This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that after the
BBC suspended its regular programming following the death of Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, the broadcaster received criticism for the continuous coverage of the Duke?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berkshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Berkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BerkshireWikipedia:WikiProject BerkshireTemplate:WikiProject BerkshireBerkshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the
Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the
project page, where you can
join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
I don't really have an opinion on the matter (I mean if people want to split it to expand on the existing content, that seems reasonable if the expanded material is large enough). But the size of the article's readable prose alone wouldn't justify a page move based off
WP:SIZERULE (the article's readable prose totals to 40 kB from 6804 words, which the MoS considers a reasonably sized article).
Leventio (
talk)
20:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Tbh, I think that splitting the article into two is a good idea, one covering the death itself along with the reactions, and another covering the full details of the planning of and execution of the funeral, as stated above me.
Ilikefeeshlol1234321 (
talk)
17:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)reply
It is not really that large to cause a concern and is of readable size, however, it is possible to break it down to two articles as Peter Ormond said, one covering the death and the reactions, and the other covering the funeral and plans, but I would strongly oppose the inclusion of detailed comments by politicians, heads of nations, and religious figures. It's very trivial, unnecessary, and even against our guidelines to some extent to include messages of condolence from people, and it has no precedent whatsoever, neither for royalty (see
Death and state funeral of George VI,
Death and funeral of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother,
Death of Diana, Princess of Wales, etc.) nor non-royalty (see
Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher,
Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan, etc.). Keivan.fTalk 05:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC) – additional note: As some other users pointed out, the prose is of readable size, and since the article about the previous royal consort covers the death and funeral within the same page, I think it’s even better to keep it the way it is for the sake of consistency as there’s no justification for a split based on size. Thus, I also oppose the proposal. Keivan.fTalk20:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)reply
I agree with splitting into two: one for the death (including reactions), and one for the funeral (including planning for it, and the effect of Covid-19 on the plans).
Mike Marchmont (
talk)
09:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Support Peter Osmond's suggestion of splitting into death and funeral articles, respectively. Fixing26's proposal is a viable alternative also.
Sean Stephens (
talk)
01:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose There would be hardly any content left for two pages, and why go back and forth between the articles when you can have it all on one page, it is not that long. If you look at the footnotes and references, they comprise half of the article --
Lochglasgowstrathyre (
talk)
16:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)reply
I've changed my mind. As mentioned above, I was previously in agreement with the proposal. But having read all the arguments for and against, I now oppose it.
Mike Marchmont (
talk)
17:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Condensing reactions
Is there support for condensing the
Reactions section? The preceding thread shows that a significant number of editors find it too large. I do not see why every tiny gesture and any leader's words should be reported. Businesses on Malta flowing flags at half-mast; "some locals in Mumbai" saying nice things about him; the number of times a bell was rung in Canada, and officiants and guests at every memorial service in the world; all that who-said-what about the books of condolences; who wrote what on social media, and so on, does not strike me as indispensable encyclopedic material.
Surtsicna (
talk)
13:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)reply
This makes sense. We could perhaps keep the reactions of the Royal Family and certain other UK individuals and institutions (Prime Minister; devolved parliaments), but in a shortened form. For the others, perhaps a series of bullet points, one for each country or person. If we did all that, it would reduce or eliminate the need to split the reactions into a separate article.
Mike Marchmont (
talk)
18:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)reply
That would still be too much, if you ask me. My idea is to simply state that condolences came from around the Commonwealth and other countries, such as X and Y, or something to that effect. Anything more than that and the article resembles a book of condolences more than an encyclopedic article.
Surtsicna (
talk)
21:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)reply
The precise number of gun salutes has been
restored. Is it not enough for an encyclopedia to say that gun salutes took place across the Commonwealth, and why?
Surtsicna (
talk)
16:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)reply
While obvious, two months less than 100 years of age, it is, indeed, plausible that Phillip died from one of the many vicissitudes of aging. However, a Death Certificate will usually confirm that a person, of his age, died of "Natural Causes."
On a Death Certificate, you will read: "Immediate Cause Of Death" & "Underlying Cause Of Death." Phillip's physician got around this by writing that Cause-of-death was old age. Hence, Elizabeth, The Queen, also, died of one of the vicissitudes of aging at 96.