| Revision as of 19:45, 27 April 2023 edit109.etc (talk | contribs)264 edits →Lede: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 22:21, 5 January 2025 edit undoDrKay (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators159,955 editsNo edit summary |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{GA nominee|17:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)|nominator=] (])|page=1|subtopic=Royalty, nobility and heraldry|status=|note=|shortdesc=King of the United Kingdom since 2022}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes|less archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|
{{talkheader|search=no}} |
|
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
{{Article history |
|
{{Article history |
|
|
| currentstatus = GA |
|
|
| dykdate= 4 June 2023 |
|
|
| dykentry= ... that in 1984, ''']''' described a proposed extension to the ] as a "monstrous carbuncle"? |
|
|
| dyknom= Template:Did you know nominations/Charles III |
|
|
| topic = history |
|
|
|
|
| action1 = PR |
|
| action1 = PR |
|
| action1date = 21 April 2023 |
|
| action1date = 18:59, 21 April 2023 |
|
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Charles III/archive1 |
|
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Charles III/archive1 |
|
| action1result = reviewed |
|
| action1result = reviewed |
|
| action1oldid = 1151076448 |
|
| action1oldid = 1151076448 |
|
|
|
|
|
| action2 = GAN |
|
|
| action2date = 01:32, 11 May 2023 |
|
|
| action2link = Talk:Charles III/GA1 |
|
|
| action2result = not listed |
|
|
| action2oldid = 1154219978 |
|
|
|
|
|
| action3 = GAN |
|
|
| action3date = 11:05, 22 May 2023 |
|
|
| action3link = Talk:Charles III/GA2 |
|
|
| action3result = passed |
|
|
| action3oldid = 1156346126 |
|
|
|
|
|otd1date=2004-08-28|otd1oldid=16335381|otd2date=2007-07-29|otd2oldid=147904397|otd3date=2008-07-29|otd3oldid=228466474|otd4date=2009-07-29|otd4oldid=304412230|otd5date=2010-07-29|otd5oldid=376043416 |
|
|otd1date=2004-08-28|otd1oldid=16335381|otd2date=2007-07-29|otd2oldid=147904397|otd3date=2008-07-29|otd3oldid=228466474|otd4date=2009-07-29|otd4oldid=304412230|otd5date=2010-07-29|otd5oldid=376043416 |
|
|
|otd6date=2024-09-08|otd6oldid=1244093057 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|blp=y|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|listas=Charles III|1= |
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|military-work-group=y|military-priority=Top|peerage-work-group=y|peerage-priority=Top|royalty-work-group=y|royalty-priority=Top}} |
|
{{British English}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=Top}} |
|
{{annual readership|scale=log}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject London|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=y|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Cornwall|importance=top}} |
|
{{London Bridge task force}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Wales|importance=Top}} |
|
{{Charles III task force}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject British Royalty|importance=top|Operation London Bridge=yes|charles=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=y|class=B|listas=Charles III|military-work-group=y|military-priority=Top|peerage-work-group=y|peerage-priority=Top|royalty-work-group=y|royalty-priority=Top}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|Biography=y|Maritime=y|British=y|Cold-War=y}} |
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject London|class=B|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Commonwealth}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Caribbean|importance=mid|Jamaica=y|Bahamas=y|Saint Vincent=y|Saint Vincent-importance=Mid|Saint Lucia=y|Antigua and Barbuda=y|Saint Kitts and Nevis=y|Barbados-importance=Mid|Jamaica-importance=Mid|Bahamas-importance=Mid|Saint Lucia-importance=Mid|Antigua and Barbuda-importance=Mid|Saint Kitts and Nevis-importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Cornwall|class=B|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Wales|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Melanesia|importance=mid|PNG=y|SI=y}} |
|
{{WikiProject British Royalty|class=B|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Polynesia|importance=mid|Tuvalu=y|Tuvalu-importance=top|Niue=y|Niue-importance=top|CI=y|CI-importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Belize|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|Biography=y|Maritime=y|British=y|Cold-War=y}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Commonwealth|class=b|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Australia|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Australia|class=B|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Canada|importance=low|cangov=y|ppap=y}} |
|
{{WikiProject Canada|class=B|importance=low|cangov=y|ppap=y}} |
|
{{WikiProject New Zealand|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject New Zealand|class=B|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Children's literature|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Children's literature|class=B|importance=low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Politicians|class=B}} |
|
|
{{Spoken Misplaced Pages request|Catfurball|Important}} |
|
|
{{Old moves |
|
|
| collapse = true |
|
|
| list = |
|
|
* RM, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales → Charles, Prince of Wales, '''Moved''', 2 September 2007, ] |
|
|
* RM, Charles, Prince of Wales → Prince Charles, '''Not moved''', 23 August 2012, ] |
|
|
* RM, Charles III → Charles III of the United Kingdom, '''Not moved''', 8 September 2022, ] |
|
|
** MRV, '''Endorsed''', 11 September 2022, ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{banner shell|text=Article history|1= |
|
|
{{Annual report|], ], ], and ]}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|July 21, 2013|December 10, 2017|December 17, 2017|December 24, 2017|May 13, 2018|May 20, 2018|November 17, 2019|December 1, 2019|November 15, 2020|November 22, 2020|November 29, 2020|December 6, 2020|December 13, 2020|March 7, 2021|March 14, 2021|April 4, 2021|until|April 18, 2021|September 4, 2022|until|September 25, 2022}} |
|
|
{{All time pageviews|94}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
{{Press |
|
| subject = article |
|
| subject = article |
| Line 67: |
Line 73: |
|
| quote3 = For instance, King Charles’ article changed five times as the internet waited for his official title to be revealed. |
|
| quote3 = For instance, King Charles’ article changed five times as the internet waited for his official title to be revealed. |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Old moves |
|
|
| collapse = false |
|
|
| list = |
|
|
* ], Charles III → Charles III of the United Kingdom, '''Not moved''', 8 September 2022, ] |
|
|
** ], '''Endorsed''', 11 September 2022, ] |
|
|
* RM, Charles III → Charles III of the United Kingdom, '''Not moved''', 23 July 2023, ] |
|
|
* RM, Charles III → Charles III of the United Kingdom, '''Procedural close''', 14 August 2023, ] |
|
|
|oldlist= |
|
|
* RM, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales → Charles, Prince of Wales, '''Moved''', 2 September 2007, ] |
|
|
* RM, Charles, Prince of Wales → Prince Charles, '''Not moved''', 23 August 2012, ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes|text=Other talk page banners |1= |
|
|
|
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
|
{{annual readership}} |
|
|
{{Annual report|], ], ], ], and ]}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|July 21, 2013|December 10, 2017|December 17, 2017|December 24, 2017|May 13, 2018|May 20, 2018|November 17, 2019|December 1, 2019|November 15, 2020|November 22, 2020|November 29, 2020|December 6, 2020|December 13, 2020|March 7, 2021|March 14, 2021|April 4, 2021|until|April 18, 2021|September 4, 2022|until|September 25, 2022|April 30, 2023|May 7, 2023|February 4, 2024}} |
|
|
{{All time pageviews|94}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchive}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchive}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 130K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|counter = 11 |
|
|counter = 16 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(7d) |
|
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Charles III/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Charles III/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Spoken Misplaced Pages request|Catfurball|Important}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Lede == |
|
|
|
|
|
At what point would it be necessary to leave everything out of the lede except for the first sentence like his mother before him? ] (]) 13:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hopefully by 15 April, depending on the discussion above. See ] for more details. ] (]) 14:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:At no point. Why would we have a one-sentence lede? Liz2 doesn't, so the comparison there confuses me. I'd favour moving the mention of the death of same out of the first paragraph (to the fourth), but other than that it seems perfectly good. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::Elizabeth had one whilst still alive. ] (]) 18:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Just about ended my poor computer going back to then to confirm this, so not going to push my luck to get to the Legacy FA version. But I would regard that as an even more inadequate lead paragraph, and certainly not a model to aspire to. ] (]) 18:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Just as a sidenote - it was discussed in almost ludicrous detail ]. ] (]) 20:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That's a discussion on the ''first'' sentence. This is a proposal to entirely eliminate (or move elsewhere perhaps) the second. The two keep getting conflated, less than helpfully. ] (]) 23:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The proposal you speak of was also discussed at CIII, see my reply below. ] (]) 23:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Yes, but everything everywhere all at once, while a great movie premise, isn't the best organising principle for Wikidiscussions. ] (]) 21:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'd recommend leaving the opening sentence, alone. ] (]) 20:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::And I'd recomment not. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 22:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Changing the lead paragraph was discussed at CIII. ] (]) 22:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Perhaps you could present 'here', the proposed paragraph-in-question. ] (]) 22:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That's been discussed with the task force; you were part of the discussion. I don't know about others, but, personally, I'm holding off on bringing it here, for the time being, as it seems like there's a lot going on already regarding how to implement changes and when. That all needs settled first. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 22:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I was asking Tim, but no matter. Yes, there's a lot going on already. ] (]) 22:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The proposed first paragraph would read: "{{tq|'''Charles III''' (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is ] and the 14 other ].}}". The second sentence would then be relocated to the fourth paragraph (handily giving para 4 a bit more of a reason for existing), which would read: "{{tq|Charles inherited the throne of the ] and the other ] upon the death of his mother on September 8, 2022. At the age of 73, he was the oldest person to accede to the British throne, after having previously been the longest-serving ] and ] in British history. After brief speculation that he might choose a different regnal name, it was announced he would reign as Charles III. His ] will take place on May 6, 2023.}}" However, if people don't want to keep the regnal name speculation, that's a sacrifice I'm happy to take. ] (]) 22:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Understood, thanks :) ] (]) 22:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Well, we were actually discussing "{{tq|'''Charles III''' (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is king of ], including the ].}}" But, that discussion's clearly not over and, again, there are other fish to fry first. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 23:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Note: Should be 8 September 2022 and 6 May 2023 as ] dates. ] (]) 23:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Should we revisit this now? <small>(I personally don't need to hear GoodDay's opinion; I'm well aware of what it is.)</small> --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 22:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Revisit what? The wording around the Commonwealth realms, or the reduction of the lead paragraph? <small>(I personally don't much care for this passive-aggressive ad-hominem-style rivalry - just try to keep things constructive.)</small> ] (]) 22:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Oh, sorry. I assumed I was just carrying on from the words immediately above. In hindsight, I suppose my outdenting obscured that intention. So, yes, the wording around the Commonwealth realms: "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" to "king of 15 independent countries, including the United Kingdom." --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 22:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I would oppose that change. The current lead, is best. ] (]) 22:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If you want. I've already stated my preference for "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms", so that is my position. ] (]) 22:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yes, I'm just trying to read the room, so to speak. I'm hesitant to start an RfC with one already ongoing above. I'll wait to see what more, if any, reaction there is to my question about revisiting the opening sentence at this point. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 23:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm sympathetic to this idea, but I think "including" is a little ''too'' caʒ. What about something like "fifteen independent countries, most prominently the United Kingdom"? ] (]) 03:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{ping|109.etc}} The British monarchy's website phrases it this way: "The King is sovereign of 14 Commonwealth realms, in addition to the UK". I tweaked it to "king of 15 independent countries, including the United Kingdom" because 1) someone (Surtsicna? Tim O'Doherty? Keivan.f?) rightly pointed out that most readers who come to this article won't know what a Commonwealth Realm is and will likely just assume it's some kind of self-governing country under the British monarchy (a Dominion by a different name) and 2) "in addition to" misleadingly separates the UK out of the group of Commonwealth Realms. None of the synonyms for "include"--"incorporate", "embrace", "involve", etc--work in the sentence. So, I'm not sure what's better. "King of 15 independent countries, most directly the United Kingdom" is the best I have, at the moment; but, I'm quite far from loving it; in part, because it adds another word; though, the sentence is still has one word fewer than what's in the lede now. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 00:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Respectfully, I disagree. Charles III is known first & foremost as the British monarch (King of the United Kingdom). He also primarily resides in the the United Kingdom & thus the UK doesn't have or need a governor-general. We have the 14 <u>other</u> Commonwealth realms listed in a footnote, which any reader can click onto. ] (]) 01:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I agree with @], he is mostly known as the British monarch first so the status quo should remain. ] (]) 01:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::{{ping|DDMS123}} Sure. But, nothing anywhere here says otherwise. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 01:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The current P1 is excessively -- frankly absurdly -- short anyway, so I don't think we need angst too much about wasting a word or two here. But I don't think "directly" is useful here, though I think I can discern what you're seeking to imply by it. I might add my own wording to the article so someone can do a "Best to keep the status quo because it's best to keep the status quo" revert on it, unless I think of some other wheeze. I agree that "Commonwealth realm" obscures more than it reveals here. We should either use a different wording in P1, and then use CR in P4, or vice versa if we must for some ineffable reason use CR in the lede, a fuller and clearer exposition of what that means in plain language. The first is probably objectively better, but the second may be more wikipolitically feasible. ] (]) 16:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::There's always "king of 14 independent countries, in addition to the ], all collectively known as the ]s." The other issue with simeply "king of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" is that globally significant, G7, NATO countries get buried under "other", which is nonsense. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 18:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I could live with something on those lines. The "but where is he king of?" issue has been botched for months -- and systematically reverted to the botched version, yea even until this very day -- so I despair of it getting before he's the former king. At which point if anything it'll be be even harder, because then we'll have an increasing dead (as it were) weight of ] to contend with to fix it for King Willy. ] (]) 09:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
Best to keep the status quo "King of the United Kingdom and the 14th other Commonwealth realms", with {{ping|DrKay}}'s footnote. ] (]) 01:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|109.etc}} Well, as there's only one other MotCRs at the moment (and for the next decade or so), I don't see the existence of the former MotCRs' bio as a huge impediment, if one at all. The only real roadblock is the opposition expressed here; albeit, none of it supported by reasonable explanation. So, my hunch is an RfC (read: vote) will be necessary. Do we have any other suggestions besides |
|
|
* "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other ]s", |
|
|
* "king of ], including the ]", and |
|
|
* "king of 14 independent countries, in addition to the United Kingdom, all collectively known as the ]s"? --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 02:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I might be inclined to support a flipped-around version of the third, more resembling the first, but with the addition of a spelled-out "independent countries" clause one way or another. I'm not hugely wedded to the exact wording if those key points are addressed. |
|
|
:We (rather artlessly) use almost exactly the same phrase in IIRC three different places -- and then never actually say what the others are, outside of a footnote, bizarrely -- so for clarity, I assume this is only about the one in the lead sentenograph? ] (]) 04:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Do you mean "king of the ]s: 14 independent countries, in addition to the ]"? |
|
|
::I am focusing on the top lines of the article. As to other mentions of where Charles reigns, is there not only one editor objecting to "king of the Commonwealth realms"? --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 07:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No, something on the lines of, "king of the United Kingdom and fourteen other independent countries, all known as the Commonwealth realms". ] (]) 12:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Oh, I see. I don't particularly like that one, as it still diminishes globally significant nations as "other". However, it is another option and I recognize that it replaces the unexplained and, hence, potentially confusing term "Commonwealth realms" with the more widely understandable "independent countries". --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 16:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::"Fourteen further"? I do think that on balance the UK should get 'first billing', though it's not a hill I'd choose to die on. I'd favour on second mention (ideally in P4, if not in the "reign" section) we switch the wording around and make it more symmetrical. ] (]) 17:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::That's why I've come to favour "15 independent countries, including the United Kingdom," or "14 inependent countries, in addition to the United Kingdom," as it's a compromise that, I think, appeals to those who don't want the non-British realms in some "other" corner along with the dust bunnies, as well as those who want to give the UK prominence. |
|
|
::::::Regardless, perhaps it's time for an RfC. (I just hope editors haven't reached "Carolean fatigue" yet.) --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 18:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Maybe it is. I would prefer retaining the current wording, but with a footnote in the opening sentence listing the realms in alphabetical order, as it is in the infobox. ] (]) 18:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Tim, I really don't think a footnote is adequate. "So where is he king of?" isn't something a competently written article on someone entirely notable for being a king, and waiting a long time to be a king, should be coyly doing the dance of the seven veils on. Just tell us. In the article text proper. (I mean in general here, not in the lede paratence.) Miesi, the thing about summary style is that it requires that we put the most blitheringly obvious stuff first. We ''should'' have text in the article that makes clear the '15 separate yokes' legal niceties, but it's beyond any reasonable argument that "king of the UK" is the crux of the key points of the most important stuff. It has to go first. On how phrase the "and" stuff I'm pretty flexible. Bear if mind if you start an RfC now, it'll run ''during'' the crowning-antics period. Which might increase attention and participation... but potentially in a fairly chaotic manner. Caveat emptor. ] (]) 19:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::109, with all due respect, the current lead sentence tells us just as little about what he is king of as any of the proposed alternatives. "15 independent countries, including the United Kingdom" is just as much information as "the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms." It isn't so much about the information as it is about how that same information is presented. I have to say, I don't see the benefits in switching the wording around. ] (]) 19:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::You're conflating too different points. In the lead sentence (as I just said), I favour mentioning the UK first, just adding greater clarity on the "independent countries" point. Elsewhere in the text of the article, I'm pretty determined that we should a) list the realms, and b) make clear the supposed symmetry and alleged equality between each monarchy. ] (]) 19:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "King of the Commonwealth realms"? == |
|
|
|
|
|
An editor(s) is trying to push "King of the Commonwealth realms" into the opening of the fourth paragraph. Now, there are titles and positions of "Head of the Commonwealth", as well as "King of the United Kingdom", "King of Canada", "King of Australia" etc. There's no such thing as "King of the Commonwealth realms", but I wouldn't oppose (in the fourth paragraph) listing the realms in full, starting with the oldest one (the United Kingdom). ] (]) 10:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think the editors in question intended "king of the Commonwealth realms" as a description, as in "a king that rules over the Commonwealth realms". So, whilst it's untrue to say "Charles is '''K'''ing of the Commonwealth realms", it is correct to say "Charles is '''the''' '''k'''ing of the Commonwealth realms". ] (]) 18:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::That distinction in capitalization is entirely a Misplaced Pages invention, however. It does not exist outside our little community. In all of academia and most of media common nouns are always lower cased. ] (]) 19:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Even so, descriptions still exist outside the 'pedia. He rules over the Commonwealth realms as king, even though there isn't such a title as "King of the Commonwealth". Harm done by adding it in Charlie's article? Zero. ] (]) 19:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I am completely in agreement with you. ] (]) 18:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::{{ping|Tim O'Doherty|Surtsicna|109.etc}} As am I. So, why are we not using "king of the Commonwealth realms"? (I'm assuming we're actually talking about the first paragraph of "Accession and coronation plans". The fourth paragraph of the lede is another matter...) |
|
|
:::::And, on the subject of capitalization, isn't "'''K'''ing of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" inaccurate? While Charles is '''K'''ing of the United Kingdom, he is small-k "'''k'''ing of the 14 other Commonwealth realms." The phrase "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" reads like a title that doesn't exist. The right phrasing would be "King of the United Kingdom and king of the 14 other Commonwealth realms", which is needlessly wordy (and too many "kings") when "king of the Commonwealth realms" will do concisely and correctly. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 03:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::{{ping|DrKay}},{{ping|Celia Homeford}} & {{ping|DeCausa}}: Attempts were made & (correctly) reversed by different editors, concerning changing to "King of the Commonwealth realms". As for capitalising or uncapitalising of "King" in "King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms? That can be worked out among the pro-capitalise vs anti-capitalise folks. ] (]) 03:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::That's a repeated misconstrual of those edits that I've already explained in excruciating detail. Please knock it off. ] (]) 06:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::There are actually a number of uses of the term "monarch of the Commonwealth realms" outside Misplaced Pages, including by the Commonwealth itself. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 23:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I do not doubt that. My comment was about capitalization. ] (]) 18:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Yes, I see that now. I misread what you wrote. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 03:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I don't entirely following your reasoning or claim here, as it appears to immediately contradict itself. Indeed, in most media -- certainly the Guardian's style guide is helpfully explicit about this, the one is capitalised, the other is not. {{tq|'''jobs''' all lc, eg prime minister, US secretary of state, chief rabbi, editor of the Guardian '''titles''' cap up titles, but not job description, eg President Barack Obama (but the US president, Barack Obama, and Obama on subsequent mention); the Duke of Westminster (the duke at second mention); Pope Francis but the pope.}} Exactly as with king vs King here. ] (]) 08:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I am sorry for being unclear. I was referring to ]' guidance to capitalize job titles when they are formal titles (e.g. "he is King of the United Kingdom") and yet to use lower case when the job title is descriptive ("he is the king of the Commonwealth realms"). That sort of distinction exists only on Misplaced Pages, and is the unfortunate result of an unwise compromise. The Guardian, as well as virtually any academic publishing, would only have "King" capitalized when preceding (forming part of) a name. But we digress. ] (]) 18:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::You're suggesting that the Guardian would have "Duke of Westminster" but "king of the United Kingdom"? I think clearly not: they're both titles. If anything the Gnaur is on the lighter side of the caps spectrum, but this seems pretty explicit. ] (]) 19:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::No, I am not suggesting that. ] (]) 20:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:There is no difference in accuracy between "King of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" and "King of the other Commonwealth realms". Neither is a proper title. ] (]) 19:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Those are (IMO constructive) edits, not "pushes". You might wish to correct the record if it wasn't your intention to imply some sort of ]ing. The idea of listing said realms in full (or at least at greater length according to some scheme) in P4 is a good one ("it accords exactly with my own"), but as the song says, it's been proposed before, and the support wasn't exactly overwhelming. ] (]) 08:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
The Commonwealth realms aren't 'one' entity, therefore my objections to "King of the Commonwealth realms" or "the king of the Commonwealth realms". ] (]) 20:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I understand your concerns: just saying, that with slightly amended capitalisation, we can retain the description. Although it looks like the wording has been changed to "king of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms" now. ] (]) 20:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::To be clear, the capitalisation needn't be amended, other than in GD's incorrect characterisation of the edits actually made. ] (]) 08:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Seems alright, as long as ''realms'' is lowercase... — ] (]) 09:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Images of arms and other content matters== |
|
|
|
|
|
I understand that, presently, the way the various coats of arms are displayed in this article matches the same on ], ], and ]. However, that doesn't change the fact that the right-most coat of arms is effectively "off the page", overlapping the Misplaced Pages menu on the right side of the screen ("Tools", "Actions", "Subscribe", etc.). The same problem exists at ] and ]. (] does not follow the same format.) The layout I changed it to yesterday fixed that issue. The other biographies should follow suit, rather than them all having bad graphics. <span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 17:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Ok, reverted. ] (]) 17:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::....Well, that was easy. How dare you be so cooperative! |
|
|
::I'll fix the other articles. Thanks for drawing my attention to those pages. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 18:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@] Can you explain your edit moving information down into "Personal interests", as I don't really understand it. I think, in particular, the black spider memos were better suited where they were, and moving the goalpost (i.e. renaming the section so that you could move it in) wasn't the best idea. I won't undo it, because I've hit the revert limit and I want to hear your side first. ] (]) 19:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The letters aren't pertinent to his official duties. |
|
|
::::And, on the subject of "impertinence", the same "Official duties" section contains info about Charles' bouts of COVID. That should be elsewhere... But, where? --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 19:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No, but equally impertinent in "Personal interests". It's only after you changed the title of that section so that it would be. Apart from that, I find some of your rewording changes odd. Why did you remove "government" from "government ministers", for example? Regarding the COVID - obviously that impacted his duties too. ] (]) 19:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The letters pertained to his causes. So, it seems more appropriate to put mention of them adjacent to the info about his personal causes than under the header "Official duties". This article is, of course, still a work in progress. |
|
|
::::::"Government ministers" is a pleonasm. Unless you're suggesting there's some need to differentiate them from religious ministers? |
|
|
::::::I'm sure his brushes with COVID affected more than just his official duties. The whole pandemic interfered with his official duties. I can't see how it's sensible to put the information about his illnesses under "Official duties". --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 20:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Could be construed as Christian ministers. Besides, since you have offered no alternative on where to put the information on Charles's COVID infections, they should stay, as yes, they did impact his duties, as did his memos. ] (]) 20:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Obviously the mentions of COVID will stay until a better location is found. Where else would they go? And where is the connection between his letters and his official duties? --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 20:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I don't want to move the mentions of COVID anywhere. In Elizabeth II's case, she has a designated subsection for COVID. Maybe one for Charles could be made. Again, I don't think the memos quite fit in "Official duties", but I don't think they fit to where you've moved it to either. ] (]) 20:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent}} I still feel that there is a connection between Charles' letters and his personal interests--again, that's what the letter were all about. But, what about a separate sub-section titled "Communications with government", or something like that, within the "Prince of Wales" section, below the sub-section "Official duties"? |
|
|
|
|
|
As to the COVID info... There doesn't seem to be enough of it to warrant its own section. ] has a dedicated section for the ''pandemic''. Did Charles do a great deal during the pandemic? He launched his Great Reset idea. But, that's already got a mention under "Natural environment" --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 03:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm also curious: what's wrong with ]? --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 17:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Nothing wrong with it, I just felt it cluttered the section. You can add it back if you want, I'm not vehemently against it. ] (]) 18:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Infobox image caption == |
|
|
|
|
|
I notice that the infobox image of Charles is an official portrait from the website of the governor-general of New Zealand. Typically, when an official portrait is used in the infobox it is captioned as such (in this case it would be captioned as Official portrait, 2019; see ], ], ] and ] for examples). This is just a case of nit-picking on my part, but I propose that we change the infobox image caption from "Charles in 2019" to "Official portrait, 2019" to reflect the official status of the image and for consistency with other articles. ] (]) 21:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'd hesitate to call in that; in your examples, the people listed are only in power in one country (and therefore their portrait is official everywhere they're in charge), whilst Charles is head of 15 + Head of the Commonwealth + Defender of the Faith. Having his Kiwi official portrait labelled as the definitive official portrait for all his realms is misleading. ] (]) 21:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Barbados == |
|
|
|
|
|
The Queen wasn't Barbadian. Any claim that she was is absurd, and somewhat distasteful. The monarchy was abolished because it was not Barbadian. Republicanism in the realms is driven by the desire to have a local head of state and not one imposed by a foreign hegemony. She was deposed because the monarchy wasn't Barbadian. It was alien and colonial. ] (]) 09:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Eh? Does this relate to your repeated edits to add back the phrase "removed the Queen as Barbadian head of state"? I don't follow the logic of this at all. Our "Monarchy of Barbados" article -- which is what we're linking to in either case -- doesn't assert or imply that either the then-monarch or the present one are Barbadian (in anything other than in the most legalistic sense). "Deposed" would be even worse though! This was the abolition of a monarchy, not a palace coup in favour of someone else, Barbadian or otherwise, carrying out the monarchical role. Which is moderately clear from the previous sentence, but this really does its best to re-muddle it. ] (]) 09:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't know what you mean by "repeated efforts". I've only added that phrase back once and then only to restore the article to the original version in line with wikipedia policy on reverted changes. ] (]) 10:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I beg your pardon: in the other edit I had in mind the exact phrase was "abolished the Elizabeth II's role as ]", so arguably not precisely "repeated" in a narrow sense. I don't really see how this assists us on the merits of either version. Nor do I see how reverts to a long-standing mediocre article are the lucent ideal and objective of policy, while everyone else is "edit warring". At any rate, does this amount to an objection that on the one hand "monarch of Barbados" or "monarchy of Barbados" are permissible constructions, but "Barbadian monarchy" isn't? ] (]) 12:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That she was "monarch of Barbados" is incontrovertible and uncontroversial. Both of the other phrases are arguable at best. They rely on the idea that the monarchy was 'of Barbados' or 'Barbadian', but this is not an unbias view. Another view is that the monarchy was British and foreign. Another view is that the monarchy is shared and common. 'monarch of Barbados' is the only phrase of the three that is ]. ] (]) 13:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It was only "shared" to the extent that there was an agreement that all sixteen have the same one; they're clearly separate titles, and succeed separately in the law of each. Obviously regarding it as "British and foreign" is/was a perfectly valid view, but one that's more of a political argument for getting rid of it than a linguistic one for how to best describe it. I can't really intuit any feasible distinction between "monarch" and "monarchy" here, and if there's one I'm missing, we have bigger problems, to wit the article ]. But erring on the side of assuming that I indeed am, I'll use that form. ] (]) 14:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Political, yes. Valid, no. There can't be both a monarchy of Barbados and a foreign British monarchy in Barbados; a country can't be both a colony and sovereign. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 16:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:It seems that the user is only here to spread his or her political opinions for no good reason. ] (]) 02:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Please ]. I don't entirely agree with the connotational concerns that user raises, but I think they have some sort of at least possible basis. ] (]) 03:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Proclamations == |
|
|
{{collapse top|Argument perpetuated for the sake of argument. ] (]) 19:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Which one of the 11 citations on the disputed claim supports the content? Per ], I suggest removal of all but that one, if there is one. Otherwise, it's ]. ] (]) 18:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:How is it an "excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. Specifically, excessive lists of various proclamations"? You haven't explained that. ] (]) 18:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::], a list of 11 sources for 10 proclamations is excessive. ] (]) 18:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::There you go, ] has sorted it out. Happy now? ] (]) 18:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::On the basis of the edit summary that may have been made on a slightly faulty premise, as it's not a matter of there being a "body that reads out the proclamation" in each realm, they -- or at least, most of them -- are making their own localised "principal proclamation". That realm gets top billing, that particular GG signs it etc, etc. But that's likely more detail than the article needs, especially as then we'd be getting into the details of which exact body is "taking note" of the accession (''likely'' some variation of the cabinet and the executive council, but maybe some plot twist on that in some cases, no sure), which isn't necessarily the same group of people who then appear in public to read out that version of the proclamation. But moot as far as (that version of) the article text is concerned. ] (]) 20:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm happy with , providing it sticks. ] (]) 18:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Fine. ] (]) 18:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And, yet, if there weren't a source for each proclamation, mention of proclamations being read in each realm would get deleted because it isn't properly sourced. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 18:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You are correct it wasn't properly sourced, as originally written. ] (]) 19:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
This may be a potentially useful combo-source, though it by no means covers all 15 (or even 10). https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9621/CBP-9621.pdf ] (]) 20:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, we only need that one. ] (]) 07:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::But we do not need it for the ambiguous wording about ceremonies that could be interpreted as meaning the other realms parroted the British proclamation, which seems to be exactly how you've misunderstood the actual events. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 07:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I haven't misunderstood anything and your attempt to twist a content dispute into a personal one by insulting me again merely reflects badly on you. ] (]) 07:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::No one insulted you. |
|
|
::::In your edit summary restoring the fuzzy statement "proclamation ceremonies were held in other realms", you stated the Research Briefing says (but not where), "the Proclamation of the Accession of His Majesty King Charles III as Monarch of the United Kingdom and head of the Commonwealth of Nations." Of what relevance is that in the context of the non-British realms if not a statement that either the King in his British Council made himself king in all the non-British realms (as if it were 1922, rather than 2022) or the non-British realms just read out the British proclamation? Either way, it's a misunderstanding ot the events, the truth of which was supported by all the citations that you simply deleted. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 07:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No, I did not say that. "the Proclamation of the Accession of His Majesty King Charles III as Monarch of the United Kingdom and head of the Commonwealth of Nations" is a quote from the citation that you added and that I removed: https://bahamaschronicle.com/proclamation-of-accession-of-his-majesty-king-charles-iii-delivered-in-an-official-ceremony-in-parliament-square/ not the Research Briefing that 109.etc provided. ] (]) 07:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::You removed nine citations, retaining just one. How was one to guess, then, that "the citation" you were referring to was one of the nine and not the one you left behind? |
|
|
::::::Regardless, putting aside how something in one citation justifies removing all nine to justify the re-implementation of fuzzy phrasing, "the citation" actually quotes the Bahamian proclamation, which announces Charles' accession as "sovereign of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas", not as "as Monarch of the United Kingdom and head of the Commonwealth of Nations". --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 15:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The citation reads "Former Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Hubert A. Ingraham, reads the Proclamation of the Accession of HIs Majesty King Charles III as Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and head of the Commonwealth of Nations, at a ceremony in Parliament Square, Nassau, The Bahamas, September 11, 2022." and "With loud cheers, trumpet fanfare from the balcony of the Senate building, and a 21-gun salute by the Royal Bahamas Defence Force, the Proclamation of the Accession of His Majesty King Charles III as Monarch of the United Kingdom and head of the Commonwealth of Nations was officially delivered, Sunday, September 11, 2022, in Parliament Square, Downtown, Nassau." Trying to claim that it doesn't, when we can all read it for ourselves, is bound to fail. ] (]) 16:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I didn't say the article doesn't. I said the proclamation doesn't. The article isn't a proclamation. Did you read beyond the image caption? --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 16:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Obviously, I did since my second quote is not in the image caption. I'm already on your list of enemies -- there's no reason to double down on it by asking me dismissive and snarky questions which are designed to insult, berate and goad and not to evince information. ] (]) 16:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::I mean, you've never disguised your disdain for me. But, that's neither here nor there; I was writing with a focus squarely on the issue at hand. And, getting back to that: Alright, so, the original wording of my previous comment was more on the mark; I shouldn't've changed "first paragraph" to "image caption". I'll say sorry for that; but, not for being forthright when passively accused of deliberate misrepresentation (which is just a nice way of saying "lying"). It's one thing to simply not have read something and an entirely other thing to have read it and then ''tried'' (i.e. made a conscious effort) to claim it wasn't there. |
|
|
::::::::::I trust everything's clear now regarding "the citation"; though, it appears to no longer be moot, since everyone seems to find the Research Briefing to be a sufficient source. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 16:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I removed one citation, the one I was referring to, when I referred to . Of course, I was not referring to any of the other eight removed by an earlier edit. A fact that you are and were already well aware of. No-one, including you, thought I was referring to any of the other eight. You are just being argumentative for the sake of it, pretending that the one citation I was referring to could somehow be confused with eight others that had been removed earlier in the day in a different edit. ] (]) 07:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::You . One of them was . So, as it turns out, you were indeed referring to one of the nine when saying "the citation", or "it". The question therefore stands. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 18:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit Suggestion == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure of the standard practice, but it seems for a lot of noble figures, their house is listed in their info box. I think this justifies adding that King Charles' house is Windsor in his info box. ] (]) 02:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Never mind. Sorry. I didn't see it. :| ] (]) 02:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Charles's vs Charles' == |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if this is some British English vs American English situation, but what is the explanation over using Charles's and not Charles'? ] (]) 02:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Both are grammatically correct. Misplaced Pages has decided to standardise on the former for consistency. See ]. ] (]) 07:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Many people would disagree with your first sentence, including all the English teachers I ever had, but the second sentence is correct. (I still find it ugly, but I just deal with it.) ] (]) 07:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Many prescriptive style guide would disagree with those people referred to in the first clause of your first sentence, including ''The Chicago Manual of Style'', ''APA Publication Manual'' and ''MLA Handbook''. On your second, I can only sympathise: ''De gustibus'', etc. Aesthetic preferences are purely personal, but language is fundamentally a matter of (more-or-less) agreed convention. ] (]) 21:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Praise of views on alternative medicine and homeopathy == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|Tim O'Doherty}} I see you reverted my revert of the addition of this claim. Can you explain why you consider mentioning this praise to be DUE, especially in the lede? It appears to be the view of a tiny minority - aligning with the tiny minority that supports alternative medicine and homeopathy - and thus would be ] to include. |
|
|
|
|
|
In addition, even if it is ] to include we need sources to support the claim that it is praised, and the content needs to be added to the body before it can be added to the lede. ] (]) 21:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Sorry BilledMammal, reverted the wrong person. My mistake. ] (]) 21:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::No worries, thank you for clarifying. ] (]) 21:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Charles III Proposition. Please consider :) == |
|
|
|
|
|
So I believe that the text in the lead should be changed to “his support for ] and other ] has been both criticised and praised, the latter to a lesser extent.” to make the article '''more neutral''' and '''clearly''' show that not everyone criticises Charles on this matter. '''I recognise that Charles’ opinion is of a small minority, thus this has been represented in the text''' (“to a lesser extent”)'''.''' My reasoning can be seen a discussion I had with another editor here: ]. I understand that most people, including me, disagree with the use of homeopathic remedies ''yet I believe the article must be amended''. What do others think? ] (]) 22:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:This isn't an article about what people think of Charles, nor is it an article about the benefits or otherwise of homeopathy, so we shouldn't really be going down either of those paths. I would stick to something very simple, along the lines "Charles has expressed some support for homeopathy." ] (]) 00:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Good plan. ] (]) 06:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Question is, is it ]? Obviously homeopathy has its supporters, but unless they've prominently and publicly supporting ''CMW'' for supporting it, to a degree comparable to those criticising with it, you'd have a point. Just general "homeopathy good somehow" sources wouldn't work for that purpose. ] (]) 00:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Personally I do think it is due owing to the phrasing but yet I see your point. ] (]) 06:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== GA nomination instructions == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{u|Tim O'Doherty}}, the ] require that significant contributors to the article should be consulted before a nomination. The top six contributors to this article are {{u|Keivan.f}}, {{u|GoldRingChip}}, {{u|Yitzilitt}}, {{u|Monkelese}}, {{u|Miesianiacal}}, and {{u|DrKay}}; pinging them to see if they agree this article is ready to be nominated. ] (] - ] - ]) 19:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:The instructions state: {{tq|If you are not a significant contributor to the article, you must secure the assent of the significant contributors before nominating}}. Am I not a significant contributor? ] (]) 19:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::You've certainly done a lot to the article, but see ; for a heavily edited article like this it takes quite a few edits to get into the top ten. Nobody has objected so far, so this is probably fine; just wanted to check. ] (] - ] - ]) 21:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks for the clarification; I'm surprised to even be in ninth place, if I'm honest. ] (]) 21:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Actually, you're in eighth place. Click onto the G2bambino account ;) ] (]) |
|
|
* It's OK with me. —] 19:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
* In favour of nomination. ] (]) 20:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
* It wasn't ready, and is only improving slowly if at all, hence the edit-wars, arguments and bad faith actions that have occurred as a result. However, I don't resent or blame Tim for trying, nor should it in my view prevent a nomination. ] (]) 16:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:It might not have been ready when I nominated it one week ago. A lot has happened since then: do you think it's ready now? ] (]) 16:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::I think it's a strong article in most particulars and independent review can be helpful. ] (]) 16:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*The article has potential and would benefit from an independent review. Yes, there was a lot of back and forth between editors, but we should try to assume good faith moving forward, if we intend to further improve the article. <span style="font:'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font:'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 17:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:We did attempt a peer review. It went stagnant once the article was nominated. ] (]) 18:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::In fact, between Tim and I we tried about as much venue-shopping as we could get away with this side of ] of looking for peer review or something similar, and pretty much ''all'' these processes seem to be moribund. Or ], to put it as kindly as possible. So this is rather the last throw of the "improve it before it gets another two million hits in a week" dice. ] (]) 18:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* While I think it still requires a bit of work, the article has, on the whole, been significantly improved. So, I'd say it's about ready for a nomination. No doubt that will bring in outside input on desired/needed fixes. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 18:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.jpg)
.svg)
.svg){kind=logo}
wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
