Talk:Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II turns 80

"Her Majesty"
what's the wikinews style guidelines on the use of honorifics? 'pedia says, in Manual of Style (biographies): "Styles shall not be used to open articles on royalty and popes. Thus the article on Pope Benedict XVI shall not begin "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. . . " nor the article on Queen Victoria begin "Her Majesty Queen Victoria. . ." They should, however, be discussed in the article proper."

Doldrums 09:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This would be just another birthday were Elizabeth Windsor anyone other than the Elizabeth II, the Queen woman... Title is fine. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Wikinews style guide says
 * "Wikinews honors the protocol common in the country of origin of the royalty mentioned.

British: royalty and anointed positions: use title plus first name, eg "Lady Catherine", "Prince Charles"" Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the title of the article, but to play the devil's advocate -- the "honorific" part of the title is "Her Majesty".. :D --Chiacomo (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * True :) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

WN:HEADLINE, WN:NEWSWORTHINESS
flag •–• 05:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what's to be discussed. It's an 11-year-old article. We could certainly issue a correction regarding the title if it's an issue, but at this point is seems pretty unneeded. —mikemoral (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what made you think it is "unneeded", but if you have been following the recent changes (and/or IRC) you would know a good headline is not that easy to frame. In this case, there should be no "Her Majesty", and should mention Queen of which kingdom. This is to be used as an example that do not make such mistakes thinking everyone knows "English-speaking-white-skinned-dudes-which-happen-to-be-leaders-of-some-*developed-nation". (*Reminds me of this) •–• 08:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just like how we have a case study for COE, we need some good examples for the other policies and this might be just one of those I was looking for. ("Her Majesty" -- also for the quote: "Omit needless words.") •–• 08:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The article isn't going anywhere; there are lots of articles in our archives, from before the era of review, that don't meet current standards. It's not a matter for correction unless it wanders into factual errors or... well, mostly just factual errors.  I recall at least one case where we issued a correction for a just-published article that was a really severe neutrality violation, but I doubt we'd find anything that severe in the old archives, not sure just how we'd choose to handle it, and this doesn't seem to be anywhere near that appallingly bad. Although we have sample links of good examples at (for example) WN:Newsworthiness, I think it's best we not provide links to bad examples.  We might mention bad examples in passing, being very careful that they are unambiguously not to be imitated, but not mention that those bad examples actually exist in our archives.  --Pi zero (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not going anywhere, but I need something for WN:Headline to show how to write a good headline. And using this article, I would want to bar some articles from being newsworthy. So. •–• 14:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)