Wikipedia

Talk:Elizabeth II#Rewriting some lines

Featured articleElizabeth II is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 2, 2012, and on September 19, 2022.
Did You KnowIn the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 29, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 15, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
January 26, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
August 26, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
January 26, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 22, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
February 23, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
May 21, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 31, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
February 4, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
September 14, 2011Good article nomineeListed
February 21, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
January 14, 2023Featured article reviewKept
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 2, 2006.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Queen Elizabeth II (pictured) once worked as a lorry driver?
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 9, 2015, June 2, 2022, and September 8, 2022.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 2, 2004, February 6, 2005, June 2, 2005, February 6, 2006, June 2, 2006, June 2, 2007, February 6, 2008, February 6, 2009, February 6, 2010, February 6, 2012, February 6, 2015, February 6, 2017, February 6, 2019, February 6, 2022, and November 20, 2023.
Current status: Featured article

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2025

[edit]

change head of the commonwealth to former head of the commonwealth 

2A00:23C4:A058:E701:80AB:E590:F5D4:66D6 (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


The word "was" covers "former". Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2025

[edit]

Please, I want to add something to the marriage aspect 102.90.81.156 (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth encountered Prince Philip in 1934, at the wedding of her uncle, Prince George, Duke of Kent, to Philip's first cousin, Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark 102.90.81.156 (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 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. DrKay (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Lead image

[edit]

Should the infobox photograph be changed from the current 1959 portrait to something else? Note that the other three images below are purely illustrative and not part of the proposal. Cremastra (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Current (1959)
    Current
    (1959)
  • Example of a potential alt (2015)
    Example of a potential alt (2015)
  • Example of a potential alt (1986)
    Example of a potential alt (1986)
  • Example of a potential alt (2007)
    Example of a potential alt (2007)
  • 1986 (retouched)
    1986 (retouched)
  • Yes Two and a half years ago, a discussion emerged with the consensus that the 1959 official portrait of the Queen is best suited to represent her in the infobox. It's time to revisit that decision. Most photographs we have of deceased famous people (e.g. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, for example, but also Lester B. Pearson, Hermann Göring) have images which represent what they are best known for, represent their full lives, and are recognizable to readers. Pearson, for example, is best remembered as being a diplomat and a Canadian Prime Minister; he is pictured in a suit black and white during his first year in office as PM. Prince Philip is best remembered as the royal consort; he is pictured in a suit in 1992. This picture is thus old enough to represent his life, but recent enough that he is recognizable. By contrast, Queen Elizabeth is pictured in 1959 as a young queen with crown and sash. Given the age of the photograph this can hardly serve to represent her full reign, nor is it recognizable today. MOS:LEADIMAGE tells us that the lead image should be natural and recognizable; in fact, it should be what our readers will expect to see. The 65-your old photograph does not at all accord with her public image today, which is better represented by the 2015 and 2007 images; indeed, the 2015 image is such a good representation it was used until her death.
  • In effect the problem is that a hurried decision was made two years ago to select a bad image that, due to its age, was felt to better represent the Queen and her reign. In hindsight, it is clear that this is not so, as the image is outdated, unrecognizable and in fact jarring, thus falling deeply afoul of the MOS guidance on lead images. Cremastra (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes As someone who was alive for the whole of her reign, an informal picture (such as the 2015 example) is how I, and probably many people alive today, will recognise her. Leave the formal portraits to illustrate the historical aspects. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The current image is fine. Peter Ormond 💬 06:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Change it. Hard to see how the current image was ever chosen. Although it isn't a vote on the others, I think the 1986 photo is best because it is mid-reign and very roughly would relate to most living people's first memory of her. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes The 2015 photo has the best artistic and technical quality, and has been used previously. The formal portraits are too stodgy, and I have never been able to understand why the 1959 photo has such a fan club.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the 1986 or 2015 ones are better, as others have said the 1959 one is best put in the body. It looks pretty strange tbh. Kowal2701 (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes The 1959 photo is a surprising choice. I prefer the 2015 photo for its quality. Schwede66 01:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - the 2015 image would be best. GoodDay (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the 1986 or 2015 one would be better. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 03:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the 2015 one is best and will be more recognisable than the current one to many people GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: 2015 version should be used since that is more recognizable than 1950s/1980s version since most readers (especially non-British) would be familiar with her appearance. 2409:4060:29A:DD05:5C8:6E54:A37E:3CE0 (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes The 1959 image is too formal, dated and faces away from the article. The 2015 and 2007 images are more recognisable but visually distracting due to their large hats. The 1986 portrait strikes the best balance: dignified, mid-reign and recognisable, even if the regalia is from New Zealand. Most won't notice, and it reflects her wider role as Queen of multiple realms. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I have added a retouched version of the 1986 photograph that looks less washed out, for comparison. Cremastra (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the 1959 image is just not representative of how she's seen, I feel mainly because of her age in it, meanwhile the newer photos show the general idea of her being a sort of elderly stateswoman V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2015 pic per others above. Maybe in 200 years when nobody alive remembers QE2, an earlier pic would he suitable, but for now it should be a recognisable one and that means recent for a significant majority of today's world population wasn't alive in 1959.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I find the 1959 one to be barely recognizable to how she is seen. The 2015 one is how I, and I suspect most other people, view her today and would be my first choice. The 1986 photo is a good middle ground for her appearance between the start and end of her reign, but suffers from the relatively low image quality. DrMarvello82 (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - I prefer the 1959 photo. It reflects her long reign and the remarkable age at which she became queen. The current image effectively captures the significance of her role and the passage of time, which are key aspects of her notability. Nemov (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No – The 1959 portrait is perfectly representative of her primary role as queen. If it is to be changed then it should be to the 1986 portrait or a similar portrait with crown. I do not believe it should be a photo from the last twenty to thirty years. The most common argument in favor of change is that the current photo is not representative of how most editors/users knew her. That is a ridiculous argument for an encyclopedia which should present as neutral a view as possible with respect to time and focus. An encyclopedia is not supposed to be a reflection of only recent knowledge (see WP:RECENT Ha2772a (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How is a picture taken 7 years into her 70 year-long reign neutral? Cremastra (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The other photos are just as representative and are more recognisable to a lot more recognisable to more people.
    How is that photo neutral and not the others? GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - as others have said, the infobox photo should be representative of a person's entire life, and/or how they are best known to the average reader. I suspect the 1959 image is so old that a large subset of our readers wouldn't immediately recognize that it is the Queen; it's better suited as a representation of her early reign in that section of the article. I prefer the 2015 image for the infobox - it depicts a Queen that most readers would be familiar with, as well as the bold fashion and fancy hats she was known for later in her life. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They are all neutral, and I agree we should not be bound by how readers remember her, which is age dependent. We must not forget that she changed considerably with the times and her role and how she was perceived in 1953-59 was very different from 2005-2016. The wind of change still had not happened and media treatment of her was very deferential in the 1950s, well before divorces, gossip and scandal started in the 1980s. Objectively, she was first a sovereign, and the country's mother and grandmother figure second. To reflect that we should choose 1959 or 1986. I still lean towards 1986 as a better photo. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Current image is fine. How most people today remember her is not an argument, we don't use post-2000 images for Pope John Paul II, Jimmy Carter, Fidel Castro, or Rama IX. One of the most notable, probably even the most notable, aspect of her reign is major shrinking of British global empire, which happened relatively early in her reign.--Staberinde (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes In the current image she is looking away from the article and it is not how most (by far) people remember her. The one from 1986 is better. Graham Beards (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I believe the photo should be changed. I join the arguments for mid range. It represents her at the most neutral position and is also an official portrait with regalia and jewelry.
I feel regalia and/or jewelry, even a limited amount like a tiara and bracelet , is a requirement for the lead photo in an article about a monarch whether dead or living. Alternatively a military uniform can be used. However it must be dignified and honorable. The monarchy is dignified and the monarch a symbol. That symbol must not become too down to earth or the magic is lost.
When this article or any other royal article is entered the soft spot between familiar and dignified must be hit. The 1986 proposal is that. My opinion is therefore that the lead picture hould be switched to 1986 retouched. Finfixer (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but if consensus is to change the photo, then I'd choose 1986 retouched. The first photo, in my opinion, is a very nice high quality portrait in splendid royal regalia. ―Howard • 🌽33 23:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I think it should be changed, and the 1986 image would be what I would change to. However, I am concerned that the quality of the image is not brilliant. It is a heavily-cropped photo of a photo portrait from when she visited the New Zealand Governor-General in 1986. I have contacted the Governor-General's office to ask if they have access to a higher-resolution digital scan of the original image. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes 1986 retouched, definitely. The 1986 would have her body at least facing the text, which is favorable for lead images. The 1959 just looks off because she just looks stiff and only 3/4 of her face is showing. Rexophile (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes 2015 seems to be the best because it is the most recognizable, which appears to be standard with similar individuals AstralNomad (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, per Staberinde. Remsense 🌈 论 22:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes 2015. The current one is not her as many people remember her, and is really of another era. Remember that the current image got a bare majority of votes (not !votes) and should be changeable if it no longer commands that majority.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes 2015. The current one is not her as many people remember her, and is really of another era, The current one is essentially 'historical' and could be used in the apt part of her reign though it is fairly 'stiff' as a portrait.Pincrete (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes 2015. This one represents her as most people will have seen her. I also think it's a great photo that sums up the Queen's personality quite well. I don't like the current one at all. Jasp7676 (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]