Talk:St Edward's Crown/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Jewel numbers
Is there any significance in the number of jewels (444)?
What happened to the crown after it was flattened by Thomas Blood in 1671?
Can someone please add that info to this article?
Nettyboo 22:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you have actual photographs of each of the crowns, sceptors, etc. that you talk about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.162.85 (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Photo
There used to be a good photo of the crown here. Why was it replaced with this ridiculous cartoon drawing? Is it because of some copyright issue? Beetfarm Louie (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Loss of Crown Jewels by King John?
The page states that "...the original St Edward's Crown had been among the crown jewels lost by King John.", but there is no further information about that/those event/s.
The article appears somewhat incomplete as a consequent. Is there another article in Wikipedia which could be linked-out to, or another resource elsewhere? DarylGriff (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
FFS
? Material about the what's done with the crown at the coronation ceremony is added. I replace it with a shorter summary and a link to the article on the coronation ceremony where what's done with the crown is covered (adhering to WP:SUMMARY). And that short summary and link are deleted.... Makes no sense to me. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Miesianiacal: Coronation of the British monarch is linked in the lead. I have no problem with you deleting the content I spent two hours researching and diligently writing because I can stick it in the other article where my efforts will hopefully be appreciated. What bothers me is that you indiscriminately reverted ALL the changes which I had made to the article when you should have manually reverted just the bits you thought were inappropriate and left the rest alone per WP:ONLYREVERT. The answer to your rhetorical question, "is that not all covered in this article?", is no, it was not all covered in that article, but now it is... Firebrace (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) So, was your final "FFS" edit related to content and where it belongs or just a pique?
- I truly thought the info about the use of the crown in the coronation ceremony was covered at the article on the coronation ceremony (was it removed at some point?). I'm sorry I was wrong. Regardless, isn't it more appropriate there than here?
- Links can be in the lede and in the article; in fact, since the lede is a summary of the article, it really isn't unusual at all for that to happen. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- On reflection, you're right: it probably was too much detail for this article. As far as I know, that level of detail about the crowning has never been added to the one about the coronation itself, which is very poorly constructed; I will sort it out if I ever get time... Firebrace (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- You would not object, then, to the re-adding of the remark about the crown being a key part of the coronation ceremony and the link to the article? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- On reflection, you're right: it probably was too much detail for this article. As far as I know, that level of detail about the crowning has never been added to the one about the coronation itself, which is very poorly constructed; I will sort it out if I ever get time... Firebrace (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)