Talk:King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Memorial

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 2 August 2018[edit]

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.

Not moved. See general agreement below to let this title remain as it is now. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  17:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Memorial → George VI and Queen Elizabeth Memorial – This article was recently moved by Keivan.f from its original title, George VI and Queen Elizabeth Memorial, to George VI and Elizabeth Memorial and, after I undid the move, to its current title of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Memorial. I propose reverting to the original title, as I think it best follows the following policies:

  • WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (specifically precision, concision and consistency with other article titles for statues)
  • WP:SOVEREIGN ("Article titles are not normally prefixed with "King", "Queen", "Emperor" or equivalent.")

Previous discussion on the use of "king" in article titles for statues in London can be found here. Ham II (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz talk | contribs 21:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 15:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Both of the policies that you mentioned are used as guidelines when choosing the titles for main articles, and indeed long names and unnecessary prefixes should be avoided. You argued that Elizabeth would be more recognizable as Queen Elizabeth and opposed moving it to a more concise title. Thus, the most reasonable thing to do would be having it titled by what has been carved out on the memorial itself. It reads "King George VI 1895-1952" and "Queen Elizabeth 1900-2002". Another example where "king" and "queen" are used would be King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes. Keivan.fTalk 12:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This move request is proceeding on an incorrect basis. The article should be moved back to its original title (the one it had since it was created in 2014 until it was boldly moved a few days ago) and then we should discuss whether it should be moved from there. Bold, Revert, Discuss. We had a Bold more and then a Revert, but then a second Bold move without any proper discussion (except in edit comments) and then no second Revert before this discussion.

For what it is worth, I am a strong neutral, because frankly there are more important things in life, but I will just note that the Royal Parks website calls them the "King George VI Memorial" and the "Queen Mother Memorial" (not the "Queen Elizabeth Memorial"), and the English Heritage listing (apparently, the website is unhappy today) calls the first one a "Statue of King George VI". So I can see an argument for keeping the "King" and "Queen" in, as that is what the sources use, and we should always follow the sources.

But perhaps this is an issue of style, where WP:MOS takes precedence over the sources?

I've looked at the issue from both sides now, from win and lose, and still somehow, it's Wikipedia's policies I recall; I really don't mind either result ... at all. (As someone might have said once.) 213.205.198.253 (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad that you participated in this discussion. To be honest, I think the policies do not necessarily ban a second bold move, and as I thought the issue was uncontroversial, I decided to make the second move myself, yet it seems that Ham II has taken it very seriously while it's neither that controversial nor important in my opinion. Let's see what others think. Keivan.fTalk 19:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much that I take this issue very seriously, but rather that I'd like to open it up to discussion from those who might have thoughts about it (in particular, members of Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty), and I thought an RM nomination was the most efficient way of doing that. Ham II (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to descriptive title King George VI and Queen Mother memorial statues. The name of this article is masquerading as a proper name (particularly given the capital "M" in memorial), whereas in fact reliable sources treat the two statues are separate entities, and they are named separately.[1][2] There might even be a case for splitting into two articles, as there isn't much prose that is common to both of them, but given the shortness of the article at present and the common location it seems OK.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The statues are not the only components of this memorial; there are also two large bronze relief panels by a third sculptor (Paul Day), and it's fair to say that the architectural setting unifies these parts into a whole. Looking at print sources published since 2009, London's Statues and Monuments by Peter Matthews (2012, in the edition I've got) refers to this as "the joint memorial to George VI [...] and his consort Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother". London's Monuments by Andrew Kershman (2013), however, discusses the two statues separately. I haven't got other books on the subject to hand at the moment; the most authoritative is Public Sculpture of Historic Westminster, Volume I in the Public Sculpture of Britain series, by Philip Ward-Jackson (2011). When I get hold of this and other relevant books I'll note here how they discuss the memorial. Ham II (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to King George VI and Queen Mother Memorials. Two separate statues, but these certainly seem to be regarded as proper names in the sources. The removal of "King" is completely spurious, as this is the proper name of the structure. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know why some users ignore the fact that the plaque on the statue itself refers to her as Queen Elizabeth not "Queen Mother". She is thus commemorated here as a queen consort in her capacity as wife of King George VI, and she was not known as Queen Mother until after his death. That is why we have Coronation of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth not Coronation of King George VI and Queen Mother, or King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes not King George VI and Queen Mother Stakes. Keivan.fTalk 16:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    The policies are just guidelines
    Stick to the original name of the memorial
    To delete "King" and retain "Queen" is completely inconsistent and looks ridiculous.----Ehrenkater (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as ridiculous and an excellent example for why WP:NCROY needs an overhaul. NCROY contains a bad mix of old fashioned formalism and diplomatic jargon and is at odds with COMMONNAME. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 21 August 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 9 November 2019[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: still no consensus to move the page to any particular title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Memorial → George VI and Elizabeth Memorial – I've had a change of heart about this since the last RM; if there's been no objection to the article title Coronation of George VI and Elizabeth (which post-dates the last discussion here), then, per WP:CONSISTENCY, this should be the article title for the memorial. It's also consistent with how monarchs' names are treated in the articles on their memorials or statues in London, and "...Elizabeth Memorial" is consistent with Albert Memorial for a royal consort. Ham II (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:20, 6 December 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article Split[edit]

While looking to see what the official name for the "memorial" was but as far as I can see this "memorial" doesnt actually exist as most sources treat them as two seperate memorials with different histories. If they are both of note, anybody have a good reason why they should not have an article each. MilborneOne (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that George's memorial was unveiled first and then his wife's memorial was added years later, but the two statues are literally less than 3 meters away from one another and are located in the same place, thus the whole area is built up as a memorial to both of them. Keivan.fTalk 22:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The plaque on the original site of George VI's statue refers to "the new memorial to King George VI and Queen Elizabeth", with "memorial" in the singular. Ham II (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...and Art UK treats the whole complex as a single memorial. Ham II (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:King_George_VI_and_Queen_Elizabeth_Memorial&oldid=1205890518"