Talk:Prince William marries Kate Middleton—live updates

Sourcing

I will place the sources for the article here, though I will be watching the BBC One feed of the wedding which will account for much of the sourcing.

Introduction

Prince William of Wales, the second in line to the British throne, and Kate Middleton will today be married at Westminster Abbey in London. ([1]) Thousands of people are expected to line the streets of the city as the couple travel through the capital to the Abbey, and then back to Buckingham Palace, ([2] and millions are thought to be planning to watch the event on television around the world. ([3]). Wikinews will be following the royal wedding as it happens on this live blog; you will be able to contact us with your thoughts throughout the day on the comments page, on our Twitter page, or on Facebook.

Updates

Update: 6:20 A.M. (UTC)

Good morning and welcome to live updates of the royal wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton. Wikinews will be following the events throughout the day and you can contact us with your opinions as the wedding progresses either on our website, or on Twitter or Facebook. The wedding service will begin later this morning, and William and Kate's family will be in attendance at the Abbey. After the service the royal couple will travel to Buckingham Palace for the wedding reception, and the bride, groom, and both their families including Elizabeth II, will appear on the balcony. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13097243)

600,000 people are expected to be in London today to celebrate the marriage, (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13229961) and it is thought many millions will watch it around the world on television. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13228153) Several hundred people have been camping along the route the couple will take in a hope of seeing the newlyweds. (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/73987/prince-william-meets-fans-ahead-of-wedding) 1,900 people have been invited to attend the ceremony inside the Abbey, including 50 foreign state heads. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13229961) Kate yesterday took part in a final rehearsal with the best man, Prince Harry, and the pageboys and bridesmaids, yesterday, which William did not attend. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8479780/Royal-wedding-Kate-Middleton-arrives-at-Westminster-Abbey-for-final-rehearsal.html) William and Kate last night said in a message in the wedding programme that they had been "incredibly moved" by the support for their marriage. The message said,

"We are both so delighted that you are able to join us in celebrating what we hope will be one of the happiest days of our lives. The affection shown to us by so many people during our engagement has been incredibly moving, and has touched us both deeply. We would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone most sincerely for their kindness." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13217693)

Rail companies have said they expect 400,000 people to travel to the capital by train this morning, but insist they will be able to handle the significantly increased passenger numbers. Thousands of international journalists have also come to London, and will be reporting from specially constructed news studios around the capital. Police officials at Scotland Yard raided numerous properties—occupied, it was reported, by squatters—yesterday because of the wedding, but MPs seized on the raids as "disproportionate". The weather in London is expected to begin as cloudy and dry, and brighten throughout the morning. Forecasters have warned of a 30 percent risk of rain at the time when William and Kate leave the Abbey after the ceremony, and an even greater risk of heavy showers towards the end of the day. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13217693)

Update: 6:40 A.M. (UTC)

One of the biggest questions around the Abbey right now is what dress Kate will be wearing. It'll only be revealed when she leaves her hotel near Buckingham Palace later this morning—9:51 UTC to be precise—but there have already been some interesting developments. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13132410) British newspaper The Telegraph has reports that a woman, disguised by a large headpiece, jumped out of her car and into the hotel yesterday evening—their are suspicions she might be the designer. She was apparently wearing several clothes favoured by Sarah Burton, the late Alexander McQueen's creative director. (http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/columns/hilary-alexander/TMG8481788/Royal-wedding-tantalising-clue-points-to-Sarah-Burton-as-Kate-Middletons-dress-designer.html) During the ceremony, Kate will pledge to "love, comfort, honour and keep" her husband, but not to "obey" him. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13132410)

Counterterrorism police are reportedly now carrying out their final checks before the festivities get underway. Three people were arrested in Brockley, London, last night over allegations they were planning to behead effigies on the streets of London today. A guillotine was allegedly seized in a raid; the suspects remain in custody this morning. The Metropolitan Police said they had been detained on "suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance and breach of the peace". A spokesperson for the force said they were believed to be "planning to attend the royal wedding." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13234682)

7:10 UTC Update - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13132410

7:50 UTC Update - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12896255 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13132410

9: 00 Utc update - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13175842 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8482347/Royal-wedding-Syrian-ambassador-embarrassed-at-being-disinvited.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13181999

9:30 UTC - BBC One.

9:50 UTC- BBC One and bomb threat: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/live/8466247/Royal-wedding-live.html

10.07 -BBC One

10.20 - BBC One and http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/apr/29/prince-william-kate-middleton-royal-wedding-live-blog

10.23 - BBC One

10.33 - BBC One

10.53 - BBC One and http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/apr/29/prince-william-kate-middleton-royal-wedding-live-blog

11.10, 11.17, and 11.29 - BBC One.

11.44 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/apr/29/prince-william-kate-middleton-royal-wedding-live-blog

12.23, 12.28, 12.49 - BBC One.

01.02 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/apr/29/prince-william-kate-middleton-royal-wedding-live-blog

01.30 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13132410

2.07 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/live/8466247/Royal-wedding-live.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/apr/29/prince-william-kate-middleton-royal-wedding-live-blog

3.00 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/live/8466247/Royal-wedding-live.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/apr/29/prince-william-kate-middleton-royal-wedding-live-blog

4.04 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13132410

4.26 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/live/8466247/Royal-wedding-live.html

Review of revision 1222781 [Failed]

Revision 1222781 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: fail Newsworthiness: Not ready: fail Verifiability: Not ready: fail NPOV: Not ready: fail Style: Not ready: fail Comments by reviewer: Please do not place articles in the review queue until they are ready to be reviewed. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1222781 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: fail Newsworthiness: Not ready: fail Verifiability: Not ready: fail NPOV: Not ready: fail Style: Not ready: fail Comments by reviewer: Please do not place articles in the review queue until they are ready to be reviewed. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

In that case, can somebody please put it up for review ASAP after 0000UTC so it can be reviewed before things get underway, since I'm going to bed now. Thanks, wackywace 21:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1223023 [Passed]

Revision 1223023 of this article has been reviewed by Mikemoral (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Not precisely a "normal" article, but seeing this is meant to be updated live, I'm publishing it. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1223023 of this article has been reviewed by Mikemoral (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Not precisely a "normal" article, but seeing this is meant to be updated live, I'm publishing it. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Tweetery

I'm shaking my head in horror at this. It's hideous. Wikinews isn't a TV channel, nor a twitter feed. This is just... "wrong" in so many ways. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

So because we haven't done it before means we can't do it at all? I think one of the problems with Wikinews is its lack of innovation. Also, I did notify everyone more than two weeks ago of my intention to run this live blog today, but got no objections. wackywace 14:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this looks lik a fawning train wreck. It's not celebrity gossip, but it is being presented as such. I certainly would not have stuck it on 1st lead; it was a well-known-in-advance event, and pretending you're a Dimbleby is pretty poor form. But, let's see how the rest of the community judges this; someone gave it a passing review, and someone keeps sighting the new revisions. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Pretending to be a Dimbleby? Where? As far as I am concerned, this live blog is of the same quality as the ones run by numerous other respectful organisations today, including the Guardian, Telegraph and BBC. This live blog has been modelled on live blogs run by other media organisations. Are live blogs too informal altogether? If anyone thought so, like I said, they had more than two weeks to raise it at the water cooler. wackywace 14:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm personally not a big fan of the article because it's {{celebrity "news"}} (), but other than that I don't see anything wrong with using the live update format. I think it helps the reader follow the chronological order of events more easily. We do celebrity news all the time, much to my (and your, sometimes) chagrin, but it's within our content policies. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• "this live blog is of the same quality as the ones run by numerous other respectful organisations"; I could put that in far, far less charitable terms. But, you use the very term which is why I do not think this should have been done on Wikinews — blog. Wikinews is, most definitely not a "blog". --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

+1, Brian - We're not OK or Hello. We should not have done this here. With so many other organisations blogging like hell, this just makes us look like another fish in a huge bloody pond. As you say, we're not a blog. This does not belong on lead 1 by any means. As soon as a proper story comes along, the Royal wedding thingy will likely get demoted. BarkingFish (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're both saying, and if I'm honest, I personally hate the term "live blog"—because it sounds like exactly that. What it actually is, though, is more "news live". Quite how the "live blog" term came about, I don't know, but it's very, very, inaccurate. Then again, though, anyone who thought it was a bad idea had more than two weeks to object, and no-one did. wackywace 15:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
Actually, for two weeks, the apathy was deafening. Now, are you going to take the "celeb gossip" off 1st lead? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The "celeb gossip" thing, is best summed up I believe, in this comment from a British woman interviewed by ABC News about 2 or 3 days ago. Asked by the reporter what she thought of the Royal Wedding, this quaint, 70 year old woman replied "Who gives a toss? It's 2 young people getting married, it happens every day somewhere." :) BarkingFish (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I am a republican and I think pretty much the same thing. The live blog is really because it is a massive event among most of the population and the world's media, but mainly because I wanted to test a new format for Wikinews. wackywace 16:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the live update format worked remarkably well. Let's face it, if we'd done this as a normal article we'd have had to wait until the event was over - and then probably wait several hours for it to be reviewed. By that time anyone remotely interested would have read all about it elsewhere. the wub "?!" 23:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone read this except the editors from wikinews? All the comments are from editors here. No comments from readers. 23:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of comments from IP editors on the Opinions tab. Unfortunately this article hasn't been showing on {{popular articles}} all day, this is almost certainly a bug. I'll try and dig into the raw stats log, see what I can find. the wub "?!" 23:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. From 1000-1100 UTC when most of the ceremony took place this article got 284 hits, easily topping the popular articles for that hour (next was Steve Jobs denies 'location-gate' with 92). Probably more than normal were from Wikinews editors because of the editing activity, but that's still a pretty good figure. the wub "?!" 00:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Should have been failed

This article violates the Style Guide in numerous ways:

• sources are cited inline rather than in a Sources section
• the tone is heavily chatty and non-journalistic ("We now have a bit more on that bomb threat...")
• there's no attempt to weed out significant facts from trivia (Jimbo moving an article is newsworthy?!)
• the topic of the article jumps around (the issues regarding Syria and Bahrain should have been an article on their own)
• the article is self-referential ("There's been some intense debate on the comments page over why the wedding should be such a major event.")

We've done live updates of breaking news right before. I refer you to the history of Canadian light aircraft stolen; Wisconsin State Capitol evacuated, which was continually updated as new information came in and remained a publishable article with multiple editors at all times. --Killing Vector (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

WN:IAR. As I said above, Wikinews isn't inventive enough—the live blog was a new format I felt deserved testing, and (if the reading figures are anything to go by) it went rather well. wackywace 10:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The very existence of Wikinews serves as proof that we, the community, feel hit count is not the sole or even the main indicator of quality. If it were, we'd be another hybrid tabloid-blog. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but then again it also created interesting debate on the comments tab too, and even some controversy on here. I think that the reaction an article creates is perhaps the main indicator of how an article has done, and there has been a wide range of views expressed by Wikinewsies and our readers. wackywace 11:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a single comment that would not have been there if we had done live updates in a proper news style, instead of a blog. "Good morning and welcome to..." "...you can contact us with your opinions as the wedding progresses either on our website, or on Twitter or Facebook..." " We're just getting some breaking news..." - I could go on. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt. This does not belong on a news site. Rules (other than independent review) might be ignored for the sake of news, but this isn't news. --Pi zero (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Score 1 for common sense :) BarkingFish (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sensationalism. That's what this is. アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 18:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

And so the Guardian, Metro, Channel 4 News, Telegraph, BBC, Independent, Sydney Morning Herald, Scotsman and NPR are also not news websites? I've said it before and I'll say it again: the live blog was a test for a new format which I thought would be more inventive than a simple article. If the community says they don't want me doing it again, I won't do it again. wackywace 18:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

From a logical point of view, "everyone else is doing it" is not a reason to do something. That's tu quoque. We should consider the merits of the article based on our own standards, not somebody else's. That's not to say I don't support the idea; actually, I think it's quite a nice innovation. It could have been a little more formal-sounding though, but I don't think this rises to the level of "bloggy news". Tempodivalse [talk] 20:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're gonna turn those live updates into an actual "news" article at the end of it, I would think you can probably take that as read. BarkingFish (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't belong on a news site. Whether those other sites are exclusively news sites, and of what quality, depends on the choices they make. For our part, we aspire to better. --Pi zero (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This is hilarious. So despite being a wiki, despite having all these opportunities to innovate, despite all the professional journalists and their great institutions having no qualms about taking advantage of new technologies, we're going to stubbornly stick to a rigid model based on "ink on paper". All on the pronouncement of a few amateurs about what they feel is news? the wub "?!" 19:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it clear to you that your last post is trolling? It should not be necessary to list the fallacies of reasoning in it; your own critical faculties should suffice. Ask yourself seriously whether you want to believe the worst of Wikinews; if the answer is yes, and you still want to be helpful to Wikinews, perhaps recognizing that failing in your attitude will allow you over time to change it. --Pi zero (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article shouldn't have been published here. But then I am stupefyingly uninterested in celebrity news. My problem. But is this one article worth all the energy invested by the editors at this site in putting it down, when no one is writing and reviewing articles, supposedly the point of wikinews? Sometimes all this arguing just seems like more Wikipedia Review than a site dedicated to writing and publishing relevant news. Mattisse (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It was not trolling, I am asking an honest question. What qualifies you to declare like this what is and isn't a "news" format? Live TV reporting is news no? So why is its equivalent in written words on a screen not? What makes you an arbiter, when countless respected professional (I mean professional in the sense that they do it for a living, and amateur in the sense that we are not paid - no judgement on who produces the better work) journalists and news organisations are embracing it? the wub "?!" 21:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with live reporting and everything to do with how it is written. The quotes I've picked out say it all. Live updates are wonderful. Blogs.... Well, blogs are cool too, but we are not a blog. The wedding disinterests me, but online I can at least choose not to read so I'm unconcerned by the subject, too - only the tone bothers me. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a different matter and I agree that the tone was a little informal in places. the wub "?!" 21:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think 'live updates' are perfectly fine, since the changes (updates) are reviewed by another user. But this whole event is not news, not relevant, disregarding what people think, it's a wedding, that's all. Should we write on the wedding of the daughter of Barack Obama? (I know both of them are -18 years old, just to put an example) Maybe not. But this has been published, and the article is consistent IMO, though sometimes has "trivial" and "non newsworthy" bits, one of them (Mr. Wales moving the Wikipedia article) I removed by myself. I don't think this should not be encouraged, it is something very helpful, but the author of the article (or the community in general, if the article is edited by many: e.g. major event) should keep it updated. (I'm sorry if I keep repeating things, I'm not so good explaining :P) アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 20:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

ok, so let's move on. Mattisse (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think live updates ("liveblogging") is a good idea. I understand the opposition to it, but my idea of what Wikinews should be doing and where it should be going also varies from many other users', so whatevs. But we should be exploring these "alternative" routes; Wikinews is antiquated and too limited. —fetch·comms 19:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fetchcomms and others: I don't think there is any problem with this kind of thing, and I approved a few pending changes to this. Let's take a few of the arguments:

1. This isn't news, it's celebrity gossip. It actually is news. Someone who possibly could be the leader of a major Western nation has a full state wedding. That really is not in the same category as Paris Hilton flashing her knickers to some tabloid hacks to promote a reality show. As a British citizen, I'm not a big fan of the royals. But it has news value. All of the newspapers in Britain covered it including the quality papers like The Guardian. For Wikinews to not have covered it would have been quite inappropriate, even though personally I am no fan of the Royals. It isn't our place to reject news on the British monarchy because we dislike the fact that the Royal family are kind of like celebrities.
   1. Part of the problem with this is that being a celebrity doesn't make any coverage of you gossip. Steve Jobs pretty much has the status of a celebrity, but if Apple were to decide that they were going to buy Facebook or Twitter or a tech company or whatever, that would be news. Covering the Royal wedding isn't celebrity gossip even if obsessive reporting of the romance between the Prince and Ms Middleton before the wedding probably would have been celebrity gossip. Look at it in historical perspective: if Wikinews had been around in the 80s, would we have covered the marriage of Prince Charles and Diana? Would we have covered their divorce? Yes and yes. Would we have covered Diana's post-divorce revelations to Martin Bashir? Maybe not. This isn't gossip, it's a state occasion.
   2. If celebrity gossip is banned in a broad sense, we should probably stop sports coverage on Wikinews. As someone who doesn't care about sports, it is basically all mindless chatter about famous people. The news value of who wins the FA Cup or the NBA championships or whatever is pretty much zilch except for the fact that sports fans care about it, just like celebrity-obsessed people care about celebrities. Unlike, say, politics, military affairs, international diplomacy news, economic and business news, scientific discoveries and so on, who wins the Superbowl has little effect outside those who care. If you don't care about the Superbowl, it isn't particularly important. If you don't care about the economy, it will still affect your life when you can't get a job or can't start a business or whatever. Not caring about wars doesn't stop you from getting drafted or killed by a terrorist attack or whatever.
2. Wikinews is not a blog. No, and this wasn't a "blog". Plenty of people in the Wikimedia community get their panties in a real bunch when they see the word "blog". But nobody quite explains what the problem with blogs are. But what a blog is isn't quite so easy to pin down. Some think of blogs as simply a reverse-chronological feed of stories. In which case, the latest news section on the Main Page is a blog. Some see it as anything which uses blogging software like Wordpress or Movable Type or Tumblr. Obviously, that doesn't apply here. Others see it as some kind of personal diary. Again, not appropriate.
3. The style is inappropriate. So fix it!

The current way of writing articles on Wikinews has the article as the basic unit. But there are plenty of events like the Royal wedding which happen which can't be adequately captured by an article. Some serious, major news outlets like The Guardian and BBC News are using live blog formats on their websites to cover events like this, but also for stories like election results. When the UK general election was going on, the negotiations between the three parties about forming a coalition government was the subject of many live blogs, and this made it a lot easier to follow the latest development. That wasn't celebrity gossip: that was working out who runs the country.

If people don't like the live blog format, we still need to work out an efficient and sensible way to provide continuing, quickly updated news coverage of live events if Wikinews wishes to become something approaching a useful news outlet. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

please add "royalty" category

{{editprotected}} Ragettho (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Done Tyrol5 (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Image

Looks like the first image is deleted. Probably should be replaced with a new one. ―WIKI 151, taxi to runway 34R via Bravo. 06:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I've placed our {{missing image}} on it. Thanks for pointing it out. --Pi zero (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)