Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 46

DeFacto cited WP:BRD. She reverted and did not discuss but cited WP:BRD. To help her, I will discuss.

Anne was the informant. This is likely to be interesting to the reader because the King, the oldest son, didn't do it. He and Anne were there at the time of death. Anne also signed. This was reported in many, many places, BBC, CNN, Sky, etc. Originally, only one citation was used but I propose more to help DeFacto.

She died at 15:10 BST. Anne, the Princess Royal, signed the death certificate as the informant^[1][2][3][4] with the cause of death of "old age". ^[5].

Is there any dispute that Anne was the informant?

CandyStalnak (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not the issue. Firstly, it's for you to persuade others to your point of view and to initiate discussion to persuade others. See

WP:BRD As the Bold editor, it's your responsibility engage with the editor who reverted you. Also, per ONUS just becuase there is a citation for it doesn't mean it should be included. You have to persuade others its worth including. this isn't worth including so i'm against it. It's unimprtant trivia. DeCausa (talk

) 08:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Leave out the bit about Anne, as it's trivial. GoodDay (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Does it matter? Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Stop posting here. It should be obvious to everyone that you are a sock puppet of

Celia Homeford (talk

) 11:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Please do not get into a smear campaign otherwise it may come out that GoodDay (commented in this section) was banned by the Arbitration Committee and has been blocked about a dozen times. You have gotten into many fights including your fighting behavior now. This accusation is typical of Wikipedia. When you are losing in the logic aspect, people resort to calling people socks and trying to get them banned or blocked. That is very warlike and not someone who is out to make an encyclopedia. FYI, my Dad proved that it was not the "exact same device" because he edited at work mostly. Furthermore, the CHECKUSER overruled the blocking administrator! CandyStalnak (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Why the false accusation? There is no "silly conspiracy theory". A doctor on Wikipedia said the Queen probably didn't wake up in the morning and was found to have agonal breathing (breathing of people close to death). They then "made her comfortable" and didn't try to take her to the hospital. That is NOT murder. Besides, this edit (since reverted) was nothing about any conspiracy but rather who was the informant of the death certificate. If you don't like detail, why even put the time of death or that her death in Scotland caused Operation Unicorn, which is a bit of trivia. CandyStalnak (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@CandyStalnak, I reverted because I do not agree with that trivial, but misleading, content being added. It is not important who the informant was - it could have been any of those present, any relation, or anyone who lived with her. But whoever does it needs a medical certificate of cause of death, which is usually provided by the doctor of the person who died, to present to the registrar. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. There is no "medical certificate of cause of death" released. It is possible that the informant gave the cause of death as their own opinion. My father was once asked to give the cause of a death at a relatives home and he did. Shockingly, it appeared on the death certificate. The hospital emergency room doctor did not want to fill out the death certificate. CandyStalnak (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Back on topic, trivia

What is the criteria for trivia? In the article, it says " her private secretary, Martin Charteris, carried a draft accession declaration in case of the King's death while she was on tour.[57]". That is far more trivial. Perhaps it should be in the death of Elizabeth article instead? CandyStalnak (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Why are you trying to add something to this page, that many editors don't want you to add? GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Just the bunch of aggressive, uncivil editors are that way. There is no opposition from normal editors. This is a WP:BRD. That is why there is discussion. But I am coming to think that maybe not add what I suggested. See, this is proof that I am a normal person who is civil and nice. CandyStalnak (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect

No reason to link Charles in the lead twice, can the second link (located in the sentence "succeeded by her eldest child, King Charles III") be removed? 79.66.82.129 (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, done. DeCausa (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! --79.66.82.129 (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not really at FA level is it? Samples:

• "Elizabeth's solicitors had taken action against The Sun five years earlier for breach of copyright, after it published a photograph of her daughter-in-law the Duchess of York and her granddaughter Princess Beatrice. The case was solved with an out-of-court settlement that ordered the newspaper to pay $180,000." Why would they pay in dollars? John (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• "The number of her realms varied over time as territories gained independence and some realms became republics." "Varied", or decreased? John (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agree with the overall topic here but this sentence is fine and "varied" is correct. I think you are misreading "gained independence" as independent from the monarch. The number went up when British colonies "gained independence" to become sovereign states of which Elizabeth II then became monarch. The number went down when these sovereign states "became republics". For example, the non-sovereign territory of

  Republic of Kenya which removed Elizabeth as head of state (so the number went down). JamesLewisBedford01 (talk

  ) 20:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Varied. DrKay (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The lead is usually a summary of the article. Which part of the article does this summarise? John (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Acceleration of decolonisation and Continuing evolution, plus the succession boxes and incidental mentions (e.g Fiji and Mauritius) in later sections. DrKay (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

There's been 6k+ edits since it became an FA. I guess it's par for the course for a decade old FA. DeCausa (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It isn't great that in order to access the information this supposed factoid summarises, we have to click a "show" button in the infobox, then Ctrl-F for Fiji and Mauritius. It would be nice (perhaps after the fuss around her death has died down) to rewrite this article as a proper biographical FA. John (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

On reading the article again, it seems that the number of countries listing Elizabeth as their head of state increased, but both the area and number of people living in them decreased over time. What would be wrong with just stating that, since it's the truth? If I take a cake off you, cut it into four pieces, eat two of them, then hand you back two pieces, and justify it by pointing out you now have twice as many pieces of cake as you started with, anybody over the age of one is going to feel cheated. That's what this article currently does, and it's dishonest. John (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

While there are definitely some improvements this article could have "varied" is definitely the best way. Your proposal here is a bit verbose, and 'varied' is truthful. Cake and countries are a little different, and I don't think such a sentence has any actual problems, not does more extensive information being within an infobox you have to expand (in fact, that gives more justification for why a summary is good to have). 90.198.253.144 (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe the hidden text in the infobox is a MOS breach, and (yet again) an artefact of ridiculous infobox parameters (just because the parameter is provided doesn't mean we have to use it), If that hidden infobox info is still in the article when/if it comes to FAR, I'll be listing that as a deficiency. Remove it to the body of the article; that level of detail in an infobox is one of the many absurdities that infoboxes impose on us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• The current state of the article does not support the FA rating. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Guess an excuse was needed to put it on the front page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.43.60 (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• "Throughout her lifetime, support for the monarchy in the United Kingdom remained consistently high, as did her personal popularity." The first point is contradicted by the sources, which describe support for the monarchy declining over time. For example this source gives a decline from 73% to 62% over the period 2012-2022. That isn't "remaining consistently high", that's "declining fairly rapidly".

• "Intense media interest in the opinions and private lives of the royal family during the 1980s led to a series of sensational stories in the press, not all of which were entirely true." Sounds a bit weaselly: most of us know that the press makes both mistakes and deliberate errors. Are there more specific examples?

• "In the broadcast, she expressed admiration for Diana and her feelings "as a grandmother" for the two princes. As a result, much of the public hostility evaporated." I'd like to see more evidence of that. What does "much of" mean? It's fairly easy to find sources that contradict this view, so it certainly shouldn't be stated in Wikipedia's voice.

• "While touring Manchester as part of her Jubilee celebrations, Elizabeth made a surprise appearance at a wedding party at Manchester Town Hall, which then made international headlines." Given what she did for a living, almost everything she did would generate headlines. What was so special about this?

• "While not as universal as it once was, various polling suggested the popularity of the monarchy remained high in Great Britain during the Platinum Jubilee." Hmm. Is that straining to say that the royals lost popularity over time, without actually saying so?
• Why is the mention of her "voluntarily" paying tax not under "Finances"?
• We skate across the awkwardness of her second son paying out a millions-of-pounds settlement to a woman he claims he never met; yet we omit to mention that she paid at least some of the settlement for him? Why's that?

• No mention of The Crown or The Queen, both highly respected dramatisations of her life? That's a bit strange.

There's a good article to be written about this subject, and the sources are certainly there to do so. But this isn't it, yet. John (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You're kinda late. It's already on the Main Page, as an FA. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that. It's lucky that

WP:FAR is there if we need it. John (talk

) 21:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I was just looking at the version that was promoted, and at the relevant FAC. I see at least a couple of the points I made above were made there, but seemingly not actioned. I also see how much better the article was then. I agree with DeCausa above that this can happen to a well-edited FA over time, that it can degenerate in quality. I'll give it a week three weeks here and if there is no progress we can consider FAR. John (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd leave the bit about the UK & the commonwealth realms alone. As for most of the rest, my impression is that your observation is that the bio was written with a pro-monarchist PoV. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:FARGIVEN ?), but in this case, I'd argue that three to four weeks would be better, because the article has been so heavily hit since Elizabeth died, and cleaning it up will be hard with the traffic as high as it is. I was struggling for several days to keep up with the bad edits, and gave up. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 09:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I have listed it there. John (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the FA-rating is an especially useful framing device for discussion of this range of topics, and maybe they'd be better factored out. But whatever works for people. I'd recommend we don't immediately go off to FAR, but proceed on the basis of revising the article in the light of recent events, and if we can fix some longer-standing issues in the process, then all to the good. Once it's stabilised might be a better time to address the rating issue; no deadline, indeed. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I've amended my timescale in light of Sandy's advice above. There is no way an article as weak as this should be represented as our best work. My preferred option would be restoring it to FA quality. If the prospect of losing the bronze star motivates anyone to start fixing some of the problems I've outlined above, well and good. Some responses would be a good first step. Why are we pretending that the size of her "realms" varied over time, when in fact it shrank? Why are we pretending the royal family is as popular as ever, when in reality it has lost popularity over time? John (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, you claim that the numbers of realms has reduced, a claim which you appear to be repeating. There were seven at the start. There were fifteen at the end. Obviously, not a decrease. I suspect that you have confused political realms with territorial area. While it is useful to know that ill-informed people mistake the two, we can't say that the number of realms decreased when that's obviously wrong.

Celia Homeford (talk

) 15:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that might be the justification for this. I'll repeat the wording from my 14:56 post, so we are really clear: "Why are we pretending that the size of her "realms" varied over time, when in fact it shrank?" The size of her "realms" shrank greatly over time, as countries gained independence and became republics. That's an honest way of putting it, isn't it? That would be a great start. It was brought up at the FAC ten years ago too, but not actioned. I couldn't put the dishonesty of the current version better than the late, great Brianboulton did over 10 years ago. That this was not actioned is a shame. Better late than never, eh? John (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn't say 'size'. It says 'number'.

Celia Homeford (talk

) 15:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

That's correct. But this is a dishonest and misleading claim which will lead most readers to think it means the extent or size has increased, when in fact the contrary is true. This will be confusing to the general reader (not merely the "ill-informed"), especially when the specialist word "realm" is used, and this was pointed out over ten years ago but not actioned. Let's action it now, shall we? John (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I really don't think it's dishonest, and even if I were to, I'd

attempt to proceed otherwise in the interests of constructive discussion. I agree it's not ideal or at all clear, but I think that's because of the difficulty of summing up Empire -> Commonwealth v1 -> Commonwealth v2, in a sporadic case-by-case manner over seventy years, in succinct manner. And because editors of such topics love to use the "correct, official" terminology, regardless of their helpfulness to the general reader -- hence we have the word "accede" being double-digits times on a single royal article, as if that were a stylistically reasonable choice. I do think this needs a little more context to make clear that the "gain" of realms was due to countries becoming independent, having previously been colonies and dependencies, and the "loss" is due to them becoming republics. 109.255.211.6 (talk

) 18:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you say, 109.255.211.6. In terms of AGF, I should clarify that I am not accusing any individual editors of dishonesty; perhaps unconscious bias towards the subject of the article has played a part? But I don't care to analyse the motivations for keeping the article as it is for such a long time, as I am more focussed on how to fix it. John (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Many of these criticisms are nit-picky—and I'm not saying that they're not germane (nit-picks are an important part of the FA criteria!), but they're sort of missing the forest for the trees. Given that she just died and scholarship is likely to shift substantially in the next few years, I'm not sure what the benefit of an FAR at this exact point, weeks after her death, is going to be, versus workshopping stuff on the talk page and inviting interested parties/wikiprojects. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Point taken, User:David Fuchs. (I don't agree that claiming/implying the opposite of what the sources say on two important things about the subject's life is "nitpicky", but there you go.) In suggesting FAR as the next logical step, I was influenced by reading this talk page and observing that ~50% of the discussion is about images, one of the least important things in an article, and also by reading the section #RfC on popularity and support for the monarchy claims in the lead above, where one of my points was raised in July, with no consensus to improve the article, in spite of how obvious it was even ten years ago to reviewers. But as I've said, I don't really care how it is done, and I accept it might take a while, but I do think (as always) it is more of an honour to the subject of an article to present a truthful and well-balanced account of their life, than one which looks like it was written by their fans. This happens to coincide with 1b, c and d of the criteria for FA, so I thought that might be a useful frame for improvement. I would prefer to see change arise organically from the article's usual writers than to give the impression of imposing it from outside. If there is even a start at meaningful improvements prior to 11 October, there will be no need for an FAR. John (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree it's a little peacockish and royal-wonkish in general. This is for somewhat understandable reasons in the circumstances, and as a practical matter you might struggle to get timely relief, either by a wholesale change of tone, or getting it off the "recently featured" bar. As is often the case for articles in a particular niche, it attracts editors who are on the one hand sympathetic to the subject, and on the other, are keen to use the "correct" terminology for things, as opposed to that most helpful to the general reader. On both counts, this is exactly why we're instead supposed to follow the sources. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

John, I was influenced by reading this talk page and observing that ~50% of the discussion is about images, is precisely the problem that made me give up. Focusing on substantive issues re

WP:WIAFA is probably not going to be possible until the traffic subsides. Wikipedia never ceases to amaze, and I'm personally shocked and dismayed at the volume of this talk page that has been consumed by repetitive posts about images ... at one point (now archived) there were seven different image threads, and we seem to be headed back that direction. We'll be in better shape to address issues here once traffic subsides. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 20:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that's exactly right. It won't be back on the front page for the foreseeable future, so the deadline pressure is negligible, even by usual standards for there not being such. The image-chat is rather bizarrely intense, but short of giving them their own talk page (or vice versa), then yes, just ride it out, and likewise any other recentist-related issues. I don't think that precludes us from leaf-by-niggling other matters, but as I said above, I'd strongly suggest splitting them up topically. If we try to have an FAR-style "500 Things I Hate About This Being a FA" section, it'll get very unwieldy. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I've been trying to focus on keeping the talk page size manageable by archiving where possible, so we can see what's left, and thankfully, both Guerillero and Wehwalt have been helping out on that front by closing off done items. I suspect in another week it will be easier to proceed with the real improvements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

For some reason, it has become common for articles about people to near immediately change the infobox image after the death of a person. Personally, I only somewhat understand it, but that has been the trend. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, and save me reading through the entire article again, am I right that no progress at all has been made towards fixing any of these issues? John (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It would be best to tackle these issues, one at a time. Attempting to make multiple changes, would likely not succeed. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Which one would you start with? The wrong currency one should be easy to address, no? Or the paying off of her son's associate who he says he never met? I don't mind. John (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

You can tackle any of them, but I'd advise that you leave alone the bits about the United Kingdom & the other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I'm not going to tackle any of them, as I'm just here to review. As I said above, the onus is on the regular editors of this article to fix the errors and faults in it if there is any wish to retain the FA status. You can have the errors and faults, or you can have the bronze star, but I don't think you should expect to have both. John (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I've put a few improvement tags in place; there would be room for lots more I think. Maybe the tags will trigger work to start improving the state of the article. Otherwise (and we're leaving it late in the day), we can start at

WP:FAR as early as tomorrow. John (talk

) 16:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. John (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The tag in the lead is not justified. Even the most dismissive of the sources still says support ran at above 60% for decades with support for a republic at 20% or lower. DrKay (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Does it say "remained consistently high"? Or is that your interpretation of it? And how does it fit with a source titled "Poll: Dramatic decline in support for monarchy in decade since Diamond Jubilee"? Since we're discussing it at FAR, let's continue there. John (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I wrote that before seeing that you removed the article improvement tag "failed verification", so you must think it's fine. Fair enough, I won't edit war with you. But maybe that's the problem, if we have an article written and maintained by editors who think the best way to summarise these sources is "remained consistently high", and this is how it's ended up. I hope that it will benefit from some fresh eyes over there. All I want, as I imagine you do too, is for this article to be a good and fair reflection of the life of one of the last century's most interesting figures. John (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey @

WP:FAR

, "concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors".

Considering that this thread is more than three thousand words long, I think the existing community has addresssed your concerns to a degree and attempted to resolve issues. Although this doesn't necessarily mean it has modified what you wanted modified. But I can see you feel passionate about this project. Thinker78 (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

If volume of discussion was our metric, I'd agree with you. But as far as I'm aware, none of these issues has been resolved in three weeks. Not even the currency one. Surely folk would want this article to be as good as it can be? And the best articles arise out of a dialectic process. Let's see what the FAR community thinks about it. John (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, DrKay has removed the Manchester factoid. Good work. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. John (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with

WP:OWN

makes rather clear that nobody "owns" an article, generally this comes up to point out that they can't shut other people out from editing and they still must abide by wikipedia policies, but I'd argue that the logical conclusion is that no specific person has an onus to fix an article, and I'm pretty sure other wikipedia policy backs this up, anyone interested is welcome to contribute to articles but nobody has an onus to.

That said, you are welcome to make edits, clearly you've read pretty thoroughly through this article and are knowledgeable on the subject, so you are an as suitable person as any to help in the monumental task of improving it!

I will say, I think the focus on the star is silly. Our primary goal shouldn't be about rating articles (either giving them ratings or removing them), and it seems like you are trying to use FAR as some sort of punitive/motivative measure against "regular editors", but such an idea falls apart given that nobody has a personal responsibility to 'fix' the article. Really, our focus should be on improving the article.

There is a fair bit of traffic still, and this is a big article, with a lot of topics that link into it. Here is my suggestion: For small tweaks, like $->£, lets go ahead and do the changes as we find them. For the many bigger problems, why don't we put together a numbered list of overall issues, or perhaps even better try using subsections in the talk page to have a slightly organised discussion, then people can jump to the thing they're thinking of tweaking, and we can tackle them together. 90.198.253.144 (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Wikiaccount03: Go through Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 43, where the matter was brought up multiple times. Nobody opposed the set up suggested by User:GoodDay back then. With regards to how Template:Infobox royalty works, the "title" parameter is for Principal substantive title but it must be omitted if any one "succession(X)" field would be identical to it. The "succession" field deals with Primary substantive hereditary titles, and is used for almost every single king or queen on whom we have an article. Thus, there's no need to create a duplicate by including the same thing under the "succession" parameter and then under the "title" parameter. Head of the Commonwealth is a position that is not hereditary, so it cannot be placed under "succession". The only place where it would fit would be under "title". And there's no such thing as "King/Queen of the Commonwealth realms". No such title 'officially' exists to the best of my knowledge. There is King/Queen of the United Kingdom, King/Queen of Canada, etc. as these are sovereign states and are not necessarily grouped together; they have separate governments and separate monarchies in essence (Monarchy of the United Kingdom, Monarchy of Canada, Monarchy of Australia, etc.). They only happen to share the same head of state. That's it. Keivan.f^Talk 06:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

There's no such title or position called King or Queen of the Commonwealth realms. Therefore please stop changing Head of the Commonwealth, an organisation which includes the republics. GoodDay (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

A clear and precise summary of Her Majesty's various Commonwealth realms was replaced with a link to another article about her various realms at 01:25, 20 September 2022. The reason given was supposed difficulty of readability on mobile devices, which is simply untrue. The new format is less concise and detracts from the overall quality of the article. This change should be undone Timothy N-F (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it absolutely shouldn't be. There is a separate article listing her various realms, so there is absolutely no need to clutter the infobox with an awkward list of dozens of countries (see

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.). The new format is perfectly concise and, I would argue, improves the overall quality of the article. I do believe the note explaining the situation regarding her realms should be restored, however. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email

) 21:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, Timothy N-F, content should follow the principles of

WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. DeCausa (talk

) 07:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The new format is unclear and misleading, it suggests that her role as Queen of various Commonwealth realms were in some way ancillary to her title of Queen of the United Kingdom, when in fact these titles were all held independently. The previous format was used for years without issue, and only appears to add clutter when it isn't collapsible (as it originally was, but I couldn't work out how to restore that feature). The Collapsed list should remain, but the link to the article should be included also for additional information. It should not be necessary to seek out an additional article to understand the complete scope of her reign Timothy N-F (talk) 10:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Timothy N-F:, I didn't like the changes made either last month. But, that's what a majority of editors apparently wanted. So, it's best to accept the changes. GoodDay (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The style wives of British kings is niw 'Queen Consort' and no longer 'Queen' out of respect of Elizabeth II, who is still considered the Quuen by the British public. 2A00:23C7:6482:AA01:98EF:15EA:7F25:9891 (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

From what I have read from articles after Victoria's death, Queen Consort is usually used for about a year to differentiate the two individuals but then the "consort" title is dropped. Wives of King have always in the past been title as simply "HM The Queen". Dbainsford (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Camilla's future title is as yet undecided as clarified in her Wikipedia page, although she is currently being styled as "The Queen Consort", the question of if she will be referred to as "Her Majesty the Queen" is still being determined, and no official position exists for it yet, although traditionally this is what happens. 90.198.253.144 (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

All queen consorts have been adressed as 'Queen'. Similar to how all queen regnants have also just been adressed as 'Queen'. She will stop being referred to as 'Queen consort' when it will no longer cause any confusion to adress her as 'the Queen'. EmilySarah99 (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)