Talk:Elizabeth II

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2025

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

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

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

RFC on Lead image

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

• 
  Current
  (1959)
• 
• 
  Example of a potential alt (2015)
• 
  Example of a potential alt (1986)
• 
  Example of a potential alt (2007)
• 
• 
  1986 (retouched)
  

• Yes Two and a half years ago, a discussion emerged with the consensus that the 1959 official portrait of the Queen is best suited to represent her in the infobox. It's time to revisit that decision. Most photographs we have of deceased famous people (e.g. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, for example, but also Lester B. Pearson, Hermann Göring) have images which represent what they are best known for, represent their full lives, and are recognizable to readers. Pearson, for example, is best remembered as being a diplomat and a Canadian Prime Minister; he is pictured in a suit black and white during his first year in office as PM. Prince Philip is best remembered as the royal consort; he is pictured in a suit in 1992. This picture is thus old enough to represent his life, but recent enough that he is recognizable. By contrast, Queen Elizabeth is pictured in 1959 as a young queen with crown and sash. Given the age of the photograph this can hardly serve to represent her full reign, nor is it recognizable today. MOS:LEADIMAGE tells us that the lead image should be natural and recognizable; in fact, it should be what our readers will expect to see. The 65-your old photograph does not at all accord with her public image today, which is better represented by the 2015 and 2007 images; indeed, the 2015 image is such a good representation it was used until her death.
• In effect the problem is that a hurried decision was made two years ago to select a bad image that, due to its age, was felt to better represent the Queen and her reign. In hindsight, it is clear that this is not so, as the image is outdated, unrecognizable and in fact jarring, thus falling deeply afoul of the MOS guidance on lead images. Cremastra (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes As someone who was alive for the whole of her reign, an informal picture (such as the 2015 example) is how I, and probably many people alive today, will recognise her. Leave the formal portraits to illustrate the historical aspects. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• No. The current image is fine. Peter Ormond 💬 06:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes Change it. Hard to see how the current image was ever chosen. Although it isn't a vote on the others, I think the 1986 photo is best because it is mid-reign and very roughly would relate to most living people's first memory of her. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes The 2015 photo has the best artistic and technical quality, and has been used previously. The formal portraits are too stodgy, and I have never been able to understand why the 1959 photo has such a fan club.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, the 1986 or 2015 ones are better, as others have said the 1959 one is best put in the body. It looks pretty strange tbh. Kowal2701 (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes The 1959 photo is a surprising choice. I prefer the 2015 photo for its quality. Schwede66 01:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes - the 2015 image would be best. GoodDay (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, the 1986 or 2015 one would be better. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 03:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, the 2015 one is best and will be more recognisable than the current one to many people GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes: 2015 version should be used since that is more recognizable than 1950s/1980s version since most readers (especially non-British) would be familiar with her appearance. 2409:4060:29A:DD05:5C8:6E54:A37E:3CE0 (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes The 1959 image is too formal, dated and faces away from the article. The 2015 and 2007 images are more recognisable but visually distracting due to their large hats. The 1986 portrait strikes the best balance: dignified, mid-reign and recognisable, even if the regalia is from New Zealand. Most won't notice, and it reflects her wider role as Queen of multiple realms. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
•  Comment: I have added a retouched version of the 1986 photograph that looks less washed out, for comparison. Cremastra (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

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

• 2015 pic per others above. Maybe in 200 years when nobody alive remembers QE2, an earlier pic would he suitable, but for now it should be a recognisable one and that means recent for a significant majority of today's world population wasn't alive in 1959.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, I find the 1959 one to be barely recognizable to how she is seen. The 2015 one is how I, and I suspect most other people, view her today and would be my first choice. The 1986 photo is a good middle ground for her appearance between the start and end of her reign, but suffers from the relatively low image quality. DrMarvello82 (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• No - I prefer the 1959 photo. It reflects her long reign and the remarkable age at which she became queen. The current image effectively captures the significance of her role and the passage of time, which are key aspects of her notability. Nemov (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• No – The 1959 portrait is perfectly representative of her primary role as queen. If it is to be changed then it should be to the 1986 portrait or a similar portrait with crown. I do not believe it should be a photo from the last twenty to thirty years. The most common argument in favor of change is that the current photo is not representative of how most editors/users knew her. That is a ridiculous argument for an encyclopedia which should present as neutral a view as possible with respect to time and focus. An encyclopedia is not supposed to be a reflection of only recent knowledge (see WP:RECENT Ha2772a (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  How is a picture taken 7 years into her 70 year-long reign neutral? Cremastra (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  The other photos are just as representative and are more recognisable to a lot more recognisable to more people.

  How is that photo neutral and not the others? GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• Yes - as others have said, the infobox photo should be representative of a person's entire life, and/or how they are best known to the average reader. I suspect the 1959 image is so old that a large subset of our readers wouldn't immediately recognize that it is the Queen; it's better suited as a representation of her early reign in that section of the article. I prefer the 2015 image for the infobox - it depicts a Queen that most readers would be familiar with, as well as the bold fashion and fancy hats she was known for later in her life. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment They are all neutral, and I agree we should not be bound by how readers remember her, which is age dependent. We must not forget that she changed considerably with the times and her role and how she was perceived in 1953-59 was very different from 2005-2016. The wind of change still had not happened and media treatment of her was very deferential in the 1950s, well before divorces, gossip and scandal started in the 1980s. Objectively, she was first a sovereign, and the country's mother and grandmother figure second. To reflect that we should choose 1959 or 1986. I still lean towards 1986 as a better photo. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
• No - Current image is fine. How most people today remember her is not an argument, we don't use post-2000 images for Pope John Paul II, Jimmy Carter, Fidel Castro, or Rama IX. One of the most notable, probably even the most notable, aspect of her reign is major shrinking of British global empire, which happened relatively early in her reign.--Staberinde (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes In the current image she is looking away from the article and it is not how most (by far) people remember her. The one from 1986 is better. Graham Beards (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes I believe the photo should be changed. I join the arguments for mid range. It represents her at the most neutral position and is also an official portrait with regalia and jewelry.

I feel regalia and/or jewelry, even a limited amount like a tiara and bracelet , is a requirement for the lead photo in an article about a monarch whether dead or living. Alternatively a military uniform can be used. However it must be dignified and honorable. The monarchy is dignified and the monarch a symbol. That symbol must not become too down to earth or the magic is lost.

When this article or any other royal article is entered the soft spot between familiar and dignified must be hit. The 1986 proposal is that. My opinion is therefore that the lead picture hould be switched to 1986 retouched. Finfixer (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• No, but if consensus is to change the photo, then I'd choose 1986 retouched. The first photo, in my opinion, is a very nice high quality portrait in splendid royal regalia. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 23:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes I think it should be changed, and the 1986 image would be what I would change to. However, I am concerned that the quality of the image is not brilliant. It is a heavily-cropped photo of a photo portrait from when she visited the New Zealand Governor-General in 1986. I have contacted the Governor-General's office to ask if they have access to a higher-resolution digital scan of the original image. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 04:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• She certainly did manage to reach every far-flung outpost of empire. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

• Yes 1986 retouched, definitely. The 1986 would have her body at least facing the text, which is favorable for lead images. The 1959 just looks off because she just looks stiff and only 3/4 of her face is showing. Rexophile (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes 2015 seems to be the best because it is the most recognizable, which appears to be standard with similar individuals AstralNomad (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• No, per Staberinde. Remsense 🌈 论 22:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes 2015. The current one is not her as many people remember her, and is really of another era. Remember that the current image got a bare majority of votes (not !votes) and should be changeable if it no longer commands that majority.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Yes 2015. The current one is not her as many people remember her, and is really of another era, The current one is essentially 'historical' and could be used in the apt part of her reign though it is fairly 'stiff' as a portrait.Pincrete (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Yes 2015. This one represents her as most people will have seen her. I also think it's a great photo that sums up the Queen's personality quite well. I don't like the current one at all. Jasp7676 (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
• Yes 2015. That's how most people view her. Some1 (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
• No agree with argument Staberinde made. Unless there is some consensus or guidance on images of people and their public image. IndrasBet (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

There is guidance Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images on images, but the selection of a lead image is what we are working towards here, by consensus. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@IndrasBet I cite MOS:LEADIMAGE in my opening comment. Cremastra (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, then I would change my stance to Yes with retouched 1986 as my preference or 2015 per that guidance. IndrasBet (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, 2015. The 2015 image looks most like how I believe most readers would think of her, and many people would immediately recognize who she is. On the other hand, I suspect the vast majority, if shown the current image with no other context, would ask "Who is that?". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
• Yes 2015 or 2007. They are how most people remember her. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

two other options: left 2011, right 2014

Yes, or at least I think it's worth more thoroughly discussing. The 1986 option would've been my choice in the first RfC, but upon reflection I do think that a more recent photo would be more beneficial as it would likely be more recognizable. However, I don't like either proposed option as they feel a little to informal, and I'd prefer a photo where she's looking at the camera (we often prefer photos where the subject is looking into the camera). estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:26, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes if the 2011 option is in creative commons, I will give a blessing to it. However I also propose, that if possible, we pivot to two images in the header. One for Coronation and this 2011 one.

The 2011 strikes me as apropriate considering the need to issue greater respect to a deceased monarch that was beloved by people and that led a great institution. It represents what makes monarchies special. They are symbols that unify trough grace and stability. To make a royal look non royal steals a great amount from the grace of the monarch and introduces the instability of everyday life. Finfixer (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

However I also note that it seems there is extensive agreemen and concensus that the current lead image needs to be changed. Where there is still inclarity is whether we should choose the 1986 retouched official portrait or 2015 non official portrait. 2011 has also been proposed.

My support of the two is 1986, but I still maintain that 2011 is also a viable option. I do propose we change the photo. Consensus has changed in my opinion. Finfixer (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

No The current portrait is fine in my opinion but if we were to replace it then the 1986 one would be the second best option. Keivan.f^Talk 14:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes to the (retouched) 1986 one. The 2011 one posted above by Estar8806 could also strike a nice balance between the 1986 & 2015 options, as it's formal with a crown, and she's of an age the majority of world's population best recognise her. Nil🥝^Talk 08:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The 2011 pic would be a good compromise for the lead, IMO. Royal, relaxed and recent. Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• I agree with Keivan.f. No, it is fine; otherwise 1986 is good too. I have two issues with the "she is most recognizable as an old woman" argument: she is not unrecognizable in the current, 1959 photograph (she has the exact same hairstyle and, well, the same face too) and, as an encyclopedia, we are not supposed to just regurgitate what people already know. A major source used in this article, Robert Hardman's 2011 biography (published during her lifetime), uses a photograph from the 1950s on its cover; apparently Hardman was not afraid that the photo of a young queen would affect the recognizability of his subject (and thus the sale of his book). Ditto for Ben Pimlott (2001), Sally Bedell Smith (2017), Sarah Bradford (2012), Robert Lacey (2012) - and these are just the books cited in the article. Surtsicna (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  To me it definetly seems people largely agree it should be changed. The amount of yes answers is very high. That is why I argue we should pivot to finding a consensus on a new lead image.

  Currently other articles should follow MOS:LEADIMAGE that says the lead imagine should be recognisable and what our readers would expect to see. Even if recognisable the 1959 photoghraph is not really what readers would expect to see and it isn't in line with other similar articles.

  Firstly the readers would not expect to see part. As a reader I would expect to see something that I can recognise and connect to. It isn't very easy to connect to a picture that is nowhere near what ones most recent memories suggest the person should look like.

  Secondly the wikipedia convention part. As the starter of this topic noted, articles for other past famous people ,such as Prince Philip and Herman Göring, follow a three point guideline. The photoes tend to represent what they are best known for, what their full life was like, and what is recognisable to readers. Consensus seems to be that the Queen was not best known for what she looked like in 1959. It also strugles to represent the full life, unlike the middle point offered by 1986 does. It is true the 1959 is recognisable, but there are options that can fill every criteria instead of just one.

  So with all this taken into account it is hard to see how the 1959 option can even compete against the new proposals. That is why we must now focus on which replacement proposal fills the criteria established in this conversation and other articles the best. Finfixer (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  The idea that the 1959 photograph is not what readers would expect to see is, in my opinion, bogus. What would they not expect to see? A crowned woman who is obviously Elizabeth II? It's not like we have a photo of a lizard or a child's doodle up there. I am much more amenable to the argument that the 1986 photo depicts her as a mature woman in the middle of her reign; and even then, I think the current photo is just fine. In fact, the usage of a 1950s photo is grounded in the usage in the covers of at least five published biographies cited in this article. Surtsicna (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment What about this image of The Queen in 2012?

  

Rexophile (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

This is not the place to suggest alternate images. We are only deciding whether the present image should be changed to something else. Cremastra (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I most kindly disagree, despite of your status as the proposer. While your original proposal only aimed to resolve whether the image should be changed, this conversation has as it expanded gained a secondary purpose of also deciding said image. If we do not also choose the new image, we risk people taking the consensus that might reached here as a permission to change the image without any additional debate or discussion. With an article of this value and quality such a risk can't be taken. The matter of the lead image should be entirely resolved within this topic for time and clarity reasons.

I feel it is regardles of the opinion of either of us impossible to redirect this discussion back to it's original purpose. It has expanded and I feel it is reasonable to accept the new form it has taken. Finfixer (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Please don't put the cart before the horse. I specifically limited the scope of the discussion to a simple "yes/no" question so that it developped a clear consensus that makes it easy to close without getting a messy result, and I hope the closer treats it that way. If this RfC reaches consensus to change the image, we will have a second RfC to determine which image is the best. Please don't turn this RfC into an uncloseable mess. @Rexophile and Estar8806: please consider striking your image suggestions to simplify the discussion, or moving them to the gallery at the top of the page to make the discussion easier to follow. Thanks, Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Perhapse that is a good way to proceed. I would personally asses that a consensus in favor of change has been reached. It isn't unanimous, but Wikipedia acknowledges that ,while the optimal result is unanimous, it can't always be reached.

I currently count the discussion as being roughly 29-8 which is about a 78% majority. I think that is enough to be called a consensus. Even if I made some interprative mistakes it should still be atleast 70/30. And whilse consensus is not a vote, I believe we have reached a wide agreement where all opinions and concerns have been adressed properly.

This topic has been open for a month. People definetly have had enough time to bring to the table varius opinions and arguments both for and against changing it. I think this should be closed with a consensus for change.

However as a relatively new editor I am not quite sure of whether my opinion is factually correct and how closing even works. Regardles I think we reached a wide agreement that can be called a consensus. Finfixer (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, a close is probably due soon. Then we can have a second RfC. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and I'd go for 1986 as a replacement, not simply because it's the middle of her reign, but would also make it a similar period as the photo used for Prince Philip. Given they're essentially synonymous as a pair, weird one's of a young woman and the other an older man. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

This is not a democracy. Most recognisable is not a valid consideration so anyone using that as a reason for chosing an image should IMO have their vote dismissed. Using valid reasoning the image to use is the 1986 NZ one with 1959 coming second. I suggest locking in 1986 and closing this discussion.

Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Why is most recognisable not a valid consideration? GothicGolem29 (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The creator of this topic has reminded us that they created this topic only discuss whether the image needs to be changed. They never intendet for us to decide what the new one should be. I am inclined to back the original purpose here.

Secondly most recognisable is a valid argument. As such we can argue it is established by MOS:LEADIMAGE;

"The lead image is perhaps the first thing to catch the reader's eye, so avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there"

We can propably savely say, that a reader expects to see an image they can recognise and that provides information well.

"Lead images should be natural[c] and appropriate representations of the topic"

I think an apropriate image obviusly needs to be functional in providing information. And whether an image is functional in providing information definetly depends on if it's recognisable. Someone that knows what the target of the image looks like should be able to recognise it out of context of the article.

Based on readers expecting to see something recognisable and recognisable being crucial to convey information, "recognisable" is a sound argument when put together with order arguments. However it obviusly can't be the only argument backing the image chosen. Finfixer (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Most recognisable has meant in this discussion the way an editor remember her and it is that that is not a valid reason. They all are recognisable as QEII so we are not talking about where it is hard to recognise her due to shadow or a poor camera angle. Choosing an image based on how an editor personally remembers her is not a valid reason which should be self evident for an encyclopedia. She was a monarch and should be shown as such, hence 1959 or 1986 - and 1986 is better. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

We editors are people as well. We represent a wide amount of angles on the matter. It is not how a single editor recognises her, but as what people see her. Personally I stand by 1986 as the image, but it is hard to see how we should be using something people unfamiliar with the subject cannot understand. An image is a form of communication and an encyclopedia also has to be clear in how it communicates so that it is accessible to all. It is an act of balancing. Finfixer (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

• I guess I'm in the No camp, in that I think that the 1959 is a fine image (I did vote for it last time). But I also think that I could be persuaded to support the 1986 image; so I guess I'm not against having further discussion/RFCs with defined options to choose from (which it seems from the proposers statement this is not). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:13, 23 July 2025 (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.

typo

Second paragraph has "her father acceded" but should be "her father ascended" 2604:3D09:4780:940:60C0:291A:A651:7BE6 (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

acceded is the correct word - see Accession day. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

RfC on lead image: the sequel

The preceding RfC has been closed with consensus to change the infobox image. Which of the above images is preferred?
Given there are five options here instead of a "yes/no" question, please consider leaving a ranking in your comment, e.g., see mine below, to help with consensus and compromise. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• 
  Option A1:
  1986
• 
  Option A2:
  1986
• 
  Option B: 2007
• 
  Option C:
  2011
• 
  Option D:
  2015

• D = C > A2 > B > A1 is my preference; the 2015 picture and the 2011 picture are both highly recognizable, just in different ways. I have no particular preference as to whether our portrait should be formal (2011) or more casual (2015). Option A is of lower quality, although it's still pretty recognizable, and I think it's a good compromise. Option B is too dark to really be very good. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• Definitely D, as this was used previously. The 1986 image A is a possibility, but it is ruled out at the moment because it is only 580 × 775 pixels, which isn't good enough for a Featured Article, and it lacks good quality colour, contrast etc. This could only be considered with a new upload of much better resolution and quality.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• A2 > B > D > C is my preferred options. I'd prefer something from the middle of her reign as a touchstone and to keep it in line with the photo on the Prince Philip article (given they're synonymous with each other). A1 though is too dark and washed out in my opinion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• A2 > C. That's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger 8 Roger (talk • contribs)
  None - The current 1959 image is good enough 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Abo Yemen This comment is basically disruptive and WP:POINTY. Please don't disrupt our second RfC by whining about the outcome of the first one. I ask you to kindly strike this comment. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 18:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Cremastra I wasn't notified of the first RfC (or even noticed its existence), mb, didn't mean for it to be interpreted this way 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 18:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry for my snappy comment, but I will note that this RfC starts with the sentence The preceding RfC has been closed with consensus to change the infobox image. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 18:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  It's on me, lol. My lazy ass saw the pictures without reading anything and didn't like any of them 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

D>C>B>A2>A1 Is how I would rank them. A1 and A2 aren't as high quality as the rest and D is the most recognisable to people and the most recent out of D C and B. GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on merits of the RfC

… basically every !vote in the last RfC also gave their preference for the image, ik it’s a thankless task but Toadspike how come consensus wasn’t assessed for that? A new RfC asking a question everyone’s already answered seems unnecessarily bureaucratic Kowal2701 (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC) As I adressed before, it's not bureaucratic, it's prudence. Past RfCs that tried to change the image and pick a new one in one go turned into uncloseable messes. We have time to do this slowly and properly. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 18:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC) I get she’s a very important lady but two big RfCs for whats ultimately an aesthetic choice seems like a waste of community time Kowal2701 (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC) No-one is asking you to participate at these discussions if you don't want to. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 19:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC) My comment was clearly about community time. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC) I'm currently on mobile, but when I read through earlier my impression was that preferences for alternative options were divided/messy enough that it would have been hard to see consensus there. I can take another look later though. Toadspike [Talk] 19:58, 26 July 2025 (UTC) Okay, I've skimmed through the discussion again. There seems to have been significant, almost equal support for both 2015 and 1986, though quite a few editors did not name a preference, especially those !voting "No". So, I don't think it would have been appropriate to read a consensus in favor of a particular image out of that RfC. Toadspike [Talk] 21:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• D - The most recent image. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• D > C > A2 A1 and B both have shadows, and B doesn't show much of her full face. Some1 (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Question: Why are these the only options we are presented with? Surtsicna (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I presume it's to do with images that are in the public domain that we already have at the Commons. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

We have hundreds of photos of Elizabeth at the Commons. Surtsicna (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

These are some of the clearest and most suitable images which have also been discussed in the past. You are welcome to suggest more images, but if we present ourselves with hundreds of options we'll end up with thousands of opinions and no consensus will be able to develop. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:22, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Already I think it's becoming clear it's between D and A2 in terms of preference already. Might need to go to a Round Three if it's too close to call just between those two. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I was hoping the "ranked ballot" would avoid that. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately you've found the issue that with a ranked ballot, it becomes highly messy if there are two very popular choices and then a smattering of options that don't get much attention.

You may have to either go for a straight shoot-out between the two or get yourself an online single transferable vote aid and run it off like that. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

• D > C > A2. Thanks for organising this. Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
• A2 > C > D > B Nothing in our policies states that we have to go with the most recent image of a public figure and there are countless examples that prove it. The option that is closest to the current image and also shows her at the middle of her reign is A2. Keivan.f^Talk 10:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

  The argument that a photo of her at 85 is the best choice because she is "recognizable" strikes me as silly. Nearly all the biographies of Elizabeth we have cited in this article have a photo from the 1950s in the cover–and the biographies themselves were published in 2000s. Evidently the authors and their publishers do not worry that their audience might not recognize Elizabeth. Here is another good photo from the 1950s which we can consider. Surtsicna (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

  That photo is cluttered, partially blurry, and lower quality. The covers of biographies are irrelevent. We have our own guidelines, which I explain here. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

  Your argument that she is not recognizable does not hold. It's not a lizard in the picture. It's obviously Elizabeth. And no, the usage in reliable sources is never irrelevant. The guideline you cite, MOS:LEADIMAGE, says that the ideal lead image is "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works". In this case, high-quality reference works use 1950s images. Surtsicna (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

• If we cannot follow the published biographies of Elizabeth by having a 1950s photograph, then we should go with A. It is a photo from the middle of her reign, matching the lead photo of Philip. It looks very regal. She faces the text, which is supposedly important. Precisely because most of us remember her as an old woman, it is informative to show her at an age when she was not, and inform is what we should do. Surtsicna (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
• A1 or A2. There's an element of recentism in choosing the other photos. They represent an image of her that lasted a relatively short time. With the earlier images (including the current one in the Infobox, which I would have preferred to keep) although she, of course, only looked exactly like that for an equally short time, they were "on the record" and around as images for much much longer than the more recent ones. For me that gives them greater validity, recognisability, even currency, than the later ones. Plus a mid-reign photo feels appropriate. DeCausa (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
• D > B. I personally think that the best course of action is to find a balance of a picture that is both the most pleasing & also fairly represents how most people remember the person for the majority of her or his life. Hammelsmith (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)