Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Funeral music[edit]

Why has the music of the actual funeral service itself been relegated to a tiny footnote? It's very unclear and confusing. This is the central event and the core section of the entire topic and does not deserve to be truncated in this way. There are so many other topic areas that are over-detailed and subject to WP:BLOAT - not this section. Cnbrb (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The music mentioned in the note was played before the service, so it isn't all that important that it's mentioned in the main text. Some of the pieces played during the actual service are mentioned in the text.
The article is currently in the process of being edited down into a more concise format, so the fact a section is still bloated doesn't mean it will remain so. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Death and state funeral of George VI has a full paragraph on the music used at the funeral, and all the British coronation articles have music sections or subsections. Perhaps this will need attention when the "editing down" process has been completed. Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I've missed it elsewhere, the only mention of music in George VI's article is half a paragraph which mentions four pieces. It's not simply a question of numbers, of course, but this article is the more comprehensive of the two.
It's worth bearing in mind that the role of this article isn't to include all of the information in the other of service, but to summarise it. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't advocate a full order of service, but the "summarising" has gone to the other extreme. The article seems quite preoccupied with detailing every single TV station worldwide, policing, "that" queue, and the many peripheral activities. The core subject — the actual funeral itself — is glossed over to save space. I came here to find information about the funeral and couldn't find it. WP:UNDUE weight is being given to many things.Cnbrb (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 'state funeral' section covers the planning, procession, funeral, the two processions, the committal, and the internment at a reasonable level of detail. The article also covers aspects of the funeral which are noteworthy but which you may not find interesting, such as policing.
Some areas are excessively detailed, but the plan is to edit them down. It's a big job, I'm sure you can understand why the article hasn't immediately been perfected. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2022[edit]

'Other commemorations: Australia' change "Momuments" to "Monuments" and change "Mounring" to "Mourning". NatC92 (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cannolis (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2022[edit]

"Processions in London and Windsor" In this subsection there is a typo, "escot", which needs to be changed to "escort". Regards, 2A00:23C6:9105:8701:3825:676C:FF37:F6D4 (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Alansplodge (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First British monarch to die in Scotland, since James V?[edit]

James V was a Scottish monarch, not a British monarch. Therefore the statement in the article is somewhat inaccurate. More accurately, Elizabeth II was the first British monarch to die in Scotland. We have to clarify what we mean by British monarch. Are we specifying the Kingdom or the British Isles. The impression I'm getting, is that the media is focusing on the British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've removed British, until this can be settled. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statements made should be supported by references. There are two references given for "the first monarch to die in Scotland since James V" and neither of them include the word British. Therefore, this article should not include the word 'British' in the statement. H. Carver (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great Britain is a physical island as well as a political entity, so in that sense (i.e. as an inhabitant of the island of Britain), British is not incorrect. Alansplodge (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Coverage' section[edit]

I've just made an edit which removed the bulleted lists from the 'coverage' section. They were comprehensive, but went into far more detail than is necessary. It's possible that the section could be expanded with prose descriptions of any significant broadcasts, but as it's a lot to sift through I would appreciate some help in finding this information. Thank you. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BRAVO to ALL editors of this article![edit]

I just wanted to take a moment to say that EVERY editor who participated in building this page, doing so in *real time*, under immense public scrutiny and inquiry, deserves the highest of high praise! This and changes that needed to be made to the Elizabeth II page upon her passing, mourning period and funeral.

I am sure editing is still going on now, but what you all were able to do, when the emotion and scrutiny was at its height between Her Majesty's passing and funeral, was really quite a feat. If I could recommend you all for Knighthoods, I would!

ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death of the Queen[edit]

I am sure her death was Oct 8th 2600:6C55:4A00:4C77:A96C:4FAA:8529:AD44 (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, you are incorrect. Moons of Io (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Queens Death Happened on the 8th September 2022 at 3:10pm King4852 (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2023[edit]

Change "were also asked not to attend." to "were also not asked to attend." (There is a difference between not sending invitations and being asked not to attend.) 103.216.191.137 (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I reworded it a bit ("not invited" is less confusing). M.Bitton (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split[edit]

SPEEDY NOT SPLIT
Nominated by sock. NPASR. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 17:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.


I propose that this article be split into an article about her death (Death of Elizabeth II) and her state funeral (State funeral of Elizabeth II). The article is a bit long and both sections are distinct and clearly notable. This would match Diana's articles, and considering the Queen is more notable, it makes sense. Chocobiscuits (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment by blocked sock. – 2.O.Boxing 20:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought of this myself on a few occasions. I'm not totally opposed to this idea. Estar8806 (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 London Bridge[edit]

@Peter Ormond: I think A.D.Hope's reduction of the lead was proportionate, and I support keeping mention of Operation London Bridge out of the lead. As far as I know that's not a concept ever mentioned officially in connection with the royal family, it's more a media obsession, and the name isn't Central to the events that occurred in the wake of the queen's death. Leaving mention for the body is fine. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viewership[edit]

Was the viewership for her funeral not confirmed to be 29.2 million as opposed to the 26.2 or 26.5 million reported here? 194.125.77.33 (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Divide the article into Death of Elizabeth II and State Funeral of Elizabeth II.[edit]

I said this on Simple English Wikipedia and i think this needs to be divided. Please respond quickly. thank you! 65.18.48.15 (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed, but also not sure where you would draw the dividing line. Alansplodge (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should divide it after the Queue section. 65.18.48.75 (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for the late reply but i think the dividing line should be right after the queue section 65.18.49.233 (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
can we try to divide the article now? 65.18.48.75 (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salute[edit]

Leventio says there was too much detail. I don't agree. This is the text.

Two British-made bronze cannons from 1810 were fired in Westmount, Quebec in honour of Elizabeth II. In Fort Wellington, Prescott, Ontario, a 96 round salute was fired by guns on the lawn between the fort and the cenotaph. HM the Queen had visited the site in 1984.

It is relevant information that the cannons were from 1810 and British. It's fine to take out the words "between the fort and the cenotaph". Summerdays1 (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Summerdays1: Alright, can you provide a reason why it is absolutely necessary to explicitly state that these are British made guns, but not for any other gun salute listed in this article?
Gun salutes are mentioned throughout the entirety of this article and only in that instance are the origins mentioned. In fact, the following gun salute in Prescott makes no mention of their origins.
Furthermore, the rest of the content was trimmed down, as this "in honour of Elizabeth II" is largely redundant (as the entire section deals with commemorations/honours for EII), and this HM the Queen had visited the site in 1984 is just details that is beside the point of the commemoration being discussed (also, her visiting said area would be the case for most of these gun salutes if we included that detail in all of them).
If you read the aforementioned talk page discussions (and talk archives), there are multiple discussions on needing to trim down and excise the excess detail in this article given its size. And with that in mind, I go back to my initial point, what would make the inclusion of any of these details something that is absolutely necessary, and what makes the Westmount gun salute something so exceptional, the origins of the gun need to be stated, when we do not do that for all the other gun salutes discussed in the article? Leventio (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the only article in which you are making errors. Part of your responsibility in editing is to learn when you are incorrect. Summerdays1 (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this is a reply to any of my inquiries how? Leventio (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not listening. Summerdays1 (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listen to what, we've barely talked. Leventio (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that they are British is pertinent is because the head of state in Britain is also the monarch of Canada. Summerdays1 (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is already mentioned in the first paragraph of the section. And again, the same is applied for the majority of gun salutes in this article. Leventio (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how the dating of the Westmount gun salute was on the 18th, I moved that part to the appropriate paragraph that discusses events on that date and somewhat restored to the dating detail, does that satisfy your issues... Leventio (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop, you are not the authority on anything. You are still not paying attention. Summerdays1 (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, why exactly is it absolutely necessary to state these are British-made guns, and it is not for the phethora of other gun salutes listed in this article. We've already mentioned her status as the Queen of Canada in the very first sentence of that section. Leventio (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand the word stop? If you leave the words as is and move them, fine. Otherwise I am getting an admin. Summerdays1 (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the authorty of telling people to stop either, and you haven't even told me what to stop. You just said stop. Stop what. How about we start with addressing my queries Leventio (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're fundamentally wrong. I suppose you think you are using the edit boldly principle. That only applies if you are wililng to be reverted. Summerdays1 (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Telling people they're fundamentally wrong for no reason isn't a reason. Leventio (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to size of articles, if you're undertaking adjusting the size of certain articles you STILL do not trim information which helps with clarity. Summerdays1 (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And in what way is stating these are British-made guns helping with clarity with regards to the topic of commemorations? You've yet to provide a reason why this is so exceptional that we need to state it for this specific gun salute, and not for any other. Leventio (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Knock it off. You don't edit any other gun salute articles. I told you if you want to edit, move the information don't delete it. Summerdays1 (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about gun salutes in THIS article. Leventio (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To which, there are 23 other mentions... Leventio (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a very good example, it's not to which. It is to wit. You need to learn. Summerdays1 (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you going to address the actual discussion of refining this article, or are you going to continue to sidestep my original query of why you think retaining such info is absolutely necessary for clarity. Cause if you're doing the latter, I'm just going to leave you here to ramble by yourself now. Leventio (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you understand it is to wit? You are deleting information which is necessary. I clearly said you are only editing one article about salutes. You are arbitrarily trying to get the article to a certain size. Summerdays1 (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already told you to look in the talk page archives and literally the discussion above about people raising issues with the page size/need to split (also just general adherence to WP:ARTICLESIZE). Now are you going to provide a reason for its necessity or not. Leventio (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Summerdays1: Okay, refocusing this conversation back to the actual sentence in question (and bringing this discussion back to this talk page, as opposed to my own), I personally think this can be surmised with "Two gun salutes were organised in Westmount and Prescott. But for the sake of compromise, I've restored the British-made and 1810 (as I already said I did in my earlier comment), however, I removed the other excess details (ie. in honour of, because again, this entire section deals with events being in honour of EII, as well as the 1984 details and specific locations of on the lawn). Are we happy now... Leventio (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Summerdays1, per WP:PROPORTION, An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. If the only source that this is based on a free newsletter, perhaps it would be best to not include anything about this gun salute. There's a massive number of gun salutes we don't include, because they are too minor of aspects of the overall topic. Is there a more reliable source, which shows why the info you want to include is necessary. Just saying it is, is unlikely to get you anywhere. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 08:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the above discussion, we reached a compromise on my talk page.
Speaking more broadly about the article in general though (including the gun salute source you've brought up), I think that a fair amount of content in this article that originates from primary sources can be excised, given Wiki's notability/significance guidelines (in addition to proportionality guidelines you've brought up). That said, if we were to take on this issue, we should probably start a new discussion to tackle that. Leventio (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Summerdays1: Summerdays1 has seemingly gone back on the agreed compromise we have reached on my talk page. I will invite him back here to again provide a rationale for why it is necessary for him to include this excess detail. Leventio (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently[edit]

As Leventio was told before there were two topics. One was including the visit of the Queen, the year the cannons were manufactured and where, as well as the location in Quebec. Both places are in Canada. Now Leventio is saying it's not enough to make this article smaller (it's not been established by how much or even if it should be split). This seems very quirky to me. I told the editor that if they wanted to make a chart or table, fine. Summerdays1 (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second area of discussion was the size and Leventio's extensive and maybe overdoing it editing. Summerdays1 (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I brought this up in the initial topic, before you split this into a second topic, as I brought this up in my very first initial reply (see and this HM the Queen had visited the site in 1984 is just details that is beside the point of the commemoration being discussed (also, her visiting said area would be the case for most of these gun salutes if we included that detail in all of them).). So again, I have no idea why you think my contention was only limited to the 1810 dating and the Westmount cannons when I brought up both in my initial reply.
I've already provided my rationale for this. It is not directly pertinent to the commemorative events. It is excess detailing which is undue/unproportional, and as I later stated is not significant or notable enough for inclusion in an article whose sizing has been an ongoing issue mentioned by other editors. I keep asking you to provide your own rationale for why this is absolutely necessary to include in the article. You have yet to provide any rationale. Telling us to include it in a chart, or that it seems quirky to you is not a rationale for inclusion. Leventio (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A chart or table is one way to show all of the 23 events. Another is the current edit. It is a common occurrence to include a previous and only visit to a location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summerdays1 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Cakelot has noted above, there were a lot more than just 23 events, and we do not need to list all these events given proportionality/undue & notability/significance guidelines on Wikipedia (as Wikipedia is not a directory for all commemorative events). In fact, alluding to the last points brought up by Cakelot and myself, some of these less notable events/details do not necessitate inclusion given the undue weight we're placing on their inclusion, as well as a lack of notability and significance.
That said, besides the above points, as previously stated, the majority of the sites that held commemorations were places she has visited. I'm not sure where this common occurrence basis is coming from (nor would that even be a rationale), but the article section's main focus is to provide a general survey of events that occurred. As stated before, the fact that she visited many of these locations is beside the point of the section's subject (being commemorative events held in the area), and certainly would be considered superfluous especially when article size is an ongoing concern raised by multiple editors. You've still yet to answer the question of why this is absolutely necessary to include, or why this one commemorative event is so exceptional, we have to include the fact that she visited the site in 1984 (telling us to move it into a table isn't in itself a reason...) Leventio (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you bringing that up again. We're discussing one phrase about the Queen having visited the fort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summerdays1 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is very far from logical, saying because there were more than 23 events that 23 should not be included. I am sorry your argument is wrong. There were not many forts that she visited.Summerdays1 (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leventio is way off the discussion. Someone steer them back.Summerdays1 (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm bringing it up because the same proportionality & notability Wiki policies apply for both things we were discussing (which was always within the scope of our main discussio, so not sure why you think these are two separate discussions when it was brought up in my initial reply). Additionally, I'm talking about areas where commemorative events were hosted for the death, not about forts (as our discussion is limited to this article). Nor did I say all the 23 stated events need to be excised, only that they need to be weighted against Wikipedia's own proportionality and notability policies. Again, you've yet to provide a reason for why this is exceptional to include this detail for this commemorative event.
If you want to include the detail that she visited the fort in the Fort's actual article, you're free to do so (and is arguably something that is within proportionality & significance for the article whose main focus is on the fort itself). But you've yet to provide any reason for why this is proportional and significant to include in a section that is a general survey of commemorative events (or any reason for its notability for that matter).
I've been more than willing to compromise with you from my original position of having it as Gun salutes were also organized in Westmount, Quebec and Prescott, Ontario to its current iteration (a compromise you seemingly agreed to on my talk page before deciding you just wanted to restore nearly everything). I've already provided my rationale to you multiple times, and you have yet to be forthcoming with a rationale when asked for one. If you're not going to provide an answer to the query I'm asking, we're just repeating ourselves at this point, and I'm done with that. So lets just have the other editors of this article review our discussions and help us reach a consensus from there. Leventio (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Leventio, you using the word same is in another galaxy from how others interpret it. You are way off. Simplify your argument. Maybe don't try to do all of it in one post. I said the following. Our debate, if that's what it is is basic. You can''t leave three phrases alone. If you did, there'd be nothing else to say except about questioning the size of the article, in which I have very little interest.Summerdays1 (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you've been asked by myself and another editor above to provide any rationale to why its inclusion is necessary. You've yet to provide a reason other than put it in a table or for me to leave it alone (none of which are rationales for inclusion). I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again, or simplify it for you if you aren't even going to be forthcoming with the repeated request for a rationale. Leventio (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other editor dropped out of this discussion. I am not giving you more reasons to be unusual. You don't want to repeat yourself and I certainly won't be repetitive. I am asking you to do the following: put the three phrases back. Do whatever else you want to do. Summerdays1 (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, no editor has dropped out as there is no deadlineto when editors can continue to respond in a discussion (as WP:THEREISNORUSH on Wikipedia). And regardless of whether or not they choose to reenter this conversation, you haven't even addressed the concerns that they have raised and I have repeated. Their choice of whether or not they want to reenter this conversation is not a reason to ignore the valid concerns they have raised.
Secondly, I'm asking you to provide me a rationale for why you want those three phrases to be put back, so I can understand the perspective for why you want them included. Simply asking me to put them back and leave it alone is not going to sway me, but providing a rationale might. So again, please provide us a rationale. Leventio (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are incorrect. The three phrases have to do with the date of the cannons, the two locations being listed, and the Queen's visit. Why? Well, you aren't going around this site (Wikipedia) trying to justify other travel being mentioned. I find your views outlandish. Summerdays1 (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of that could include you thinking people are still in a discussion long after they have left. Summerdays1 (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Telling me my rationale is wrong and then not providing me with your own rationale for inclusion isn't a persuasive argument. Additionally, the scope of this discussion is this article, and this article alone. Where else I choose to put my efforts into on this site is irrelevant. Are you going to address the concerns we have raised with more than a "you are incorrect" or provide us with a rationale, or aren't you.
Cause if its the latter, and you're choosing to not provide a rationale solely because you think I'm wrong and its therefore not necessary (or at the very least, explain why you think I'm wrong), we're clearly both done outlining our points of view to one another. Wait for another editor to contribute to this discussion, or if you'd like, we can file this for WP:3O or WP:DRN for someone else to help us resolve this. Leventio (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could merely say, fine, three phrases. Why did I (Leventio) go through all of this over three sentences or phrases? Summerdays1 (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't reason with someone who is not listening. Why only this article? I could look at other editing you have done more than likely and discover errors. Why would I put myself through that? I don't want to really talk to you. Summerdays1 (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One could also ask why are you going through all this effort to not answer my query for a rationale (also where I choose to put my efforts on this site is irrelevant to this discussion on content and no one is asking you to look through my edits, the only question I keep asking of you is to provide a rationale). But here we are. Now, would you like to wait for another editor to respond, to file this to WP:3O, or file this to WP:DRN. Leventio (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you like to assume that you are rational. Look at this reasonably. You are making this huge hoopla over three phrases. You agreed to everything other than the Queen's visit and the year she went. If you really can "engage or negotiate" YOU take the iniative and tell me how to get you to agree with adding that the Queen went to the fort in the year she visited. I think you're kind of insufferable.Summerdays1 (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I've attempted to compromise with you (and I have compromised from my initial position, a compromise you seemingly agreed to until you unilaterally decided you weren't okay with it). You have not budged an inch from your initial postion at all as you restored everything you wanted included.
Additionally, the intial added content was removed (or rather refactored), until you decided to restore it. Per WP:BRD, it is on you to provide the rationale for why you think the original/removed content should be restored. It is not on me to provide you a step-by-step guide on how to convince me. And for that matter, I have already provided you my rationale. As in any other conversation, if you want to persuade someone, tell them why their provided rationale is incorrect (beyond a "no you're wrong"). That would be a start. But if you don't want to do that, I again repeat the question, would you like to wait for another editor to respond, to file this to WP:3O, or file this to WP:DRN Leventio (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There you have it. It was not unilateral, it was unintended. I thought you were putting that phrase in also or that we talked about it. Summerdays1 (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still find you annoying but go on. Summerdays1 (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it was an unintended, that's on you, as I even showed you what I was striking out in our earlier discussion (which among the things struck out was the visit part). Per the "compromise" we discussed on my talk page, I had it written out as: Moments of silence were held across several provinces on 19 September, with several transit operators having paused their operations for 96 seconds to coincide with the moment of silence. A 96-gun salute was also organised in Prescott, Ontario. You agreed to this except where you asked was to put the fort's location by name (where you state Fine, that's good. But include Fort Wellington by name, which I acquiesced to.
Additionally, I will no longer "go on" with this with you if you're not going to provide any rationale (or explain why mine is incorrect beyond a "you're wrong"), or refuse to answer the question if you would like to wait for another editor to respond, to file this to WP:3O, or file this to WP:DRN, as I'm just going to assume you want to wait for another editor to respond. I will not be continuing this discussion with you until you provide said rationale (or refutation), another editor responds, or you answer if you want to move this to 3O or DRN. Leventio (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is your idea that going to either of those forums is going to do much? It may not work at all. You have unbounded optimism. Please stop asking me to explain anything. I asked YOU. Tell me what to do to get you to go away and leave those three phrases. End of story. Summerdays1 (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you got these notions of how the site works. You make deals or something? I was so annoyed that I said just put those phrases up. I meant to have the visit also in there. Unlike you, many of us (editors) have other responsibilities and don't camp out on Wikipedia. Summerdays1 (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well talking to one another on a one-on-one (or two and one discussion) basis clearly isn't resolving anything cause we are clearly not agreeing with one another. So I'm asking if you want to take another venue to discuss this. Additionally, I've already provided you a rationale, one you have yet to provide an answer or refutre it. So answer the question or refute it beyond a "you're wrong".
Also the way this site works is we discuss our disputes and weigh them against the site's policies, and if we can't reach an amicable conclusion we seek other parties to help us resolve it. Now would you like to go through WP:3O, WP:DRN or wait. Leventio (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you arbitrarily are deciding 3 phrases is ok or whatever. Adding one is some huge thing. You're not rational. I repeat, unfortunately. What are you alright with? PUT it in writing. I want those 4 things. Summerdays1 (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I've already provided you with my rationale. Regardless if whether or not you perceive someone is making a "big hoopla" over 3 phrases, it is on you to either refute the rationale I've provided (with more than "you're wrong"), or provide your own rationale for why you think it is necessary to include (which by the way, I was not the only one who asked for this).
You want to include those 4 things. I want you provide either one of those. If you're just going to repeat what "you want" over and over, wait for others input or seek out an alternate venue like 3O or DRN so we can seek a resolution to this. Leventio (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you are easily exasperating. Why do I need to give you any reasons? I choose not to for the following: you are difficult and I really don't wish to converse with you on here or anywhere. I explained so much that you are wrong in how you interpret both heads of state and other people's travels and why they're important. Summerdays1 (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better question, why do I need to comply with your demand to just "leave it alone" when you choose to not provide any rationale for doing so. Leventio (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are ridiculous. I'll say it, you are nuts. Summerdays1 (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as I stated, being a head of state is already stated in the subsection's lead, as well as the content's overall irrelevance and undue weight when weighed against Wiki's proportionality/undue and notability/siginifcance guidelines. Leventio (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this has nothing to do with a lede or lead or anything. You have a bad misunderstanding of how things operate on this site. Summerdays1 (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DONE, stop talking. I clearly said give me what you would want in return for leaving the four phrases. You are deluded. I will not answer further. Summerdays1 (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the paragraph containing the British-made cannon information needs to be in the article at all. It contains three, seemingly random, examples of commemorations which appear to be unofficial, and this article is too large to support that level of detail. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by what I said above, that I, personally, think any mention is too much, when the only source used is an unreliable newsletter. I would support removing the mention all together as not WP:PROPORTIONAL. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I belive you, me, and @Leventio are in agreement on that. A.D.Hope (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having read this, er, somewhat odd thread I'm in total agreement with A.D.Hope, Cakelot1 and Leventio. I haven't seen any rational case put forward by Summerdays1 but I do see a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:PAs. DeCausa (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please[edit]

Would someone else weigh in. Leventio is seeming irrational. Summerdays1 (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have given my opinion above. A.D.Hope (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So have I. My only surprise is that you, Summerdays1, haven't been brought to WP:ANI before now. I have to commend the patience of the other editors you've interacted with on this page. DeCausa (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JOBTITLES[edit]

FWIW, per WP:JOBTITLES we use "Queen...", not "queen...", as the title isn't being preceded by "the". GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II&oldid=1208250098"