This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berkshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Berkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BerkshireWikipedia:WikiProject BerkshireTemplate:WikiProject BerkshireBerkshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the
Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the
project page, where you can
join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cemeteries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Cemeteries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CemeteriesWikipedia:WikiProject CemeteriesTemplate:WikiProject CemeteriesCemeteries articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
A fact from King George VI Memorial Chapel appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 October 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Thank you and well done
No Swan So Fine for this timely and efficient creation.
Just to note, I don't love the photo very much though of course it is much much better than nothing and is absolutely of value to the article because we can see how the thing looks! But it is old and small and not great generally (hello Geograph from 2003!) and I imagine that if we keep looking we might with luck find something better, eventually, or an editor with a camera will find themselves there, or whatever. For now I have cropped it a bit to diminish the foreground tarmac area which was a bit much, and I hope that has helped.
Well done again for getting this done!
Cheers
DBaK (
talk) 18:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
It is awful, for what will be one of the most viewed articles on the site next week. I'll take proper reference ones next summer.
No Swan So Fine (
talk) 21:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
That would be great, thank you!
DBaK (
talk) 08:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
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
RoySmith (
talk) 17:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)reply
... that
Queen Elizabeth II wanted the King George VI Memorial Chapel to hold the remains of three British monarchs and their consorts? Source:
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/IF0501475187/TTDA?u=wes_ttda&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=a9eafb8a Douglas Keay, Princess Margaret's ashes to rest by her father, The Times, page 3, 15 February 2002 "The moment of the Princess's interment is likely to be particularly poignant for the Queen, who some 30 years ago instructed architects to design a new chantry to one side of St George's Chapel with places specifically for three monarchs and their consorts".]
Article is
neutral, meets the required length, and is
sufficiently referenced—created on 14 September, within seven days of this nomination. Hook is incredibly interest, succinct, and reliably sourced; relevant to recent events too, which is always good.
QPQ looks good (thanks for that!). This is good to go! –
Rhain☔ (
he/him) 00:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Are the coffins just placed in the soil below the slab and then piled over with soil like a standard graveyard,or is there a crypt down there with shelves?
Romomusicfan (
talk) 15:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't know who deleted the section on Interment Chamber, but it was all explained there and in the references given. It is a crypt, not a place with soil.
Friothaire (
talk) 21:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The source was
The Sun which was deprecated under
WP:THESUN. The section was de-sourced by
David Gerard and then deleted as unsourced by
No Swan So Fine. I've trimmed out the bits about management and put in a reliable source (CNN) which affirms the basic nature of the chamber as a crypt, not soil.
Romomusicfan (
talk) 08:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't love the current wording or position of this. It seems a bit arsey-versey and weirdly blunt. I've had a go at the wording but I didn't do a very good job, and I wonder if we can find a better home for the subsection???
DBaK (
talk) 10:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I think your version is fine. Crypts are a fairly creepy concept anyway - unless you're refrigerating the bodies with a view to reanimating them some day then what is the point of not sticking them in the ground for recycling? However some people go in for that (see the Ancient Egyptians and pyramids) so it's worth making it clear what the setup is - Soil vs Shelves.
Romomusicfan (
talk) 11:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Photo licence
Someone dropped in the new photo of the replacement ledger stone, someone else removed it on the grounds that it had no licence, I replaced on the grounds that I thought it looked like it did, and now I'm worried that I was wrong and the remover was right. Crisis of faith, an ting. I think I am going to re-remove it, on the grounds that it is sometimes better to err on the side of caution, and then hope that someone with more clue than I have (this is not a high barrier to overcome) will say or do something that looks or sounds authoritative. Best to all
DBaK (
talk) 07:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
New Ledger Stone
Whilst there are multiple journalistic sources that attest to the ledger stone being replaced by a new one in 2022, and many are usually reliable, all of the sources are very similar in wording.
This implies that all are simply regurgitating a single common piece
I cannot yet find the press release that accompanied the photograph that was released to see what was actually said.
Clearly we can’t allow original research, but viewing the image shows a marked difference in the colour of the lettering, which very much suggests that this is the original stone with additional inscriptions
2A02:C7C:5E6B:D600:3036:98F0:3AF1:5955 (
talk) 04:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply