Talk:Death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Music by tri-service band

Should the music, played by the tri-service band in the quadrangle of the castle, be mentioned? The details are listed by The Daily Telegraph here, but that's a pay-walled source. The pieces included "And did those feet in ancient time", as well as "I Vow to Thee, My Country", "Supreme Sacrifice", "Isle of Beauty" and "Nimrod". Here's a BBC source Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Added Kingsif (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for adding that. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Was it "Isle of Beauty, Isle of Splendour"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Choir and other details

A couple of details about the choir could be added (no more than a sentence is needed). There are more reliable sources out there, but for now there is this. Two of those in the choir have articles, the conductor (the chapel director of music) James Vivian and the soprano Miriam Allan. The other three were lay clerks Tom Lilburn, Nicholas Madden, and Simon Whiteley (who understandably don't have articles). Someone else who doesn't have an article, but should probably be mentioned, is the Duke's long-time private secretary Archie Miller-Bakewell, who was in the procession (one of the six behind the nine royal mourners, the other five were a personal protection officer, two pages and two valets). Not sure how much of that detail is needed, but the choir detail seems relevant. Carcharoth (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Have added some detail now. Other tangential (but potentially of interest) details include the pallbearers, some of whom have Wikipedia articles (but this shouldn't make them more likely to be mentioned, we should name them all or none of them, and this might be more suited to a footnote than the main article text). James Hockenhull was one of the pallbearers. Matthew Holmes (Royal Marines officer) was in the procession. One of the pallbearers was Roland Walker, as were Paul Jaques and Rupert Jones (British Army officer). It may be more appropriate to mention this in their articles, and to link back here to this article. Carcharoth (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree that linking back to here would probably be more appropriate in most cases. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

1. Boris Johnson says 'thoughts are with Queen' as he visits garden where she met Prince Philip. Sources: The Telegraph, The Times  Done --Aknell4 (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

2. Sweden to honour Duke of Edinburgh on Saturday. Sources: HOLA!, Royal Central

3. Prince Edward, Sophie and Lady Louise read tributes left with thousands of flowers at Windsor ahead of Duke of Edinburgh's funeral. Sources: Sky News, HELLO!  Done --Keivan.f^Talk 19:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Peter Ormond (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond: I don't believe #3 to be notable enough to include. #2 can be published on Saturday. --Aknell4 (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

#3 is also added to the "Public" response section under the United Kingdom. We should also decide under which section the Swedish tribute should go. Keivan.f^Talk 19:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe under a separate section under Royalty, like we did for Bhutan. Peter Ormond (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I cannot think of any other appropriate sections. Keivan.f^Talk 22:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

A wall of italicised text

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 do not see why the descriptions of the attendees should be italicised. That wall of unnecessarily italicised text is an eyesore. Nothing in MOS:ITALICS or general practice suggests that should be in italics. Surtsicna (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Tend to agree. I'm not sure what is the reasoning behind this. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The reasoning, apparently, is that it is done that way in articles about other funerals and weddings. But who decided that and for what reason is a mystery to me. Surtsicna (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I see. Perhaps the proponents could advise where consensus has been achieved at other similar articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I don't know if a consensus was established, but that doesn't seem to be applied universally, with regards to State funeral of Edward VII. Leventio (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the proponents could advise which other articles use this format. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I am more interested in why it is used anywhere. Surtsicna (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The reasoning for italics here is because the style of this article is influenced by Death and funeral of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Why it's used there, who knows. Aknell4 (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

So just following precedent with no good reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It's also used on Death and state funeral of George VI, so I get the impression that italics are the standard for British royal funerals. With the exception of State funeral of Edward VII, of course. --Aknell4 (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I see. No list at Funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales. No list at Queen Victoria#Death and succession or at George V#Declining health and death, while at State funeral of Edward VII#People in the procession there are no italics (... and that one's quite a long list). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed the italics; I see Peter Ormond has restored it. I suggest he come here and explain his silent, unexplained revert in the face of consensus. ——Serial 16:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I was just doing it the way that was followed in other articles about other funerals and weddings. Peter Ormond (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Perfectly reasonable. But there aren't that many to follow? And no-one seems to know why it was done at those other articles anyway? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

There aren't that many to follow because there aren't that many articles on Royal Family deaths with an itinerary list. We're just following the precedent that we have. --Aknell4 (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a very poor precedent which does nothing to enhance the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem being that there is no actual precedent, as ME123 notes above; if anything, there would appear to be a consensus not to italicise. ——Serial 17:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The italics are there to distinguish the people and their relation to the Duke. It helps separate them, and if you just want to focus on the relation, just read the italics. Just the title, just read the normal text. If the italics are an eyesore, we could have the people in bold and their relation in normal letters. --Aknell4 (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of the italics, as Aknell alludes, is to separate people whose names include titles from descriptions identifying them that sound like titles. For example, one of Philip's titles was "husband of ...", and Beatrice and Eugenie's titles include their husbands' names. Though it may not seem confusing to all, mixing up the actual titles with the description of how each person was related to the Duke is a possibility. The italics are standard in print, too, even for people without lots of titles (so it can't be an eyesore to most), though there doesn't appear to be a formal WP consensus. Kingsif (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a question of people "not understanding" why it's been used. It's just that it doesn't help. There is nothing at MOS:ITALICS to support it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Theres nothing on the MOS because there aren't a lot of itinerary lists on Wikipedia with this sort of purpose. Italics do help legibility, despite what you may think. Looking at a glance, it instantly becomes evident to the viewer that the italicised text is for the person's relationship with Philip. Why do you think it doesn't help? --Aknell4 (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be in bold or italicised. It does not help anyone read the text. Quite the opposite. I do not see how anyone would be unable to distinguish the people from their relations to Philip: Charles is a person and "son" is a relationship. But if that is not simple enough, the blue links do a fine job distinguishing. Surtsicna (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you're forgetting that blue links are everywhere on Wikipedia and the difference in text format is precedent in other literary works. Having it all one format would be anti-useful. The italics are there to distinguish quickly, so a reader can instantly understand what is what. How do italics hurt legibility? --Aknell4 (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I sorta feel the issue of italics and legibility boils down to the individual. In saying that, if I may suggest an alternative... we could change the listings from its current bullet form into an actual table, a format already used in some state funeral articles for their guestlists. I think both sides would agree it would improve the legibility of the list (as the person and their relation are now broken into two columns/rows), and it also avoids the need to use italics (bringing this article closer in line with Wiki's MoS on the issue). Leventio (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Leventio: So something like this:

Attendee	Relation to Prince Philip
The Queen	the Duke's widow
The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall	the Duke's son and daughter-in-law
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge	the Duke's grandson and granddaughter-in-law
The Duke of Sussex	the Duke's grandson
The Princess Royal and Vice Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence	the Duke's daughter and son-in-law
Peter Phillips	the Duke's grandson
Zara and Michael Tindall	the Duke's granddaughter and grandson-in-law
The Duke of York	the Duke's son
Princess Beatrice and Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi	the Duke's granddaughter and grandson-in-law
Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank	the Duke's granddaughter and grandson-in-law
The Earl and Countess of Wessex	the Duke's son and daughter-in-law
The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor	the Duke's granddaughter
Viscount Severn	the Duke's grandson

--Aknell4 (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking something like that. If everyone else is okay with using a table instead of a bullet list, it should remedy the concerns of readability and italic use. Leventio (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a table would definitely be clearer. I think it would also mean we wouldn't need to keep repeating 'the Duke's' since the column says 'relation to Prince Philip'. Carandol (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

No strong objection. Although a simple list with no italics would be fine for me. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Same as Martinevans123. Surtsicna (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Same as Surtsicna. ——Serial 09:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

A bullet style list without the bullets wouldn't be as good as a table, but it would be OK. Whichever way we do it, listing all the items in a handful of long sentences would have the same kind of problems as long paragraphs. Carandol (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2021 (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.