Contents

Talk:George II of Great Britain

	George II of Great Britain 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 October 25, 2012.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 22, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted July 25, 2006 Featured article review Demoted October 1, 2011 Featured article candidate Promoted Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 22, 2016, October 22, 2019, and October 22, 2022. Current status: Featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Military / Peerage and Baronetage / 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 military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as High-importance). Military history: Biography / British / European / Early Modern This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force British military history task force European military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) British Royalty 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. England High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Lower Saxony (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lower Saxony, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Lower SaxonyWikipedia:WikiProject Lower SaxonyTemplate:WikiProject Lower SaxonyLower Saxony articles Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom: Politics of the United Kingdom High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This page is under the stewardship of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: RM, George II of Great Britain → George II, Not moved, 3 February 2022, discussion MR, Endorsed, 15 February 2022, discussion RM, George II of Great Britain → George II, Not moved, 30 July 2023, discussion

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Cousin#Cousin chart|second cousin once removed]] The anchor (#Cousin chart) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:George I of Great Britain which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert: Per MOS:CREDITS: "image credits in the infobox image are discouraged, even if the artist is notable" (emphasis added). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a featured article, and the attribution was included when it was made such on October 1, 2011. "Discouraged" does not mean "disallowed", as you appear to interpret it. As long as the artist has a Wikipedia article, there is no inherent problem with noting authorship. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Discouraged" means "should not generally be done unless for a good reason", and "was included when this provision of the MOS did not yet exist" is not a good reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is good reason enough. Thomas Hudson was a renowned portraitist, and I see no good reason not to note his authorship. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a featured article, this article is expected to follow the MOS, which indicates that "notable" is not sufficient reason for inclusion in cases like this. I see no good reason to disregard that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The caption appeared as it did when the article became an FA. Having the caption just read "Portrait, 1744" is just completely uninformative. Hudson had a particular style and it's absolutely worth acknowledging that. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which, again, was before this guideline existed. Having a caption with a date allows you to locate it within the subject's lifespan, but if you object to it I'd be fine with omitting it entirely. Hudson's style is not the subject of the article (and not discussed in the article). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think the caption is absolutely fine as it is. Just because it was before the guideline existed does not mean it needs to be retroactively applied. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As standards evolve, articles evolve along with them. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there's no prohibition. So long as the author has an article, it's completely fine to attribute. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"It's not prohibited" is not a reason to do something that's discouraged. Hudson's not the subject of this article and not key to understanding the subject; it's unnecessary. And because this is an FA, it's expected to follow the style guidelines. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's absolutely fine in context. If you want to hold a RFC on this, you can, but I completely disagree with your interpretation of the guideline. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answering 3rd opinion request: It is relevant in this case to include the famous artist's name under the portrait, especially since it is his interpretation of the king's appearance, not a photo. I am not biased toward either user. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here!Hurricane Andrew (444) 20:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to know something about the political context in which George was granted that title, since it seems to imply a certain committment to the Hanoverian succession (which Queen Anne seems to have avoided at other moments). Oudeístalk 13:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the significant dates in this man's life, you show his coats of arms for only the end of it: when he was Prince of Wales, and when he was King of Great Britain. And those two could well be predicted and thus wouldn't need to be looked up in an encyclopedia. For all of the arms he carried prior to becoming Prince of Wales (which are the ones we'd not know, and would seek to find here), you show none.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]