This article is within the scope of WikiProject Festivals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Festivals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FestivalsWikipedia:WikiProject FestivalsTemplate:WikiProject FestivalsFestivals articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the
Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the
project page, where you can
join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Commonwealth of Nations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth articles
Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
Australia and
Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New Zealand and
New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
A news item involving Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II was featured on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the In the news section on 10 February 2012.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Royal standards of Canada#Sovereign's standard|monarch's personal standard for Canada]] The anchor (#Sovereign's standard) has been
deleted by other users before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
Requested move 9 June 2018
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Moved as proposed. There is consensus to move, and a well-supported policy basis in title consistency between a supertopic and its own subtopics, and in consiceness.
bd2412T13:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)reply
– Some titles were moved to their proposed titles but got moved back. I think it would be appropriate to discuss these moves. My reason for moving these pages is because the titles are more concise.
2601:183:101:58D0:21FA:6823:6996:3DB1 (
talk) 12:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.Bradv03:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
See
WP:NPOV; being deferent cannot be a rationale at Wikipedia. See also
WP:PRECISE: our precision rule is to be only precise enough to identify the subject/referent, no more precise than that, so "Elizabeth II" fits the bill. "More flexible" has no clear meaning in this context. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)reply
You demand deference to Wikipedia policy,which is not rational sometimes.There there is currently no other "Elizabeth II" people are likely to think is intended does not dent the superiority of being flexible enough to make allowance for there being another at some point by being precise enough to rule others out.
12.144.5.2 (
talk)
13:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)reply
What's wrong with using her most common name in media Queen Elizabeth II? What media outlets called her solely "Elizabeth II"/Elizabeth 2/? Many musicians on Wikipedia go by simple sobriquet rather than their full names as article names. I.e. "
Cher instead of "Cherilyn Sarkisian", Queen Latifah rather than "Dana Owen",
Ricky Martin rather than "Enrique José Martín Morales", or
Pink (singer) rather than "Alecia Moore".
CaribDigita (
talk)
20:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Stage names and long names versus short ones aren't relevant here, other than that you're actually arguing against yourself, since "Elizabeth II" is more
WP:CONCISE than "Queen Elizabeth II". —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)reply
I would be against moving the Queen Victoria articles, since her main article is at Queen Victoria due to her not having a numeral after her name.
Rreagan007 (
talk)
16:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Flimsy nonetheless,and "of [country name]" is more appropriate to insist upon for Victoria than for Elizabeth (being used for virtually every monarch anyway).Plain "Elizabeth II" is something to avoid,just like plain "Prince Harry" is a mistake that needs rectifying.Specificity even when not required is respect for other countries or potential namesakes.
12.144.5.2 (
talk)
00:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Um, no. Flimsy would describe noting a single exception in an otherwise consistent naming convention and trying to reverse the convention to fit the single outlier. An outlier that is itself likely to be renamed to
Victoria (queen) for better consistency with the convention. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)reply
If you want the "consistent naming convention",that requires "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom",which she is dispensed from because of the Commonwealth realms using that name for her as well though only in trivial instances is it at all accurate for any of them as Elizabeth I of England never reigned there...to name an article for a monarch without specifying country is distinctly oddball and generically inappropriate.13:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
12.144.5.2 (
talk)
It actually makes perfect sense for the monarchs of the English-speaking world, as those are the ones English speakers are commonly referring to, thus making the "of X" unnecessary. Just out of curiosity, I took a look at the Swedish Wikipedia, and they don't use "of Sweden" in the title of Sweden's current king
[1], nor does the Danish Wikipedia for Denmark's current queen
[2]Rreagan007e (
talk)
14:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support - Although I didn't make my feelings known an any of the moves I did object on the basis of "Well Elizabeth could be anyone!" (and I assumed her main article was "QUeen Elizabeth" .... but as per the above if her main article isn't "Queen Elizabeth" then I don't see the point with the rest having Queen in either.... –
Davey2010Talk13:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose - There's nothing wrong with having Queen in the article titles. Not all monarchs are King/Queen. Some are Sovereign Prince/Princess or Grand Duke/Grand Duchess etc etc. Also, am I paranoid or has there been a lot of RMs being proposed by IPs, lately?
GoodDay (
talk)
15:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)reply
NOTE A further bunch of these have been successfully smuggled through as "uncontroversial technic. ~~al moves" at
WP:RM. I am
trying to get these reversed. That section is a ridiculously weak link in our procedures, with no scrutiny of the proposals.
Johnbod (
talk)
16:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose nothing wrong with using Queen as it looks wrong to most readers without it, the main article could do with a move back to Queen as well per WP:DONTBEDAFT.
MilborneOne (
talk)
12:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Well, she is not the only one (EII). If you are really proposing below that "King" and "Queen" should be removed from sub-articles for all monarchs with a
regnal number, that would certainly cause masses of ambiguity all over the place. But in those cases you should start with the main articles, which nearly all have "King" and "Queen", whether numbered or not. I must say I don't think you've really thought this one through.
Johnbod (
talk)
21:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment And how many more royal or imperial titles would need to be removed from page titles, extra work for users or admins? Can't we "leave well enough alone"? (At the end of User:MilborneOne's message at 12:44, 17 June 2018, what should
WP:DONTBEDAFT be?)
Anthony Appleyard (
talk)
04:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support. Given that the main article is simply titled "
Elizabeth II", I don't see why the titles of the subordinate pages need to retain the longer form. I favor consistency.
╠╣uw[
talk12:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Every article on a monarch should have either a regnal number or a country or both in the title and in Elizabeth's case the country issue is complicated by the Commonwealth.
LE (
talk)
16:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: