Talk:Elizabeth II

An event to come, which may need work on, now.

It's gonna be rather tricky, figuring out how to right up the intro, when she passes on. Along with the United Kingdom, she will have reigned over 31 other realms. I suppose we'll figure that out when the time comes, but we gotta be realistic. Elizabeth II's in her 97th year & has increasingly become quite frail, since Philip's passing. It may not be a bad idea, to figure this out, before that day comes. To do so, would prevent potential edit-wars. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I don't see any issue. Change of tense and circumstances of her death is all that's needed. What's the problem? DeCausa (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I was just worried. Some might be annoyed with how the 31 other realms would be shown in the lead. Considering that she (so far) has had her reign ended in 17 of them, during her lifetime. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see what difference her death makes. Seems a non-issue, particularly as no one has said they're "annoyed" about it. DeCausa (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll assume that nobody will object to "..was Queen of the United Kingdom and 31 other Commonwealth realms". Anyways, as a personal request, would you place this aside in the archives, for later? Someone 'did' bring up this topic, last year or earlier this year. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean. I think some formulation like "14 at her death" will be fine with the possibility of adding reference to another 17 in her lifetime if people want it. I still think it's not going to be a big issue. Certainly not something to worry about now. DeCausa (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Very well. To date, she appears to still be mentally sharp, so there won't be any slight changes (addition of regent) in Charles' bio lead either, anytime soon :) GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this statement-

When it does happen probably atleast 90% of the Wikipedian Volunteer base will be on the page making many edits and when that will turn out most likely the page may crash, and be locked due to "vandalism" or some other reason, leaving an admin to do it themself. And I am sure that that may be the case for all the other royals after her passing, and they'll leave the admins to do it up. I can't say this will be true but in my opinion it will most likely happen. Nolan MacLellan (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully something as follows will be suitable: "Elizabeth II was Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in {Year}. She was queen regnant of X Commonwealth realms throughout her long reign, but she served as the monarch of Y realms at the time of her death." Векочел (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal, sums everything up succinctly. I think it makes sense to hold an RfC to have this, or a variation on it, to set it as the official opening paragraph for when she "stops being queen". When that time comes, if any edit-warriors want to pick a fight we can point them to the archived discussions. I have attempted to improve it by looking at a variety of opening sentences on articles about other British monarchs and other related articles but have used User:Векочел's original as a guide.

I propose temporarily changing the infobox image to this one when she dies. I think it's very fitting. Firebrace (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay it's almost time, look at the news. A lot of people are probably going to try to edit it right away. Shane04040404 (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – 08/09/2022 was a Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death on [DD,MM,YYYY]. She was queen regnant of X Commonwealth realms throughout her reign, and served as monarch of Y realms at the time of her death. Her reign of [?] years and [?] months was longer than that of any other British monarch and the longest of any female monarch in history.

[footnote] If she should happen to reign on or past May 26, 2024, then "longest of any female monarch in history" would be replaced by "longest recorded of any monarch of a sovereign country in history." Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

She's Head of the Commonwealth of Nations, not Queen of the Commonwealth of Nations. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, it was a blunder. I had pencilled in "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms", before I decided to refer to the Commonwealth as "Commonwealth of Nations", but stupidly forgot to add in "Head of" between the two. Has been fixed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the introduction as written by User:Tim O'Doherty, will wait to hear what others think. Векочел (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd recommend "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", that way, folks can decide for themselves if it's the 14 other (current) or 31 other (including former realms). GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The general form is fine but the current exact wording is over-repetitive, by which I mean it is (1) unnecessary to repeat the death date and (2) unnecessary to say realms three times when other, clearer phrases can be used. DrKay (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – [date of death])[a] was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death. She was queen regnant of 32 different sovereign states in the course of her reign, and served as monarch of Y of them at the time of her death. Her reign of [?] years and [?] months was longer than that of any other British monarch and the longest of any female monarch in history.

Yes, that would fit nicely, DrKay. GoodDay (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this revised paragraph. However, should it be "until her death in [year]" without the date and month as this is used in William the Conqueror, William II of England, Henry I of England, Stephen, King of England, Henry II of England, etc.? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

What about "Elizabeth II was Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in ????. Her reign of 70+ years is longer than that of any other British monarch in history, and was marked by a great decolonisation of the territories of the British Empire, and its transformation into the modern Commonwealth of Nations. As queen of 32 independent nations, she was served by a total of more than 170+ prime ministers."? Peter Ormond 💬 13:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's as clear because it implies she was queen of 32 independent nations for 70+ years, rather than stating that these were spread over the course of her reign. I also don't understand why the prime ministers are mentioned in the first paragraph. We don't do this for any other monarch as far as I know nor do I see why something not in the article body is important or notable enough for the lead let alone the first paragraph. DrKay (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

In agreement with DrKay & indeed, we don't need to mention the prime ministers in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

In this version, you get the mention of:

• the birth and death dates (obviously)
• reign start and reign end dates (every monarch have them, obviously)
• duration of reign (70+ years)
• longest reign in British history (could be changed to just "history", if she beats Louis XIV)
• decolonisation of Empire (Queen Vic's bio says her reign was "marked by a great expansion of the British Empire", so decolonisation should be mentioned at Liz's)
• expansion of the Commonwealth (that's what many scholars say her reign will be remembered for and reportedly that's what the Queen considers her greatest achievement)
• total number of realms (there are 32 of them. I don't think we should break them into groups in the first sentence like total realms, and how many were there at time of death. It is trivial and creates a lot of clutter, and the lead already says that "the number of her realms has varied over time as territories have either gained independence or become republics". We already have the infobox for exact dates of reign in all realms.)
• total number of prime ministers (her relationship with prime ministers is very much talked about in the media, more than any other monarch in my view. And she has seen quite a lot of them. Monarchs like Bhumibol Adulyadej and Akihito also have mention of total PMs in lead. I know it is not in their opening sentence, but I kinda used that info to present the total number of realms in the introduction.) Peter Ormond 💬 14:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any of the prime ministers or decolonisation or whatnot should be in the first paragraph. Leave that for the rest of the lead. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

That's too much for the lead, Peter. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Then the last sentence may be removed and the 32 realms may be mentioned in the lead's third para, like: "The number of her realms varied over time as territories gained independence and some realms became republics. All in all, Elizabeth served as monarch of 32 independent nations of the Commonwealth." Peter Ormond 💬 16:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that the lead paragraph that should be in the article at the time of Elizabeth's death should be the following. If anybody wants to add or remove anything, we can continue to hash it out, but I think it is for the best that we should come to a conclusion soon as this discussion has gone on for over a month. I have mashed together all the suggestions into the paragraph below, which, hopefully, we can all somewhat agree on.

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – [date of death])[a] was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in [year]. She was queen regnant of X Commonwealth realms in the course of her reign, and served as monarch of Y of them at the time of her death. Her reign of [?] years and [?] months was longer than that of any other British monarch and the longest of any female monarch in history.

[footnote] If she should happen to reign on or past May 26, 2024, then "longest of any female monarch in history" would be replaced by "longest recorded of any monarch of a sovereign country in history." Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

What's the reign in "in the course of her reign"? There have been 32 reigns (one each in all 32 realms), 17 of which have ended. Peter Ormond 💬 11:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

All but one editor commenting in the discussion are essentially agreed on this outline. It's bound to go through some further modification at the time, as will the rest of the article, but this appears to have consensus for now. It's unnecessary to get hung up over nuances at this stage. DrKay (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

DrKay's version is best. GoodDay (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

BTW, I've begun a related discussion at the talkpage of Charles, Prince of Wales, as Elizabeth II's death will bring about some changes in Charles' intro & infobox. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, it could come sooner than any of us thought. She's on her way out. Firebrace (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think today or tomorrow may be it. I feel this page is going to experience a lot of traffic and a lot of editing, so perhaps a good draft is to be penned and then the page locked until further information? AlienChex (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@AlienChex I agree. Shane04040404 (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Shame to see and hear about all of this, as someone who loves the monarchy and British history. This isn't confirmed, but I've had sources from inside the Green Party tell me that she has already passed. This could be a very sad day for Great Britain. (88.202.138.186 - Not Logged In) 15:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.202.138.186 (talk)

Agree, a real shame see and hear about. The Queen is an iconic part of the country's history and it will be sad to see her go. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@88.108.44.8 She has passed. 90.37.237.215 (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@DrKay:'s version of how the lead should be upon the monarch's passing, is the best version. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

News has just broken. A sad day for all of us.

R.I.P. Condolences to all affected. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Phew. Good job this was all agreed in advance. Not. DeCausa (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Why was the intro that got consensus above not used as the intro section upon her death? I think it should be as it is much more accurate then what is currently being used. Can someone make that change? Max3218 (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I.e “ Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – 8 September 2022] was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in 2022. She was queen of 32 realms at the start of her reign and monarch of 14 of them at the time of her death. Her reign of 70 years and 214 days was the longest of any British monarch and the second-longest recorded of any monarch of a sovereign country.” Max3218 (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. Now that she has passed the lead should be changed to “Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – 8 September 2022] was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in 2022. She was queen of 32 realms at the start of her reign and monarch of 14 of them at the time of her death. Her reign of 70 years and 214 days was the longest of any British monarch and the second-longest recorded of any monarch of a sovereign country” and any further revisions should be reversed and directed to this section of the talk page. Please may someone with extended confirmed user access make the necessary changes. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I would support only using the death year (until her death in 2022), rather than the whole date of death in the first sentence. Векочел (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep—the consensus people reached here clears up multiple issues that have been raised throughout the talk pages. Specifically, on the date being repeated twice, that has been dealt with again though annoyingly still without the rest of the content mentioned here. Even despite there being a note specifically telling people to look at the talk pages! JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 02:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Let’s keep this page locked and under control, as well as any Royal related pages, as they will be prime targets for vandalism and false information at a time like this AlienChex (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

See about maybe adding the epthet of 'the Great' as politicians in the past year and particularly now have started calling her Elizibeth the Great. As well as Matriarch of the Nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingMyrddin (talk • contribs) 11:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

We would need reliable sourcing and significant coverage (rather than scattered mentions) to avoid recency bias, though of course I would generally agree with the sentiment. TNstingray (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC on popularity and support for the monarchy claims in the lead

Should the lead section sentence "However, support for the monarchy in the United Kingdom has been and remains consistently high, as does her personal popularity." be changed to "In the United Kingdom, support for the monarchy remains high but has been declining in recent years. Elizabeth's personal popularity has been and remains consistently high."? (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

No sources have been provided to oppose this change nor have the sources I provided been refuted in any way. Three people are either indifferent to or open to changing the sentence, with 2 in some form of opposition.

The material in the article is outdated and an update to it is warranted. There've been no replies here in 3 1/2 days. I'm ending the RfC and applying the change to the lead, with citations. DeaconShotFire (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You don't get to close an RFC you started & then unilaterally make a ruling on it. You wait until the RFC tag expires on 22 August & then seek closure at the proper board. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Misread the last 2 rules on the RfC page. Let's have it run its course then. DeaconShotFire (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Survey

Note: RFC closer should see Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive_44#Revert_image_change and six other threads on image below it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Kommentar While I would agree that the aging of the prior data is a concern, it does look like the most recent is from 2012 (at least according to the lead comment). If such exists, I think more than one more recent data source would be helpful. Has any other source collected more recent polling data on this subject? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/three-five-favour-britain-remaining-monarchy-although-support-falls-2012-peak-more-become-0 - This, by the way, is a more recent poll from one of the 2 sources currently cited in the article. This only furthers my point.

  https://www.itv.com/news/2022-06-01/poll-dramatic-decline-in-support-for-monarchy-in-decade-since-diamond-jubilee

  https://www.npr.org/2022/06/01/1102335388/queen-elizabeth-platinum-jubilee-great-britain-royal-family?t=1658523026450

  https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/platinum-jubilee-queen-half-britons-wont-celebrate-royal-family-out-of-touch-poll-1665587 DeaconShotFire (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, DeaconShotFire, I'll take a look at those. You will also need to reformat the RfC's introduction to something neutral (in this case, probably of the form "Should X be changed to Y?"). Currently, it argues for your position, which is not appropriate. If you want to argue for your position, do it in this section, not the RfC introduction itself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  Given the more recent polling data including falling support levels, I think some material regarding that change is appropriate (so long as it's contextualized appropriately; it looks like a majority still generally is in favor). I also do agree that material regarding the level of support for the British monarchy in general is appropriate in this article, as Elizabeth is the most visible symbol and essentially "face" of said monarchy and as such is inextricably linked to it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Kommentar (apologies for the editing mess) The article contains an editor's note citing polls conducted in 2006 and 2007, implying the sentence shouldn't be changed because of them. I argue these polls are extremely outdated and no longer reflective of reality. I sourced more recent YouGov polls in my edit which show a decline in support for the monarchy, but consistent popularity for the Queen herself. The sentence is even later directly contradicted by a more recent inclusion in the article: "Whilst not as universal as it once was, various polling suggested the popularity of the monarchy remained high in Great Britain during the Platinum Jubilee". Why is this article still citing polls conducted a decade and a half ago, when more recent data is so readily available, as evidenced by the latter quote?

  https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2022/06/01/platinum-jubilee-where-does-public-opinion-stand-m

  https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Queen_Elizabeth_II DeaconShotFire (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral - I've no concerns either way, if it's added or not. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• No: - the proposal just has not met WP:ONUS of providing cites showing any noted drop for Elizabeth II nor showing it WP:DUE mention, and the vague phrasing gives a false impression of significant shift and/or low approval. The NPR cite above gives her approval at 80%+ in 2022, Really this is not a vital thing as it's not like she is standing for election or that her rule is greatly affected by minor shifts. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  A drop of approximately 10% in 10 years is not substantial? The phrasing also doesn't have to be set in stone. The sentence maintains that her personal popularity is high, while mentioning declining support for the institution of which she is the figurehead and most recognisable member. You haven't refuted any of the sources I provided suggesting that the information in the article is outdated. DeaconShotFire (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  Definitely not any substantial change nor any impact. The minor variation over 30 years is not widely remarked upon like something of importance would be, nor did the trivial variations affect her life. The Diamond Jubilee 10 years ago did mark a minor peak -- but it is hardly significant as seen by there just was not much notice of it. It is not WP:DUE any remark, let alone wandering off into offtopic remarks not about Elizabeth II. Look at the chart in Ipsos and it is just 30 years of not much change and no importance. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  If it's got nothing to do with her then surely we should remove any mention of the monarchy as a whole from the article. Clearly that's an absurd idea because it's entirely relevant to her.

  "The Diamond Jubilee 10 years ago did mark a minor peak -- but it is hardly significant as seen by there just was not much notice of it." - No source to back this up I guess, ignoring the 5 that I've posted above countering exactly that statement.

  "It is not WP:DUE any remark, let alone wandering off into offtopic remarks not about Elizabeth II. Look at the chart in Ipsos and it is just 30 years of not much change and no importance." Again -- no explanation for why you think this is unimportant. Not that whether you think it's important is relevant; I'm alleging that the information in the article is outdated -- and you claim that new data conducted by Ipsos and YouGov is not important enough to include, therefore we should leave the article as is? DeaconShotFire (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Sure, I can explain again. Yes, leave it alone or removal would be fine, and the support for monarchy just is phrased separately from her and is not a big debate so trimming that out would also be fine. The proposed statements are not fine. In 70 years it seems approval rating is proven insignificant by having no major variations, no effects, and no major coverage. One could even add the 2022 links to the existing text as there just is not much going on here.

  I did not ignore the 5 cites shown, but observe that the Diamond Jubilee was a minor peak and the rating simply returned to the norm shown in the 30 year chart, so a statement summarising that solely about the minor decline is a misleading distortion of that material and an incorrect implication of cause. I again note it all seems an UNDUE issue because 5 cites out of tens or hundreds of thousands of Diamond Jubilee links available just is microscopic. Approval rating in her case just has not been anything of great change or impact or public coverage. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support - the proposed wording regarding the monarchy ("remains high but has been declining in recent years") appears accurate, brief and well supported by the sources DeaconShotFire points to at the top of this survey. The sources explicitly describe this shift as being a significant feature of/challenge within Elizabeth's reign, evidence of due weight. I agree the current wording regarding the monarchy generally ("has been and remains consistently high") is poorly supported, likely outdated and contradicts the sources raised above, while being a better reflection of Elizabeth's personal popularity. Jr8825 • Talk 10:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• No. I don't think the new wording is right. The article text says the popularity was lowest in 1997, which is believable and cited. Popularity was high before then, it then sank to a low point in the late 1990s, it then rose again. This new sentence doesn't appear to reflect that. Even at the low point, support for the monarchy was still far higher than for republicanism. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Polls are open to so much interpretation, from the questions to the results, that it's best to leave them out of an encyclopedia, unless maybe it's an indepth analysis considering many polls and poll results over many years. It certainly shouldn't be in a lede. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment* If anything, the statement should at least be cleaned up to remove a few redundancies. "However, support for the monarchy in the United Kingdom has been and remains consistently high, as does her personal popularity." Kerdooskis (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, If you look at Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom#Opinion_polling, support dropped in 2019 after the Andrew episode and has since been fairly stable at a lower (but still quite high) level. As such, saying it's "declining" does seem inaccurate.--Llewee (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, I've debated on this sentence before, and at the time we ended up not changing it. This was in mid-to-late May this year. I added 2 opinion polls to the article from 2020-2022 and that meant that the sentence could be kept intact. This issue has been thoroughly discussed very recently, and AFAIK there has been no major change in the popularity of the monarchy. I see no reason as to why it should be changed now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment: I would suggest editing that statement to "However, she remains a consistently popular monarch", or something similar (with appropriate citation), and removing all reference to the popularity of the monarchy itself. The popularity of the monarchy is actually a concept quite separate to the popularity of Elizabeth as a monarch. Many of the things that have influenced the popularity of the monarchy (Prince Andrew, for example) haven't really involved Elizabeth directly. This would, happily, spare us the obligation of assessing whether the British Public are currently royalists or republicans. Elemimele (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  I would argue she is more or less the embodiment of the monarchy. Plus, not everything in the article is directly or has to be directly exclusively about her. The article goes on to talk about increased criticism of the royal family as a whole in the 1980s, and states that Elizabeth's own personal popularity is credited with Australia voting in 1999 to keep their monarchy. DeaconShotFire (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  Her personal popularity is inevitably linked to the popularity of the monarchy itself. From what I can tell, Elizabeth seems to be consistently popular, unlike some of the royals. I don't see any good reason to change the language in the fourth paragraph. Векочел (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  "Her personal popularity is inevitably linked to the popularity of the monarchy itself." This is a sentence that argues for my side. If they're linked, it should be mentioned.

  You also haven't refuted the evidence I've posted above that the information in the article is outdated. DeaconShotFire (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Please let the RFC run its full 30-day course. Then seek closure at Wikipedia:Closure requests, when the RFC tag expires. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Infobox photograph for after her death

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

---

This might be a tad bit early to discuss, but I think we can get ahead of the curve and discuss pictures that are appropriate to use in the infobox following the Queen's death. There are a quite a large number of photos on Commons and a bunch of these from different parts of her life are included on the right side of the screen below.

• 
  (Option A: Portrait from 1943)
• 
  (Option B: Portrait from 1953 Coronation)
• 
  (Option C: Official portrait from 1959 tour)
• 
  (Option D: Official portrait from 1986)
• 
  (Option E: Official 2011 New Zealand portrait)
• 
  (Option F: Current infobox photograph prior to death)
• 
  (Option C1: A tighter cropping)
• 
  (Option C2: Full image with natural brightness)
• 
  (Option G: Coronation with Prince Philip portrait)
• 
  (Option H: Coronation)
• 
  (Option H1: Coronation cropped)
• 
  (Option I: Head shot from 2012)

I'm not exactly sure which one best would represent the queen, but I think that this talk page would be the best place to find people who would have an idea about what photo would be best. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

(Note: I reformatted the gallery to prevent the images from leaking into other discussions. Matma Rex talk 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC))

I vote for Option D. Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 18:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Option F, it’s a fairly iconic look for her even if it’s at the end of her reign. Dronebogus (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment I don’t see a single vote for A (way too young, barely recognizable) B (black and white) or G (not focused on her). C2 (low quality copy) also seems redundant. Maybe remove them? Dronebogus (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I vote for Option D. The image in option F was convenient for identification of the Queen as a living person, now that she is deceased, I think the more formal, official look presented in option D is appropriate, and also reflects on her better than a picture of her in her eldest years. ~XyNq^t_c 21:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Option D is objectively the best option after some slight tweaks RODEBLUR (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Option D is probably the best compromise agewise. She still looks relatively young, but she also already looks like her 90 year-old self. That being said, this image is as sharp as a river stone—I would actually prefer Option C or even just retaining Option F just for the sake of picture quality. Yo.dazo (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Option D seems to be the best suited here and gets my vote. I have no qualms about Option E, but many people seem to not favor it as it features QEII in New Zealand. I'd vote for an official portrait later than D (if available) but right now this seems to be appropriate. Lord Clayton7 (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Option D as it was taken roughly at the halfway point of her reign, so seems the best overall summary. Apocnowt (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Option C, one of the more iconic photos of her, as well as being an official one. Unbeatable101 (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Option C1 or H1 Are both highly representative Stuffmaster1000 (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Option C or D. More appropriate to use an official portrait. Steepleman (t) 07:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Option D or E I think it's better to use a portrait where she is more recognizable to everyone. H3nrique Bregie (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Option H1 She was a queen, why not use a photo fro her coronation. EmilySarah99 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Options D, E, or H1. All three of them are higher quality, from an official capacity, in color, and/or follow MOS:PORTRAIT. In case for those who don't know, Wikipedia generally prefers portraits where the subject is facing the text (see JB Pritzker as an example). InvadingInvader (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Option C 4me689 (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's early to discuss, as doctors say they are concerned for her health. They usually downplay royal health issues, meaning we may have a London Bridge announcement soon. BTW my vote goes on option C Μιχαήλ Δεληγιάννης (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

THE CURRENT ONE. Or option E.. no idea why you people feel the need to change celebrity photo's to a historic one once they’ve died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glassware3 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC) strike sock

I am not an expert on this, but I think there are a variety of potential reasons. Having never participated in such a decision, I can imagine that it is extremely difficult to choose an infobox picture that adequately and respectfully represents the most notable and complete picture of a person's life, particularly if such a person has had such a long and accomplished life as the Queen has. Since the infobox is the first thing a reader sees when they open the page, the image needs to broadly and accurately reflect the subject matter about which they are getting ready to read.

Take Mickey Rooney for example. Editing consensus could have chosen a more recent picture of him as an old man, but they went with a younger one that more concisely summarizes the notability of his acting career. The same would need to be true here.

Regarding the actual discussion about which picture to choose, I am leaning towards C or D at the moment. I like A, but it was taken before she was crowned Queen. B is not the greatest picture (in my opinion). E was taken in the context of New Zealand specifically, which would be seen as out of place. And my arguments against F are summarized above. As I am writing, I think I have to give my final vote as D. (Is there a specific WP policy that might help dictate the decision?) TNstingray (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• C - while E looks nice, she is only presenting New Zealand honours and does not seem like a the best image to represent the Queen of the United Kingdom. 2605:B100:13A:6B07:B532:C737:C4FC:DB10 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• A, C, and D are all good choices, but I think C would work the best as an infobox picture. Hoping the Queen will pull through and we won't have to do this, however. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Question: is there a policy that says that when someone dies we should change their picture to an older, historical one? I've noticed it in other articles, such as Muammar Gaddafi. — Czello 14:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Generally from what I can tell its changed to a picture from the most significant era of their life, take Ronald Reagan for example, his official presidential portrait in 1981 is used for the lead image rather then an image of him at the end of his life. Tweedle (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense. I suppose the question is what the most "significant era" of Elizabeth's life was — Czello 15:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Her whole reign was significant, that’s why I say just keep the current one Dronebogus (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option C gets a vote from me personally but I guess its a little too soon to decide what photo to use I guess. I would not go with Option B though if C was excluded, I don't really know how to explain but it just looks odd as a lead infobox photo? C is better as a portrait and closer in her reign to when she was coronated so that's why I would go with that choice. Tweedle (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option F. Keep the current image. There may come a time down the line when it would be appropriate to change to an earlier image as suggested, but I think in the short term, at least until the mourning and all the rest of it is concluded, I wouldn't advise changing. Our readers know her primarily in her current guise, and I can even imagine some might find it a little offensive or insensitive to suddenly switch away from the monarch they know at such a time.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agree with this for the time being. Tweedle (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option C in the event of London Bridge falling. Polyamorph (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option F. Enough will change when the day comes. The current image represents the way people think of her today. There has been no rise and fall, no marked decline; this is someone who has been consistently prominent for many decades. In the long term, this photo, or one of her most recent official photos, may remain the best one. Roches (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option D I think that D is a representative image of her, from the middle of her reign. Παραλλάξιος (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option D I agree with Παραλλάξιος, it's a good image. Tungster24 (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option D, concur with Παραλλάξιος. QoopyQoopy (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option F, represents her best (probably why it's currently used). Changing might add confusion when millions of users will rely on us to get clarity. I also don't think we should make such editorial decisions or memorialise the page. Let's stay ready and wait to see what news organisations and officials use. Thanks for anticipating, I hope we won't need this anytime soon. AlanTheScientist (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C I think is the most representative and recognisable of her, but failing that I'm happy with D and E too. — Czello 15:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option F There is no reason to change it permanently. Firebrace (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option F - I understand and agree with the idea of using an image most representative of her, but I'm not entirely sure her in her full regalia is most representative. She has attended many important formal official events in her various hats for quite a while now, and while we usually do portray monarchs in their regalia, I would suggest the current image might actually be the most representative we have available currently. That said, Option E is a close second, I do understand the issue with it being a NZ-centric circumstance, but I suspect that wouldn't actually matter to most people, and sans a similar recent UK portrait being available, I think it's a good choice, especially because of how high quality it is, and in my personal opinion it does have the benefit of her looking incredibly dignified in it. 90.198.253.144 (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding in two croppings of Photo C to consider, labelled as C1 and C2.

I'd personally consider both to be better than the original option C, with the tighter cropping having the benefit of being slightly more like her portraits on things such as stamps and coins, while the latter looks slightly less awkward (my own opinion) in how she is positioned when the added context is included, and has a slightly more flattering colour balance. 90.198.253.144 (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

C1 would be my choice as it's a close up shot. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Also included a third additional option from me, if we wanted a photo from around her coronation, I think this is a higher quality one (and in colour) than Option B, I've labelled it as Option G. 90.198.253.144 (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option C - is a good image and closest to the middle of her reign. Iwalters (talk)
• Option C or some crop thereof (i.e. C1 or C2) seem to be the best to me. They seem to represent her well. I'm also okay with Option D. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C - The full version, although I'd think that a more recent official portrait would be preferable PulksteņRādis (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C1 or maybe C - less cluttered, has more personality, her relative youth helps convey the length of her reign. Thparkth (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option F Keep it the way it is. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C While F is what we today think of her as looking like, photos from earlier in her 70 year reign make much more sense from the article perspective. Option C is the best option for this. Yeoutie (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion was it should be the portrait of herself in this year Asphonixm (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option C1, D, or F are all perfectly fine. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Please choose just 1 Dronebogus (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  People are free to express that they like more than one option... — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes but I don’t want the discussion slowed down with ambiguous answers. Dronebogus (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Looking at it again, Option C seems like the best choice. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option D, as it's about half way through her reign. Although, in my opinion, it needs a very slight color correction, which the license allows. Options E and F are no good because of recentism bias. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ] 18:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C1. An excellent photo, very regal. 9yz (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C Good coloration, more flattering image, decently captures the sort of chic one imagines when one thinks "Queen". –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 18:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C It is the most aesthetically pleasing, and I don't think we should use a picture of her with New Zealand honors for infobox purposes. — Goszei (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C, per other users reasoning. The full version is preferable --Cerebral726 (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C, per above. Cakelot1 (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option F the point about reverting to earlier images after a public figure has died is to show them at their most powerful or influential. The reason we use a photo of Ronald Reagan at the start of his presidency is because that's when Reagan mattered the most. This just isn't so for the late Queen. She never really had a set period where she flourished. She flourished through the entirety of her reign, seven decades. It's very likely that most people will remember her when she was an older woman, because that's when most people were exposed to her. For those reasons, we should keep to the image we've got now. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  She was the queen of much more of the world when she was coronated. The 1959 photo shows as she looked when she was Queen of South Africa, Nigeria, Uganda, Ceylon, ect, and only 3 years after she stopped being Queen of Pakistan. If there's a period when she was most influential than it's going to be earlier in her life I think. Cakelot1 (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Option C, fully expressive and recognisable Wase134 (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option C or C1 looks perfect. DIVINE (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option F - Of the images provided, it is the most recognizable image of the Queen with Option E being a suitable alternative photo. I believe it should be pointed out that a number of news organizations used images towards the end of her life when announcing her passing. To them, it made more sense to use a more recent photo than one early in her reign. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C is fine, per above. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option D. Not too old, not too new. Consistency with Philip's. Most people also think of her as older and not when she was 33. —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 20:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C is the most suitable image in my opinion. It looks quite majestic to me, which is what I'd expect from an image of a monarch who reigned for a long time. --KingErikII (Talk page) 20:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option E or the previous one from 2015. — Calvin999 20:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C is my preference, it's an iconic image. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C seems the most fitting as Queen. Cards84664 20:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option F - high quality image, represents her "on the job" as people would have known her. Blythwood (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C - best image here. Ageofultron ((User talk:Ageofultron) 21:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• C - Just like her father, an image of her when she was younger would be a better representation. -Iamoutofusernameideas. — Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a Commons expert, but is there any way to license this portrait? It’s her last one, made this year. I think getting an official portrait made in her last years of reign would be the best, as it is more recognized by users and current generations. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Option C. While a less official image was nice during her reign, as is the case on other pages a more official and earlier photo is much more appropriate for her page. Max3218 (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• C or F - I think it should be changed to C, option F is getting quite old but is still beautiful and relevant. God Save the King. 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BettyCrocker321 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C - per above, full version preferred. DankJae 22:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I’m seeing a preference for C with weak pluralities for D and F. Dronebogus (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C. I give more weight to color photos, since they more accurately depict the individuals. I think C looks overall nicest (bias towards being younger and smoother skinned), but E and F are acceptable photos if recent photos are more desired. It's all about what we consider to be more important, being a photo of her in her prime, or a photo of the modern age. SWinxy (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C per the preceding votes. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C It's a clear, colour photograph, and is well recognisable as her. El Dubs (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C Official and recognisable. Also the lack of cropping is consistent with other monarchs' pictures. (I know C2 is even less cropped, but the darkness and poor quality seems inexcusable for a monarch who is photographed well into the 21st century). SnoopingAsUsual (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C Captures her personality and reign quite well, I think. Nice, bright, and colorful. Option F has been her infobox photo for god knows how long, so it was time for a change anyways. BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C Official portrait and looks pretty good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Option D. Both C and D are excellent images of her, however, I believe D strikes the best balance between youthfulness and recency. It is from the middle of her reign and recognizable. CalcarineSulcus123 (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option H I believe that this image, taken as part of the same set of coronation photographs as Option G, falls in the public domain and as such could reasonably considered. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option H Appears in the 1963 edition of World Book Encyclopedia, Elizabeth is best remembered for her tenure as Queen serving the commonwealth. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option H, for the reasons pointed above. Darth2207Lucas (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option D, as it’s in the middle of her reign. Similar to the year Phillip’s portrait is now. --Plumber (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option D, to the day, the midpoint of her reign was 24 May 1987. Her portrait from 1986 is closest to the midpoint of her reign. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 03:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option D or F. D is the midpoint of her reign but still close enough to her recent appearance; otherwise just keep Option F as the most recognizable picture. I think it's important we don't give the impression that she is "someone of yesteryear" given she only died today. Yeeno (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option H1: Coronation cropped. A lot of the front pages are going with this one today, which kind of indicates a consensus in the media. She was most notable for being Queen of England and this picture represents the point in history when that notability began. Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option E — The old age goes well with Britain's declining empire. I also prefer her less cheery face. — hako9 (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option D - As it is roughly at the halfway point of her reign. GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option D — The most logical choice, shot about halfway through a reign of 70 years. Ricjac (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Count me as being in favour of Option C as the young Queen when, as other users pointed out, she was head of state of a considerably greater number of countries. Or as an alternative, Option D to capture her roughly mid-way through her reign. TheScrubby (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C - I imagine historical photos of her will probably start to slowly revert to the "stamp" view. JackWilfred (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option H1: Coronation cropped - Should be her coronation portrait. Makes the most sense. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option D - Mid-way through her reign. Prodrummer619 (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option E or F - Iconic — Preceding unsigned comment added by PastelKos (talk • contribs) 11:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C - We really need to change the infobox photograph immediately. Option A was taken before she ascended to the throne, and Option F (the current photo at the time of writing) - I see it every time I visit the page and putting it as it is would seem to me as if the editors are unwilling to change. Now that the Queen is gone and the second Elizabethian era has ended, we should change to something taken earlier, something more iconic, and looking at the other photographs, Option C foots the bill. 2679D (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C Easily the best image. ~ HAL333 12:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

+ After seeing other responses, I would like to add that the argument that "readers will recognize her as an old woman" is recentist and is not the standard for other recently deceased bio subjects. ~ HAL333 18:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option F, keep it as it is for now. The vast majority of people alive today and reading enwiki will recognise Elizabeth II as she is in this picture, elderly and in a bright monochrome outfit. If it must be changed to a historical one, my preference is for C1. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option F Clearly the better image. It's recent, she's smiling and wearing clothing very typical to her, and there's no issues regarding what honors she's wearing.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  13:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C As per 2679D Idiosincrático (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option F She was on the throne for 70 years - vast majority of people will recognize her as a older person. And its a good quality image.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C but I would also consider option D as a halfway point in her reign. In lots of media it seems she is usually depicted as having an appearance similar to option C—I understand the same could be said for option F, but I feel as though this depiction of her in old(er) age is simply a bit new and fairly short-lived. We use images that best represent a person throughout their whole life or during an important/recognisable time in their life (obviously for a Queen of a country, that is difficult to assess), but we rarely use a picture of an individual only a few years before they died. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 15:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Opition F I think that since Elizabeth II had reigned for so long, she is both a historical and modern political figure, I think that Option F is the best choice to portray her.Righanred (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C --EcheveriaJ (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Note the "option H" images are likely to be deleted from commons due to copyright. There is also no "fair use" basis for using them given that other images are (clearly) available. Thparkth (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  They're from the same photo session as Option G; the Canadian government says the copyright expired for that photo. I'm frankly unconvinced by the arguments for deletion at commons, though I agree that they should be avoided at this time due to the uncertainty relating to Commons processes. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  "from the same photo session as Option G": apart from the fact that the carpet, the background and the chair are all different. DrKay (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Option H actually seems to be retotuched from the original, and it's not impossible she's in a different room. Either way, she's in quite literally the exact same outfit. Here's another image from the same session. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Option F. She is actually popular in her 'old' style, unlike other rulers. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

For those with a preference for newer photos, I have added a head shot from 2012 and labeled it Option I. In the image, the queen has nothing obscuring her hair and is wearing the Prince Albert Sapphire. If someone can do a better job of cropping and rotating it, please do so and replace my submission. Miklogfeather (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It’s washed out and she looks abnormally cranky. Dronebogus (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option C, it's a great portrait, and I prefer to show her in her younger years. Sea Cow (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option D, in my opinion Option C suffers from the unnatural background, while Option D seems to be much more natural despite her being considerably older. The 1980s were also closer to the center of her reign than the other options- three decades after her coronation and four decades before her passing. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option D, Also, I'll be tallying up the options to date:

A: -

B: -

C: 39 votes

C1: 3 votes

C2: -

D: 20 votes

E: 3 votes

F: 16 votes

G: -

H: 3 votes

H1: 2 votes

I: -

Rob3512 (Talk) 18:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It’s seems to me that a general consensus on option C has been gained as it received significantly more votes. As such, someone with extended access should implement that change (even if discussion continues on this talk page) Max3218 (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It's still about evenly divided. A total of 42 people support either C or C1, while, combined, the others hold the support of 44 users. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably makes sense to do some kind of a run-off vote, since many of the options were added after voting started. Morgan695 (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It probably would have been a better strategy to poll whether people were more inclined towards portraying her as young, middle aged, or elder, and then start suggesting images from that time period. At present, the field is too divided for this threat to plausibly reach acceptable consensus. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The current consensus looks something like “Not the current photo”, with C being marginally more popular than D. A follow-up to better sort between those might be warranted, but the discussion thus far clearly has established a consensus to not use Option F. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This is seemingly becoming a debate between C and D. I’d support C because it better quality than D. Dronebogus (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I also counted 41 votes for C not 39 Max3218 (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option D I think that using a portrait in the middle of her reign is most fitting. Ukraineball91 (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Just putting it out there, but I think a portrait from the past is most appropriate. I think a portrait that makes a deceased person look more remote from the current times is appropriate because it reflects the sentiment of the person's passing.Jjfun3695 (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C or H1 { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 01:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C or E I think E is clearest and recognizable to the 21st century but C carries more historical weight towards the previous century. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C or H1 C is a nice portrait but H1 displays royal status the most elegantly. OmicronCoder (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C per above. John Yunshire (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option E, and add options A and D to the article below. I think historicising the infobox image to something more formal makes sense, but I also feel it's appropriate to have a picture of her in her seniority, reflecting the length of her reign and the dominant image many still have of her. The 2007 NASA picture in the article has a similar informality to the current infobox picture (F). I think A - young and informal - and D - formal and at a middling point of her reign - would be beneficial additions to the article, but not as preferable for the infobox. U-Mos (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Commment, Options H and H1 would be best used in List-based articles in my opinion. Prodrummer619 (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option F for now as that was the "look" and picture for which she was most known to the general public, but if the picture really needs to be changed for a more historic one, I would go for Option D or H1. Vida0007 (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C or H1 for the same reasons as elaborated above. Sanctaria (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C as per above. AlloDoon (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C or F. Option D is comparatively low quality to these two. Anarchyte (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C, official, clear, showing face and function, no distracting background --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment The current tally is: A=0, B=0, C=46, C1=3, C2=0, D=21, E=5, F=18, G=0, H=3, H1:=5 and I=0. I think the consensus for Option C is pretty clear. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Option E or Option F. I'd personally prefer a more recent photo of the Queen Pepper Gaming (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option C Seems like a fine picture for a biography of a historical figure in an encyclopedia. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C. The 1959 photograph looks best suited for the lead. It is of high quality, official, and with no background noise. It looks like "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." (MOS:LEADIMAGE) Surtsicna (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option E - In the half of the other options she's not not even looking at the camera, some of them were taken too long ago and Option E is a an official portrait after all. It's from 11 years ago - not too long ago and not too recent. Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option F - As a queen known for her longevity, I think this works best. Plus, this best represents how she actually looked, as she didn't wear the crown very often. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option F - Her longevity is what's most notable about her. So we should keep the current image, which is of her in her later years. GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. It was the photo on the article before her death and there was nothing wrong with keeping it (At Least in My opinion). Why fix something that isn't broken? Pepper Gaming (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  I also support option F. We should depict people as much as possible as they are expected to look. Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Sure, we, as people alive in the early 21st century, all expect her to look like that, but she also looked very different for most of her life. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option C - Definitely a younger image when she travelled the world to meet people and also rode horses—both of which she was frequently photographed doing—two things she had stopped doing in the really old image (F) which doesn’t reflect her at all. When does voting finish? Lomu KH (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C or C1. Both versions work. An official portrait that captures her in her prime. PD Rivers (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option E being the official photo is the most representative image of who the Queen is in terms of official status. Option F represents the Queen in terms of personality. Either or works. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 02:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option C seems best to me. I don't agree with the arguments about using a recent photo because it reflects her longevity: her reign's length is only one notable aspect among many, and in any case an argument could be made that to readers in the near future a younger and less familiar picture will do more to reinforce the length of her reign than a recent one. Al-Muqanna (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

1959 official portrait, restored

• 
  Official portrait in full, retouched
• 
  Official portrait (cropped), retouched
• 
  Official portrait (cropped w/3:4 ratio), retouched

Since Option C appears to be the popular choice I took the liberty of uploading a new version. It's a copy of the original, uncropped official portrait which I've lovingly restored. Sorry I didn't get around to this sooner but I do think that those who voted for Option C may appreciate a professionally restored version, and I apologize for making the voting more complicated. (For those of you who don't know me, I'm responsible for the current infobox image. I have 20+ years experience with Photoshop and photographic retouching. I have made every effort to restore the image while staying true to the original portrait.) nagualdesign 00:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Your restoration looks excellent! As I voted for option C, I would naturally be satisfied with your version as well. I hope consensus is reached to switch to using Option C or your restoration of it. --KingErikII (Talk page) 00:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• I vote for the restored option C. This looks amazing. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I want to clarify my support is for the uncropped restored version of the image. Not the cropped version. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Great work. Hopefully soon we could see this clear popular choice become the infobox image soon. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Looks terrific. Would be more than happy seeing this image used in the infobox ASAP. TheScrubby (talk) 07:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support This is what I was waiting to see. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 09:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not sure the red in the background improves the photo. The retouching is fantastic, but I'd be more enthusiastic if it were cropped slightly. Anarchyte (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I am just noting that I support both the uncropped and cropped version. I respect and echo nagualdesign's opinion that the image's goal is not to be decorative, and so if the intention was to include the red (regardless of whether I like it), we should consider keeping it. Anarchyte (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Would support this being used as the infobox picture, though I agree with the above poster that maybe cropping out the red would improve the picture. Sanctaria (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It does seem unusual. However, the red and gold curtains in the background were chosen by the official portrait photographer and were definitely no accident. The colours hold cultural significance. This is what the photographer intended, his superiors in the Canadian government were obviously happy with it, her Majesty approved and, in my opinion, cropping a historical photograph is a little shortsighted. nagualdesign 11:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

That's fair. I do support this, as I said, the red did just seem to come from nowhere and distract the eye a little. Sanctaria (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support even though I voted D initially. This definitely looks better in hindsight. Rob3512 (Talk) 16:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• support Yeah I would support this. It looks very striking like a modern photograph. Given that she has been a notable figure at least since she was ten-years-old then showing at this age not long after her coronation might be the best time to choose.--Llewee (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Kommentar: I've added a cropped version of the restored portrait above. I like it a bit more than the uncropped version and I think it's closer to the original Option C that most people were supporting. In any case, I think it's safe to change the image to the original C (for now) pending further discussion on what sort of crop we'd like, so I'm going to do that now. The higher quality restored photograph is better than the original C in my opinion, so I don't see this as the original C permanently taking that slot. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  I like your crop of the retouch, cuts out more of the background noise and focuses on the subject more. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agree with this change. C (either original, C1, or this retouched version) has, imo, clear support as a replacement. Sanctaria (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Portraits for Wikipedia infoboxes are generally cropped to a ~3:4 aspect ratio, so I recommend doing that. Good work with this. — Goszei (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Goszei: I've created that crop and added it above. It looks a lot like our original option C, but without the vignetting at the top and with a generally higher quality. Thank you so much nagualdesign for your high-quality restoration of the portrait from an original copy. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  For clarity sake, it looks like this change was reverted on the basis that an editor felt like there wasn't consensus to change from Option F. I've requested uninvolved closure at WP:RFCLOSE. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• I hadn't cast a vote because it seemed a little self serving (I still prefer the original, Option F, or alternatively my restored image) but I have to say that I definitely oppose using any of the cropped images. The caption under the uncropped image, if it was used, would read something like "Official portrait from 1959" and serve as a resource for people who come to Wikipedia for exactly that. Whereas the caption for the cropped image, if used, would have to be something like "The queen in 1959" since it is no longer the official portrait, and anyone looking for it would have to dig through several links before arriving at the full image on Commons, assuming that they even know how to do that and they know that the portrait is available somewhere. We're not just decorating a page, ideally we're providing a readily available resource. As I wrote earlier, this is a historical photograph. The idea of subsequent generations chipping away at it to suit their own contemporary aesthetic ideals, losing the parts that they don't personally appreciate, pains me deeply. Vote however you wish but please try to think beyond yourself. </rant> nagualdesign 18:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose She's not looking at the camera at all. The photo is not an official portrait of a propper kind, the angle is very odd. Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Kommentar Since image options were added and/or removed over the course of this RfC, I don't feel like editors got a chance to see all of the available options at once. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Options A-F were available at its beginning, so something like "consensus for !F" can be ascertained. I don't think anybody other than the proposer is really considering Option G or option I, but I understand that for Option H (and variant) and for Option I. This also wasn't really an RfC, though it's certainly attracted wide participation. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comment above, agreed that Elizabeth isn't even looking at the camera. This picture was taken when she was refereed to as "Queen Elizabeth II of Canada". "Official portrait of Queen Elizabeth II before the start of her 1959 tour of the U.S. and Canada as Queen of Canada." How does this represent her status as Queen of the United Kingdom? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  She wasn't just Queen of the United Kingdom. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Support since this retouched portrait looks great. H3nrique Bregie (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support using this version of Option C. Looks fantastic! Thank you! BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support. If we are to use option C as the photograph, I think we had better use @Nagualdesign's restored version of it. Preferably the full version.

Παραλλάξιος (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Support with the uncropped version, I agree with your reasons regarding that. The restored version looks fantastic. Unbeatable101 (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The photo looks too dark imo. The brightest parts of the image are not pure white (e.g. the chair highlights and the crown reflections). SWinxy (talk) 04:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support the restored version of C, preferably the full version 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is not looking at the camera. Also, this is not an official portrait. According to my opinion, Option E is the best, because in that image, the old age is seen. Many people now know Queen Elizabeth II as in her old age. VNC200 (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - We should restore the 2015 image. She's most notable for her longevity & that should be reflected in her infobox image. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced that she's most notable for her longevity, but the 2015 Image (F) works VERY well and has worked very well for a LONG time. If we have to change it, I'd go with her coronation image (H), which I think is on the same level of the 2015 image in terms of significance. InvadingInvader (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - As per GoodDay I believe we should restore the 2015 image for the same reasons Pepper Gaming (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - I do also oppose this.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Strong Oppose: her color solo coronation picture (Option H1) would look better. Also, MOS:PORTRAIT states that a subject should be facing the text, as VNC200 brings up. MOS:PORTRAIT also states it's discouraged just to flip the picture as well. The Coronation picture is historically significant and follows MOS:PORTRAIT better. The 2015 image also could work, as it has the most historical consensus as of the project, but I think the best image would be H1 based on MOS:PORTRAIT and its historical significance. This isn't a bad image, but maybe belongs further down in the article instead of in the infobox. InvadingInvader (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

References

• Support - Restored image is amazing, should definitely replace the current article's image. Ageofultron 03:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@HandIsNotNookls, TheScrubby, and Sea Cow: Please note that a consensus has not yet been achieved, either on which version of the 1959 image to use or whether to change to it at all. It is wholly inappropriate for any editor to take it upon themselves to change the infobox image at this time. I suggest a straight discussion between options C and F above (i.e. "Should the infobox be changed to the image from 1959?") as the next step to reaching a clear consensus, from which the discussion can be closed and only then the infobox changed (if that is what is decided). U-Mos (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that a fair reading of the whole discussion is that there's a clear consensus that we should no longer use F and a rough consensus for some form of Option C. I've opened a request at RFCLOSE with respect to this, seeing as it's been challenged. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

While I agree that consensus seems to agree with not using the current image, it probably would not be appropriate to change it until a new one is agreed upon. Doing so disproportionately benefits the new image. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Doing so disproportionately benefits the new image is not exactly something I agree with; we might want to change an image to something close to the final image we want. If this happens to be something like "Option C and/or some variation thereof", then why not improve the page now and finalize the particular crop/restoration later? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

If the discussion is still going strong, why is there a close at this time? Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Very much disagree. The number of opposes in this subsection alone indicate a lack of consensus, not to mention the absence of robust discussion specifically between option C (as the clear favourite alternative) and the present image (F) alone. This is nowhere near ready for closure, and I hope any editor responding to the RFCLOSE recognises that. U-Mos (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The opposes above are to the proposed cropping of the C picture. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Untrue. Almost all of them explicitly reject the use of this portrait in any form. U-Mos (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

In that case, the most recent opposes, Pepper Gaming, GoodDay, and Wehwalt, all need to be struck, since they are duplicates of opposes to C in the main section. It is also worth pointing out that, even with the opposes above, the Cs still have a clear majority and lead. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah it’s clear to me as well that the consensus is very obviously in favour of Option C and even more explicitly against Option F, and nearly all of the Oppose comments from this subsection are from those who were already against the option/in favour of Option F in the main discussion. I think it’s even more inappropriate that a small handful of users who are in the minority are reverting back to Option F and trying to deny that there’s a consensus and are attempting to drag this out by moving goalposts and adding additional steps not seen in most other infobox pic discussions. TheScrubby (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

At this point, I'd advocate for leaving 2015 up for now, no point in edit warring over it. I don't think F has a snowballs chance if this stays open, I think people are dragging their feet against an image that has over double the support of F, but there is absolutely zero point in disturbing a featured article over an infobox picture. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The move discussion on Charles III was closed within 2 days, even though the conversation was still going strong. I don't think that this is a much different scenario. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Someone just started a new poll between the two pictures down below. Given that this discussion appears to have run it's course and decided between two images for a second poll, maybe this could be closed as no consensus (even though there is a clear one for C, but people disagree) and the new poll can be used for deciding the image? FrederalBacon (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think consensus is yet established. It's close, but not yet, A majority does seem in favor of C, but the status of this is more like a vote than consensus, and a VERY vocal minority (which seems to be growing) is in favor of the 2015 image. InvadingInvader (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

From looking above, there appears to be clear consensus for C. 48 or so for C, 18 or so for F. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Death and state funeral of Queen Elizabeth II

I don’t want to make assumptions about the health of the Queen, but it appears that a working draft would be helpful to start gathering information: Draft:Death and state funeral of Queen Elizabeth II. Thriley (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

There's an article already at Operation London Bridge. DrKay (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Its not an assumption anymore. She passed Shhssh (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to write this here and (probably) say no more on the subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news ticker. All you get for being first on the block is pending changes and semi-protection (or more). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Assuming the Queen dies, I think it is important to get a draft going so it can appear quickly on the In The News section. Details of the lead up to her death are not trivial and probably should be noted now. Thriley (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a content fork. Articles on the same topic shouldn't be duplicated. DrKay (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Assuming the Queen dies given that she's 96, I think that's a fair assumption Star Mississippi 16:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That article is about the plan around what is to be done after her death, not the actual death and funeral itself. Thriley (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with User:DrKay. The plans around her death are inclusive of the actual death and funeral itself presumably. Although planning on how that article might be changed upon the implementation of those plans (bearing in mind I believe she is presently in Scotland, and so such a situation would be Operation Unicorn), may change the wording of the article significantly? 90.198.253.144 (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

We have a similar situation in regards to Winston Churchill, theres Death and state funeral of Winston Churchill and also the plan Operation Hope Not, both very detailed articles. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

We have Operation Tay Bridge and Operation Forth Bridge, both even more similar articles, both of which are redirects, so that argument goes nowhere. DrKay (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

There's no argument, just a note. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hongkong

I believe Elizabeth ll was also Queen of Hong Kong from 1952-1975, however, it is not listed in the list of subject colonies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.179.216.239 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

We don't list any subject colonies. The list is of sovereign states. DrKay (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It was a colony of the UK. She wasn't the monarch of Hong Kong as a separate title. Gust Justice (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Incorrectly stating Operation London Bridge due to location of death.

Shouldn't it be Unicorn rather than London Bridge, as she died in Scotland? 82.16.221.233 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Operation London Bridge is the name for the series of pre-planned events that take place immediately following her death. This has been in place for years, so it is not tied to the specific location of death. TNstingray (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The IP's partly right. Operation Unicorn (Scotland) is the variation of London Bridge if the death occurred in Scotland (which it did of course). But my understanding is is that it is a subset of London Bridge rather than a totally separate plan so I don't think it is wrong to still refer to London Bridge. DeCausa (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Operation Unicorn

The part under the Queen's death mentioning Operation London Bridge is incorrect. Since she died it Scotland, it is known as Operation Unicorn. Operation London Bridge will launch when the Queen's body is transferred to England.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-elizabeth-operation-unicorn-scotland-b2162764.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/08/operation-unicorn-plans-if-queen-dies-scotland 50.218.31.202 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen dying in Scotland does not have anything to do with the planned name of the operation (signed by User:IssacT6) 18:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

A featured article has something unsourced? For shame! We do not approve.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@IssacT6: I believe there is some confusion. As mentioned by the IP editor, there are two operations now. The more notable one is Operation London Bridge which involves her death. There is also Operation Unicorn. Per the Guardian, "Operation Unicorn, the codename for the plans in Scotland, leaked some time ago and indicated it is likely her coffin will temporarily rest at the Palace of Holyroodhouse, having been taken there by road two days after her death." Per the Agence France-Presse: (1, 2) "It is no secret that the UK's plan for the eventual death of Queen Elizabeth II was codenamed London Bridge. But there were special provisions if the monarch died when she was in Scotland, called Operation Unicorn."

There is some confusion on my end about how both function together, but it is clear to me that Operation Unicorn is currently active until the Queen is transported to England. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, regardless of what it is called, it is unsourced in a featured article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2022 (2)

Change Operation London Bridge to Operation Unicorn under "Death". Please see https://www.thenational.scot/news/21224640.operation-unicorn-happens-queen-dies-scotland/ SeventiesKid1970 (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

First paragraph in lead section could do with greater clarity

She was Queen of a varying number of countries through the length of her reign, not of 14 realms throughout. It would be better to seperate these sentences and say "...was Queen of the United Kingdom and of 14 other sovereign countries as of her death. Her reign of 70 years and seven months, from 6 February 1952, was the longest of any British monarch."" --JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I made this change. Further tweaks may be needed but for now I think it is fitting. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated. As you say, more tweaks will be needed but the lead section should remain important. I don't want to come across as pedantic but I also suggest that "until" should change to "as of" or "at the time of" for extra clarity because "until" can be interpreted to those unfamiliar as though "14 other sovereign countries" was the fixed number that she reigned over throughout her entire reign—when of course this number changed numerous times as different nations decided to drop her as head of state. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I added 'as of' and another editor changed it to 'until'. Update - as fast as things change, someone took out 'until her death' altogether so that should at least resolve things for now. Cheers! ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah I see, yes that could work for now. All the best! JamesLewisBedford01}} (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This has already been changed multiple times and effectively gone back to the original; it is now worse as "8 September 2022" is unnecessarily repeated in the same sentence. Clarity is still needed on this issue but it does seem a bit pointless to address this in the short term whilst there are so many updates, especially without consulting talk pages. I don't have extended user access anyway but I would hold off from any resolution for the time being. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Resolution to this should now be found under #An event to come, which may need work on, now.. Now that she has passed the lead should be changed to “Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – 8 September 2022] was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in 2022. She was queen of 32 realms at the start of her reign and monarch of 14 of them at the time of her death. Her reign of 70 years and 214 days was the longest of any British monarch and the second-longest recorded of any monarch of a sovereign country” and any further revisions should be reversed and directed to that section of the talk page. Please may someone with extended confirmed user access make the necessary changes. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Would like to add on, on the last sentence at the end of the lead, there is a sudden abrupt transition to her death, the sentence being "Elizabeth died on 8 September 2022 at Balmoral Castle, Aberdeenshire." I would think a change from that sentence to "Following declining health and increased medical supervision by doctors, Elizabeth died on 8 September 2022 at Balmoral Castle, Aberdeenshire."

Do let me know if you have any comments. Thanks. (signed by User:IssacT6) 19:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The present opening paragraph makes it sound like Elizabeth died as monarch of one country. It should be clear in the first paragraph that she was queen of 15 countries upon her death. But, that fact isn't even iterated anywhere else in the lede as is currently is. The third paragraph says she became queen of various countries in 1952. However, with nothing else being mentioned about her headship of state of multiple countries again, combined with the first sentence, it all communicates she used to be queen of multiple nations, but, by the time she died, she was Queen of the UK only. That is obviously inaccurate. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure why the current version is in place as a consensus on an outline for the opening was reached in the very first talk of this article. Combining the consensus template with what is currently there would and Should be “Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – 8 September 2022) was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in 2022. She was queen of 32 realms at the start of her reign and monarch of 14 of them at the time of her death. Her reign of 70 years and 214 days was the longest of any British monarch and the second-longest recorded of any monarch of a sovereign state” Max3218 (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe this revision has existed at any point in the last 24 hours and this issue sought to fix ambiguity that wouldn't have been the case if that quotation was in place. I agree that this should be used as the lead section for reasons I have now listed under #Intro Queen of UK AND realms. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not an ideal composition, to me. However, it's vastly superior to what's there now. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Though few don't like it. The United Kingdom is the realm she was most associated with. I doubt anyone feels like crowding in 15 or 32 realms into the lead. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The quotation does not crowd in 14 or 32 realms, it only references them. In fact, in the current revision there is already note b that handily allows the reader to see the 14 realms without cluttering the lead. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Current Events - London Bridge Task Force

I wanted to let editors know and invite editors to the WikiProject of Current Events new task force The London Bridge Task Force, which will be working on improving all the articles around the death of Elizabeth II. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Suggested edit

"In November 1947, she married Philip Mountbatten, a former prince of Greece and Denmark, and their marriage lasted 73 years until his death in April 2021."

Worth adding "A year and five months/ 17 months before hers" there? WorthPoke2 (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

No. Original research and needlessly specific. Moncrief (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

...and 14 other Commonwealth realms

Whoever is doing it. Please STOP changing "...and 14 other Commonwealth realms", to "of 14 other sovereign states". It's getting quite annoying. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"Listen to this article" - audio out of date

Not sure how to remove it and I wanted to discuss here first because so much is happening at the same time. I think we should remove the audio version as the audio says she's currently the Queen. AlanTheScientist (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see this section for discussion about the audio version of the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The fact that it dates from 2014 is also a good reason, and I was tempted to remove it, but let's get a consensus.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Remove to talk; an eight-year-old version does a disservice to readers, it can be re-instated when re-done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep but add {{Spoken article requested}} once the attention around her death subsides. The spoken version is seriously out of date now, but I don't think it should be removed. @CLYDEFRANKLIN 22:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I've never understood the attraction of adding spoken versions to articles and letting them become years out of date. The obvious thing to do for people with visual impairment is to use Microsoft Narrator or similar text to speech software.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Running this article as Today's Featured Article

See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 19, 2022. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Continued at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Elizabeth II SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

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

---

I've started a discussion on whether to run this article as Today's Featured Article on the day of the funeral, which seems to be 18 September. Please feel free to leave views there. Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Good idea! AlanTheScientist (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Good suggestion Tweedle (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That’s a good idea. NatriumGedrogt (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that. Chongkian (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Why not? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Direct link to the conversation, if people wish to leave their comments there. Wittylama 07:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Just voiced my support for it there. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Intro Queen of UK AND realms

Elizabeth was Queen of the UK AND Queen of each Commonwealth realm equally. To be fully accurate that fact should not be separated and should say: “…was Queen of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms from 6 February…”. It used to say something like that and I’m not sure why it was changed after her death as it is now incorrect. Max3218 (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Or something similar to that. Some very good examples that seem to have had agreement are in some of the early talk page, not sure why that wasn’t used. Max3218 (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This was discussed above under #An event to come, which may need work on, now.. I would support amending the statement to read "...was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth Realms from..." (i.e., without the number 14, as the actual number of Commonwealth Realms in existence at any given time differed throughout her reign...the number 14 would have been truly only at the time of her death). Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes that was the discussion I was referring to and the outline got consensus along the lines of “Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – 8 September 2022) was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in 2022. She was queen of 32 realms at the start of her reign and monarch of 14 of them at the time of her death. Her reign of 70 years and 214 days was the longest of any British monarch and the second-longest recorded of any monarch of a sovereign state” I think that’s a good combining of what’s there now and what got consensus. Max3218 (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I suggest we change the first lead paragraph to this aforementioned quotation. This would be perfect in terms of consensus you previously mentioned, as well as fixing both the issue here as well as one that I recently raised in regards to making it clear that it was 14 realms at the time of her death and not a constant throughout her reign. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

She was was first & foremost recognised as Queen of the United Kingdom. She was born there, resided there & died there. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course, and that is why she was styled as "Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms". But that doesn't negate the fact she was also Queen of Her other Realms. Furthermore, whether the UK or Canada each are "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown"; see the Balfour Declaration of 1926. I don't know what it is you are suggesting exactly in regards to the lead section? JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

He's on autopilot with the "first and foremost" thing.

Besides the one you referenced, she held 14 other monarchical titles at the time of her death. However, that's somewhat trivial here. The meat of your comment is on point. As I mentioned above, earlier, in a remark that it seems you may have already seen, the lede presently reads as if she queen of only one country when she died. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. What has happened is that this revision made me raise my previous talk section about it needing to better specify that it was not 14 realms throughout her entire reign (as it was 32 overall of course). This then made another user better it with this revision. However, that didn't last very long and for some reason it eventually got made worse to what we have now which at some point made you raise your issue about how it makes it sound like she died as Queen of only the UK. The easy solution to all of this is to change that first lead paragraph to the much better suggestions under Talk:Elizabeth II#An event to come, which may need work on, now. and have any further revisions reverted citing both the talk page and the note right above that very lead section. However, it has been a struggle to get anyone to do so thus far. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

DrKay's version, is best. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

If you mean "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – [date of death])[a] was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death. She was queen regnant of 32 different sovereign states in the course of her reign, and served as monarch of Y of them at the time of her death. Her reign of [?] years and [?] months was longer than that of any other British monarch and the longest of any female monarch in history." then I would be happy with this one too. I am indifferent whether it be this one or the other one mentioned. Both ultimately solve the issues at present. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

If so, I don't understand what your point is in regards to "first and foremost being Queen of the United Kingdom" as it is still in agreement with the other suggestion as both mention "the other Commonwealth realms". JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Merely pointing out. It would be quite a WP:SEAOFBLUE, if we attempted to list all 32 realms in her intro. GoodDay (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

No one has suggested that we do that. Both lead suggestions that are mentioned here—including your favoured one—both just refer to that she reigned over 32 realms without listing them. I already previously replied to you under Talk:Elizabeth II#First paragraph in lead section could do with greater clarity making the same point. And to repeat, there is already, for example, note b that handily allows for them to listed in an expanded link without the need to clutter the lead. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Saying "Queen of 32 Commonwealth realms", is no good. The United Kingdom must be mentioned, per my previous reasons. GoodDay (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I am either failing to understand something in this exchange or you have got to be trolling at this point. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trolling. Bring your proposal to my talkpage, so I can get a clear picture of what you're suggesting. There's just too much activity here. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Once again, you are stating something that no one has even claimed. Both proposals do mention the United Kingdom. To be exact, each say that she was "Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms". There is nothing more that hasn't already been said here (sometimes more than once) that would warrant further discussion on your talk page. To get a better grasp on what it is people are proposing I suggest you read all of the replies in this thread, particularly my entry on 03:12 (UTC) which provides some background beyond this thread. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

With all the traffic going on here. It's kinda difficult to co-ordinate anything, tbh. GoodDay (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Regardless she was also the queen of 14 other realms (and 32 total). Accuracy in titles etc is important. As I believe (from looking over other talk subjects) you are an extended confirmed user please make the intro paragraph change that has a gained consensus from multiple users in multiple talks and has (I see) a pending request. Max3218 (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC) Additionally, it is in line with the standard set (listing UK followed directly by dominions, territories, realms, etc) in each of the previous and now current British monarchs. Max3218 (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Where were you all, when this was being ironed out 'bout a month or two ago? The United Kingdom is where she was born, resided & died. @DrKay:'s version is best. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, dude, are you trolling? Literally the one I put in quotes above is taken directly from the talk page at the top. In none of those exchanges was only putting the UK discussed and I simply combined the DrKay version with what is currently there. It literally says/means the exact same thing. Is there a different confirmed user or administrator that can handle this because at this point clearly weird is going on. Max3218 (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you content with what's currently in the opening paragraph of this page? GoodDay (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

No, as it is now, it’s repetitive in both dates and stating of reigning over ur and simply reads strange. The one posted above is better and is modeled 99% off of the one that got consensus. I think there is biased going on here given that your wiki home page is clearly anti-monarchy. Unfortunate stuff like that can’t be put aside to do what makes the wiki page best Max3218 (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you agree with DrKay's proposal, as I do? GoodDay (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

“Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – 8 September 2022) was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in 2022. She was queen of 32 realms at the start of her reign and monarch of 14 of them at the time of her death. Her reign of 70 years and 214 days was the longest of any British monarch and the second-longest recorded of any monarch of a sovereign state“ That is DrKays proposal with the dates filled in and slight word change in last sentence. It is more accurate (both grammatically and in terms of content) and more succinct then what is there now. It got consensus. Please list out and explain exactly what the issue(s) with it are that is delaying it being made the opening paragraph. Max3218 (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Some tweaking is required, as she was monarch of the UK and six other Commonwealth realms at the start of her reign. During her 70 years, she reigned over a total of (including the UK) 32 Commonwealth realms (some became realms during her reign, while other left to become republics). By the time of her death, she was monarch of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That’s literally what it says already. Max3218 (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

"...at the start of her reign" needs to be corrected to "during her reign" in your proposal. That is the one issue that @GoodDay has that is actually in disagreement between the two proposals. As for everything else, that issue being corrected aside, both proposals will effectively be the same and we really should be indifferent about them. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

So with that little tweak, we're in agreement. GoodDay (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. As I don't have extended confirmed user access, if you are happy with @Max3218's proposal with that correction/or @Max3218 is happy with @DrKay's proposal I suggest either one is moved to the article and revert further changes citing the talk pages (in line with the already existing note above the current lead). JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll let DrKay implement it, if he so chooses. GoodDay (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course. Should he accept the correction, how about moving @Max3218's proposal? He has previously requested that it be moved to the article by someone with extended–confirmed access. We really should have used one of the previous suggestions already and this is basically what we have been trying to establish. We certainly need to change the lead section in its current form as we have all established that it is limited and furthermore it has some pressing importance as the first paragraph in an article at the top of ITN. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Glad to see intro change was finally implemented Max3218 (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Time of Death

The British PM, Liz Truss, was informed at 4.30 pm that Queen Elizabeth had died. Hence the press sources stating that her children and grandchildren had travelled to be with her are misleading inasmuch as she had died by the time everyone had arrived, other than Prince Charles and Princess Anne who were present. Billsmith60 (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

While it's true the PM knew at 4.30pm we don't know what anyone else knew at the time. It's not for us to do the analysis / original research here. Let's rely on sources. AlanTheScientist (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm merely flagging up that the 'official' version cannot be true, as a number of Royal VIPs didn't arrive until 5 pm or after, according to the BBC. Let's see if editors note that point. Billsmith60 (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Editors can't note that point until a reliable source notes that point. Again, that'd be original research.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  11:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Billsmith60 and Ved havet: To my knowledge, we can point out a discrepancy if it is very basic, so long as we stick strictly to facts and sources. That is easily done with footnotes. Though, this has to do both with time and with who, which is trickier than a time discrepancy. However, I will say that I don't see the point in making an example as I don't see any reference to an official statement in the article. If it is somewhere in the article, I would like for it to be pointed out first. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:OR, we may only perform "routine calculations" (e.g. calculating someone's age based on their birth date). Concluding if family members arrived before or after the Queen's death based on reports about when the prime minister was told about her passing, can not be classified as a routine calculation. Based on WP:OR, "if you use [well-sourced material] out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". So, using two pieces of material to come to a conclusion not explicitly supported by the source is, indeed, original research and not permissable on Wikipedia.

At the moment though, the article simply states her family travelled to Balmoral, which is obviously correct. Even "travelled to Balmoral to be with her" would be correct, because that was indeed their intention, regardless if they arrived too late or not.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  02:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, only Charles & Anne were with Elizabeth II, when she died. This is shown & sourced at the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II page. GoodDay (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The lead paragraph is getting too wordy

I suppose it's understandable human nature, if disheartening, that the impulse of so many is to fatten a lead with cruft that doesn't belong there when an article is hot, but please don't do so mindlessly. Read WP:LEAD. Moncrief (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think part of the issue is also that it is simply not very could and reads strangely, dates being repeated, etc. It’s unfortunate as a consensus was built before her death to have an intro of “Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – 8 September 2022) was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in 2022. She was queen of 32 realms at the start of her reign and monarch of 14 of them at the time of her death. Her reign of 70 years and 214 days was the longest of any British monarch and the second-longest recorded of any monarch of a sovereign state“ Max3218 (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Monarch/Queen Regnant: Although I think reaching the consensus first paragraph was great wiki work, reading that paragraph with the eye of an average reader suggests we might be expecting too much or aiming at a rather more educated readership. "Monarch" is a generic term; "Queen regnant" is a specific type of monarch. Although I already understood the terms, I had to do a double take on the second sentence and this early in the entry this may lead to readers finding Wikipedia too highbrow a source: "So she was only monarch of 15?" "So now I have to find out what all these terms mean?" etc Although this leads some readers to the wonders of researching further in Wikipedia :) the majority may simply stop reading because the article requires too much work. Surely the first section/paragraph should provide something akin to a TLDR. Obviously WE know that "queen regnant" means "monarch" and that "monarch" does not necessarily mean "queen regnant", but we shouldn't assume our readers will read straight through that without a double take. To make this a simpler read I suggest that the term monarch is removed as it does the opposite of clarifying. For example this small change might read "During her lifetime she was queen regnant of 32 sovereign states of which 15 remained at the time of her death." or similar. Wordwood (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I strongly supported this paragraph to be implemented right away as it was a vital upgrade that we needed to fix the mess before it in the 24 hours or so after the death. However, you do make a really good point here and I would also support this change to remove 'monarch'. And if "of which" doesn't flow as well I would recommend just replacing 'monarch' by doubling up 'queen regent" to read "She was queen regent of 32 sovereign states during her life and remained queen regent in 15 at the time of her death". A problem we are describing here is the problem with elegant variation. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I tweaked it, so that "queen regnant" is shown, only. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Archie and Lilibet as prince and princess

A discussion has been started here regarding Archie and Lilibet as prince and princess. Thanks. cookie monster 755 21:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that what would be appropriate is that, per 1917 declaration (amended later to also include females), it is mentioned that both Archie and Lilibet have the option to claim HRH titles with the ascension of King Charles but that it appears unlikely because of Harry’s and Meghan’s stated want for them to have more ‘normal’ lives. Just one potential idea to address it. Max3218 (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Max3218 I agree, though I see no point in making such an edit (though others opinions may differ) as I expect the sussexes to make a statement soon, especially since that already made a big hoo ha about it at Archie's birth. EmilySarah99 (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits re World War II

Strattonsmith please review WP:FAOWN and WP:WIAFA, and gain consensus for your edits. Some of your edits are not improvements, and this content has been reverted, rightfully so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Strattonsmith please have a look at MOS:OVERLINK. Also, this article uses UK and US, not U.K. or U.S. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:US. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen of Rhodesia

Should Rhodesia be included in the list of states governed as monarch, perhaps with a ‘(disputed)’ added on? Between 1965 and 1970, she was seen as the Head of State. She officially denied this, but did also attempt to grant a pardon to Rhodesian criminals who were about to be executed. The issue is made complex by what was her own view, and what was the British government’s view. Thoughts? Mooreo.odm (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

See #Hong Kong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hong Kong was a territory, ‘Queen of Rhodesia’ was a title created in 1965 after Rhodesia became independent and succeeded the colony of Rhodesia. Mooreo.odm (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

If you mean the list in the infobox, infoboxes should be simple and succinct; this one is already complex and long. I don't think we should expand it further with something contentious and debateable. Infoboxes are not designed for controversy or nuance. DrKay (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It would be simple and succinct, only adding one line, for example:

Rhodesia (disputed) 1965-1970

Like all the other listed countries, it would link to a corresponding article, in this case using Queen of Rhodesia which would enable people to read about it without making the infobox too complex. Mooreo.odm (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't add Rhodesia. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, don't add it. It was not recognized as independent during that term of years.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

"ER II" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ER II and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 10#ER II until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 18:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

"E.R. II" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect E.R. II and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 10#E.R. II until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 18:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

post-1997 criticism

The lede's mention of criticism of QEII stops at 1997. What about her stances on Andrew and Harry/Meghan? What about the recent revelations that the royals were able to quietly veto legislation affecting them? Dawud (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Constant image swapping

This is a Featured article that has been constantly tended since its promotion, and yet every editor who wanders by seems to feel the need to insert or swap an image. Please discuss and gain consensus for image changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I find the current image appropriate for the subject as a historical subject of an encyclopedia biography. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Recommend page protection, until/if a consensus is reached on a 'new' infobox image. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not talking about the infobox, which is the subject of an RFC (above at #Infobox photograph for after her death) ... I'm referring to the other seemingly random and ongoing image changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

What SandyGeorgia said. And a reminder to editors who wander by that edit warring may lead to blocks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

They should. Keivan.f I am unconcerned to know your reason; I am concerned about the nonchalance with which people are changing images here without discussion, and the edit warring. You were reverted once, and you reinstated without discussion. Not a good thing-- particularly not on an FA. Discuss image changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Keep it at the original image prior to all this flip flopping until consensus is reached. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Repeating post above: I am not talking about the infobox, which is the subject of an RFC (above at #Infobox photograph for after her death) ... I'm referring to the other seemingly random and ongoing image changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Link to death in lead?

"She was queen regnant of 32 sovereign states during her life and served as monarch of 15 of them at the time of her death"

Should there be a link to Death of Elizabeth II for "her death"? I know it's linked at the bottom of the lead but I think a link here would be great instead. Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 00:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I think when her funeral occurs, the lede could be updated to say something like "Elizabeth died at Balmoral Castle, Aberdeenshire, aged 96 and was buried at King George VI Memorial Chapel at St George's Chapel." That would cover both her passing and the funeral, while making the link a bit more obvious for further reading. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Media depiction and public opinion

I think the following sentence should be removed from the article "After the trauma of the Second World War, it was a time of hope, a period of progress and achievement heralding a "new Elizabethan age".".

It sounds like FLUFF, and doesn't adds anything to the article. Uwsi (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The assertion is sourced and absolutely adds something to the article, by describing how the post-war period was experienced by the public, which certainly fits within the objective of the "Media depiction and public opinion" section.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  02:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

A thank you to whoever changed the picture on top

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

---

I thought the coronation photo would be best, but this one will do just fine. NOW that she's gone, it would be better for a glamour shot that her at extreme old age. It's nice to see that I'm not the only one who thinks so. Notwisconsin (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

See #Infobox photograph for after her death for the discussion on what the new image would be. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 13:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Infobox to long?

Should we simplify the infobox to how it is for King Charles III? That way we don’t have to list out all the countries she was there monarch for? BigRed606 (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

No we can't. The number of the Commonwealth realms (not the Commonwealth of Nations) hasn't changed since Charles has become king. For her, it dropped from 32 to 15. Keivan.f^Talk 00:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

But don’t you think it’s a bit too long? BigRed606 (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not too long & has a collapsible mechanism. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

On mobile, it does not show up as collapsed and does appear unwieldy. I would support removing it from the infobox and rather linking to the section in the text, but that is unlikely to gain support. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't use your mobile. Use a computer. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The longest reign of any monarch without enforced regency (Louix XIV had regent for 8 yrs)

As it points out in the 2nd lead para of Louis XIV, "Louis [who became king on 14 May 1643] began his personal rule of France in 1661, after the death of his chief minister, the Cardinal Mazarin."

Packing this out (see his infobox and obvious links)

• 05 Sep 1638 Birth
• 14 May 1643 Accession -- his mum acted as regent
• 07 Sep 1651 Declared adult -- regency ended but he chose to delegate rule to Chief Minister
• 09 Mar 1661 Started to rule personally
• 01 Sep 1715 Died

Ignoring the 10 years when he delegated everything to a chief minister (after all QEII did that too) it is inescapable that he had no authority for the first 8 yrs, so the time during which he had authority to rule was (according to [2]) was 63 years 11 months 26 days. Conveniently, France had adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1582, so unlike in the UK, we don't have to worry about any lost days in the calendar change (which that site seems to ignore). Unfortunately for Louis XIV, by that metric, he drops to about 8th in the List of longest-reigning monarchs, only three months above Victoria, who rises to at least 9th (I say at least, because there isn't enough information to confirm whether the two 7th century monarchs had regents, so I'm assuming they didn't). Ferdinand III is demoted from 9th because of his own subjection to regency.

As confirmation of this view please see Johann II, Prince of Liechtenstein#Early life, which states:

Until he was surpassed by Elizabeth II on 9 May 2022, his reign had been the longest precisely documented tenure of any European monarch since antiquity in which a regent (that is, a regent of a minority regency) was never employed.

Since QEII is second only to the European monarch Louis XIV in the figures including regency, I suggest we amend the last sentence of the 1st para of the lead (currently

Her reign of 70 years and 214 days is the longest of any British monarch and the longest recorded of any female head of state in history)

to read:

Her reign of 70 years and 214 days is the longest recorded of any female head of state in history and the longest precisely documented tenure of any head of state in the world without being subject to enforced regency.

Enginear (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - as Louis XIV was King of France for 72 years, regency included or not. GoodDay (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose we should hit the major statistical points but not get bogged down in it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - we should keep it simple and avoid any unnecessary modifiers. For the record I think we should just change it to say 'the second longest reign' instead of splitting it by gender since it's even more straightforward and frankly saying 'longest reign by a female' is unlikely to express the fact that she is the second longest reigning of any gender. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Mau Mau rebellion

This information was removed, with the following edit summary: "rv, no showing there's any connection between the rebellion and Elizabeth other than coincidence of time." Your thoughts?

The Mau Mau rebellion, a revolt against British colonial rule in Kenya, started in 1952—the year Elizabeth ascended the throne.

References

--Tobby72 (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

So how does the fact that the Mau Mau rebellion began in 1952 help the reader understand Elizabeth II?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Did the rebellion actually have anything to do with Queen Elizabeth ascending the throne? And if so, do you have a source on in what way?  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  18:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I would say, in a general sense, we should have more on the legacy of the Queen now that she's gone. The sources cited above speak to that (not necessarily the Mau Mau uprising itself). We have "Public perception and character" but I think we need more a legacy section as seen in other similar articles, and that should include some of the recent criticism around the rejection of the monarchy by certain countries/groups, as well as the extensive praise she's received. Another option would be repurposing Personality and image of Elizabeth II into a more general 'legacy/reception' of the Queen type article. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

El cid, el campeador There will need to be a legacy section added to this article at some point and it may useful to start a fuller discussion on what it should include once things settle down a bit.--Llewee (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Moved from WP:RFPP/E

 - ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Add https://news.gallup.com/poll/328193/donald-trump-michelle-obama-admired-2020.aspx as a source to the sentence: "As of 2021 she remained the third most admired woman in the world according to the annual Gallup poll, her 52 appearances on the list meaning she had been in the top ten more than any other woman in the poll's history."

Change "according to the annual Gallup poll" to "according to an annual Gallup poll".

Change meaning to mean. Uwsi (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The last one would not be grammatically correct and would not be an improvement. The other two seem fine. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 03:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

30 2001:2D8:695C:A07E:3EBA:DFB3:B797:13DD (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The Queens full name

In the opening statement mentioning the Queens name it should read Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor as that is her official full name and doesn't mention it. You can confirm this here - https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name Matt1998hew (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

We already had an RFC on that topic, concerning the intro & the infobox. The result was 'leave out Windsor'. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

R.E: Infobox Photo

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

---

Since a Consensus on the infobox photo hasn't yet been reached, I'm wondering if it's possible for there to be two photos in the infobox (one modern photo and one old photo). Could that be a possibility? Pepper Gaming (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Doubt it, seems like golden mean fallacy Dronebogus (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not an impossible thing to achieve; it can certainly be done, but I don't think that it will likely ever happen, sorry. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

One image, is enough for the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Boldly closing as this is duplicative of the poll happening above. Let's wait for the outcome of that discussion (#Infobox photograph for after her death). If consensus can't be found in that discussion, a follow-up poll can be opened after that discussion is closed. (Sorry for collapsing the conversation, but the normal atop/abot templates don't play well with the gallery markup.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Cast your !vote Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 I have compiled a gallery of all the candidate images, Just sign under your choice(s) 4me689 (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Why have you not included the uncropped image? There are plenty of people who originally voted for C before the full, retouched image was uploaded who subsequently expressed a preference for it. nagualdesign 22:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Is it really appropriate to open a separate discussion on this when there is already an ongoing one above? Shouldn't there be a close there first, especially considering the choice of options for a second !vote is probably a contentious choice? For example, option D above seemed about as popular as option 1 here but is not included in these options. Alduin2000 (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC) D actually appears more popular than F, if anything, D should replace F. F, while the popular choice of many above, isn't even in second place when it comes to consenus. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC) I think rather than replacing options, this should probably be procedurally closed just like the discussions at Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 44#Revert image change. A second !vote can always be opened after #Infobox photograph for after her death is closed if it's needed, but it should almost certainly take the close result for that discussion into consideration which is impossible now for this !vote. Alduin2000 (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC) I agree. 4me689 really jumped the gun on this. I'm sure they meant well but options 1 and 2 were not "all the candidate images" by any stretch of the imagination, and this section only interferes with the ongoing discussion above. nagualdesign 01:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Option 1 nagualdesign 22:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC) As she's most notable for her longevity, in her age & reign. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC) U-Mos (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Still prefer this one, at least for the time being. Many of our readers are mourning the Queen they knew right now, and an elderly photo resembling her appearance in the past 20 years is much better than using an old one just for the sake of it. This isn't equivalent to deceased film stars or people who were notable primarily while young, as the Queen has had a constant and unchanging role throughout most of her life.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC) I prefer this one as well, as it shows her as she is best known right before her passing. GuardianH (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC) According to me, this option is the best image. It is because shows the old age and a clear smile of Her Majesty the Queen. Also, it is the latest image among other options. VNC200 (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Option 2 4me689 (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2022 St.doggo (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC) FrederalBacon (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC) But also happy with Option 3. TheScrubby (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC) I thought it was pretty clear that option C was the winner. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Prime rather than the tail end of her life (which is standard in infobox after a person dies). PD Rivers (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC) schetm (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Looks neater with side colours cropped out. Particularly as they aren't the same width.--Llewee (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Lomu KH (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Definitely a younger image when she travelled the world to meet people and also rode horses—both of which she was frequently pictured doing—two things she had stopped doing in the first image which doesn’t reflect her at all. Easily the best choice Idiosincrático (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Option 3 nagualdesign 22:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Παραλλάξιος (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Seeing as though you can vote for more than one option. TheScrubby (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Infobox image decision

See #Infobox photograph for after her death. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• 
  Option 1: Official portrait in full, retouched
• 
  Option 2: Official portrait (cropped), retouched
• 
  Option 3: Official portrait (cropped w/3:4 ratio), retouched

Following through on closure decision above, please vote below via numbered lists. U-Mos (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Would we be allowed to vote for more than one option like with the now-closed vote immediately above? TheScrubby (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that would be helpful. U-Mos (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Amakuru GuardianH VNC200 4me689 St.doggo FrederalBacon TDKR Chicago 101 PD Rivers schetm Lomu KH Idiosincrático nagualdesign, notifying everyone who voted on the closed identical poll above but hasn't commented here that the poll is being rerun--Llewee (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Also GoodDay--Llewee (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Llewee: I don't really care between these images presented they're all much the same. My choice above was for the recent image (option 1), and I have no idea why that discussion was shut down. !Votes were running at 6 for option 1 and 10 for option 2 at the time of closure , which is hardly consensus. The above should be reopened and allowed to run its course. Failing that, just do whatever you want, the process here is clearly broken.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I also feel that discussion was shut down out of process.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I won't object then if someone re-opens it, but good luck to the closer who has to sort then the mess it makes of the original RFC. The logical RFC would have been to first ask if more than one image is an option, and next choose the two only if that RFC succeeded. The way both of these RFCs are it was framed, it's hard to see that we'd be left with anything useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Corrected, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Most people either wanted this Portrait or the old photo that was on prior to the Queen's Death. I personally believe we should open up a new discussion for which of the 2 images people prefer Pepper Gaming (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Given the messiness of the RFC, I thought the close was pretty solid. (Wasn't my choice of photo, but there does seem to be consensus). Picking one of the three here shouldn't be that controversial. All and all, I've seen post-death RFCs do worse. A new RFC can be started any time (hopefully after 90 days...), if there is a change of mind. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't disagree, and have corrected (after three edit conflicts) my post above which referred to the second RFC, closed oddly by Aoi in a way that editors continued responding anyway, and which asked if two images could be used, and then proceeded without having an answer to that question. I see nothing wrong with the close of the first RFC, or in proceeding as suggested in that close (which isn't what the second of the three RFCs was doing). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  The aforementioned messiness is exactly why the subsequent RfC was necessary. The original one proposed about 20 different images, with the status quo strangely labelled as "option F". What was needed was a straight choice between the status quo and the proposed alternative, which it seemed like the latter RFC was doing until yourself and Aoi prematurely shut it down. If it's that straight choice, and the community still says change the status quo, then I would accept that, but it's far from clear that's the way the discussion was going. Incidentally I wouldn't be averse to using two images either. That would seem to satisfy both camps.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

To be fair to Aoi and SandyGeorgia, that second RfC was opened before the first RfC had even been closed, and therefore was opened during an ongoing RfC on the same subject and without consideration given to the closing comment of the first RfC (which of course was impossible given that the second RfC itself was opened prematurely). Alduin2000 (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Correct (and thus was disruptive ... but besides that, Aoi had closed it in a way that didn't close it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Aoi shut it down in a way that didn't work, so I archive top/bottomed the whole thing. Undiscussed RFCs rarely produce anything useful (or better stated, often leave us stuck with worthless conclusions, as happened at the J. K. Rowling RFC of 2021), and it would have been optimal to first figure out what the second RFC was doing ... that is, if there was some support for two images, then launch an RFC that more clearly honed in on that question. In the interim, the original RFC was closed, and the third RFC seems to be following the path recommended by the close. But it sure would be nice if editors discussed how to frame RFCs before launching them; the mess that J. K. Rowling was stuck with for at least a year because people weighed in on RFC content for the lead that wasn't ever supported by sources is fresh in my mind. But again, if someone feels like my archive above should be undone, and can find a way to sort the mess created, I won't object. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, in that case let's proceed with the "should there be two images" RFC. I'll happily vote yes to that. This current discussion is a waste of time, given that one of the images has already been put up in the article and we haven't resolved the more fundamental question of whether to allow two images yet. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

If I follow right, it seems like what people want is a poll of two or three options: a 'younger' photo (option C cropped 3:4), an 'older' photo (current and option D had joint support, going with current probably simpler), and potentially an option of showing both. Is that right? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't object :) But I'd rather see a new RFC run a month of so after the funeral and the traffic here subsides. I haven't weighed in on any RFC, as I've been trying to maintain order on a very busy talk page to get us through TFA day, so don't think I should enter opinions, but again, I think these RFCs are a repeat of the J. K. Rowling RFC debacle, where everyone with a keyboard had an opinion, and not all were carefully considered. I suggest an RFC three months from now would return a very different image than what we've got now, and continuously running RFCs now is not the best use of what will be a very busy talk page for the next few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

For example, this talk page now is at 200KB, and I can't see any way to keep it manageable, knowing the page will balloon again on 19 Sept, other than to archive the (first, lengthy) RFC leaving a prominent link back to it. Not sure that is a good idea, and not sure what to do, but we've got a 200KB talk page when TFA day is still a week away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Option 1

1. Please read this before voting. This is the official portrait. It's a historical photograph in full and it would be a disservice to our readers to crop it. The composition was chosen by the photographer, authorized by the Canadian government and endorsed by the Queen herself. The red and gold curtains, which some say are "distracting", were likely chosen because they are the colours of Canada in Canadian heraldry (the colours of maple leaves), with the azure background being representative of Canada's French ancestry. I only learned this because the photograph piqued my interest. Anyone know anything about that beautiful chair yet or shall we just crop that too and forget about it? I spent over 6 hours restoring this photograph because it's worth seeing. We should all get to see it in all its glory. Please don't crop it. It's like cropping the Mona Lisa because you think a 3:4 headshot would work better in the article. If you've already voted for one of the cropped images, please change your mind and vote for this one instead. Sincerely, nagualdesign 16:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Option 2

1. For same reasons as above--Llewee (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
2. To me this one seems the most well balanced, despite the unusual ratio. FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!) 16:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Option 3

1. This one gets my vote; although part of me prefers the fuller length portrait, the stripes either side are a little distracting as an infobox picture (eliminates option 1), and simplying cutting them off results in an aspect ratio that looks off to the eye (eliminates option 2). H. Carver (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
2. Best suited for an infobox I think. 2 is overly vertical and the peripheral details in the full picture are distracting (I appreciate the argument about staying faithful to the photographer's intentions but they weren't taking a picture to illustrate an encyclopedia either). Al-Muqanna (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
3. It's a tough call, but I pick this because a) at the end of the day, the subject of the article is the most important aspect of a photo and in this one she is most prominent; and b) I am a sucker for good aspect ratios in infobox photos and this one looks the best on that basis. All are fair options, though. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 12:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
4. (edit conflict) Same reasoning as H. Carver; the stripes on the sides of option 1 are distracting, and option 2 has a weird aspect ratio. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
5. 4me689 12:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
6. FrederalBacon (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
7. Sea Cow (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
8. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)