Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horse racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Horse racing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horse racingWikipedia:WikiProject Horse racingTemplate:WikiProject Horse racingHorse racing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hertfordshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HertfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject HertfordshireTemplate:WikiProject HertfordshireHertfordshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
the quote from the soldier she treated should be removed from this page. The page cannot be modified for avoiding vandalism, yet the language used by the soldier she treated is injurious itself. Some magazines or journals may use this language, but I see no point in using it on Wikipedia (I wanted to remove that part, but unfortunately there's the lock on it to avoid "vandalism"). Surely the soldier used the same horrific words to give a different meaning and to give a better meaning and praise the queen, but even just such injurious and violent language should not be allowed here especially when not relevant and not really explaining historical facts (which still I would avoid explaining if so violent). Hopefully someone decides to remove the quote of the soldier she treated.
This is the part that uses offensive, violent and graphicly violent language to "praise"(???) the queen which I hope can be removed from the entire page: "One of the soldiers she treated wrote in her autograph book that she was to be "Hung, drawn, & quartered ... Hung in diamonds, drawn in a coach and four, and quartered in the best house in the land."[16]". 5.168.135.139 (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely misreading the tone of what the soldier wrote. I don't know your cultural background but to British and North American ears, the soldier's quote is almost comically sweet and extravagant. There's nothing remotely offensive in the context of the soldier's culture or Elizabeth's. Pascalulu88 (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Queen" alone does not imply that she was a queen regnant. A queen can be queen regnant or queen consort but the title is "The Queen". The opening sentence makes it clear that she is the latter by stating that she was Queen of the UK as the wife of George VI. Keivan.fTalk19:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number of actual photographs that exist of the subject, I don't know why we are using a painted portrait of her as the main infobox image (it is simply not done for any other monarchs or consorts of whom photos do exist). I have selected a few suitable candidates from the Commons which I am going to list below. Everyone is welcome to take a look at them and examine license details, etc.; or even add to the list. Depending on the level of participation, I might turn this into an RfC to get a broader consensus. Keivan.fTalk19:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thin perhaps this image would be suitable. It actually is the original of Sodacan's derivative of Option F. It has a slightly blurred background, the file is much larger, and if it were used she would be facing the text. I honestly think the image I am suggesting is much better than Option A because colored images always look a little bit wonky and I don't think it would be visually appealing. Option B is a bit too bright and candid; Option C, her clothes are a little dark and it's grainy; option D she isn't looking at the camera and the file is small and the color looks a little odd; Option E looks somewhat square for a traditional lead image and her hair accessory doesn't compliment her very well (sorry Elizabeth). Option F looks suitable but I notice her body is a tiny bit blurry, maybe because she was moving when the image was taken. That's all. SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(This is sort-of a dead rfc) I didn't know it was a painting when reading this. I went back to take a look again until it starts to look more like a painting. But anyways, option B would make the best for the lead image, since it was taken when she was the Queen-consort. G0dzillaboy02 (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a policy that dictates the use of colour photographs. Personally, I believe no matter how realistic the painted portrait looks, it's still a painting and is not as accurate as a photograph when it comes to showing facial features. Let's see what others might think. Keivan.fTalk13:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since she was queen consort between 1936 and 1952, and her and her husband excelled at inspiring the citizens throughout World War II, perhaps an image of her during those years may be appropriate as a lead image. Will be interested in reading comments from others on this topic. Then again, the present image is very noble and well done, and portrays her during her many years of being honored by her country. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think an image during her time as consort would be more appropriate as lead image. However the current lead image is clearer than the alternatives provided so would lean towards keeping what we already have. Mn1548 (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with you mostly here, but the only reason I somewhat support a lead image change is because that the painting is darker on one side, and it sort of makes the infobox look off when you look at it for a while. SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So this is how I learn that our infobox photo is a painting. The fact that I hadn't realized it wasn't an actual photograph is enough for me to negate any argument that the portrait is not sufficiently accurate to how the Queen Mother looked. I think a lot of our infobox images have set sort of an unwritten precedent to use a photo of a monarch/consort during their time on the throne even if it was disproportionately shorter than the rest of their life (eg. Edward VII. So I do like the idea of using a younger image of Elizabeth during her time as queen, in my opinion the best of the options presented is Option C, though I do think it would have to be cropped a little to better fit the shape of an infobox. But then again, I do agree with others points that the proposed options are of lower quality, so I am conflicted. estar8806 (talk) ★02:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... may I ask, are we going to keep calling her "The Queen Mother", as if she was one still, as if that were part of her name, and as if there have never been others? Looks ridiculous. Respectful? Just askin'. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother", so until such time as she is displaced in sources by a different Queen Mother. But in actuality she will always be a "Queen Mother" by usage even though she is no longer the mother of a reigning sovereign. Just sayin'. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She really should have been called "The Dowager Queen Elizabeth" Queen Elizabeth the Queen mother does indeed sound ridiculous and it is said she chose that title so she could be called Queen twice. 92.9.34.250 (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since when do we change page titles merely because a person is dead? That's her common name and that will be her common name until maybe there is another British queen (or a queen named Elizabeth) who chooses to be known as "The Queen Mother" and disassociates the title's common usage from Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Note that the pages on Diana, Princess of Wales and Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester have not been moved either despite the fact that they have been dead for decades. Keivan.fTalk20:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous citations to Shawcross's book in the article, but none of them state whether they are citing the 2009 book or 2012 book. A featured article nowadays should not be of this level of quality (I do not have access to the books so I cannot fix them by myself). ネイ (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine for me as long as it is clear which book the citation comes from. Since the 2012 book is moved to Further Reading section, this implies that all citations are citing the 2009 book. Thank you. ネイ (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
