Talk:Elizabeth I

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hdgoble (article contribs).

"Elizabeth 1" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Elizabeth 1 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 20 § Elizabeth 1 until a consensus is reached. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The Stuart Succession

This section should be reconsidered to include gloss questioning the smoothness of the transition: see The real truth about the Tudor succession comes to light. Literally.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/11/04/elizabeth-tudor-successor-james/ Jmf17 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Revert of edit adding year of death again to the lead

I noticed that an edit by User:Keivan.f was reverted, but that edit had been made to keep the article consistent with other royal pages where similar wording is already included. There has already been a discussion on another page about whether this detail should be included or removed. If the edit here is being reverted, are we then agreed that it is appropriate to start removing the repeated year from other monarch pages where it currently appears, since most of the royal pages I have looked at do include the year of death again in their leads? ItsShandog (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

What was the outcome of the other discussion? Do you have a link? It the lead sentence already gives birth and death date at the start, it seems redundant and repetitive to say her death in 1603 at the end of the same sentence where her death year has already been established.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

There wasn't really a definitive outcome from the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II. I said that if consensus was reached to remove the repeated year of death, I would be happy to help make that change on other pages. However, there wasn't a large discussion and no clear decision was made. I'm not sure whether to go ahead with it or not. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion either way, though I do agree it feels somewhat repetitive and doesn't really need to be stated again. At the same time, many of the older monarch pages do repeat the year in their leads, which I think is why there wasn't a clear outcome — it would involve changing a lot of pages. ItsShandog (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

For example, if you look at Robert Curthose and subsequent monarchs, many of those pages also include the year of death again in the lead. My concern is that if I started removing it on other pages, the edits might simply be reverted because editors have different opinions on the matter. ItsShandog (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see the discussion here before reverting Amakuru's edit. The problem is that the other discussion (which I linked to in my edit summary) did not give us a proper result. In the absence of a consensus it's better to preserve the consistency across the pages in my opinion. Keivan.f^Talk 14:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: if you desire consistency then the solution would be to make the same edit on all such pages, as ItsShandog is offering to do. But in the spirit of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that shouldn't hold up progress here. Repetitive language is a clear sign of prose that isn't the best it can be; so unless you have any substantive reasons to retain the second usage of 1603 in the same sentence then I'm inclined to say it should be removed again. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument that we use for deletion discussions. It does not necessarily apply to articles' prose and titles. That being said, as I stated in my original comment I have no preference either way about whether the year of death should be included in the opening sentence or not. What I did advocate for was consistency all along. Incidentally, the change at this page was made on October 24, which is fairly recent, and there was no discussion. In the absence of a consensus the long-standing version should remain per WP:STATUSQUO. Regards. Keivan.f^Talk 19:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Repeating any information in one sentence is just poor writing, @Keivan.f. What compells us to lower the quality of the prose of the most high-profile part of the article? There was no redundancy either in the version promoted to FA or in the reviewed version. Surtsicna (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing the year of death. However, this needs to be implemented across multiple pages not just this one. Neither I nor anybody else can unilaterally proceed with such an action. There needs to be an RfC or some in depth discussion that allows us to proceed with this change without encountering resistance from other editors. If this discussion is sufficient enough, then I guess we can proceed with the changes. If not, then we need more input. If nobody opposes the change here or at Elizabeth II's article in the coming days then I will proceed with dropping the death years from the opening sentences. Keivan.f^Talk 00:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that we need to improve one article or none at all. That impedes progress. We already have a guideline about this, WP:REDUNDANCY, which clearly and sensibly tells us to avoid redundancy in the lead sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not a critical matter involving the article's substance. It's more of an issue concerning the format of the opening sentence. There is no rule that says all articles should be the same, but we don't usually deviate from an established format. And as I said, if no one opposes to the change (which appears to be the case) I don't see why it cannot be implemented in a more widespread manner. WP:REDUNDANCY applies to all pages after all. Keivan.f^Talk 05:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

In the absence of consensus, the text in question should be omitted per WP:ONUS.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

In the absence of consensus, WP:STATUSQUO remains, which is the inclusion of the year according to the article's undisputed long-standing version until it was modified a month ago. Keivan.f^Talk 00:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I note that Google's infocards that pull from Wikipedia usually omit anything in brackets, e.g. when I google "Elizabeth I" I get "Elizabeth I was Queen of England and Ireland from 17 November 1558 until her death in 1603". Removing the death date from the prose of the first sentence would thus be indirectly less informative to readers. I T B F 📢 06:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

That is a good point. Thank you for the input. Keivan.f^Talk 16:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

That's an argument for repeating the entire date of death then. Surtsicna (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Or alternatively for removing the exact date of accession, as we do for (most) political offices. I T B F 📢 12:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Broad Pieces Link

In the caption of the image reading "Fragment of one of the last broad pieces of Queen Elizabeth, broken by her command", the term "broad pieces" is linked to the article for "broad", but that article is about a gold coin minted during the Commonwealth, some fifty years after Elizabeth's death. A search for "broad piece" did not produce any relevant results. I'm going to remove the link since that cannot be what is meant by "broad pieces" in the context of the image. Beetfarm Louie (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2026

Third paragraph of the "reign" section, second sentence "hat" should be "that"; currently "playwrights hat thrived during this period" ~2026-31436-13 (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Kodning 🌸 (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC)