Talk:Elizabeth II

Potential new image

More traditionally regal, like other British monarchs. --Volvlogia (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

^Anyone? I guess I might just do an RfC. --Volvlogia (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Recommend that you do. FWIW, I'm surprised that nobody's commented. I happen to oppose the proposed image, as it's her as Queen of New Zealand. IMHO, we should use an image of her as Queen of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

PS: The current image makes no distinction of 'which' monarch she is. Thus I feel it should remain. GoodDay (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I support that the photo be changed to this one - Jibran1998 (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Aargh I agree with both Volvlogia (that the current lead image is sub-optimal for a few reasons, not just lack of "regality" but also that the hat obscures part of her fact, she's not facing the camera, etc. -- although that might all be lumped under "taditionally regal") and GoodDay (that an image of her as Queen of New Zealand would be undue in the lead); personally I think an image along the lines of the proposed ones, but specifically associated with the United Kingdom if anywhere, would be best, if we have one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Elizabeth II → Queen Elizabeth II – more precise name 209.52.88.61 (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - see the other British, English, Scottish & Irish monarchs bios. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per GoodDay. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRECISE, "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". DrKay (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and possibly speedy close per WP:CONCISE. The current title is more concise than the proposed name. Moving this title is like moving United Kingdom to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland --2601:183:101:58D0:F844:F0D4:DB80:74CF (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• What the IP said -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Death of Diana

Simplexity22, I see you reverted my wikification of Death of Diana, Princess of Wales in the text, with no explanation - just the automatic rollback edit summary.

Note that Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback reads in part Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool. When in doubt, use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning. (my emphasis)

So, what's your reasoning for this edit? I'm particularly looking at providing improved navigation to the Queen's televised speech of September 5, 1997, which appears encyclopedic on several grounds (and more so than for example Bill Clinton's comments, to which we do already provide an external link). This was just the first step in that process, so I'm very interested in why you reverted it.

You may have good reasons. You do need to give them. Andrewa (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Sorry about that, I clicked the rollback button by accident, and immediately undid my revert. Simplexity22 (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

All good, thanks, I know the feeling! (;->

And apologies for not having seen that second revert... of course I was notified of the first, but not the second. In hindsight I should have checked more thoroughly and it would all have been obvious. Best. Andrewa (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Why doesn't the infobox list her religion?

Don't get me wrong: I think I know the actual reason, and I agree with it. But when I asked about removing the "religion=" parameter from Template:Infobox royalty this article in particular was presented as an example where it would be relevant, even though this article doesn't actually utilize it. This is almost certainly the most visible entry on the site that uses this template, and it's apparently being used as a specific justification for the template not being brought in line with other infobox templates, so before I go ahead and open an RFC on whether to remove the parameter I wanted to check in and see what this article's editors thought. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

My opinion remains unchanged from Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 37#Religion. DrKay (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)