Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

MOS:REPEATLINK

@Neveselbert (mobile): why do you say no, there is no reason to link when this has been previously linked. I see you evoked MOS:REPEATLINK earlier. Can you point me to the specifics? Jay 💬 20:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:REPEATLINK, Generally, a link should appear only once in an article. I don't see any reason why Lord Mountbatten needs to be linked again when that article is hitherto linked twice in this article already, one to Lord Louis Mountbatten and one to Lord Mountbatten, both redirects to the same article. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the Lord Louis Mountbatten link, which I had not found earlier, as I was looking only for Lord Mountbatten. The two links are different although they lead to the same target. In MOS:REPEATLINK, "Generally" is the keyword. It does allow for first occurences in sections, and in the case under discussion, the sections the links are in are far apart any way. Jay 💬 20:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's excessive since Lord Mountbatten is a figure most people familiar with Prince Philip would be familiar with. Regardless, I've changed the link/text to Lord Mountbatten of Burma, which is how he is named by the citation provided. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Final years living with Pemny at Sandringham.

Can somebody create a section on final years living at Sandringham with Penny? 88.97.108.45 (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Penny who? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Probably Penny Knatchbull. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Well her own article makes no mention of Sandringham, so that might be a better place to start? Some actual sources would probably help a lot. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Keivan.f (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty (talk · contribs) 13:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Review coming soon. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Tim O'Doherty I hope you will help me wrap up Charlotte's GA review before we proceed with this one? Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC) @MSincccc - There are still some things to do in Charlotte's first, namely the unreliable refs and some of the prose comments, which should be fairly quick to resolve. Don't worry: I can manage two GANs simultaneously. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC) @Tim O'Doherty I did implement the changes in the prose and requested you to help me with the two refs as I could not find them on Google myself. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Please keep discussions about other articles limited to their own space. Keivan.fTalk 15:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC) @Keivan.f Charlotte's article has been passed as GA. So, no worries about that now. I hope that being one of the prime authors of Philip's article I can help with the GA process. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I will note that there is a [page needed] tag in the arms section. Can this be added? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I will look at it tomorrow. I had searched for an online version of the book before, but I have to redo it since it seems that I don't have the information on hand anymore. Keivan.f^Talk 03:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Can't find a copy of the book anywhere. I have asked another major contributor for their input but I'm afraid it they don't have access to it, then I might have to remove that part. It is not unsourced, but is not 'precisely' sourced either. I guess I'll just hide the text. Keivan.f^Talk 21:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Turns out no one has access to the book at the moment. I just hid the text in the hope that someone might be able to access it in the future. Keivan.f^Talk 03:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Well I had fixed a whole lot of parameters and cleaned up spaces which were unnecessarily taking up a lot of space. By the way, @Keivan.f what does Tim mean by "third cousins through Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom and second cousins once removed through King Christian IX of Denmark - this link is freakishly long: can it be more strategically placed?" as no such sentence exists in the article as per WikiBlame. That's the only prose-related comment yet to be resolved. Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Took care of it. Keivan.f^Talk 04:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. I enjoyed reading this; nicely written. Shortly after Philip's birth, his maternal grandfather, Lord Milford Haven - you've already detailed this above, and could be trimmed to simply "shortly after Philip's birth Lord Milford Haven" or similar.  Done Greece suffered significant losses in the war, and the Turks made substantial gains - comma needed?  Done The commanding officer of the army, General Georgios Hatzianestis, - since there's only one, you can lose the set of commas.  Done also believed to be in danger, and Alice - comma needed?  Done Philip's family settled in France, in a house in the Paris suburb - could simplify: "Philip's family settled in a house in the Paris suburb..."  Done In 1930, Philip was sent to the United Kingdom - comma again (won't point out the rest of them after this), but you've already spelled out "United Kingdom": "UK" or "Britain" would be fine (my preference is the latter).  Done Lord Louis Mountbatten - "Lord Mountbatten"?  Not done Sorry about it, but DrKay has reverted it with a suitable edit summary to support his actions. third cousins through Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom and second cousins once removed through King Christian IX of Denmark - this link is freakishly long: can it be more strategically placed?  Done I think the placement is fine, but I removed the degree of cousinship to make the sentence simpler. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Marriage can be merged, I think. "The engagement, announced to the public on 9 July 1947,[42] attracted some controvesy; Philip had no financial standing..." reads slightly better to me, and avoids two consecutive sentences beginning with "The engagement".  Done Marion Crawford wrote, "Some of the King's advisors - comma could be a colon.  Done In Charles and Diana, I'd also say that the third and fourth paragraph could be merged without issue.  Done It was the second and third paragraphs though. There is no fourth paragraph in that section. wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle; wedding of their granddaughter Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank - both of these links, I think, could be reduced down to just linking through "the wedding", and you could add links to the people mentioned too (Harry, Markle, Eugenie and Brooksbank).  Done The latter four paragraphs in Final years and retirement all begin with "In [MONTH] [YEAR]": try to vary it a bit. When addressing the Duke of Edinburgh, as with any male member of the royal family except the monarch, the rules of etiquette were to address him the first time as Your Royal Highness and after that as Sir. - is this necessary?  Removed That's me for prose. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC) a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): A few of the ref titles aren't in sentence case (eg Prince Philip Has a Mouthful Of a Title. And, Often, His Foot -> "Prince Philip has a mouthful of a title. And, often, his foot"). Took care of it. b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): Well the EARWIG is alarmingly high at over 60% presently. @Tim O'Doherty You don't simply look at the score. Most of it is because the page was analyzed against this blog and this website (these three URLs particularly 1, 2, 3), which appear to have copied their info from Wikipedia. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): With Elizabeth on their 1951 tour of Canada, meeting then Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent (right) - per MOS:JOB, "prime minister". Also recommend "the then-prime minister" to avoid a false title (is (right) needed either?).  Done Her Majesty the Queen at Breakfast painted by Philip in 1957. Biographer Robert Lacey described the painting as "a tender portrayal, impressionistic in style, with brushstrokes that are charmingly soft and fuzzy". - I'd recommend "his biographer" or "the biographer".  Done Philip typically walked a few steps behind Elizabeth in public. - this photo is a bit small at the display size: what would you say about this one?  On hold Well the present image seems to be fine as it is. Source link for File:HMS Valiant-2.jpg doesn't work Here's the archived link. Added it to the file itself as well. Can't find File:Prince Philip beard.jpg at its source link either You have to click on the small gallery of images on that page. There are 44 images and it's no. 6. File:Official Opening – Agoriad Swyddogol (28900130516) (cropped).jpg - source link is broken there too. Here's the archived link for that one. File:Her Majesty the Queen at Breakfast.jpg seems fine to me.
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Apologies, time got away from me. Spotcheck tomorrow. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Spotcheck

Forgot about this—sorry. Doing now.

• 1(a) - Y
• 21 - Y
• 41 - (found on Internet Archive) N - says 10 July: is this wrong?
  • The articles Elizabeth II and Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten cite page 77 of Heald's 2007 book Princess Margaret: A Life Unravelled (which is incidentally cited in this page as well) and give the date as 9 July. Has the author contradicted himself?
• 61 - assume this works with the other source.
  • The London Gazette is fine. Once you open it up there's a link to a PDF. The information is given in the second column on that page.
• 81 - IA link, N can't find it
• 101 - Y
• 121 - again can't find it: is there something wrong with the editions? The one I'm using is 2004.
• 141 - Y
• 161 - Y
• 181 - Y
• 201 - Y
• 221 - Y
• 241 - Heald yes, Brandreth no.
  • Don't have access to the hardcover now, but since you have access to the archived version I do wonder whether you have the same problem verifying the info on the page Elizabeth II. Because the book is cited there too and there is overlap between the two articles. I'm trying to figure out what the issue is.

Few issues to sort out, and wondering what went wrong with Brandreth. Might just be using the wrong edition here. Happy to be corrected. Cheers—Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, was the wrong version. The other works just fine. Will have a look over the full thing tomorrow. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty I did add the URL, ISBN, and page numbers as suggested by DrKay on your talk page. However, please take another look as I may have overlooked or made a mistake. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there was an error. You should have altered it within the bibliography section. User:Neveselbert already took care of it. Keivan.f^Talk 20:00, 18 April 2024 (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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 14:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Portrait of Philip, 1992

• ... that Prince Philip (pictured) was the first member of the British royal family to fly in a helicopter? Source:
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by MSincccc (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

MSincccc (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC).

• Article qualifies via recently achieving Good Article status. SFNs don't work on this page, but I was able to confirm the hook through the cite in the article itself. Obviously, as a GA about a major figure, it is long enough, well-sourced, and quite presentable. No QPQ is needed—you did this before getting 5 DYKs? Well done. Hook itself is pretty interesting; only suggestion I would give before confirming is specifying British royal family, as many readers would think of other royal families upon seeing the phrase. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• There we go! Good to go. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The hook is represented on Page 259 of the source. It is essentially WP:ABOUTSELF since someone is asking him if he was first and he answers "yes". I do not think it is controversial. We have another problem however, the article has recently appeared as a bold link in the news. Unfortunately we may have to reject this nomination because of that. Bruxton (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:NEW says it must not have appeared in the last year, and that link was 2021. This is fine.--Launchballer 08:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Requested move 15 June 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Closed early as the outcome is obvious. (non-admin closure) Celia Homeford (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

---

• Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh → Philip Mountbatten
• List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh → List of titles and honours of Philip Mountbatten
• Death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh → Death and funeral of Philip Mountbatten
• Standard of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh → Standard of Philip Mountbatten

– To all British Wikipedians celebrating, happy King's Official Birthday! In the spirit of this event, per WP:CRITERIA, WP:CONSUB, and WP:CONSORTS, I am requesting that these article titles on the father of the reigning Charles III and husband of Elizabeth II be changed. All editors are encouraged to read the extended rationale before commenting. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 07:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended rationale

1. WP:RECOGNIZABILITY: A - When analyzing results from 1900 to 2019 via Google Books Ngram Viewer, it can be seen that Philip Mountbatten is more commonly used (i.e. WP:COMMONNAME) than Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh in sources for the majority of this timespan. Therefore, someone who is familiar with … the subject area of Elizabeth II’s consort is more likely to recognize the title Philip Mountbatten.
2. WP:NATURALNESS: The English Wikipedia articles for Philip’s wedding and the associated cakes are (already) titled Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten and Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten’s wedding cakes, respectively. Consequently, editors would naturally use [Philip Mountbatten] to link the article from other articles.
3. WP:PRECISION: Since January 22, 2003, Philip Mountbatten has been a redirect to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. In addition, no other English Wikipedia article is titled Philip Mountbatten as of June 15, 2024. Therefore, the proposed alternative (still) unambiguously identifies the article’s subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.
4. WP:CONCISION: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh contains 32 characters and 5 words. In contrast, Philip Mountbatten only contains 18 characters and 2 words. (Counts obtained via WordCounter.net) Also, per WP:CONCISION, ...family names are usually not omitted … for the purposes of concision. Philip adopted the family name Mountbatten shortly before marrying Elizabeth because of his descent from the eponymous noble family.
5. WP:CONSORTS: One of the bullet points within this guideline mentions that Consorts who are native subjects of their spouses are often known by their maiden name … as with Catherine Parr …. Philip was a British subject prior to his marriage to Elizabeth II.
6. WP:CONSISTENT: When analyzing the article titles for other deceased spouses of British monarchs, all part of a ...similar [topic]... as Philip, it can be seen that most of them refer to their subjects (no pun intended) with a name that they used before marrying into British royalty:

Article titles for other former British consorts

English Wikipedia appellations for deceased British royal spouses Consort name Monarch Title before marriage? Prince George of Denmark Anne, Queen of Great Britain Yes Caroline of Ansbach George II of Great Britain Yes Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz George III Yes Caroline of Brunswick George IV Yes Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen William IV Yes Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Queen Victoria Yes Alexandra of Denmark Edward VII Yes Mary of Teck George V Yes Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother George VI No

AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 07:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. The proposed title is not more recognizable or natural, nor his common name. "Philip Mountbatten" is used to refer to him during the time that he wasn't a prince, which is why it is used in Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten (much as "Princess Elizabeth" is obviously not the common name for Elizabeth II, just what she was called at the time). "Prince Philip" and "Duke of Edinburgh" are both vastly more common than "Philip Mountbatten" (see Ngrams), it's just that sources don't repeatedly use the full "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh", though they might use it on the first mention (like this article does). Prince Philip is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article, so to the extent one might see a need to be more concise (though I don't), that would be a better option. SilverLocust 💬 10:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME. He's much better known to the wider public as Prince Philip or the Duke of Edinburgh. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: As per previous responses, Phillip is far more known as the Duke of Edinburgh. The suggested one is not nearly as common or recogniseable. TheBritinator (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. 162 etc. (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I feel like it's snowing.--Killuminator (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose.That is what he was known as from 1947 until his death, and it is still unequivocally his WP:COMMONNAME. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as current article title is the WP:COMMONNAME. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as current article title is the WP:COMMONNAME -- fdewaele, 16 June 2024, 20:11 CET.
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.98.228.137.44 (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. He was the Duke of Edinburgh for 70+ years. Keivan.f^Talk 00:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Peter Ormond 💬 07:16, 17 June 2024 (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.