Talk:Elizabeth II

"Succeeded by her eldest son, Charles III"

There's no "III" in his given name. It should read "by her eldest son as Charles III" ~2026-38283-9 (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Done--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:39, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Did we ever figure out what to do with the lead image

Last June an RfC took place which established a consensus that the current lead image is not satisfactory and shoud be changed. After that an RfC took place to decide on the new picture, but fell apart due to most options being struck down due to copyright. Do we have any idea what this means for the preceeding consensus? Are we in a situation where there is consensus that authorises a new image to be chosen via RfC without a discussion on whether a change is needed? Should we be looking for a new lead image to satisfy the RfC? I am not an experienced editor, but to me this stalemate seems unusual. What do you fellow editors think this situation means for the lead image going forwards? Finfixer (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is worth reviving this, because it leads to circular discussions. Due to the copyright problems of the previously suggested images, the favourite alternative option would be Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015 which has been used as the infobox image before her death, but the current consensus is that the Queen looks more formal and regal in the 1959 portrait.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:24, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. The revival of the discussion itself is not warranted. But, I do believe it was major enough to warrant closure.

The current lead image was established by RfC in 2022 only for an RfC in 2025(henceforth RfC 25A) to overturn that consensus. That was on the grounds, per my assesment as a party to the case, that the picture does not represent an adequate compromise between representing a dead person in their prime and representing a dead person as they are best remembered. Those are two factors established to be at play when choosing a lead image. A second RfC (henceforth RfC 25B) in 2025 failed to find a replacement, but did not overturn RfC 25A.

The problem now, as I see it, is as follows;

The current picture is there without consensus courtesy of RfC 25A, but was added with consensus by RfC 22. This could be read a few ways. One could argue it means they can alter the lead image without an RfC, because the alteration is based on consensus to change the lead image. At the same time one could argue the lead image remains protected by RfC 22, because RfC 25B failed to implement RfC 25A rendering the consensus null and void.

The question is;

If, and since the issue still lingers propably when, this matter is revived, how much of a problem will this mess be? Finfixer (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

RfC 25A was an ill-designed RfC. No alternative image was proposed or discussed, and so its result is unenforceable and practically meaningless. Surtsicna (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I can see that, but the question put was not what the replacement should be, only whether it should be replaced. 25B was a follow up meant to decide that. Since it failed I would interpret that 25A remains an authorisation for an RfC that decides a replacement image with no need for another RfC to decide whether a change should be made (granted too much time, lets say one and a half years or so, has not passed). The found problem with the lead image has not been fixed after all. It should be either found no longer a problem (restoring the old status quo) or fixed at some point. It's a matter of clarity. I dread the day someone tries to make such a major change and then leans on this conflict as justification to make it. It's almost guaranteed to come with an article like this.

But perhapse even then it is not worth troubling ourselves over this. If a mess happens an RfC will clean it up, though we must remember that in an important high quality article a mess is the last thing we want. Finfixer (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I do not think that you understand. It is inane to hold two RfCs. RfC 25A decided practically nothing. We do not hold elections just to decide that someone else should be running the country; we hold elections to decide who should be running the country. RfC 25A was effectively nullified by 25B. Surtsicna (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I see that it is insane to do so and that it prevented a proper conclusion from being reached. But if we look at your election compariosn, something known as a recall election exists. An election where it is decided whether the office holder should remain in office. If they shouldn't, then they hold an election for a new individual. So it is a mechanism that exists for making decisions.

There was a reason for running two RfC's. The starter considered it impossible to form a concensus on both whether a change should be made and what it should be in one RfC. The discussion tried to move into that direction, which made it really chaotic and cluttered. It was very hard to understand who supported the change and an option and who only supported the change but none of the options. There were, if I remember correct, even people agreeing in principle, but not supporting because none of the images provided for illustration purposes suited them. That only made it further impossible to reach any sort of clear consensus. It was vital to split the question into two RfC's.

The effective nullification is a valid conlusion to draw. 25A doesn't directly authorise anything since 25B failed, so it has no effective impact. It does not allow unilateral altering. But it does still hold that there is a problem, which should be adressed, if an opportunity for that arises. I don't think a failure to choose a replacement can be read as there never having been a problem to begin with. To use your election comparison. If there is a two round election and the incumbent is eliminated in the first round, only for the second round to be a tie, it does not mean the incumbent won, does it?

Therefore, think 25A should be interpreted as saying that the current lead image is a stopgap measure. It found there is an MOS problem with the current lead image. We are currently in a situation where that problem can't be fixed due to a lack of apropriately licensed alternatives. But if that day, where there is an alternative option, comes, do we need to again conclude there is a problem before changing the lead image? 25A may not have overturned RfC 2022, but it could be read as having made it conditional. It is a reading I think seems apropriate, but it leaves the question open for what happens if a better lead image is found. Better being one that is a compromise of regality and recognisability. That is what 25A called for.

However, this seems to be an insignificant question to discuss a lot more. I raised this question in the form of a non RfC, because I found the question interesting enough to warrant commentary from other wikipedians. Clearly the commentary shows that my reading of the situation is propably silly and that I am overthinking the matter. If that ends up being the conclusion it is fine by me. Finfixer (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Now I will add that the matter was sort of resolved in an RfC in August 2025. That RfC concluded that;

"Keep existing image. This question is mostly a matter of editorial taste and discretion, except for the copyright concerns which eliminated image B. A substantial number of editors liked image A, some because it is more what people alive now remember Elizabeth looking like. What determined the outcome is that more editors preferred the current 1959 image, some mentioning a strong preference for a formal or official portrait. Whether it should be in her UK regalia instead of that of another country was disputed. -- Beland (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)"

I read this consensus as saying that the current image is adequated when the alternatives are considered. That it has the most consensus of available options. I don't think it said that the current image is without issue, therefore leaving 25A as consensus for there being an issue. Finfixer (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

perhaps both could be used? I feel like her official portrait makes the most logical sense, but I feel like people are generally more familiar with her circa 2015 mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Any future RFC on this matter is likely going to end in no consensus. Due to there being more than 'two' options usually being put forward. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

No, there was a failure to establish consensus because there were too many options, even though several of the options ended up being deleted from Commons due to copyright issues anyway. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 00:35, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh? My reading was that it ended in no consensus because the option that was closing on consensus ended up being deleted. This meant the consensus choice vanished leaving the RfC pointless. A third RFC was held in August 2025 which concluded that most editors preferred the current one, but not that the current one was without issue. Finfixer (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Until someone finds a better free-use image, there is no point in attempting to change the image. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

IMO, if someone wants to try this thing again, the way to do it is to start with a "What WP:LEADIMAGE pics should we vote on in an rfc?" discussion, and then take those pics to an rfc. The current one will be one of them, of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Should we add a legacy section?

I was thinking that there should be a Legacy section, covering statues, memorials, and other honours such as the new trust named after her, similar to the structure used on her mother's page. What is everyone's view? It seems unusual not to include one for the longest‑reigning British monarch. ItsShandog (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

It is named Public perception and character here with Personality and image of Elizabeth II being the main article. DrKay (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. ItsShandog (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Press mention

For Template:Press:

• https://www.popsci.com/technology/most-popular-wikipedia-entries/

--Another Believer _(Talk) 23:22, 24 May 2026 (UTC)