The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. There is consensus to move, and a well-supported policy basis in title consistency between a supertopic and its own subtopics, and in consiceness. bd2412 T 13:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II → Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II
• Golden Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II → Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II
• Royal Family Order of Queen Elizabeth II → Royal Family Order of Elizabeth II
• States headed by Queen Elizabeth II → States headed by Elizabeth II
• Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II → Coronation of Elizabeth II
• Coronation gown of Queen Elizabeth II → Coronation gown of Elizabeth II
• List of participants in the coronation procession of Queen Elizabeth II → List of participants in the coronation procession of Elizabeth II
• List of royal guests at the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II → List of royal guests at the coronation of Elizabeth II
• Pietro Annigoni's portraits of Queen Elizabeth II → Pietro Annigoni's portraits of Elizabeth II
• List of Commonwealth visits made by Queen Elizabeth II → List of Commonwealth visits made by Elizabeth II
• List of events during the Silver Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II → List of events during the Silver Jubilee of Elizabeth II
• List of official openings by Queen Elizabeth II in Australia → List of official openings by Elizabeth II in Australia
• List of prime ministers of Queen Elizabeth II → List of prime ministers of Elizabeth II
• List of state visits made by Queen Elizabeth II → List of state visits made by Elizabeth II
• List of state visits received by Queen Elizabeth II → List of state visits received by Elizabeth II
• List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II → List of titles and honours of Elizabeth II
• List of viceregal representatives of Queen Elizabeth II → List of viceregal representatives of Elizabeth II

– Some titles were moved to their proposed titles but got moved back. I think it would be appropriate to discuss these moves. My reason for moving these pages is because the titles are more concise. 2601:183:101:58D0:21FA:6823:6996:3DB1 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 03:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the more precise,more flexible,more respectful inclusion of the title.12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPOV; being deferent cannot be a rationale at Wikipedia. See also WP:PRECISE: our precision rule is to be only precise enough to identify the subject/referent, no more precise than that, so "Elizabeth II" fits the bill. "More flexible" has no clear meaning in this context.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You demand deference to Wikipedia policy,which is not rational sometimes.There there is currently no other "Elizabeth II" people are likely to think is intended does not dent the superiority of being flexible enough to make allowance for there being another at some point by being precise enough to rule others out.12.144.5.2 (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with using her most common name in media Queen Elizabeth II? What media outlets called her solely "Elizabeth II"/Elizabeth 2/? Many musicians on Wikipedia go by simple sobriquet rather than their full names as article names. I.e. "Cher instead of "Cherilyn Sarkisian", Queen Latifah rather than "Dana Owen", Ricky Martin rather than "Enrique José Martín Morales", or Pink (singer) rather than "Alecia Moore". CaribDigita (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stage names and long names versus short ones aren't relevant here, other than that you're actually arguing against yourself, since "Elizabeth II" is more WP:CONCISE than "Queen Elizabeth II".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It was requested that the title of the Elizabeth II article be changed to Queen Elizabeth II right here. It was speedily closed per WP:SNOW. --2601:183:101:58D0:B51D:E6ED:F403:3C32 (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The current titles read more naturally to me and are consistent with similar articles (see for example Category:Royal family orders and Category:Lists of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. DrKay (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I like consistency too. I created a RM discussion right here to discuss your opinions about concise titles. 2601:183:101:58D0:B51D:E6ED:F403:3C32 (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENCY as the main article is located at Elizabeth II. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If List of prime ministers of Queen Elizabeth II is to be moved then the following should be moved as well:
  • List of prime ministers of King George VI → List of prime ministers of George VI
  • List of prime ministers of King Edward VIII → List of prime ministers of Edward VIII
  • List of prime ministers of King Edward VII → List of prime ministers of Edward VII
  • List of prime ministers of Queen Victoria → List of prime ministers of Victoria

--LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already created a move request for all of those titles, however I oppose moving List of prime ministers of Queen Victoria to the new title. It would create inconsistency between the article Queen Victoria and List of prime ministers of Queen Victoria. If it were going to be moved, I suggest moving Queen Victoria to Victoria (queen). --2601:183:101:58D0:1D8C:72FD:CC7A:135 (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would be against moving the Queen Victoria articles, since her main article is at Queen Victoria due to her not having a numeral after her name. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NCDAB, "Natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation". Firebrace (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds reasonable. However, moving the Victoria list now is actually viable, because it would be more WP:CONSISTENT with more articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:CONSISTENCY. If we're not using "Queen" at Elizabeth II, then don't inject it into titles of split-off articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Another reason to use "Queen" at "Elizabeth II" then (as is done at Queen Victoria).LE (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason we use "Queen" for Queen Victoria is because she doesn't have a numeral after her name. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Flimsy nonetheless,and "of [country name]" is more appropriate to insist upon for Victoria than for Elizabeth (being used for virtually every monarch anyway).Plain "Elizabeth II" is something to avoid,just like plain "Prince Harry" is a mistake that needs rectifying.Specificity even when not required is respect for other countries or potential namesakes.12.144.5.2 (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Um, no. Flimsy would describe noting a single exception in an otherwise consistent naming convention and trying to reverse the convention to fit the single outlier. An outlier that is itself likely to be renamed to Victoria (queen) for better consistency with the convention.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:NCDAB, common disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation; we are not moving Queen Victoria to Victoria (queen). Firebrace (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want the "consistent naming convention",that requires "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom",which she is dispensed from because of the Commonwealth realms using that name for her as well though only in trivial instances is it at all accurate for any of them as Elizabeth I of England never reigned there...to name an article for a monarch without specifying country is distinctly oddball and generically inappropriate.13:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.5.2 (talk)

  It actually makes perfect sense for the monarchs of the English-speaking world, as those are the ones English speakers are commonly referring to, thus making the "of X" unnecessary. Just out of curiosity, I took a look at the Swedish Wikipedia, and they don't use "of Sweden" in the title of Sweden's current king [1], nor does the Danish Wikipedia for Denmark's current queen [2] Rreagan007e (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Although I didn't make my feelings known an any of the moves I did object on the basis of "Well Elizabeth could be anyone!" (and I assumed her main article was "QUeen Elizabeth" .... but as per the above if her main article isn't "Queen Elizabeth" then I don't see the point with the rest having Queen in either.... –Davey2010^Talk 13:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - There's nothing wrong with having Queen in the article titles. Not all monarchs are King/Queen. Some are Sovereign Prince/Princess or Grand Duke/Grand Duchess etc etc. Also, am I paranoid or has there been a lot of RMs being proposed by IPs, lately? GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Goodday and others. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE A further bunch of these have been successfully smuggled through as "uncontroversial technic. ~~al moves" at WP:RM. I am trying to get these reversed. That section is a ridiculously weak link in our procedures, with no scrutiny of the proposals. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod, Ammarpad, AlexTheWhovian, and Amakuru: Those page moves were:-

• List of things named after Queen Elizabeth II to List of things named after Elizabeth II :: reason = The title is more concise.
• Elizabeth II's horses to Horses of Elizabeth II :: reason = Apostrophes are not used in Wikipedia.
• Elizabeth II's jewels to Jewels of Elizabeth II :: reason = Apostrophes are not used in Wikipedia.
• Flags of Queen Elizabeth II to Flags of Elizabeth II :: reason = The title is more concise.
• Golden Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II to Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II :: reason = The title is more concise.
• Proclamation of accession of Queen Elizabeth II to Proclamation of accession of Elizabeth II :: reason = The title is more concise.
• Silver Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II to Silver Jubilee of Elizabeth II :: reason = The title is more concise.

These 7 move requests were all sent in by User:192.107.120.90 at around 16:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC). All these move requests were obeyed, by various administrators. They have all now been reverted. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=846211810 for the other discussion; please do not try to edit it, but reply here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per WP:CONCISE. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nothing wrong with using Queen as it looks wrong to most readers without it, the main article could do with a move back to Queen as well per WP:DONTBEDAFT. MilborneOne (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency with the head article Elizabeth II, and per WP:PRECISE. there's no ambiguity whatsoever since we have only one Elizabeth II. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? See Elizabeth II (disambiguation). Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod... are you really suggesting that people may confuse "Elizabeth II" with Elisabeth II, Abbess of Quedlinburg? I'm at a loss to see how dropping "Queen" from this title would create ambiguity. Abbesses don't even have jubilees, do they? And her name is spelt with an S not a Z... Firebrace (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she is not the only one (EII). If you are really proposing below that "King" and "Queen" should be removed from sub-articles for all monarchs with a regnal number, that would certainly cause masses of ambiguity all over the place. But in those cases you should start with the main articles, which nearly all have "King" and "Queen", whether numbered or not. I must say I don't think you've really thought this one through. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked, and Queen Victoria; Anne, Queen of Great Britain; John, King of England; and Stephen, King of England are the only British or English monarchs to have "King" or "Queen" in the title – because they are the only monarchs in Britain's or England's history with those names. Note Elisabeth II of Spain redirects to Isabella II of Spain. Quite why, I am not sure; it appears that she never was known as Elisabeth... Firebrace (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II gets moved, these pages will need to be moved as well:
  • Coronation of Queen Elizabeth I to Coronation of Elizabeth I
  • Coronation of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra to Coronation of Edward VII and Alexandra of Denmark
  • Coronation of King George V and Queen Mary to Coronation of George V and Mary of Teck
  • Coronation of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth to Coronation of George VI and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
  • Descendants of King George V and Mary of Teck to Descendants of George V and Mary of Teck

Keivan.f^Talk 00:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment And how many more royal or imperial titles would need to be removed from page titles, extra work for users or admins? Can't we "leave well enough alone"? (At the end of User:MilborneOne's message at 12:44, 17 June 2018, what should WP:DONTBEDAFT be?) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Given that the main article is simply titled "Elizabeth II", I don't see why the titles of the subordinate pages need to retain the longer form. I favor consistency. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deleting "King" and "Queen" for monarchs with a regnal number (i.e., not Queen Victoria). Firebrace (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every article on a monarch should have either a regnal number or a country or both in the title and in Elizabeth's case the country issue is complicated by the Commonwealth.LE (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per CONSISTENCY and per Firebrace. CookieMonster755✉ 01:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.