Talk:Elizabeth II#Survey

{{Article history

|action13 = FAR

|action13date = 2023-01-14

|action13link = Wikipedia:Featured article review/Elizabeth II/archive1

|action13result = kept

|action13oldid = 1133524768

|currentstatus=FA

|topic=History

|maindate=June 2, 2012

|maindate2=September 19, 2022

|dykdate=2 April 2006

|dykentry=... that Queen Elizabeth II (pictured) once worked as a lorry driver?

|itndate=9 September 2015

|itn2date=2 June 2022

|itn3date=8 September 2022

|otd1date=2004-06-02|otd1oldid=3963247

|otd2date=2005-02-06|otd2oldid=16335592

|otd3date=2005-06-02|otd3oldid=16335239

|otd4date=2006-02-06|otd4oldid=38417972

|otd5date=2006-06-02|otd5oldid=56581891

|otd6date=2007-06-02|otd6oldid=135423408

|otd7date=2008-02-06|otd7oldid=189219815

|otd8date=2009-02-06|otd8oldid=268852745

|otd9date=2010-02-06|otd9oldid=341691955

|otd10date=2012-02-06|otd10oldid=475319946

|otd11date=2015-02-06|otd11oldid=645588046

|otd12date=2017-02-06|otd12oldid=764080684

|otd13date=2019-02-06|otd13oldid=882067482

|otd14date=2022-02-06|otd14oldid=1069959988

|otd15date=2023-11-20|otd15oldid=1186101176

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|blp=other|listas=Elizabeth 02 Of The United Kingdom|1=

{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=Top|royalty-work-group=yes|royalty-priority=Top}}

{{WikiProject British Royalty|importance=top|Operation London Bridge=yes}}

{{WikiProject Caribbean|importance=mid|Barbados=yes|Jamaica=yes|Bahamas=yes|Saint Vincent=yes|Saint Vincent-importance=Mid|Saint Lucia=yes|Antigua and Barbuda=yes|Saint Kitts and Nevis=yes|Barbados-importance=Mid|Jamaica-importance=Mid|Bahamas-importance=Mid|Saint Lucia-importance=Mid|Antigua and Barbuda-importance=Mid|Saint Kitts and Nevis-importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Polynesia|importance=mid|Tuvalu=yes|Tuvalu-importance=top|Niue=yes|Niue-importance=top|CI=yes|CI-importance=top}}

{{WikiProject Zimbabwe|importance=low|Rhodesia=yes|Rhodesia-importance=top}}

}}

{{Press

| author = Emily Yahr

| title = Do you fall down a Wikipedia rabbit hole after each episode of 'The Crown'? You’re not alone

| org = The Washington Post

| url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2018/01/04/do-you-fall-down-a-wikipedia-rabbit-hole-after-each-episode-of-the-crown-youre-not-alone/?utm_term=.912d6ea08b11

| date = 4 January 2018

| quote = Queen Elizabeth’s Wikipedia page was the third-most-visited entry with 19.2 million views … Traffic to the queen’s Wikipedia page peaked on Dec. 10, when the second season of "The Crown" started streaming

| author2 = Armon Sandler

| title2 = Queen Elizabeth II’s Wikipedia Page Is Trolled After Her Death With A Chief Keef Album Cover: ‘RIP Bozo’

| org2 = Uproxx

| url2 = https://uproxx.com/music/queen-elizabeth-ii-chief-keef-wikipedia/

| date2 = 8 September 2022

| quote2 = In a tweet shared on Thursday afternoon, a user said “Someone already griefed the Queen Elizabeth II Wikipedia page lmaooo.” The tweet is accompanied by a screenshot of Queen Elizabeth II’s Wikipedia page with the “Article” tab highlighted.

| subject3 = article

| author3 = Jody Serrano

| title3 = How Wikipedia’s ‘Deaditors’ Sprang Into Action on Queen Elizabeth II’s Page After Her Death

| org3 = Gizmodo

| url3 = https://gizmodo.com/queen-elizabeth-ii-died-wikipedia-deaditors-charles-1849516945

| date3 = 9 September 2022

| quote3 = While some on the internet were glued to Twitter or the BBC, checking for news or watching the planes en route to Balmoral Castle, one group of dedicated Wikipedia editors sprang into action updating the late queen’s page in the minutes after Buckingham Palace announced the news.

| subject4 = article

| author4 = Annie Rauwerda

| title4 = Who the hell updated Queen Elizabeth II’s Wikipedia page so quickly?

| org4 = Input

| url4 = https://www.inputmag.com/culture/queen-elizabeth-ii-death-wikipedia-updates

| date4 = 9 September 2022

| quote4 = Upon Queen Elizabeth II’s death, the world was quick to note the free encyclopedia’s up-to-the-minute coverage. “WIKIPEDIA DIDN’T WASTE ANY TIME,” someone tweeted. “Someone was in there watching her last breaths with a computer on wikipedia ready to just press enter,” another joked.

| subject5 = article

| author5 = Jeff Parsons

| title5 = How Wikipedia responded when news of the Queen’s death broke

| org5 = Metro (British newspaper)

| url5 = https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/09/how-wikipedia-responded-when-news-of-the-queens-death-broke-17335549/

| date5 = 9 September 2022

| quote5 = In the case of the Queen’s death, the legion of volunteers that keep up the ‘Free Encyclopedia’ sprang into action to keep it updated. The first edit made to the Queen’s Wikipedia page came just minutes after the first sources broke the news.

|subject6 = article

|author6 = Kai McNamee

|title6 = Fastest 'was' in the West: Inside Wikipedia's race to cover the queen's death

|org6 = NPR

|date6 = 2022-09-15

|url6 = https://www.npr.org/2022/09/15/1122943829/wikipedia--queen-elizabeth-ii-death-deaditors-editors-article

| subject7 = article

| author7 = Liam Mannix

| title7 = Evidence suggests Wikipedia is accurate and reliable. When are we going to start taking it seriously?

| org7 = The Sydney Morning Herald

| url7 = https://www.smh.com.au/national/evidence-suggests-wikipedia-is-accurate-and-reliable-when-are-we-going-to-start-taking-it-seriously-20220913-p5bhl3.html

| date7 = 13 September 2022

| quote7 = About 3.30am (AEST) on Friday, the British royal family announced the Queen had died. About two minutes later her Wikipedia entry had been updated to note her death.

}}

{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes|

{{Annual report|2011, 2012, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023}}

{{Top 25 Report|Jul 21 2013|May 3 2015|Sep 6 2015|Apr 17 2016|Oct 30 2016|until|Jan 15 2017|Apr 30 2017|Nov 26 2017|until|Jan 28 2018|Apr 15 2018|Apr 22 2018|May 13 2018|until|May 27 2018|Nov 17 2019|until|Dec 8 2019|Dec 22 2019|Jan 5 2020|Jan 12 2020|Apr 5 2020|Nov 15 2020|until|Jan 10 2021|Feb 14 2021|Feb 28 2021|until|Apr 25 2021|Jun 6 2021|Jan 9 2022|Feb 6 2022|Feb 20 2022|May 29 2022|Jun 5 2022|Sep 4 2022|until|Oct 2 2022|Nov 13 2022|Apr 30 2023|May 7 2023|Dec 17 2023}}

{{Old moves

|title1=Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

|title2=Elizabeth II

|collapsed=yes

|list=

RM, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II, No consensus, 8 January 2010, discussion
RM, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II, No consensus, 25 February 2010, discussion
RFC, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II, Moved, 18 March 2010, discussion
RM, Elizabeth II → Queen Elizabeth II , No consensus, 18 April 2010, discussion
RM, Elizabeth II → Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, No consensus, 20 July 2014, discussion
RM, Elizabeth II → Queen Elizabeth II, Not moved, 2 June 2018, discussion
RM, Elizabeth II → Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Not moved, 30 July 2023, discussion
RM, Elizabeth II → Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Procedural close, 14 August 2023, discussion

}}

{{Refideas

|{{Cite book |last=Brandreth |first=Gyles |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-yCIEAAAQBAJ |title=Elizabeth: An Intimate Portrait |publisher=Random House |year=2022 |isbn=978-0-241-58260-2 |mode=cs2 |url-access=limited}}

}}

{{Copied

|from = Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

|from_oldid = 1246810758

|to = Elizabeth II

|to_diff = 1250763146

|to_oldid = 1249581228

|date = 11:12, 12 October 2024

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader={{aan}} |maxarchivesize=200K |counter=49 |minthreadsleft=4 |algo=old(15d) |archive=Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive %(counter)d}}

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

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

DukeandDuchessofYorkwithBabyElizabethII (cropped).jpg

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2025

change head of the commonwealth to former head of the commonwealth

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2025

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

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

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DrKay (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

RFC on Lead image

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

File:Queen Elizabeth II official portrait for 1959 tour (retouched) (cropped) (3-to-4 aspect ratio).jpg | Current
(1959)

File:Hershkovich bach vertical line.svg

File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg | Example of a potential alt (2015)

File:The Queen of New Zealand, 1986 crop.jpg | Example of a potential alt (1986)

File:Elizabeth II greets NASA GSFC employees, May 8, 2007 edit.jpg | Example of a potential alt (2007)

File:Hershkovich bach vertical line.svg

File:Queen Elizabeth, 1986 (retouched & cropped).png |1986 (retouched)

Yes Two and a half years ago, a discussion emerged with the consensus that the 1959 official portrait of the Queen is best suited to represent her in the infobox. It's time to revisit that decision. Most photographs we have of deceased famous people (e.g. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, for example, but also Lester B. Pearson, Hermann Göring) have images which represent what they are best known for, represent their full lives, and are recognizable to readers. Pearson, for example, is best remembered as being a diplomat and a Canadian Prime Minister; he is pictured in a suit black and white during his first year in office as PM. Prince Philip is best remembered as the royal consort; he is pictured in a suit in 1992. This picture is thus old enough to represent his life, but recent enough that he is recognizable. By contrast, Queen Elizabeth is pictured in 1959 as a young queen with crown and sash. Given the age of the photograph this can hardly serve to represent her full reign, nor is it recognizable today. MOS:LEADIMAGE tells us that the lead image should be natural and recognizable; in fact, it should be {{tq|what our readers will expect to see}}. The 65-your old photograph does not at all accord with her public image today, which is better represented by the 2015 and 2007 images; indeed, the 2015 image is such a good representation it was used until her death.
In effect the problem is that a hurried decision was made two years ago to select a bad image that, due to its age, was felt to better represent the Queen and her reign. In hindsight, it is clear that this is not so, as the image is outdated, unrecognizable and in fact jarring, thus falling deeply afoul of the MOS guidance on lead images. Cremastra (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes As someone who was alive for the whole of her reign, an informal picture (such as the 2015 example) is how I, and probably many people alive today, will recognise her. Leave the formal portraits to illustrate the historical aspects. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
No. The current image is fine. Peter Ormond 💬 06:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes Change it. Hard to see how the current image was ever chosen. Although it isn't a vote on the others, I think the 1986 photo is best because it is mid-reign and very roughly would relate to most living people's first memory of her. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes The 2015 photo has the best artistic and technical quality, and has been used previously. The formal portraits are too stodgy, and I have never been able to understand why the 1959 photo has such a fan club.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the 1986 or 2015 ones are better, as others have said the 1959 one is best put in the body. It looks pretty strange tbh. Kowal2701 (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes The 1959 photo is a surprising choice. I prefer the 2015 photo for its quality. Schwede 66 01:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes - the 2015 image would be best. GoodDay (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the 1986 or 2015 one would be better. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 03:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the 2015 one is best and will be more recognisable than the current one to many people GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes: 2015 version should be used since that is more recognizable than 1950s/1980s version since most readers (especially non-British) would be familiar with her appearance. 2409:4060:29A:DD05:5C8:6E54:A37E:3CE0 (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes The 1959 image is too formal, dated and faces away from the article. The 2015 and 2007 images are more recognisable but visually distracting due to their large hats. The 1986 portrait strikes the best balance: dignified, mid-reign and recognisable, even if the regalia is from New Zealand. Most won't notice, and it reflects her wider role as Queen of multiple realms. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
{{comment}} I have added a retouched version of the 1986 photograph that looks less washed out, for comparison. Cremastra (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, the 1959 image is just not representative of how she's seen, I feel mainly because of her age in it, meanwhile the newer photos show the general idea of her being a sort of elderly stateswoman V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

2015 pic per others above. Maybe in 200 years when nobody alive remembers QE2, an earlier pic would he suitable, but for now it should be a recognisable one and that means recent for a significant majority of today's world population wasn't alive in 1959. — Amakuru (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I find the 1959 one to be barely recognizable to how she is seen. The 2015 one is how I, and I suspect most other people, view her today and would be my first choice. The 1986 photo is a good middle ground for her appearance between the start and end of her reign, but suffers from the relatively low image quality. DrMarvello82 (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
No - I prefer the 1959 photo. It reflects her long reign and the remarkable age at which she became queen. The current image effectively captures the significance of her role and the passage of time, which are key aspects of her notability. Nemov (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
No – The 1959 portrait is perfectly representative of her primary role as queen. If it is to be changed then it should be to the 1986 portrait or a similar portrait with crown. I do not believe it should be a photo from the last twenty to thirty years. The most common argument in favor of change is that the current photo is not representative of how most editors/users knew her. That is a ridiculous argument for an encyclopedia which should present as neutral a view as possible with respect to time and focus. An encyclopedia is not supposed to be a reflection of only recent knowledge (see WP:RECENT Ha2772a (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:How is a picture taken 7 years into her 70 year-long reign neutral? Cremastra (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:The other photos are just as representative and are more recognisable to a lot more recognisable to more people.
:How is that photo neutral and not the others? GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes - as others have said, the infobox photo should be representative of a person's entire life, and/or how they are best known to the average reader. I suspect the 1959 image is so old that a large subset of our readers wouldn't immediately recognize that it is the Queen; it's better suited as a representation of her early reign in that section of the article. I prefer the 2015 image for the infobox - it depicts a Queen that most readers would be familiar with, as well as the bold fashion and fancy hats she was known for later in her life. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment They are all neutral, and I agree we should not be bound by how readers remember her, which is age dependent. We must not forget that she changed considerably with the times and her role and how she was perceived in 1953-59 was very different from 2005-2016. The wind of change still had not happened and media treatment of her was very deferential in the 1950s, well before divorces, gossip and scandal started in the 1980s. Objectively, she was first a sovereign, and the country's mother and grandmother figure second. To reflect that we should choose 1959 or 1986. I still lean towards 1986 as a better photo. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)