Template talk:Monarchy of New Zealand

This template is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles

Royalty and Nobility

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility articles

Restoration of official New Zealand portrait

@Maungapohatu: While it is ideal that we wait for a reponse, it is also more than acceptable for any editor to WP:BEBOLD and take the initiative when their comment is left unanswered for half a year (hence my statement of taking the initiative). Also, the only reversion in this template of another editor who made this image change, was reverted without explanation, so thats hardly reason to caution anyone. Also, I don't know where you got this notion that I made this edit anywhere else (hell, that was my first and only edit in this template) as you stated in your edit summary here, "You have already had this reverted once", so I'd like to return some advice, and that is to not make false statements about other editors in your edit summaries.

That said, while I agree with the premise of your statement that there should only be a substantial reason to warrant change, I don't believe the discussion of what image would provide us that type of stability has ever taken place for this template or its primary Monarchy of New Zealand article. I believe official portraits (which typically only get updated once every decade) provides us with said stability. And this is seen in the article history of Monarchy of New Zealand (and Monarchy of Australia, Canada, etc.) before Elizabeth II's death back in 2022, when it was the standard to use the state's official portraits for those articles. Us using the state's official portrait was something that provided these articles with many years of lead image stability before the death threw it all in flux. Using the official portrait now is just returning to the stable status quo we had before September 2022.

This also provides us with a standard to use that isn't based on subjective opinions of aesthetics, which as seen in many other articles, invites discussion for change and results in less stability with the lead image. Opting to just follow and use the "official portrait" sidesteps the need for discussions of "image quality" from needing to even take place.

Also, on top of stability arguments, a state's official portraits would have more credence for use given that they would be a better symbolic representation of that state's monarchical institution as a whole (that being the article's primary topic), rather than a random photo of the individual who holds the title (something that I think is perfectly fine for the individual's primary article, Charles III)

In saying that, I am open to having a discussion about this (hence me opening the initial discussion six months ago). Leventio (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the official portrait. Per my last comment, and as noted in a postscript edit of my comment, this is basically the restoration of the status quo/consensus for the lead image pre-QEII death. Leventio (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]