![]() | A news item involving Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 4 June 2012. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The text is too small to be readily legible. -- SGBailey ( talk) 23:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The picture (Queen Elizabeth II Thames Royal Pageant.jpg) and caption is incorrect. It incorrectly says that Queen Elizabeth II is in the photo, when, in fact, that is Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. The Queen is not in the picture at all. -- LtGen ( talk) 02:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Can these terms be used interchangeably? At the present it seems they can. Ericoides ( talk) 15:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Many of the vessels taking part have article on Wikipedia. The article would benifit from a section listing those that took part and that have articles. Mjroots ( talk) 21:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Amandajm ( talk) 18:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Would it be apt to include a controversy section, detailing about jobseekers being forced to help out in the Pageant? Been covered in The Guardian, which has since recieved response from Lord Prescott, and several other media companies ( ITV, The Mirror, BBC, TIME). – Lemonade51 ( talk) 11:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Jobseekers being FORCED to work? What were they at gunpoint? No, this doesn't need to be added. But if you do, please note that the fuss is about the workers being dropped off too early at their assembly point and thus having to hang around in the cold and wet. Not ideal I agree, but it hardly the controversy you seek to add. It's just the British press, or should I say lefty, anti-monarchy elements of it, stirring the mire to forward their political agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.13.4 ( talk) 15:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, the BBC's Blue Peter/The One Show Special approach to the coverage is being more hotly debated and crticised. The jobseekers story has fallen out of the headlines during the course of the day. I'm sure this is a result of investigation into the allegations proving them to be largely unfounded. They were not forced to sleep anywhere, they were dropped off too early and some chose to sleep. They were also moaning that they had no indoor facilities to change into ponchos and high-viz jackets that were part on their uniform. Since when do you need changing rooms to put on a coat or poncho? Sounds like trouble-makers found the ear of a desperate journo. 90.204.13.4 ( talk) 22:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Useful info here about the number of complaints about this turgid shite being on the TV for 4.5 hours. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
The Commissioner of the MET police says 1.5 million. That's an ESTIMATE.
"Tens of thousands" is a linguistic term used by journalists to mean "LOTS". rather than a number between 10,000 and not greater than 100,000. It is not an "estimate". The article from CNN also states that 20,000 people were on the water on the 1,000 boats. (that's 2 tens of thousands to start with).
Republic state that they had 1,200 people protesting.. http://www.republic.org.uk/updates/?p=502
Can someone clarify, when the vast bulk of published estimates are of a specific number, and there are a relatively small number of results which are far from the standard deviation, is it really encyclopedic to report that as a RANGE, especially when the range is not complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.181.153 ( talk) 06:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't the whole thing inspired by a Canaletto painting? Shouldn't this get a mention in the article somewhere? It's one of the few facts that the BBC managed to include in their coverage. http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2012/04/canaletto-masterpiece-gives-queen-preview-of-diamond-jubilee-flotilla.html Gmackematix ( talk) 22:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Amandajm ( talk) 03:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Richardeast, let me point out that the statement "Estimates for the number of spectators lining the banks of the Thames ranged from between tens of thousands[5][6] to a million" is strictly inaccurate. There is no "range between".
A couple of US sources loosely say "tens of thousands". Every British source says "a million", "more than a million", "one and a half million".
If there was a range of estimates between tens of thousands and one and a half million, then these are the sorts of estimates one might find. But that is not the case. Two US sources say "tens of thousands of people" and all the British sources and other sources world-wide say "a million", or something to that effect.
The range is between "about a million" and the police estimate that 1.5 million people were on the streets "to see the event". It is perfectly clear that the loose expression "tens of thousands" doesn't constitute the bottom end of a "range of estimates" but merely a figure of speech. I hope that the change that I have made reflects the fact that no such "range of estimates" exists.
Amandajm ( talk) 04:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
(Paste)
Amandajm, kindly stop removing my edits - which have been properly sourced by respected media organisation. Whether you personally agree or disagree with the articles published by CNN or the LA times is not relevant. Kindly refer to WP:IRS and WP:NPOV. -- Richardeast ( talk) 14:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Articles with this infobox are generally about annual re-occurring holidays. To distinguish its uses on articles with other frequencies, the field "frequency" was added. For this article, it would be "frequency=once". Maybe it shouldn't be using Infobox holiday though. -- 签名 sig at 02:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | A news item involving Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 4 June 2012. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The text is too small to be readily legible. -- SGBailey ( talk) 23:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The picture (Queen Elizabeth II Thames Royal Pageant.jpg) and caption is incorrect. It incorrectly says that Queen Elizabeth II is in the photo, when, in fact, that is Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. The Queen is not in the picture at all. -- LtGen ( talk) 02:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Can these terms be used interchangeably? At the present it seems they can. Ericoides ( talk) 15:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Many of the vessels taking part have article on Wikipedia. The article would benifit from a section listing those that took part and that have articles. Mjroots ( talk) 21:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Amandajm ( talk) 18:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Would it be apt to include a controversy section, detailing about jobseekers being forced to help out in the Pageant? Been covered in The Guardian, which has since recieved response from Lord Prescott, and several other media companies ( ITV, The Mirror, BBC, TIME). – Lemonade51 ( talk) 11:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Jobseekers being FORCED to work? What were they at gunpoint? No, this doesn't need to be added. But if you do, please note that the fuss is about the workers being dropped off too early at their assembly point and thus having to hang around in the cold and wet. Not ideal I agree, but it hardly the controversy you seek to add. It's just the British press, or should I say lefty, anti-monarchy elements of it, stirring the mire to forward their political agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.13.4 ( talk) 15:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, the BBC's Blue Peter/The One Show Special approach to the coverage is being more hotly debated and crticised. The jobseekers story has fallen out of the headlines during the course of the day. I'm sure this is a result of investigation into the allegations proving them to be largely unfounded. They were not forced to sleep anywhere, they were dropped off too early and some chose to sleep. They were also moaning that they had no indoor facilities to change into ponchos and high-viz jackets that were part on their uniform. Since when do you need changing rooms to put on a coat or poncho? Sounds like trouble-makers found the ear of a desperate journo. 90.204.13.4 ( talk) 22:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Useful info here about the number of complaints about this turgid shite being on the TV for 4.5 hours. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
The Commissioner of the MET police says 1.5 million. That's an ESTIMATE.
"Tens of thousands" is a linguistic term used by journalists to mean "LOTS". rather than a number between 10,000 and not greater than 100,000. It is not an "estimate". The article from CNN also states that 20,000 people were on the water on the 1,000 boats. (that's 2 tens of thousands to start with).
Republic state that they had 1,200 people protesting.. http://www.republic.org.uk/updates/?p=502
Can someone clarify, when the vast bulk of published estimates are of a specific number, and there are a relatively small number of results which are far from the standard deviation, is it really encyclopedic to report that as a RANGE, especially when the range is not complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.181.153 ( talk) 06:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't the whole thing inspired by a Canaletto painting? Shouldn't this get a mention in the article somewhere? It's one of the few facts that the BBC managed to include in their coverage. http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2012/04/canaletto-masterpiece-gives-queen-preview-of-diamond-jubilee-flotilla.html Gmackematix ( talk) 22:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Amandajm ( talk) 03:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Richardeast, let me point out that the statement "Estimates for the number of spectators lining the banks of the Thames ranged from between tens of thousands[5][6] to a million" is strictly inaccurate. There is no "range between".
A couple of US sources loosely say "tens of thousands". Every British source says "a million", "more than a million", "one and a half million".
If there was a range of estimates between tens of thousands and one and a half million, then these are the sorts of estimates one might find. But that is not the case. Two US sources say "tens of thousands of people" and all the British sources and other sources world-wide say "a million", or something to that effect.
The range is between "about a million" and the police estimate that 1.5 million people were on the streets "to see the event". It is perfectly clear that the loose expression "tens of thousands" doesn't constitute the bottom end of a "range of estimates" but merely a figure of speech. I hope that the change that I have made reflects the fact that no such "range of estimates" exists.
Amandajm ( talk) 04:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
(Paste)
Amandajm, kindly stop removing my edits - which have been properly sourced by respected media organisation. Whether you personally agree or disagree with the articles published by CNN or the LA times is not relevant. Kindly refer to WP:IRS and WP:NPOV. -- Richardeast ( talk) 14:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Articles with this infobox are generally about annual re-occurring holidays. To distinguish its uses on articles with other frequencies, the field "frequency" was added. For this article, it would be "frequency=once". Maybe it shouldn't be using Infobox holiday though. -- 签名 sig at 02:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)