This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 September 2022. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
![]() | A news item involving Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 8 September 2022. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
![]() |
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Why has the music of the actual funeral service itself been relegated to a tiny footnote? It's very unclear and confusing. This is the central event and the core section of the entire topic and does not deserve to be truncated in this way. There are so many other topic areas that are over-detailed and subject to WP:BLOAT - not this section. Cnbrb ( talk) 08:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
'Other commemorations: Australia' change "Momuments" to "Monuments" and change "Mounring" to "Mourning". NatC92 ( talk) 10:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
"Processions in London and Windsor" In this subsection there is a typo, "escot", which needs to be changed to "escort". Regards, 2A00:23C6:9105:8701:3825:676C:FF37:F6D4 ( talk) 22:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
James V was a Scottish monarch, not a British monarch. Therefore the statement in the article is somewhat inaccurate. More accurately, Elizabeth II was the first British monarch to die in Scotland. We have to clarify what we mean by British monarch. Are we specifying the Kingdom or the British Isles. The impression I'm getting, is that the media is focusing on the British Isles. GoodDay ( talk) 16:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
PS: I've removed British, until this can be settled. GoodDay ( talk) 16:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I've just made an edit which removed the bulleted lists from the 'coverage' section. They were comprehensive, but went into far more detail than is necessary. It's possible that the section could be expanded with prose descriptions of any significant broadcasts, but as it's a lot to sift through I would appreciate some help in finding this information. Thank you. A.D.Hope ( talk) 09:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I just wanted to take a moment to say that EVERY editor who participated in building this page, doing so in *real time*, under immense public scrutiny and inquiry, deserves the highest of high praise! This and changes that needed to be made to the Elizabeth II page upon her passing, mourning period and funeral.
I am sure editing is still going on now, but what you all were able to do, when the emotion and scrutiny was at its height between Her Majesty's passing and funeral, was really quite a feat. If I could recommend you all for Knighthoods, I would!
ProfessorKaiFlai ( talk) 06:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I am sure her death was Oct 8th 2600:6C55:4A00:4C77:A96C:4FAA:8529:AD44 ( talk) 07:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The Queens Death Happened on the 8th September 2022 at 3:10pm King4852 ( talk) 21:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "were also asked not to attend." to "were also not asked to attend." (There is a difference between not sending invitations and being asked not to attend.) 103.216.191.137 ( talk) 16:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I propose that this article be split into an article about her death (
Death of Elizabeth II) and her state funeral (
State funeral of Elizabeth II). The article is a bit long and both sections are distinct and clearly notable. This would match Diana's articles, and considering the Queen is more notable, it makes sense.
Chocobiscuits (
talk)
22:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Struck comment by blocked sock. – 2. O. Boxing 20:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Peter Ormond: I think A.D.Hope's reduction of the lead was proportionate, and I support keeping mention of Operation London Bridge out of the lead. As far as I know that's not a concept ever mentioned officially in connection with the royal family, it's more a media obsession, and the name isn't Central to the events that occurred in the wake of the queen's death. Leaving mention for the body is fine. Cheers — Amakuru ( talk) 17:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Was the viewership for her funeral not confirmed to be 29.2 million as opposed to the 26.2 or 26.5 million reported here? 194.125.77.33 ( talk) 17:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I said this on Simple English Wikipedia and i think this needs to be divided. Please respond quickly. thank you! 65.18.48.15 ( talk) 16:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Leventio says there was too much detail. I don't agree. This is the text.
Two British-made bronze cannons from 1810 were fired in Westmount, Quebec in honour of Elizabeth II. In Fort Wellington, Prescott, Ontario, a 96 round salute was fired by guns on the lawn between the fort and the cenotaph. HM the Queen had visited the site in 1984.
It is relevant information that the cannons were from 1810 and British. It's fine to take out the words "between the fort and the cenotaph". Summerdays1 ( talk) 21:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
in honour of Elizabeth II" is largely redundant (as the entire section deals with commemorations/honours for EII), and this
HM the Queen had visited the site in 1984is just details that is beside the point of the commemoration being discussed (also, her visiting said area would be the case for most of these gun salutes if we included that detail in all of them).
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. If the only source that this is based on a free newsletter, perhaps it would be best to not include anything about this gun salute. There's a massive number of gun salutes we don't include, because they are too minor of aspects of the overall topic. Is there a more reliable source, which shows why the info you want to include
is necessary. Just saying it is, is unlikely to get you anywhere. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 08:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
As Leventio was told before there were two topics. One was including the visit of the Queen, the year the cannons were manufactured and where, as well as the location in Quebec. Both places are in Canada. Now Leventio is saying it's not enough to make this article smaller (it's not been established by how much or even if it should be split). This seems very quirky to me. I told the editor that if they wanted to make a chart or table, fine. Summerdays1 ( talk) 02:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
and this HM the Queen had visited the site in 1984 is just details that is beside the point of the commemoration being discussed (also, her visiting said area would be the case for most of these gun salutes if we included that detail in all of them).). So again, I have no idea why you think my contention was only limited to the 1810 dating and the Westmount cannons when I brought up both in my initial reply.
Gun salutes were also organized in Westmount, Quebec and Prescott, Ontarioto its current iteration (a compromise you seemingly agreed to on my talk page before deciding you just wanted to restore nearly everything). I've already provided my rationale to you multiple times, and you have yet to be forthcoming with a rationale when asked for one. If you're not going to provide an answer to the query I'm asking, we're just repeating ourselves at this point, and I'm done with that. So lets just have the other editors of this article review our discussions and help us reach a consensus from there. Leventio ( talk) 23:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Moments of silence were held across several provinces on 19 September, with several transit operators having paused their operations for 96 seconds to coincide with the moment of silence. A 96-gun salute was also organised in Prescott, Ontario.You agreed to this except where you asked was to put the fort's location by name (where you state
Fine, that's good. But include Fort Wellington by name, which I acquiesced to.
I'm not sure the paragraph containing the British-made cannon information needs to be in the article at all. It contains three, seemingly random, examples of commemorations which appear to be unofficial, and this article is too large to support that level of detail. A.D.Hope ( talk) 20:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Would someone else weigh in. Leventio is seeming irrational. Summerdays1 ( talk) 08:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, per WP:JOBTITLES we use "Queen...", not "queen...", as the title isn't being preceded by "the". GoodDay ( talk) 22:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 September 2022. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
![]() | A news item involving Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 8 September 2022. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
![]() |
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Why has the music of the actual funeral service itself been relegated to a tiny footnote? It's very unclear and confusing. This is the central event and the core section of the entire topic and does not deserve to be truncated in this way. There are so many other topic areas that are over-detailed and subject to WP:BLOAT - not this section. Cnbrb ( talk) 08:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
'Other commemorations: Australia' change "Momuments" to "Monuments" and change "Mounring" to "Mourning". NatC92 ( talk) 10:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
"Processions in London and Windsor" In this subsection there is a typo, "escot", which needs to be changed to "escort". Regards, 2A00:23C6:9105:8701:3825:676C:FF37:F6D4 ( talk) 22:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
James V was a Scottish monarch, not a British monarch. Therefore the statement in the article is somewhat inaccurate. More accurately, Elizabeth II was the first British monarch to die in Scotland. We have to clarify what we mean by British monarch. Are we specifying the Kingdom or the British Isles. The impression I'm getting, is that the media is focusing on the British Isles. GoodDay ( talk) 16:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
PS: I've removed British, until this can be settled. GoodDay ( talk) 16:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I've just made an edit which removed the bulleted lists from the 'coverage' section. They were comprehensive, but went into far more detail than is necessary. It's possible that the section could be expanded with prose descriptions of any significant broadcasts, but as it's a lot to sift through I would appreciate some help in finding this information. Thank you. A.D.Hope ( talk) 09:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I just wanted to take a moment to say that EVERY editor who participated in building this page, doing so in *real time*, under immense public scrutiny and inquiry, deserves the highest of high praise! This and changes that needed to be made to the Elizabeth II page upon her passing, mourning period and funeral.
I am sure editing is still going on now, but what you all were able to do, when the emotion and scrutiny was at its height between Her Majesty's passing and funeral, was really quite a feat. If I could recommend you all for Knighthoods, I would!
ProfessorKaiFlai ( talk) 06:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I am sure her death was Oct 8th 2600:6C55:4A00:4C77:A96C:4FAA:8529:AD44 ( talk) 07:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The Queens Death Happened on the 8th September 2022 at 3:10pm King4852 ( talk) 21:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "were also asked not to attend." to "were also not asked to attend." (There is a difference between not sending invitations and being asked not to attend.) 103.216.191.137 ( talk) 16:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I propose that this article be split into an article about her death (
Death of Elizabeth II) and her state funeral (
State funeral of Elizabeth II). The article is a bit long and both sections are distinct and clearly notable. This would match Diana's articles, and considering the Queen is more notable, it makes sense.
Chocobiscuits (
talk)
22:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Struck comment by blocked sock. – 2. O. Boxing 20:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Peter Ormond: I think A.D.Hope's reduction of the lead was proportionate, and I support keeping mention of Operation London Bridge out of the lead. As far as I know that's not a concept ever mentioned officially in connection with the royal family, it's more a media obsession, and the name isn't Central to the events that occurred in the wake of the queen's death. Leaving mention for the body is fine. Cheers — Amakuru ( talk) 17:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Was the viewership for her funeral not confirmed to be 29.2 million as opposed to the 26.2 or 26.5 million reported here? 194.125.77.33 ( talk) 17:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I said this on Simple English Wikipedia and i think this needs to be divided. Please respond quickly. thank you! 65.18.48.15 ( talk) 16:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Leventio says there was too much detail. I don't agree. This is the text.
Two British-made bronze cannons from 1810 were fired in Westmount, Quebec in honour of Elizabeth II. In Fort Wellington, Prescott, Ontario, a 96 round salute was fired by guns on the lawn between the fort and the cenotaph. HM the Queen had visited the site in 1984.
It is relevant information that the cannons were from 1810 and British. It's fine to take out the words "between the fort and the cenotaph". Summerdays1 ( talk) 21:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
in honour of Elizabeth II" is largely redundant (as the entire section deals with commemorations/honours for EII), and this
HM the Queen had visited the site in 1984is just details that is beside the point of the commemoration being discussed (also, her visiting said area would be the case for most of these gun salutes if we included that detail in all of them).
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. If the only source that this is based on a free newsletter, perhaps it would be best to not include anything about this gun salute. There's a massive number of gun salutes we don't include, because they are too minor of aspects of the overall topic. Is there a more reliable source, which shows why the info you want to include
is necessary. Just saying it is, is unlikely to get you anywhere. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 08:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
As Leventio was told before there were two topics. One was including the visit of the Queen, the year the cannons were manufactured and where, as well as the location in Quebec. Both places are in Canada. Now Leventio is saying it's not enough to make this article smaller (it's not been established by how much or even if it should be split). This seems very quirky to me. I told the editor that if they wanted to make a chart or table, fine. Summerdays1 ( talk) 02:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
and this HM the Queen had visited the site in 1984 is just details that is beside the point of the commemoration being discussed (also, her visiting said area would be the case for most of these gun salutes if we included that detail in all of them).). So again, I have no idea why you think my contention was only limited to the 1810 dating and the Westmount cannons when I brought up both in my initial reply.
Gun salutes were also organized in Westmount, Quebec and Prescott, Ontarioto its current iteration (a compromise you seemingly agreed to on my talk page before deciding you just wanted to restore nearly everything). I've already provided my rationale to you multiple times, and you have yet to be forthcoming with a rationale when asked for one. If you're not going to provide an answer to the query I'm asking, we're just repeating ourselves at this point, and I'm done with that. So lets just have the other editors of this article review our discussions and help us reach a consensus from there. Leventio ( talk) 23:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Moments of silence were held across several provinces on 19 September, with several transit operators having paused their operations for 96 seconds to coincide with the moment of silence. A 96-gun salute was also organised in Prescott, Ontario.You agreed to this except where you asked was to put the fort's location by name (where you state
Fine, that's good. But include Fort Wellington by name, which I acquiesced to.
I'm not sure the paragraph containing the British-made cannon information needs to be in the article at all. It contains three, seemingly random, examples of commemorations which appear to be unofficial, and this article is too large to support that level of detail. A.D.Hope ( talk) 20:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Would someone else weigh in. Leventio is seeming irrational. Summerdays1 ( talk) 08:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, per WP:JOBTITLES we use "Queen...", not "queen...", as the title isn't being preceded by "the". GoodDay ( talk) 22:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)