Wikipedia

Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 17

< Talk:Elizabeth II
Latest comment: 14 years ago by GoodDay in topic Coronation Gown - Reference to India
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

MOVE PAGE

Latest comment: 14 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

QEII of the UK should not be the page title. She is equally sovereign of (I think) sixteen other realms - according to long established precedent (1930s) they are all considered equal. Unless there are separate pages for all her realms this is a ver inappropriate article name. I propose moving to just QEII and dropping the "of the UK" bit. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed ages ago (check the archives) & the consensus was to leave the title as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
But somehow it keeps coming up again and again, from so many different people.... hmmm. Even more, many of the other Wikipedias have their article on Her Majesty at Elizabeth II. Hmmm.--~   Knowzilla   (Talk) 13:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
A good point, Knowzilla. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
And it will keep coming up over and over again until she dies sadly, unless ofcourse it is moved to Elizabeth II or Queen Elizabeth II. I cant understand people coming here and saying why does the article title say "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". It is only the naming convention that is keeping this awful title, not consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
You are right in your concerns about this awful article title. Bad wikipedia naming policies are to blame so sadly this article wont get moved. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
My guess is, the current 'naming convention' was agreed to, because there's monarchs with the same name from different countries. Examples: The common international monarchial names of Charles, Philip, Henry, Frederick, Francis etc. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
"Common international monarchical names"? --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Historically speaking? Yep. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
[several edit conflicts later]: Well theres no other Elizabeth II. So we can move this one and other ones, such as James VI/I's article. It's only neutral that way. --~   Knowzilla   (Talk) 14:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
There's a Elisabeth II of Bohemia (though slightly different spelling). PS: Anybody notice, the Japanese monarchs don't follow the current 'convetnion'. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
A disambiguation page would suffice to resolve any such issue. And yes, the Japanese and the Thai monarchs articles aren't bound by the same odd requirements this and other pages are. Very odd. --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) If anybody wants to push for a change of the 'naming convention'? I won't dispute it, if it's achieved. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If other articles about monarchs from different countries dont need to follow the convention why do we here? especially as there is clear justification for not using the "of the United Kingdom" in this case as she is the current monarch of more than a dozen realms. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It's best to get the 'naming convention' changed first. Afterall, we don't wanna give Tharky a heart attack. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no Elisabeth II of Bohemia. A Wiki user invented that title ages ago. Both Elisabeth "I" and Elisabeth "II" were daughters and wives of Bohemian monarchs, but not monarchs themselves. This was a good example of a terrible original research or hoax, whatever it was, as it confused (and still confuses) lots of people. As far as that's concerned, Elizabeth II is good. Surtsicna (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
What? I was hoaxed? The trickery of it all. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks like the consensus here is to move the article. With all expect GoodDay supporting the move (and not even he opposes a move), I'd say we should request an admin to do so. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 14:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd recommend getting the 'naming convention' changed, first. Changing just one article, will raise eyebrows. Anyways, it's out of my hands. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
What does it take to add to a 'naming convention'? Can any user with good reason add to it? I propose an addition along the lines of: "If a Monarch reigns over more than one independent sovereign country equally and separately and if there are no conflicting article names, the said article can be at <monarch name><regnal number> only". Hows about it? --~Knowzilla (Talk) 14:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Very good and reasonable proposal, i dont see why people would object to it. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Will such an amendment, effect the British monarchs way back to George I of Great Britain? Afterall, he & all of his successors have ruled over mutilple countries. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, do people think those article should be without a country name? If there have been several requests on their talk pages of the sort and if there are no conflicting names. Then why not? In meantime, we can move this article anyhow, because I read in naming convention that if a Monarch is famous known without the "of country" part (ie- QEII is known more as Queen Elizabeth II than Queen of the United Kingdom) then an Monarch's article need not have a country name afterwards. So, shall we request an admin to move this article now please? --~Knowzilla (Talk) 15:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm still iffy about it, as we've got her predecessors names 'including' a country. It's the lack of consistancy, I'm concerned about. Anyways, you're (of course) free to make a request. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move

Latest comment: 14 years ago91 comments28 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to rename. You might want to take this issue up at a higher level, to see if the naming conventions for monarchs can be changed in situations like this where one person is the monarch of multiple distinct entities. —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II — Just add this here so it's listed at the requested moves page, so admins can see (all the reasoning and discussion is already above the box (and now below it too), so I won't be adding a reason here). --~Knowzilla (Talk) 15:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Support I've made my reasons known above as well, but to summarise: 1) Elizabeth II is neutral, unbiased, and doesn't contradict sourced facts within the encyclopædia. 2) A disambiguation page can deal with similar names, as is done for other individuals. 3) Some monarch biographies are inexplicably exempt from Wikipedia naming conventions already. --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral I'd be supportive of this proposal, if all monarch article's title were similiarly changed (removing the of country). GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support of course. Elizabeth II is where this article should be at. The current article name is biased. The realms are equal, independent and sovereign. Queen Elizabeth II reigns over each of them equally and separately. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 16:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Isn't she more commonly known as Queen Elizabeth II? Jack forbes (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly why there is a proposed move. Only thing is, 'Queen'/'King', etc isn't included in a monarch's article name. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 17:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know that. Why is that the case when it flies in the face of most commonly used name? Jack forbes (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not my ruling, it's Wikipedia policy. So, 'Queen Elizabeth II' is most used, just take off the title of Queen, and theres what the article name has to be, according to WP policy: Elizabeth II. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 17:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Then Elizabeth II it should be. I don't mean to be picky, Knowzilla, but could you point out to me the policy concerned please? Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think it's due to titles being regarded as giving undue weight, but I couldn't swear to that. If I'm right, the idea is that we should avoid articles titled "President X", "Queen Y", "Professor Z", etc, because X, Y and Z are no more (or less) important than A, B and C, but their titles might give the reader the opposite impression. Hang on, and I'll have a dig and see if I can find the policy I'm thinking of... Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 17:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Post (e/c): Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people): "Do not have additional qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation". Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 17:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Hey! TFOWR, You've changed your name, well kind of. Jack forbes (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
No! It isn't me! I mean, you must have me confused with someone else ;-) TFOWRThis flag once was red 18:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The same Wikipedia guideline (not policy) that recommends leaving out Queen also recommends including of Kingdom. HM's ancestors are called of England, of Scotland, of Great Britain, of the United Kingdom, as the case may be; most of them have to be disambiguated (look at Henry IV to see why), and Queen Elizabeth should be in the same style. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
However there is no other Elizabeth II. Also that naming convention doesn't seem to be consistent with WP's NPOV policy. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 19:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there is: Elizabeth II, Princess-Abbess of Quedlinburg. Surtsicna (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Or else create a lot of separate pages for QEII of Canada; QEII of New Zealand; QEII of Australia. What is more important WP:NCNT or WP:NPOV? I'd say it's the latter - therefore the page must be moved. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose'. If the reason for moving the article is that all her realms are equal, wouldn't it mean moving all the monarch's pages since the Statute of Westminster? As the United Kingdom is the seat of the monarch and its origin, "of the United Kingdom" is appropriate.--Johnbull (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Queen Elizabeth II is the first to be officially titled "Queen of Canada" or "Queen of Australia". So it can start with QEII instead. The United Kingdom, while it may be the seat of the British monarch, it is most certainly not of the Canadian monarch, though the same person, they are legally distinct positions, the Canadian monarch's seat is in Ottawa. The current article name violates WP's NPOV policy. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 19:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. First change the naming conventions and then change titles of articles. Fairness and equality are not convincing enough to create inconsistency. Surtsicna (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
But this isn't about fairness and equality, the title is a clear breach of wikipedia's NPOV policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.226.253 (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
What point of view? Who denies she is Queen of the United Kingdom? (Any remaining Jacobites should remember that we title for de facto, not de jure, reasons; but they wouldn't call her Elizabeth II.) If there is a serious movement that she is Queen of Canada only, then we may be non-neutral towards it; but it would be news to Gordon Brown, as it is to me. Citation needed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The point is that the page name highlights only one aspect of her (sovereign of the UK) and by implication stresses that as more important than all the others when we know by the Statute of Westminster that all of the realms are independent of each other and all are equal in status. If the page name was "QEII of the Bahamas" I think most people would say that was ridiculous. It is no less ridiculous being "QEII of the UK"". NPOV trumps the naming convention and this page should be moved. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
If the article did not begin by noting that she is Queen of Canada, as well as the Solomon Islands, there would be a point to this; but it does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for reasons stated many times previously. Deb (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Individual cases decide policy/guideline, not the other way around. A guideline is changed by changing individual articles, and certainly not all of them at the same time. Don't point to a guideline when the objection is clearly to that guideline, and gives good additional reasons. NPOV is a policy, monarch naming is a mere guideline. The name proposed is more neutral - those who see this as a violation of consistency will find their efforts much better spent cleaning up articles and categories in much worse shape.    M   22:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Those who feel this their duty to Canada would find their time much better spent watching fireworks. There is no future in this; Charles III is hopelessly ambiguous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- This conforms to a longstanding convention that monarchs have their kingdom used as if it were a surname. Much as I would like the article on my Queen to be plain Elizabeth II, convention does not permit this. There is also Elizabeth II of Bohemia, currently a redirect. The fact is that she actually reigns in the UK, whereas elsewhere a Governor-General exercises royal powers on her behalf. Furthermore, her chose title is something like Queen of the United Kingdom and of her other dominions and realms. I expect the correct form is in the article (which I have not checked) as I write this. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no Elizabeth II of Bohemia. She was just a queen consort. That title was a hoax. There is, however, a Princess-Abbess of Quedlinburg called Elisabeth II. Surtsicna (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
She has multiple titles. Most of them (all except Canada?) place the country the title is used in first. --Ibagli, RNBS, MBS (Talk) 05:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the following reasons:
    1. First, let's propose this change at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles), so that those who are interested in monarchs' titulature but not particularly in Elizabeth II can see the discussion & be heard on its wider implications.
    2. Also, so that the many previous discussions on monarchical titulature can be reviewed and considered (e.g. here and here under "Monarchical titles").
    3. This seems a rush to judgment, with people in the discussion above having felt that because those participating at that moment were in agreement, and some find the current location objectionable, that there was both urgency and consensus in making this change, when there is neither.
    4. Encyclopedic consistency is a legitimate concern, and titles of other monarchs of all or part of the realms ruled by Elizabeth II should be coherent with whatever rationale is used to decide this case. But how would that apply to disambiguating Kings John of England or George II of Great Britain or William IV of the United Kingdom? And what about the many realms ruled by other monarchs, e.g. Henry IV of France was simultaneously King of Navarre, yet he was not the second named "Henri" there, nor was Pedro I of Brazil, who was also King of Portugal, the first "Pedro" to reign in Lisbon.
    5. The rule that monarchical article titles reflect the realm most widely associated in English with that sovereign was adopted after weighing the objections that a monarch's subjects of differing nationalities may object, versus the need to disambiguate monarchs with the same name, versus resolving the issue that most monarchs have ruled more than one realm during their lives but it's impractical to indicate that in an article's title.
    6. Finally, the claim that any usage of Firstname of Realm is unacceptably POV with respect to any other realms of which s/he was sovereign is a red herring, because that principle applies to neutrality between conflicting allegations within articles -- yet no one disputes that Elizabeth II is queen of both Canada and of the UK, as her article explains: But it is not a legitimate purpose of WP articles to title them so as to promote or deprecate terminology, rather it is to reflect prevalent terminology for ease-of-search purposes. Further, NPOV means that we assign proportionate weight to competing claims in articles rather than equal weight Lethiere (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you're right that this really is a wider matter and should be raised at WP:NCNT. However, the POV argument is hardly a red herring at all. Rather, I'd say it is the disambiguation argument that is a tangential distraction; we have WP:DPAGES for a reason. --Miesianiacal (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Lethiere is absolutely right, especially when saying that encyclopedic consistency matters. Surtsicna (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
He might be right if we actually had encyclopædic consistency to begin with; but, we don't. That's not to say we shouldn't or can't have it, only that there isn't a consistency we're bound by at this point in time. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
So, even the naming conventions say this article should be at Elizabeth II. Humm. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 13:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
What the section cited actually says is that it is acceptable to title articles with single names: Charlemagne, Fibonacci, Aristotle, and Livy. Whether we should do what we may do is another question entirely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Alright, let me reword myself, -the naming conventions also say that we may have this article at Elizabeth II-. Furthermore if several other currently reigning monarch's articles can be without the name of their country in the article title, and they reign over one country one, why not for a Monarch who reigns over more than a dozen countries equally? --~Knowzilla (Talk) 16:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - There is no reason why this article should not be renamed to Elizabeth II. It is a shame and a disgrace when conventions prevent common sense. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly - the naming convention was envisaged for one monarch, one realm scenarios. QEII is unique in that she is sovereign of sixteen independent realms therefore common sense dictates that this should be an exception to the naming convention, because it does not fit it in the way that the prince of Monaco or the Sultan of Brunei do. QEII is in a unique position and the page name should recognise that not give partiality to one of the realms. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The policy was designed precisely for the situation where a monarch has more than one realm - otherwise, there would be no need for it. ðarkuncoll 17:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
That is complete nonsense. The policy was designed to identify monarchs of the same name. As there isn't a glut of QEII's in history the guidance is not applicable in this instance. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: If we create a guideline for cases of multiple realms, we would need to rename articles such as Philip II of Spain. How would we name them? Just Philip (as Philip of England) or Philip I (as Philip I of Portugal and I of Naples) or Philip II (as Philip II of Spain)? He was equally king of all his domionions, yet... If we make this article a sole exception, encyclopedic consistency will be lost. Surtsicna (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Alot of monarch articles would need re-naming, if the convention is changed. Take the British monarchs for example: George I, George II & George III were also electors of Hanover. George III, George IV & William IV, were also Hanoverian monarchs. Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII & George VI, were also Indian monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Emperors and Empresses of India used the same regnal number as they did in the United Kingdom; ditto for those who were sovereigns of the Commonwealth realms. If the regnal numbering differs, then simply use both: James VI & I is used quite commonly outside of Wikipedia. So, Philip II of Spain would become Philip I and II. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, those are possiblities. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
"Philip I and II" would be original research, as no serious scholar calls him "Philip I and II". Do we really need to invent titles of other articles just to accomodate the articles about British monarchs? Or will we treat British monarchs differently than other European monarchs because of nationalistic feelings? Surtsicna (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
No, we don't need to change the titles of other European monarchs' pages at all. But you asked what could be done if they were. Philip I and II is no more OR than the title of this article, which was decided on by a selective and personal reading of sources by Wikipedia editors as opposed to directly mimicing all reliable sources available. --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
So, we should treat British monarchs differently than other European monarchs even though they are no different than other European monarchs who reigned over multiple realms? Philip I and II is more OR than the title of this article, because the title of this article is actually used by sources, while Philip I and II isn't. Surtsicna (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"More OR" is a little hard to quantify, is it not? This title is OR (besides being POV) because it is a selective choice of one title used by sources over others. Perhaps you could look at it this way: we're not discussing different treatment for British monarchs, we're looking at how to treat monarchs who aren't just British. --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec) Support. Until recently I would have opposed this, but having read the above and done some reflection, I think Elizabeth II would work best. When we hear "Elizabeth II", who do we think of? Certainly not Elisabeth II, Princess-Abbess of Quedlinburg. She and any other Elizabeth IIs can be disambiguated, just as any Winston Churchill who wasn't the wartime UK Prime Minister is disambiguated. Searching for "Winston Churchill" gets you straight to the article you're looking for in 999 cases out of 1000. "Elizabeth II" also avoids the entire issue of deciding which of her 16 monarchies to favour in the title - that long-running sore will now be dead. GoodDay's objections above do not apply here, as Philip had 2 different regnal numbers; same for James VI/I and others. That is still a live issue, one that I fear will never go away. If we're restricted (as we are) to choosing one title for a person who had 2 or more regnal numbers, we'll never please everybody. But this issue is not relevant to Elizabeth II, who has only ever had 1 regnal number. Encyclopedic consistency is a very high value, one I normally support, but special cases call for special solutions. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I neither support or oppose. I just rather we get the 'naming convention' changed (for all these monarchial articles), first. I'm not in favour of making just one article European article the exception (noting: Asian monarchs exceptions). GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Jack, the question then arises: what of George VI, Edward VIII, and George V, if not also Edward VII and Victoria, who also reigned over more than one country? (I am, of course, in favour of moving this page; I only ask as I suspect it's an unavoidable and related issue.) --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per a pretty reasonable naming convention. - fchd (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Reasonable?!? It's not reasonable at all and doesn't take into mind too much if a monarch reigns over more than one country equally. Even more another part of the naming conventions say we can use Elizabeth II. Furthermore, several currently reigning monarch's article names don't have their country names in their article titles, and they only reign over ONE country. That's very weird and unfair. QEII's article definitely needs to be at Elizabeth II, unlike some other monarchs, who only reign over one country, and nonetheless doesn't have to have their country name in their article name, Queen Elizabeth II reigns over more than dozen countries equally and independently. To favor one over the other in the article title is wrong and not neutral. Besides, Elizabeth II is more used than Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Every knows who we're talking about when we say Elizabeth II. NPOV is a very important policy, and to be neutral, this article must be moved. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 06:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
LOL @ reasonable, the policy imposed on this article title is offensive and a disgrace. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
LOL @ "offensive and a disgrace". Surtsicna (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, it is somewhat offensive. The current article title is also not consistent with WP's NPOV policy. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 13:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support The correct article title of "Elizabeth II of Antigua, Australia, Bahamas..." is unworkable. Relisted by population, "Elizabeth II of UK, Canada, Australia, NZ..." is also unworkable. We're left with two arguments against: what is the most well-known appellation in English? Well, for the 330 million American citizens and their popular sources of knowledge, that would be "Queen of England", which title does not exist. However, for 1.9 billion citizens of the British Commonwealth, it's rather well known that this person is titular monarch over many different states, so no confusion will arise with the simpler name. The other argument against is that this change will force other changes and/or that this should be taken up at the naming guideline. However the WP:NCNT guideline has alredy given us the answer, right at the top: it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. This is an exception, and a rather obvious one at that. Franamax (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose as we also have Elisabeth II of Bohemia, and other queens named Elisabeth too. Tfz 20:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
No, there is no Elisabeth II of Bohemia. It's a hoax. There is, however, Elisabeth II, Princess-Abbess of Quedlinburg. I should ask an administrator to delete Elisabeth II of Bohemia redirect, as it confuses too many people. Surtsicna (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Elisabeth II, Princess-Abbess of Quedlinburg, that's another notable Elisabeth, therefore serves for disambiguation. Tfz 01:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Skipping over the possible difference in spelling, standard procedure in cases of overlapping simple names is to compare their prominence/notability. (Normally, we would do that with Henrik's pageview counter but it's broken just now) In this case, the Elizabeth II who is the Queen living at Buckingham Palace will be the overwhelming choice that readers are searching for, so standard procedure is to put a dab note at the article top listing the alternate possibilities, such as {{See also}} or {{Dablink}}. This keeps the primary usage as the first hit when searching but lets the reader find the other usages. Franamax (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, 99.99999% of the time someone looks for Elizabeth II, its for Her Majesty the Queen, not any other Elizabeth/Elisabeth. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 07:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
After doing a quick search on google, even if you look for Elisabeth II, it's about The Queen the results turn up anyhow, not any other person. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 07:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment With regard to other British monarchs in the modern era, the only problem with disambiguation will be with George V of the United Kingdom, where George V can refer to many individuals, including the current King of Tonga (George Tupou V). Victoria, Edward VII, Edward VIII and George VI are amost always used with reference to the British monarchs. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 20:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:DPAGES --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
What about it? YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's why we need not worry about any disambiguation problems when it comes to the naming of monarchical biography articles. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I support the essence of the proposal and I'm all for NPOV, however this is not a new problem. Take, for example James I of England (not to mention many other examples). Simply naming the article "James I", does not only look awful is not really viable (such a solution would miss out the other King James I's (ie James I of Sicily, James I of Cyprus, James I of Aragon etc)). "King James I (England, Ireland & Scotland)" is another no-go as King James ruled as "King James of VI" in Scotland. I can see some of my arguments to not apply to this particular page, however decisions like this do seem to set a precedent and will undoubtedly affect other articles, and unless someone can come up with an all ecompassing solution for this problem, I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose...--Cameron* 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The naming of the James the 1st article is even more of a disgrace. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree, however there isn't really a better solution. "James I and VI" looks clumsy and "James VI (Scotland) and I (England and Ireland)" is awful. --Cameron* 10:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes the solution to that problem is far more complicated although i think James VI of Scotland is more approriate than the "Of England", he was king for Scotland for ALOT longer. That article name really bothers me for some reason, i have nightmares about it lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, every monarch should be treated the same. Pevernagie (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

May as well close this poll, some people refuse to accept commonsense so nothing is going to happen here. Wikipedia in this case will continue to insult 10s of millions of people as sadly they often do. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a little uncalled for. This is an opportunity for people to present their views, whatever they are, on an issue that's been unresolved for a long time. All reasonable contributions should be welcomed. That you don't happen to agree with some of them doesn't mean they're not "commonsense". Nobody's insulting anyone, but this is clearly an issue that's evaded a simple solution so far, and we can't pretend it's going to be fixed by someone saying their view is obviously the only one worth considering. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to ask this because you mentioned it so many times: can you please prove that the title of an article insults 10s of millions of people? 10s of millions of people don't even know who this woman is; I doubt that a significant number of people would be offended by a Wiki article. You exaggerate too much. Surtsicna (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Er, I'm quite sure that most people in the world know who QEII is. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 17:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
As I've mentioned earlier. Change the naming conventions for these articles first. Don't single out this article (particulary, while ignoring the other British monarchs articles & also all the English & Scottish monarchs articles). GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's been an interesting exercise; the results in favour of a move were far more than I expected; nearly 50%. I think this serves to highlight that there are issues with the naming policies that need addressed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would contest that, the naming policies are awful... ;) --Cameron* 10:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
If anyone wants to try & get the naming convention changed? I won't oppose it. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Who will oppose it if the proposed conventions are reasonable and usable?Surtsicna (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I too agree that we should do something about the rotten naming conventions first now. So, shall we close this proposal and plan a proposal for the naming conventions now? Anyone have any good ideas for a reasonable change to them? --~Knowzilla (Talk) 17:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think that, yes, this little survey has run its course. However, changing the naming conventions is going to be a near Herculean task, and will have widespread ramifications... Unless, that is, we maybe focus on developing a new sub-convention that applies only to monarchs who were the fulcrum of a personal union. I don't know; just thinking out... er, through the keyboard. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Whom ever chooses to go to the naming convention, don't forget to mention the Thai & Japanese monarchs articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Name

Latest comment: 14 years ago23 comments15 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was withdrawn by nominator without prejudice to other proposals. DrKiernan (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth — It is unacceptable the title of this article ignores the fact that Her Majesty is queen of 16 separate countries. Regardless of the fact that she is mostly associated with the UK, that does not accurately reflect reality. I realize that simplicity is an issue, but an extermely large percentage still believe that she is Queen of England and not Queen of Canada, Australia, etc in addition to Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As such, I recommend that the article be re-titled Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth. Some have previously stated that this is unacceptable because the title simply does not exist. Well, "Elizabeth II, ... Head of the Commonwealth" appears in all of her titles throughout the Commonwealth Realms, so this seems to be satisfactory and reasonable naming convention. Nonetheless, the present title "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" should continue to exist, but only as a page that is linked to the newly renamed article. Jagislaqroo (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned in the 'move to Elizabeth II'. We should seek a change at the naming convention. Singling out this article (particularly among the British monarchs), is unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Lord in heaven above, no! No! NO! She is not "of the Commonwealth". You ask almost anyone (putting aside most citizens of the other CRs) who Elizabeth II is, they will say, without a doubt "Queen of England". Now, since that's false, we use her true title which closely reflects that. I've seen people suggest a title change umpteen bloody times and they've never succeeeded. Just shut up, man up, and bugger off. Please. DBD 19:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Pure class you are, DBD. Pure class. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. From User talk:DBD: "Please feel free to speak your mind. But, first and foremost - please: Be civil, Be polite, Be reasonable". Ring any bells, DBD? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Mies: Cheers. Jack: The one problem with written communication on the internet is you can't read my tone. The tone is one of exasperation, rather than anger or attack — sure, it's slightly more on the boundaries of civil and polite than my usual, but surely you can tell it's not meant for offense (bloody; bugger, rather than "f-bomb" etc) — and I certainly don't mean any. If I've caused some, then sincere apologies. (In case anyone couldn't tell, oppose) DBD 09:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Ye responding to me or Jag? GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
"Upon Elizabeth's accession to the throne, her style and title in full was: Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Mercy, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem."
That is certainly counter-productive, but it is her real title at coronation.--Jagislaqroo (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it's either the current title or 'Elizabeth II'. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. She may be Head of the Commonwealth, but she is certainly not Queen of the Commonwealth. She's Queen of only 16 of the 53 member states. Associating a regnal number with "of the Commonwealth" would suggest she's Queen, separately, of all 53 states, which just ain't true. This idea is well intentioned but is not a starter, sorry. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see what you are trying to do, but I would avoid formulations that sound like they are a real title. Elizabeth II is Head of the Commonwealth (an article I have edited extensively) but that is an honourary position and she is only queen of the Commonwealth realms. Please read WP:NCNT for more information, and why thre title you suggest gives the impression that Elizabeth II is queen of all the Commonwealth countries, including republics like India and South Africa. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 00:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Everything I've learned about en;wiki article titles leads me to believe that we should be using the simplest and most unadorned article title: Elizabeth II, with dab links for the less well-known Elizabeth II's. Thumper, I share your confoundment, much as I dislike drawing conclusions on other editor states-of-mind, all I'm left with is a US-centric desire to reflect "no, she's the Queen of England - oh, not, well, United Kingdom then, they mean the same thing, don't they?" We're not allowed to use the full and proper title of the person, neither are we allowed to use a simplified title for the article. Instead we are stuck using a halfway-name. More than a billion readers would understand the nuances of the Commonwealth, but a vocal minority never will. There you are. Franamax (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - the fact that this issue keeps coming up just shows something.... About the proposed move: I would have supported if it were to Elizabeth II, not Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth, because that really doesn't exist, shes Head of the Commonwealth, but not Queen of the Commonwealth. In the end however this article does need to be moved, most certainly to Elizabeth II. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 06:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment For the sake of clarity of argument, I suggest we close this debate per WP:SNOW and as several people have suggested Elizabeth II we re-list with that. Aubergine (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose There is no title "Queen of the Commonwealth" as discussed above, In addition, in the case of Australia, QEII is only Queen of Australia as a consequence of her being the Queen of the UK; the Monarch of Australia will always be the same person as the monarch of the UK. The existing title of this article is clear, unambiguous and does not need changing at all. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose as she does not appear to be styled this way by anyone, anywhere. Concur with Elizabeth II and actually have long wondered why that isn't already the title of the article.  Frank  |  talk  06:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - current name seems to be the best. - fchd (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Current name is most certainly not the best, Elizabeth II would be. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 07:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd say this debate should be closed now. Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth isn't a very good article name, EIIR is Head of the Commonwealth, not queen, she is Queen of 16 independent nations within it though, so if theres going to be a move proposal, it should be to Elizabeth II. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 07:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - yeah, this should be closed. Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms could work, but I prefer Elizabeth II (with a disambiguation page to all other Elizabeth IIs, like Isabel II of Spain). Jagislaqroo (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Elizabeth II

Latest comment: 14 years ago33 comments13 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was - closed; no consensus to rename, this article will be renamed to Elizabeth II only after the naming conventions are amended. See here for the discussion to add to the conventions. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 17:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II — The last move request generated a lot of talk about renaming this article to just Elizabeth II. Even though this is might break officially with Wikipedia's naming conventions, Elizabeth II is a very unique monarch as she is head of state of 16 developed countries and this ought to be recognized. As with many things, precedent is just precedent and, although considered carefully, shouldn't always be followed. Jagislaqroo (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

George VI was head of 7 separate countries, as was Edward VIII and George V. Georges I through IV and William IV headed two countries, and James VI & I, Charles I, Charles II, James VII & II, William III & II, and Anne ruled over 3 distinct states. So, Elizabeth II isn't terribly unique in regards to being the fulcrum of a personal union; it's only the number of countries she heads that makes her stand out. I think this is why it was also decided at the end of the previous discussion on this matter that this article should not be moved until the naming conventions are first altered - perhaps to make a special provision for personal union monarchs. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any consensus as to that point. As far as I'm concerned, the general guideline that articles should be titled with the most common available option already trumps the specific sub-guidelines in all circumstances. Elizabeth II already redirects here, so there is no question that this is the primary topic for that title. That should, ideally, be all there is to it. There are enough straw men in the discussions above to keep crows off every field in the Realm. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Yea, but WP:NPOV (a policy) trumps WP:NCNT (a convention), and the naming conventions presently contravene WP:NPOV. Incidentally, WP:NCNT allows for the dropping of specific countries from monarchical article titles, perhaps to avoid just such conflicting scenarios. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing "POV" about placing this article at Elizabeth II. It is made very clear in our guidelines that article titles are not intended to endorse any particular position but simply to reflect the most common use. Elizabeth II already redirects here, which I cannot see as being any less "POV" than locating the article there in the first place. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The current article name is POV. Common usage would mean this would probably be at Queen of England or Elizabeth II of England, as actually already suggested. Besides, Elizabeth II or Queen Elizabeth II is used more than Elizabeth II of United Kingdom anyhow. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 16:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
[ec] Indeed, there is nothing POV about "Elizabeth II". However, the title of this page and a redirect to it are not the same thing, as illustrated by the fact that Elizabeth II of England also redirects here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
That we would opt for one rather than the other is simply because "Elizabeth II" is a more common name for her than "Elizabeth II of England" - again, page titles are absolutely not endorsements. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I would disagree; titles do communicate endorsements, and this one gives a preference to the United Kingdom. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Elizabeth II should be flipped, so that the former becomes the redirect to the latter. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:NAME#Controversial names: "In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name". The sole reason for moving the article is that the proposed title is more commonly-used than the current one. End of story. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Well then it appears we want the same thing, only for different reasons. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose This exact move request failed less than a month ago, wait at least a couple of months. TJ Spyke 16:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - current name is the best. - fchd (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The UK is her primary realm, where she lives and reigns in person. ðarkuncoll 17:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    ... which is of absolutely no concern when it comes to the discussion of the article title. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per TharkunColl, for her majesty's realm is indeed the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The proposer of this has only a couple of edits at WP, bit of a puzzle, and poll should be scrapped really. Tfz 19:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • According to the article you linked, said kingdom hasn't existed for over 200 years. Also, I hope I'm not the only one that finds the comment about the proposer to be inappropriate and irrelevant to the discussion, unless you have a specific accusation against said proposer of some specific violation of policy.  Frank  |  talk  19:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Glad someone noticed, for she's often called the queen of England. My comment was not against the editor, I believe that the editor is not long enough around to be instigating polls. Other editors may disagree with me on that issue, and that's ok. Tfz 19:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Erm, you say that "her majesty's realm is indeed the United Kingdom of Great Britain" (it's actually the UK of GB & NI), but the situation isn't the same as it was about 60 years ago. It's no longer the realm, the dominions and the colonies, but it is now the realms and their territories. They are all equally and independently Her Majesty's Realms. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 07:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm inclined to support, but I'm interested in the relevant policy or guideline with which such a move might conflict. I am capable of looking, but I think it's best for all to be coming at this from the same set of information, so I'm asking for others to provide the appropriate alphabet soup to aid in the decision-making process.  Frank  |  talk  17:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment (1) It should be noted that several of the other Wikipedias use Elizabeth II or something similar for their article on The Queen instead, without including the name of a specific country. (2) Articles such as the one of the Japanese emperor or the Thai king don't have their country name included in the article title, how is that when they are much less known than QEII? (3) I suggest we do something about the naming conventions first, just in case, even though one of them says having a article title without a country name in it is fine in the case of very well known people, and Queen Elizabeth II is most certainly very well known. (4) However or whenever it may be done, this article must move to Elizabeth II. This issue will keep coming up and up again, because people know the current article title is not NPOV. I can bet anything that this will come up again, several times probably, before the end of this year. (5) About common use: Elizabeth II or Queen Elizabeth II are terms used much more than Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 17:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as it would be inconsistant with the other British monarchs articles & their English & Scottish predecessors monarchs articles. IMHO, the United Kingdom is the realm associated the most with the Queen. It's best to get the naming convention changed, not individual articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes the UK is the Realm associated most with the Queen, but it doesn't mean the other Realms are secondary. Yes, I guess we should get the naming conventions changed first. When do we start with that? :P --~Knowzilla (Talk) 07:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The naming conventions set down a clear method for handling the numerous monarchs with multiple realms and we shouldn't abandon consistent practice. If people object to the naming conventions then discuss them overall there. Speedy close as this proposed move was discussed barely a month ago and constantly bringing back the issue is unhelpful. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Unhelpful to whom? This is the whole point of Wikipedia. If you disagree, you say so. If not, or if you don't care, then you don't do anything. The simple fact that this issue comes up so often says something. Jagislaqroo (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
      • It comes up a lot because some users do not respect a reasonable cooling off period after a previous discussion has not gone their way. Frequent repeated move requests irritate - see here for one past one (maybe we need a repeat of that) - and raise the suspicion that users are hoping a lower turnout will swing things their way. Too many articles on Wikipedia are not progressing because everyone's filling up the talkpage with endless discussion of what the article name should be. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose moving this article before changing the naming conventions. —JAO • T • C 07:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Please see the naming convention discussion pages.Jagislaqroo (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Heres a link to the discussion. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 08:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - read the section above. Surtsicna (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Would anyone mind if I close this? It seems there is agreement to amend the naming conventions before renaming this article. So, I invite people to take part in this discussion instead. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 15:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Alright I'm closing this, as it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Most people would rather see a change in the naming conventions before this article is to be renamed. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 17:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Coronation Gown - Reference to India

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Surely the lotus on her coronation gown only represented Ceylon, not Ceylon and India. India became a republic on 26 January 1950, so she was never Queen of India. Her father, the last Emperor of India (1936-1947) and then the first and last King of India (1947-1950) did not even hold the equivalent male title for the last two years of his reign. Even if one take a sentimental view and say it "really" represented both countries, the official representation *must* only have been of Ceylon - or the Queen, through her coronation gown, would have been making a potentially unconstitutional political statement about the Crown's relationship to India.

69.181.57.166 (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This belongs as the 'bottom' of the talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
This review is transcluded from Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hey all. I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This article has some serious issues that preclude it from achieving GA status as-is. However, to allow contributors opportunity to address my concerns, I am placing the article on hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

  • "and called "Lilibet"" -> "and was called "Lilibet""
    • Corrected
  • Should be consistent in whether quote marks close before or after punctuation marks.
    • Whole sentences have quote marks after the punctuation mark, fragments have quote marks before punctuation, per WP:MoS
  • "Caesarian section" -> "Caesarean section"
    • Corrected
  • Would suggest direct-linking to the section on 1st Buckingham Palace Company
    • Done
  • "dubbing Philip as" -> "dubbing Philip"
    • Corrected
  • What does the term "cadet relative" mean?
    • Removed
  • "During their Maltese visits, the children remained in Britain" - here, "their" seems to refer to the children, but it should be the parents
    • Corrected
  • "embarked on a six month, around the world tour" - should use hyphens
    • Corrected
  • "though the Prime Minister Eden, denied it" - either extraneous comma (and the) or missing comma, take your pick
    • Corrected
  • "are you there Mr. Prime Minister?", -> shouldn't end with a comma
    • Corrected
  • "However, evidence mounted that their relationship had hardened as the years passed,[89] until it was revealed in May 2007 that the Queen was "exasperated and frustrated" by Blair's actions, especially by what she saw as a detachment from rural issues, as well as a too-casual approach (he requested that the Queen call him "Tony") and a contempt for British heritage" - run-on sentence
    • Split into two sentences and shortened.
  • "Elizabeth could become the longest-lived British head of state (surpassing Richard Cromwell) on 29 January 2012, the longest-reigning monarch in British history (surpassing Queen Victoria) on 10 September 2015 at age 89, and the longest-reigning monarch in European history (surpassing King Louis XIV of France) on 26 May 2024, when she would be 98" - why are there ages for two dates? I would argue for either one or all three. Also, should maintain the "at age..." construction for the last age (if it is kept).
    • "at age" added for other two ages
  • Instead of blood pressure, consider linking to hypertension
    • switched
  • The long quote under "Canadian national unity" might be better off summarized and cited than simply quoted
    • Removed
  • Why are some of her titles only mentioned in the lead and not in the "titles" section?
    • They've been split off into List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II
      • Which means (I assume) that the less notable ones have been excluded from the titles section? In that case, these definitely shouldn't be in the lead. Put the most notable/ best-known titles in the lead, an expanded list in the titles section, and the full list in the daughter article.
  • "Elizabeth has received a many honours" - remove "a"
    • Corrected
  • "Bibliography" is the term generally used for books written by the subject of the article. I would suggest making the previous section "Notes" and this one "References"
    • Corrected

Accuracy and verifiability

  • The lead says she is the fourth-longest-reigning British monarch, but it says third-longest later in the article. Which is correct?
    • Resolved
    • This is not resolved at all. As I stated above in the talk section, Queen Elizabeth II is currently the fourth longest reigning sovereign in the history of the British Isles. The article states 'third' (which is wrong: 1) Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 63 years, 2) King George III of Great Britain and subsequently the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 59 years, 3) King James VI of Scotland just under 58 years 4) Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 57 years and closing in on James VI fast); and 'British/English' which is about as confused a terminology that you can devise for describing the political development of these islands. You need to use the term 'British Isles' because 1) England ceased to exist as a sovereign state in 1707 2) the term 'British' does not actually exist as a political entity: it's Great Britain (1707-1801), or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/Northern Ireland (1801-present). Can you change this please?Ds1994 (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Changed to "third-longest-reigning monarch of the United Kingdom"
  • All quotations need citations for GA status
  • I believe this one is done
  • Citations needed for:
  • To the dismay of the royal family, Crawford later published a biography
  • Cited
  • her Guides badges
  • Removed
  • There was some suggestion that the two princesses be evacuated to Canada
  • Reference at the end of the sentence
  • The ideas were rejected by the Home Secretary, on the grounds that it might cause conflict between north and south Wales
  • Reference at the end of the sentence
  • Before the marriage, Philip renounced his Greek and Danish titles, and adopted the style Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten, the surname adopted by his mother's family
  • Cited
  • The marriage was not without controversy: Philip was Greek Orthodox, had no financial standing, and had sisters who had married German noblemen with Nazi links
  • cited
  • The wedding was seen as the first glimmer of a hope of rebirth
  • Removed
  • Elizabeth and Philip received over 2,500 wedding gifts from around the world
  • Removed
  • In post-war Britain, it was not acceptable for any of the Duke of Edinburgh's German relations to be invited to the wedding
  Not done
  • in the words of Martin Charteris, "the Queen was naturally sympathetic towards the Princess, but I think she thought – she hoped – given time, the affair would peter out."
  • Cited
  • She became the first reigning monarch of Australia and New Zealand to visit those nations
  • added 2 refs
  • Eden recommended that Elizabeth consult...
  • Reference at the end of the paragraph
  • In both 1957 and 1963, the Queen came under criticism for appointing the Prime Minister on the advice of a small number of ministers, or a single minister
  • Reference at the end of the paragraph
  • During a trip to Ghana, she refused to keep her distance from President Kwame Nkrumah, despite him being a target for assassins
  • done
  • In 1969, Elizabeth sent one of 73 Apollo 11 Goodwill Messages to NASA for the historic first lunar landing
  • Text changed to match the citation at the end of the paragraph
  • The Queen took a deep interest in the constitutional debate, especially following the failure of Bill C-60
  • Cited
  • Commentators were universally shocked by the apparent attack on the Queen's life, even after it was revealed that the shots fired were blanks
  • removed
  • it was rumoured that Elizabeth was worried that Thatcher's economic policies fostered social divisions
  • Reference at the end of the sentence
  • Thatcher later clearly conveyed her personal admiration for the Queen, and expressed her belief that the idea of animosity between the two of them had been played up because they were both women
  • fixed
  • The Queen called 1992 her "annus horribilis" in a speech on 24 November 1992
  • Cited
  • In 1991, she became the first British monarch to address a joint session of the United States Congress
  • done
  • It was initially thought that Elizabeth had very good relations with Tony Blair
  • Removed
  • until it was revealed in May 2007 that the Queen was "exasperated and frustrated" by Blair's actions, especially by what she saw as a detachment from rural issues, as well as a too-casual approach (he requested that the Queen call him "Tony") and a contempt for British heritage
  • Cited
  • Elizabeth was rumoured to have shown concern that the British Armed Forces were overstretched, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as "surprise" over Blair's shifting of their weekly meetings from Tuesday to Wednesday afternoons
  • Concern cited; surprise (though citable) removed
  • Relations between the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh and Blair and his wife, Cherie, were reported to be distant, as the two couples shared few common interests
  • Though citable, removed as essentially repeats information already given earlier in the paragraph
  • In 2005, she was the first Canadian monarch to address the Legislative Assembly of Alberta
  • added ref
  • While she continues to have what is described as excellent health and is seldom ill
  Not done
  • While Buckingham Palace did not comment, medical experts stated that the Queen would have suffered no pain, and would be back to normal within a week or two, without lasting damage. However, they also mentioned that burst blood vessels, though common in the elderly, could be a sign of high blood pressure
  Not done
  • in November 2006, there were worries that the Queen would not be well enough to open the British parliament, and, though she was able to attend, plans were drawn up to cover her possible absence
  Not done
  • Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle are privately owned by the Queen, having inherited them from her father on his death, along with the Duchy of Lancaster, itself valued at £310 million and which transferred a private income to the monarch of £9.811 million in 2006. Income from the British Crown Estate—with holdings of £7 billion—is transferred to her British treasury in return for Civil List payments
  • resolved
  • When told that the separatists were showing a lead in the polls, Elizabeth revealed that she felt the "referendum may go the wrong way", adding, "if I can help in any way, I will be happy to do so." However, she pointedly refused to accept the advice, from the man whom she believed to be Chrétien, that she intervene in the referendum without seeing a draft speech first
  • Removed
  • Elizabeth personally worships with the Anglican church
  Not done
  • When in conversation with the Queen, the practice is to initially address her as Your Majesty and thereafter as Ma'am.
  • Cited
  • Elizabeth has been Colonel-in-Chief, Captain-General, Air-Commodore-in-Chief, Commissioner, Brigadier, Commandant-in-Chief, and Royal Colonel of at least 96 units and formations throughout the Commonwealth
  • Removed
  • Following her marriage, these arms were impaled with those of the Duke of Edinburgh (and might also want to explain what "impaled" means in this context)
  Not done
  • This same badge is also used as the Queen's personal flag for her role as Head of the Commonwealth, or for visiting Commonwealth countries where she is not head of state
  Not done
  Not done
  • Ref 45 needs to be expanded
    • Removed
  • The links to the official website are all redirected to its home page, instead of the intended target
    • Updated
  • Ref 57 has redundant dating
    • Removed
  • Refs 89, 117, 118 appear to be broken
    • Removed or corrected
  • Need publisher for Ref 94
  • added
  • Need consistent formatting for "Further reading" entries
  • fixed
  • External link 5 is broken
    • Removed
  • Should not have the same site in both "References" and "External links"
  • fixed?

Broad

No issues noted

Neutrality

  • Numerous violations of WP:WTA and WP:Weasel, adding an editorial bias to the article which needs to be addressed

Stability

  • While there are no ongoing edit wars, there have been minor issues with stability in the past, including a recent naming dispute. These issues are not, however, significant enough to merit a fail on this criterion.
    • The naming dispute is ongoing and shows no signs of abating, not very stable. LizzieHarrison 18:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

  • Lizwar.jpg is tagged as lacking author information
  Not done
  • Qu&DoE_Wedding.png no longer has a fair-use rationale because of issues with the "Historic fur" tag. This needs to be addressed before GA status can be achieved
  • Removed
  • Queencrown.jpg is missing a fair-use rationale, and the source is a broken link
  Not done
  • EIIR-Aus-1.jpg needs a fair-use rationale specific to this article
  • Removed
  • Blason_Elizabeth_Alexandra_Mary_du_Royaume-Uni.svg‎'s description needs to be completely translated - only a partial translation is present
  • Translated

Follow-up

Looks like there's been plenty of improvement on the article; there are, however, a few more issues that need to be dealt with, as well as a couple of minor problems brought in by recent edits. For simplicity, I will reiterate what still needs to be done.

  • Formatting, refs 94 and 121
  • References needed for:
  • In post-war Britain, it was not acceptable for any of the Duke of Edinburgh's German relations to be invited to the wedding
  • While she continues to have what is described as excellent health and is seldom ill
  • While Buckingham Palace did not comment, medical experts stated that the Queen would have suffered no pain, and would be back to normal within a week or two, without lasting damage. However, they also mentioned that burst blood vessels, though common in the elderly, could be a sign of high blood pressure
  • in November 2006, there were worries that the Queen would not be well enough to open the British parliament, and, though she was able to attend, plans were drawn up to cover her possible absence
  • Elizabeth personally worships with the Anglican church
  • Following her marriage, these arms were impaled with those of the Duke of Edinburgh (and might also want to explain what "impaled" means in this context)
  • This same badge is also used as the Queen's personal flag for her role as Head of the Commonwealth, or for visiting Commonwealth countries where she is not head of state
  • Note which of the links require log-in or subscription
  • violations of WP:WTA and WP:Weasel, adding an editorial bias to the article which needs to be addressed
  • The title of the article is still actively debated, and the page was moved and reverted recently
  • Lizwar.jpg is tagged as lacking author information
  • Queencrown.jpg is missing a fair-use rationale, and the source is a broken link

Definitely improving, but the majority of these issues need to be addressed before promotion. Ask on my talk page if you have any questions. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that this article has been on hold for well over a month, I'm inclined to fail it if the remaining issues aren't addressed within the week. Please ask questions here or at my talk page, and finish up these last few things so that the article can be promoted. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Bermuda seems to be missing from this site. The Queen is the Queen of Bermuda!

Role in government

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There's a problem in this section. It begins by stating, correctly, that she never expresses personal political opinions in public. But in the "Canadian national unity" section, that is, seemingly, exactly what she does as she "publicly praised Canada's unity and expressed her wish to see the continuation of a unified Canada". The truth is that these are not her words or her personal opinion. They are what she was instructed to say by her ministers. I'm inclined to see this whole section as problematic. This article should be a biography about Elizabeth the person, not an explanation of the role of the monarch in politics. That is rightly dealt with in articles such as Monarchy of the United Kingdom or Monarchy of Canada.

Consequently, I'd like to remove this whole section with two exceptions: 1. the first sentence should be kept as the second sentence of "Public perception and character". 2. The link to the political role of the monarch should be moved into a hatnote:

This page is a biography of Queen Elizabeth II. For the constitutional role of the monarchy, see Commonwealth realm#Monarch's role in the realms.

DrKiernan (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A fair point. It isn't true to say, BTW, that she never expresses her views in public. She has done, for example, in her comments at the Golden Jubilee that stressed the fact that she was crowned queen of the United Kingdom, ie, not of Scotland and England separately, so explicitly criticising calls for England and Scotland to separate. On other occasions she has made private comments which appeared in public (for example, her criticism of Margaret Thatcher on the Commonwealth, her criticism of Tony Blair saying that he had no sense of history, etc). But she takes care to ensure that usually her personal views are not known. They do become known on occasions. Those who know her views believe that she would someone closest to the right wing of the Labour Party or left wing of the Tories, someone of the Harold Macmillan ilk (Macmillan toyed with the idea in the 1950s move moving from the Tories to Labour.) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Move Page Again...

Latest comment: 14 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

How about "QEII of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and the United Kingdom."

Redirects mean there should be no problem with this. It adheres to the spirit of the naming convention and is NPOV unlike the current page title. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe we've had enough 'page move requests' for awhile. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary; keep them coming. Each one adds to the list that demonstrates just how inadequate the naming conventions are. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Nay, get the 'Naming convention' changed first. None of this selective articles stuff. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Get the naming conventions changed before using page move requests as illustration of how the naming conventions need changed? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Yep, ya'll should be raising heck at the Monarch naming convention. The Japanese & Thai monarchs have 'only' their regnal names. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense, GoodDay. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
This article shouldn't be given special treatment, at the expense of the other British monarchs articles & the English, Scottish monarchs articles. If this article gets renamed 'Elizabeth II'? then the others must be changed to 'George VI', 'Edward VIII', etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure; but, that doesn't have anything to do with what I said. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
It's okay; flatulence of the cranium does happen! ;) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Attempting to change the Naming Conventions went absolutely nowhere! 78.86.226.253 (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Then lets not bother changing them, just ignore them. We should change the title to Queen Elizabeth II. That is her common name by far. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

By using the DISPLAYTITLE code: {{DISPLAYTITLE:Elizabeth II <span style = "display:none">of the United Kingdom</span>}} we could retain the page at its current location, but the page title would display as "Elizabeth II", as shown by this example: Revision 308438443. DrKiernan (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes and yes! That should solve the problem somewhat. I think it should be Queen Elizabeth II though. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 07:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it can be used to insert words. Parallel discussion here. DrKiernan (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
It just saying Elizabeth II would be an improvement.. that should be done yes, although i agree Queen Elizabeth II would be better. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I won't go along with this name changing, if the other British monarchs aren't changed & the English, Scottish monarchs aren't changed. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive_17&oldid=1088682982"