Talk:Operation Hope Not

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 2 October 2018[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. Move proposal failed to gain any support. (non-admin closure) — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Hope Not → Funeral of Winston Churchill – Article concerns the funeral of Churchill as a historical event, not just the plan for it that existed over the previous decade. Hard to justify that the planning stage is more notable than the event itself, when these plans were put into action as intended. Also worth considering that resources around the event are likely to increase when it is depicted in the next season of The Crown (TV series), and the article should be placed to anticipate such an expansion of interest/editing. U-Mos (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The actual funeral of Winston Churchill is covered sufficiently in Later life of Winston Churchill. Operation Hope Not is about the government project in case of his demise, and how that plan changed over time and was executed, and not about the funeral per se. The planning itself is notoriously notable for a person of his stature, or else why would the Queen remarked the plant to be "on a scale befitting his position in history." Chhandama (talk) 05:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to other responders: Chhandama is the article's creator. U-Mos (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the project would be better served by placing the further details from the later life page here (with a Main article link rather than see also) - it's more applicable to the information here, as the very notable historical event obviously post-dates his 'later life'. Disagree that the page as it currently stands is mainly about the government project (there's a lede, which covers the plan and the event roughly equally, a section on the planning and then a longer section on the funeral itself - which, as you say, has more available information that I believe would be more usefully placed here), and indeed that there's any benefit in placing that as its focus. I'm not suggesting that any information is removed from this page. Worth noting in addition that the page is categorised as a state funeral, i.e. the event and not the plan, and also linked as such from Template:Winston Churchill (so readers will naturally expect to find the full details of the funeral on this page, not elsewhere). U-Mos (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in favor of resolving the problem of content forking (overlap) between this article and Later_life_of_Winston_Churchill#Funeral. My initial idea is that this article should be merged and redirected to there. The funeral should not be covered in both places to the same depth, as it is. Stripping the funeral from this article is an option, leaving this is a short article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would favour merging into the later life section over stripping content from this article (it's short as it is), if support for renaming and stripping back the section at Later life of Winston Churchill as I propose is not forthcoming. U-Mos (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Sentence in lede[edit]

In "It was the first state funeral of a British civilian in the 20th century," what do we mean by British civilian? This wasn't the first of a non-royal; do we mean commoner? (In the strict UK sense that anyone neither Monarch nor peer is a commoner.) DBD 13:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 November 2018[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus at this point, and the previous request was rejected in October. No need to prolong this. Calidum 01:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Operation Hope Not → Funeral of Winston Churchill – Second nomination. WP:CONTENTFORKING issue raised in previous move proposal has now been tackled, as per discussion at Talk:Later life of Winston Churchill#Merger proposal, so full discussion of the article's name can now take place. Article is now (even more) substantially about the funeral itself, not merely its planning. It is already linked as such in at Template:Winston Churchill. Discussions indicate that this is the preferred structure for Churchill's pages, and I would argue that "Funeral of Winston Churchill" encompasses both the plan ('Operation Hope Not') and the event itself, whereas "Operation Hope Not" only indicates the former. This is misleading, as (considering the plan was enacted as intended) it is impossible (and not desirable) to talk about the plan without discussing the event itself. Additionally, more detailed references are currently included for the day of the funeral itself than the plan. If the move goes ahead, the opening lines of the current lead section would be moved down to the 'Plan' section. U-Mos (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  00:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum To directly consider WP:NAMINGCRITERIA: The proposed title is more recognisable to a non-expert, more natural to search for and link to (as already demonstrated by Template:Winston Churchill and Honours of Winston Churchill), more precise by describing the full scope of the article rather than one part of it, and more consistent with articles such as Funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales and Funeral of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother (Operation London Bridge differs as the event it concerns has not yet taken place). Please can subsequent commenters refer to these to aid clarity of discussion. U-Mos (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chhandama, SmokeyJoe, Erpert, and Reidgreg: Invite to respond those involved in previous discussions. U-Mos (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC) @Britmax and Kablammo: Invite other significant editors to contribute. U-Mos (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose RM. A structurism / mergism content discussion is needed first. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: Confused by this comment. There has already been a merge discussion, as linked above, which was not supported by anybody. Renomination allows the discussion that was superseded by that (now-resolved) issue to take place. What else is there to discuss? U-Mos (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk:Later_life_of_Winston_Churchill#Merger_proposal has not reached a conclusion. I still think Operation Hope Not should be merged into Later_life_of_Winston_Churchill. Then, Later_life_of_Winston_Churchill#Later_life, should be spun out to Winston Churchill, Legacy, taking with it everything post-resignation, including "Operation Hope Not" and the funeral. Some serious repair is needed, the funeral is currently forked, renaming this is not the answer. Maybe rename this to Winston Churchill, Legacy, and move more from Later_life_of_Winston_Churchill into it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: Thanks for your reply. As mentioned, the merger proposal was not commented on for two weeks after I suggested a way forward - having already done an RfC there, and been very clear on the course of action I proposed - I considered that to justify tacit approval, and an end to the discussion. I repeat that the merger, which I proposed to allow discussion of the suggestion you made above, received no support. The funeral is no longer forked (unless it is discussed substantially in a third article somewhere?), as per my edits yesterday. U-Mos (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, U-Mos, thanks for your work on the articles. You have been moving faster than I was following. I think that Funeral of Winston Churchill should include not just the funeral, but also death and legacy, in addition to this Operation Hope Not, and should include his retirement, dating from after his last day in the House of Commons. Should that mean the article should be titled Retirement, Death, Funeral and Legacy of Winston Churchill? A bit long, but Funeral is too short. How about Retirement and legacy of Winston Churchill? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would prefer the funeral story in the main page Winston Churchill, and keep this unique funeral plan (Operation Hope Not) as a standalone article as it deserves a page in its own right. And as the creator I know that it can be greatly expanded. Chhandama (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: That main biography article is 22,000 words, more than twice the maximum recommended article size, and desperately needs content reduced. Any section hatnoted with a 'main article', including the § Funeral, should be tightly summarized. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chhandama: Firstly, the opportunity to discuss the WP:CONTENTFORKING matter has passed; there were no objections to the course of action I proposed in over two weeks, so I went ahead. This discussion concerns the name of the article as it stands today. As far as I'm concerned, all the work on this article to date is a valuable contribution but WP:COMMONSENSE and the naming conventions (see above) makes the way forward abundantly clear. Arguments against are becoming increasingly oblique, and I'd be grateful if someone could state the objection to moving forward in clear terms because I'm bewildered right now. U-Mos (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. More comprehensive name for the current content of the article.--Cúchullain t/c 21:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

The alcohol paragraph[edit]

See Talk:Winston_Churchill#Spinout_Winston_Churchill#Personal_life.

I am proposing that the alcohol paragraph, which sits unflowingly at Later_life_of_Winston_Churchill#Later_life in between resignation and retirement, should be woven into his personal life, which should be spun out to a new article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Waterloo factoid[edit]

Seems to be a myth? https://www.strangehistory.net/2012/03/15/churchill-de-gaulle-and-waterloo Ain92 (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Hope_Not&oldid=1206402876"