Talk:Engagement ring of Lady Diana Spencer

Encyclopaedic nature of article

I fail to see how this article in any way adheres the remit and standards of Wikipedia. From the citation of amateur blogs and second language sites, to the breathless repeating of tabloid tattle, very little here is verifiable using the sources given. The turn of phrase and tone is unacceptable. I do not argue that the ring itself is of interest, but it is not demonstrated here that it is deserving of a stand alone article. Shn525 (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I do think the ring deserves its own article as it is one of the most well known pieces of jewellery of the 20th and now 21st centuries since the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's wedding. It is, however, very poorly written and sourced. For the short term, I did some copyediting and restructuring for a smoother flow. I also deleted some of the more tangential and random information, such as descriptions of Princess Margaret's and the Duchess of Gloucester's engagement rings.

I'll do some additional research and add better references, as well as look for a useable picture of the actual ring. ChiHistoryeditor 00:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiHistoryeditor (talk • contribs)

Can we find a better photo?

Bad replica

The picture is of a pretty bad replica of Diana's ring. Surely there is a good photo of the real thing that can be substituted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiHistoryeditor (talk • contribs) 23:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I am willing to go a step further and say simply that that photo is NOT a replica of the ring. Taram (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Removed. — SpikeToronto 12:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@SpikeToronto: you arrived a bit too late. The picture ChiHistoryeditor and Taram were complaining of is the one to the right, which was removed soon after, on 6 July 2015‎. The picture uploaded by me is a very close replica of Diana's ring, and should be reinstated. Its description on Commons was imported from Flickr; please feel free to edit it and remove the marketing stuff, if it bothers you. —capmo (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Capmo: Hi Capmo! I’ve read your comment. Leave it with me for a few days and let me see what I can find. To be honest, I don’t remember the sapphire being so round; even the description refers to it as being oval. Anyway, WP has very strict rules regarding image copyrights, but let me see if we can find an actual pic of the ring itself instead of a poor approximation. It’s not like it’s not one of the most photographed pieces of jewelry in the world! Thanks! — SpikeToronto 21:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

A picture of the real (royal?) thing would certainly be better! If you can find such picture with a license suitable for Commons, please add it here. Otherwise, I think that having a picture of the replica is better than nothing at all. Thanks, —capmo (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion

I believe that the following statements require better sources/citations:

The ring has a deep personal significance for Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and her husband, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge.[7] Prince William said at the time of his wedding, that the ring was very special to him and that giving it to Catherine was his way of making sure his mother didn't miss out on his wedding day. [8]

ChiHistoryeditor (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Platinum setting

Garrad’s, the maker of this ring, does not set this design in white gold. Her ring is set in platinum and is the “Garrard 1735 Oval Sapphire Ring.” Each Garrard engagement ring comes with a small sapphire set in the band portion on the inside so every bride has her “something blue.”

All Garrad’s rings are made to order, so to state that it was, essentially, “off the rack,” is a bit condescending. Here is the link to the ring, obviously Diana’s is a larger version of the stone, but since they are all made to order, this would be easily possible: https://www.garrard.com/collections/1735/rings/garrard-1735-ring-oval-sapphire/ Pookerella (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Merge discussion?

I noticed that this entry was merged into Diana, Princess of Wales's jewels. Was there a discussion about this? I can't find one. I'm curious as to how/why this decision was made. ChiHistoryeditor (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

There was a discussion last year about merging it into the Wedding article, but the decision was to keep it. Diana, Princess of Wales's jewels was created less than a week ago. A merger discussion usually takes longer than this, so I guess that the editor who performed the merger was simply being bold. —capmo (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)