting? I've always thought of it to be the latter [[User:Pepper Gaming|Pepper Gaming]] ([[User talk:Pepper Gaming|talk]]) 20:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I’ve just checked and it was take by Donald McKague in December 1958, published in 1959. [[User:Waverland|Waverland]] ([[User talk:Waverland|talk]]) 20:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz|Mr Serjeant Buzfuz]] ([[User talk:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz|talk]]) 02:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::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.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 00:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::+1, consensus can change over time. A new RfC would not be against policy.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 06:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 10:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::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. [[User:Waverland|Waverland]] ([[User talk:Waverland|talk]]) 15:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::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. [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 16:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:GoodDay|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 [[User:Pepper Gaming|Pepper Gaming]] ([[User talk:Pepper Gaming|talk]]) 11:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::A photo is better than a painting. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I agree, I was opposed to the 1959 image for a long time because I thought it was a Painting or a Drawn portrait. [[User:Pepper Gaming|Pepper Gaming]] ([[User talk:Pepper Gaming|talk]]) 10:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::A photo is also better than something that's easily mistaken as a painting. [[User:Ric36|Ric36]] ([[User talk:Ric36|talk]]) 17:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Religion == |
== Religion == |
||
Specifically Church of England. Any other Protestsnt would not be allowed. [[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:2605:E500:5C68:C162:D520:11FA|2001:8003:2605:E500:5C68:C162:D520:11FA]] ([[User talk:2001:8003:2605:E500:5C68:C162:D520:11FA|talk]]) 06:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
Specifically Church of England. Any other Protestsnt would not be allowed. [[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:2605:E500:5C68:C162:D520:11FA|2001:8003:2605:E500:5C68:C162:D520:11FA]] ([[User talk:2001:8003:2605:E500:5C68:C162:D520:11FA|talk]]) 06:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
:There is also [[Church of Scotland]] in the UK. <span style="font:'Pristina'">[[user:Keivan.f|<span style="color: #1E7HDC">Keivan.f</span>]]</span><span style="font:'Pristina'"><sup>[[user_talk:Keivan.f|<span style="color: purple">Talk</span>]]</sup></span> 22:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elizabeth II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49Auto-archiving period: 15 days |
Q1: I don't like the portrait, I think this other picture is much better.
A1: There was a very, very long discussion and vote on which picture to choose, and a strong consensus was established to use the current one. It is best to avoid restarting the discussion. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
In a tweet shared on Thursday afternoon, a user said "Someone already griefed the Queen Elizabeth II Wikipedia page lmaooo." The tweet is accompanied by a screenshot of Queen Elizabeth II's Wikipedia page with the "Article" tab highlighted. While some on the internet were glued to Twitter or the BBC, checking for news or watching the planes en route to Balmoral Castle, one group of dedicated Wikipedia editors sprang into action updating the late queen's page in the minutes after Buckingham Palace announced the news. Upon Queen Elizabeth II's death, the world was quick to note the free encyclopedia's up-to-the-minute coverage. "WIKIPEDIA DIDN'T WASTE ANY TIME," someone tweeted. "Someone was in there watching her last breaths with a computer on wikipedia ready to just press enter," another joked. In the case of the Queen's death, the legion of volunteers that keep up the 'Free Encyclopedia' sprang into action to keep it updated. The first edit made to the Queen's Wikipedia page came just minutes after the first sources broke the news. About 3.30am (AEST) on Friday, the British royal family announced the Queen had died. About two minutes later her Wikipedia entry had been updated to note her death. |
Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a46126585/real-story-queen-ve-night-out/ contains an account by the Queen’s cousin, Margaret Rhodes, which implies that Princess Elizabeth was among a party that dance the conga at the Ritz Hotel on VE Day. "For some reason, we decided to go in the front door of the Ritz and do the conga," Rhodes recalled.『The Ritz has always been so stuffy and formal – we rather electrified the stuffy individuals inside. I don't think people realised who was among the party – I think they thought it was just a group of drunk young people. I remember old ladies looking faintly shocked. As one congaed through, eyebrows were raised.』Is this a credible? Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A death certificate from a reputable source is sufficient evidence for a surname. Even the official website says that surnames have been in use since 1917. It's not clear what @DeCausa's reason for reverting is. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Specifically Church of England. Any other Protestsnt would not be allowed. 2001:8003:2605:E500:5C68:C162:D520:11FA (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]