Talk:Buckingham Palace

Infobox -- why not?

(regarding my reverted edit that added an infobox)

@Nikkimaria, the talk archives have a lot of discussion about infoboxes; could you give a quick summary or point to a particular section?

From a quick look, this RfC seems to be the most conclusive, so let me see if I can summarize the points and reply here:

1. Doesn't add anything that the lead doesn't include. — My edit adds the map, namesake and website, but maybe those are considered trivial.
2. Map is not useful; coordinates can replace it. — It seems like the map has gotten more useful since that discussion happened, but true, coordinates can replace it for the most part.
3. An infobox can't cover the breadth of the topic. — No one is arguing that it should. It can just include info that can be summarized easily.
4. "reduces the size of the main image" — Fair enough, but you can click on it to expand it.
5. "every similar article has one, e.g., Windsor Castle, Tower of London, Palace of Versailles, the Kremlin, the White House" — That's part of the reason I added it: consistency, allowing for info at a glance.

Would that be a fair summary/response?

I'm skipping over some points that seem invalid to me, like that it's the decision of the article's "main authors" (which sounds like ownership).
— W.andrea (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

A couple of thing to note. First off, because this has had a previous RfC that concluded for exclusion, you'd need more than the two of us talking to reach the level of consensus needed to overturn that. Second, your last point is very specifically not something that can be used as an argument, since per MOS:INFOBOXUSE consensus is reached at each specific article - whether another article does or doesn't have one, or does or doesn't have a specific parameter, isn't considered relevant. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, gotcha. I was more looking to understand the reasoning for not having one, but I guess if that comes down to "we had a vote and people said no", that's good enough for me, regardless of why they said no.

And just to clarify my last point, I'm not saying it needs to have an infobox because other articles do, just that consistency across articles helps with finding info quickly, that's all.

— W.andrea (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but those maps are not useful. You click the teeny tiny map to enlarge and the red dot disappears making it completely useless. Firebrace (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Have you tried the map in my revision? There's no red dot, there's an actual outline of the palace, and it stays when you click to expand it. I guess there's some magic going on where it's pulling from WikiData or something. — W.andrea (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

For enough, I hadn't seen that style of map before. Firebrace (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Other palaces have infoboxes like St. James's Palace but not this one? What kind of bullshitry is this? 203.189.118.98 (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Infobox -- revisit 2026

Comment: I think an Infobox will be valuable however I know historically previous editors have been against adding "another box". In the era of AI, this will be useful for quick comparisons between White House, and other UK buildings.

Infobox example

Buckingham Palace
The East Front of Buckingham Palace
General information
Status	Completed
Type	Royal residence
Architectural style	Neoclassical
Location	Buckingham Palace Road, Westminster, London, England
Coordinates	51.5014°N 0.1419°W / 51.5014; -0.1419
Current tenants	Charles III
Completed	1705
Renovated	1825–1830; 1913
Owner	Monarch of the United Kingdom
Technical details
Floor count	5
Floor area	77,000 m² (830,000 sq ft)
Grounds	16 hectares (40 acres)
Design and construction
Architects	William Winde (original house) John Nash Edward Blore Sir Aston Webb
Listed Building – Grade I
Type	Listed Building
Designated	5 February 1970 (1970-02-05)
Reference no.	1239087
Listed Building – Grade II*
Type	Park and Garden
Designated	1 October 1987 (1987-10-01)
Reference no.	1000795

Smithr32 (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC) edited 18:41

It's the content of the infobox that I'm against. At least four of the claims in it are inaccurate, misleading or debateable and at least one more appears to be unsourced and not in the article body. The purpose of an infobox is to summarize the key facts that appear in an article, not to add additional content or bias the content towards one interpretation. DrKay (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

How would you feel about posting the infobox without those points? I mean, they're not mandatory. If you look at my version in 2023, it was much more modest on the details. (BTW, in retrospect, the image was too big.) — W.andrea (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm neither for nor against the inclusion of an infobox since I see neither value nor harm in its inclusion or exclusion. DrKay (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe event stack the two images as one similar to White House article:

Images stacked example

Buckingham Palace
Top: East Front of the palace seen from the Victoria Memorial Bottom: Aerial view of the palace and rear gardens during Elizabeth II's 90th birthday celebrations in 2016.

Smithr32 (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

To what end? The two images were stacked previously. The current layout enables the different perspectives to be appreciated individually and also breaks up the paragraphs nicely on mobile devices. Firebrace (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Only if there was no agreement on one particular image for the infobox Smithr32 (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace is not on Buckingham Palace Road (the Royal Mews are). It is a bodge of many different architectural styles. It was arguably "completed" in 1913. There are no "current tenants" (Charles living at Clarence House). Was 1913 a renovation or an extension? One of the five floors is actually a basement - does that count as a floor? Firebrace (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Great feedback, so its more POC data was populated as an example. So if the data is subjective to interpretation, we do not add it to the infobox - only cold facts like status, type, location

Namedfor = John Sheffield etc. The gardens are on Lower Grosvenor Place per Royal Mail Postcode finder so maybe both Royal Mews and LGP street should be listed? Smithr32 (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Firebrace Listed Building information says the address for BP is "The Mall" . I've added both listed to the infobox example above Smithr32 (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

We're not having an Infobox. Firebrace (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

We need to reach a consensus - not just one vote WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS Smithr32 (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I've removed this discussion from the WP:3O list because there are far more than 2 particpants. meamemg (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

For Infobox

• Agree Smithr32 (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Agree JimmethMM (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Against Infobox

• I tend to think that an infobox will be a magnet for half-truths and specious trivia. Many of the usual parameters will be unusable because the content is too complex (multiple dates of construction/refurbishment) or ambiguous (owned by state or the monarch?) for the kind of short simple statement that is usual in an infobox. A few of the other parameters, such as listings and registration numbers, are too highly specialised to be useful or necessary in an introductory section. And the remaining parameters (located in London and lived in by the monarch) are so obvious that they are unnecessary and repetitive. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

“Buckhouse” still commmon usage?

Copied from “Dower House” to which page should be linked - along with an id of the royal widow who inspired the term: I’ve no idea whether the common usage is dated, accurate or current, but William Gibson (“Mona Lisa Overdrive) has a fictional expensive custom AI VR box refer to the Palace as “the Buckhouse” in the Neurmancer world’s final book. Could someone with access to the Electronic OED 3 check on accuracy of usage - can’t afford what used to be a $20 CD set. Linguistic Irregular (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Photo entitled "The lawn and west façade, faced in Bath stone, of Buckingham Palace"

The final photograph - entitled "The lawn and west façade, faced in Bath stone, of Buckingham Palace" - includes Marine One, with "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" proudly emblazoned on its side. Even if that's the only photo of that particular façade that's available - which I highly doubt - then is it appropriate to have such a vulgar display of American power in a photograph about Buckingham Palace? It just seems gauche to me. I can understand photos in the article which show members of the Royal Family hosting American Presidents and their wives, but a photo with no distinguishable Britons - in fact nothing distinguishably British - with Marine One sitting there proudly, just doesn't seem right. Who knows what country Trump will want next after Greenland??? There was this guy about 90-odd years ago who the world kept appeasing, thinking that he wasn't bonkers and that it would all come to a peaceful end if they just gave in, but the world turned out to be wrong about him... FillsHerTease (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

My hope is that one day someone who is good with AI or Photoshop will make the helicopter go away. That said, it occupies a tiny portion of the photograph and is vastly overshadowed by the enormous distinguishably British authentic royal palace behind it. So that is some consolation. Otherwise the photo is a lovely bookend to the article, I think. Firebrace (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

The helicopter does illustrate something in the text, which says that the garden includes a helicopter landing area. There are 70 other photos in commons:Category:West Façade of Buckingham Palace if we'd rather have something else, though. It may be better to show more of the garden. Belbury (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

What is a "distinguishable Briton" by the way, and why should there be any in photographs of a landscaped garden? Firebrace (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Panoramic image as it gets cropped on mobile

The helicopter concern here may be due in part to the way that Wikipedia shows panoramic images on mobile: the image is truncated to fit the page with only a very subtle suggestion (a dim grey bar at the bottom, not very clearly visible against the dark lawn) that it's a panoramic one that can be scrolled horizontally. Viewing the page on mobile, the helicopter can be read as the intended focus of the photograph.

User:Firebrace's suggestion of using File:Lawn and West facade of Buckingham Palace.jpg instead seems like a good idea. --Belbury (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I have added a dir= parameter to the wide image template, making the right side of the image the initial visible portion on mobile devices. Ideally it would be centred, but left or right are currently the only values possible. Firebrace (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

User:TheMrOG who reverted Firebrace's edit in question has today been blocked as a sock of LTA User:Lam312321321, so I've restored that image. Belbury (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

It is a nice enough image, despite the weird angle. I don't mind either way. Firebrace (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Charles + Camilla plan not to move to B.P.

... and Harry plans the same. https://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/menschen/koenig-charles-iii-der-monarch-will-nicht-in-den-palast-zurueck-accg-200970699.html Vieilissant (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2026 (UTC)