Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Diana, Princess of Wales is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 8, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
March 27, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
August 8, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Question[edit]

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.

Sources: Diana is vegetarian. http://www.time.com/time/daily/special/diana/readingroom/8191/11_11.html

Requested move 2 September 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)



Diana, Princess of WalesPrincess DianaWP:COMMONNAME, per this Ngram. Despite the mention of the current title in WP:OBE #2, the rest of the same paragraph allows for the new title: "If a cognomen or maiden name is clearly most commonly used for the subject, and is unambiguous, use it for the title". juju (hajime! | waza) 23:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It does not meet WP:OBE #2 nor WP:COMMONNAME. "Princess Diana" is clearly the more common and recognizable name. juju (hajime! | waza) 08:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A completely pointless move. The current title is accurate, and perfectly easy to find. Mezigue (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If "Princess Diana" is technically an incorrect title, as other users have noted, then there's no basis for a move, especially since Princess Diana already redirects to this article. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nohomersryan. JAGUAR  19:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – a redirect is good enough, IMHO. Moving the article would not be WP:CONSISTENT with other royalty. The current title is more accurate and more encyclopedic than the proposed title. Britannica list her as Diana, princess of Wales, so I would support lower-casing the p in Princesses, but other than that, I am an opposed. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 19:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    • No, it shouldn't be lower-cased, since it's a title. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I am fine with uppercase or lowercase p. Really does not make a difference to me. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 19:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Of course it should be lowercased. Job titles are lower cased unless they immediate precede the name or substitute for a name. See WP:JOBTITLES. Here is the Chicago Manual of Style. The light bringer (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
          • The third bullet point there disagrees with you. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
          • The third point just restates the second point. The example given is wrong -- and not relevant even if it was correct. Any published style guide will tell you to lower case. See the CMOS link I gave above. Columbia Encyclopedia also lower cases "princess."[1] The light bringer (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Nohomersryan. --Editor FIN (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Possible miscarriage?[edit]

There was previously a discussion on this talk page [2] over a possible miscarriage by Diana which was mentioned in an article by Daily Mail, which of course cannot be considered a reliable source for such biographical materials. But now I've read somewhere that in a book titled "Diana vs. Charles: Royal Blood Feud" by author and journalist James Whitaker it's stated that Diana suffered a miscarriage while on holiday with the royal family at Balmoral Castle in September 1983. Can it be considered a reliable source? Has it been mentioned on any other source? Keivan.fTalk 08:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Fermoy in the lead[edit]

The fourth baron Fermoy is not mentioned anywhere in the article, except in the drop-down pedigree chart at the bottom. Therefore, he is not important enough for the second sentence of the lead. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford That's not even a solid reason. So because he hasn't been mentioned anywhere else he shouldn't be mentioned on the lead paragraph. According to which rule may I ask? Check Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, for example, her grandparent's name is mentioned exactly after her mother's name. But I don't suggest removing it, because you may start an edit war over there too. Keivan.fTalk 12:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Please restrict your comments to the article topic. There is no need to keep pinging me, I have this page watchlisted. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
As long as I know there's no obstacle in notifying a user of a message that has been posted under the discussion section that he has started. Anyway, according to the "Manual of Style" we should "provide an accessible overview". In this case, as we're talking about a royal figure, her ancestry and background are of top importance. So I don't see any reason that why we shouldn't include her grandfather's name who was of a noble family himself. Keivan.fTalk 12:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm a woman. The Manual of Style says "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic ... information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Celia Homeford (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I know that you're a woman, but with respect, as I was stating something general I thought it would be preferable to use "he". About the lead paragraph you clearly pointed out that the information should be already covered in the remainder of the article in order to be added in the introduction. I think the solution would be probably including one sentence about her maternal ancestry in "Early life" just like Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother and Mary of Teck (which are featured articles); then it would subsequently make the addition possible. Actually the introduction must be expanded as its size doesn't match the length of the article. If you have any constructive ideas, share them, or if you think you're able to expand the lead paragraphs, please do it. Keivan.fTalk 12:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Image[edit]

Why not use an actual-color image instead of a low quality colorized one? MB298 (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@MB298: You're right, but we don't have a high quality actual-color image either, so using this one is the only option. Meanwhile I have given a request to a graphist here on Wikipedia to recreate the image in JPG format, which will be much better in comparison to the current PNG one. Keivan.fTalk 08:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
What about the one that was there previously? I'm sorry, but the colourised version is not very good and certainly not the only option. Aiken D 17:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Aiken drum: As I said, the previous image is of low quality as well. The sun light and shadows obviously make it difficult to see her face, besides she looks so sad or perhaps annoyed, so using the colorized version seems to be the logical option. I'll talk to the graphists again to create a JPG format of the black and white photo. Keivan.fTalk 04:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It looks fine to me, no need to use a colourised photo. Aiken D 06:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I absolutely have respect for you and your opinion but I don't agree with you at all. I also don't see any obstacle in using a high-quality colorized photo. That's why I also agreed to remove that PNG file just like you, as I'm waiting for the one with JPG format to be uploaded. Keivan.fTalk 02:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)