Jump to content

Talk:Death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 3, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that after the BBC suspended its regular programming following the death of Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, the broadcaster received criticism for the continuous coverage of the Duke?
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on April 9, 2021.


Reactions/international reactions

[edit]

Hi there, I feel it might be helpful to propose a split of the reactions area of the article? The article is quite long at the moment and I imagine a split to a new International reactions to the death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh or Reactions to the death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh might be useful, similar to International reactions to the death of Muammar Gaddafi? Fixing26 (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in support of such a split, although consensus is needed. --Aknell4 (talkcontribs) 15:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not that long, it's better to have reactions here Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lochglasgowstrathyre: The article is considerably large, I think that we should split the page as a result of that Fixing26 (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to start a split proposal below to come to a consensus. Fixing26 (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

[edit]

I propose that we split #Reactions to a new article named to Reactions to the death of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. The page is considerably large and the international reactions area especially could be expanded upon to include full comments from each nation, politicians, individuals etc. Fixing26 (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Condensing reactions

[edit]

Is there support for condensing the Reactions section? The preceding thread shows that a significant number of editors find it too large. I do not see why every tiny gesture and any leader's words should be reported. Businesses on Malta flowing flags at half-mast; "some locals in Mumbai" saying nice things about him; the number of times a bell was rung in Canada, and officiants and guests at every memorial service in the world; all that who-said-what about the books of condolences; who wrote what on social media, and so on, does not strike me as indispensable encyclopedic material. Surtsicna (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happens to the split, Iagree with condensing the reactions. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to agree. I have trimmed out the locals. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense. We could perhaps keep the reactions of the Royal Family and certain other UK individuals and institutions (Prime Minister; devolved parliaments), but in a shortened form. For the others, perhaps a series of bullet points, one for each country or person. If we did all that, it would reduce or eliminate the need to split the reactions into a separate article. Mike Marchmont (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would still be too much, if you ask me. My idea is to simply state that condolences came from around the Commonwealth and other countries, such as X and Y, or something to that effect. Anything more than that and the article resembles a book of condolences more than an encyclopedic article. Surtsicna (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some condensing and more will follow. There was a lot of bloat. Surtsicna (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The precise number of gun salutes has been restored. Is it not enough for an encyclopedia to say that gun salutes took place across the Commonwealth, and why? Surtsicna (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tense in captions

[edit]

Shouldn't this be consistent across all images? "Flags flying" vs "flags were flown", etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leonora, Countess of Lichfield

[edit]

Why isn't she listed with the relatives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.234.153.115 (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They ceased to be related when she divorced Patrick Anson, 5th Earl of Lichfield. 2601:241:300:B610:ED52:DF0B:132B:F755 (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That answer is not wrong but also not the whole truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.238.94.153 (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Phillip Died From Old Age... .

[edit]

While obvious, two months less than 100 years of age, it is, indeed, plausible that Phillip died from one of the many vicissitudes of aging. However, a Death Certificate will usually confirm that a person, of his age, died of "Natural Causes."

On a Death Certificate, you will read: "Immediate Cause Of Death" & "Underlying Cause Of Death." Phillip's physician got around this by writing that Cause-of-death was old age. Hence, Elizabeth, The Queen, also, died of one of the vicissitudes of aging at 96.

Games are played to provide Mystique and allow the Realm to believe that each and both slipped away - happily ever after! Spenser - The Unknown (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]