Contents

Talk:Elizabeth II: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 17:42, 19 June 2024

Skip to table of contents

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

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.

	Elizabeth 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.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 2, 2012, and on September 19, 2022.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 29, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 15, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed January 26, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed August 26, 2007 Peer review Reviewed January 26, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 22, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed February 23, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed May 21, 2010 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 31, 2010 Peer review Reviewed February 4, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed September 14, 2011 Good article nominee Listed February 21, 2012 Featured article candidate Promoted January 14, 2023 Featured article review Kept 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? 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. 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

This  level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Spoken Wikipedia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles Biography: Politics and Government / Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Top-importance). British Royalty: Operation London Bridge Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Operation London Bridge task force. Commonwealth This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth articles Caribbean: Antigua & Barbuda / Bahamas / Barbados / Jamaica / Saint Kitts & Nevis / Saint Lucia / Saint Vincent & Grenadines Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Antigua and Barbuda (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Bahamas (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Barbados (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Jamaica (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Saint Kitts and Nevis (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Saint Lucia (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (assessed as Mid-importance). Melanesia: Papua New Guinea / Solomon Islands Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Melanesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Melanesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MelanesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MelanesiaTemplate:WikiProject MelanesiaMelanesia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Papua New Guinea (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Solomon Islands (assessed as Mid-importance). Polynesia: Cook Islands / Niue / Tuvalu Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Polynesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolynesiaWikipedia:WikiProject PolynesiaTemplate:WikiProject PolynesiaPolynesia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Cook Islands (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Niue (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Tuvalu (assessed as Top-importance). Belize Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belize, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belize on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelizeWikipedia:WikiProject BelizeTemplate:WikiProject BelizeBelize articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Australia Mid‑importance Elizabeth II is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Canada: Governments / Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada. This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada. United Kingdom Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. New Zealand High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Grenada Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Grenada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Grenada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GrenadaWikipedia:WikiProject GrenadaTemplate:WikiProject GrenadaGrenada articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Pakistan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Zimbabwe: Rhodesia Low‑importance Elizabeth II is within the scope of WikiProject Zimbabwe, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.ZimbabweWikipedia:WikiProject ZimbabweTemplate:WikiProject ZimbabweZimbabwe articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Rhodesia task force (assessed as Top-importance). WikiProject Zimbabwe open tasks: edit history watch purge Zimbabwe-related tasks You can help! Here are some Zimbabwe related tasks you can do: Requests: Ruwa Scout Park, Central African Jamboree, Bulawayo Asian Civil Rights League, Rhodesia Bantu Voters Association, Nyasaland Chiefs Conference, Nyasaland African National Congress, Monarchy of Rhodesia, more... Stubs: Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, Econet Wireless, Khame Ruins, Wildlife of Zimbabwe Category:Zimbabwe stubs Category sorting: VerifyorFactual Accuracy: Update: NPOV : Citations: Copyedit, StyleorCleanup: Expand: Related Wikiprojects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Zimbabwe - Zimbabwe-related topics notice board - Collaboration Project view • edit • discuss • history • watch Malta Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malta, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malta on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaltaWikipedia:WikiProject MaltaTemplate:WikiProject MaltaMalta articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. South Africa Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Scouting Low‑importance Elizabeth II is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ScoutingWikipedia:WikiProject ScoutingTemplate:WikiProject ScoutingScouting articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting task force. Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Emily Yahr (4 January 2018). "Do you fall down a Wikipedia rabbit hole after each episode of 'The Crown'? You're not alone". The Washington Post. Queen Elizabeth's Wikipedia page was the third-most-visited entry with 19.2 million views … Traffic to the queen's Wikipedia page peaked on Dec. 10, when the second season of "The Crown" started streaming Armon Sandler (8 September 2022). "Queen Elizabeth II's Wikipedia Page Is Trolled After Her Death With A Chief Keef Album Cover: 'RIP Bozo'". Uproxx. 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. Jody Serrano (9 September 2022). "How Wikipedia's 'Deaditors' Sprang Into Action on Queen Elizabeth II's Page After Her Death". Gizmodo. 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. Annie Rauwerda (9 September 2022). "Who the hell updated Queen Elizabeth II's Wikipedia page so quickly?". Input. 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. Jeff Parsons (9 September 2022). "How Wikipedia responded when news of the Queen's death broke". Metro (British newspaper). 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. Kai McNamee (2022-09-15). "Fastest 'was' in the West: Inside Wikipedia's race to cover the queen's death". NPR. Liam Mannix (13 September 2022). "Evidence suggests Wikipedia is accurate and reliable. When are we going to start taking it seriously?". The Sydney Morning Herald. 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 has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 198 million views since December 2007. This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2011, 2012, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 74 times. The weeks in which this happened: July 21 to 27, 2013 May 3 to 9, 2015 September 6 to 12, 2015 April 17 to 23, 2016 October 30 to November 5, 2016 November 6 to 12, 2016 November 13 to 19, 2016 November 20 to 26, 2016 November 27 to December 3, 2016 December 4 to 10, 2016 December 11 to 17, 2016 December 18 to 24, 2016 December 25 to 31, 2016 January 1 to 7, 2017 January 8 to 14, 2017 January 15 to 21, 2017 April 30 to May 6, 2017 November 26 to December 2, 2017 December 3 to 9, 2017 December 10 to 16, 2017 December 17 to 23, 2017 December 24 to 30, 2017 December 31, 2017 to January 6, 2018 January 7 to 13, 2018 January 14 to 20, 2018 January 21 to 27, 2018 January 28 to February 3, 2018 April 15 to 21, 2018 April 22 to 28, 2018 May 13 to 19, 2018 May 20 to 26, 2018 May 27 to June 2, 2018 November 17 to 23, 2019 November 24 to 30, 2019 December 1 to 7, 2019 December 8 to 14, 2019 December 22 to 28, 2019 January 5 to 11, 2020 January 12 to 18, 2020 April 5 to 11, 2020 November 15 to 21, 2020 November 22 to 28, 2020 November 29 to December 5, 2020 December 6 to 12, 2020 December 13 to 19, 2020 December 20 to 26, 2020 December 27, 2020 to January 2, 2021 January 3 to 9, 2021 January 10 to 16, 2021 February 14 to 20, 2021 February 28 to March 6, 2021 March 7 to 13, 2021 March 14 to 20, 2021 March 21 to 27, 2021 March 28 to April 3, 2021 April 4 to 10, 2021 April 11 to 17, 2021 April 18 to 24, 2021 April 25 to May 1, 2021 June 6 to 12, 2021 January 9 to 15, 2022 February 6 to 12, 2022 February 20 to 26, 2022 May 29 to June 4, 2022 June 5 to 11, 2022 September 4 to 10, 2022 September 11 to 17, 2022 September 18 to 24, 2022 September 25 to October 1, 2022 October 2 to 8, 2022 November 13 to 19, 2022 April 30 to May 6, 2023 May 7 to 13, 2023 December 17 to 23, 2023 Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org Section sizes Section size for Elizabeth II (30 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 7,187 7,187 Early life 4,200 4,200 Heir presumptive 2,962 17,272 Second World War 8,398 8,398 Marriage 5,912 5,912 Reign 13 98,187 Accession and coronation 6,561 6,561 Early reign 9,717 9,717 Political reforms and crises 8,194 8,194 Perils and dissent 10,266 10,266 Turbulent years 15,039 15,039 Dawn of the new millennium 10,786 10,786 Diamond Jubilee and milestones 14,605 14,605 Pandemic and widowhood 12,226 12,226 Platinum Jubilee and beyond 10,780 10,780 Death 16,652 16,652 Legacy 66 28,934 Beliefs, activities, and interests 8,222 8,222 Media depiction and public opinion 20,646 20,646 Titles, styles, honours, and arms 398 3,302 Titles and styles 590 590 Arms 2,314 2,314 Issue 2,022 2,022 Ancestry 1,432 1,432 See also 522 522 Notes 29 29 References 15 8,505 Citations 29 29 Bibliography 8,461 8,461 External links 9,697 9,697 Total 197,941 197,941 This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Logs and discussions: Move logs: Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom Elizabeth II RM, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II, No consensus, 8 January 2010, discussion RM, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II, No consensus, 25 February 2010, discussion RFC, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II, Moved, 18 March 2010, discussion RM, Elizabeth II → Queen Elizabeth II , No consensus, 18 April 2010, discussion RM, Elizabeth II → Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, No consensus, 20 July 2014, discussion RM, Elizabeth II → Queen Elizabeth II, Not moved, 2 June 2018, discussion RM, Elizabeth II → Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Not moved, 30 July 2023, discussion RM, Elizabeth II → Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Procedural close, 14 August 2023, discussion The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Brandreth, Gyles (2022), Elizabeth: An Intimate Portrait, Random House, ISBN 978-0-241-58260-2

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]

Also found https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_-Gs0CIDf0 Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what changes you want to make to the article. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:18, 9 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]

This was already discussed before & the consensus was to exclude any surname, in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titus Gold, it should be clear to you because you raised the exact same point here on 8 December 2022. A lengthy thread ensued. Have you forgotten? DeCausa (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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'. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous consensus was not the point raised or referred to. DeCausa (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This was already discussed before & the consensus was to exclude any surname" = previous consensus raised and referred to. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Celia Homeford: apologies, I thought you were replying to me. DeCausa (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Titus Gold (talk) 13:19, 23 May 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

There is also Church of Scotland in the UK. Keivan.f^Talk 22:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]