This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This list was formerly included in List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II and spun off on the grounds that things like hospitals and statues aren't titles and honours. See the discussion on that page. Thanks for the editors who have dived in to sort out categories and other wikistuff. I'm not full steam on all the details, and I appreciate the assistance to get this looking shipshape! --Pete (talk)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Moved with respect to the "Queen Elizabeth" and "George VI" titles; no consensus with respect to the "King and Queen" titles. Consensus is clear with respect to the former, even with a number of no-context !votes. With respect to the latter, consensus is lacking, and opposition is clearly stated. bd2412T02:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
– Based on the outcome of these two discussions (1, 2) and per WP:CONSISTENCY, these pages need to be moved as well; as the majority of users who participated in the previous discussions believed that having the regnal names is enough, and titles such as "King" or "Queen" should not necessarily be included in the main titles. Also, title consistency should exist between a main topic and its own subtopics. Keivan.fTalk 19:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting.Seraphim System(talk)19:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose moving the "King and Queen" pages, for the simple reason that the Queen Mum didn't become "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" at the coronation. Nor had she been known by that name for 14 years; after her marriage she was "HRH The Duchess of York" and became queen upon the abdication of her brother-in-law in 1936 - not as a result of the coronation. Ditto Alexandra of Denmark, Mary of Teck. I support moving all the others ("Queen Elizabeth II" ==> "Elizabeth II" etc.). - ProhibitOnions(T)07:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ProhibitOnions: Neither were Alexandra and Mary known by their maiden names at the time of their coronations, yet having the article titled as Coronation of George VI and Queen Elizabeth is really odd, especially since it was the King who was the main person during the coronation ceremony. I think using the maiden name would be the best choice. Another option would be keeping the articles about the coronations at their current titles and instead move back the one for Elizabeth II to Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II to match with the rest of them. Keivan.fTalk05:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would make the title wrong, as the consorts get crowned as well. If other users oppose moving the articles about coronations as well, then I'll submit a separate request for the one about Elizabeth's coronation to be moved back to its previous title. Keivan.fTalk16:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The coronation of the consort is totally secondary to that of the monarch and most people aren't going to be searching for the consort in this context. Accordingly, I'd support omitting "King" or "Queen" from all of the proposed moves *and* removing the consorts' names, per WP:CONCISE. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Partly support, partly oppose I join user ProhibitOnions in his comment and support it fully. Having something like Coronation of George VI and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon gives a misleading impression and is inaccurate. Bowes-Lyon was her maiden surname. Even though royalty hardly use surnames, the article title would leave one under the impression that she still used the surname on the day of the coronation or that she coronation was a prerequisite for her to claim the title of queen. --Killuminator (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be said for Alexandra and Mary. Yet, I explained above why the suggested titles are the only ones that actually make sense, but if the users decide on not moving the articles about coronations, then the one about Elizabeth II's coronation must be moved back to its previous title. Keivan.fTalk17:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary. My only objection is to the articles in which the consorts are identified by a previous name. As I said, I otherwise support all the moves that omit "King" or "Queen." - ProhibitOnions(T)
Oppose Plainly inaccurate to use maiden names in this context; claims for consistency should not trump accuracy. NB contemporary sources speak of the coronation of [Their Majesties] King George VI and Queen Elizabeth; that is clearly the correct style.Barabbas1312 (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are referring to the articles about coronations, right? What about the rest of them though? Do you have any objection to moving the other pages listed here? Keivan.fTalk10:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Elizabeth II and George VI moves per above; Neutral on the "King and Queen" moves per above. But, we should definitely CREATE REDIRECTS no matter what happens. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.