Talk:List of things named after Elizabeth II

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Regina, Saskatchewan#Queen Elizabeth Power Station|Queen Elizabeth Power Station]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Provenance

This list was formerly included in List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II and spun off on the grounds that things like hospitals and statues aren't titles and honours. See the discussion on that page. Thanks for the editors who have dived in to sort out categories and other wikistuff. I'm not full steam on all the details, and I appreciate the assistance to get this looking shipshape! --Pete (talk)

Queen Elizabeth Public School (Now shutdown) in Timmins, Ontario, has had its name from 1953 to 2011, about 58 years. I don't know where I can find information that it is in fact Queen Elizabeth II, and not Queen Elizabeth I, however, since the name was changed in the same year as Queen Elizabeth II's coronation, and since it would be a big surprise to name it after someone who has been dead for 350 years, I think it is relatively safe to call it another building named after her. References: 1 http://www.timminspress.com/2011/06/22/fond-farewell 2 https://www.google.ca/maps/@48.4839316,-81.3320839,3a,89.8y,267.22h,85.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTqwCqVux3HCfdoNeSKwm5Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

If you can't tell already, I don't do much editing on Wikipedia, so I don't know the proper etiquette. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.252.112.174 (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Queensburgh

What about Queensburgh in South Africa? BenBezuidenhout (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 June 2018

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 with respect to the "Queen Elizabeth" and "George VI" titles; no consensus with respect to the "King and Queen" titles. Consensus is clear with respect to the former, even with a number of no-context !votes. With respect to the latter, consensus is lacking, and opposition is clearly stated. bd2412 T 02:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Based on the outcome of these two discussions (1, 2) and per WP:CONSISTENCY, these pages need to be moved as well; as the majority of users who participated in the previous discussions believed that having the regnal names is enough, and titles such as "King" or "Queen" should not necessarily be included in the main titles. Also, title consistency should exist between a main topic and its own subtopics. Keivan.f^Talk 19:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:CONSISTENT and nom rationale Lazz _R 18:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose moving the "King and Queen" pages, for the simple reason that the Queen Mum didn't become "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" at the coronation. Nor had she been known by that name for 14 years; after her marriage she was "HRH The Duchess of York" and became queen upon the abdication of her brother-in-law in 1936 - not as a result of the coronation. Ditto Alexandra of Denmark, Mary of Teck. I support moving all the others ("Queen Elizabeth II" ==> "Elizabeth II" etc.). - ProhibitOnions ^(T) 07:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @ProhibitOnions: Neither were Alexandra and Mary known by their maiden names at the time of their coronations, yet having the article titled as Coronation of George VI and Queen Elizabeth is really odd, especially since it was the King who was the main person during the coronation ceremony. I think using the maiden name would be the best choice. Another option would be keeping the articles about the coronations at their current titles and instead move back the one for Elizabeth II to Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II to match with the rest of them. Keivan.f^Talk 05:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That could be addressed e.g. by either Coronation of George V and Mary or, keeping it to the ruling monarch, Coronation of George V. - ProhibitOnions ^(T) 06:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - That would make the title wrong, as the consorts get crowned as well. If other users oppose moving the articles about coronations as well, then I'll submit a separate request for the one about Elizabeth's coronation to be moved back to its previous title. Keivan.f^Talk 16:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - The coronation of the consort is totally secondary to that of the monarch and most people aren't going to be searching for the consort in this context. Accordingly, I'd support omitting "King" or "Queen" from all of the proposed moves *and* removing the consorts' names, per WP:CONCISE. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Partly support, partly oppose I join user ProhibitOnions in his comment and support it fully. Having something like Coronation of George VI and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon gives a misleading impression and is inaccurate. Bowes-Lyon was her maiden surname. Even though royalty hardly use surnames, the article title would leave one under the impression that she still used the surname on the day of the coronation or that she coronation was a prerequisite for her to claim the title of queen. --Killuminator (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The same could be said for Alexandra and Mary. Yet, I explained above why the suggested titles are the only ones that actually make sense, but if the users decide on not moving the articles about coronations, then the one about Elizabeth II's coronation must be moved back to its previous title. Keivan.f^Talk 17:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not necessary. My only objection is to the articles in which the consorts are identified by a previous name. As I said, I otherwise support all the moves that omit "King" or "Queen." - ProhibitOnions ^(T)
Support, per WP:CONCISE. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:CONCISE.
Oppose Plainly inaccurate to use maiden names in this context; claims for consistency should not trump accuracy. NB contemporary sources speak of the coronation of [Their Majesties] King George VI and Queen Elizabeth; that is clearly the correct style.Barabbas1312 (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are referring to the articles about coronations, right? What about the rest of them though? Do you have any objection to moving the other pages listed here? Keivan.f^Talk 10:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Elizabeth II and George VI moves per above; Neutral on the "King and Queen" moves per above. But, we should definitely CREATE REDIRECTS no matter what happens. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:49, 12 July 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.