Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Splitting up the Reign section into standalone sections

I made a bold edit to split up the Reign section into standalone sections and @Peter Ormond reverted my edit, telling me to discuss it on the talk page so here I am. Queen Victoria's reign is split up into multiple sections without including a section for reign while Elizabeth's has her own dedicated section describing her reign despite reigning longer than any previous British monarch. I think it makes sense to split up her reign into multiple sections so that we highlight different sections of her reign. Interstellarity (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• I believe the sub-sections are more appropiate as they aren't separate reigns, but one continous event. Besides, it makes navigation easier. EmilySarah99 (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• I think we should do the same for Queen Victoria. I tried putting her reign into one section, but was reverted by another editor saying the section is too long. What do you think about that article, EmilySarah99 Interstellarity (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

3O I say keep the current format. I don't see a good enough reason to copy the format of Queen Victoria's article. But @Interstellarity you're welcome to elaborate on how you think the article would be improved with that structure, rather than just WP:OTHERSTUFF. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Charles III linked twice in the lead again

Why does this keep happening? Charles doesn't need to be linked in the lead twice. 92.30.72.123 (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Removed. I've added a hidden note so that anyone adding it can be told there is already a link. DeCausa (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2022

Maybe add the “more citations needed” template? The first citation comes after a lot of information, although citations are frequent for the rest of the article. GenZenny (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The lead section in an article generally does not need inline citations, see MOS:LEADCITE. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2022

Elizabeth 2nd was 96 when she died not 15 as stated in her page 94.1.208.21 (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It says she was queen of 15 states, not 15 years old. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 10:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Queen was 15 when she died?

Was she really? So much for locking the page from vandalism. 2A02:C7C:C030:7400:9011:C08A:A3E1:8226 (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Answered above - read the para more carefully: She was queen regnant of 32 sovereign states during her lifetime, 15 [of them] at the time of her death. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Prince Philip's name in infobox

I have changed it to read "Philip Mountbatten", since this was has name before marriage...this style matches how other royal spouses are listed in infoboxes. It could also read "Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark", but it should not read "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh", for the same reason that George VI's infobox calls his wife "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon", not "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother".DieOuTransvaal (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

He was Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, before his marriage. His style of Royal Highness and the dukedom were confirmed just before the wedding. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Would Philip, Duke of Edinburgh be more accurate? As he wasn't made a British prince until 1957. GoodDay (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

No, he was "Lieutenant His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten", just like the Queen Mother was "Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" but the "Lady" is omitted in George VI's infobox. DieOuTransvaal (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This is basically the same issue that has been discussed elsewhere like Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex/Archive 5#Mother's name. To repeat my comments there: Please use the highest style they had by inheritance or personal gift, so Lady Diana Spencer, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Queen Elizabeth II, etc. Philip's wife was called Princess Elizabeth on her marriage but we don't call her Princess Elizabeth in his infobox. We use the highest style of that individual in their own right. And, if further clarification is necessary, the highest title of that individual in their own right during the lifetime of the article subject. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@DieOuTransvaal: Philip was created Duke of Edinburgh before the wedding. GoodDay (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

He was created Duke of Edinburgh with other subsidiary titles and granted style Royal Highness on the previous day of the wedding, but not created a Prince of UK and he was already renounced his Greek and Danish Princely titles. So his title before the marriage was "Lt. HRH Sir Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh, etc" , thus before marriage name should be "Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh". However those changes were done for the marriage (even though dukedom was for his own legitimate heirs male) , therefore "Philip of Greece and Denmark" which he used until early same year is also appropriate. Chamika1990 (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

"Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark" would be a good choice. 06:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DieOuTransvaal (talk • contribs)

Infobox Queen Link

In the infobox, the Queen of the UK link redirects to royal consorts. It should redirect to monarchs. Can someone please fix this? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've changed it. DeCausa (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

It's because of a change to the redirect itself. The title should still redirect to Monarchy of the United Kingdom. The latter article is not about monarchs themselves after all. Surtsicna (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realise that someone had only just messed about with the redirect, which is why I pipelinked to Monarchy of the United Kingdom. Now the redirect has been rrestored, all good. Thanks Surtsicna. DeCausa (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

We'll have to keep an eye on the IP, who initially changed the re-direct to the wrong page. My sense is the IP-in-question, was a tad confused. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

Does anyone else find that "(list)" part of the infobox strange? It does not look visually appealing to me. What if List of sovereign states headed by Elizabeth II was linked to "other", like shown below:

Elizabeth II/Archive 47
Head of the Commonwealth
Formal photograph, 1958
Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms
Reign	6 February 1952 – 8 September 2022
Coronation	2 June 1953
Predecessor	George VI
Successor	Charles III

Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, its small and out of the way. Doing so the way you propose would create a piped link which is unadvised. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 14:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for responding! Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2022

There is a comma that is not needed.

Change: "During the Platinum Jubilee celebrations, Elizabeth was largely confined to balcony appearances, and missed the National Service of Thanksgiving."

To: "During the Platinum Jubilee celebrations, Elizabeth was largely confined to balcony appearances and missed the National Service of Thanksgiving." Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any difference. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry. I have fixed it to make a difference. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah I see. THis makes more sense however the comma there may be some sort of british english thin. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done The punctuation differences of British English seem to be mostly related to quotation marks from what I found here, so I made the change. But if any new info comes up, feel free to restore the old version. TimSmit (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The photo

As an ordinary member of the public, the photo is terrible. Please change to a photo from when she was in her nineties or eighties (how she is currently remembered) or to the coronation photo (which is the best historical one). The one chosen is just not very good at all. 86.150.46.183 (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Personally I agree, but for some reason the mediocre 1958 image has a fan club.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The current photo is quite good in my humble opinion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree. This is a story about her whole life, and a mid-life image represents that better than one from an extreme of age or youth. We already had a lot of discussion on this, not very long ago, and the current image represents the consensus. Thparkth (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

No, it is a very bad photo. The argument that it is at mid point is senseless because that is not a point from mid point. Would make sense to choose a photo from the mid 60s or early 1970s. This is just a very poor random photo. Also, you do not choose photos for historical figures like that. Most pictures with other monarchs have a prominent historical photo. Others have photos as the person was when they died. Use the coronation photo when she was 27 or photo near the end of her life. That one is just utterly dreadful.--86.149.15.109 (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, we did have a very extensive discussion about photo choice, and the current article reflects the consensus of that discussion. What confuses me though is why you describe it as "a very poor random photo", "utterly dreadful" and not "a prominent historical photo". Are we talking about the same picture? You do mean this one, right? It is an official portrait of the Queen in full regalia, from the time of her historical tour of Canada and the USA. It isn't some random polaroid snapshot. Thparkth (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Is the photo currently in use taken in 1958 or 1959 (?

The photo in the article is from 1958

But the file information says the photo is from 1959

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Queen_Elizabeth_II_official_portrait_for_1959_tour_(retouched)_(cropped)_(3-to-4_aspect_ratio).jpg 2401:E180:88E0:2978:72F0:63D1:3F33:8140 (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Is the queen in this picture taken as the queen of canada or as the queen of england

In which capacity is she taking the official photo 61.216.108.177 (talk) 05:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

There hasn't been a King or Queen of England since 1707. I believe you likely meant United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask is this an official photo of the Queen as Queen of Canada? 2401:E180:88E1:5E08:AE9E:8B23:2873:E511 (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Or is this an official photo of the Queen as Queen of United Kingdom? 61.216.108.177 (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Elizabeth of the United Kingdom (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• English language weekly newspapers from the 50s with Elizabeth II on the cover.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Cause of death

https://www.bolnews.com/royal-family/2022/11/real-cause-of-queen-elizabeths-death-exposed/ Queen had cancer! I am a Green Bee (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Not really suitable. I saw this in the news over the weekend and it involves Gyles Brandreth who has a new book out, Elizabeth: An Intimate Portrait, in which he says that the Queen had multiple myeloma and this was the cause of her death. Closer examination shows that Brandreth relies on hearsay and cannot/will not give a direct source for this. So it isn't worth adding.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This needs better sourcing before we can add something like that. And it still remains that the "official" cause of death is what's listed on her death certificate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Heard about this, during the last few weeks of her life. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems that her cause of death was due to old age, per sources Washington Post, The New York Times, BBC. Adog (Talk・Cont) 04:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem is, no one dies of old age. It is a polite fiction. There is always a specific cause. But until a reliable source provides details, "old age" is what we have to say. Thparkth (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

In Scotland, where the Queen died, old age is a perfectly valid cause for a doctor to write on a death certificate. And that's what her doctor did. HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It is permitted, but it is still not accurate[1][2]; as I said, it is a polite fiction. The Scottish guidance that permits it does also warn "You should however seek to avoid such ill defined terms."[3] This is all irrelevant to the article though. Thparkth (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Until reliable sources tells us anything further? it's "old age" GoodDay (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

First monarch to die in Scotland for 480 years

I would like.an interesting fact.to be added that the Queen was the first monarch to.die in Scotland for 480 years. JOEYTHEVIMSANTEPOET (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It's already in the article. DrKay (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. JOEYTHEVIMSANTEPOET (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Religion

Should we include her religion in the infobox? Consensus is to include it for her father George VI and her son Charles III. Векочел (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't know why it's included in George VI & Charles III's infoboxes. Are they included in all the British monarch infoboxes & their predecessors, the English, Scottish, Irish & Welsh monarch infoboxes? GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

No, but perhaps it should be included for all the English and British monarchs since Henry VIII. The monarch is the head of the Church of England, which seems like an important religious role. Векочел (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

What about the Scottish, Irish & Welsh monarchs? GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any evidence that their religious beliefs were particularly significant, but it can be added for particular monarchs if it is significant for them. Векочел (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I checked over the bios of Henry VIII through Anne, then George I through Charles III. Nearly all the English & British monarch bios mention their religion. Some most say Protestant or Anglican, while one or two say Catholic. So, I've no objections to adding Elizabeth II's religion to her infobox. Besides, the religion in mentioned in both her immediate predecessors & successors' infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It should be 'Anglican' or 'Church of England' rather than Protestant. Protestant is very broad & Anglicanism isn't really Protestant it's more of its own thing being the middle-way between Catholicism & Protestantism. TheFriendlyFas2 (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It's used to avoid having to list both her religions. DrKay (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the religion section should be listed as "Protestantism (Anglican) איתן קרסנטי (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't include the second religion. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Formal photograph time

Is the photo currently in use taken in 1958 or 1959 (? The photo in the article is from 1958 But the file information says the photo is from 1959 Is this an article error

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Queen_Elizabeth_II_official_portrait_for_1959_tour_(retouched)_(cropped)_(3-to-4_aspect_ratio).jpg 2401:E180:88E0:2978:72F0:63D1:3F33:8140 2401:E180:88E0:CB31:5BF0:4718:6BAA:9111 (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Peter Ormond, who indicated that the photograph was taken in 1958. Peter, can you clarify where you go this information? The source page for the image indicates the photo is from 1959, though I can understand if the date refers to the date of publication and not the date the photo was taken. However, we need some kind of source to back this date up since several editors have challenged this. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it probably was taken in 1958 (per similarity in setting, costume and style to another shoot that was definitely in 1958) but since our source says 1959, and WP:NOTTRUTH etc... we should say 1959. Thparkth (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide photos similar to what you are talking about? 61.216.108.177 (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 46#Infobox pic date. Peter Ormond 💬 11:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Your guess may be right, but Wikipedia in other languages ​​is written in 1959 according to the file name, and the more detailed information of the file cannot be confirmed. 2401:E180:88E0:C1D:45A2:6ED5:8519:218A (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

According to your idea, do you need to adjust or supplement information 61.216.108.177 (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Thparkth that absent a reliable source that expressly says the photo is from 1958 (and there doesn't appear to be any), we should stick with the 1959 date given in the source. Alternatively, we could amend the caption to say something like, "Official photograph taken for 1959 tour", but that might be too wordy for the infobox. Aoi (青い) (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done - went ahead and changed it to 1959. If anyone wants to revert, I won't argue about it. Thparkth (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

i totally agree with you 2401:E180:8D62:313A:851F:EC5D:C425:FE5C (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Related RFC

May we have some input at this RFC. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Note explaining her religious beliefs

For her son Charles, it is noted in the infobox that he is head of the Church of England and a member of the Church of Scotland. It appears the Queen worshipped in much the same way as King Charles. Векочел (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

No objections. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2022

2607:FEA8:41DF:BF00:78D6:867A:1C96:FE40 (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you please change the name from elizabeth ii to queen elizabeth ii

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

That’s an occupation not a name. Dronebogus (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Due weight

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.

---

If a statement is found in every major biography of Elizabeth II and all those sources agree on the statement, should that content be included or excluded from her wikipedia biography? DrKay (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Included per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. DrKay (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• Following on from the RfC above, why is it phrased as a loaded question? Surely it should be: Should this edit be included in the article? DeCausa (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• I have to agree with DeCausa. This RfC question is just as bad as the one that was closed above. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• Did DrKay read the closing summary? This should be immediately withdrawn. This RfC repeats the same problems. Nemov (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2023 (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.

Photograph

Why a 63-year-old photograph of Elizabeth II? Surely a more up-to-date photo, by which most of the world would recognise her anyway, would be more appropriate? Vabadus91 (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

An RFC was already held on that topic, months ago. The result was the 1959 image. GoodDay (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it would be more appropriate. I've never liked this image since it was put in place and I just think there was no point in changing it Pepper Gaming (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I think option D was really glossed over. I have some issues with how the RFC was conducted - a bunch of the originally proposed photos were photos of option C (what was eventually chosen) - I think this might have primed the Wikipedia community to think that particular photo should be given more weight. Furthermore, I think their are potential WP:NPOV discussions to be had, as I think the image more represents what her (former? prior?) subjects think she should be remembered by, rather than how she looked most of her reign, which would be much closer to option D. I am sure notifications went out to many British Wikipedians during this RFC, rather than the Wikipedia community as a whole. option C is an image of which, I believe, much of the world does not remember her as (except maybe fans of The Crown (TV series)). Also the discussion happened during a period of her mourning. I don't think it should be out of the question to hold another RFC, sourced from the village pump or a broader community. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Death certificate full name in lead: Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor

Official birth register of England and Wales for the second quarter of 1926. "Windsor, Elizabeth A.M." is listed in the second column, about a third of the way down.

Marriage certificate of Philip Mountbatten and Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, signed by both of them, their three surviving parents, and a bunch of other relations.

I think the full name should be included in the lead. At the moment it seems strange that her surname is missing. The death certificate shows the full name to be "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor", so this would be a reliable source. It appears in many articles: [4] [5] Titus Gold (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Her surname isn’t Windsor. By convention the soverign has no surname. Although for convenience in the modern world many Royals use surnames (eg. The now Prince of Wales used Wales when in the military), these are pseudonyms for the sake of conscience and not really surnames. She is a member of the House of Windsor, but her name has never been Windsor and this should not be listed as her name, regardless of what was written on her death certificate (which I think again falls under the category of practical pseudonyms for their own filing systems) Timothy N-F (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

We already had an RFC on whether or not to show Windsor as a surname. The result of that RFC was "NO". GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

That should say convenience, not conscience Timothy N-F (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Besides, they probably only put Windsor in the surname on the certificate because it needed something to go in there as a mandatory field. I suppose if one wanted to be super technical, they could have put "of the Royal House of Windsor" but "Windsor" was probably used for convenience. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why we have WP:PRIMARY. The death certicate can only be used as a source for saying her death certicate states that her surname is windsor. Nothing more. It's an interpretive misuse of the source to use it to say her surname was, in fact, Windsor. As you say, there could be all sorts of reasons why that box was filled out - probably it's just mandatory to have completed the box and the certification record simply couldn't be processed without it. DeCausa (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Surnames are only mandatory in the UK if the person actually has one. So, if a person has a surname, it must be entered on certificates. For example, Prince William's birth certificate did not include a surname[6], and so he doesn't have to use one. Note also that surnames are not inherited. A person's surname is the surname that they use, and need not be the one that their parents use. DrKay (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It's WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to draw a broader conclusion from any certificate other than that what was entered on the certificate. DeCausa (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

See the source. DrKay (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Not only do a century of official documentation (e.g. her birth, marriage, and death certificates) and a myriad of academic publications (e.g. the biography by Robert Lacey cited in this article) name her Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor but also the family's official website explicitly says their surname is Windsor. Yet here you will commonly find an army of editors performing all sorts of mental acrobatics to dispute that. It is bewildering, yet also amusing. Surtsicna (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

We already had an RFC on this matter, with the result being "don't use as a surname". GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I would be lying if I said I expected a source-based counter-argument. Those were never forthcoming in this discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Not everybody likes it, when their argument gets rejected in an RFC. See the recently closed RFC at Queen Camilla's page. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Robert Lacey is a "popular historian" and talking head who when not touring daytime TV in the UK churns out pot-boilers on anything from the Saudi Royal family to Walter Raleigh. What is "amusing" is calling anything he's written an "academic publication". Birth, marriage and death certs are WP:PRIMARY and need interpretation. The royal website is about the family genrally not specifically the Queen. If you have a decent secondary source that explains the issue then I'd go with that. Do you? DeCausa (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

It is a bit much to reject all those (on very flimsy grounds too) and ask for more while offering absolutely no sources proving your point and countering mine. I would have to be a gullible idiot to bother citing more at this point. Surtsicna (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Or a reasonable Wikipedia editor. I don't have a view particularly on the underlying point. If there are decent sources saying her surname is Windsor I don't have a problem with including. It's rather rich taking such a condenscending stance and then when you're challenged on rather ridiculously calling Lacey an "academic publication", producing prim ary sources and SYNTHing a website you say that you're not bothering to cite anymore sources. WP:ONUS - over to you. DeCausa (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

If Lacey is problematic, we have a much bigger problem on our hands since much of this (featured) article is based on his work. WP:PRIMARY says that primary sources can be used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts"; reading a person's name from their birth and death certificates is as straightforward as it gets. Further, the family's website discusses the last name of the royal family, and to suggest that Elizabeth might be tacitly excluded from that group is unreasonable, especially since we see from the said primary sources that what the family website says about the family's name does apply to her too. Surtsicna (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it's already been pointed out to you the problem with the certificates as a primary source. There seems no point in repeating again. i suggest you re-read. As far as Lacey is concerned, yes that is it problem. There are far better sources than Lacey who is a coffee table author. I've tried to use his book Kingdom on another article and given up because of some pretty bad errors and over-simplifictions. I have a copy of Pimlott (which is far more reliable) but couldn't find anything about attributing a surname to the monarch - which is not to say it isn't in there. I just couldn't find it. You referred to numerous "academic publications" stating her surname is Windsor. Leaving aside your faux pas about Lacey, it would be more helopful to say what these are than continue bombast and bluster. DeCausa (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Pimlott, Brandreth and Lacey, 3 of the 4 sources [Bradford 2012, Brandreth 2004, Lacey 2002 and Pimlott 2001] supporting that part of the article, and Bradford in her 2002 book pages 176-8 (which is more expansive than the abridged 2012 version) all explicitly use the term family name. I therefore see no reason to remove the words and family name from the article. They are well supported by secondary sources and are commonly found in those sources. There is no argument for exclusion. DrKay (talk) 08:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You do seem determined to push Windsor as her family name, one way or the other. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The more curious determination is that of those who wish essential information to be withheld from the readers because they feel they know better than the subject herself and her biographers. Surtsicna (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]

Surtsicna, Please, don't start this up again. Let it go. GoodDay (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

That is going to be very difficult until counter-arguments start coming. Surtsicna (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

If you're going to persist? Then open up an RFC on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

There you are trying to be boss of the talk page again. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 08:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll open up an RFC on this matter, then. But is it concerning only Elizabeth II or all of George V's descendants? GoodDay (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

We already had an RFC on the matter & the result was "NO", to using Windsor as a surname. Now please drop the stick & move on. GoodDay (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

That is not the result of the RfC. DrKay (talk) 07:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Start one then, about the certificate. But honestly, let Elizabeth II rest in peace. GoodDay (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I never heard the late Queen refer to herself as Elizabeth Windsor. The British monarchy website is a bit suspect because it seems to contradict itself. (It says both that only those who don't have the style "royal highness" and princely title use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor and that the Queen's children--all of whom have the royal highness style and princely title--have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.) The multiple links above are to some sites and/or sources that might give Elizabeth the surname Windsor because of popular misconception.

I think the most clear-cut source available is the 1960 proclamation, which was accepted by Wikipedia editors as a source confirming King Charles III is still of the House of Windsor. It states, "I [Elizabeth II] and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor [emphasis mine]." What other answer can there be to "what's her family name?" than "Windsor"?

I should add, though, that none of the above is an argument claiming Elizabeth's surname is worth including in the lede. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 08:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:STICK

@Dronebogus: is correct, this entire certificate discussion 'should be' (per WP:STICK) closed & hatted. It's just a continuing attempt to use 'Windsor' as a surname, in this & (possibly) other bios. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

says the editor making the same point 3 times in the discussion[19][20][21]. If you wish the discussion to close, simply stop posting to it or making the same point multiple times. DrKay (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Give it up, please. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@DrKay: you say in your latest edit (per talk). I see no consensus here for your addition. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

See RFC related to this discussion

FWIW - Here's the RFC result-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Content inclusion criteria

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In this discussion, Wikipedians yet again fail to reach consensus about whether reigning monarchs have surnames. Because there is no consensus, the status quo ante obtains, so in practice the outcome of this RFC is not to make the disputed edit.—S Marshall T/C 17:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

---

If a statement is found in every major biography of a subject and all those sources agree on the statement, should that content be included or excluded from a wikipedia biography? DrKay (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the edit-in-dispute, which I reverted. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• Included. If all major reliable sources on a topic include one particular statement or phrase, then that statement should be included in the article on that topic because it is notable and important. If this statement is found in all, most or many reliable sources on the topic, it cannot be excluded on the basis that it is trivial, undue or excessive detail. If all reliable sources agree on a statement, and there is no reliable source stating the opposite, then the point should be included in the article on the topic, and cannot be excluded on the basis that it is wrong, disputed, contentious or bias. DrKay (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I linked to the edit-in-dispute. As my reverting of that edit, is what necessitated this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• Exclude - Windsor is the name of the Royal House & Dynasty. How often has Queen Elizabeth II been addressed as Elizabeth Windsor, Miss Windsor, etc. For that matter, do we refer to her son as Charles Windsor? or King Charles III. How often was her father King George VI, called George Windsor. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This is irrelevant and not the question posed by the RfC. DrKay (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I beg to differ, if this is concerning an edit you made earlier today. You want to describe Windsor as a family or surname name in the body of the page. PS - If the consensus of this RFC (when it's closed) is to include? then so be it. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• Exclude - This information is redundant. In the context of the Royal Family the house name is all that's necessary. Also, a RfC should begin with a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue. The statement here is far from neutral. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
• Not necessarily - I think it unlikely one can ever have or show "all" major reliable sources include a statement. but for the RFC question stated as a general principle, something might still not be included for a number of reasons stated in WP:BLP and MOS:BIO such as it is non-biographic trivia, or subject to a privacy exclusion, or just a consensus chooses to not have it. Some pages choose to include lots of side remarks and non-personal trivia anyway contrary to guidelines, some does not. I don't think that the edit about Windsor is necessarily either case, but since the RFC question was not literally asking about that I will only say the stated principle is not a firm guideline. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude per those above, and also WP:TROUT to the OP for not following RFC guidelines by framing the question in a manner that is biased towards the proposal. It was suggested above that the WP:STICK be dropped on this issue.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
• Included. I see nothing non-neutral in the opening statement, and the suggested addition is cited to several reliable secondary sources and helps to clarify the paragraph, which is otherwise more obtuse than it needs to be. As the excluders say, it shouldn't be necessary to go to the lengths of a month-long RfC for the simple addition of three uncontestable, heavily cited and clarifying words, but that is the fault of the excluders for mounting an unreasonable campaign against verifiable and undeniable content, and not the fault of the opening party. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  Do you care to explain how commentating on an RfC is mounting an unreasonable campaign against verifiable and undeniable content, and not the fault of the opening party. That's a fairly inane allegation over an innocuous family name RfC. Nemov (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  As I implied, the unreasonable campaign came before the RfC. The RfC was only opened because of the unreasonable campaign and shouldn't have been necessary for such an innocuous addition. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  You blamed the "excluders" which are just 3 editors at the present. I for one, came here because of the RfC and I don't have a history of commenting here. You've made a blanket claim that probably should be withdrawn because it's simply untrue. Nemov (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• Exclude. No other article on members of royal families, present or historical, has their house name placed after their personal name in the manner described.98.228.137.44 (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
• Include. It's on the death certificate. The surname Windsor was used when required by the monarch "if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage)" according to the official website also. Titus Gold (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
• Include, as mentioned above it's on the death certificate and well-sourced. Ortizesp (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
• Not a well-formed RfC. Seems like an attempt at formulating a new principle, policy or guideline, which is not appropriate to discuss on the talk page of an individual article. I suggest it is withdrawn rather than moved to a different venue, because it’s never going to fly. We don’t mandate inclusion of any information. It will always be a matter of editorial judgment, balance, weight, and so forth. Now, I happen to agree that Windsor really is Elizabeth II’s surname, as the royal.uk source seems pretty word-of-God, regardless of it being a primary source, and I’ve seen no sources disputing this. I think we need to find a way of including this information in the article, though not necessarily with prominence, as it’s also true that she was not often referred to using her surname. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

  Technically, the page already listed her as being from the House of Windsor, so it is already included in the article. 2601:249:9301:D570:510D:CC93:F35B:D909 (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  But one of the main points of contention is that being of the house of Windsor doesn’t necessarily imply that her surname is Windsor. It requires additional confirmation, and in my view we have that, in the form of her own website saying so. It’s a primary source, but we generally accept primary sources for basic facts like what someone’s name is. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Unclear, un-neutral RfC. Seems like an attempt at formulating a new principle, policy or guideline, which is not appropriate to discuss on the talk page of an individual article.. Responding to the immediate question, I cannot see what useful info is conveyed by asserting a 'family name', which has no public role or use at all iro this person, therefore Exclude. Pincrete (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
• Include. As stated, it is on the death certificate and used by the official website. And regardless, common sense should dictate that if you belong to the House of XYZ, then XYZ is your surname by default, regardless of how you or anyone else may feel about it. But this is just a Yankee's opinion. The "rules" of British royalty are a Gordian knot to me. Scapulus (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
• The problem exists is because Queen Elizabeth was -probably - the first monarch to die in Scotland since the Act of Union, Had HM died in England she would not have been issued a death certificate. The rules on Scotland may be different from the rules on registrations, comparing The Prince of Wales on his children's birth certificates not having a surname, whereby in Scotland one may have been needed. I say NO to putting a surname on the lead and putting Elizabeth Alexandra Mary as she was christened in brackets, but again this may be redundant as having Elizabeth II as lead is almost a guarantee the reader knows who the article is about. Dbainsford (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
• Close, as a malformed, non-neutral RfC question per others' concerns and WP:RFCNEUTRAL. (And even if we are going to pretend that this is a neutral RfC question, the question's scope vastly exceeds that of this talk page.) I would encourage anyone looking to start another RfC to read WP:RFCNEUTRAL and Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment, particularly § Overgeneralizing an issue and § Neutrality.

  In the event that this RfC is not subject to a procedural close, I would advocate for the status quo to be retained (pending any future discussion). Graham (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Why was a virtually the same malformed RFC opened, below? Thankfully, it was shut down. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  For some reason DrKay closed this RfC after Graham's comment and then opened a brand new RfC worded exactly the same. When the new one was closed they reopened this one. Bizarre. Nemov (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• It depends There are many factors that may be relevant in such a broad question; for example WP:ONUS. Locking in an absolute "yes" is a fundamental change in policy which can't be done through this RfC. This appears to be a loaded question in support of this edit. If that's the case the outcome whatever it is wouldn't justify the edit partly because it is non-neutral and loaded, and partly because it is too broad to justify any specific edit. This is therefore a malformed RfC which should have been phrased as follows: Should this edit be included in the article? DeCausa (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Malformed RFC

I'm in agreement with many editors. This RFC needs to be shut down. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2023 (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.

Audio Version of Article

Hi all, Just wanted to ask for opinions, should we keep the recording on the page? It's dated June 2014, the article is almost double in size from then, and the recording does not contain some important details, like her death, latest jubilees, etc.

File:En-Elizabeth II-article.ogg UpdateWindows (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

We should probably keep it in place until there's a replacement available, with a disclaimer that it's pretty out of date, since it's still better than nothing. 73.161.63.150 (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It is too far out of date: remove it. 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:BDBE:7092:B6E:99F6 (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

UpdateWindows, this was brought up at /Archive 45#"Listen to this article" - audio out of date but archived without action. I'll echo what I said there: I think we should keep the sound, but tag this talk page with {{spoken article requested}} as the present sound is now egregiously out of date. ^Clyde!_Franklin! 04:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@ClydeFranklin sounds great thank you. sorry for duplicate, i forgot to search the archived pages :) -UW Tantomile (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2023

Beneath media depictions in paintings media please kindly add. With my thanks

Dan Llywelyn Hall

Elizabeth was portrayed in a variety of media by many notable artists, including painters Pietro Annigoni, Peter Blake, Chinwe Chukwuogo-Roy, Terence Cuneo, Lucian Freud, Rolf Harris, Damien Hirst, Juliet Pannett and Tai-Shan Schierenberg.[318][319] Richiebloomberg (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

 Question: Given that a) he's the 133rd artist to paint the Queen and b) we can't list all of them in the article, why does he deserve a mention? M.Bitton (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Lizthegrey (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Link to Prince Philip's death

In the infobox where it mentions her marriage, I suggest we add a pipe under "died" to the article on the death of Prince Philip. Векочел (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

How would that be helpful? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

It gives a link to her husband's death. If this isn't useful, we should remove the link to the deaths of her father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, as found in the infobox of their consorts. Векочел (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any need to link it in the infobox. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Well I do see a point in adding it since we have an article dedicated to it which means that it was a notable event to begin with. It not only is consistent with the articles on her ancestors, such as Alexandra of Denmark, Mary of Teck, and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, it also follows the pattern established in other articles covering individuals who outlived their spouses, such as Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Mary Todd Lincoln, Lucretia Garfield, Ida Saxton McKinley, Wallis Simpson, Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark, etc. Keivan.f^Talk 22:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the article is dedicated to the aftermath of his death and the funeral, not the death itself, which was not extraordinary. This is in contrast to each of those examples you've given, where the spouses were killed and died by unnatural causes. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The article covers his death as well as its aftermath. And FYI, Edward VII, George V, and George VI, were neither killed nor assassinated. Keivan.f^Talk 22:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

See my reply below. As for the article, it doesn't cover the death itself as an extraordinary event, because it wasn't. He died of natural causes. It covers the reaction to his death and the funeral arrangements. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

So? You're just playing with words. People reacted to their deaths, and funerals were held because they had died; in other words their deaths were noteworthy. The death of a current/former head of state and their spouses is an important event. Doesn't matter whether they were killed, assassinated or died by natural causes. Keivan.f^Talk 22:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

No, people reacted and funerals were held because the person was noteworthy, not the death itself. The arrangements after are the important event; the death itself is not. It does matter whether they died naturally, as otherwise, the death itself is notable. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with a person's notability. There are dozens of notable people whose death do not draw any attentions on a large or global scale. And naturally an article on someone's death should cover the event itself and subsequent arrangements, which is what all those articles do, unless there is an extraordinary reason behind the death (such as murder or assassination) which would require further details. Again, the cause of death has no effect on its notability in the case of heads of state and their spouses. It is the death itself that draws reactions and puts in motion arrangements. Keivan.f^Talk 22:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it's the person, not the death itself, that draws the reaction in those instances, which is why unless there does exist an extraordinary reason behind the death (such as murder or assassination) which would require further details (like a link), we shouldn't link "died". It's MOS:OVERLINK anyway as the term is commonly understood. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the person is dead, so they cannot draw attention. Its their death that draws attention. And since the articles have the word "Death" included in their titles (and they should because there details about the death included, although in varying degrees depending on the circumstances), there would be no problem or confusion to the readers if they were to be linked. Your opinion is that it could be in contrast to MOS:OVERLINK and I respect that. But we need other people's opinions too to see what the majority thinks. Keivan.f^Talk 23:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, people's memories of the person draw attention; the death is the cause but not the reason for that attention, otherwise every death would be newsworthy. I think WP:EASTEREGG is another concern in linking a common term such as "died". ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding WP:EASTEREGG, I don't think that would necessarily be an issue as this has been done with a number of articles and indeed in the body of this article as well. Since the link is next to the individual's name, a reader would naturally realize that it is referring to their death and/or its aftermath. Keivan.f^Talk 23:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

MOS:MORELINKWORDS is worth a read. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

As for the articles on her ancestors, those links should be removed, as none of their spouses' deaths, with the arguable exception of Mary of Teck, had been the result of unnatural causes. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess no one really cares one way or the other. There are two uses supporting the idea and one opposing, which I would not label a solid consensus. Keivan.f^Talk 00:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2023

the article about queen Elizabeth indicate that when she became queen in 1952 following her father's death, she became queen of seven countries included Pakistan. I request to change it because pakistan was a free country in 1952. 2604:3D09:417F:51E0:1051:252A:85E2:D226 (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. It appears that it was the Dominion of Pakistan until 1956. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

2022 state opening of Parliament

could we please change the names of the "Prince of Wales and Duke of Cambridge" as it could confuse readers. Suggestion of using either Prince Charles (later King Charles) and Prince Willam? 185.113.82.254 (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Consistent citation style

Moved from Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Elizabeth II

"a consistent citation style'

What on earth do you mean by this? What citation style? 195.20.17.82 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

What is going on with the citations here; this FA is riddled with HarvRef errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

DrKay what's up here? The article citation formatting is an inconsistent mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

From the looks of it, short citations are used for books and long citations for everything else. The HarvRef warnings are on the long citations within the multiref templates where those citations do not set the 'ref' parameter to 'none'. Full references don't work so well when placed within the multiref template, which is designed for short citations. I have switched to multiref2. DrKay (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thx, DrKay; the Harv Ref errors are gone, but there sure is some wonky spacing (sometimes entries are forced to two lines after a semicolon). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Seriously, Nevselbert, reverting a good faith edit to an FA without discussion and re-introducing errors to citations? That's not how things roll with FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This matter ought to be fully discussed before any changes are made. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Two things:

1. Since when do we discuss removing obvious errors?
2. My memory may be faulty, but in the event it's not, this all started when you decided to change the existing citation style to begin with. And now we have citation errors. Which unless my memory is wrong, were most likely caused by you.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I only object to removing |mode=cs2. No, I never changed the existing citation style, which has always been WP:CS2. I simply changed the {{citation}} templates to more specific citation templates while retaining the CS2 style. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Whatever you did, you broke the citations. DrKay fixed them, and you reverted. The errors are back. That means you are the problem, and the way my morning is going, I'm unwatching. I only ended up here because even an IP recognized the crappy citation style and posted to the talk page of the editnotice. That might inform. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll go through the references and try my best to fix them. The citation style itself is a matter of editorial preference, and CS2 has been the citation style in this article for many years. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Add Notes to Reign Length

The following note(s) should be added somewhere concerning the length of HM's reign:

Elizabeth was Queen of many other states, but other than these four, her reign was shorter. Lengths listed below are for Elizabeth as monarch of an independent country or dominion; except for Jamaica, none would entitle her to a place on this list. The following states were British dominions at the start of Queen Elizabeth II's reign in 1952, but became independent as republics during her reign:

• Pakistan (including Bangladesh) (republic 23 March 1956; 4 years, 46 days)
• South Africa (republic 31 May 1961; 9 years, 114 days)
• Ceylon (republic, with the name Sri Lanka, 22 May 1972; 20 years, 106 days)

The following states were not sovereign at the start of Queen Elizabeth II's reign in 1952, but became sovereign and later became republics during her reign:

• Ghana (sovereign 6 March 1957, republic 1 July 1961; 4 years, 87 days)
• Nigeria (sovereign 1 October 1960, republic 1 October 1963; 3 years, 0 days)
• Sierra Leone (sovereign 27 April 1961, republic 19 April 1971; 9 years, 357 days)
• Tanganyika (sovereign 9 December 1961, republic 9 December 1962; 1 year, 0 days)
• Trinidad and Tobago (sovereign 31 August 1962, republic 1 August 1976; 13 years, 336 days)
• Uganda (sovereign 9 October 1962, republic 9 October 1963; 1 year, 0 days)
• Kenya (sovereign 12 December 1963, republic 12 December 1964; 1 year, 0 days)
• Malawi (sovereign 6 July 1964, republic 6 July 1966; 2 years, 0 days)
• Malta (sovereign 21 September 1964, republic 13 December 1974; 10 years, 83 days)
• The Gambia (sovereign 18 February 1965, republic 24 April 1970; 5 years, 65 days)
• Guyana (sovereign 26 May 1966, republic 23 February 1970; 3 years, 273 days)
• Barbados (sovereign 30 November 1966, republic 30 November 2021; 55 years, 0 days)
• Mauritius (sovereign 12 March 1968, republic 12 March 1992; 24 years, 0 days)
• Fiji (sovereign 10 October 1970, republic 6 October 1987; 16 years, 361 days)

The following states were not sovereign at the start of Queen Elizabeth II's reign in 1952, but became sovereign during her reign and retained her as Queen:

• Jamaica (sovereign 6 August 1962; 60 years, 33 days)
• Bahamas (sovereign 10 July 1973; 49 years, 60 days)
• Grenada (sovereign 7 February 1974; 48 years, 213 days)
• Papua New Guinea (sovereign 16 September 1975; 46 years, 357 days)
• Solomon Islands (sovereign 7 July 1978; 44 years, 63 days)
• Tuvalu (sovereign 1 October 1978; 43 years, 342 days)
• Saint Lucia (sovereign 22 February 1979; 43 years, 198 days)
• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (sovereign 27 October 1979; 42 years, 316 days)
• Belize (sovereign 21 September 1981; 40 years, 352 days)
• Antigua and Barbuda (sovereign 1 November 1981; 40 years, 311 days)
• Saint Kitts and Nevis (sovereign 19 September 1983; 38 years, 354 days)

StrawWord298944 (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

This is too long and has WP:TOPIC issues. It is true that many countries became former British colonies during her reign, but there is no need to list them individually as this is a biography of the Queen.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Spoken Word Project

I have begun working on a re-recording of this article under the Spoken Wikipedia project per the request made on this talk page. ZNQriGo0GUGMAibZXgBV (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The work has been completed, and a edit request has been submitted as a new topic on this talk page. ZNQriGo0GUGMAibZXgBV (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2023

Change File:En-Elizabeth II-article.ogg

To File:En-Elizabeth II-article-20230422.ogg ZNQriGo0GUGMAibZXgBV (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done DDMS123 (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2023

Recommend MOVE: {{Spoken Wikipedia|En-Elizabeth II-article-20230422.ogg|date=22 April 2023}}

To a line directly underneath {{Infobox royalty}}

Recommend this for a better user experience. This is the only template that surfaces on mobile to allow the user to listen to the article, and "External links" does not seem like the correct placement for this feature. ZNQriGo0GUGMAibZXgBV (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Template:Spoken wikipedia says "Place this template near the top of the last section of the article." DrKay (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"Elizabeth II of Ireland" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Elizabeth II of Ireland has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 13 § Elizabeth II of Ireland until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2023

Queen Elizabeth was known as Queen Elizabeth the 1st in Scotland not Queen Elizabeth the 2nd like in England & Wales.

I believe the title or opening summary should be edited to reflect this as she was not Queen Elizabeth II in Scotland but Queen Elizabeth I. 2A01:4B00:8405:E900:BCE2:F895:68A2:2624 (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 13:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The monarchy of Scotland was dissolved in Acts of Union 1707 Von bismarck (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2023

PLEASE CHANGE TO BE INCLUDED IN PLATINUM JUBILEE SECTION: On 14 May 2023, the Queen posthumously won a BAFTA 'Most Memorable Moment Award' as part of her role in 'Paddington meets The Queen from the Platinum Jubilee: Party At The Palace!' via a public vote. Heloeheod34 (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Doesn't seem notable to me. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

its a BAFTA, seems very notable and relevant as it took place during the Platinum Jubilee. Will need a different viewpoint. Heloeheod34 (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done This is not a full BAFTA, it's just a "memorable moment", and I agree with Tim this wouldn't rise to the level of importance for inclusion in this article. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

BAFTA is a BAFTA, but c'est la vie. Heloeheod34 (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Status as longest actively reigning monarch

Wouldn't it be interesting to clarify, even as a footnote, that Elizabeth II's was the longest reign in history in the sense that she reigned effectively throughout her whole reign, whilst Louis XIV ascended the throne when he was merely 4 and therefore reigned under a regency - with no effective powers - until he reached adulthood? I see no mention to that anywhere, and I do think it is important to leave it clear. See sources: https://www.tatler.com/article/why-the-queen-is-technically-the-worlds-longest-reigning-monarch - "the Queen is unquestionably the longest actively reigning monarch in the world". https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10913553/Queen-worlds-longest-actively-reigning-monarch-royal-expert-claims.html https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09371a.htm "Louis XIV was declared to have reached the age of majority on 7 September 1651. On the death of Mazarin, in March 1661, Louis assumed personal control of the reins of government". 85.152.246.66 (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively known as Elizabeth the Faithful?

See Louis XIV’s article with reference to “the Sun King”. Should the introduction include “Elizabeth II… also known as Elizabeth the Faithful”?

There are many sources which reference her under this title.

For example:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/19/let-us-remember-elizabeth-faithful/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_psc_ppc_us_news_performancemax_dsa&gclid=CjwKCAjwvJyjBhApEiwAWz2nLSDCmWlmzTGx68O284DyIMwUZJQD-m49CX2dmmHhxt6XHF6xDGmNtxoCMikQAvD_BwE

ClaudeDavid (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

This is the first time I have heard this and I lived throughout her whole reign. If there are many sources, we will need much more that just a suggestion from a newspaper. Graham Beards (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Likewise. It's simply NOT a common description. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

That article was published on the day of the Queen's funeral, so The Telegraph is going to be on the more sycophantic end of the spectrum. One newspaper's obsequiousness doesn't warrant a mention in the lead. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I've certainly never heard that one before. It seems like its just a title of tribute given by 1 paper, akin to when Boris Johnson called her "Elizabeth the Great". I wouldn't support including it in the lead, if more non-Telegraph sources can be found for it then maybe it could be included in the body of the article. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

This is nowhere near a WP:COMMONNAME for Elizabeth II. I'm British and had never heard it used before this thread.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2023

I just need to put a bit more information to her death 173.11.12.17 (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2023

Include the date of death in section "until her death in 2022" not just the year 172.197.189.59 (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It's already at the start of that sentence Hyphenation Expert (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2023

Add remaining {{nbsp}} per MOS:NBSP, same as edit from Louis XIV. 112.204.197.139 (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers! Cocobb8 (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cocobb8:, undone, as the edit messed up the infobox content. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that, @GoodDay. Did you keep it on the main body of the article though? Cocobb8 (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I reverted all the edits. If it doesn't cause any visual damage, then I reckon you can make said-changes to the article body. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed it! The problem was that I had used the replaced all function in source mode, which had caused it to slip into all instances, including file names and sources. Cocobb8 (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

YouGov poll

I think it is incorrect to say "Great Britian" in relation to approval ratings as the term "Briton" is this style refers to anyone residing in the UK and not just GB Jord656 (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources say GB explicitly and, as shown in the sources, the raw YouGov data is drawn exclusively from GB. DrKay (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Use of the word 'Britain' in lieu of the 'United Kingdom'

Yes, the ambiguous term 'Britain' is commonly used instead of 'the United Kingdom', but that doesn't make it okay in the context of this article, which is supposed to be encyclopaedic and not mimic a sloppy journalistic style, especially where there are sensibilities related to the terminology used. You just need to compare the 'Britain' and 'United Kingdom' articles to see why.

The former is a disambiguation page because 'Britain' is also commonly used in lieu of 'Great Britain' (just three of the United Kingdom's four nations) and 'British Isles' (the islands which contain both the United Kingdom and Ireland, as well as entities which are part of neither).

Why would we choose to be sloppy with our language by referring to the United Kingdom as 'Britain' when we could use the correct terminologies of "United Kingdom"" or its normal abbreviation of "UK". Compare this with articles related to, say, the United States. They rarely use the similarly sloppy term 'America' when they mean the 'United States' or 'US'.

I think that the use of 'Britain' in this context is, at best, ignorant, and verging on the disrspectfull of the United Kingdom and its four constituent nations, and that each incidence of it in the article should be replaced with the appropriate correct and precise term. Thoughts? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with 'Britain', just like there's nothing wrong with 'Russia' when referring to the Russian Federation or 'China' when referring to the People's Republic of China, or 'US' when referring to the continental or contiguous United States of America. Misplaced formality serves no purpose when an alternative is unambiguous and clear. Also, you changed parts of the article where the island of Great Britain was meant. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford, the difference is that 'Russia' is the normal short form for the 'Russian Federation', 'China' is the normal short form for the 'People's Republic of China', and the 'US' (or the 'United States') are the normal short forms for the 'United States of America', and all three are unambiguous.

On the other hand, 'Britain' (which is analogous to calling the US 'America') is neither the normal short form for the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', nor is it unambiguous (see Britain). The normal and unambiguous short forms for the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' are the 'UK' and the 'United Kingdom'.

So why have lower standards for what we call the UK? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

No. Parts of the Russian Federation are not Russia. There is more than one China. The contiguous United States is not the same as the US. However, just as with 'Britain' and 'UK', normal speech doesn't require us to use a string of three words for precise clarity where one word (a normal short-form) will do. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. "Britain" in this context isn't encyclopedic tone and is ambiguous, much like the "America" example you cite. We should stick to United Kingdom or UK, as the accepted short forms.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

As I said above and in an edit summary, the popularity, approval ratings and republicanism are all explicitly related to Britain only. Agree with Celia that 'Britain' is an entirely acceptable and normal short form for the country anyway. DrKay (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@DrKay, sorry, I do not understand your point. What are you saying is explicitly related to Britain only? Which section? Which sentence? Does it apply to all 14, or so, uses of the word in the article? And what is your definition of Britain in this case? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't seen the post above. So just one of the 14 instances. The one talking about republicanism in "Great Britain" - the one I did not change in my original edit because I know that "Great Britain" is not synonymous with either "Britain" or "UK" and appreciated it might be correct to exclude Northern Ireland in that context. Are you happy for all the other uses of 'Britain' to be changed to one of the less ambiguous terms though? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing ambiguous, "ignorant", "sloppy", "unencyclopedic" etc about the very standard use of the word Britain to mean the United Kingdom. As The Guardian style guide puts it "Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"[22]. HM Government uses it that way[23][24] as does multiple (and I mean multiple) WP:RS - not just news media (all the Newspaper style guides have a similar approach to the Guardian) but a huge number of academic works. How about the The Oxford History of Britain which is about the UK as is The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Britain ? This is just bizarre. It's false pedantry based on a misunderstanding of usage. Continuous use of "United Kingdom" becomes clunky and stilted. There's absolutely nothing wrong or inaccurate in switching between the two. DeCausa (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa, but it is ambiguous though, and can be improved upon. What do you object to about the use of the unambiguous terms, UK and United Kingdom, which are the normal standard short forms? Compare these articles: "Britain", "UK, and United Kingdom. Do you see the subtle difference between the first and the latter two? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

But that's the point: it's not ambiguous as demonstrated by RS usage. Standard usage is that it is a synonym for the UK. The larger UK island is Great Britain. In fact, this has been the effective consensus across multiple UK-related en.wp articles for many years. The word is used around a 100 times to mean the UK in the United Kingdom article alone. If you want to unpick that you'll have to go on a pretty extensive crusade across a large swathe of en.wp - why pick on this article? Even if there was ambiguity in this article (which there isn't) it's obvious from the context what is meant. DeCausa (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa, the RSes you cherry-picked may support your view, but there are others that totally contradict it - hence it is definitely ambiguous, at least.

• The BBC News style guide which says of "Britain": (aka Great Britain) is made up of England, Scotland and Wales; the United Kingdom also includes Northern Ireland - thus saying that it is synonymous with "Great Britain" and not with the UK.
• The government also uses "the UK" profusely on its gov.uk website.
• This article from the Merriam-Webster dictionary describes the ambiguity in some detail - concluding that The terms Britain and Great Britain are, as we said above, synonymous geographical terms referring to the largest of the islands in the British Isles. But Britain and Great Britain are also used to refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland aka the United Kingdom aka the UK.
• Britannica summarises the UK's names thus: Great Britain, therefore, is a geographic term referring to the island also known simply as Britain. It’s also a political term for the part of the United Kingdom made up of England, Scotland, and Wales (including the outlying islands that they administer, such as the Isle of Wight). United Kingdom, on the other hand, is purely a political term: it’s the independent country that encompasses all of Great Britain and the region now called Northern Ireland.

So "Britain" is unequivocally an ambiguous term, but "UK" is not - or are you aware of style guides that disallow the use of "UK" and "United Kingdom" for some reason? I notice the the Guardian style guide you mentioned above also supports the use of "UK", so why not simply use that? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

But it's not ambiguous here. In all instances of "in Britain" and "to Britain", it doesn't matter if people read that as meaning Great Britain since Great Britain is meant. Nor does it matter if people read it as meaning the UK since Britain is in the UK. This is needless pedantry. DrKay (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It is ambiguous, and why would we be happy to let readers misunderstand it just because, happily, none of the events concerned happened to take place in that sub-part of the kingdom which is being carelessly excluded anyway? Surely we should strive for preciseness, clarity, inclusiveness in an encyclopaedic article. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

My 2 cents: the article should use United Kingdom or UK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

If you pedantically insist on precision, then so do I. The sources do not support that she was popular in Northern Ireland. They do not support that she had high approval ratings in Northern Ireland. They are specific for Great Britain, and trying to claim that she was popular in Northern Ireland without any sourcing to back that claim is original research at best. DrKay (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the ones that clearly should exclude Northern Ireland though, although I think those should use the term "Great Britain", not plain "Britain", to avoid ambiguity. I'm questioning the rest though, those that should imply the whole kingdom and have no reason to exclude a big chunk of it. Examples:

• In September 1939, Britain the UK entered the Second World War.
• ... at a time when Britain the UK was at war.
• ... because Britain the UK had not yet completely recovered from the devastation of the war.
• In the UK post-war Britain...
• In November 1956, Britain the UK and France invaded Egypt...
• More than 20 countries gained independence from Britain the UK as part of...
• As Britain's the UK's ties to its former empire weakened...

There is no reason to use the term that may be understood to exclude Northern Ireland in any of those examples. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It isn't "excluding Northern Ireland", just as it isn't excluding the Isle of Anglesey, the Isle of Wight or the Hebrides. There's nothing wrong with a poll being conducted in just Great Britain. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

But those are not constituent countries of the United Kingdom. I think for the polls that do not mention Northern Ireland, using Britain is not only justified but accurate. But there are also sentences within the article where "the United Kingdom" could have been used. User:DeFacto has already listed the examples. But that also to some degree depends on whether the sources for those parts use "Britain" or "the UK". Personally I would have chosen "the UK" for those parts, because it is a more inclusive term compared to "Britain". Keivan.f^Talk 06:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty, what I mean is that a term that is a synonym for "Great Britain" does, literally, exclude Northern Ireland as the full name of the sovereign state is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. OTOH, the term "UK", as the standard short form of the sovereign state's full name, implicitly includes both "Great Britain" and "Northern Ireland". -- DeFacto (talk). 08:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but my point was that "Britain" doesn't leave out only Northern Ireland. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty, the other islands you mention are, unlike Northern Ireland, included in the term "Britain" when it is used as a synonym of the political entity "Great Britain" as in the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

This all shows how confusing and ambiguous the term "Britain" is, and how much better sticking with "UK" would be, or the apprpriate unambiguous name for any sub-sovereign-state region being discussed. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn't. And if it did it would mean the word Britain could never be used in any context (whether as GB or UK) which is ludicrous. Apart from the fact that in multiple RS (and by the way throughout wp) Britain is used to as a standard short form for UK, it either doesn't matter which it means or it's obvious from the context. Take the following typical sentences from this article: "In September 1939, Britain entered the Second World War."; "As in 1927, when they had toured Australia and New Zealand, Elizabeth remained in Britain since her father thought she was too young to undertake public tours."; "In post-war Britain, it was not acceptable for Philip's German relations...". What does it add to change that to "United Kingdom" other than stiltedness? The "ambiguity" point is just a smokescreen fro what is really just a question of style. DeCausa (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

With each of those uses of "Britain" who have to pause and assimilate, and then process the data to see if we are talking about the whole of the sovereign state, or a political sub-division of it, or the islands it all stands on. And no, we don't need to use "United Kingdom" everywhere instead, "UK" is quite adequate in the same way that we use "US" for the United States, and not "America". And if by "Britain" we mean "Great Britain" then use that, or the British Isles use that.

Expecting all world-wide readers to understand the nuances and distinction between "Britain", "Britain", and "Britain" is ridiculous, when we could write "UK", "Great Britain", or "British Isles". Clarity should prevail over. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

In the examples I gave it literally doesn't matter whether or not the "nuance" is appreciated. But I'll repeat: if you genuinely think "Britain" is ambiguous, it therefore should never be used on WP, whether as UK or GB, which is ludicrous. Concluding that "UK" is better than "Britain" is a very strange conclusion. This is a style issue and, as I said before, "Britain" is conventionally and widely used throughout WP to mean the UK and to single out one article for this (unnecessary) purging makes no sense. It should go to one of the MOS pages for broader consenus. DeCausa (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Presumably the author of those examples knew the definition they meant though, so their choice of vocabulary was either sloppy or ignorant. I think we are back full circle now, so I'll leave it there unless there is a new argument to support its unnecessary and ambiguous use here. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course they knew the definition: it means United Kingdom which is its standard meaning through WP and beyond. If you want to change that go and make a proposal at MOS. DeCausa (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa, do you have a link to the UK==Britain MOS page please, I cannot find it and it could be useful. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the place to cover this is probably Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United Kingdom. But it might be worth asking, in the first instance, at the main WP:MOS talk page for any better suggestions for where it should be. DeCausa (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa, thanks, but the way you described it, I assumed you were referring to an existing MoS page.

Were you referring to an existing MoS page, guideline, or whatever, when you said of the word "Britain" that it means United Kingdom which is its standard meaning through WP? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No it's standard wording by what's actually there - not as prescribed by MOS. Obviously, if this was already in the MOS this thread would be considerably shorter! If you look at the major UK-related (and indeed other articles) you'll find "Britain" usually used to mean the UK and "Great Britain" to mean the island, but, of course, not consistently so. I previously gave the example of United Kingdom where there's nearly 100 instances of "Britain" used to mean UK. It is pretty embedded - you'll need to go on a Giraffedata-style crusade project if you want to expunge it! DeCausa (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

ATS service, and work record

The article claims Queen Elizabeth II "trained and worked as a driver". She certainly trained for three weeks as a mechanic. Is there any evidence that she worked as a driver or mechanic? The pictures and film of her driving a Red Cross truck were taken in March 1945 during her training course. Perhaps people have assumed this as evidence that she worked as a driver?

According to Robert Lacey p. 137 (in either Robert Lacey, Royal: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II; Robert Lacey, The Queen: A Life in Brief) referred to in an answer to [25], on a three-week Vehicle Maintenance Course at Aldershot, ending 16 April 1945, Princess Elizabeth learned how to service and maintain army vehicles.

Lacey refers to the diary of another woman on the course, Corporal Eileen Heron: "She [Princess Elizabeth] told Eileen Heron that she was hoping to join ATS headquarters later that summer as a junior officer, where she would have worked in an office with young women on transport organisation."

"Less than a month after her course ended came VE day - 8 May 1945. There was ATS work aplenty in the months of demobilisation that followed, but George VI wanted his daughter back home on royal duties. He did not see her future as working in an office, even a military office, alongside other women, and Princess Elizabeth bowed to his wish." 2A02:6B6B:4B8:0:76BC:86EB:6CBD:C2C8 (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2023

Please change the primary photograph of the late Queen Elizabeth II from the current one to the one shown by the BBC on the day of the announcement of her death or the one released on the eve of her funeral. Thank you. John Clementine (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done That image, as far as I can tell, is not licensed for free use. The one that's there is. Wikipedia has strict rules on the use of copyright photos. Sorry. — Trey Maturin™ 16:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)