Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 VE Day celebrations?  
3 comments  




2 Surname  
8 comments  




3 Main Photo  
24 comments  




4 Religion  
2 comments  













Talk:Elizabeth II: Difference between revisions




Page contents not supported in other languages.  









Article
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 




Print/export  



















Appearance
   

 





Help
 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


Browse history interactively
 Previous editNext edit 
Content deleted Content added
her skill in world affairs is documented in the biographies/autobiographies of politicians & diplomats who dealt with her
Line 1: Line 1:

{{Skip to talk}}

The "contemporary" image is a special promotional Golden Jubliee photograph of the Queen, allowed to be used for public, non-commerial useage [[user:J.J.]]

{{Talk header}}

{{FAQ}}

{{British English|date=September 2010}}

{{Article history

|action1=FAC |action1date=29 March 2006 |action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/archive1 |action1result=failed |action1oldid=46076437

|action2=GAN |action2date=15 June 2006 |action2link=Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 8#Good Article nomination has failed |action2result=failed |action2oldid=58846792

|action3=GAN |action3date=26 January 2007 |action3link=Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 11#Good article nomination |action3result=failed |action3oldid=103352765

|action4=PR |action4date=20:08, 26 August 2007 |action4link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/archive1 |action4result=reviewed |action4oldid=153587130

|action5=FAC |action5date=18:19, 26 January 2008 |action5link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/archive2 |action5result=not promoted |action5oldid=186975856

|action6=GAN |action6date=12:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC) |action6link=Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/GA1 |action6result=failed |action6oldid=315488145

|action7=GAN |action7date=09:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC) |action7link=Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/GA2 |action7result=not listed |action7oldid=345801716

|action8=FAC |action8date=18:46, 21 May 2010 |action8link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth II/archive1 |action8result=not promoted |action8oldid=363414255

|action9=PR |action9date=19:07, 31 May 2010 |action9link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Elizabeth II/archive1 |action9result=reviewed |action9oldid=365260866

|action10=GAN |action10date=15:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC) |action10link=Talk:Elizabeth II/GA3 |action10result=not listed |action10oldid=411895868

|action11=GAN |action11date=17:54, 14 September 2011 |action11link=Talk:Elizabeth II/GA4 |action11result=listed |action11oldid=450487813

|action12=FAC |action12date=10:20, 21 February 2012 |action12link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth II/archive2 |action12result=promoted |action12oldid=478013362

|action13 = FAR

|action13date = 2023-01-14

|action13link = Wikipedia:Featured article review/Elizabeth II/archive1

|action13result = kept

|action13oldid = 1133524768

|currentstatus=FA

|topic=History

|maindate=June 2, 2012

|maindate2=September 19, 2022

|dykdate=2 April 2006

|dykentry=... that '''[[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom|Queen Elizabeth II]]''' ''(pictured)'' once worked as a lorry driver?

|itndate=9 September 2015

|itn2date=2 June 2022

|itn3date=8 September 2022

|otd1date=2004-06-02|otd1oldid=3963247

|otd2date=2005-02-06|otd2oldid=16335592

|otd3date=2005-06-02|otd3oldid=16335239

|otd4date=2006-02-06|otd4oldid=38417972

|otd5date=2006-06-02|otd5oldid=56581891

|otd6date=2007-06-02|otd6oldid=135423408

|otd7date=2008-02-06|otd7oldid=189219815

|otd8date=2009-02-06|otd8oldid=268852745

|otd9date=2010-02-06|otd9oldid=341691955

|otd10date=2012-02-06|otd10oldid=475319946

|otd11date=2015-02-06|otd11oldid=645588046

|otd12date=2017-02-06|otd12oldid=764080684

|otd13date=2019-02-06|otd13oldid=882067482

|otd14date=2022-02-06|otd14oldid=1069959988

|otd15date=2023-11-20|otd15oldid=1186101176

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Elizabeth 02 Of The United Kingdom|1=

{{WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia}}

{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=y|politician-priority=Top|royalty-work-group=y|royalty-priority=Top}}

{{WikiProject British Royalty|importance=top|Operation London Bridge=yes}}

{{WikiProject Commonwealth}}

{{WikiProject Caribbean|importance=mid|Barbados=y|Jamaica=y|Bahamas=y|Saint Vincent=y|Saint Vincent-importance=Mid|Saint Lucia=y|Antigua and Barbuda=y|Saint Kitts and Nevis=y|Barbados-importance=Mid|Jamaica-importance=Mid|Bahamas-importance=Mid|Saint Lucia-importance=Mid|Antigua and Barbuda-importance=Mid|Saint Kitts and Nevis-importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Melanesia|importance=mid|PNG=y|SI=y}}

{{WikiProject Polynesia|importance=mid|Tuvalu=y|Tuvalu-importance=top|Niue=y|Niue-importance=top|CI=y|CI-importance=top}}

{{WikiProject Belize|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Australia|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Canada|importance=mid|cangov=y|ppap=y}}

{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=top}}

{{WikiProject New Zealand|importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Grenada|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Pakistan|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Zimbabwe|importance=low|Rhodesia=yes|Rhodesia-importance=top}}

{{WikiProject Malta|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject South Africa|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Scouting|importance=low|GGGS-task-force=yes}}

{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Women}}

| blpo=yes

}}

{{Press

| author = Emily Yahr

| title = Do you fall down a Wikipedia rabbit hole after each episode of 'The Crown'? You’re not alone

| org = ''The Washington Post''

| url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2018/01/04/do-you-fall-down-a-wikipedia-rabbit-hole-after-each-episode-of-the-crown-youre-not-alone/?utm_term=.912d6ea08b11

| date = 4 January 2018

| quote = 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

| author2 = Armon Sandler

| title2 = Queen Elizabeth II’s Wikipedia Page Is Trolled After Her Death With A Chief Keef Album Cover: ‘RIP Bozo’

| org2 = [[Uproxx]]

| url2 = https://uproxx.com/music/queen-elizabeth-ii-chief-keef-wikipedia/

| date2 = 8 September 2022

| quote2 = 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.



| subject3 = article

-------

| author3 = Jody Serrano

| title3 = How Wikipedia’s ‘Deaditors’ Sprang Into Action on Queen Elizabeth II’s Page After Her Death

| org3 = [[Gizmodo]]

| url3 = https://gizmodo.com/queen-elizabeth-ii-died-wikipedia-deaditors-charles-1849516945

| date3 = 9 September 2022

| quote3 = 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.

| subject4 = article

| author4 = [[Annie Rauwerda]]

| title4 = Who the hell updated Queen Elizabeth II’s Wikipedia page so quickly?

| org4 = Input

| url4 = https://www.inputmag.com/culture/queen-elizabeth-ii-death-wikipedia-updates

| date4 = 9 September 2022

| quote4 = 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.

| subject5 = article

| author5 = Jeff Parsons

| title5 = How Wikipedia responded when news of the Queen’s death broke

| org5 = [[Metro (British newspaper)]]

| url5 = https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/09/how-wikipedia-responded-when-news-of-the-queens-death-broke-17335549/

| date5 = 9 September 2022

| quote5 = 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.



|subject6 = article

[[User:Fonzy|Fonzy]] added:

|author6 = Kai McNamee

|title6 = Fastest 'was' in the West: Inside Wikipedia's race to cover the queen's death

|org6 = [[NPR]]

|date6 = 2022-09-15

|url6 = https://www.npr.org/2022/09/15/1122943829/wikipedia--queen-elizabeth-ii-death-deaditors-editors-article



| subject7 = article

''Should be Succeded by: Charles (III)''

| author7 = Liam Mannix

| title7 = Evidence suggests Wikipedia is accurate and reliable. When are we going to start taking it seriously?

| org7 = [[The Sydney Morning Herald]]

| url7 = https://www.smh.com.au/national/evidence-suggests-wikipedia-is-accurate-and-reliable-when-are-we-going-to-start-taking-it-seriously-20220913-p5bhl3.html

| date7 = 13 September 2022

| quote7 = 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.

}}

{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes|

{{All time pageviews|198}}

{{Annual report|[[Wikipedia:2011 Top 50 Report|2011]], [[Wikipedia:2012 Top 50 Report|2012]], [[Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/2016|2016]], [[Wikipedia:2017 Top 50 Report|2017]], [[Wikipedia:2018 Top 50 Report|2018]], [[Wikipedia:2019 Top 50 Report|2019]], [[Wikipedia:2020 Top 50 Report|2020]], [[Wikipedia:2021 Top 50 Report|2021]], [[Wikipedia:2022 Top 50 Report|2022]], and [[Wikipedia:2023 Top 50 Report|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}}

{{section size}}

{{Old moves

|title1=Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

|title2=Elizabeth II

|collapsed=yes

|list=

* [[WP:Requested moves|RM]], Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II, '''No consensus''', 8 January 2010, [[Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive_20#Requested_move|discussion]]

* RM, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II, '''No consensus''', 25 February 2010, [[Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive_21#Requested_move_(March_2010)|discussion]]

** [[WP:Request for comment|RFC]], Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II, '''Moved''', 18 March 2010, [[Talk:Elizabeth_II/Article_title|discussion]]

* RM, Elizabeth II → Queen Elizabeth II , '''No consensus''', 18 April 2010, [[Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive_22#Requested_move|discussion]]

* RM, Elizabeth II → Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, '''No consensus''', 20 July 2014, [[Talk:Edward_VIII/Archive_1#Requested_moves|discussion]]

* RM, Elizabeth II → Queen Elizabeth II, '''Not moved''', 2 June 2018, [[Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive_38#Requested_move_2_June_2018|discussion]]

* RM, Elizabeth II → Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, '''Not moved''', 30 July 2023, [[Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 48#Requested_move_30_July_2023|discussion]]

* RM, Elizabeth II → Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, '''Procedural close''', 14 August 2023, [[Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive 48#Requested_move_14_August_2023|discussion]]

}}

{{Refideas

|{{Cite book |last=Brandreth |first=Gyles |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-yCIEAAAQBAJ |title=Elizabeth: An Intimate Portrait |publisher=Random House |year=2022 |isbn=978-0-241-58260-2 |mode=cs2 |url-access=limited}}

}}

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader={{aan}} |maxarchivesize=200K |counter=49 |minthreadsleft=4 |algo=old(15d) |archive=Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive %(counter)d}}



== VE Day celebrations? ==

...which is a bit POV if you ask me (some might say, "should be succeeded by a president"), but also fails to take account of the fact that Charles (if he gets there) may well choose to be George VII. I've put "Heir Apparent: Charles, Prince of Wales" for the moment, but maybe it should go back to blank. --[[User:Rbrwr|rbrwr]]



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? [[User:Corsac Fox Kazakhstan|Corsac Fox Kazakhstan]] ([[User talk:Corsac Fox Kazakhstan|talk]]) 14:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean it as, he "should" be (horrah lets drink a toast), i meant it as he should come next in line. -fonzy



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

----

::It's not clear what changes you want to make to the article. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 10:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)



== Surname ==

Look, from all reports the Queen does her rather strange job well. However, doesn't the article lay it the superlatives on just a tad thick ... how can we know that she's so expert in world affairs if she's never publicly expressed any views on such? Anybody want to defend the article in its present form? --[[User:Robert Merkel|Robert Merkel]] 05:14 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)



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 @[[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]]'s reason for reverting is. Thanks [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 22:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

::We know it from the biographies/autobiographies of James Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher, James Prior, Anthony Eden, Richard Crossman, Sir John Peck, etc etc.

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

:Titus Gold, it should be clear to you because you raised the exact same point [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive_47#Death_certificate_full_name_in_lead:_Elizabeth_Alexandra_Mary_Windsor here] on 8 December 2022. A lengthy thread ensued. Have you forgotten? [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 06:35, 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)

::::"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 ==

----



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.

Is there a more recent non-copyright photo available? Whilst she may have looked like that at the time of her <strike>inauguration</strike> coronation, she doesn't any more. --[[User:Robert Merkel|Robert Merkel]] 05:16 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)


This photo is on the Commons:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Her_Majesty_Queen_Elizabeth_II_of_the_Commonwealth_Realms.jpg [[User:Waverland|Waverland]] ([[User talk:Waverland|talk]]) 08:51, 10 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&#39;Doherty|Tim O&#39;Doherty]] ([[User talk:Tim O&#39;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&#39;Doherty|Tim O&#39;Doherty]] ([[User talk:Tim O&#39;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 ==


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)


Revision as of 17:42, 19 June 2024

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

VE Day celebrations?

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]

Surname

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]

Main Photo

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 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]

Religion

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.fTalk 22:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II&oldid=1229954978"

Categories: 
Wikipedia articles that use British English
Wikipedia featured articles
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page twice
Old requests for peer review
Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured articles
Wikipedia In the news articles
FA-Class vital articles
Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
Wikipedia vital articles in People
FA-Class level-4 vital articles
Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in People
FA-Class vital articles in People
FA-Class biography articles
FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
Politics and government work group articles
FA-Class biography (royalty) articles
Top-importance biography (royalty) articles
Royalty work group articles
WikiProject Biography articles
FA-Class British royalty articles
Top-importance British royalty articles
WikiProject British Royalty articles
Commonwealth of Nations articles
FA-Class Caribbean articles
Mid-importance Caribbean articles
FA-Class Antigua and Barbuda articles
Mid-importance Antigua and Barbuda articles
WikiProject Antigua and Barbuda articles
FA-Class Bahamas articles
Mid-importance Bahamas articles
WikiProject Bahamas articles
FA-Class Barbados articles
Mid-importance Barbados articles
WikiProject Barbados articles
FA-Class Jamaica articles
Mid-importance Jamaica articles
WikiProject Jamaica articles
FA-Class Saint Kitts and Nevis articles
Mid-importance Saint Kitts and Nevis articles
WikiProject Saint Kitts and Nevis articles
FA-Class Saint Lucia articles
Mid-importance Saint Lucia articles
WikiProject Saint Lucia articles
FA-Class Saint Vincent and the Grenadines articles
Mid-importance Saint Vincent and the Grenadines articles
WikiProject Saint Vincent and the Grenadines articles
WikiProject Caribbean articles
FA-Class Melanesia articles
Mid-importance Melanesia articles
FA-Class Papua New Guinea articles
Mid-importance Papua New Guinea articles
WikiProject Papua New Guinea articles
FA-Class Solomon Islands work group articles
Mid-importance Solomon Islands work group articles
Solomon Islands work group articles
FA-Class Polynesia articles
Mid-importance Polynesia articles
FA-Class Cook Islands articles
Top-importance Cook Islands articles
Cook Islands articles
FA-Class Niue articles
Top-importance Niue articles
Niue articles
FA-Class Tuvalu articles
Top-importance Tuvalu articles
Tuvalu articles
WikiProject Polynesia articles
FA-Class Belize articles
Mid-importance Belize articles
Belize articles
FA-Class Australia articles
Mid-importance Australia articles
WikiProject Australia articles
FA-Class Canada-related articles
Mid-importance Canada-related articles
FA-Class Governments of Canada articles
Mid-importance Governments of Canada articles
FA-Class Political parties and politicians in Canada articles
Mid-importance Political parties and politicians in Canada articles
All WikiProject Canada pages
FA-Class United Kingdom articles
Top-importance United Kingdom articles
WikiProject United Kingdom articles
FA-Class New Zealand articles
High-importance New Zealand articles
WikiProject New Zealand articles
FA-Class Grenada articles
Mid-importance Grenada articles
WikiProject Grenada articles
FA-Class Pakistan articles
Low-importance Pakistan articles
WikiProject Pakistan articles
FA-Class Zimbabwe articles
Low-importance Zimbabwe articles
FA-Class Rhodesia articles
Top-importance Rhodesia articles
Rhodesia task force articles
WikiProject Zimbabwe articles
FA-Class Malta articles
Mid-importance Malta articles
WikiProject Malta articles
FA-Class South Africa articles
Low-importance South Africa articles
WikiProject South Africa articles
FA-Class politics articles
Mid-importance politics articles
WikiProject Politics articles
FA-Class Scouting articles
Low-importance Scouting articles
Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting task force articles
FA-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
High-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
FA-Class Women's History articles
Mid-importance Women's History articles
All WikiProject Women-related pages
WikiProject Women's History articles
FA-Class WikiProject Women articles
WikiProject Women articles
Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report
Hidden categories: 
Noindexed pages
Selected anniversaries articles
Pages in the Wikipedia Top 50 Report
 



This page was last edited on 19 June 2024, at 17:42 (UTC).

This version of the page has been revised. Besides normal editing, the reason for revision may have been that this version contains factual inaccuracies, vandalism, or material not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.



Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Code of Conduct

Developers

Statistics

Cookie statement

Mobile view



Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki