Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Protect this article.

Definitely going to be some vandalism here. Angusgtw (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

you're not wrong Daniel P Botes (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

definitely should be semi'd Frecsh (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It just needs to be protected until further info comes out. Zulujive (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed RaddestShibe (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:Semi for now? signed by User:IssacT6 17:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The speed at which Wikipedians create articles is unbelievable. Alexysun (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Well it is probably the most famous monarch in the world dying. Dronebogus (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems to have been quite slow actually. Almost as if nobody had even prepared a draft, ready to go. And of course, obviously, the few words that were here when I first looked, contained not just "vandalism", but the most vile words about the recently deceased monarch that you could possibly imagine. Par for the course. Barry Zammy (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course, especially because people are making fun of her death, and most of them will indefinitely come here to vandalize the article.24xlv — Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Request made at WP:RPP. Compusolus (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It is already protected. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Merge with State funeral of Elizabeth II and Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not merged. A clear consensus formed after the news settled that this should not be merged. This close makes no comment on the interpretation of the size of the article. Anarchyte (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Probably should be merged, it will be easier to read and it means we can control vandalism one 1 page rather than multiple [User: VenatorAdmiral]

I agree that it should be merged because of WP:TOOSOON. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support as per above FriendlyBacon (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support It is also not guaranteed these two subjects will contain enough details to be worthy of their own article 128.84.125.44 (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Merge. We don't need 3 articles. @CLYDEFRANKLIN 18:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support It is way Too Soon for these type of articles to appear. These articles are also very small. THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 18:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I now Oppose this merge due to the fact that it is now WP:TOOBIG THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 13:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support: One article is sufficient at least for now. I could imagine the funeral being in the future, but not the reactions. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 21:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support The death and funeral pages need to be merged owing thats its an event Metalhead11000 (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support It could be added as a section within the Death page along with the funeral. Nico di devilo (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: For the time being, the reactions are too many. I propose keeping the articles seperate for now and merge them later. Mat0329Lo (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support The article on reactions to the death was created far too quickly following the death of Elizabeth II, we should at least wait to see the impact of the reactions to the Queen's death before even considering a article. KOBOLD (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Strong Oppose It’s too early to tell if there will be a need for two separate articles or if they can be merged into one. The precedents people have mentioned do not apply as neither Prince Philip or the Queen Mother were sovereign. This is an entirely new situation and the articles should be allowed to develop with a proposal for merging if appropriate at the appropriate time Davethorp (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Strong Support It could be summerised in a sub-section that links to another page like 'Operation: London Bridge' for those seeking more in-depth & more detailed information about the procedures. The procedures have already started, so it isn't bad to have them both in one main article. It's merely the title that is technically debatable here but the article about the death was proposed while information was released on an ongoing basis too. -- Daesin (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Article is too big
Jeweldation (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose She was Queen for 70 years. The reactions to her death are significant enough to warrant another article, especially considering the length of the article already. Owellorthanothy (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Support The reactions alone don't warrant a separate article; it still pertains to Her Majesty's passing. User:TheAnatomyMan (talk) 08:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Redirected the funeral article for now. Do not instantly create pages with zero information even when we know it’ll come soon. Reywas92^Talk 18:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support If the reactions section becomes long enough it can be split back off into its own page. PolarManne (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support reactions might have to be split off eventually, but WP:SS should not be anticipated. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support I think it is too soon at the moment per WP:TOOSOON. Spiderpig662 (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support Per Above PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support Merge the reactions into this article Cwater1 (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support. This article will be the eventual Death and State Funeral article for the Queen. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 19:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose (Reactions), Neutral (Funeral) -- already the Reactions is growing too large, and it is better to keep that barely encyclopedic quotefarm away from the main article. Abductive (reasoning)

• Concur. Oppose on Reactions (a short version can be added here), and it seems there's no separate Funeral article to merge into this (see move request below). I expect the reactions page to grow to include more than a hundred condolences, which would bloat this article and detract from its focus.DFlhb (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Weak Oppose: it may likely grow very big to be part of another article. Probably better left as its own article. But I am not certain of my position. Al83tito (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose There are enough reactions to merit a separate article for the reactions to her passing. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support These 'reactions' articles are pointless and of little significance. Almost all reactions are a result of standard protocol.--A bit iffy (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Abstain Too close to call for this particular case IMO, better to wait perhaps.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 21:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose (Reactions) The Reactions page is already far past the size that could make the main article at all balanced, and it will easily double or treble in the coming days. The main article should of course have a prose summary of a couple of paras or so. Davidships (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Looking at the current article there are already a lot of reactions and I'm sure there will be a lot more coming. If the two articles are to merge, half (if not more) of the resulting article will essentially be a list of reactions. I'd rather have the "State funeral of Elizabeth II" merged with the "Death of Elizabeth II" into an article and have the reactions separate. Alin2808 (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose (Reactions), Agree (Funeral) - the Reactions is related but worth of its own article as may grow very large; however the funeral is more closely related to the death itself (unless grows too large too). Regards, DPdH (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Wait Give the articles some breathing room to see what's necessary in the coming days. The death happened, what 5 hours ago? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 23:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree. The articles need time to develop. Then an appropriate decision can be made Davethorp (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose A combined article of all 3 of these would be likely excessively large. DogsRNice (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose The article on her death and funeral will be further expanded and the page will grow increasingly large if the reactions were to be combined with it. Leave them as they are until the whole thing is done and then a decision can be made. Keivan.f^Talk 23:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose The reaction section is long enough. Add it to death or death/funeral and it's way too long. However, if sneaky people want to kill the reactions sections, that would be a tactic. Merge it then destroy it. CandyStalnak (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Too soon to merge with Reactions, as likely there will be more than enough Reaction to support an article alone if not already, and a merge would result in too large an article. H. Carver (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support 186.212.221.243 (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I am going to point out that maybe the funeral portion of the article could remain as part of Death of Queen Elizabeth II. The funeral doesn't really need a standalone article. This is too soon though. Cwater1 (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose (Reactions article). The reactions article is long enough to stand alone as its own article. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 02:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  @KyuuA4 I agree with you. Cwater1 (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Sometimes less is more, and adding too much by merging will be too difficult to read. 2604:B000:B138:3B6:E148:43DF:28FF:6812 (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The prevailing view seems to currently be that of opposition, and I agree as per the reasons above. Compusolus (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is going to be quickly very large if this is were to be merged to one. MarioJump83 (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Queen Elizabeth II more popular than US President and Russia President. And because she's a very famous monarch, so a small country will also offer condolences on the queen's passing. Unlike Mikhail Gorbachev or Shinzo Abe that not even all countries around the world know about them. And death of Queen Elizabeth II will be predicted to be visited by many leaders of countries including the commonwealth. KenzoHarits56 (talk) 05:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose -- per WP:TOOLONG and precedent with articles such as Reactions to the death of Kim Jong-il and International reactions to the death of Muammar Gaddafi. Nythar^T.C 07:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nythar. These reaction articles are useful for documenting the extensive coverage that wouldn’t otherwise fit in the main article. Thriley (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Wait, and if not then oppose proposal. The reaction article is too big already and should not be merged in this form. Let's give this a few weeks, and then after everything's settled we can see the articles are small enough to be merged, and if not continue linking them from this article - Master Of Ninja (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Significant oppose Whilst it may earlier have been better suited to being relegated to a section within the main article, the length of the reactions article now surely warrants not merging it. Compusolus (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Wait, but most likely Oppose - I would personally say that waiting for the hot topic stuff to start settling first, like maybe waiting a few days before the newly added news coverage becomes minimal, and then consider merging again later. Though I would personally say that there is much coverage about the reactions part that I would be against merging altogether. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Now that it has been a few days since the death, I would like to be against moving. Looks like indeed there is much coverage of the reactions to her death that there is no point plonking gigantic-sized information about reactions to the funeral of Elizabeth II into an article that is only about, in itself, the death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. The reactions are already so widespread and broad that an article specifically dedicated to such wide variety of reactions is necessary. Plus, I would like to say such a topic fits notability guidelines, especially the press coverage is high. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose That article is already very long and will only get longer, as will this one. Or to put it another way: If I stumbled across this article and it contained all of those reactions, I would suggest the reactions be split off into their own article.  DiscantX 08:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The reactions are significant and lengthy enough to warrant its own article, and offers more readability. ♦ jaguar 10:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Reactions are far too long for the main article XxLuckyCxX (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support. These "reactions" articles are generally extremely repetitive. "The leader of Albania offered their condolences ... The leader of Algeria offered their condolences ... The leadder of Zambia offered their condolences ... The leader of Zimbabwe offered their condolences." We don't really need most of this to be in the encyclopedia at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. We should wait and see and revisit this once the dust settles and we have a true scope of how large these articles are going to end up being. Right now we are definitely in WP:TOOBIG territory. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose the reactions article; whether it is actually notable is another discussion altogether, but in this article it can have a small section with a {{main}} hat. Procedural oppose the funeral article; the proposed renaming of this article to Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II renders this moot. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, as the article is already too long for it to be merged with the main Death of Elizabeth II article. Vida0007 (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose moving article, this article alone is already over 200kb, merging it into the main article would be making an article unnecessarily huge, and it's easier to find information in an article like this compared to just a single section in a main article. greyzxq ^talk 23:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose would become too large to read comfortably. Gorebath (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Gorebath Idiosincrático (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Gorebath and Greyzxq. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose due to the length of the article being cumbersome as is. RazrRekr201 ^{Msg me Contribs} 23:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose mainly due to the length of the article. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per above arguments commenting on this article's length. Original request was made at 17:56 on 8 September citing WP:TOOSOON which made sense at the time, but this article's content is now of a more adequate length to justify having its own article. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 00:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Very very big article. Stupid to merge! Best. Taung Tan (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Both articles are massive now and a combined one would be near-unreadable. The Kip (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as merging them would mean make the main article even bigger, which reduces readability. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 10:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Our "Reactions" articles are very often bloated up and of little encyclopedic utility, and this one is no exception. While the reactions of the UK Prime Minster and heads of Commonwealth nations, for example, should be incorporated in the "Death and state funeral" article, it is of close-to-zero encyclopedic interest what specific condolences the Chief Minister of Penang or Prime Minister of Andorra had to offer, and including them just makes for a simple listing without contextual information of the sort Wikipedia is not. Cut them and merge. — Goszei (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The two pages are extremely large and detailed. It's simply not possible to merge them without creating a mess. Keivan.f^Talk 15:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support the Reactions article is hugely bloated and should be cut down massively. Most of it is devoted to listing every message of condolence from national leaders, subnational leaders, and even random celebrities. This isn't encyclopedic and should be summarised in a sentence or two. These people are more or less obliged to make these statements when someone like this dies and the reader doesn't gain much from us listing them. Some of the rest of it is better but details of things like which TV programmes were cancelled should be summarised rather than written out in that much detail. Once that's been done a merge would be feasible. Hut 8.5 15:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Comment While I agree that many reactions should be reduced (those which include entire messages while only one or two sentences from the message would be enough) or cut (such as statements from former heads of state or other political leaders), I doubt the article would be small enough for a merge. At most after these reductions, the article would be reduced by half or just a bit more than that, but still too large. Alin2808 (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The two pages together are fairly large and this event is significantly important, so I do oppose any proposal to merge the page. I don't think it is the best idea. --KeyKing666 (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Requesting speedy close of this merge request due to the sheer size of the reactions article now. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with speedy close The prevailing view is now clearly one of opposition to the merge request. Compusolus (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Speedy close but for all the different reasons. It is not just the fact that "it is too big" or "we oppose merging it", imo it is about the fact that the inability for merging just because the coverage of the reactions of Elizabeth II death is so wide and notable in itself that it can't just be merged into the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: Definitely way too large to merge in its current state. I don't want to read the whole article (which is currently getting bigger every day) and therefore can't tell whether it contains many non-relevant reactions, but overall, it's a significant event with much media coverage that imo merits its own article.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Should this be considered Closed now? I note there's actually no template at the top of this discussion, and there is a clear consensus for Oppose. H. Carver (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: I'm afraid with the extensive amount of information, its no surprise it should be kept as its own. Not to mention, Queen Elizabeth II is already widely known. And if we actually put the entire page and merge it, it would be way too long for the reader to digest. I'm afraid its best to not go forward and let it be anyways. 20chances (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per above --DragonFederal (talk) 07:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Requested move 8 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. There seems to be a very clear consensus for this alternative title, which also matches those of other similar articles.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Death of Elizabeth II → Death and funeral of Queen Elizabeth II – To match Death and funeral of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, I think this article should be moved to: "Death and funeral of Queen Elizabeth II". Both the death and funeral articles should be merged, as there is likely to be insufficient material in the funeral article to justify them being separated. DFlhb (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support. Angusgtw (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support see also Death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support Move to Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II Thriley (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support Alin2808 (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support Follow the format previously used, no reason to rename back to this signed by User:IssacT6 18:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support we usually use the same formats for every article.THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 18:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Move. It should be consistent. @CLYDEFRANKLIN 18:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Changing to Move to Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II per AirshipJungleman29. @CLYDEFRANKLIN 11:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support as stated above. 9yz (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support as above, or simply "Death and funeral of Elizabeth II". –Ploni (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support. The funeral is mentioned but not yet announced. I don't think the funeral of Queen Elizabeth needs a standalone article. It is too soon right now. Cwater1 (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment. Not yet announced perhaps, but plans are already in place. And those plans are documented. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 19:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Note. Neither the Duke of Edinburgh nor Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother were heads of state. This is not necessarily an argument against moving the article, but simply noting that the "consistency" argument doesn't really work. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support with modification: should be instead Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, following the precedent of Death and state funeral of George VI ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment I don't know if there's an official standard on this on Wikipedia; if there is, I support matching it. Otherwise, I think since most people so far seem to support the move, the discussion should shift to agreeing on precise wording. DFlhb (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC) Further edit: if someone knows how to setup the "move proposal" template when there's already an ongoing discussion without breaking everything, please do that. I'd like the bot to link to this discussion on the article page so more people can discuss this, and so this can be resolved satisfactorily for everyone. DFlhb (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd be up for it too, but like you said the exact name needs discussion also. Currently en.wikipedia has articles titled "State funeral of [insert monarch]" for Queen Victoria and Edward VII, and an article called Death and state funeral of George VI. Both the Queen Mother and Prince Philip had ceremonial funerals, not state funerals. 101090ABC (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd be all in favor of this modification. Joe (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support both proposals casualdejekyll 21:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support both proposals, in order to be consistent. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment I think the consistency argument works for the move request but not the merge request (which I oppose) since the Reactions section in the Queen Mother article takes up just a few paragraphs, whereas the reactions article for Queen Elizabeth II is much longer (and will get even longer), and can't be shortened without losing important content.DFlhb (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC) edit: I incorrectly assumed "both proposals" referred to the move request & merge request; not to the two suggested title changes. My bad! DFlhb (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support, but the correct title format would be "Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II", for consistency with other British monarchs' deaths' pages. Still, this page should be moved ASAP. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Super Ψ Dro 21:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose for now, until her actual funeral and see what unfolds then.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 21:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• It has to be Death and "state" funeral of Elizabeth II. See Death and state funeral of George VI or Death and state funeral of Winston Churchill as an example. As a head of state, she will be honored with a state funeral unlike her husband and mother. Keivan.f^Talk 22:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Agreed with you and AirshipJungleman29, should be "Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II" (removing "Queen" and adding "state"); I prefer this over my initial proposal. Also, I don't believe we need to wait until the funeral to move; funeral arrangements will likely be talked about far more in coming days and I think the faster the move, the better, especially with this good consensus. DFlhb (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Agreed, it's consistent. The man from Gianyar (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

makes sense suppôrt 76.68.220.6 (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support best to keep consitency owing as multiple royals death pages have "Death and funeral of ..." Metalhead11000 (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support. Better to have funeral at the end so her funeral is also included.HelpingWorldMobile (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support - Based on past precedent and arguments above, I think this is the best way to go. Dunarc (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support - Probably named "... state funeral..." if that's the convention. Regards, DPdH (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support, but could use "state funeral" instead of just simply "funeral" from yours truly, Harobouri ^{T • C} 23:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support it is already a significant topic and will doubtless remain so Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose initial proposal, but support "Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II" As the (former) head of the monarch, she was eligible for the state funeral, and the funeral is significant for the world. "Queen" phrase doesn't need. 182.3.70.254 (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support as per above. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support with modification: should be Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, following the precedents of Death and state funeral of George VI and Death and state funeral of Winston Churchill. That extra word is an important distinction; the Queen Mother did not have a state funeral. H. Carver (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support. as proposed. "State funeral" feels clunky, one unnecessary step on the path to: "Death and state funeral and burial and post-funerary national memorial services and...." Xanthis3 (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

We didn't need a phrase like "burial and post-funerary national memorial services and..." because we already know what the state funeral is. 36.68.196.63 (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It may 'feel clunky' to you, but it is also specific and accurate. The word 'state' isn't thrown in there for the sake of it, it's there because 'state funeral' has an important meaning that is distinct from just 'funeral', which means leaving the word out would be misleading and inaccurate. H. Carver (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. JTZegers (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support - This article should be Death and state funeral. Abrilando232 (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Strong support - Her funeral will be a big deal when it happens. It will be very notable. However, I only support renaming it Death and State Funeral of Elizabeth II per other comments.--JTZegers (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose The death is the primary topic of the article, the funeral is part of the aftermath as a response to her death. CupWithSoda19 (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Funerals are integral part of his/her death, particularly head of state which automatically gived state funeral when he/she dies. 182.3.70.254 (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support, with modification. "Queen" is not needed, and "state funeral" should be added, as per @SeanJ 2007's and @H. Carver's responses. green@grenier ~$ sign --now 06:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@GreenGrenier: I just voted support then my comment is "per above", I did not say that "Queen" is not needed. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

My mistake then, I can't ping IPs because nobody could tell who's behind them. green@grenier ~$ sign --now 09:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support, with modification for Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II (per Death and state funeral of George VI) Djflem (talk) 06:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support to Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. Seems consistent with the Death and state funeral of George VI article. Also, agree on not adding the "Queen" when articles like the Death and state funeral of George VI article doesn't mention royal status in the title. Personally am saying to add the "funeral" part, provided the article will make coverage of this content. Combining "death" and "funeral" aspects of the content should be able to match together, provided the content is written well enough to let them flow well from header to header. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. Although obviously related they are separate topics and both are notable in their own right. I see people are coming up with lots of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments so to counter that, I note that the death and funeral of Princess Diana are separate articles. WaggersTALK 08:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The policy you cite refers to deletion discussions, which this is not. It's also worth considering WP:Some stuff exists for a reason, which says "Non-fiction literature, such as an encyclopedia, is expected to be internally consistent. As such, arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong." H. Carver (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. The funeral, as the first UK state funeral since that of Winston Churchill in 1965, and first of a monarch since that of her father, George VI, in 1952, will surely qualify for a separate article. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support, with modification for Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II Pintodog (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support, with modification for Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II (per Death and state funeral of George VI). Accireioj (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support, as per above. StolenStatue (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support, per above. Tweedle (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support with modification for Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II per above. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 11:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support State funeral as above XxLuckyCxX (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support with modification Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II as per previous 20th century funerals of British monarchs. Article already covers the funeral and will undoubtedly be expanded over coming days. cagliost (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support - Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, as it should match those of her predecessors. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II Liljimbo (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support as per above. Spiderpig662 (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II J0e Bar+er (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support If at some point there is significant coverage of both separately to split them, then it can be done, but other than that, most sources are referring the death to the funeral, and vice versa, constantly, and given the close association of the two in sources, that should be reflected here. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support renaming to Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• 'Support, but wait until the funeral takes place before the article is moved. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Note to the closer The article is currently linked from the main page and WP:MPNOREDIRECT applies to avoid stealthy vandalism by retargeting redirects. Can I thus ask that any move be carried out by an admin, who then also changes the link on the main page (the latter is subject to full edit protection)? Schwede66 20:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support with "Death and State Funeral". Ibid everything above InvadingInvader (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support renaming to Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II as others have mentioned above and as we have summarily done with many, many other world leaders. BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support moving to Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II.24.15.214.201 (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per above. And while we are dealing with unnecessary forks; we might want to consider merging in Operation London Bridge as historic background. Prior to her actual death, a separate article was justified. But now that the Day has finally come, that article should probably be merged into the main article on her death and funeral. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, we have separate pages for Operation Hope Not and Death and state funeral of Winston Churchill. 24.15.214.201 (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support moving to Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. Matches Death and state funeral of George VI. Note that Prince Philip and the Queen Mother had ceremonial funerals (hence their "Death and funeral" articles), but Elizabeth will as monarch get the full state funeral. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Move to Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II Hansen Sebastian^Talk 04:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support but only as Death of state funeral of Elizabeth II. While the word "Queen" doesn't need to added into the article name, "state funeral" should be added giving that the queen automatically given a state funeral where the procession will have more different than ordinary funerals, even for traditional funerals of Royal Family. 180.254.173.193 (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Master Of Ninja (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support should it not be Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, as her father's article is Death and state funeral of George VI Thurlow0391 (talk)

The discussion above 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.

Operation Unicorn

Shouldn't it be Unicorn rather than London Bridge, as she died in Scotland? 82.16.221.233 (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@82.16.221.233 apologies, this should on the article of the Queen. I will repost there. 82.16.221.233 (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation?

Was it misinformation if it was actually correct? I lean towards this being a BBC correspondent accidentally releasing the information prematurely. 128.84.125.44 (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Flag protocol?

I refer to the line "In accordance with the protocol implemented after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, the Union flag at Buckingham Palace was lowered to half mast." This seems odd, since of course, that "protocol" was merely a reaction to the outrage at the public finding out the actual protocol at the time was that the only flag that flies there is the Royal Standard, and it existed, ironically, to signal the residency (and thus presumbably the health) of the Sovereign. Barry Zammy (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation section

I don't see how this is notable, especially meriting its own section. NYPost is not reliable per RSP and this should at the very least be incorporated into the timeline. – Berrely • ^T∕_C 18:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It should be removed immediately, pending a review later, if only to prevent Wikipedia potentially becoming a platform to amplify harassment of a women in journalism. This would go a long way to persuading people Wikipedia is serious about such things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry Zammy (talk • contribs) 18:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Current Events - London Bridge Task Force

I wanted to let editors know and invite editors to the WikiProject of Current Events new task force The London Bridge Task Force, which will be working on improving all the articles around the death of Elizabeth II. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Lying in state

Unsurprisingly, ordinary people are not allowed to update this page with important information. As a live encyclopedia (as opposed to a live news blog documenting endelss tedious and predictable "reactions"), it would be useful for it to state (as per the BBC reporting) that since Her Maj passed away at Bamoral, then the first place the former Monarch will be officially laid in state for public mourning be Holyrood, not Buck House. Seems like pertinent information, not least given the state of the Union at the moment and and the oft speculated effect on the push for Scottish independence of the passing of the Queen. Barry Zammy (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The article should be updated with words and images of her cortege journey through Scotland, ecumenical service at St. Giles Cathedral Edinburgh and lying at rest with thousands of public filing past, some queueing for up to 12 hours overnight in Edinburgh. Kaybeesquared (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The Crown of Scotland was on her coffin, the oldest Crown in the union. The death of the Queen in Scotland should not be made something political by BBC or Wikipedia. Kaybeesquared (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Effect on UK domestic politics

It might assist international readers wishing to understand the UK's relationship with the monarchy if some effort is made in this article to explain that this (tragic but clearly long expected) death came at an incredibly inconvenient time regarding domestic politics, where a new Prime Minister had literally only just been appointed (by the Queen no less!), with everyone expecting an announcement today, on the crucial matter of what was going to happen regarding the rocketing price of energy. It will be interesting to see how long it takes the media (and opposition politicians) to return to the prior narrative, namely, that the details and implementation of this policy was of utmost urgency, a literal matter of life and death, the content of if which would allegedly quite literally define and perhaps even doom Liz Truss' Premiership. Barry Zammy (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Whilst the current contents of this article are highly volatile, when it stabilises, it would certainly make sense to include a background section. – Berrely • ^T∕_C 18:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles III

It should be made clear that it was only announced that Charles would be styled as Charles III in the hour after the death was reported. Barry Zammy (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Latest photo

Don’t we have that 6 September photo of the Queen to add it to the article? Is her latest photo really from 2015? RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

So you have the image? THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 18:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Pizzaplayer219 not under Creative Commons 😑 RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 18:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Pizzaplayer219 no problem, Wikipedia owner RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I found one that is from 2021 and swapped it out.Leaky.Solar (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I feel like it would be appropriate to post the photo of her from 6 September in front of the fireplace because it's the last known photo we have of her (there is one with Truss too but I think the one with just her is better) and it shows her very shortly before her death. There's even a bruise on her hand which is causing speculation (I won't talk about this much but the important thing to note is that it may have been a factor of her declining health). Bowser498 (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

So sad that this photo is not available more. It is more challenging to request free image in nowadays, unless WMC change the policy. Wpcpey (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Request photos around Buckingham Palace

Does anyone feel free to take the picture around Buckingham Palace ? To showing the people memorial of the Queen ? Wpcpey (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that would be very appropriate (or allowed) given her death. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It would definitely be allowed, and I find it highly unlikely that it would be considered disrespectful to take photos of onlookers at Buckingham Palace. – Berrely • ^T∕_C 19:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah alright. As is probably obvious I'm very unfamiliar with how stuff like this works over in Britain so I assumed that it would be considered illegal to take photos of the memorial given the recent death of the Queen. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

What on earth! Why would it be illegal? Images of the crowds outside BP are all over TV worldwide just now, for example. Moncrief (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

As I said I'm unfamiliar with how this stuff works. The main reason I Thought that was I figured it would be inside the courtyard (I think that's the correct term) of Buckingham Palace which is currently closed to visitors... right? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't really know what you're talking about, so best for me not to keep talking. Moncrief (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm referring to the memorial of the Queen. But clearly I'm making a fool of myself with my stupidity. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Sidenote: people aren't in the courtyard; they're infront of the palace, on The Mall, which is for the most part publicly accessible. – Berrely • ^T∕_C 20:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The UK is a free country, something its critics, foreign and domestic, often seem to forget. If someone wants to take a photograph of the crowds (even close ups of people potentially in an emotional state) and donate it to Wikipedia, that is their legal right. Whether it adds anything to what should be an encyclopedia (not a newspaper or magazine) is the real question. If Wikipedia were British made and domiciled, it probably would have an editorial board that would debate such moral quandaries and come to a reasonable conclusion, but alas, it is something quite different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry Zammy (talk • contribs) 19:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it is a significant historical event for the current and the future. Media and many people will do that, but why here would have a different point of view? We should also more consider image content, not only the text. I hope there have some UK users have free time to catch up this chance, to go Buckingham Palace to take photos. --Wpcpey (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal with Operation London Bridge

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.

---

Title. Should Operation London Bridge be merged into Death of Elizabeth II. The former article concerns the planning of the latter article. Should these not be merged? Leventio (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support Operation London Bridge is now a sub-article of this one, and not sufficiently notable enough to warrant its own.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Consensus and arguments below are convincing.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose My initial thought is that these are two different, yet related subjects. One article talks about the planning for her passing. The other talks about the passing itself. I will oppose for now to see how things play out. Seems too soon to see how the dust will settle. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 19:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - agree with TrueCRaysball. I'm OK with having another think about it in a few months or next year. Blythwood (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - Two different subjects, this article will eventually detail the full procedures and also link to the protocol for when Charles passes. Elizabeth’s death article will cover more the death and funeral and reactions itself AlienChex (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: Even if it does get merged, it will probably need to be spun off again as this article becomes larger, and covers funeral, reactions, etc. There will be more said about London Bridge, of course, as its implementation is evaluated. StAnselm (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose It would seem best to use that page for continuing documentation of the succession plans themselves, which will presumably be revised after this and remain active for the next monarch. Perhaps renaming to something more generic or the new name if the actual codename of the plan changes in the future. That article should only have details about Elizabeth II's death to the extent they relate to the previously discussed plans (ex. major deviations, changes made for next time) and this article should have all the full details of exactly what happens this time. 2600:1700:3901:C830:A4A3:6B83:FFB5:ADD3 (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose merge per TrueCRaysball. The plan and how it is implemented will be worthy long term study. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Strongly oppose The articles cover different things, and most of the details in there would be irrelevant in this article. Impossible to merge without losing details from there, and relevance on here. There's also Operation Hope Not for Sir Winston Churchill; that article is about planning. DFlhb (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I support snow closing now-having the article start with a merge discussion strikes me as undignified and not what the article should be about. Blythwood (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

As the proposee I'm okay with snow-closing this. I'm being swayed by the arguments presented. Leventio (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Strongly, strongly oppose, with a snow close. This merger makes no sense. They are about different topics: one is the longstanding protocol about how the media and government will handle her death. OLB is related to her death but quite clearly distinct from the actual events of her death in various ways. Not at all merge-worthy. Moncrief (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

While I agree with closing for now, I fail to see how this is non-sensical and unrelated. OLB very specifically relates to planning for Elizabeth's death and funeral and for no one else. It is not an article that is a general overview of longstanding protocol. The general overview article is State funerals in the United Kingdom. Leventio (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose as per all above. --LukeSurl ^t c 19:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Merger with reactions article

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.

---

User:Ploni added a merge tag, but doesn't seem to have started a discussion. I think the merge tag should be removed for now and the merge not be done. Past experience on similar events has shown that a "reactions" section can overwhelm the rest of the article in size very rapidly with fairly vapid diplomatic condolences. Splitting it out pre-emptively is good to keep the focus. (In six months, if there's nothing interesting there that's stood the test of time, the issue can be relitigated, but it's a solid choice for the moment.) SnowFire (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose merge per SnowFire. The merged section will inevitably get too long.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

There's already a discussion on this above. DFlhb (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Coronation of Charles III

This seems to be another glaring example of Wikipedia not living up to its billing. I was amazed to see there isn't even a page for this yet, even though it is a highly important topic that has already been much debated. I have created a draft. It is admittedly rubbish, a mere placeholder, but only because nobody is paying me to write the content that generates clicks and sees donations flooding into the coffers of the owners of Wikipedia to allegedly allow it to do important works in the fields of education and social justice of the people of the world, a good proportion of which at one time or another have been touched by British Imperial power or influence. As you can see from my first draft, the way the ceremony reflects the UK/world of 2022 (or perhaps does not!) in comparison to the UK/world of the last coronation, will be a significant and perhaps the substantial content of the page. Barry Zammy (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I do think we should have an article on that as more details will probably be revealed about his coronation in the coming hours and days. wizzito | say hello! 19:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

What are you on about? What would you even put in the article yet, as nothing specific has been announced? Moncrief (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Where on Earth did you get the idea Wikipedia confines itself to writing about specifics that have been announced? I barely even read Wikipedia, and yet even I know that all that is required to include even simple speculation, much less base an entire entry on it, is that someone not named your uncle Bob either wrote it or took note of it. Speculation regarding how this coronation will look has already formed a not insignificant part of the many media hours that now need to be filled, since the schedules were cleared for the night. People far more important than your Uncle Bob are already wondering (and have been for a while given the long time we have had to ponder the succession) if a near mystical ceremony that would have us beleive the Almighty is is personally choosing Charlie as her UK Ambassador, via a magic oil that cannot even be captured on the telly camera because divinity, is appropriate for UK 2022. It might perhaps seem unseemly to be documenting all this speculation before the last monarch is even cold, but Wikipedia isn't really meant to take a moral or political stance on such things, it exsts to only document. She's dead. A coronation is going to happen (and indeed, if it doesn't happen, you could fill an entire entry on the reasons why and reactions to that official announcement). So document it, in a timely fashion. Or don't. Wikipedia is free for a reason (the biggest reason surely being the number of refund requests it would get if it was actually being held to its pitching itself as a useful up to date information source for an interested but time poor humanity). If I want to know what the talking points are surrounding the forthcoming coronation, and indeed what, if anything, has been announced, where must I go, if not Wikipedia? A real media organisation? A real encyclopedia? Eurgh. I got energy bils to pay. I can't be wasting cash on mere information.

A draft is just a draft, not a page in mainspace. More details will probably come soon, so it's probably good to get a start on it. wizzito | say hello! 19:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The big public coronation is unlikely to happen until next year so it can be prepared and done in good summer weather. Proclamation will happen sooner. Blythwood (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The coronation has not happened yet. An article about it now goes against WP:CRYSTAL. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it should not be in mainspace right now. But this is a draft. Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. But it should be turned into an article once more details are revealed. wizzito | say hello! 21:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wikipedia has always written pages for significant events that are going to happen even if the date isnt known yet (e.g. World Cups), and as I said above, in the vanishingly unlikely event the decision is made not to have a coronation at all, this would be one of those rare occasions where the discussion of and reaction to that would be such that Wikipedia would have no trouble keeping to is tradition of writing a page for an expected event that unexpectedly didn't happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry Zammy (talk • contribs) 20:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Barry Zammy: You're right that we're it's unlikely we're going to wait until after the coronation for a main space article. However we do need some actual concrete information published in reliable secondary sources and enough information such that it cannot simply be covered in existing articles (which would include this article and the article on Charles) or new articles we create that deal with other things where this information will fit. Reliable secondary sourcing is something way beyond simply not being written by Bob your uncle, at a minimum it generally means it is published by an outlet with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Indeed we reject some sources like the Daily Mail and other tabloid media written by (sometimes notable) actual journalists because these outlets have failed to live up to that standard. While we do have a lot of shitty articles on Wikipedia where our sourcing and notability standards are not followed, it does not make it okay. Nil Einne (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

There's enough information out there in reputable sources to write a full page that would be far more useful than hunting for a tiny piece of a much larger page. The reason it doesn't exist, obviously, is that Wikipedia is written by unpaid volunteers. In short, they are amateurs in every sense of the word. People like you, who never seem to bear in mind that being employed by the Daily Mail for example, comes with a legal duty not to write false information, and serious consequences if you do. What happens to a Wikipedia editor if they write absolute rubbish? Nothing. What happens if Wikipedia fails to live up to the self generated PR claim that it is a useful resource for the timely summary of reliable information on important matters like a coronation? Absolutely nothing. Barry Zammy (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Barry Zammy: In reality, given the UK has free speech protections as with most modern progressive democracies, defamation is the main legal risk for the Daily Mail. As common with such countries, the UK government has been very reluctant to introduce any sort of legally required press regulation so has relied on self regulatory organisations, the latest of course being Independent Press Standards Organisation. Without wanting to comment on the effectiveness of such organisations, they do not impose significant legal risk, that's part of the point. They're supposed to work not because of legal teeth, but because media companies voluntarily abide by them. The idea is if they keep failing in their self regulation, the government may one day impose a legal framework so in some ways it's not truly voluntarily, but is also one that lacks any current legal teeth just a threat of one. Also as I said earlier, the government is very reluctant to do so and so you have the 3rd or so attempt at self-regulation.

Anyway while defamation may be a legal risk, it's a problem whether you >write for the Daily Mail or on your personal blog or on Wikipedia, albeit with less damages likely if almost no one reads your blog which doesn't apply to the Daily Mail, the possible difficulty identifying you from your blog or as Wikipedia editor which doesn't apply to the Daily Mail, the possible Streisand effect if someone sues over a blog and especially over Wikipedia which may be less than if they sue the Daily Mail, and the possibility you can try to ignore UK laws (including the various countries in the UK) if you don't live in the UK which isn't possible for the Daily Mail.

Also regardless of whatever responsibilities Daily Mail allegedly have, the consensus view is they've all too often published false information. Sometimes they were held legally responsible for it, sometimes they were not; but from our PoV whether or not they're sued over it it's a problem when sources publish false information. While we accept RS may occasionally be wrong, this should be very rare.

Ultimately as things stand, the Daily Mail is not a reliable source whatever you may think of any responsibilities they have, any more than your own personal blog or Wikipedia are RS. If you want to change that, try WP:RSN.

And we require reliable secondary sources, which as should now be clear, is a standard beyond something simply not being written by your uncle. If you think there is enough information already published in reliable secondary sources that cannot be adequately covered in other articles and that an article will meet our notability guidelines, you're welcome to start an article.

BTW there is no "self generated PR claim that it is a useful resource for the timely summary of reliable information on important matters like a coronation". I don't know where you are getting that shit from but we explicitly avoid promising to be anything but other than that we aim to be a free content user generated encyclopaedia.

We especially avoid promising to be timely since per our policies and guidelines like WP:NOTNEWS, WP:Verifiability, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RECENTISM many editors would prefer if editors wait rather than rush out and add information the moment they hear of it. One reason for shitty articles is because some editors are too quick to add information without considering such things which leads to problems like unsourced information, information which is incorrect because editors add it based on poor sources in a latebreaking news situation, information that isn't very important in the grand scheme of things but is in the WP:LEAD yet not the body, and articles full of way too much out of date information which frankly clearly never needed to be covered in the detail it was and sometimes even in a way that isn't clear the information is out of date even makes it sound like it's something current when it clearly isn't. One unfortunately way too common example is when our articles say something is "current" or "currently" or something equivalent without a date and this is despite the fact things were always likely to change very rapidly perhaps in a few days.

And yes, another reason why we do not promise to be timely is because we are volunteer generated so unless someone bothered details may not be updated or added. Yet very few experienced editors are likely to be concerned we will not covered information on the coronation in a timely fashion, it's simply not going to happen given our editor base and their interests. However we do fail to cover frankly far more important* information even years later because of WP:Systemic bias related to our editor based, source availability etc. (*While the monarchy may remain important in many countries, the specifics of the coronation are primarily ceremonial so aren't really that important in the grand scheme of things.) Most experienced editors recognise this is a problem so another reason why we will never make such promises.

So again, I have no idea where you got that supposed PR from. If that came from the Wikimedia Foundation maybe via one their donation campaigns, bear in mind the WMF aren't very popular among many editors. And the donation campaigns have little editor involvement and indeed often receive complaints from editors. But the WMF has little involvement in content development. And as with most advert campaigns, you probably should assume that at best, anything said is hopefully enough to avoid legal problems in the US since that's all the WMF tends to care about, and that's it. It doesn't need to be particularly grounded in reality beyond that which is legally required. In other words, you really should not be taking anything the WMF says about timely summaries or any shit like that as grounded in reality. (And I'm an editor who generally isn't that negative about the WMF yet I still say that.)

Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If you don't know where ordinary people might get the idea that Wikipedia claims to be a timely source of useful summary information of exactly this kind of important historical event, with the emphasis on timely and reliable, I think you should probably take a step back from writing and research what it is you are volunteering for.

As for the Daily Mail, the mere act of you writing here in a very public highly trafficked location online that the Daily Mail in your opinion publishes false information more often than you would think would be appropriate for a reliable source ("very rare" / "occasionally"), is of course, defamatory. And yet nothing will happen to you.

If an equivalently false and potentially damaging statement was approved for publication by a Daily Mail editor, they would be fired at a minimum. The editor of The Mirror was fired for less. In reality, when taking into context circulation and the nature of journalism, the Mail easily meets the standard that false stories are typically genuine mistakes and they are rare. Accepting as we must that British newspapers are perfectly entitled to have an editorial slant (unlike the regulated BBC).

This is why unreliable sources like Mail bashing blogs do such a poor job of attacking their target, failing to persuade anyone who matters that the downsides of an official regulator are worth the alleged upsides. By contrast, the upsides of ensuring every single time a Wikipedia editor published a false statement, where the fault was clearly theirs (for example, when people with no experience of the academic study of publishing try to make claims about the reliability of a newspaper that they also don't back up with their own reliable sources) they faced serious consequences, are very clear.

Any consensus on this view of the Mail formed by the volunteers here, is pretty obviously nothing grounded in proof or expertise in the field, and is instead quite clearly the result of bias and a desire to reshape the consumption of information in a direction more suiting their political views, if not simple hatred or jealousy.

Is that a defamatory statement? I'd wager there is more proof out there that Wikipedia editors are biased and don't really care about ensuring it doesn't impact their output, certainly not as much as professional writers would, then there is for this idea that the Mail doesn't meet the standard where the publication of false information is a rare error. Wikipedia certainly cannot. Barry Zammy (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Barry, do you perchance work for the Mail? XAM2175 ^(T) 22:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You edit Wikipedia because you think people consider it a timely source of useful information. I edit Wikipedia so that I can use it to procrastinate instead of filling in my taxation forms within a timely manner. We are not the same. "I'd wager there is more proof out there that Wikipedia editors are biased" - Yes, indeed Wikipedia editors are biased, but they are also kept in check by other Wikipedia editors. Who keeps the Daily Mail in check? --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Cause of death and requested edit

I've been looking for a cause of death to include here, but several articles say that the cause of death hasn't been released yet. If someone comes across RS with the cause of death at some point, please include it, if you would. Cheers. Joe (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably won't be revealed for some time. wizzito | say hello! 19:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course, after it is well confirmed by WP:RS. Moncrief (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably a stroke and possibly will not be released.

I have little experience editing this kind of article so consider this idea and add, if you wish. I have privileges to edit but not the experience for this high profile kind of article. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/06/liz-truss-becomes-uk-prime-minister-meeting-queen-balmoral

The idea is that the old PM met with the Queen for 40 minutes on Tuesday. This will help write a timeline. It seems she was feeling ill on Wednesday morning, cancelling that evening's privy council meeting. Medical supervision was on Thursday am but I think that really means she was almost dead. Prince Charles might have wanted her treated as a hospice patient, which is to deny any meaningful treatment, but if true, that's hush hush for now. CandyStalnak (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Please no WP:OR speculation, especially not WP:BLP violating and dumb speculation. (And sorry but it is dumb to suggest without any evidence that a frail but fairly mentally sharp 96 year old woman who's spouse passed away a bit over a year ago, with her own personal doctors and many staff would not have made decisions on her medical care ahead of time which her doctors would respect regardless of the wishes of her family in the at most 1-2 days between when she was able to make those decisions for herself and when she maybe could not.) Nil Einne (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

There is talk that there's a feeling in the royal family that the monarch should be healthy or dead. That is possibly why the cause of death has not be revealed. They don't want a debate over whether the Queen was left to die. It was revealed many years later that King George V was killed on purpose when he was extremely ill, which is consistent with the "healthy or dead" philosophy.

A better way to cover this topic would be to use a reliable source saying the cause of death has not been released. CandyStalnak (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

What I think is that she just died from being old, if not an actual medical emergency. We'll know when we know.JTZegers (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

'Old Age' is not a legally acceptable or registerable cause of death in England & Wales. Nor are terms like 'cardiac arrest', 'exhaustion', 'dementia' (for example only) etc. which are modes, not causes. 'Old age' can't even be added as a secondary contributing factor on a death certificate - whereas 'Alzheimer dementia' (for example only) COULD be stated as a secondary, but not primary, contributory factor. The passing of the Queen will require a death certificate - just like everybody else who dies in Great Britain. I signed many, many death certificates in my previous work; in the case of a 96 year old passing peacefully and naturally, you'd probably give a cause of death like 'congestive cardiac failure', 'ischaemic heart disease', renal insufficiency' - all of which a 96 year old is likely to have had to a greater or lesser degree. There is absolutely no requirement, in the case of an apparently normal and expected death occurring whilst under the immediate care of legally registered medical practitioners, for there to be involvement of the Procurator Fiscal (the Scottish equivalent of H.M. Coroner in England and Wales).

I certified a few deaths in Scotland (the Queen died at Balmoral) and from memory, the process is, barring a few cosmetic differences, the same as in England & Wales. 81.156.108.92 (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

IP your experience is in direct contradiction to what happened with Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh as per [1]. I'd note it also seems to contradict the ONS's guidance [2] which allows old age as the sole cause of death in England and Wales in a limited set of circumstances and as contributory cause in more circumstances. Whether this applies to Scotland I don't know and don't really care, I think we've already once again seen why WP:OR is a bad idea. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The ONS is not the authority on death certification. It deals with statistics. I repeat, 'old age' is not a legally accepted cause of death for the purposes of death certification.81.156.108.92 (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The document appears to be co-published by the HM Passport Office and as the the document itself says:

The General Register Office for England and Wales, which is part of Her Majesty’s Passport Office, is responsible for legislation relating to the registration of births, marriages, civil partnerships and deaths (www.gro.gov.uk/). Registration information is passed to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) who publish a wide range of mortality statistics (www.statistics.gov.uk) under the theme of ‘Health and Care’. ONS also distribute the registration information to the Department of Health and Social Care, other government departments, WHO and other international organisations, the NHS, local authorities and academics. For more information email mortality@ons.gov.uk
Coroners, forensic and general pathologists, general practitioners and medical specialists, epidemiologists and public health specialists, crematorium referees, the Coroner’s Society, Ministry of Justice, ONS, Department of Health and Social Care and Her Majesty’s Passport Office contributed to the development of this guidance through the Death Certification Advisory Group (DCAG).

and

This guidance is intended to complement the notes for doctors in the front of every book of Medical Certificate of Cause of Death (MCCD). Those instructions remain current, and doctors should familiarise themselves with the MCCD notes, and consult them if they are in any doubt about whether, or how, to certify a death.
This guidance replaces the guidance provided during the Coronavirus pandemic and doctors should familiarise themselves with these updated procedures relating to the issue of MCCD.

So from the PoV of Wikipedia it is an acceptable reliable source for what can be listed as causes of death on death certificates in England and Wales. If you disagree take that up with the ONS and GRO and also take it up with Prince Philip's doctors. Again we go by what reliable sources say, which both sources I linked earlier are and not what random people say on talk pages. You're free to believe whatever you want but from the point of view of Wikipedia articles, 'old age' is an acceptable cause of death on death certificates in England and Wales. Nil Einne (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You'd also have to take it up with The Royal College of Pathologists [3], Suffolk County Coroner's Office [4], Birmingham and Solihull Coroner Service [5] etc. Note that the legal situation is largely moot. Even if it isn't legally acceptable, it's clear that the guidance, relied on by GPs and others certifying the cause of death for MCCDs and those who may check their work and probably even those teaching them, tells them it is acceptable. So they are doing it, hence Prince Philip and I'm sure other examples if you look. So yes, if you're a legal expert more competent then all the experts on the DCAG, you need to take it up with them. Or people are going to continue to issues death certificates with old age as a and sometimes the cause of death because the official guidance they're told to rely on tells them it is acceptable. They're sure as heck not going to change what they're doing because of something some random person said on an Wikipedia talk page. Hence if you want to correct this allegedly major legal error that they keep repeating, you need to get that guidance corrected rather than telling us here about your expertise. Nil Einne (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

According to [6] out of 4300 cases they look at at one crematorium, 300 cases had old age listed as a cause of death with 98 having it as the sole cause of death. Whether that's a representative sample, I don't know. This was in 1999-2000 when the actions of Harold Shipman came to light which raised concern about such a cause of death, so possibly it's used less often now and various authorities might be stricter about its use. However it's clear from the earlier sources and ones like [7] and [8], that it remains as an acceptable albeit controversial cause of death in some circumstances.

Interesting Adhiyaman et al (the last source) mentions that the ONS cannot easily determine how many deaths have old age or similar terms listed as a or the cause of death since there's no specific code for it on ICD-10. So I wouldn't be surprised if the ONS would actually prefer if it wasn't allowed but statisticians don't get to force things to make it easier for them.

I did find an older copy of the earlier guidance [9] which provides some more information. It seems old age has been accepted as the sole cause since 1985, however the age and conditions where it's acceptable or requires a referral to the coroner has varied over time, and some authorities are stricter with when they require referral. Some crematorium referees also have their only requirements.

As a final comment, I came across this from Scotland albeit in 1999 [10] which suggest it is or was acceptable as the cause of death there too. (In limited circumstances like in England and Wales, but that was never in dispute.)

Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

"died at the age of 96 on 8 September 2022"

Who talks like this seriously? At least put "on the 8th of September 2022". Or am I mistaken that children edit this site? Ruby.Boulton (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

agreed, 8th of September is something you write in a essay HelpingWorldMobile (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You are not supposed to read it as "Eight September Twenty Twenty-Two"! Regardless of whether you use the British (dd/mm/yyyy) or American (mm/dd/yyyy) format, it will be read as "Eighth of September" or "September Eighth". I think they teach that at school. Keivan.f^Talk 23:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

agreed, I also agree but do you seriously expect more from a website with over 20 million users? (talk)User:Tise exists (cool) 23:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's the standard way of writing dates on Wikipedia, and is often used elsewhere. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Why are you all so pressed? Is it really that big of a deal?? 62.255.130.170 (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

We need rules of style for consistency, as does any publishing organisation. In our case, they are derived by WP:CONSENSUS among editors rather than imposed from above. The consensus on this stylistic point is at MOS:DATE and MOS:BADDATE, and is clear and unambiguous: in this case, where the article is in British English for obvious reasons, the date is written as 8 September 2022.

(There are a couple of guidelines which in my opinion stink - but I follow them, because there will never be consensus for a change. Why waste my or other people's time?) Narky Blert (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Cause of death category

Her page should be put in the category Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic in England. 70.51.101.153 (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

But why? They have not release her cause of death. But even if they did, it's very positive that it was not from COVID-19. But it would be in the "Recent Deaths" category when something else pops up that is very important. MasterWolf0928-Æthelwulf (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't be so fast. There is speculation that it was probably a stroke but another possibility is pulmonary embolism stemming from long Covid. CandyStalnak (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Long covid is what weakened her and is therefore to blame. 70.51.101.153 (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Wait for high quality sources to report the cause of death. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The high quality sources like BBC know what killed her but are holding back the info to whitewash her. 70.51.101.153 (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

President Responses

Small nitpick, but the article states that all the living former presidents released statements. While the reference captures most of the former presidents, Jimmy Carter's statement is not included in the referenced page. Carter released a statement through The Carter Center here, which can be added if felt necessary. Binzy Boi (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Might as well. JTZegers (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I would say this paragraph should be removed entirely - we already have a page dedicated to reactions to the Queen's passing, and there's no other reference to any other world leader's reactions or even that of Liz Truss's in the reactions section of this page. TheScrubby (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Earliest announcement including cause of death bone cancer

It might be important to note that on the day of Elizabeth's Death, Lady Colin Campbell, a British socialite known for writing seven books about the British royal family, uploaded a video called "The final illness and passing of our beloved Queen" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ3qX2WJw9k) onto her YouTube channel. In the video, she states that she knows of details concerning the health condition of the Queen (most importantly, that she suffered from bone cancer; more precisely, the less painful out of two bone cancer forms) and that she is reliably informed that the Queen has died at 14:37 BST. This is particularly interesting because YouTube metadata reveals the video was uploaded on 1662651257 Unix Time – 16:34:17 BST. The first official announcement was made at 18:30 BST. Campbell states that the reason no announcement has yet been made is that the family is waiting for Harry and Meghan to arrive before making the announcement. Aside from the deleted tweet of the BBC correspondent at around 15:00, this must have been the first sort-of-reliable announcement of her death. The relatively high standing of Campbell and the very precise details make it (in my judgment) highly unlikely she was bluffing about her knowledge; if, for example, it were announced tomorrow that the Queen died at exactly 13:15 BST, she would be caught lying and her reputation completely damaged. Still, I'm in doubt that the video itself could be used as a primary source, so for now, I figured it's best to put this on the Talk page and see how things develop. --Gelber Delfin (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources aren’t that used here, and so does this video. If you have any news, any secondary sources that claim that the informations this YouTuber apparently had are true, then it may be added. Otherwise this woman is just an attention-seeker. 2804:14D:5C32:614F:A0CF:D066:AB8C:36B4 (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm very aware that primary sources are only rarely used on Wikipedia, that's why I took to the talk page instead of just editing the article. I agree, we should observe if secondary sources report on this video. --Gelber Delfin (talk) 07:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Intriguing. But difficulty standing could also be attributed towards impending circulatory collapse, and if she did have bone cancer then it may have contributed to her death rather than being the single fatal malady. But this is speculative gruff --SinoDevonian (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Incomplete and Misleading Timeline problem (now clarified, NOT a problem)

In our Timeline section, we are currently saying that the death was tweeted on the Royal account at 18.30, and broadcast on British TV shortly afterwards. But at our ITNC her death was nominated at 17.33, citing as sources BBC TV, BBC Radio, and bbc.co.uk, and was posted at 17.40, so clearly the BBC announced the death well before 18.30, and our current Timeline section is at the very least very incomplete and very misleading. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It was announced 18:30 British Summer Time, which is 17:30 UTC. Madeline (part of me) 11:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Madeline, and my apologies for taking up your time. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

BBC schedule

I just wanted to ask for clarification on a sentence in the Timeline section of the article:

"At around 14:00, the BBC, the national broadcaster of the United Kingdom, suspended the schedule for BBC One to continuously cover the Queen's condition, with all BBC news journalists and broadcasters dressed in black."

Does this refer to the clearing of the schedules indefinitely or the cutting away from scheduled programme to report the news? If the former then that is fine, but if the latter then this schedule page for BBC One shows that they cut away at 12:40, not 14:00 and should, thus, be changed.

XxLuckyCxX (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to note that the BBC cut away from an episode of Bargain Hunt on BBC One to BBC News at 12:39 (as shown by the time on screen). Presenting at the time was Joanna Gosling who wasn't wearing black. Huw Edwards came on at around 13:50 notably wearing black. 2A02:C7E:342C:5500:6C02:4B80:F6C2:4F0 (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll change it for now and then if anyone reverts back I can always ping them here XxLuckyCxX (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Aftermath/Changes section

Should there be an Aftermath/Changes section included in this article that would/could include items such as changes to royal symbols, the Queen's will, and her pet dogs? There have been a few articles that have offered speculation or information into the process behind the changes.

• https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/08/queen-death-cash-stamps-flags
• https://www.newsweek.com/queen-elizabeth-dead-corgis-dogs-dies-health-1741179
• https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEAduPXHIAX1rlEglpUUr-0AqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowxZacCzDZoLQDMJbjqQc?uo=CAUiWGh0dHBzOi8vZm9ydHVuZS5jb20vMjAyMi8wOS8wOC93aG8taW5oZXJpdHMtcXVlZW4tZWxpemFiZXRoLW5ldC13b3J0aC13aWxsLWZvcnR1bmUtd2lsbC_SAQA&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen (Fortune about inheritance)

Leaky.Solar (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC) Information, yes, but we should be steering clear of speculation - this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper with space to fill.

Currency: per Simonetti, Isabella (September 9, 2022). "Why King Charles's profile may face left on British coins, and why it matters". The New York Times. Retrieved September 9, 2022. Djflem (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• King Charles III in 2022 (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022

Age of death of the Queen's husband is not 73 but 93 2A02:A03F:6B78:1C00:95CA:26DC:F80E:AB2A (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

73 years is how long they were married, not how old he was. At any rate, 93 isn't even the right age. He was 98. Hb1290 (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Nythar^T.C 00:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Main photo

I have reverted the addition of a 69-year-old photo of the Queen in full coronation regalia as the main photo. This is an article specifically about her death in 2022, and in my view the photo should either fairly represent the Queen as she has appeared in later life or, as the article was before, the location of her death, which I thought rather refreshing. Davidships (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Reactions section

We should significantly slim down reactions section here - brief summary and link to reactions article. Otherwise it's just bizarre what is and isn't here (a South African political party is, but republican calls from commonwealth realms aren't). Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Why not removing all reaction section at the main article and move them into separated page. Only two words can be. 180.254.173.193 (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Currency

The Queen's death will affect a change in the printing of British currency. She will be replaced on one pound coin with an image of Charles III facing left, the opposite direction than that of Elizabeth II. per Simonetti, Isabella (September 9, 2022). "Why King Charles's profile may face left on British coins, and why it matters". The New York Times. Retrieved September 9, 2022. Djflem (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

8 September

I think it should be added at that the Duchess of Cambridge as well as Duchess Sussex chose to stay in London, I'm not Meghan's biggest fan but it would read more fair and equal to say that neither of them went.  — Calvin999 08:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support - interesting that the BBC framed it just Duchess of Sussex, when it was both of them. Unclear why, but in terms of bias we should note the same. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 11:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • As this was fairly easy to edit per WP rules (NPOV and BOLD) I've done the edit it as it is also in the citations. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2022

Please change sentence in hatnote from "Death and funeral of Queen Elizabth" to "Death and funeral of Queen Elizabeth", obviously typo. 180.254.173.193 (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for reporting this. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Redundant inclusion of 19:04 statement?

Is there a reason why we're including Charles' statement in a truncated version in the timeline, but also the full version with an additional sentence just below under Succession? Seems redundant, and I don't think it actually adds anything to the latter section anyway. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 11:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Arcaist good point, I’ve just noticed this now since you’ve pointed it out. We definitely do not need it twice, and the time is wrong on one of them too. Fats40boy11 (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Please remove coordinates.

Coordinates are redundant, there is a link to Balmoral castle already if people really want to know. Why even have them? It's a general wiki problem, I know. 2A04:4A43:47DF:B1D7:BCD8:37FF:FE47:C1C2 (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Please see MOS:COORD and WP:GEO with regards to inserting coordinates to Articles with a primary geographical location. Rob3512 (Talk) 16:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Funeral on September 19

Funeral to be held on September 19, 2022 according to CBC news. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Thank you for submitting the request XxLuckyCxX (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Also according to Royal Family Twitter account: https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1568631258657312770?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet Difbobatl (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

What's with the category "Internet memes introduced in 2022?"

Where are the reliable sources to indicate this is an internet meme? There is absolutely no mention of memes in this article. 88.108.44.8 (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to XxLuckyCxX (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The category "Internet memes introduced in 2022" is on this article, despite there being no mention of memes on this article, or any reliable sources stating this is a meme. Thus, can the category be removed? --88.108.44.8 (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

An update - the category has been rightfully removed. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The only associated memes I'm currently aware of relate to her image and the announcement of her death showing up on most every electronic billboard, creating some truly odd juxtapositions. There are also some bog standard memes.--Auric talk 23:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2022 (2)

While there is mention of negative comments on the article Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II, there is no mention of memes on both that article or this one, or any reliable sources stating this is a meme. Thus, can the category "Internet memes introduced in 2022" be removed? --88.108.44.8 (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! --88.108.44.8 (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen Consort or Queen consort

Would it be alright to lower case to "Queen consort"? GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks to me that it is capitalised because it is a title, not a descriptor. It is certainly capitalised in the statement where it was used for the first time, and checking BBC News it is consistently capitalised in reports there. H. Carver (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

In any case, the errant "Queen Camilla" needs to be replaced with the correct "Queen consort Camilla".

Otherwise is disrespectful. 153.46.97.98 (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

BBC Radio

I think it's important to note that as well as the TV broadcast, there was also a mirror (though slightly different) radio broadcast, announcing the death. Bajanelite123 (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2022

Please change the sentences from "Google muted its homepage with a grey version of the normally colorful company logo" to "Google muted its homepage with a grey version of the normally colourful company logo." The reason is the article use British/Commonwealth spelling. 180.241.208.87 (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Madeline (part of me) 07:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Addition to Dignitaries in Attendance at the State Funeral of Elizabeth II

• What I think should be changed: Add under Commonwealth Countries - Australia - Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Governor General David Hurley
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://theconversation.com/albanese-to-attend-queens-funeral-and-meet-king-charles-parliament-cancelled-190337

119.18.1.17 (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Not done. The entire section was removed as premature. --Mvqr (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Withdrawing edit request then. 119.18.1.17 (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The roadsides and bus stops of London England UK with notices about Queen Elizabeth - mostly digital billboards but one chalkboard too (52345186772).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2022

operation unicorn has been in motion not operation london bridge as she passed peacefully in Scotland 78.151.242.190 (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It's my understanding that operation unicorn supplements operation London bridge, not replaces it. SpinningCeres 18:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Correct. Unicorn was only for the scenario in which the Queen died in Scotland. London Bridge is the overall plan that Unicorn contributes to. 119.18.1.17 (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

13th September section

In the 13th September section it states the following: The Queen's coffin, draped in the Royal Standard and with the Imperial State Crown on top, was then taken from Edinburgh Airport aboard a Royal Air Force C-17 Globemaster to RAF Northolt, accompanied by Princess Anne and Sir Timothy Laurence.

In none of the broadcast images of the event during the journey from Edinburgh to London was the Imperial State Crown shown atop the coffin. Only a wreath was visible; nor is the crown mentioned in reference 118.

Propose that reference to the Imperial State Crown is deleted and replaced with a reference to a wreath. Alleleator (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The mention of the Imperial State Crown appears to have been deleted from the 13th September section. I can only see it mentioned in the following 14th September section, where it is supported by a reference. H. Carver (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

During her lying in rest and visible to the public in Edinburgh, it was the Crown of Scotland on the coffin, not during the cortege journey. See earlier comment, her journey from place of death to Holyrood to the procession and service at St Giles is missing and notable as it would not have happened unless she'd died whilst in Scotland. Kaybeesquared (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Procession music is incorrect

The article says "The military bands played pieces by Beethoven and Mendelssohn" with a BBC article as the source. The BBC article does indeed say that. It is incorrect. The first piece is called "Beethoven Funeral March Number 1" but it is by Johann Heinrich Walch who, not uncoincidentally, was choirmaster to Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. WhisperingWombat (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)