Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II

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

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

Requested move 8 September 2022

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 This is what this article was titled before it was recently moved. 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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)