Jump to content

Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41→Archive 45

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)

Potential new image

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

Elizabeth II in 2011
^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)

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)
@DrKay: Thanks for the archive link! Also ... jeez. So the case cited in favour of not removing the religion parameter from the royalty infobox ... is also one of the cases cited for why the parameter is problematic. I guess that RFC will be coming once I get the time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggested edit

I have noticed under the titles and styles section that she is referred to as HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh from her marriage until her accession. I am led to believe through previous research that this style is incorrect as it implies that she is divorced. Her actual title should be HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh or HRH The Princess Elizabeth, The Duchess of Edinburgh. Omitting the definite article in the title insinuates that she is divorced. Equally on Princess Margaret's page, she is referred to as HRH The Princes Margaret, Countess of Snowdon from the moment of her marriage until her death which I am also led to believe is inaccurate. A comparable example is Princess Diana who was HRH The Princess of Wales throughout her marriage became [Lady] Diana, Princess of Wales on her divorce and lost the definite article whilst using the title only as a style. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.29.40 (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Every mention of her in the Gazette between 1947 and 1952 avoids using The, e.g. [3][4][5]. This is just one of those myths that gets around. DrKay (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, i'm inclined to disagree with this. I don't think we can just rely on the Gazette in this instance nor do I think "it's a myth that gets around". I would suggest that her proper form of address was HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh (from marriage to accession). The title and styles of a divorce woman is clearly referred to in debretts and the additional below links:

https://www.debretts.com/expertise/rites-of-passage/divorce/forms-of-address/ https://www.baronage.co.uk/diana/di-arms1.html http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/index31.htm

Also on the Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtesy_titles_in_the_United_Kingdom#Divorced_wives_and_widows_who_remarry

Rhys Hoffman (talk) 20:15, 05 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not just the Gazette: Royal Collection, Official Website, Canadian Archives[6][7], Australian Archives[8], The Guardian, Who's Who, Sydney Morning Herald, Governor General of Canada, on stamps, and books by Dermot Morrah[9], Christopher Hussey[10] and Jennie Bond[11]. This isn't contentious at all. It is the standard format for princesses in their own right who marry men of lower precedence. DrKay (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth has 2 corgi mixes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.3.133 (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Already covered in the Public perception and character section, and the article linked from there. DrKay (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2018

Under Marriage section, the second to last paragraph. Please change: One month earlier, the King had issued letters patent allowing her children to use the style and title of a royal prince or princess Change it to: One month earlier, the Queen had issued letters patent allowing her children to use the style and title of a royal prince or princess Rakan Hani (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: - At the time of her marriage she was not the Queen. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Elizbeth II as the person who opened the 1976 and 2012 games

I have added the Olympic part for good reason due to the fact that everyone knows that she opened up the Montreal games in 1976 and the London games in 2012. Due to the recent removals, I had to dispute this. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I oppose this addition, as it's trivia. Also, I've noticed you've made these additions to many of the other world leader bios. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
There's already a paragraph devoted to it, the number of succession boxes is already massive, and at each event she spoke for less than 5 seconds. I think expanding either the coverage of the events or the number of succession boxes is overkill. DrKay (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree its not needed, just a very small part of the day job she does and she has probably opened hundreds of major events but non are really noteworthy for a succession box. Also this type of box is for important positions or appointments not random activities. MilborneOne (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Note over the last few days, he's added this stuff to the succession boxes of all the other world leader bios articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Suggesting the removal of an infobox list

The result of the poll was: No. Colonestarrice (talk) 09:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since no reason or argument has been cited that opposes my version, I’m forced to call a vote over the question if this version (diff) should replace the current one. Colonestarrice (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Queen of each of the other Commonwealth realms

This point was not, I believe, discussed before. Given that factually she is Queen of each one of the other realms, severally not jointly, there is no good reason to dispute the edit of 08:50, 27 December 2018,[12] nor to reopen the earlier discussion. Qexigator (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is unnecessary to repeat "Queen" twice in the opening sentence and I think that "each of the other" is cumbersome. The first sentence and everything in the infobox should be short and succinct. DrKay (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe, but npov editorially, and in view of a recent intervention,[13] we can see that it is an improvement for the sake of accuracy, and not unduly pedantic or verbose. Qexigator (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any improvement in accuracy or any npov issues. She's queen of all the realms in one go. She doesn't get separately appointed to each one individually. DrKay (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
The factual and descriptive point in issue is not temporal simultaneity, but recognition of constitutional distinctiveness, which is of considerable importance, as related articles and discussions make plain enough. There is no good reason to continue letting this fact remain lost in the lead in preference for a short form conflation for what could otherwise be thought convenient in point of style or ease of reading. Qexigator (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
It isn't a fact. It's an opinion. The opposing opinion is that it is a shared monarchy. The point that the realms are separate sovereign states but there is one single person as monarch is not made by the addition of three words. Their purpose will be lost on all except those who are already initiated in the arcane and complex distinctiveness of the British monarchy. Note below, that the only other editor commenting here was confused about the issue under discussion. DrKay (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for making my point. Whether or not some sources, scholarly or not, are of opinion that the monarchy is in some opaque way "shared", the realms are separate states such that constitutionally the Queen is Queen of each one in her and that state's own right. If we fail to show that by smudging the lead, we are promoting confusion, instead of dispelling it, among editors and visitors to the page. Personal preference or force of habit would not be sufficient reason for rejecting that and letting the article remain blemished in that respect. Qexigator (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
The article already makes that point by listing the realms, describing their relationships in the article body and explicitly stating that they are independent countries in the lead. The extra words are overkill that add no more clarity than what is there already, indeed in my opinion they remove clarity by smudging the first line with confusion and complexity that has no obvious meaning, use or purpose. DrKay (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
That is an understandable editorial viewpoint, but I am not able to concur in this case. The current wording is due to previous inattention to this point and/or inadvertence. Intentionally to simplify or conflate in that way may be acceptable to persons who are already fairly well-informed but anxious about using more words than they need, but is not always the better way adequately to communicate the information. For one thing, another editor has rightly drawn attention to the misleading expression "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" when we know as a fact this is not her title. The information is not controversial or contentious, and I see no good reason not to let the text now be rectified by adding a few short words:
...is Queen of the United Kingdom and <+>Queen of each of/+> the other Commonwealth realms.
After looking again at the current version of the article, I do not see it made clear anywhere, and it is not self-evident where else to put it than as in the disputed edit. But if not in the opening sentence, perhaps let the lead round off with:
Elizabeth now reigns as Queen of the United Kingdom and Queen of each of the other Commonwealth realms.
Qexigator (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

She is not the Queen of the Commonwealth of Nations. "The Queen is head of state of 16 member states, known as the Commonwealth realms, while 32 other members are republics and five others have different monarchs." Dimadick (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

That comment is not being disputed, but it is off topic. Qexigator (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

She queen of each of the Commonwealth realms עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

In agreement with DrKay. It should remain "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", in the intro & also the infobox. The separate links in the sentence, show that it's not all one title. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I also see “Queen of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realms” - without “other”, capitalised Realms. Markbassett (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (change of lead)

In view of above discussion, it seems reasonable to propose inserting at the end of the lead:

Elizabeth now reigns as Queen of the United Kingdom and Queen of each of the other Commonwealth realms.

That is not clearly stated in the current version of the article, but it is a known constitutional fact, and is consistent with the main text and infobox. Qexigator (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (change of lead)

I propose the following rewording of the lead sentence:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is Queen of the United Kingdom as well as queen of the other Commonwealth realms.

It gets the orthography right and the facts clearer. Surtsicna (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Question Couldn't "as well as queen" be replaced by "and" in this well-warranted proposal? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, technically it could, but it did not really get much support here. It is also much more likely to be truncated back to the present wording, I think. Does "as well as" work? Qexigator, it definitely gets the orthography right (and WP:JOBTITLES), since the word "queen" is uppercase where appropriate and lowercase where appropriate. I also think it makes it clearer that being Queen of the United Kingdom is not tied to being queen of the other Commonwealth realms. Do you still see potential for confusion there? Surtsicna (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unnecessarily repetitive and convoluted, compared with simpler forms such as "Elizabeth II is the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", where "constitutional monarch" were the words used in the featured revision of the article. DrKay (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
That too seems fine to me. Surtsicna (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Me too. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
DrKay's wording would be acceptable, and would conveniently avoid the orthography contention. Qexigator (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
+Noted that "constitutional monarch" was removed 15:18, 19 December 2014.[14]. Can we have it back, please? Qexigator (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Question GoodDay, it would be helpful if you would give a reasoned response, beyond personal preference and/or authorship.
Some of you here, are over-thinking on the intro. It's quite simple, we've a link to Queen of the United Kingdom & we've a link to the other Commonwealth realms. What has suddenly, made the status quo unacceptable, after all these months? GoodDay (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
overthinking? or could we say that the notion that the links suffice to make good sense of the sentence that is now in question is underthinking? It should be possible for the sentence to be composed and read without relying on the awkward contrivance requiring the reader to go to one link after another in order to see the distinction between the Queen as constitutional monarch of UK, and separately as constitutional monarch of each one of the other realms. Edits after the removal of "constitutional" were preoccupied with other aspects, and we now have an opportunity to reconsider, and readopt, "constitutional" as a better way to make this short opening sentence be informative and accurate. It is more likely than not that "constitutional" was allowed to stay out due to inattention and/or inadvertence. DrKay's wording would give us:
"Elizabeth II... is Queen the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms."
This would be an improvement on the current version. Qexigator (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Changing 'Queen' to 'constitutional monarch', is non-starter. In monarchial bios, we use King, Queen, Emperor, Empress, etc etc. The term constitutional monarch is merely a descriptive, not the office & belongs only in articles like Monarchy of the United Kingdom. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
In biographies of monarchs, we use whatever wording we agree to use. There is no magic formula. The title as given in the lead sentence now is merely descriptive already. There is no such office as "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms". Surtsicna (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)♥
Separate wiki-links to two different articles, show that it's not one office. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, one of which leads to an office and the other to something that is definitely not an office. How consistent. Surtsicna (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
George VI, Edward VIII etc etc, link to the office & then to Dominions & British Empire. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Your preference of consistency over grammar, orthography, style, and accuracy is well-noted but entirely unhelpful. Elizabeth is not her uncle. Surtsicna (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Replacing Queen with Constitutional monarch is a non-starter. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
No, it is not. It is the return to the wording from the Featured Article version of this article, as vetted thoroughly during the FA review, and a return to the wording that you altered without discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

We change from 'Queen' to 'Constitutional monarch' in this article? Then we make same changes to all other monarch bio articles, including terms like 'absolute monarch'. Further note: most sources describe her as Queen, not Constitutional monarch. When was the last time your read or heard - Constitutional monarch Elizabeth II? GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

No, we do not need to model any article after another. Stop making changes to one article conditional upon making changes to other articles. Surtsicna (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
She's Queen Elizabeth II, not Constitutional monarch Elizabeth II. Let's not twist the intro to this article, to the point it's no longer recognizable. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Straw man. Nobody is saying she should be referred to as "Constitutional monarch Elizabeth II". Surtsicna (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Decapitalize Queen of the United Kingdom to queen of the United Kingdom if you wish. But, I won't agree to changing Queen of the United Kingdom to Constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For reasons stated above it is overly long and convoluted. It presupposes that her role is primarily as Queen of the United Kingdom or Queen of the other realms, when in reality she is independently Queen of each of the 16 Commonwealth realms. She is the monarch of 16 realms, not 2. Brythones (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Brefore this discussion goes too far adrift, let us recall that Surtsicna opened a discussion above rightly pointing out that the lead sentence wrongly presents Elizabeth as if she holds the non-existent title "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms". This could be corrected by A_switching back from "Queen" to "constitutional monarch", or B_by retaining "Queen" but adding a few grammatical words to point the distinction. So far, A looks to have more support than B. Qexigator (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    The separate links to Queen of the United Kingdom & to Commonwealth realms, showed that it wasn't 'one title'. PS: I suggested to Surtsicna (at his page), that he was potentially opening up a can of worms, by fiddling with the article intro. Not surprisingly, I was correct. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    Once again, it appears we're going to end up with a silly looking intro, due to problems being created, where they don't exist. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not the best option, unnecessarily long and convoluted. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (retention of current lead)

Leave the intro as "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" (p.s- add a comma, if you will), as we've got links to two different articles. Don't fiddle with it & end up having something 'silly' looking in its place. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's how I see it. She's known as Queen Elizabeth II, not Constitutional monarch Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, because that phrase is either misleading or inappropriately capitalized (and thus in contravention of a very sensible point of the Manual of Style). Only proper titles are supposed to be capitalized, and Elizabeth does not hold the title "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms". If the word "queen" is meant to refer to each of the Commonwealth realms individually, with the UK emphasized, then it must be lowercase. Surtsicna (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
"Jobtitles" is only a guideline and has been seen is frequently challenged as it doesnt reflect the real world usage so apart from people who read the MOS everbody else would not have a problem with it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:JOBTITLES and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters are guidelines developed following long discussions and are based on proper usage in the "real world". Not capitalizing words such as "king", "president", and "bishop" in every instance as if they were somehow magical is basic orthography. Surtsicna (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
It may have taken a lot of discussion but is one of the many examples where wikipedia lives in a different world to most of its readers. MilborneOne (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Most readers of Wikipedia, and indeed most speakers of English, are not authorities on grammar, orthography, or style. The Manual of Style follows those who are. Surtsicna (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above ongoing discussion: the current version of the lead sentence wrongly presents Elizabeth as if she holds the non-existent title "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", contrary to standard English language grammar and usage, in or outside Wikipedia. Is it claimed that British English differs in this respect from American? Qexigator (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't do that at all. We've separate links to different articles, showing that it's not a single title. Why have you changed your position on this intro? GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
What change? My above stated comment in rebuttal to the double-link theory was "It should be possible for the sentence to be composed and read without relying on the awkward contrivance requiring the reader to go to one link after another in order to see the distinction between the Queen as constitutional monarch of UK, and separately as constitutional monarch of each one of the other realms. Edits after the removal of "constitutional" were preoccupied with other aspects, and we now have an opportunity to reconsider, and readopt, "constitutional" as a better way to make this short opening sentence be informative and accurate. It is more likely than not that "constitutional" was allowed to stay out due to inattention and/or inadvertence. DrKay's wording would give us:
"Elizabeth II... is Queen the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms."
This would be an improvement on the current version." Qexigator (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
You changed your position from months ago. When Canada, Australia, New Zealand were taken out of the intro, you had no problems with the now current intro. PS: Again - "the constitutional monarch of...", is a non-starter. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Please give links to what you are claiming. Qexigator (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
At this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The revision then under discussion was trimming away the list of realms from the then current version. That does nothing to support the double link theory in preference to the present proposal to correct the present version by replacing "Queen" and restoring "constitutional monarch". I think maybe you know that? Qexigator (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Forgive me, but your arguments aren't convincing me. The topic isn't known as Constitutional monarch Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I have seen nowhere a bona fide proposition that attempts to use "Constitutional monarch" as a recognized title comparable with "Queen". It would be unsurprising to see something like "The UK head of state, constitutional monarch Queen Elizabeth,...", a journalistic style comparable with "prime minister Mrs May" or "former prime minister Tony Blair". Qexigator (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Then what are you proposing? GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
As you have seen above, DrKay's wording would give us: "Elizabeth II... is Queen the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms." This would be an improvement on the current version. Qexigator (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
It would not be an improvement, as she's not known as Constitutional monarch Elizabeth II. For the proposal to work? the entire article would need to be 'page moved' to Queen Elizabeth II, with bold intro title also being changed to 'Queen Elizabeth II'. See Pope Francis intro, for example. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
That comment is based on an obviously false premise, and is not a reasoned answer for the purposes of the discussion. Pope Francis is totally irrelevant, and perhaps was mentioned tongue-in-cheek to signify that GoodDay is not willing to engage with others in resolving the point in question. Qexigator (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I still exist, here. So far, your arguments haven't convinced me. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
If by "non-starter", this term you keep repeating whenever you cannot or will not address reasonable arguments, means "an idea ... with no chance of success", then you ought to drop it, because the FA version of this article, as pointed out by DrKay, defined Elizabeth as a constitutional monarch, and the article continued to define her as such until you unilaterally reworded it. Surtsicna (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
We keep "Queen (or queen) of the United Kingdom", in the intro. She's not known as Constitutional monarch Elizabeth II. You wouldn't suggest replacing "president of the United States" (in the Donald Trump article), with "chief of state of the United States". GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this was/is primarily about capitalising Queen (and elsewhere President), rather than doing odd things to dodge those words. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support with no comma. Could also be "and of the other Commonwealth realms". There is no ambiguity in not specifying "each" of the other realms and doing so comes across as stilted. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with no comma and I was about to suggest the optional of, suggested by IvartheB above. All the other suggestions seem less clear, less concise and to deviate from standard practice (no one calls her 'constitutional monarch' - the opening sentence of this person article, is not the place to characterise her 'role' or 'legitimacy' - Donald Trump is the democratically elected head of state of etc?). Whilst technically, the capital Q might not apply to her 'other realms', its use IRO the UK, is not intrusive IMO and 'each' is stilted and does not clarify IMO. Pincrete (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: In view of the above discussion, here is an illustration to show why the sentence should be revised, preferably using DrKay's wording.

A publisher drafts Will Pedia's bio with the opening sentence

"Will Pedia is Chief Executive of Unicorp and the other Commoncorp entities".

Will Pedia, knowing the importance of accuracy for all concerned, objects that those words materially misrepresent him and Unicorp and the Commoncorp entities, because the wording, according to ordinary speech and grammatical construction, means that Will Pedia is the holder of a single corporate post titled "Chief Executive of Unicorp and the other Commoncorp entities", while in fact there is no such single post.

The publisher therefore agrees to change the sentence to read instead

"Will Pedia is the acknowledged figurehead of Unicorp and the other "Commoncorp" entities wherever they are located".

That corresponds with "Elizabeth II is the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" (where "constitutional monarch" were the words used in the featured revision of the article). Qexigator (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It's best we keep the intro we have & not change 'Queen' to 'Constitutional monarch'. As mentioned already by myself, she's known as Queen Elizabeth II, not Constitutional monarch Elizabeth II. What say the rest of you? GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree that 'Constitutional monarch' is clunky, offends WP:COMMONNAME, and is unnecessary. The proper place to characterise her 'role', is not the opening sentence, unless it be by means of a link. Pincrete (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the long-standing lead, would also support the alternative “Queen of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realms” (dropping “other” and capitalised Realms), and last choice would support a descriptive with comma to address folks who think it is confusing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Dropping "other" makes it look like the United Kingdom is not a Commonwealth realm. Capitalizing "queen" and "realm" is not proper orthography and strongly suggests that this descriptive phrase is Elizabeth's official title. The wording is already uncomfortably similar to an official title such as "Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories"; overcapitalizing words is the perfect way to make it worse. Surtsicna (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
User:Surtsicna “Queen of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realms” is putting forward a phrasing actually in use. One simple resolution to the concern of the WP-made construction with “other” seemed to just not use a compound construct with “other” and this is a similar alternative in RS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
No, that is not true - the title "Queen of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realms" is never used. It was basically invented by Wikipedia. That is why it is problematic. We are misleading our readers. Surtsicna (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, you can find it on the internet along with others that mention the Commonwealth.
The first one is a Wikipedia article. The wording was introduced by an anonymous user and is not found in the cited source. Another is a blog, and others confirm correct wordings that differ significantly from the present wording. "Queen of the United Kingdom and Head of the Commonwealth" is not nearly the same as "Queen of the United Kingdom and the [other] Commonwealth realms". As I said, the wording you suggested is not "actually in use". It is definitely not in official use, and if factual accuracy is not our primary concern, we may as well describe her as Queen of England. Surtsicna (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
User:Surtsicna You’re using but missng the point about these and a wide variety of others are actually in use — so one may actually consider RS and WEIGHT as opposed to places where the discussion here is OR crafting something novel. A wording seems demonstrated as a bad choice if google is unable to find anyone using it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Surtsicna's comment on capitalization is correct, and here is a good example of a correct use of capitalization, and of "constitutional monarch":
"What is the Queen's role? Elizabeth II is a constitutional monarch: that is, she is Britain's head of state, but her executive powers are limited by constitutional rules. Her role is mostly symbolic: she represents Britain on state visits and on ceremonial occasions. According to the royal website, her primary role is as a 'focus of national unity'. "[1]
Qexigator (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
She's not known as Constitutional monarch Elizabeth II, however. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
She is not known as "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms Elizabeth II" either. Surtsicna (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
"Queen of the United Kingdom" is linked to an article & "Commonwealth realms" is linked to another article. Therefore, it's not presented as one title. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Precisely because it is not one title, it is wrong to capitalize the word "queen", per every manual of style out there. Surtsicna (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I would agree to decapitalizing to 'queen', if we decapitalize in all monarchial & consort bio articles. Decapitalize to 'king', 'emperor', 'empress', 'grand duke' etc etc. It has to be across the board. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
There are instances where nouns such as king, queen, or duke should be capitalized. Decapitalizing all is as wrong as capitalizing all. Surtsicna (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
That's so, when going with (example) "King Edward VII", but not with "Edward VII, king of the United Kingdom...". GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (change lead to "constitutional monarch")

As part of the above discussion it has been proposed that the lead of this article be changed to the following:

"Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms."

Please discuss whether or not you would support this change. Brythones (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose, as she's known as Queen Elizabeth II, not Constitutional monarch Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Somewhat Oppose, I'm currently leaning towards opposing this proposal and retaining the current lead as Elizabeth II's primary title is "Queen of the United Kingdom" and this is the role she is best known for. In both legal and layman terms, Elizabeth is more widely known by her title of "Queen" rather than "constitutional monarch". The only other contemporary example of an individual being the head of state of multiple countries is Emmanuel Macron, whose Wikipedia article overwhelmingly focuses on his role as President of France, with only a passing reference to the fact that he is a Co-Prince of Andorra much later in the article (not mentioned in the lead of the article). Elizabeth's title in all of the Commonwealth realms is "Queen of [realm]" and her de facto primary title is Queen of the United Kingdom, so I don't see the problem in the lead of the article mentioning her by her primary title with reference to her other titles as well. Are there any further problems with the current lead? Brythones (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I am revising this from somewhat to fully opposed to the proposed changes due to a lack of compelling rationale in favour of the proposals. Brythones (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose - this seems doing something far outside RS just to avoid the word “Queen”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support As said above (Oppose 3), "Surtsicna's comment on capitalization is correct, and here is a good example of a correct use of capitalization, and of "constitutional monarch":
"What is the Queen's role? Elizabeth II is a constitutional monarch: that is, she is Britain's head of state, but her executive powers are limited by constitutional rules. Her role is mostly symbolic: she represents Britain on state visits and on ceremonial occasions. According to the royal website, her primary role is as a 'focus of national unity'. "[2]"
Qexigator (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Again, she's not known as Constitutional monarch Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Again, she nevertheless is a constitutional monarch. Surtsicna (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
As are her immediate predecessors & many of the other recent/current monarchs around the world. But we don't use 'constitutional monarch' as a title. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
But we do use "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" as a title? Surtsicna (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
No we don't. "Queen of the United Kingdom" is linked to List of British monarchs, while "Commonwealth realms" is linked to Commonwealth realm. Therefore, not one title. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The word "queen" relates to both the United Kingdom and to the Commonwealth realms. Links cannot change the meaning of a sentence. Get real. The words are the same whether they are blue or black or red or rainbow colored. Surtsicna (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
You & I are obviously in disagreement on that matter. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
You disagree that the word "queen" relates to both the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms? Surtsicna (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", is all one title. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
If it's not all one title, then all manuals of style and rules of orthography call for the word "queen" to be decapitalized. Surtsicna (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
See proposal 8. GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose see Proposal 6 below for a compromise... Firebrace (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5 (change lead to acknowledge that there are 15 Commonwealth realms)

I propose that the lead of the article be changed to the following:

My rationale for this is that Elizabeth II operates independently as the Queen of 16 sovereign states. The current lead as it stands demerits the sovereignty "the other Commonwealth realms" and Elizabeth's role as Queen of those 15 other realms. Brythones (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Support: for the reasons I have set out above. Brythones (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This 5th proposal (as corrected) is to read "Elizabeth II ... is Queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms"; but this differs from her formal title in the UK, which is "....of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen...", not "....of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of the other Commonwealth realms ". Thus, to leave the wording as " the 15 other Commonwealth realms", while seeming to present a sufficient paraphrase of the formal wording, would fail to cover "her other territories". The best wording so far proposed on this page is to restore the indisputably descriptive wording: "Elizabeth II... is Queenthe constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms." Qexigator (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Good point, I agree "...the 15 other Commonwealth realms" is an improvement. Brythones (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Replacing 'Queen' with 'Constitutional monarch' is a non-starter. Again, she's known as Queen Elizabeth II; not Constitutional monarch Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
It has a head start as favourite in the Royal Ascot races and Windsor carriage drive event, and the Orthography Stakes. Qexigator (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
User:Brythones - p.s. but the number also makes me think it should mention that Her Majesty The Queen is Head of the Commonwealth, the voluntary association of 53 nations. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Errors of spelling, orthography and punctuation should be corrected, as neatly as possible in the context. Qexigator (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
That should go without saying. Unfortunately, an attempt to do just that has turned into this. Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
As mentioned before, tinkering with the intro, merely opens up a can of worms. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Correcting an error of orthography should never be controversial. This "can of worms" only exists because you, GoodDay, made it so; because you value consistency more than grammar, orthography, style, clarity, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Want to lowercase 'Queen of the United Kingdom' to 'queen of the United Kingdom'? - conditionally acceptable. Changing 'Queen of the United Kingdom' to 'Constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom'? unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
No, "Queen of the United Kingdom" should be capitalized. It is a proper title. What should not be capitalized are descriptive phrases such as "queen of the Commonwealth realms", "queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", "queen of 16 realms", "queen of Britain", "queen of the UK, Canada, and 14 more countries", etc. Surtsicna (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we have "Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc etc"? GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
No. Surtsicna (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 6 (compromise)

Having read the other proposals, I'd be interested to know your thoughts about this version of the opening sentence:

Queen Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926)[a] is the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and of the other 15 Commonwealth realms.

Firebrace (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose as we don't use King or Queen in the intro of monarch bio articles in that manner. 'Queen' isn't a part of her name & again, for the rest of it, she's not known as Constitutional monarch Elizabeth II. It's best, that we stop trying to fiddle around with the intro. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Question The current first sentence conforms with the articles for her once regnant predecessors by using the name and number only, without "King/ Queen". Is the exception in Proposal 6 because they are deceased, but Elizabeth is alive? Qexigator (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    Other articles would also be changed if we are to go down this "... is the constitutional monarch" route... Firebrace (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Which would open another problem. At one point do we stop using the descriptive constitutional monarch & use absolute monarch? Best to leave the intro the way it is. Furthermore, we're talking about all monarch bios, not just British. Just like the UK monarchy, all other current monarchies evolved to what they are today. There was no immediate change from absolute to constitutional monarch. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this over the current state because it is reasonable; at the very least, the orthography is on point. This is a featured article and some standards should be maintained. Surtsicna (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggestion I believe the proposal should be altered slightly to: "Queen Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926)[a] is the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms" as this is better use of prose and more precise as to her role in the other Commonwealth Realms. With these changes I would support the proposal, otherwise I am opposed pending further discussion. Brythones (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
No, as she's not known as Constitutional monarch Elizabeth II or Queen constitutional monarch Elizabeth II or Constitutional monarch queen Elizabeth II.
For example, we don't have "President Donald Trump (born 14 June 1946) is the chief executive of the United States" GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fails to conform with existing convention to begin the articles for English/GB/ UK monarchs by name and number but no title King/Queen from Edward the Confessor to Elizabeth's father. Qexigator (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - not conforming to normal RS, presents her title without saying queen of what, and functionally being the constitutional monarch does not exist on its own but is dependent on being the Queen of the United Kingdom. Does not seem like a compromise from either side. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 7 (fix lead)

How about add a comma

Oppose - Have 'Queen', then next to it a link of 'Queen'? I think it's best we keep the current intro. PS- In the current intro, I would support decapitalizing 'Queen' if we decapitalize 'King', 'Queen', 'Emperor', 'Empress' etc etc in all the monarchial & consort bios via WP:JOBTITLES. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Rules of orthography, as well as WP:JOBTITLES, require that those nouns be capitalized in some cases and decapitalized in other. Consistency is a virtue, but it should never override accuracy, grammar, or orthography. Surtsicna (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 8 (lowercase)

Try this - "..is queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms".

I'd go with this, if we lowercase for all monarchial bios across Wikipedia (note: I've an ongoing Rfc at WP:ROY concerning this matter). A simple lower-casing of Queen, is better then twisting the entire intro. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Using lower case in every instance is as wrong as using upper case in every instance. Lower case should be used when lower case is required, and upper case when upper case is required. When defining Victoria, it is appropriate to use upper case for "Queen of the United Kingdom" and "Empress of India". Those were her proper titles and offices. When defining Elizabeth II, it is not appropriate to use upper case for "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" because not one of Elizabeth's many titles mentions "Commonwealth realms". Stop forcing consistency when it leads to mistakes. Surtsicna (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
There's no single title currently in the intro, as Queen of the United Kingdom & Commonwealth realms are linked to separate articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Whether it is all one title or a contraction of two ("Queen of the United Kingdom and queen of the other Commonwealth realms"), the word "queen" should not be capitalized because it refers to both the UK and the other Commonwealth realms. Surtsicna (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Decapitalize here, then we decapitalize on the others. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
No, on others it is correct to capitalize. Elizabeth is the only one defined as queen of Commonwealth realms. Surtsicna (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
She's not queen of Commonwealth realms. There's no such country by that name. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
There is no such country but she nevertheless is queen of Commonwealth realms (the countries of which she is queen being Commonwealth realms) and we already define her as such anyway. By capitalizing the word "queen", however, we are implying that Commonwealth realms are a country or at the very least that "Commonwealth realms" figure somewhere in her official title. It is not and they do not. The capitalization is thus misleading as well as plainly wrong from an orthographical perspective. Surtsicna (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
She's not queen of the Commonwealth realms. She's Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
You are saying that Elizabeth is not queen of Commonwealth realms but that she is queen of the UK (which is a Commonwealth realm) and the other Commonwealth realms? Your logic is dumbfounding me. Are you trolling or do you honestly not see the incoherence in your words? I hope Qexigator can help me make heads and tails out of this. Surtsicna (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
She is Queen of the United Kingdom, of Canada, of Australia, of New Zealand etc etc. Since we've decided not to list the 15 non-UK realms, we went with "and the other Commonwealth realms" The UK & the other Commonwealth realms are linked to SEPARATE articles, thus it's not a single title. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, the color of letters does not change the meaning of words and sentences. Secondly, whether or not it's a single title is irrelevant. We are currently defining Elizabeth as queen of the Commonwealth realms, one of which is listed separately for emphasis. This is a descriptive phrase rather than an official title, and so it is wrong to capitalize it. Surtsicna (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
As I understand it, we are agreed that Elizabeth is Queen of the United Kingdom, and at the same time Queen/ monarch/ soverereign of each one of the other realms, severally not jointly. But there is more than one way of putting the information into writing, and at the same time conforming with the title cap. rule of standard orthography. However, Proposal 9 accepts that the current version can sensibly be seen as written using an ellipsis, that is, leaving out a repetition of the word Q/queen. My own preference, stated above, would be to tweak the wording, and not rely on ellipsis here, but at least one other respected and experienced editor feels that is unnecessary, presumably because he is tacitly relying on the ellipsis as sufficient, in this place and in point of readability and style, to save the wording from undue ambiguity. Qexigator (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll repeat again. I'll agree to "queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" if & only if, we decapitalize for all the monarchs & consorts. I oppose attempts to differentiate this 'one' bio article's intro from the others, in the manner you propose. PS: I suggest you open an RFC on this topic for this article, if your concern is 'only' this article's intro. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

And I will repeat again that decapitalizing all is also poor orthography. Do you not understand that some words need to be upper case and some need to be lower case? Elizabeth is already differentiated from the others in that she is the only one defined by something other than her proper title. And once again, your stubborn insistence on consistency at the expense of grammar, orthography, accuracy, and common sense, to the point of waging edit wars, is so detrimental to this project that I am seriously considering requesting arbitration about this behavior. Surtsicna (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Your argument allows for "king of the United Kingdom" & "emperor of India", in the intro of George VI (for example). GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
No. "King of the United Kingdom" and "Emperor of India" are proper titles. "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" and "queen of the Commonwealth realms" are not. Proper titles are capitalized, while descriptive phrases are not. Surtsicna (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
You & I are simply not on the same page (so to speak) & so I'm gonna let others chime in. Still think an Rfc would be best. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I haven't bee edit warring on this topic. PS: You would threaten an editor with Arbitration, just to win an argument? I haven't been the only editor objecting to your proposal. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
You are constantly edit warring to achieve consistency. You prevent editors from fixing obvious problems (e.g. the papal biographies) because you value consistency more than anything else. You have literally told me that I must not correct one article without correcting hundreds of others. It's a constant hindering of the improvement of the encyclopedia. Surtsicna (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
This back-and-forth between us two, isn't doing either of us any good. I'm gonna let other chime in. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
User:GoodDay or we can just give the current titles in coronation order “Queen of the United Kingdom, Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia, Queen of New Zealand, Queen of Jamaica, Queen of Barbados, Queen of The Bahamas...” finishing with “, and Head of the Commonwealth”. And capitalised Q since this is the Queen’s English. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm thinking of proposing "Queen of the United Kingdom" with a footnote listing the 15 other Commonwealth realms. Keep in mind, whatever the intro here, would be the type of intro fro Charles' intro, when he ascends the throne. (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - she is widely referred to as Queen and this practice is prevent throughout Wikipedia. Brythones (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
And "their" is widely spelled as "they're" or "there". It is difficult to imagine a more ridiculous application of an argumentum ad populum. Surtsicna (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - this is more of what wrong we started with. Get over it being capitalised Q and that one must say queen of what. Queen of the United Kingdom is best known, and other than WP playing silly buggers about it being a JOBTITLE and their latest edit change overriding coronation, law, usage, and worldwide press we would have left it the way it was for years and saved all this. Markbassett (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 9 (the elliptical reading, no change)

If (in another context, not in this article) every word of the sentence were written in capitals, the orthography question would not appear. Similarly, the orthographic question is invisible in the current version of the article when the sentence is read with the two words "queen of" as implicit, but elliptically omitted:

"Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom and ['queen of' elliptically implicit] the other Commonwealth realms".

Qexigator (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. PS: Why is this proposal in a separate section? GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Now moved here. The elliptical reading = no change. and no need for further discussion of the orthography question. Qexigator (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Clarify, what is a 'elliptically implicit'? Can we have an example of what you're proposing? GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
As you can see, this proposal is for no change to current version, and no need for further discussion. There is a Wikipedia article on ellipsis, and easy-read definitions on the internet.Qexigator (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I need a visual example. You seem to be proposing having "the other Commonwealth realms" placed in a footnote, next to "Queen of the United Kingdom". GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
"As you can see" above is not to be taken to refer to your optical capacity, but is a common figure of speech referring to normal capacity for intelligent reading, both on this page and elsewhere. I doubt whether I can help you further on this point. Qexigator (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
You are asking us to pretend that the sentence contains words it does not contain so that we can, with a clearer conscience, capitalize a word we should not capitalize. I do not think that solves any problems. Surtsicna (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Surtsicna: It is not a pretence in the current version of the article, nor is your point about the correct use of caps. I am sure you will know that ellipsis is a long-standing figure of speech, recognized as such in the Wikipedia article: "In linguistics, ellipsis (from the Greek: ἔλλειψις, élleipsis, "omission") or an elliptical construction is the omission from a clause of one or more words that are nevertheless understood in the context of the remaining elements. There are numerous distinct types of ellipsis acknowledged in theoretical syntax. This article provides an overview of them. Theoretical accounts of ellipsis can vary greatly depending in part upon whether a constituency-based or a dependency-based theory of syntactic structure is pursued." The links to Phrase structure grammar and Dependency grammar could be interesting in themselves, but are too far off topic to entertain in the present discussion here. See also Wiktionary, [15] meaning 2.Qexigator (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
+PS Admittedly, so far as I know, the theory of syntactic grammar has not yet covered the distinction where the same word should, orhtographically, be capitalized in one place in a sentence but not in the other. (As it happens, the previous sentence is an example of ellipsis: it is painless and flows easily when writing and reading.) But let us not extend the inquiry or academic discussion further into linguistics, semantics and semiotics, and comparison of words as spoken and as written, and varieties of writing conventions. Qexigator (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Qexigator: The problem can be solved by including an extra "of" in the sentence, like so: Queen of the United Kingdom and of the 15 other Commonwealth realms". That is functionally the same as writing "Queen of the United Kingdom and Queen of the 15 other Commonwealth realms". Firebrace (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that would be more prefered by me, but it still relies on ellipsis, and inserting "of" may bother one of our long-standing and respected editors. Qexigator (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Clarify, "Queen of the United Kingdom and of the other Commonwealth realms"? GoodDay (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
without the comma after queen it's wrong it should be "queen, of the United Kingdom and of the other Commonwealth realms" lowercase per WP:JOBTITLES as done by all US presidents per new guidelines. עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Would this be the case for the other British monarch bios & for that matter the Swedish, Danish, Norwegian etc monarch bios? Decapitalize for all? GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
why not all the president and vice presidents pages were changed עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, they should all be decapitalized. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
If that is the case, they should be changed back to President and Vice President. Firebrace (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
It should be capitalised, Queen of the United Kingdom. That is proper grammar in the Queens English.  ;-) No comma. Not a job nor a JOBTITLE, that’s a royal title. If folks want a RFC on should it be “queen of the United Kingdom” vs “Queen of the United Kingdom” to get a !vote feel for how settled or not it is would be fine. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
yes when it is Queen of the United Kingdom that is a title but over here it isn't because afterwards it says "and the other Commonwealth realms" is that another title? without the comma after queen queen is not going on "and the other Commonwealth realms" but if it says queen comma and also "of" then it means Queen of the United Kingdom and Queen of the other Commonwealth Realms. עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support No change; lead is fine. This hand-wringing over the (non-)potential for misunderstanding, and navel-gazing over whether to decapitalize a word or insert a comma, is bonkers. There are far more productive things we all could be doing with our time on Wikipedia... Firebrace (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ... hand-wringing over whether to decapitalize a word which is not in the current version or insert a comma to prevent an abnormal or unlikely misreading, is not worth further discussion here. As the contributor who opened this section, I propose that it now be treated as closed (with thanks to all who helpfully participated). If anyone wishes to start again with any proposal to alter the lead opening sentence, please open a new section for the purpose. Qexigator (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

We may need an Rfc

You've all chimed in before - : @Brythones:, @SergeWoodzing:, @Dimadick:, @MilborneOne:, @Ivar the Boneful:, @DrKay:, @Markbassett:, @Firebrace:, @AmYisroelChai: - so take another look. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Not needed here, given Proposal (9), no change. Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe. It’s not needed for here when it’s staying Queen of the United Kingdom, but if someone wants a reading on how solid or how wide the feeling is for capitalised.... that might be a reason to RFC. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

References

References

  1. ^ "Britain's monarchy", The Guardian, 16 May 2002. [1]
  2. ^ "Britain's monarchy", The Guardian, 16 May 2002. [2]
  3. ^ "Britain's monarchy". The Guardian. 16 May 2002.

Capitalization of the word "queen"

WP:JOBTITLES says that words such as "queen" or "president" are capitalized when referring to an official title and not when the title is a reworded description. Capitalizing the word "queen" in the lead sentence of this article is wrong because Elizabeth has never held the title "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms". This is a reworded description. Capitalizing it makes it look like an official title, such as "Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories". Surtsicna (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

We've been capitalizing for the other British monarchs. Why single out this one bio? Also, Queen of the United Kingdom is linked to Monarchy of the United Kingdom & other Commonwealth realms is linked to Commonwealth realm. I don't know where you're getting the idea, that the title is all in one. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
For other monarchs it may be correct, but here it is not. That is why I am singling out this biography. I am getting the idea that the title is all in one from the capitalization of the word queen. I have explained it in detail in my first comment, citing a guideline and an example of Elizabeth's actual title. The words can link to field hockey but the capitalization will still be wrong. Surtsicna (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. The separate links clearly show that it's not all one title. Just like in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Yet the inappropriate capitalization suggests that it is all one title. The word "queen" is capitalized in the infobox because it is the first word. Per WP:JOBTITLES, it is wrong to capitalize it in the lead sentence. Elizabeth is titled neither Queen of Commonwealth realms nor Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. Surtsicna (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with you. The opening sentence via the two links, clearly separates her titles, just like in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Separates which titles? Surtsicna (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
We've got Queen of the United Kingdom and we've got Commonwealth realms. Two separate links, that show it's not a single title. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
And therein lies the problem. Elizabeth is not "Queen of the Commonwealth realms". There are no titles in the lead to separate, therefore the noun "queen" should not be capitalized. That's just poor orthography, and I cannot see how WP:JOBTITLES could be any clearer about this. Surtsicna (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Where are you getting this Queen of the Commonwealth realms at? GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
From the lead sentence. It says "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms". If, as you say, the separate links show it's not a single title, then surely it is a contraction of two titles - "Queen of the United Kingdom" and "Queen of the [other] Commonwealth realms", one of which does not exist. Surtsicna (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

If you want to delete "...and the other Commonwealth realms" from the intro, then go ahead. Though, I suspect others will oppose that move. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not want to do that. I want to change "Queen" to "queen" in order to indicate that this is not a formal title but a reworded description, per WP:JOBTITLES. Surtsicna (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Will you leave the links in? and decapitalize on the intros of the other monarch bios, at least the British ones? GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I suppose the links are fine, though there is some inconsistency between them. As for other monarchs, if it's the same situation, then yes. I suspect that will be the case. Surtsicna (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
If you're going to decapitalze here (per WP:JOBTITLES)? then I'll decapitalize on the others per JOBTITLES. I would however, rather we wait for input here from other editors. Would be a waste of time to make changes at the English/Scottish & other British monarch bios, if a consensus isn't reached here for what you're calling for. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You really should get a consensus at WP:ROY, before decapitalizing here. There's an ongoing Rfc at WP:ROY. Why not wait for its result, next month? GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Because there already is a guideline, developed after extensive discussion about this very issue, and no apparent opposition at WP:ROY either. People are genuinely surprised that you are making such a big deal out of this. Surtsicna (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Then you wouldn't object, if I decapitaliz the rest of the British monarchs & their English/Scottish predecessors? GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
User:GoodDay - Tosh. I would and do object, the correct usage is capitalised “Queen of the United Kingdom” per the text saying titles are, and also by external grammar, official documentation, and RS the guide should convey better. That there is a MOS contradiction at an example for President Trump, or that this article has miswording at the later title of her List of titles and honours of Elizabeth II as Head of the Commonwealth and not Queen of it should not corrupt the first title. Please do NOT change case in a lot of articles without wider discussion. I have started one at the TALK for WP:NCROY, please add other venues if you can think of more. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Markbassett, the problem is that numerous discussions about how to define Elizabeth have resulted in the current wording of the lead sentence. To be precise, some users are very insistent (and I do not disagree with them) that Elizabeth should be defined not just as Queen of the United Kingdom but also as queen of all the realms of which she is queen. That is why we define her as queen "of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms". But obviously there is no such title as "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", which is what the capitalization of the word queen implies. It is not a proper title but a descriptive one, like "Elizabeth II is queen of 16 realms." Surtsicna (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Surtsicna that “Queen of the United Kingdom” is to be capitalised seems agreed, so whether the rest of it needs adjusting to “Queen of the United Kingdom, and queen of the other Commonwealth realms” (1 title, 1 descriptive) or “Queen of the United Kingdom, and Head of the Commonwealth” (2 titles) or something else to form two phrases is a different discussion. Making it two wrongs would not make it right. The first is clearly a title that should be capitalised. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
No, I do not think the word "queen" should be capitalized whenever referring to the United Kingdom. It should only be capitalized when it is just "Queen of the United Kingdom". When it is referring to the UK and other realms together, it should not be, i.e. "queen of the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia" or "queen of the Commonwealth realms" or "queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms". Surtsicna (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe going back to "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", would be best. Thinking too hard, can create problems. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

This discussion kinda got tangled into the (now closed) below discussion. GoodDay (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The reason for closing the below discussion was that decapitalizing the word as had been proposed orthographically was unnecessary, given that grammatically the sentence could be taken as composed elliptically.[16] Qexigator (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

List of formal titles

Isn't necessary here: they are all listed at List of titles and honours of Elizabeth II already. DrKay (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Photograph

The main photo for the article is 4 years old now. Will it be updated? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Has she changed a lot? Surtsicna (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

House of Windsor

Can we see that Elizabeth II is member of the House of Windsor ? 77.191.152.4 (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It's shown in the infobox, categories and 'Titles and succession' box at the end. It's also discussed in the 'Accession and coronation' section. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Queen Elizabeth II listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:Queen Elizabeth II. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

"Senior politicians were against the match and the Church of England did not permit remarriage after divorce." Wasn't the *entire point* of the Church of England to allow exactly this? I thought that was precisely the reason Henry VIII created the Church of England, so he could remarry... and then remarry... and then remarry... MrAureliusRTalk! 12:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

He wasn't actually divorced. His marriages were annulled. An annulled marriage is treated as if it had not taken place and the children of such a "marriage" are illegitimate. In a divorce, the original marriage is still valid and the children are legitimate. DrKay (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Expenses

User:Jkaharper twice removed a sentence I added to the opening paragraphs: "Public funds used by the Queen for official expenditure and duties in 2018 were £47.4 million.[1]". The user's argument is "No other world leader, be they monarch, President, PM etc has a costing of their duties in the opening paragraph". I would argue other politicians and world leaders have their salaries and net worths included in their infoboxes. Indeed there is a designated field for such information in infobox code. With monarchs, pinning down a salary becomes rather meaningless and a fruitless task. While we don't have full transparency over royal finances in the United Kingdom, we do have a figure for the amount of public funds used by the Queen for official expenditure and duties. I believe this is relevant. In the absence of a formal salary, I believe a stipendiary or expense figure should be used instead. Uhooep (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Queen's taxpayer-funded costs up 13% in 2017-18". BBC News. 28 June 2018. Retrieved 12 May 2019.
It's inappropriate. This is a biography of the woman not a discussion of the monarchy. The finances section is more than sufficient; indeed, I would argue that it's excessive. DrKay (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Clearly not needed in the lead as the public funds are related to the Royal Household not directly to the monarch. MilborneOne (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I completely disagree with both comments. I believe this information is highly relevant and directly attributable to Elizabeth. She could just as easily decide to accept £0 from the pubic purse, but she does not. Uhooep (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Are you sure, you do realise Elizabeth does not receive anything from the public purse. MilborneOne (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Uhooep you also need to note that re-adding the bit to the lead while this discussion is still open is not good form and could be considered to be disruptive editing, suggest you revert until you get a consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I moved it to a different section of the article specifically related to finances. Uhooep (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Verbiage: multiple monarchies? or multiple kingdoms? or both?

The verbiage on here basically goes with the concept of 'multiple' monarchies or multiple crowns and almost like a single kingdom. But in actually wouldn't it be a single Monarch (and thus a single monarchy + royal family) reigning over 'multiple' separate kingdoms? or is it both?

i.e. the UNITED Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland backs the concept of a single kingdom. Therefore wouldn't the other realms be separate kingdoms but a same shared Monarch (and thus shared Monarchy)? CaribDigita (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Oldest head of state

Queen Elisabeth II is NOT the longest lived head of state - Mahathir Mohamad, the PM of Malaysia, is. However, I cannot edit this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Scone (talk • contribs) 12:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive_39&oldid=916267436"