This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northamptonshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northamptonshire-related articles 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.
Wasn't Diana a vegetarian? Why isn't that mentioned? In modern times, that is a relavent political statement. It is an identity. She was also responsible for unforgettable banquets such as the 17-course meatless dinner served by the British Embassy during her first visit to the United States in her honor.
To further illustrate this point, she also annoyed the Royal Family by not paricipating in hunting events. She made it clear to her wardrobe designers that fur could not be used even as decoration on her clothes.
Her stance on animal rights and her vegetarianism should at least be mentioned.
Is there no better available portrait picture for the article? It seems rather unusual that the primary picture of a person in their respective article has their face in the shade. From the current picture it's much easier to recognize the iconic hairdo than the actual facial features of the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
It's a shame that so many of the pictures are of such low resolution. The only other picture we could use is this one. It's more face-on, but not really any better. –anemoneprojectors– 22:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Am I the only one who finds this a little odd and disrespectful? f this character was at least human maybe it wouldn't be so bad, but a fictional animal of all things. Perhaps a Lady Di disambiguation can be made? Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reason why we can't put her in the people with disabilities category due to her depression? Asarelah (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Depression not being a disability might be one. Surtsicna (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Another is a lack of sources. DrKiernan (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Clinical depression is a disability. The Merriam-Webster dictionary states that debilitating mental conditions are disabilities, as does the Wiki article on subject of disability itself. I will attempt to locate sources for her inclusion and add them in when I find them. Asarelah (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
You would need an explicit source to say she was disabled. If we added that category to every person who was ever depressed, it would be pretty meaningless don't you think? HelenOnline 10:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I am very confused by Wikipedia's standards. Prior to Diana, the most recent Princess of Wales to NOT become Queen was Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha, mother of George III. So using that precedent, should Diana be listed in Wikipedia as "Lady Diana Spencer'? Or is it because she was alive in our lifetime, we are holding her to different standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonBux (talk • contribs) 03:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The difference is Diana divorced Charles before she died: Diana, Princess of Wales became her legal name. Had she died before the divorce, I suspect 'Lady Diana Spencer' would be more appropriate. The same logic applies to Sarah, Duchess of York.--PrettyWittyNell (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
In terms of the article's title, you can see there was some discussion early on in the archive, but the present title ticks all the boxes as far as article naming conventions are concerned. (However, many of us feel that Augusta of Saxe-Gotha is at an inappropriate title.) Deb (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
According to this article in Daily Mail, Diana had a miscarriage between William and Harry. This should be noted, I think. I don't know if it is true or not. Keivan.fTalk 19:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe. I think we would need more than one sentence in the Daily Mail as as source though. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It probably should be included if it's true. I wouldn't use the DM as a basis for fact though. There have been numerous articles and biographies written about Diana and if the DM is accurate then this story should appear in other more reputable sources. Psunshine87 (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Given that the Daily Mail article lists Prince William's birthday month as July rather than June, I agree that it's an unreliable source. ChiHistoryeditor 18:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)