Wikipedia

Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 38

< Talk:Elizabeth II
Latest comment: 5 years ago by TonyBallioni in topic Requested move 2 June 2018
Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 → Archive 45

Infobox image

Latest comment: 6 years ago104 comments17 people in discussion

Original, untouched photograph: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/5/50/20150324130043%21Queen_Elizabeth_II_March_2015.jpg

  •  
    Current image
  •  
    Proposed image
  •  
    Comparison image
    View at 100%
  •  
    Simplified edit, which we could crop

@Hazhk: The infobox image, File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg, has been very poorly developed. The actual original version of the image is considerably underexposed and slightly oversaturated. To brighten the image somebody has boosted the exposure, which has increased the noise, then reduced the saturation, leading to an image with extremely high signal to noise ratio (SNR) and a pallid complexion. If you view the image at 100% you'll see how bad it is. It's badly speckled and the colour is all messed up. Notice the colour of her forehead under the shade of her hat; kinda orangey and bruised looking.

I reworked the image using the original, uploaded as File:Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015.jpg, retaining the colour information while reducing it to a more realistic level, while going to considerable effort to reduce the noise. Please view that image at 100% and compare it to the previous version. The queen likes to wear bright colours, and I think another editor may have been confused by that and tried to turn it down far too much. Yes, when you compare the two images she does look rather tanned, but that's due to persistence of vision; we perceive colours relative to other colours. When viewed in isolation you'll see that she isn't tanned, she just has a normal skin tone, shaded from the sun. You can also see that she's applied a little blusher and her eyes are blue, which you don't see in the previous image. I've also taken steps to reduce the contrast between the parts of her dress in shadow and the rest, which is in full sunlight, so it isn't as stark.

I uploaded the image as a derivative so as not to upset anybody, but in my opinion the previous image is so poor as to be unusable. I've swapped out the image in a number of articles. Rather than undo every edit let's discuss it here first and come to a consensus. If the majority decide that they don't think the new image is an improvement then fair enough. Fair enough? nagualdesign 23:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this should have been personally addressed to me. I reverted your edits for the very reason that you hadn't discussed the changes first; I welcome the discussion. And I understand now why you've made a new copy. I agree that the current version looks poor in higher resolution.--Hazhk (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I pinged you because of your edit summary but I agree that this may need broader input. I should point out that I'm a professional designer, and I've been developing digital negatives for almost 17 years now. I edit lots of images on Wikipedia and the Commons. Normally I just click on Random page until I find images worthy of my attention, but that can take a while, so this time I consulted the list of most viewed Wikipedia articles and worked my way down the list. This one stood out as being in need of some serious TLC, so I did what I did. I didn't think it would be particularly controversial. Thinking about it now, perhaps I should start an RfC, considering how many page views this will garner?
I've uploaded another image to make the comparison easier, with side-by-side crops of the face, with orange arrows to indicate where I saw 'orangey' problems, and blue arrows to draw attention to how the colour of the irises are messed up. The SNR problem is pretty self-explanatory. nagualdesign
...I'm going to clock off for the evening so I'm just going to go ahead and post an RfC. nagualdesign 00:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC about the photos of Queen Elizabeth II

The consensus here is yes, the image should be replaced with File:Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015.jpg. The opposing comments around WP:No original research are not carrying much weight I'm afraid, given the discussion here which concluded the image did not constitute original research. Fish+Karate 14:53, 15 February 2018 (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.

Should instances of File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg be replaced with File:Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015.jpg? (See above discussion.) nagualdesign 00:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)



  • Support as nominator. nagualdesign 00:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: taking into consideration the reasons for the changes to the photograph. --Hazhk (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per all above. Donama (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose The proposed image makes the Queen look like she has rosacea. Per WP:OR, "images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light". Firebrace (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Collapsed for readability
It really doesn't. If you view the photo on its own and up close rather than comparing it to the other version you'll see that she has a perfectly normal skin tone. Maybe compare it to another photo of someone you consider to have normal skin tone and you'll see what I mean. Regarding WP:OI, please see the notes I've left below. nagualdesign 21:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
This is a small (and most welcome) example of what allowing original work can lead to. We will end up debating the merits of various submissions of altered images (altered by competent editors, no doubt). I'm sorry but, truly, we are not supposed to go down such a path. -The Gnome (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Really? You don't think that we're supposed to debate such things? I thought that that's exactly what talk pages are for! nagualdesign 00:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm saying we should not debating the merits or pitfalls of original work. Such work is automatically unacceptable, no matter how good (or how bad) it is. I'm not arguing for the elimination of dialogue in the Talk Pages!.. :-) The Gnome (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Changing my vote to support on the basis of other photographs of the Queen taken on the same day,[1] and others of her in natural lighting that show heavy make-up (links in discussion below). Firebrace (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration. Much appreciated. nagualdesign 20:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose The image currently featured in the article (i.e. "File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg") has been provided by the British Ministry of Defence. It's an official portrait of the subject of the article. We use it under the Open Government Licence v3.0. We could substitute this photograph with another one, personally taken by a Wikipedia editor, or taken by another person and used by Wikipedia, under "Making images yourself" in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. The proposed alternative (i.e. "File:Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015.jpg") is practically a new and different image since it has been altered (however subtly) as the nominator him/herself has stated. In so many words, and this might indeed reflect unfairly on the work done by the originator, it is blatant original work (as much so as when a piece of art is altered or sampled or copied to create another piece of art). Even if we should congratulate the originator for a job well done, and even if we prefer aesthetically the proposed, altered image, we can never deviate from the rules that are relevant here:
1. An image is evidently a means of communicating information.
2. An image is, for obvious reasons, made available to Wikipedia as is. Editors are not supposed to exercise their personal preferences, or use their professional abilities, on an image that has been offered or made available for use in Wikipedia - otherwise, we are to follow a slippery road towards the wide spectrum from distortion to beautification.
3. Wikipedia is offering the truth strictly as the truth is reported by reliable sources. Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. (See here for more explanations on this.) The information contained in a Wikipedia image that has been legally provided by someone else is not to have its meaning altered. The information can be "summarised" or "partially offered" (i.e. reduced in size or cropped, respectively) but not altered.
If editors believe that the currently displayed image of the article's subject should be improved in quality (and I happen to share that belief) then all we can do is hope or agitate for a better image to be provided - either by the same source or by someone else, e.g. an editor. But we can under no circumstances start meddling with photographs! -The Gnome (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Collapsed for readability
@The Gnome: This photograph is not an official portrait. In fact it isn't a portrait of any kind; it's a candid photograph of the queen taken at an official event. Official portraits of the queen are taken each year by official photographers, the like of which can be viewed at the National Portrait Gallery. If we have any of those and you think that one of them should be used in the infobox in this article then by all means feel free to do so.
Neither of the images that are the subject of this RfC are the actual original, which can be found here. As I have already stated, it's considerably underexposed and over-saturated, and File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg has been very poorly developed from that original. What I'm suggesting is that we replace any instances of that image with File:Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015.jpg, which more properly reflects the original, albeit with the exposure corrected and other subtle improvements. With regard to the rules you listed:
  1. The new image is an appropriate means of communicating information - it is an accurate likeness of the queen.
  2. The original image was indeed made available to Wikipedia under the Open Government Licence v3.0, which explicitly states that "You are free to: copy, publish, distribute and transmit the Information; adapt the Information; exploit the Information commercially and non-commercially for example, by combining it with other Information, or by including it in your own product or application." There is no restriction on exercising our preferences or using our abilities to edit images for the benefit of our readers, and while I agree that we should always refrain from distortion to beautification I clearly haven't done that. If anything the previous version was a distortion, and a pretty poor one at that.
  3. I agree that Wikipedia ought to offer the truth as strictly as possible, without having its meaning altered, but improving the exposure of an image properly without degrading it is just as valid as reducing its size or cropping, and many images are altered, sometimes subtly and sometimes not-so-subtly, while still delivering a faithful likeness or communicating information appropriately.
I can see where you're coming from but I have to disagree. 'Meddling' with photographs, provided it is done conscientiously, can be of great benefit to the project. Take for example these images which I edited today: Before/After...Before/After...Before/After...Before/After. I hope you agree that these not-so-subtle edits are actually improvements, which ought to be welcomed. nagualdesign 16:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind, elaborate, and thoughtful response. There is, however, nothing in it that would change my take on what we are trying to do here, which is going beyond "improvement" or, of course, "adaptation"; this is original work. Note that Wikipedia often goes for intentional degrading of images so as to ensure their strictly informational, encyclopaedic use. Congratulations on the technical quality of your work, by the way. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words. What you seem to have missed, or perhaps you're still suggesting, is that, by your rationale, we ought to be using this image, rather than either of the two derivatives. Don't you think that would be unwise? And do you agree that the other samples of my work are worthwhile edits, or do you still believe that we can under no circumstances start meddling with photographs? nagualdesign 17:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@The Gnome: Okay, taking on board the points you made I've been playing around with the original, full-size image, seeing if I can make the simplest edit possible and still get a satisfactory result. If I open the image in Adobe Camera Raw and just increase the exposure by +1.4 EV, reduce the saturation by 25% and apply noise reduction (setting Luminance, Luminance Detail, Color and Color Detail to 50) it looks almost as good as my edit, and by anyone's standards this should not be considered as meddling since all digital negatives are developed this way, and it did not include any selective editing. The problem is that the highlights on her face and hair are subdued, and her skin looks smoother than I think it should. The difference is very slight, but compared to my own upload it actually looks more like a beauty edit. None of the wrinkles are missing but the slight lack of facial highlights does make her complexion look a little bit nicer, which I would normally try to avoid. I've uploaded it for reference, then reverted, so that you and anyone else who's interested can compare the original, the developed file and my edit. Please take a close look and let me know what you think. Cheers. nagualdesign 23:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
We better cut this short, since it might degenerate into the technicalities of photo retouching, a totally irrelevant issue. So let me answer your question: You guessed correctly. No, we can under no circumstances start meddling with photographs ourselves in terms of the quality of the photographic image. If the image shows The Gnome's face in a ghastly, preposterous, ridiculous manner, then so be it - as long as no other, better (i.e. more accurate) image can be found in yer standard reliable sources. That's all there is to it. You (or any Wikipedia editor) can go to town with the color in the photo or retouch it oh-so-slightly; the end result is the same: original work!
You want to have the photograph you snapped or the one you "improved" appear in a biographical article of Wikipedia? Have it published in at least one of the aforementioned publicly available, reliable sources and then allow fair use. For existing images, this is the rule I support: Crop and/or resize? Fine, it is permitted and we already do this. "Improve the colors," etc? Sorry, that'd be out of line. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I will just point out, per WP:OR, "images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light". The original photograph (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/5/50/20150324130043%21Queen_Elizabeth_II_March_2015.jpg) presented the Queen as a perma-tanned Essex WAG. I dislike all versions of the photograph and wish there was a better one to replace it, but this perennial issue could be avoided if the Royal family would get over itself and release a portrait into the public domain, like they do in the US. Firebrace (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. If the image currently displayed in the article about Elizabeth II (or anyone else, of course) is found by editors to present her "in a false or disparaging light," then we should not use it. It is truly that simple. You find the image to present Elizabeth as a "perma-tanned Essex WAG" (!), others may find it exquisite - let's have a vote on it. If the votes come against it, then we should remove it and replace it with a better one. The policy on images of persons does not instruct us nor allow us to improve the content of images if they present the subject "in a false or disparaging light". -The Gnome (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Please click the link in my message to see the original photograph that shows the Queen as an Umpa Lumpa. The current version actually is an improvement on the original. Wikipedia policies are prohibitive, not prescriptive. Firebrace (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Is Umpa Lumpa worse or better than an Essex WAG? One wonders. :-) The Gnome (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Hah! Well, Essex WAGs are far worse, obviously.   nagualdesign 02:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@The Gnome: The infobox photo of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge was originally black and white. It has been colourised by various editors using colour photos of the duchess and her outfit as a guide. Digitally enhancing photographs to make them look more like the real thing is standard practice on the Commons and does not constitute original research at Wikipedia. Firebrace (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Where is the rule that allows this "standard practice," please? I'm not aware of any rule that allows editors to colorize images the way they see fit, no matter the nobleness of our purpose. The rule about avoiding original work is one of the foundational, most important pillars of Wikipedia. We should revisit all cases where such practices have taken place; otherwise, we may find ourselves making a standard practice of "improving" texts as well - "as a guide" and to have them "more like the real thing," Jimbo forbid! :-) -The Gnome (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are two separate entities. Images can be uploaded to Wikipedia, and WP:OR applies there, but it does not apply to the Commons, which has its own policies and guidelines. In any case, per OR: "It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image". My example is not a misrepresentation of the facts; it is a fact that the Duchess of Cambridge has green eyes, brown hair, and wore a blue dress to the event. However, this proposed image of the Queen distorts her skin tone and makes her look sunburnt. Firebrace (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
We cannot be uploading OR in Wikipedia from the Commons or from anywhere else. -The Gnome (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Rather than arguing ad nauseum over how the guidelines ought to be interpreted I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Images (in accordance, I hope, with WP:APPNOTE). Hopefully we'll get some clarification about that. nagualdesign 02:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Good move. Congrats. -The Gnome (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As I commented at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Images, there is no WP:NOR prohibition, encouragement or discouragement for doing this. I oppose because you have altered an otherwise fine image. I think it is preferable for photographs to have a clean pedigree, an easily stated source. The alterations you have made are not simple (not simply stated), and the color change is highly debatable as an improvement. I also have a problem with the edit history where you say you have "increased exposure". That is impossible. Along with "reduced noise", you have confused your objective with what you actually did. In the end, I think you have reduced the quality. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Assuming that you're talking about this revision Exposure is one of the adjustments used in Adobe Camera Raw. The edit summary I used was "Original image, developed in Adobe Camera Raw (+1.4 EV, Saturation -25%, Noise reduction: Luminance 50, Luminance Detail 50, Color 50, Color Detail 50)." That's pretty easily stated, and shows exactly what the image pedigree is. If there weren't 28 interim revisions this would be more obvious. So you think that we should continue using File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg? nagualdesign 04:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: Does this upload address your concerns? (You'll have to forgive the <br /> that didn't render in my edit summary.) nagualdesign 04:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support since "Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images...", "...so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments...", and it's perfectly fine as long as "Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such.". The arguments of the nominator are convincing enough that the edits are a faithful reproduction of the original as they don't "present the subject in a false or disparaging light" since the "panda eyes" and darker complexion were prominent in the original also. I'm also in favor of selecting any one of the alternate versions provided by the nominator if other editors aren't satisfied with the "panda eyes" version. I'm sure the nominator is talented enough to provide a version everyone can be happy with. It should also be noted that this article has a consensual history of this retouched photo being uploaded to it. (Quotes from WP:OI). Huggums537 (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
In addition, I'd like to point out that at first blush, it might seem like the lighter version makes the Queen look more attractive since it hides the "panda eyes" more effectively, but this is just a very superficial assessment. A more thoughtful assessment indicates that the older photo makes the Queen look very pale and sheltered from sunlight. This gives the false impression that she never got out of the palace to accomplish much. The newer photo with the darker complexion makes the Queen look more lively and it's perfectly normal for active people who wear sunshades to have "panda eyes". This gives the impression she takes to going outside often and "getting things done". Huggums537 (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Collapsed for readability
Thanks. We all hopefully know that "editors are" indeed "encouraged to upload their own images" (with various caveats) but could you please explain what makes the image of the Queen editor nagualdesign's own? As you may recall, the photograph belongs to the British Ministry of Defence. The rest of your remarks exemplify the serious problem we get when we start fooling around with published photographs. What you say would have relevance in the context of a photo contest or an art class. Not here. We are not here to offer our own, original work, no matter how "great" it might be.-The Gnome (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I really have no need to explain what makes the image the "nominator's own" since the quote "Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such." makes it clear that manipulated images are allowed. However, I will indulge your request anyway by explaining that it was not the British Ministry of Defence who uploaded the retouched photo, it was nagualdesign. That makes it their own. Furthermore, it has already been explained to you that the image was released by the UK national archives under a license allowing him to do so. There you go. Although, as stated, it's irrelevant in this case since manipulated images are clearly allowed as long as it's prominently noted as such. Huggums537 (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The nominator is User:nagualdesign. He "manipulated" an image originally issued by the British Ministry of Defence. (Look up the info in the details part of the "File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg" page.) The "manipulated" image was baptised by the nominator with a new file name and has been offered for uploading in the article about Queen Liz II. And I question whether the "manipulation" makes the original image, the one owned by the originator, i.e. the MoD, to be User:nagualdesign's property. It doesn't. It is an image offered by the originator to the human population and Wiki editors under Fair-Use rules. Which means we can use it as is -or alter it strictly within Wikipedia guidelines about images. There you go. -The Gnome (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
According to your own logic, no image anywhere in all of Wikipedia is anyone's "property". So, you can easily see how your question is still just as irrelevant as it was before. Huggums537 (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
To put it another way, every image across all of Wikipedia belongs to everyone. So, by virtue of your own logic, every single image across Wikipedia is the "property" of nagualdesign just as much as it's your "property" and mine to do with as we see fit. That makes it "his own" just as much as it is "my own" or "your own". Your own logic only further illustrates my point that your question is irrelevant no matter which way you slice it. Huggums537 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your trying to say with, "what makes the image of the Queen editor nagualdesign's own?" It sounds vaguely like an accusation of WP:OWNERSHIP on my part. I assure you that that's not my intention here at all. My primary goal is to remove the current version of File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg from any and all articles because that image is of poor quality and, arguably, contrary to WP:OI. I'm not sure why you're arguing to keep it, given your rationales. And I've made every effort with my latest upload to address the concerns raised here and provide an image file with clear provenance. In point of fact, the photograph does not "belong" to the MoD, since it's OGL v.3. As noted in the licensing (in small print at the bottom), "Note: Since 2010, almost all information owned by the UK Crown is offered for use and re-use under the Open Government Licence by authority of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.[info]" nagualdesign 20:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation of terms provided immediately above. :-) The Gnome (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The new image takes care of the noise issue and the iris issue, however the Queen now appears slightly sunburnt, or that she has used too much bronzer or the wrong shade of foundation. It also appears that some of the age on her face has been softened, which makes it no better than the airbrushed photo of Melania Trump. In my opinion as someone who works with graphics as well (albeit not at the level that you do), this image is no longer an accurate representation of Her Majesty, and should not be used on the page per WP:OI (subject is being portrayed arguably in a false light). I do applaud your effort, however, and thank you for your attempt. Don't help me, help the bear. 22:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Please review the 3 links posted right at the bottom of this section. She does indeed look slightly bronzed. Also compare this to this, where I've attempted to mitigate the 'anti-aging' effect. And note that these images do not fall foul of WP:OI (see Wikipedia talk:No original research#Images). Cheers. nagualdesign 23:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
After looking at the links you have provided, I see that the aging effects aren't nearly as soft. However, as compared to the image originally provided, there is still some evidence of softened age marks to me, but that's neither here nor there (maybe my glasses prescription needs to be changed :). I think the noise removal was excellent and is something I would definitely like to see continue if you were to redo the image. My disagreement still stands with the color adjustment of her face. If it would be possible to de-noise the photo while leaving her skin tone as consistent as possible with other photos of her, that image would have my full support. Don't help me, help the bear. 22:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
As noted in my reply to Moxy (below) I haven't adjusted the colour per se. I understand that, compared to File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg, it looks like I've given her a rosier complexion, but in fact it is that image where the colour of her face has been deliberately altered to make her more pallid, and my edit actually retains the colour of the original photograph. If you look at other photos of her taken on the same day (please review the links right at the bottom of the #Notes subsection) you'll see that my edit is indeed consistent with them. nagualdesign 22:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it was my edits that made her look too pale. The proposed image matches other photographs of the Queen taken on the same day. From looking at other photographs of the Queen under natural light (e.g., [2], [3], [4], [5], and especially [6]), it does appear that she wears heavy make-up, which gives her the panda eyes, white line around her lips, and a line around her face where the make-up ends. Firebrace (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for posting that, Firebrace. Is there anything that I could do with my edit that would make you change your !vote from Neutral to Support? I can only address anyone's concerns if they explain their rationale. If you'd rather remain neutral because you have no strong feelings either way, fair enough. nagualdesign 23:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
...Thank you!   nagualdesign 01:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@HelpTheBear: Could you please respond to the comments above. nagualdesign 05:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I have no response to give. Don't help me, help the bear. 21:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@HelpTheBear: You wrote, "If it would be possible to de-noise the photo while leaving her skin tone as consistent as possible with other photos of her, that image would have my full support." And as Firebrace demonstrated, the skin tone is indeed consistent with other photos of her. nagualdesign 22:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Well maybe the Queen does wear the wrong shade of make-up. Under artificial light it can be hard to tell, but in natural light it should be obvious. In this photo you can see a line under the Queen's jaw where her make-up ends. Firebrace (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Hah! Looks like she's missed her ears too, her tragus is very pale compared to her cheek. I suppose after 70 or 80 years you get to the point where you just slap it on any old how. nagualdesign 14:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Odd manipulation of color.--Moxy (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
sigh.. I realize that this RfC has become quite lengthy and you probably haven't read it wall to wall but here's some pertinent information: this is a copy of the original file (note that it is underexposed and oversaturated), this is the same photograph with normalized exposure, without any retouching (note that the saturation has been reduced but the hue is exactly what was captured by the camera), and this is the retouched file which I've nominated in this RfC (note that I've taken steps to avoid the apparent 'anti-aging' effect). People keep comparing it to the current infobox image, since that is the subject of this RfC, and concluding that she looks more orangy and younger when in fact, starting with the original photograph, I've desaturated the image then made her look slightly older. Although we're comparing the relative merits of two images you have to be mindful of assessing each on its own, or comparing either image to the original. nagualdesign 15:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Moxy, your reasoning for not supporting seems to be not much more than Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT. Huggums537 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
And you would be wrong.--Moxy (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Moxy, please take no offense at my comment. I do see you have a "great rep", but I also see you provided us with only a very brief statement to support your !vote which appears to be more of an opinion than an argument. As only an opinion, I think it should be posted as a comment rather than an !vote. To represent statements as !votes, I would expect to see more logical reasoning and argument for a decision other than just the simple personal opinion that it's "odd". With all due respect, your long standing "great rep" (mentioned in your edit summary) should be insufficient to garner an !vote since it isn't supposed to be a "great rep" that earns !votes, but reasoning and logic that earns them. Huggums537 (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Moxy: Could you please respond to my comment above. nagualdesign 05:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Let's assume good faith for the time being. It's very easy to make the mistake of comparing one image to the other and thinking the new one looks kinda funky by comparison. With the benefit of hindsight, I should have made it quite clear from the beginning of this RfC that both images are derivatives of the same image but each one has been processed differently, since the crux of the matter is which one has been processed more properly. I guess I wrongly assumed that anyone reading this would understand the ins and outs of photographic processing, and concepts like hue and saturation. It's even been suggested that the original is a poor quality photo. Far from it; it's a very high quality, well shot photograph with a nice clean dataset, and the saturated colour is an aid to post-production, which without being properly processed makes for a poor quality image. Lot's of photographers slightly up the saturation then turn it down in post because the finished colours can look better, though I understand that this may sound like mumbo-jumbo to a lot of people. The mistake is mine. nagualdesign 18:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - The original picture is honestly not that great and this edit definitely improves it a bit by reducing the grain, which was its main problem, and in my opinion (obviously controversially if you glance at this talk page) makes the skin look better. While at first it looked like she was overly bronze or sunburnt, after googling some pictures of the queen, it looks like she actually does have bronzer skin and the "panda eyes." All of this considered, I support the change - but, given this edit seems like it would improve the image, I think the best option would be to actually find a new image altogether that is higher quality than the original and not requiring any edits (minus cropping). --Jak525 (talk) 01:27, Sunday, January 7, 2018 (UTC)
Collapsed for readability
Alas, there are few high quality images of the Queen that we can use on Wikipedia. The MoD now regards faces as "personal data" and will not be publishing any more photographs of her under the OGL. We are limited to candid snaps of the Queen in public, and those uploaded to Flickr by government departments, which tend to be a bit ropey. Firebrace (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jak525: Thank you for your support. Please note (and this is directed at anyone reading this) that the original image does not suffer from excessive noise, it's only by increasing the exposure that the low level of noise becomes amplified and needs to be mitigated. Perhaps I could explain it like this: Imagine the image as a landscape where each pixel represents a point on the landscape and the brightness represents the height above sea level. The noise may be considered as how jagged the terrain is. Now if you imagine increasing the exposure by 1.4 EV as multiplying the elevation of every point on the landscape by 2.64 (ie, 21.4) the hills become mountains and the valleys, though raised, become deeper (which is what you want) but the jaggedness of the terrain (the noise) is also amplified. In this regime, noise reduction is the process whereby the jaggedness of the original terrain can be retained while the landscape is raised. Unfortunately the current infobox image has been lightened without mitigating this unwanted effect, which is why when you look at it up close it's badly speckled. nagualdesign 22:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Agree with the above suggestion of Jak525 since, well, (ahem) this has been my suggestion all along; to wit: "[T]he best option would be to actually find a new image altogether that is [of] higher quality than the original and not requiring any edits" except for cropping or altering its size. Why do we must have editors working their magic? -The Gnome (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Please read my comment directly above Jak525's comment regarding quality. nagualdesign 10:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose—as others have mentioned, the editing makes the Queen appear sort of sunburnt and possibly younger, as tone was infused into the image. And seeing the source from which it was provided, the original image needs to stay. Nikolaiho☎️📖 00:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Collapsed for readability
@Nikolaiho: What do you mean by "tone was infused into the image"? nagualdesign 00:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Colour. Nikolaiho☎️📖 02:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Are you sure you've looked at the the original photograph? As I've already mentioned several times in this RfC I didn't add any colour, I removed some (ie, I reduced the saturation of the original image by 25%). I think you're making the mistake of assuming that I edited File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg to produce File:Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015.jpg – infusing colour into the image. I did not; I started from scratch. The rosy complexion has already been explained several times in this RfC also. The colour was removed from the current infobox image removed in error. I realize that this RfC has become quite lengthy but I urge you, and anyone else yet to cast a !vote, to read through it before coming to a decision. I see that you have automated notifications on your talk page about RfC, hence you being here, and you probably want to help, but adding your two cents without taking the time to read through the discussion isn't really helpful. nagualdesign 03:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nikolaiho: Could you please respond to my comment above. nagualdesign 05:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for telling me that I am a bad editor and didn't read through the discussion. No I do not wish to respond to your comment, and if the "two cents" I added are just that, then you don't have an issue as the RfC closer will see that my opinion is useless. Nikolaiho☎️📖 06:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Wow, okay. I didn't say anything of the sort. I asked you if you'd seen the original photograph, because (1) you said, "[colour] was infused into the image", which it wasn't, and (2) you said, "seeing the source from which it was provided, the original image needs to stay", and I'm uncertain as to which image you believe to be the source and/or original. I don't wish to have a go at you but there are certain editors on WP, yourself included, who have automated notifications on their talk page who turn up to RfCs, !vote and leave, without further discussion. It's usually easy to tell who they are because they leave a comment with few words then fail to notice subsequent replies, as you have done. It's a bit like volunteering for jury duty, turning up for 5 minutes then walking away. If you haven't got the time to spare on an RfC then it really isn't helpful. nagualdesign 08:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I know you put in a lot of time in making this image and you really want it to pass. Good luck, but I do not support you. Nikolaiho☎️📖 00:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Making the images was the easy part. The hard part has been conducting this RfC and having to repeat myself ad nauseum. Since you don't want to answer the question or engage in discussion I'll leave you be. nagualdesign 00:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I would use the term "conducting this RfC" loosely. All you have done is thank those who support, question those who oppose, and provoke me. And the more I read this RfC, the more I am against changing the photo. So let this be my last statement in this thread. Nikolaiho☎️📖 01:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I've made every effort to address the legitimate concerns of those who've opposed, and made further uploads to that effect, and provided links to demonstrate what the queen really looked like on that day. You seem to have missed the point of this discussion, which is to arrive at some sort of consensus, not to simply be combative against 'the opposition'. Provoking you was not my intention at all, though you've obviously got your knickers in a twist. Since you never did say whether you'd seen the original photograph, and you thought that I was telling you that you're "a bad editor", I'm just going to assume that you did not. nagualdesign 02:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The colour balance of the proposed image is closer to the original. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support' (Summoned by bot) I don't think ti makes here look sunburnt at all. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support but ask that nagualdesign tone down the WP:BLUDGEONING. Nihlus 14:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The proposed photo is more accurate to the original image than the current one. AdA&D 18:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I feel in the edited photo, the subject just ends up looking... uncanny and sunburned. If you really want to refine this image, I'd split the difference between the two versions (and SEVERELY tone down the attempts at colour correction), but right now I honestly don't see the value. Yes, it's a noisy photograph, and I'd rather we had a less noisy version, but the composition and colour are absolutely fine for encyclopaedic usage. The crop on the edited version is also way too tight - a small amount of empty space around the subject (as in the original version) is important to give the viewer's eye some context for the subject. -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 13:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Alfiepates: As has been repeatedly pointed out, there has been no colour correction, nor is the original image excessively noisy. Please see File:Queen_Elizabeth_II_March_2015_by_Joel_Rouse_(MoD).jpg#filehistory for a before and after. There are also 3 links right at the bottom of this section to images of the queen taken on the same day. It isn't so much sunburn as heavy make-up. The composition (degree of cropping) is an entirely separate issue which can be addressed if there is enough call to do so. nagualdesign 14:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign: Honestly, without the original RAW file I don't think we're gonna pull anything out of this which is truly "suitable" - The original JPEG is noisy when the exposure is pulled up, which is what I mean. I propose we actually write to Royal Communications/the Public Information Office (See here) and request an OGL-licensed portrait of the Queen for the purposes of Wikipedia - I'm sure they'd be happy to oblige. -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 14:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the noise does become excessive when it's amplified, which is what's happened with the current infobox image, and the raw file will contain the same level of noise. As you can also see, it's the current infobox image which has had its colour altered. The replacement has only had its saturation reduced. As for requesting a licensed portrait, I would have thought that too, but apparently the opposite is true. Almost all official images of the queen are non-free, and even after this one was released with an OGL license the Crown attempted to revoke the license (see here for details). nagualdesign 14:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely, as that would be licensing the image for anyone to use, commercially and non-commercially. Firebrace (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The "Donald Trump" look doesn't suit her at all, The original image is natural and without being in any way disrespectful we all grow old and we should show that not mask it all away with a photoshopped image. –Davey2010Talk 00:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The original image is this one. Both of the images being discussed for selection here are photoshopped, and you are supporting the one with the heavier processing. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Judging by the comments here I'm not the only one confused!, Point is I oppose the sunburnt image. –Davey2010Talk 14:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Your confusion is forgiven, but it's her make-up, not sunburn. Here are 3 more images taken on the same day: [1] [2] [3]. nagualdesign 12:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Notes

A few notes on Wikipedia policy: First, WP:OR mainly refers to words and phrases used in articles (ie, facts, allegations, and ideas for which no reliable, published sources exist). With regard to images it says:

Because of copyright laws in a number of countries, there are relatively few images available for use on Wikipedia. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under appropriate Creative Commons licenses, or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article.
It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light.

Without wishing to get into an extended debate about photo editing, developing digital negatives – or in this case developing a JPEG as though it were a raw image (by using the same algorithms) – is not the same as photo manipulation. While my edit was admittedly manipulated, it was not done to distort the facts or position illustrated by the image and does not present the subject in a false or disparaging light, and it is prominently noted as retouched using the {{Retouched picture}} template. In short, no rules have been bent or broken. And my most recent edit hasn't undergone any manipulation, per se (see below).

The guidelines are actually far less strictly enforced than perhaps The Gnome would like. There's a 'Graphic(s) Lab' on both Wikipedia and Commons, each with a Photography Workshop, where editors routinely alter images at the request of other editors. Having contributed to the WP Graphics Lab for many years I can attest to the fact that many images undergo considerable editing, often distorting them in ways that I've taken exception to. I've lost count of the number of times I admonished certain editors to wind in their manipulations (and I have the scars to prove it). That's just one of the reasons I no longer work there. I prefer to work on my own these days, and I assure anyone reading this that I always make the greatest effort to do so conscientiously. I would argue that my standards of conduct in that regard are actually far higher than prescribed by WP policy, and when it comes to historical and BLP photographs in particular I'm happy to hold my work up for further scrutiny. This RfC is a prime example of that.

Back to the question posed by the RfC, please note that what I'm specifically asking is whether instances of File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg be replaced with File:Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015.jpg, the reason being that the former has been manipulated from the original in a way that is contrary to WP:OI. That is a fact. And I'm suggesting that where that image is already in use it should be replaced with the latter. The most recent edit I made has undergone no manipulation whatsoever, and if people prefer we can simply crop that image for the infobox here (a separate issue, really).

For those not well-versed in digital photography and developing digital negatives perhaps I ought to spell out exactly what has occurred here. Evidently the photographer has set their camera up to snap an image in perfect focus with nice depth of field (f/2.8), with perfect white balance, using a high shutter speed (1/100th of a second) and very high ISO (3,200) in order to avoid blurring, and with the saturation turned up somewhat in order to capture the greatest colour information. This is standard practice for many photographers, given the circumstances. The resultant digital negative is expected to be somewhat underexposed and oversaturated, but carry enough information to create a beautiful image using post-production. Whoever uploaded the image to the Commons has conscientiously provided a JPG version of the original NEF file for posterity, the idea being that we can develop the negative ourselves while retaining the original. Unfortunately a succession of editors has come along and, seeing that the queen has an orange-looking face, made multiple edits to try to fix the colour, increase the brightness and such. I strongly suspect that they have used brightness/contrast adjustment (or curves adjustments), which is a layer-by-layer process, and the repeated saving and re-uploading has also caused generation loss. Really, they're not even the right tools for the job to begin with. By using Adobe Camera Raw with the latest upload I was able to increase the exposure (which uses a different algorithm than increasing brightness) and reduce the saturation, as well as avoiding increasing SNR by carefully applying noise reduction, all in a single edit, so there isn't even any of the ever-so-slight corruption of the original data that you get when making layer-by-layer edits. The practical upshot being that the image produced is a faithful reproduction of what the camera would have captured using normal ISO and saturation if only the queen stood absolutely motionless for long enough.

I'm not sure what else to say really, other than trust me, I know what I'm doing, but Wikipedia is all about consensus so here we are. I hope this information is helpful to anyone reading it, and I apologise if I'm waffling a bit but I hope that answers anyone's concerns and we can just put it to a !vote now. Please bear in mind though that Strongly votes carry no more weight than simply adding Support or Oppose. If you have any strong concerns then we should discuss them. nagualdesign 21:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It is obvious that you are quite passionate about this - which is, to me, understandable since this involves your professional field, as you stated. You say "trust me, I know what I'm doing" but this is hardly an argument. As it happens, I both respect your technical expertise (at least as demonstrated in the work you did on Elizabeth II's face) and admire your passion. But you have already provided the answer to the dilemma, in the words of the pertinent rule: "It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image." This makes quite clear that for Wikipedia an image imparts information (viz. "facts", "position") just as text does. You might believe that what you are doing does not constitute manipulation but it does, no matter how we try to paint words around the practice.
Again, in sum: I strongly oppose replacing the original photograph with your "improved" one - or any "improved" one. And as an aside, when I use the term "strongly" in expressing an opinion, it means, as far as I'm concerned, that I find the subject of the discussion quite important and/or that major rules are at play. Nothing more and nothing less. Hope this clarifies my submission. -The Gnome (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I do appreciate your input on this but I cannot stress enough that increasing the exposure of an underexposed photograph, normalizing the saturation, and reducing the image noise that those adjustments may otherwise cause categorically does not constitute a distortion of the facts or position illustrated by an image. That is not only a fact but I'm certain that it's also in accordance with the meaning and spirit of WP:OI. With my earlier upload I deliberately reduced the contrast between the sunlit portion of her outfit and the part in shade, which you could argue as some sort of misrepresentation, but my latest upload has simply been developed as is. This is no more of a manipulation than converting a digital negative into a useable image, much like sending your film to be developed in a dark room. And I already conceded the fact that Wikipedia is all about consensus, and my professional opinion is notwithstanding. I wasn't suggesting that anyone defer to me, only that what I'd written immediately above was and is entirely factual. nagualdesign 00:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Right, a few things: Why have you used Adobe Camera Raw to edit a jpeg? As the name suggests, it is designed for editing raw photographs straight from the camera. No, there is no generation loss in the reupload because I always start from the original. Why do you keep talking about layers? It's a jpeg, there is only one layer. No, I'm sorry but it isn't a faithful reproduction of what the camera would have captured using normal ISO and saturation – it looks ridiculous. She has panda eyes and either rosacea or sunburn. Impressive wall of text, though. I'm not saying the current image is ideal; I think it's a bad photograph in general, and those wide-brimmed hats really do nothing for the Queen. But is your edit an improvement on the current image? Sorry, but the answer is no. Firebrace (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
ACR uses algorithms designed for digital negatives but can be used with almost any file type. I used it because the algorithms produce a more faithful result than layer adjustments. Generation loss is caused by different editors downloading the image, editing, saving (including recompression) and re-uploading. If you're saying that you're the person responsible for the current infobox image and you created it directly from this image then generation loss isn't the issue, but I still suspect that you've used some sort of layers adjustments. The layers being those used in Photoshop or whatever editor you used, with the original JPG at the bottom, maybe a brightness/contrast layer on top of that, and a hue/saturation layer on top of that. Each of these layers represents a separate algorithm, with each one acting on the data that is passed up through the stack. By using a raw editor the algorithm takes each pixel value, along with the various settings, and produces an output in a single adjustment, which works better. If you stack enough layers up you end up with nothing but crap at the top, mainly due to rounding errors (which can be mitigated by working in 16-bit). If you look at the original image you'll see that she does indeed have "panda eyes", Donald Trump-style (something to do with wearing sunglasses, perhaps), and if you've taken steps to reduce this then you've manipulated the image in a way that misrepresents the source. I don't wish to disparage your efforts but the current image is rather noisy and pallid, with ugly blotches here and there. Let me ask you this; am I correct in thinking that you used brightness/contrast or curves adjustments, rather than adjusting exposure? If so then, to quote Adam Savage, there's your problem. nagualdesign 00:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
If memory serves me right, I decreased the saturation by around 50%, increased the vibrance to 100% and again by 50%, and adjusted the levels and exposure settings. This did not result in the panda eyes and pink glow seen in your image, and I did not smooth the Queen's wrinkles, give her a "beauty edit", or add noise to the image (it already was that noisy). I will admit that I was a Photoshop novice at the time and could probably now do a better job of it. That being said, no amount of manipulation will ever change the fact that her face is in shadow, which is the main reason why I think it's a bad photograph and not worthy of our infobox. By all means keep trying to justify your image, but I think if it really was better, it would speak for itself. Firebrace (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Decreasing the saturation while increasing the vibrance will produce an image that no camera could have captured, since vibrance is a selective rather than global adjustment. You obviously did that because you saw that simply turning the saturation down by 50% made her outfit look dull, but you wanted to make her face look paler because you didn't like how her eyes looked, right? That's the very definition of manipulating. And making two separate vibrance adjustments (either with two separate layers or two separate 'destructive' adjustments) is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about – it introduces errors. As I've already said, the panda eyes are real – just look at the original. I didn't smooth her wrinkles at all, in fact with my original upload (the cropped image) I was mindful of avoiding making her skin look smoother, which is why I retained the specular highlights that a more basic ACR edit seems to lose. Having looked at the file history I see that there have been 30 revisions, some of which you were responsible for, but the latest one was actually uploaded by User:Stemoc, so there may have been some generation loss after all. Whatever the reason, the current image is undeniably noisy. I will keep trying to justify my image (ie, discuss things sensibly) if it's all the same with you, and I'd appreciate it if you kept unhelpful comments like "Impressive wall of text, though" out of it. Cheers. nagualdesign 00:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Here a 3 more images for comparison, taken on the same day and in full sunlight: [1] [2] [3]. Notice her complexion (slightly warmer than the sailors) and her "panda eyes". nagualdesign 05:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Alternatives

 

Per User:Jak525's suggestion of using a new image altogether, how do users feel about this one? I temporarily changed the infobox image so that people can see how it looks in context. Firebrace (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You changed the image?!? You'll have the screaming hordes descending on you in no time!  
I'd be fine with that image, although the look on her face isn't exactly what you'd call regal. Reminds me of this. nagualdesign 02:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
It was taken by a serving member of the Royal Navy who is also a professional photographer and was good enough for the government to use in a press release.[7] I think she looks fine. (It could be significantly less regal.) Firebrace (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 

How about this one? Granted, it is already used down the page. But I don't see anything wrong about taking the lead image from the body. It is a fairly clear image and a faithful reproduction of Her Majesty. That being said, I think there's nothing wrong with the proposed image. The current image is full of distortion. AdA&D ★ 04:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I see a few problems with that one: Face in shadow, only a three-quarter view of her face, and looking away from text if used in the infobox. Firebrace (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2018 (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.

Ancestry section

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I liked the version of the tree that restricted itself to just those people mentioned in the article:

So, I don't mind if the consensus is to keep this version rather than one showing all great-grandparents:

DrKay (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ House of Windsor Tree from royal.gov.uk
  2. ^ Louda, Jiří; Maclagan, Michael (1999) [1981]. Lines of Succession: Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe (2nd ed.). London: Little, Brown. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-316-84820-6.
Then I must say it strikes me as odd that you replaced the former with the latter :D Anyway, I agree with you. I have long taken these ahnentafels for granted, as something that should be there because it's always there. I now realize how unreasonable such thinking is. If the subject's mother's father's mother's mother is not noteworthy, why bring her up? Frances Dora Smith has no significance here. I do hope we will rid Wikipedia of such trivia. That said, as long as it's all sourced, it's tolerable. Surtsicna (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I've always thought, these family tree graphics should be limited to 3 generations. Person - Parents - Grandparents. But, whatever yas all choose? I'll accept. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

New article Attempted assassination of Elizabeth II (1981, New Zealand)

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

News reports based on classified documents only released this February show that a student fired a shot towards Elizabeth II during a royal visit to Dunedin. I thought that was pretty interesting, so created Attempted assassination of Elizabeth II. Any suggestion on how it can be integrated into any of the chain of articles covering Elizabeth? Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The incident is already mentioned in this article, to the extent necessary. The new article should be deleted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
There is already an article on the assassin, Christopher John Lewis. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
FFS. Delete. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
PS: If a consensus ever develops that this incident justifies a freestanding article, the two articles - on the perpetrator, and the attempt - should clearly be merged. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I've merged the assassination article into the older one on the assassin. DrKay (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Empire

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

The name British Empire is curiously missing from the article. -Inowen (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  Fixed General Ization Talk 01:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Reverted, as there never was a throne of the British Empire. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually, perfectly fine, as I see it's already there. @Inowen, see "From Elizabeth's birth onwards, the British Empire continued its transformation into the Commonwealth of Nations" in the body of the article. General Ization Talk 01:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The idea that "there was never a throne of the British Empire" has been stated above. This needs to be explained a bit, as it not intuitive that a British Empire would not itself have an emperor, and it is dubious that a single-ruler state (monarchy) would not have a throne. The "emperor" article has a part of the explanation:
"In 1801, George III rejected the title of Emperor when offered."
Some people apparently offered him the title. Continuing:
"The only period when British monarchs held the title of Emperor in a dynastic succession started when the title Empress of India was created for Queen Victoria."
The argument that the British monarch of a British empire was never an emperor may have something to do with the technical idea of a constitutional monarchy, but then even that's British technical jargon, and referring to a monarchy as being "constitutional" has the problem of at least sounding inherently contradicted; further study may validate. There is a tendency to talk about differences, such as between monarch and emperor, without first discussing similarities. They seem virtually the same, and the idea that they are technically different is of less importance than the fact of philosophical sameness. And the adoption of British jargon, terms and the ideas behind them, violtates our NPOV policy. -Inowen (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
No sources attribute throne of "British Empire" to UK monarch and in fact it is well known that sources show otherwise, such as the now obsolete title Empress/Emperor of India (Victoria to George VI).[8], [9] Qexigator (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Latest comment: 6 years ago24 comments5 people in discussion

I do not understand why the opening paragraph even makes a distinction between the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and countries that have become independent since 1952. It almost reads like she became queen of those countries after they became independent. It could also be inferred that Canada, Australia and New Zealand are not currently independent of the United Kingdom. Thoughts? Firebrace (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer the version Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms, since 6 February 1952. Yes, I know that 12 of the current realms became Commonwealth realms during her reign, but still she reigned over them anyway (including when they were British territories) since 1952. It's possible, that the eagerness of some to stress the 'equality' of the 15 other realms in comparison to the United Kingdom, may have added undo complexities & headaches to the intro. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
It was the result of an RfC. @GoodDay: the solution to that problem is to drop the number: "'Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms". DrKay (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, we can drop the 15 :) GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Is that a proposal for trimming the first sentence to read simply, and in its entirety: "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", naming none of those realms? If so, that makes good sense, given that they are all listed with dates in the infobox. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the main body listing four by name and the other twelve "that have become independent since her accession on 6 February 1952". (I make this comment after looking again at the RfC linked above). Qexigator (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
If there is no further comment, I propose to go ahead with this, so that the sentence will read:
Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms.Canada, Australia, New Zealand and twelve countries that have become independent since her accession on 6 February 1952: Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis . Qexigator (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I've no problems with your proposed version. But, overturning the last Rfc will be rather difficult. GoodDay (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The RfC closed on 17 October 2015, before the information was listed fully in the infobox (as from 3 May 2016). Qexigator (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this change. Firebrace (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Reverted this change, pending discussion and agreement. "No further comment" can't be presumed; first you need to formally propose a change to the opening paragraph. The present wording was decided after protracted discussion and it's very arrogant to overturn that decision. I for one strongly oppose the change. It's inaccurate to prioritise the United Kingdom over the other realms. Elizabeth may reside in the UK for most of the time, but she is no more the queen of the UK than other other 15 Commonwealth realms.--Hazhk (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC):
On the contrary, the international community associates Elizabeth II the most, with the United Kingdom. The very country she was born in, lives in & most likely will be buried in. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, because she resides primarily in the United Kingdom. Constitutionally she is the head of state of 16 independent states. All of which are equal in status. Putting that issue aside, I object to the rash decision to change the wording of the lead without prior discussion.--Hazhk (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
As I mentioned earlier, the pushing of showing all the countries (per argument of all are equal) was causing more problems then solutions in the intro. Furthermore, it's not Wikipedia job to right the wrongs of the world. Just because Canadian monarchists, Australian monarchists etc etc, might be offended, is of no importance. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
What problems were caused by the previous wording? --Hazhk (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll let @Qexigator: & others reply. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Your personal preference isn't the deciding factor here.--Hazhk (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
It's not my personal preference. It's the real world's preference. PS- I would appreciate it if you wouldn't edit war over this. You didn't complain for 2 weeks, so why now? GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
What exactly were the problems with the previous wording?--Hazhk (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Ask the others. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
A formal change was proposed. I think it's reasonable to assume after a week of waiting that a proposed edit may be made. Particularly on a page that is closely watched by many editors. Consensus can change, and it looked on this occasion as though it had. DrKay (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Will another Rfc be required? So far, Hazhk appears to be the only editor to protest Qexigator's changes. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
No, it won't be required. I just realised a short time ago that a second discussion would be a monumental waste of everybody's time. I strongly disagre with the new wording, however I am not going to push the issue any further unless another editor concurs with me. I apologise for reverting—this sort of behaviour is out of character for me. Best to draw a line under this.--Hazhk (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
GoodDay's comments, in point of fact and editorial practice, are correct. The shorter version is in no way "prioritising" the UK, merely stating factual information. The purpose of the opening sentence and paragraphs of an article is to state as concisely as npov editing can the main point/s explained at greater length and detail in the article as a whole. The earlier longer version of the first sentence contained a needlessly extended list which, as pointed out above, is better presented in the infobox. The infobox was not there at the time of the RfC, which arrived at a clumsy distinction, "prioritising" four of the realms over the others. The second paragraph, per revision 11:07, 3 March 2018,[10] explains in simple prose the status of the monarchy in the seven independent Commonwealth countries at the time of the Queen's accession. Qexigator (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Of course it isn't wrong to prioritize the UK. In terms of population size, the UK is bigger than Canada, Australia and New Zealand put together. UK was also the first of the realms to be headed by a British monarch. In the US, South America, Europe, Asia and Africa, Elizabeth II is more strongly associated with the UK than her 15 other realms (most of which are microstates). She was born in London, is British, and lives in the UK. Need I go on... Firebrace (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Military career

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

All the men in her family have their military career in their quick info box. Elizabeth II served only for a short time during WWII. Is it just sexism that her career is glossed over or is there a policy about length of career, type of service etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aach (talk • contribs) 13:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it isn't sexism. It's because they had active careers. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Oldest Head of state

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I may be wrong, but is Queen Elizabeth no longer the oldest current head of state? Isn't it now Mahathir of Malaysia? Darkdogz01 (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC) 19/5/2018

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_state_leaders_by_age#10_oldest_currently_serving_state_leaders — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkdogz01 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Mahathir is prime minister. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong is Malaysia's head of state. DrKay (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Mahathir is the head of government, not head of state. I'm guessing the "List of state leaders..." articles is what is causing the confusion. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


Elizabeth II → Queen Elizabeth II – more precise name 209.52.88.61 (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive_38&oldid=868874777"