This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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
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
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
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
It's gonna be rather tricky, figuring out how to right up the intro, when she passes on. Along with the United Kingdom, she will have reigned over 31 other realms. I suppose we'll figure that out when the time comes, but we gotta be realistic. Elizabeth II's in her 97th year & has increasingly become quite frail, since Philip's passing. It may not be a bad idea, to figure this out, before that day comes. To do so, would prevent potential edit-wars. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? I don't see any issue. Change of tense and circumstances of her death is all that's needed. What's the problem? DeCausa (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was just worried. Some might be annoyed with how the 31 other realms would be shown in the lead. Considering that she (so far) has had her reign ended in 17 of them, during her lifetime. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what difference her death makes. Seems a non-issue, particularly as no one has said they're "annoyed" about it. DeCausa (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll assume that nobody will object to "..was Queen of the United Kingdom and 31 other Commonwealth realms". Anyways, as a personal request, would you place this aside in the archives, for later? Someone 'did' bring up this topic, last year or earlier this year. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see what you mean. I think some formulation like "14 at her death" will be fine with the possibility of adding reference to another 17 in her lifetime if people want it. I still think it's not going to be a big issue. Certainly not something to worry about now. DeCausa (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. To date, she appears to still be mentally sharp, so there won't be any slight changes (addition of regent) in Charles' bio lead either, anytime soon :) GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this statement-
When it does happen probably atleast 90% of the Wikipedian Volunteer base will be on the page making many edits and when that will turn out most likely the page may crash, and be locked due to "vandalism" or some other reason, leaving an admin to do it themself. And I am sure that that may be the case for all the other royals after her passing, and they'll leave the admins to do it up. I can't say this will be true but in my opinion it will most likely happen. Nolan MacLellan (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully something as follows will be suitable: "Elizabeth II was Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in {Year}. She was queen regnant of X Commonwealth realms throughout her long reign, but she served as the monarch of Y realms at the time of her death." Векочел (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this proposal, sums everything up succinctly. I think it makes sense to hold an RfC to have this, or a variation on it, to set it as the official opening paragraph for when she "stops being queen". When that time comes, if any edit-warriors want to pick a fight we can point them to the archived discussions. I have attempted to improve it by looking at a variety of opening sentences on articles about other British monarchs and other related articles but have used User:Векочел's original as a guide.
Apologies, it was a blunder. I had pencilled in "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms", before I decided to refer to the Commonwealth as "Commonwealth of Nations", but stupidly forgot to add in "Head of" between the two. Has been fixed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", that way, folks can decide for themselves if it's the 14 other (current) or 31 other (including former realms). GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The general form is fine but the current exact wording is over-repetitive, by which I mean it is (1) unnecessary to repeat the death date and (2) unnecessary to say realms three times when other, clearer phrases can be used. DrKay (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about "Elizabeth II was Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in ????. Her reign of 70+ years is longer than that of any other British monarch in history, and was marked by a great decolonisation of the territories of the British Empire, and its transformation into the modern Commonwealth of Nations. As queen of 32 independent nations, she was served by a total of more than 170+ prime ministers."? Peter Ormond 💬13:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's as clear because it implies she was queen of 32 independent nations for 70+ years, rather than stating that these were spread over the course of her reign. I also don't understand why the prime ministers are mentioned in the first paragraph. We don't do this for any other monarch as far as I know nor do I see why something not in the article body is important or notable enough for the lead let alone the first paragraph. DrKay (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
reign start and reign end dates (every monarch have them, obviously)
duration of reign (70+ years)
longest reign in British history (could be changed to just "history", if she beats Louis XIV)
decolonisation of Empire (Queen Vic's bio says her reign was "marked by a great expansion of the British Empire", so decolonisation should be mentioned at Liz's)
expansion of the Commonwealth (that's what many scholars say her reign will be remembered for and reportedly that's what the Queen considers her greatest achievement)
total number of realms (there are 32 of them. I don't think we should break them into groups in the first sentence like total realms, and how many were there at time of death. It is trivial and creates a lot of clutter, and the lead already says that "the number of her realms has varied over time as territories have either gained independence or become republics". We already have the infobox for exact dates of reign in all realms.)
total number of prime ministers (her relationship with prime ministers is very much talked about in the media, more than any other monarch in my view. And she has seen quite a lot of them. Monarchs like Bhumibol Adulyadej and Akihito also have mention of total PMs in lead. I know it is not in their opening sentence, but I kinda used that info to present the total number of realms in the introduction.) Peter Ormond 💬14:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of the prime ministers or decolonisation or whatnot should be in the first paragraph. Leave that for the rest of the lead. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then the last sentence may be removed and the 32 realms may be mentioned in the lead's third para, like: "The number of her realms varied over time as territories gained independence and some realms became republics. All in all, Elizabeth served as monarch of 32 independent nations of the Commonwealth." Peter Ormond 💬16:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the lead paragraph that should be in the article at the time of Elizabeth's death should be the following. If anybody wants to add or remove anything, we can continue to hash it out, but I think it is for the best that we should come to a conclusion soon as this discussion has gone on for over a month. I have mashed together all the suggestions into the paragraph below, which, hopefully, we can all somewhat agree on.
All but one editor commenting in the discussion are essentially agreed on this outline. It's bound to go through some further modification at the time, as will the rest of the article, but this appears to have consensus for now. It's unnecessary to get hung up over nuances at this stage. DrKay (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think today or tomorrow may be it. I feel this page is going to experience a lot of traffic and a lot of editing, so perhaps a good draft is to be penned and then the page locked until further information? AlienChex (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shame to see and hear about all of this, as someone who loves the monarchy and British history. This isn't confirmed, but I've had sources from inside the Green Party tell me that she has already passed. This could be a very sad day for Great Britain.
(88.202.138.186 - Not Logged In) 15:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.202.138.186 (talk)
RfC on popularity and support for the monarchy claims in the lead
Should the lead section sentence "However, support for the monarchy in the United Kingdom has been and remains consistently high, as does her personal popularity." be changed to "In the United Kingdom, support for the monarchy remains high but has been declining in recent years. Elizabeth's personal popularity has been and remains consistently high."? (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No sources have been provided to oppose this change nor have the sources I provided been refuted in any way. Three people are either indifferent to or open to changing the sentence, with 2 in some form of opposition.
The material in the article is outdated and an update to it is warranted. There've been no replies here in 3 1/2 days. I'm ending the RfC and applying the change to the lead, with citations. DeaconShotFire (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to close an RFC you started & then unilaterally make a ruling on it. You wait until the RFC tag expires on 22 August & then seek closure at the proper board. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I would agree that the aging of the prior data is a concern, it does look like the most recent is from 2012 (at least according to the lead comment). If such exists, I think more than one more recent data source would be helpful. Has any other source collected more recent polling data on this subject? SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, DeaconShotFire, I'll take a look at those. You will also need to reformat the RfC's introduction to something neutral (in this case, probably of the form "Should X be changed to Y?"). Currently, it argues for your position, which is not appropriate. If you want to argue for your position, do it in this section, not the RfC introduction itself. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the more recent polling data including falling support levels, I think some material regarding that change is appropriate (so long as it's contextualized appropriately; it looks like a majority still generally is in favor). I also do agree that material regarding the level of support for the British monarchy in general is appropriate in this article, as Elizabeth is the most visible symbol and essentially "face" of said monarchy and as such is inextricably linked to it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (apologies for the editing mess) The article contains an editor's note citing polls conducted in 2006 and 2007, implying the sentence shouldn't be changed because of them. I argue these polls are extremely outdated and no longer reflective of reality. I sourced more recent YouGov polls in my edit which show a decline in support for the monarchy, but consistent popularity for the Queen herself. The sentence is even later directly contradicted by a more recent inclusion in the article: "Whilst not as universal as it once was, various polling suggested the popularity of the monarchy remained high in Great Britain during the Platinum Jubilee". Why is this article still citing polls conducted a decade and a half ago, when more recent data is so readily available, as evidenced by the latter quote?
No: - the proposal just has not met WP:ONUS of providing cites showing any noted drop for Elizabeth II nor showing it WP:DUE mention, and the vague phrasing gives a false impression of significant shift and/or low approval. The NPR cite above gives her approval at 80%+ in 2022, Really this is not a vital thing as it's not like she is standing for election or that her rule is greatly affected by minor shifts. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A drop of approximately 10% in 10 years is not substantial? The phrasing also doesn't have to be set in stone. The sentence maintains that her personal popularity is high, while mentioning declining support for the institution of which she is the figurehead and most recognisable member. You haven't refuted any of the sources I provided suggesting that the information in the article is outdated. DeaconShotFire (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not any substantial change nor any impact. The minor variation over 30 years is not widely remarked upon like something of importance would be, nor did the trivial variations affect her life. The Diamond Jubilee 10 years ago did mark a minor peak -- but it is hardly significant as seen by there just was not much notice of it. It is not WP:DUE any remark, let alone wandering off into offtopic remarks not about Elizabeth II. Look at the chart in Ipsos and it is just 30 years of not much change and no importance. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's got nothing to do with her then surely we should remove any mention of the monarchy as a whole from the article. Clearly that's an absurd idea because it's entirely relevant to her.
"The Diamond Jubilee 10 years ago did mark a minor peak -- but it is hardly significant as seen by there just was not much notice of it." - No source to back this up I guess, ignoring the 5 that I've posted above countering exactly that statement.
"It is not WP:DUE any remark, let alone wandering off into offtopic remarks not about Elizabeth II. Look at the chart in Ipsos and it is just 30 years of not much change and no importance." Again -- no explanation for why you think this is unimportant. Not that whether you think it's important is relevant; I'm alleging that the information in the article is outdated -- and you claim that new data conducted by Ipsos and YouGov is not important enough to include, therefore we should leave the article as is? DeaconShotFire (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can explain again. Yes, leave it alone or removal would be fine, and the support for monarchy just is phrased separately from her and is not a big debate so trimming that out would also be fine. The proposed statements are not fine. In 70 years it seems approval rating is proven insignificant by having no major variations, no effects, and no major coverage. One could even add the 2022 links to the existing text as there just is not much going on here.
I did not ignore the 5 cites shown, but observe that the Diamond Jubilee was a minor peak and the rating simply returned to the norm shown in the 30 year chart, so a statement summarising that solely about the minor decline is a misleading distortion of that material and an incorrect implication of cause. I again note it all seems an UNDUE issue because 5 cites out of tens or hundreds of thousands of Diamond Jubilee links available just is microscopic. Approval rating in her case just has not been anything of great change or impact or public coverage. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the proposed wording regarding the monarchy ("remains high but has been declining in recent years") appears accurate, brief and well supported by the sources DeaconShotFire points to at the top of this survey. The sources explicitly describe this shift as being a significant feature of/challenge within Elizabeth's reign, evidence of due weight. I agree the current wording regarding the monarchy generally ("has been and remains consistently high") is poorly supported, likely outdated and contradicts the sources raised above, while being a better reflection of Elizabeth's personal popularity. Jr8825 • Talk10:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. I don't think the new wording is right. The article text says the popularity was lowest in 1997, which is believable and cited. Popularity was high before then, it then sank to a low point in the late 1990s, it then rose again. This new sentence doesn't appear to reflect that. Even at the low point, support for the monarchy was still far higher than for republicanism. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Polls are open to so much interpretation, from the questions to the results, that it's best to leave them out of an encyclopedia, unless maybe it's an indepth analysis considering many polls and poll results over many years. It certainly shouldn't be in a lede. --₪MIESIANIACAL15:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment* If anything, the statement should at least be cleaned up to remove a few redundancies. "However, support for the monarchy in the United Kingdom has been and remains consistently high, as does her personal popularity." Kerdooskis (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, I've debated on this sentence before, and at the time we ended up not changing it. This was in mid-to-late May this year. I added 2 opinion polls to the article from 2020-2022 and that meant that the sentence could be kept intact. This issue has been thoroughly discussed very recently, and AFAIK there has been no major change in the popularity of the monarchy. I see no reason as to why it should be changed now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Comment: I would suggest editing that statement to "However, she remains a consistently popular monarch", or something similar (with appropriate citation), and removing all reference to the popularity of the monarchy itself. The popularity of the monarchy is actually a concept quite separate to the popularity of Elizabeth as a monarch. Many of the things that have influenced the popularity of the monarchy (Prince Andrew, for example) haven't really involved Elizabeth directly. This would, happily, spare us the obligation of assessing whether the British Public are currently royalists or republicans. Elemimele (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue she is more or less the embodiment of the monarchy. Plus, not everything in the article is directly or has to be directly exclusively about her. The article goes on to talk about increased criticism of the royal family as a whole in the 1980s, and states that Elizabeth's own personal popularity is credited with Australia voting in 1999 to keep their monarchy. DeaconShotFire (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her personal popularity is inevitably linked to the popularity of the monarchy itself. From what I can tell, Elizabeth seems to be consistently popular, unlike some of the royals. I don't see any good reason to change the language in the fourth paragraph. Векочел (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Her personal popularity is inevitably linked to the popularity of the monarchy itself." This is a sentence that argues for my side. If they're linked, it should be mentioned.
I think the onus is on User:DeaconShotFire to explain reasoning for wanting to make the change. It's illogical to suggest that linking to Republicanism in the United Kingdom implies that Republicanism is exclusive to the UK. That's like saying that when talking about how the covid pandemic has affected the UK, a link to COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom would be inappropriate because it implies that covid is exclusive to the UK, which would be an equal load of baloney. Linking to Abolition of monarchy seems, at best, unnecessary, and might just be a case of MOS:FORCELINK to suit some personal political opinion. An alternative solution would be to use a more generalised term, as in: She has faced occasional republican sentiment...? Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are using Republicanism in the United Kingdom because we're exclusively talking about republicanism as it relates to the British constitution, and any other republican movements elsewhere round the world are surely irrelevant in the context of this article. I would also draw your attention to the following sentence/link in the Monarchy of the United Kingdom article (After the 1707 Acts of Union section): However, her reign was also marked by increased support for the republican movement, due in part to Victoria's permanent mourning and lengthy period of seclusion following the death of her husband in 1861. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I double checked the wording and it says, "she has faced occasional republican sentiment". There's nothing specifically British about that. Perhaps someone could explain how the republican movements in Austrlalia or Jamaica aren't relevant to the Queen of Australia and Queen of Jamaica? --₪MIESIANIACAL12:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understood the sentence to be specifically referring to the political movement (in Britain itself) that seeks to replace the United Kingdom's monarchy with a republic. You're talking about Commonwealth nations seeking to remove QEII as monarch of their own nation, but that wouldn't affect her position as monarch of the UK and titular head of the Commonwealth of Nations. The individual status of the Commonwealth nations is a wider issue that doesn't appear to be examined in this article and, frankly, it's a huge can of worms. I still think a straight link to Republicanism would be the best solution, rather than a confusing forced link. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely enough (or not), it's possibly easier to abolish the British monarchy, then it is the Canadian monarchy. Anyways, I'll go along with whatever you all collectively decide. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Australia replacing the office of Queen of Austrlalia with a politician head of state would not affect EIIR's position of Queen of the UK. However, the UK replacing her with a president similarly wouldn't affect EIIR's position as Queen of Australia. Regardless, my point wasn't to open up any can of worms. I was merely saying that if the sentence in the lede doesn't refer specifically to Britain and there are republican movements elsewhere, linking to Republicanism in the United Kingdom isn't appropriate. Liniking to Republicanism is a sound proposal. However, Modern republicanism has subsections specifically for Commonwealth Realms. --₪MIESIANIACAL18:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no objections? I'll change the link to Abolition of monarchy. If there are objections? let me know over the next 24 hrs & I'll hold off. PS - If somebody else in the meantime changes the link? I won't revert it. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sea of blue
Of the 392 words in the lead, 149 are blue. That is a rate of 38%. Do terms such a "heir presumptive", "accession" (to the EU), "withdrawal" (from the EU), and "state visits" (which points to an article about state visits in general) really need to be wikilinks? Firebrace (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some other editors have humiliated me publicly, perhaps unintentionally, while acknowledging that I made my edits in good faith. Respectfully, English is my native language and I am following the conventions of English grammar in making these edits. To those who contacted me privately instead of calling me out publicly, I thank you. I made these edits in good faith for accuracy and clarity since employing passive voice in written English is unconventional typically. Adverbs almost always follow verbs in written English, which I did not see in the original article, so gave rise my first concerns and motivated me to make my subsequent changes.
I also wish to use active voice when I edited the article in order to facility reading it for those who read in languages besides English, whether English is a second, third, or other language for these readers. I believe that the articles will be more concise and, as such, clearer if I abide by the aforementioned conventions.
Wikipedia is an excellent source for basic information about people (such as Queen Elizabeth II), significant historical events, and the like. I have made my contributions to the site in good faith previously and my intention remains the same regarding the edits I have made to the article on Queen Elizabeth II. I am happy to discuss these concerns here or privately otherwise. Whether you choose to reply, I ask only that any further discussion proceeds in good faith. Thank you for reading this and giving me the benefit of the doubt. MCzarn (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted these edits. The forced formality of phrases like 'remains high consistently' and 'primogeniture protocols in force at the time' are not improvements. 'She was not expected to become queen.' is more easily understood and less complex grammatically than 'Neither the royal family nor the public expected her to become their queen.' The alteration of sentence structure subtly altered the meaning of sentences, for example 'the King and Queen should evacuate the princesses' is not the same as 'the princesses should be evacuated'. One involves the parents, the other does not. 'The princesses staged pantomimes at Christmas to the Queen's Wool Fund' has an entirely different meaning to 'The princesses staged pantomimes at Christmas in aid of the Queen's Wool Fund.' These are just some examples of where the edits were not improvements. DrKay (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, strictly speaking (or should that be speaking strictly?) people are not evacuated; places are. A true grammar Nazi would have known that and corrected it. Poor show I say... Firebrace (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a tad bit early to discuss, but I think we can get ahead of the curve and discuss pictures that are appropriate to use in the infobox following the Queen's death. There are a quite a large number of photos on Commons and a bunch of these from different parts of her life are included on the right side of the screen.
(Option A: Portrait from 1943)(Option B: Portrait from 1953 Coronation)(Option C: Official portrait from 1959 tour)(Option D: Official portrait from 1986)(Option E: Official 2011 New Zealand portrait)(Option F: Current infobox photograph)
I'm not exactly sure which one best would represent the queen, but I think that this talk page would be the best place to find people who would have an idea about what photo would be best. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)13:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's early to discuss, as doctors say they are concerned for her health. They usually downplay royal health issues, meaning we may have a London Bridge announcement soon. BTW my vote goes on option C
Μιχαήλ Δεληγιάννης (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert on this, but I think there are a variety of potential reasons. Having never participated in such a decision, I can imagine that it is extremely difficult to choose an infobox picture that adequately and respectfully represents the most notable and complete picture of a person's life, particularly if such a person has had such a long and accomplished life as the Queen has. Since the infobox is the first thing a reader sees when they open the page, the image needs to broadly and accurately reflect the subject matter about which they are getting ready to read.
Take Mickey Rooney for example. Editing consensus could have chosen a more recent picture of him as an old man, but they went with a younger one that more concisely summarizes the notability of his acting career. The same would need to be true here.
Regarding the actual discussion about which picture to choose, I am leaning towards C or D at the moment. I like A, but it was taken before she was crowned Queen. B is not the greatest picture (in my opinion). E was taken in the context of New Zealand specifically, which would be seen as out of place. And my arguments against F are summarized above. As I am writing, I think I have to give my final vote as D. (Is there a specific WP policy that might help dictate the decision?) TNstingray (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A, C, and D are all good choices, but I think C would work the best as an infobox picture. Hoping the Queen will pull through and we won't have to do this, however. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is there a policy that says that when someone dies we should change their picture to an older, historical one? I've noticed it in other articles, such as Muammar Gaddafi. — Czello14:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally from what I can tell its changed to a picture from the most significant era of their life, take Ronald Reagan for example, his official presidential portrait in 1981 is used for the lead image rather then an image of him at the end of his life. Tweedle (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option C gets a vote from me personally but I guess its a little too soon to decide what photo to use I guess. I would not go with Option B though if C was excluded, I don't really know how to explain but it just looks odd as a lead infobox photo? C is better as a portrait and closer in her reign to when she was coronated so that's why I would go with that choice. Tweedle (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option F. Keep the current image. There may come a time down the line when it would be appropriate to change to an earlier image as suggested, but I think in the short term, at least until the mourning and all the rest of it is concluded, I wouldn't advise changing. Our readers know her primarily in her current guise, and I can even imagine some might find it a little offensive or insensitive to suddenly switch away from the monarch they know at such a time. — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option F. Enough will change when the day comes. The current image represents the way people think of her today. There has been no rise and fall, no marked decline; this is someone who has been consistently prominent for many decades. In the long term, this photo, or one of her most recent official photos, may remain the best one. Roches (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option F, represents her best (probably why it's currently used). Changing might add confusion when millions of users will rely on us to get clarity. I also don't think we should make such editorial decisions or memorialise the page. Let's stay ready and wait to see what news organisations and officials use. Thanks for anticipating, I hope we won't need this anytime soon. AlanTheScientist (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option F - I understand and agree with the idea of using an image most representative of her, but I'm not entirely sure her in her full regalia is most representative. She has attended many important formal official events in her various hats for quite a while now, and while we usually do portray monarchs in their regalia, I would suggest the current image might actually be the most representative we have available currently. That said, Option E is a close second, I do understand the issue with it being a NZ-centric circumstance, but I suspect that wouldn't actually matter to most people, and sans a similar recent UK portrait being available, I think it's a good choice, especially because of how high quality it is, and in my personal opinion it does have the benefit of her looking incredibly dignified in it. 90.198.253.144 (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding in two croppings of Photo C to consider, labelled as C1 and C2:
(Option C1: A tighter cropping)(Option C2: Full image with natural brightness)
I'd personally consider both to be better than the original option C, with the tighter cropping having the benefit of being slightly more like her portraits on things such as stamps and coins, while the latter looks slightly less awkward (my own opinion) in how she is positioned when the added context is included, and has a slightly more flattering colour balance. 90.198.253.144 (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Option G: Coronation with Prince Philip portrait)
Also included a third additional option from me, if we wanted a photo from around her coronation, I think this is a higher quality one (and in colour) than Option B, I've labelled it as Option G. 90.198.253.144 (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option C""" - is a good image and closest to the middle of her reign. Iwalters (talk)
Charles' article is already indefinitely semi-protected and I'm not seeing anything that justifies increasing that. Beyond that, we do not protect pages proactively. All of which said, I assure everyone that a lot of eyes are on this and related pages. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to write this here and (probably) say no more on the subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news ticker. All you get for being first on the block is pending changes and semi-protection (or more). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the Queen dies, I think it is important to get a draft going so it can appear quickly on the In The News section. Details of the lead up to her death are not trivial and probably should be noted now. Thriley (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with User:DrKay. The plans around her death are inclusive of the actual death and funeral itself presumably. Although planning on how that article might be changed upon the implementation of those plans (bearing in mind I believe she is presently in Scotland, and so such a situation would be Operation Unicorn), may change the wording of the article significantly? 90.198.253.144 (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg)
.jpg)
