Is it worth us putting together a DYK request between those of us who've been editing it? Obviously it would be immediately put on hold due to the AfD and a potential merge (although if it merges into a completely new article, such as the proposed Lying in State one, that would still be fine), but we would want to avoid missing the 1-week deadline Nosebagbear (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I'd bring it here rather than unilateral action (as it's not directly policy breaking).
Why do we have the CNR to categories in the organisation section? It's got a lot of irrelevant stuff, and having any CNR in the middle of an article feels kind of odd. I'd rather see if there were one or two directly relevant articles and build in "see alsos" or bake into text, rather than just pointing to a full category. Thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it looked odd too. Looking into it, it appears that that template is intended for use on category pages, not within articles. It seems to be being used as a substitute for a link to an article about queue management. That's currently a redirect to queue management system which is focussed on software solutions so we need a more general article about the physical aspects too. I added a piped link to queue area to the lead as queue is a disambiguation page. Part of the trouble may be that Americans don't tend to recognise the word and so talk about standing in line instead. This is a good opportunity to improve our general coverage of the topic and then we can revise the link accordingly. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a stylised QEII Queue image a couple of times but this keeps being wiped. I'm not sure why or what rule it contravenes as it decoratively improves the page, yet some wiki users keep dropping it with no explanation.
Could one of those who removed it explain what rules they believe it is breaking, as I believed Wikipedia is created by the people, for the people. CivitasClub (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CivitasClub The image is very likely copyright violation as I have explained on c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:QE-Queue-II.jpg, the image is a derivative of a photo that appears to be taken by Rob Munday (in 2004) who posted it on his Instagram on may 6 2022 [1]. No indication is given there that he has released it under CC, PD or any other compatible (and it seems to me very unlikely that such a release has been made anywhere else).Cakelot1 (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should instances of "the queue" be capitalised in the article? It's inconsistent at the moment ("The queue begins in Westminster Hall..." in "Route" and "The Queue started in the early morning..." in "Progress"). Alextheconservative (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's a bit all over the place. There are a few "queues" that must be lower case, because they're talking about the general concept/object "primary queue", "secondary queue" (etc). However, as you say, outside of those, we either need all "The Queue" or "The queue" (after the first usage). Nosebagbear (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion of celebrities who have queued has caused some back-and-forth. Personally I think the current, text, list is absolutely fine and has all the appropriate sources and whatnot, but it never hurts to build a consensus. What do you think? A.D.Hope (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have an inconsistency in the article with respect to this. The first sentence of the "Routes" section says, The main queue begins in Westminster Hall... and the map caption in the infobox says, The route of the queue, which starts at Southwark Park.... Those two places are at opposite ends of the queue so only one can be the beginning or start and the other must be the end - which is which? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The entrance to the queue when at max capacity is Southwark Park. See the attached government map.Map of the queue from government website.
However the difference here is the fact that the "beginning" of a queue can mean the point where the queue starts to form from (the front of the queue), in this case Westminster hall, OR the place where people start their journey (the back of the line), which for most of the time has been in Southwark Park (although could be anywhere along the route depending how many people are in the line). Cakelot1 (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So long as we're consistent I don't think it really matters.
The government's map (as Cakelot1 has kindly attached) calls Southwark Park the 'end' of the Queue, so it would make sense to consider Westminster Hall the start, or beginning. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should say that Westminster Hall is at the front of the queue and Southwark Park is the furthest back it is allowed to go then? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the rate at which people can actually file past the coffin, numbers are unlikely to be significantly different from earlier lyings in state. Are there any numbers available. One person every two seconds would give over 400,000, but seem unrealistic. Is it posdible the queue is effectively an aretfact of the security arrangements and publicity rather than a reflection of inceeased participation? 90.250.1.152 (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the very long waiting times and the excess security restrictions would have discouraged many from queueing too, unlike on previous occasions. Also the lying in state was broadcast on Freeview TV BBC RB1 continuously, so there was no need to actually visit the site to see the lying in state. If you view the old black and white footage of the lying in state of George VI you can see larger groups moving much faster through Westminster Hall than on this occasion. The record "numbers" are for peak length (over 10 miles), peak waiting times (over 20 hours) and duration (over four days and nights) Iceblink (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth mentioning the alternative name, the "Elizabeth Line" in the lead of the article? I've noticed multiple edit wars so to speak over the past few days regarding whether it should or shouldn't XxLuckyCxX (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was just noted on Sky News that their reporter had seen him walk by near the beginning of the queue. It might be worth keeping an eye on a report that confirms that so he could be added to celebrities having been spotted in queue (He was in the public one, since the other one has long since closed.) TheCorriynial (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know when the AfD nomination will close? I think there is a general consensus that we should not delete the article (especially when the article was nominated at a time when it was stub-class & has since been expanded) XxLuckyCxX (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is supposed to be kept open for at least seven days, and then if there is reasonable controversy for longer. So basically it would be closed in a couple of days time. Mitsuyashi (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD move was closed with a move to keep. Once all the fuss has died down, I really hope this article gets merged into the main Death and state funeral article. Its length and excessive detail is giving WP:UNDUE weight to just one aspect of the whole topic. Right now there are about 1800 words discussing this queue, and just 202 words describing the actual funeral service itself, which is a ridiculous state of affairs. Cnbrb (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that the title of this page should be renamed because the phrase "the queue" is very vague and can be applied to a lot of things. maybe it should be renamed to something like "queue to see Queen Elizabeth II lying in state"? I know its a bit of a mouthful but it's a lot more informative than just "the queue". Roboprince (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the length of the accessible queue over at The Queue, in terms of official length it was always shorter as it only passed through Westminster Hall and Victoria Tower Gardens, rather than continuing off to Southwark as the main queue did. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea, however the official length of the accessible queue was much shorter than the official length of the main queue at any point, so I think we're on safe ground A.D.Hope (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was shorter than the other, yes, but it had other differences too (step-free, dogs allowed, accessible toilets, etc.) as a consequence of its primary purpose to be accessible. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those features aren't really relevant to the lede. The focus of much media attention was on the length of the main queue, however, so mentioning that the accessible queue was much shorter is relevant. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has been changed a few times. It should say "body" at least once. The queue would not have happened for the coffin alone. The nature of the ritual might not be obvious to those from other traditions where bodies are placed on show. S C Cheese (talk) 10:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of the body is mentioned in the main Lying in State article:
Great. Then readers can go read that if they are confused.
I don't think we need the phrase "body and coffin" in the lead, which is the edit that was under dispute. It will be immediately obvious to nearly all readers that the coffin contains a body. Feel free to suggest an edit outside of the lead if you still think further clarification is needed. Perhaps something like "coffin containing the body", to be clearer than "body and coffin". Bondegezou (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Readers who are confused won't necessarily be aware that they're confused. But "body and coffin" does seem the more misleading wording, of these two, as it can be read as implying an open casket. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of saying "body" (inaccurate, it was a closed coffin with a standard over the top) or "coffin" (perhaps more true than the former factually, but doesn't really express why people were actually there), would it not be simpler to leave both out and say something along the lines of "who viewed the Queen lying in state"? As noted, there's a Lying in state article for a deeper dive into how lying in state works, so is it really necessary to try and be overly specific here? H. Carver (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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: no consensus. The main questions here are questions of editorial judgment, things like "how can we best organize our content?" and "how should we balance the conflicting demands of the titling criteria?" Supporters contend that another title would provide the article with a broader and more encyclopedic scope and that the current title is ambiguous, while opposers favor maintaining the current scope and argue that the current title is the common name. On these issues editors are more-or-less evenly divided between those who support some sort of move and those who don't, so since this is an editorial matter where reasonable minds may differ, I'd be supervoting if I'd closed any other way than "no consensus". It's worth noting, though, that since it's notoriously hard to reach a consensus when current events are at issue, a follow-up discussion in a few months' time – one where arguments can be considered with the benefit of hindsight – may well be able to reach a more decisive outcome. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Queue → ? – During the recent AfD, it was suggested that article should be renamed. 'The Queue' is an colloquial term applied on the event surrounding the Queen's lying-in-state. Proponents for keeping the article name as it is would cite WP:COMMONNAME and it being reported as such, but a search on Google news, even with just 'The Queue' reveals that reports of the event being reported 'Queue', 'queue', queue to the...' in headlines and body text. There is no consistency and does not demonstrate the term to be a common name. Even in the article here, 'The Queue' is just simply the queue in the rest of the body text. Also, as indicated in the article, 'The Queue' refers to the main queue of the event, while the article covers more than just that. During the course of the AfD, there had been at least one attempt to move the article as well, and in the AfD discussion, various alternative names were thrown out:
A: Stage Funeral Queue of Elizabeth II
B: Queue to Elizabeth II lying in state
C: Lying-in-state of Elizabeth II
D: Queue to pass Elizabeth II lying-in-state (this is from the undiscussed move)
After further thinking I oppose moving altogether because this is the common name and isn't ambiguous with any other notable topic. I still specifically oppose A and C per my previous comment and oppose B because it's ungrammatical. D is the least worst of the four options but the suggestion in my previous comment is better than all of them and the current title is better still. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The current title of The Queue is the most common name. The alternatives suggested are all hopeless as they either fail to mention the key word of "queue" or are bizarrely obscure – what on earth is "stage funeral queue" supposed to mean? Andrew🐉(talk) 12:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The Queue" may currently be the most common name. I have seen no evidence either way, so it's untested possibility.
Oppose all - this article has already been through the wringer with an unsuccessful AFD. The Queue is the most common name as Andrew mentions above. All of the options seem to place this article nearer the content of the already far too lengthy article on her death and funeral as per WP:TOOBIG with a merge request being the next likely avenue even though the article on the death and state funeral is already too big Davethorp (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all - Article already has the most common name used for The Queue, and does not really provide enough information about the lying-in-state to be titled that. Leave it as it is UpdateWindows (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all - C is an improper attempt to change the focus of the article, which is the Queue itself (a distinct topic with independent significant media attention). If there is to be an article on the lying-in-state process then that should be created its own article (if sufficient standalone supporting coverage exists) and a subsection included covering this topic (and perhaps vice versa). However this page has already survived AfD with consensus based on its current contents as being notable and extensive enough to warrant their own article, and that should not be overwritten via the implications of a RM. Oppose also the other options per WP:COMMONNAME. BlackholeWA (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I initially thought of something like option B with a redirect from "The Queue". But then there is nothing else for "The Queue" to redirect to, and until another four and a half day continuous queue, night and day, develops, it is appropriate to keep this as it is, especially since it became such a popular moniker in world-wide media over the long week of official mourning in the UK.--Iceblink (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all per WP:COMMONNAME. Additional Strong Oppose for C because the proposed title does not align with the content and focus of the article. If it has to be moved then it should be D, as the other proposed options are grammatically poor (even without the typo in A), but I don't think the case has been made to move it. 90.210.230.246 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I suspect the current title will eventually need to be changed as the news and pop culture move on and 'The Queue' no longer immediately conjures images of a big line along the Thames, but we can also be patient and wait for that to happen rather than needing to make a decision immediately. Why not see where the land lies around January? --A.D.Hope (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wikipedia has an article called "Great Stink" about an event in London from the 1800s. I don't see why "The Queue" is so controversial, is it just because it is something positive about the UK and Royals, which many international wiki editors don't particularly like? --Iceblink (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno what international wiki editors is intended to mean, since Wikipedia is an international project not based in the UK.
It means wikipedia editors from around the world (which could of course include UK). Yeah the hostility online directed at The Queen since her death is just my imagination I guess. Iceblink (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
imo, just your imagination, at least for me. when I opened the discussion, it wasn't out of disrepect, but rather, the thought that the current article title isn't in its best form for Wikipedia. It would have been disrepectful to both the UK and the Royals, and more importantly, the Wikipedia community if unilateral move was done without discussion given the heightened interest in events surrounding the Queen's death. – robertsky (talk) 06:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why the article about the pollution is titled as Great Stink, as there's documented long-lasting impact and legacy in response to the pollution, i.e. the construction of the sewage system and a general improvement in health and living condition for the city for years following the pollution. This? This isn't a new phenomenon, it was documented that at Death and state funeral of George VI, there were 304,000 people in the queue (sic), which was significant longer than that of the Queen's here. Shouldn't it be called The Queue instead, that's of course if there are written articles from then stating it as so? – robertsky (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But those previous queues for lying in state of monarchs did not reach anywhere near the 10+ miles that this one did at its peak (for George VI it was 4 miles at peak and did not last for more than 3 days). This queue was extraordinary because waiting times reached over 20 hours at peak, mainly due to the huge security operation in place, which did not exist for George VI or others (terrorism wasn't a big issue in the UK then). If you watch old footage of that lying in state you can see how the people were able to move much faster in larger groups through Westminster Hall. Also, the lying in State was broadcast live continuously on BBC Freeview RB1, so there wasn't even a need for people to queue to see the lying in state. It was the longest in length and longest in duration queue the UK has ever seen Iceblink (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support anything which removes the massive ambiguity of the current title. Per WP:PRECISE"titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that" ... but there is no way on earth that "The Queue" unambiguously describes the scope of this article. I would support Option C "Lying-in-state of Elizabeth II", even tho that has a broader scope, because it would be a logical division of the broader topic. I would be equally happy with a title which unambiguously describes the current scope, such as "Queue to pass Elizabeth II lying-in-state" or similar. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is no longer about the AfD, it is about a Move Request. Therefore, I believe that it is legitimate to bring up again as an alternative to either Support or Oppose. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But one has to accept that there was huge media usage of the term in publications worldwide (not just popular media). I mean the "Great Stink" became well-known as a reference to a particular event over a few weeks along the Thames in the mid 1850s mainly due the common use of the phrase in the Newspapers at the time. Iceblink (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Sorokin article has existed since 2011 and is nothing special; its readership is much the same as The Queue (Abdel Aziz novel) – small. Kafkaesque stories about interminable queues are not unusual. The one I remember well was by Keith Laumer and nominated for a Nebula – In the Queue (1970). These were all fiction and not in the same league as the real thing. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose Option C. This article is about the queue to the lying-in-state, not the lying-in-state itself. The independent notability of that queue and its suitability for a standalone article has been established at length at a recent AfD. Of the other options: support D. The Queue is a nickname. It might look like a proper noun because it is capitalised, but tongue-in-cheek usage of obviously non-standard capitalisation to indicate something similar to quotation marks is an established convention—e.g. "A Good Thing" in 1066 and All That (1930)—and capitalisation of improper nouns has been cited as a way "to make something sound more ironically official".[1] It is The Queue in much the same way as we might refer to an endless RfC as The Discussion. This is not appropriate for the title, which should be an encyclopaedic, neutral description of the subject: the queue to pass Elizabeth II lying-in-state. Articles like "2018 British Isles cold wave"—whose subject was near-universally referred to by the media as the "Beast from the East"—provide precedent for bypassing journalistic nicknames when applying COMMONNAME. Kilopylae (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to B or D. A move is now needed as the event recedes into the past. For B "Queue for Elizabeth II lying in state" (not "to") would be better, as more idiomatic. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't change the fact that it was called "The Queue" in media publications all over the world for that week. And as I keep pointing out, the "Great Stink" in 1850s along the Thames has only been called that now because the Newspapers at the time called it that, I'm pretty sure it was not actually the greatest stink in world history, even in the UK. What seems to have happened is that a lot of people who were very eager to promote "The Queue" in the early days when it seemed to be mocking British culture and the stereotype of "queueing", are now annoyed that the name has taken on something of more importance and quite positive for Britain and the Royals. It is annoying some people to keep referencing this event as "The Queue". No doubt the same people are very happy to have the "Great Stink" applied to something that happened in Britain. Iceblink (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Great Stink is a proper noun used by historians (alongside various equally lurid terms for important events: e.g. the Peasants' Revolt or the Black Death, or my personal favourite, The Incident). "The Queue" is not. It is a nickname, far more analogous to the Beast from the East than the Great Stink (see my post above). —Kilopylae (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's ever heard of "The Incident" you mentioned, it's probably only on Wikipedia because it's anti-Royal, THAT article probably should be a case for deletion and merging into the parent article. The "Great Stink" only became a common name for historians because it was widely used in (mostly British) Newspapers at the time. Same is true of "The Queue" which was used by distinguished sources such as BBC, CNN and even Washington Post, never mind the more popular media. When historians write about this Queen Elizabeth's death, some will surely have to make note that the long queue along the Thames became known as "The Queue" in worldwide media at the time. Iceblink (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all - I especially oppose C the name doesnt even mention the queue. I support a name change to something like "The Queue for Elizabeth II lying in state" Eopsid (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This RM was not especially well thought out. In particular, it lacks consideration of what the consequences are of some of the moves. For example, option C is the most logical move, because it's a logical article. However, it isn't just a move - it's a partial merge, as we will then need to take content off other articles and move them to it. That's fine (and actually good), but means that we need to notify the relevant articles as a merge request, not just a move one. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option C is not so simple or logical because the Queen lay in state in two places – St Giles and Westminster and there was a well-covered journey and procession in between the two. The current article has a clear and straightforward focus upon the huge queue in London which was a particular phenomenon with a distinct name. The article should naturally include some background and context but the focus should remain the queue, not some arbitrary slice of the overall proceedings. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, St Giles wasn't lying in state. However, I'd advise it as a logical content split, although I'd also be fine with the Queue and the lying in state in Westminster, as it's a bit of a weird content split at the moment. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
^Gallucci, Nicole (18 June 2019). "A look at the Ubiquitous Habit of capitalizing letters to make A Point". Mashable.
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.
The lead sentence has been changed a few times so that it either refers to only the main queue or both the accessible and main queues. Which should we settle on? A.D.Hope (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some academic references that may come in handy as retrospect comes to bear on this very news reports—heavy entry.
Indranil Chakravorty, "Musings on the Monarchy: At the Passing of HM Queen Elizabeth II", The Physician, 7(3), 2022.
Soroush Saghafian, "The Public Impact of Queueing Theory: From Queen Elizabeth to Internet to Emergency Rooms", Public Impact Analytics Science, October 2022.
"Artnotes: The Queen is Dead", Art Monthly, 460, 2022.
Emily Harrop and Caroline Pearce, "We wept and we waited – but what can we learn from the week we mourned the Queen?", Bereavement: Journal of Grief and Responses to Death, 2022.
Moved from User talk:DeFacto