| Revision as of 23:17, 2 May 2023 edit109.etc (talk | contribs)264 editsm →Dale 'Kanga' Tryon← 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=onreview|note=|shortdesc=King of the United Kingdom since 2022}} |
|
|
{{talkheader|search=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes|less archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|
|
{{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 two 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) |
|
|
:::::::::::I still think that the footnote does just fine on its own. It lists what he's king of without being to intrusive, and is right at the top of the article. I don't see how adding "independent countries" helps. If it is really needed though, how about "'''Charles III''' is ] and 14 other ]", with "independent countries having a link to ]? ] (]) 19:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::We tried that previously, it didn't take. I'm largely fine with it (apart from the use of numerals, and possibly the case of "king"). I still don't think it deals with the "where's he king of" question, but that's largely a separate issue. (I mentioned it here largely in the context of offering to Miesi by way of trying to deal with their concerns about it under separate cover.) ] (]) 22:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::I agree with you that the casing of "K/king" is a problem. I think we need to have "]" but we should also acknowledge that he isn't "King of 14 other independent countries". The obvious solution is "] and king of 14 other ]", although I'm not taken by this either. ] (]) 22:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::IMO we don't actually need to have that, as he's both "King of the United Kingdom" ((part of) his title), and "king of the United Kingdom" (a factual description). The link we can textually scope differently, or skip here (as we might possibly mention the fact of his being king ''once or twice'' elsewhere, so can link it there instead). ] (]) 22:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::If we did have a lowercase ''k'', we'd need to have "'''the''' king of the United Kingdom ". ] (]) 22:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::I think we can blow another word of the lead-paragraph-length budget. ] (]) 22:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::Any way we can truncate an RfC into a week? (That's asked (mostly) tongue-in-cheek.) --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 20:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Haha. Might want to look at what happened when ''I'' ]. I'd say go for it, but make it explicitly clear in your opening statement that it's just for 7 days. ] (]) 20:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::There's apparently no policy or even guideline on length, but for all the lip service to ], clearly Wikipedians like well-run "elections", will have them incessantly, and treat them as such. But arguably it's contrary to the spirit of "uninvolved closure" to specify ''when'' the closure ''must'' happen in advance. OTOH it's hardly Wikianarchy to say, "let's look at the preliminary results after a week, and reopen it later if needed". ] (]) 21:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::I concur. 1 month long RfCs are excessive, especially when we need to get things done quickly, as in the CIII approval process. ] (]) 22:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::Tim, RFCs generally last a month, which is when the RFC tag expires & is removed by the Legobot. Then an editor goes to ], to seek an uninvolved editor (preferably an administrator) to close & make a decision, on the RFC result. ] (]) 22:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::I know they do. I'm saying that there can be occasional exceptions, and in the case of Mies' proposal, it would be wise to get it through quickly before the GA review. It's not always the case either, as the RfC held here on the WP:CIII proposals was archived today, and not closed by anybody, sysop or otherwise. ] (]) 22:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::I've been in ''many'' RFCs & I can assure you, 'deadline' RFCs tend to have little teeth. A regular (1-month) RFC, has a stronger consensus. ] (]) 22:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::Not always. For example, ] was closed after 5 days and has determined the consensus for going on 8 months now. ] (]) 22:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od|::::::::::::::}}Trust me, this topic isn't anything like the ''image'' RFC. Anyways, you can either accept my advice or ignore it. ] (]) 22:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::"Generally" is doing a lot of work there. There's expressly no such requirement, and we're not supposed to be making machine-paced work to suit the bot. And that characterisation of "what then happens" misstates two key details, as is clear enough if you follow your own link. ] (]) 22:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'll take your advice, GoodDay, but I disagree with you. A consensus made in a week can be just as strong as one made in a month. I'm in favour of the lead sentence RfC lasting a month, provided it takes place after the review, as it's not a good idea to have an RfC during it. ] (]) 22:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Perhaps rather than attempting to throw process at the problem, then throw process at the process, ad infinitum (see Chuck3 archives ''passim''), we should just aim at having a "focused discussion" on the topic, with a view to implementing the preliminary consensus of that in a timely manner. The way y'know, Misplaced Pages is ''supposed'' to work. Albeit rarely does. ] (]) 23:00, 27 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}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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) |
|
|
*::I '''oppose''' the promotion of this article to GA status. It fails criterion 4. It is not stable and will not be stable until some time after the coronation. ] (]) 18:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::I admit it's been a bit turbulent, but I don't think so much so that it prevents GA. ] (]) 18:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::If you're in favour of ''nomination'', isn't this the wrong venue to opposing ''promotion''? Much as I hate to cite process, after my intermittent moans about people spiking improvement with it... ] (]) 20:35, 28 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
==RfC on opening sentence== |
|
|
<!-- ] 05:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1685682072}} |
|
|
{{rfc|hist|pol|soc|rfcid=2D130CE}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Input is requested regarding how to end the opening sentence of this article, following the words "Charles III (Charles Philip Athur George; born 14 November 1948)..." Prior discussion on the matter has taken place ] and ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
Presently, there are six options: |
|
|
|
|
|
# is king of ], in addition to the ]. |
|
|
# is king of 14 independent countries, in addition to the ], collectively known as the ]s. |
|
|
# is king of ], including the ]. |
|
|
# is ] and the 14 other ]. |
|
|
# is ] and 14 other independent countries, all known as the ]s. |
|
|
# is ], , , , and the other ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
Issues of concern appear to be, so far: |
|
|
|
|
|
* Brevity (without sacrificing accuracy of information, both explicit and implied) |
|
|
* Giving prominence to the United Kingdom/Charles' role as king of the United Kingdom |
|
|
* Not relegating countries that belong to the G7, G20, TPP, NATO, and/or are otherwise relatively significant on the global stage into a diminished group of "other" |
|
|
* Expressing the reality of the equality of status between the Commonwealth realms and Charles' offices as king of each |
|
|
* The difference between role and title |
|
|
* Reader unfamiliarity with the term "Commonwealth realm" |
|
|
|
|
|
Please state your preference or preferences in order of preference. The aim is to form a consensus within the next week, ahead of Charles' coronation on 6 May; though, it is acknowledged that this may not happen. 04:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Note: Option 1 is lifted from the on the British monarchy website, under "The King and the Commonwealth". |
|
|
|
|
|
===Survey=== |
|
|
* '''Option 3''' followed by '''option 6''' (''if'' criteria could be worked out) and '''option 2'''. Option 3 seems to hit the most marks and, therefore, is the best compromise: it |
|
|
:* says first that Charles is king of many countries (which, on the whole, is what makes Charles unique among presently reigning monarchs) |
|
|
:* makes clear there is one group, thereby implying equality (rather than misrepresenting the arrangement as the UK and "other", which option 1 implies and 4 outright states) |
|
|
:* makes clear the UK is part of the group (option 1 does not) |
|
|
:* does so while giving the UK prominence |
|
|
:* is brief |
|
|
:* avoids the possibly/likely unfamiliar-to-most-readers term "Commonwealth realm" |
|
|
:I'd take option 6, however, if there were consensus on what criteria to use to determine where to cut the list off; i.e. population, GDP, G7 or G20 members, etc. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 04:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Addendum: Hardly anyone reads footnotes. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 21:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
* I'd go for '''5'''. He's basically the king of the UK and the others only for historical/colonial reasons. After all he's not the third king of Australia called Charles, he's the first, so Charles III doesn't make sense for Australia. ] (]) 05:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:I agree with option 5 as probably the best. The monarchy is based in the UK and the monarch lives full-time in the UK. The monarch is head of state of other countries by virtue of the history of the British Empire. As far as I know, the monarch's functions in Commonwealth states that retain the monarchy are performed on his behalf by the Governor General rather than the monarch personally, so his direct role is somewhat diluted. |
|
|
*:Please note that in 2, 4, 5 and 6, reference to "the" Commonwealth realms seems to imply that all Commonwealth members have him as head of state. However, this is not the case as some members e.g. Rwanda, India are republics, so I suggest tweaking this. |
|
|
*:There seems to be a typo as far as Charles' middle name Arthur is concerned. ] (]) 13:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::Not just some, in fact most of the 56, less the Realms and a handful of separate monarchies. Isiah, that's exactly the motivation for the "independent states" wording, because while "Commonwealth realm" has a different meaning than "Commonwealth country", many readers -- and I suspect some editors! -- will see this and be either actively confused (the better alternative, as then they're likely look at the footnote or the link), or passively confused (thinking this means "the Commonwealth", "various dependencies", etc) and not even realizing their mistake. @], he's not even the actual "III'rd" of the ''UK'' (and still less was Liz the "II'nd"). The regnal numbers have been determined to be entirely discretionary. We could arguably stand to get into the weeds of that too, but it's likely ] for this entire article (given its size and the number of things it has to cover), but hopefully it's covered properly in one of the many subsidiary articles. 19:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC) ] (]) 19:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Option 4''', followed by '''5''', followed by '''2'''. The UK should be mentioned first, because it's obviously the most important realm. "King of the UK ''and the 14 other'' Commonwealth realms" makes perfectly clear that these are a group, while giving due prominence to the UK. |
|
|
:] is an important term, used by many reliable sources, and shouldn't be translated away. I propose a slight addition to the note at the end of the lead sentence: "''Commonwealth realms are independent countries that have Charles III as their monarch and head of state.'' In addition to the United Kingdom, the fourteen other realms are ..." (my proposed addition in italics). This should help explain the term without using the awkward wording of Option 5. ] (]) 06:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Option 4''': status quo, consistent with other articles, brief and to the point. Second choice '''option 5''': slightly less concise but avoids any confusion over what is a Commonwealth realm. ] (]) 08:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Option 4''': status quo, brief & to the point, consistent with other articles, recognises that Charles is mostly known as the British monarch. Also, he lives in the UK (which is why the UK has <u>no</u> governor general), his coronation will be held in the UK, he was born in the UK & most likely (after his death) will be buried in the UK. PS - DrKay's footnote already has the ''other'' Commonwealth realms mentioned, for our readers. ] (]) 09:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Option 4''', status quo. ] (]) 15:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Option 4''' - if not, I would suggest: "is the ] and 14 other ]". If I had to pick an already-proposed alternative, I think that would be '''Option 5'''. ] (]) 16:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''4 or 5'''. All the other titles and roles are sideshows that flow from being British monarch. The most important thing about him should be the first thing said about him. ] (]) 17:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Second clause of option 5 is unnecessary if 'independent countries' is being used to avoid the more unusual term or confusion. Option 5 is also briefer, simpler and more on topic without the second clause. ] (]) 10:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse top|Argument between two editors. Nothing's going to be said here which hasn't already been said. ] (]) 17:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)}} |
|
|
::Your first sentence, of course, is false. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 17:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Of course, you can't disguise your disdain for me or resist passively accusing me of deliberate misrepresentation (which is just a nice way of saying "lying"). ] (]) 17:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
*'''Option 4''' – he's best known as the monarch of the UK, so that should be mentioned; not Option 5, because there's no point in trying to squeeze complicated Commonwealth constitutional principles into an opening line; use '''4''', wiklink "Commonwealth realms", and it's good. ] (]) 18:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Option 4''' - Per @]. ] (]) 18:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Option 4''' linking ] - consistent with ]--] 20:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Option 4''' Considering that he's British and resides primarily in the United Kingdom, his role as "King of the United Kingdom" should be acknowledged. Others fall under the umbrella of the Commonwealth realms, and it's better to refer to them collectively, rather than choosing specific countries. <span style="font:'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font:'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 20:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:That's more of an argument against #6 rather than in favour of #4. Do none of the others have any merit? ] (]) 20:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::"Others fall under the umbrella of the Commonwealth realms, and it's better to refer to them collectively, rather than choosing specific countries." Agreed. The Commonwealth realms are all of equal status, so refer to them as a group. ] (]) 20:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::No, all fifteen fall under that umbrella. From the PoV of each it's "Saint Lucia and the fourteen other Commonwealth realms" (for example). ] (]) 21:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::I never said that UK is not part of the Commonwealth realms, or that it's somehow superior to the other ones. Had Charles been a permanent resident in Canada and carrying out most of his duties there, I would have advocated for "King of Canada and the 14 other Commonwealth realms", but that's not the case. <span style="font:'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font:'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 07:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Option 5''' or some minor textual variation on it. Only stylistically acceptable alternative, IMO. #1-3 aren't viable, because they put the cart before the horse in a ] way. #4 is terrible as it uses a fairly obscure term outside of any context, exacerbated by us failing to clarify it later, and it being all-too-easy to misunderstand. (Several editors here seem to have confused it with "the Commonwealth"; others will likely just take it to mean minor dependencies of some kind, obviously not yoooj countries like Australia and Jamaica. #6 is simply unworkable in the context of the lede. Worst possible place for arbitrary laundry lists. ] (]) 21:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Yes, I can see misconceptions are guiding certain arguments favouring the continued perpetuation of those misconceptions; "the realms are just fancy colonies", "Charles is king of those other places by accident/laziness/forgetfulness", and whatnot. I sense, so far, little allowance for compromise; though, perhaps option 5 has potential. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 21:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''4''' followed by 5 per above as the best solution. ''']''' † <sup>]</sup> 23:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Option 4''' and then 5. Both are good options but 4 is simpler. There is the matter of Commonwealth Realms being a potentially confusing term (which 5 clarifies slightly), however readers can get a quick and easy explanation via the wikilink. 03:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:(Above comment by @].) ] (]) 04:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Option 4''' without a doubt. If this were the Simple English Misplaced Pages we might want to paraphrase the Commonwealth Realms, but here people can just click on the link if they need an explanation. And the UK should definitely have prominence, for historical reasons and because it is what he is best known as being king of. ] (]) 07:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Option 3''' to avoid placing the United Kingdom as separate from and above the other countries, which are equal. Also 'King of the United Kingdom' is a formal title so king is OK for Option 3 but needs capitalising for the other options. Link out to Commonwealth realms. ]]<small><sup><i>(])</i></sup></small> 10:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Option 3''' implies equality between the independent countries, still links to Commonwealth realms so readers can become familiar with the term, and specially calls out the United Kingdom, giving it more due weight, which is appropriate for reasons stated by editors above. ] (]) 16:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Given the groundswell of "!"voters expressing some variation on "UK has to go first" as a rationale, would you (and @], and anyone of a similar view, be at all supportive of some text like #3, except flipped around? Like {{tq|king of the United Kingdom and ]}}? ] (]) 21:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::Butting in, but I'd support that if the status quo has to change. ] (]) 22:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::Looks like it more likely ''doesn't'' have to change, due to our famous, designed commitment to majoritarianism, but that does seem to address the rationales of both the #4 and the #3 supporters. (And I've no problem with your third-opinioning, but if this turns into another megastring, by all means refactor it into #Discussion, anyone who feels inclined.) ] (]) 22:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Option 4''', then '''Option 6'''. Option 4 keeps it simple as required for being in the lead. There is an argument that not mentioning that he is the Head of State of some major countries eg a G7 country like Canada is somewhat strange - hence 6. Option 4 has the slight avantage of avoiding the inevitable debate of who gets mentioned and who doesn't. ] (]) 07:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Option 4''' Simple and clear. ] (]) 19:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion=== |
|
|
*'''Not this again'''. I am absolutely certain that the equivalent topic was discussed at ] within the last 2-3 years. Stick with that consensus, and drop the matter. --] 🌹 (]) 07:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Whether or not to conduct this RfC was discussed. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 18:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:That's hardly a speedy revisit. As opposed to the biweekly RfCs on images, for example... ] (]) 20:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*On a minor note, all of the options are presented with lower-case 'king'. That's not the status quo, and for the near-status-quo option would likely suggest a different text scope for the link, and arguably a "the", too. So likely upper-case "King" is intended, at least for that option. The others are perhaps less clear, but that's likely moot in the rush to keep the (terrible) status quo. ] (]) 20:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hm. I took the lower-case "k" as a given, since it's an unavoidable fact there're no such titles as "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" or "King of the 14 other Commonweath realms". --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 21:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Another (minor, in the scheme of things compared to the others!) flaw in the status quo. He's "King of the UK, King of Canada, ..." etc, or he's "king of (UK, Canada, ...)". "(King of UK), Canada..." doesn't really work. ] (]) 21:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::No, it doesn't. No one else seems to have noticed the lower-case "k" in all the suggestions, though. Maybe it will get "approval by oversignt". --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 21:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Should 'King' be capitalised or not? I would've recommended, that be a separate discussion. ] (]) 21:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:So part of the text of lede sentence should be a separate discussion from the "what should the lede sentence be"? But the very existence of this RfC gives you carte blanche for summary "reverts to the status quo" of a footnnte that's ''not'' part of the sentence itself? Most curious. ] (]) 22:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree with the change you made; it was undoubtedly an improvement. We must remember that editors, whilst involved in RfCs, can act in their own capacity to make changes not directly related to the RfC. But, we also must remember not to edit-war, not only because it's against policy, but because we need to make sure the article is stable for the review. ] (]) 22:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Sure. And edit warring starts with ''exactly'' this sort of "I'm gonna revert, it's a free hit, and not trouble to discuss" behaviour. ] (]) 22:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::A footnote reading "members of the wider ] ... have Charles III as their head of state" is too easily misread and could lead to more confusion. ] (]) 07:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::All sentences using the word "not" would be inherently "too easily misread and could lead to more confusion" if you assume that people are apt to read the start, zone out in the middle for the key part, and then read the end again. ] (]) 14:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The footnote did not contain the word "not". ] (]) 17:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::That's right. Was my point somehow nonetheless not clear? I can always have another go. An arbitrary subsequence of the words in a sentence meaning something entirely different is not an argument against the clarity or utility of that sentence. ] (]) 21:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:He is indeed formally 'King of the United Kingdom', King of New Zealand' etc, so should be capitalised. ]]<small><sup><i>(])</i></sup></small> 09:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::But not formally "King of the Commonwealth realms". ] (]) 14:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Remember folks, don't Bludgeon=== |
|
|
FWIW - I ''hope'' editors will respect ], as this is a 'request for comment', rather then a 'request for debate'. ] (]) 21:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yep, it's nearing ] levels of contention. ] (]) 21:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::You better change your mind about that, or else...! --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 21:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Sidebar == |
|
|
|
|
|
Any objections to ] being created at ] and added to the article? ] (]) 20:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, it duplicates the function of the existing navigation template ]. ] (]) 20:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Eh? ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], all have their own navboxes and sidebars. That's not a valid point. ] (]) 20:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::See ] for recent precedent. ] (]) 21:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I haven't seen that sidebar, so I don't know how similar it was to the other template - I think that the proposed one is sufficiently different. {{ping|GoodDay}} {{ping|109.etc}} {{ping|Miesianiacal}} I don't know if you have any opinion on this. ] (]) 21:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'd recommend against adding the sidebar-in-question. Appropriate for politicians, but not (IMHO) for a constitutional monarch. ] (]) 21:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not strongly against inclusion of the sidebar. But, it does repeat parts of ]. It also appears to be a "tradition" for politicians, but not monarchs. It looks good, though; far better than ]; I'll give it that. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 21:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd be happier about it if these nav boxes didn't end up looking like "infobox, Part Deux". Or if the actual infobox was a little more... concise. ] (]) 21:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Fourth paragraph == |
|
|
|
|
|
Place all your fourth-paragraph related gripes below. ] (]) 14:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Well, how about "input", rather than "gripes"? Regardless, I can see what {{ping|109.etc}} is attepmting to do: expand on the article's first sentence. I'll be so bold as to say that--the fourth paragraph--should be where we list every country Charles is king of. The article is long enough that putting such information in the lede won't make the lede disproportionately long and no one can say it gums up the first (miniscule) "paragraph". (Though, I personally wouldn't say listing the countries at the start is a no-no, anyway). If more countries drop out as Commonwealth realms or any (*cough* Fiji *cough*) become one again, that info can be added. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 14:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't think in P1.S1 is a prospect to hold your breath for. P4 isn't impossible, but it's pushing it, Maybe once we're down to around half a dozen or so, to go by the precedent of ]. In #Reign should obviously be a slam-dunk, but that's out of scope here. I've previously suggested a "most populous six", or a geographically organised "everything but the Windies minnows" (which link, and ideally organise the target CR article to make that a little clearer), but I don't think it's at any point troubled the article text. (Apologies in advance if my memory is incorrect and this is "continued attempts to force changes", on a glacial timescale.) Perhaps I'll run something on those up the mast in due course if there's any degree of support for it. ] (]) 15:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No, I'm breathing freely not waiting for addition of all the realms into the first sentence-paragraph. In the "Reign" section is an interesting proposal. Though, I still feel there needs to be ''something'' in the opening to express the very relevant and important fact Charles is king of a number of influential countries, not just the UK. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 17:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yes, as I say I think there should be some greater "independent countries" clarity in the lede -- currently being "!"voted down overwhelmingly, so many in another 2-3 years' time -- ''and'' some element of further gloss of that in the lead section ''and'' a full list somewhere in the prose of the body of the article. If I'm somehow wildly wrong about that being an essential part of any halfway-decent article on the topic I'd love to hear ''why'' that's the case. As opposed to just getting copious caltrops thrown underneath the feet of actually doing it. ] (]) 18:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I favour the status quo, '''"Charles succeeded his mother upon her death on 8 September 2022"'''. It's quite straight forward & doesn't repeat info that's already in the page's lead & infobox. Continued attempts to ''force'' changes (i.e. create instability) within the fourth paragraph on the topic-in-question? will only sink this page's chances of obtaining GA status. So... best to seek a consensus 'here', in this discussion, which Tim has begun. ] (]) 14:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:What'll sink the GAN is that it's not a GA, and that some people seem determined to "maintain" it as a B forever. Or at least until November, for whatever reason. And it's more accurately -- ] and ] aside -- called "trying to improve the article", and the recommend means of doing so is ]. You should try it sometimes, rather than merely getting in your ] before troubling to make even ] contributions to the discussion yourself. It's entirely unhelpful and infeasible to argue that RfCs require a one-month version-freeze of things ''not even in the scope of the RfC''. |
|
|
:You might perhaps profitably peruse ], ] and ] rather than complaining that a given piece of information appears more than once in a lengthy article. That's kinda the point. Matters too convoluted for the lede (and m.m. for the entire lead section) should appear in helpful detail later, the better to assist readers with various levels of interest and attention-span. And indeed per the old saw, "tell them what you're gonna tell them, tell them what you're telling them, then tell them what you've told then". ] (]) 15:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:: , . --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 17:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Right you two, this section isn't just meant to be a hit piece on GoodDay. I've no overwhelmingly strong opinions on this matter, so I'm not going to die on anybody's hill, but come on. ] (]) 18:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Sure. Not ''just'' a hit piece on GD... But nor is it the place for editors to be launching their own inaccurate personal attacks, like "Continued attempts to force changes (i.e. create instability) ". ] (]) 18:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I don't agree entirely with that statement, but I don't condemn it either. GD didn't say that you (and others) were trying to make the article deliberately unstable, but I don't think that you tried to ''force'' changes either. Is it a personal attack? Probably not. Is it inaccurate? Almost certainly. ] (]) 19:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::If it's not a ''personal'' attack then it's at best a ]. ] (]) 19:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Look: I know you and GoodDay heartily disagree on most topics; that's fine, but let's not turn Charles's talk page into "YouSaidThisNoISaidThat.org". I'm satisfied that things may have got a heated and both said parties things they didn't mean - that's enough. ] (]) 19:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I responded directly to their comments ''here'' in this section, and their reverts on ''this'' subject. A response I very much stand by. Your reframing it as "most topics" perplexes me. ] (]) 19:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::"Most topics", i.e. ]. Just to say that even though GoodDay is, in the words of someone else, "on your list of enemies", we shouldn't be making this talkpage into a dossier onto how "I am holier than thou". But I digress. ] (]) 19:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::I think you mean 'e.g.', unless that one example was somehow of defining, Platonic proportions in a way that eludes me. But that was resolved (as that edit indeed says) rather speedily, and is unrelated to this, or anything I said about this. While I likewise feel ''@]'s'' pain, I don't think I'm turning this into a dossier, rather you and they rather are. ] (]) 21:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Mostly, I agree with you: there shouldn't be a 1 month freeze on changing content that the RfC doesn't cover. I don't think you, Mies or GoodDay were making any personal attacks. But at the same time, there was an air, and I'm not pointing fingers, of ]. That's since been resolved. ] (]) 22:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::There's likely an air of "personalness" about this because is the problem in the way of resolving the problem. |
|
|
::::::::::::Are we--you, {{ping|109.etc}}, and myself--okay with ? I can say I am. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 04:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Suggest we wait until others give their opinon. 109's proposed change wasn't an improvement <s>as the United Kingdom is already mentioned in the lead & the infobox.</s> ] (]) 04:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::I will point out people have already been voicing their opinions. That ship has sailed. Additionally, didn't remove mention of the United Kingdom from the footnote. Your worry about repetition therefore (to continue the aquatic theme) holds no water. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 04:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::I've begun a 'Footnote's content' discussion (see below), as this isn't about the fourth paragraph. ] (]) 04:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::That doesn't make even basic sense. I've not added any additional mention of the UK, and indeed I've decreased its prominence. Your rationale argues for the precise opposite of your action. Though it's an improvement on the one in your edit summary, which was just peremptory nonsense. |
|
|
::::::::::::::@], well, it was my change, so obviously I'm a little biased! This is of course a separate topic from that in the heading and top comment, though it's somewhat aptly placed as it concerns the same sort of poor behaviour by the same editor. Nonetheless, I recommend refactoring this into a separate heading for clarity on the actual content issue. ] (]) 04:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::I've begun a separate discussion (below), concerning the content of the footnote. ] (]) 04:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::FWIW, other editors have reverted you, concerning the 'fourth paragraph'. ] (]) 19:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:So, returning if we may to the fourth paragraph... There seems to be some support for some additional text -- on the lines of {{tq|becoming head of state of 15 independent countries known as ]}} -- being potentially useful. Any specific thoughts on that wording, or pressing reasons not to include it at all? ] (]) 05:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::If other editors revert your changes or proposed changes, then there's not much support, for those changes or proposed changes. But, we'll wait & see. ] (]) 05:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That... really doesn't address anything. And you might want to pay a little more attention to the edits in question before summing them up with such breezy inaccuracy. ] (]) 05:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::We'll wait & see what the other editors (who frequent this page) have to say about your propose changes. PS - I did notice the latest changes made by you (and Mies) to the ''Accession'' section. I suppose I could've reverted (per BRD), but chose instead to let others look over the changes-in-question. Let them decide on whether or not to revert & why. ] (]) 05:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Wow! Thank you so much! |
|
|
:::::Just so it's clear: There ''are'' other options besides reverting. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 05:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Seeking a consensus without making bold changes, is one of those 'other' options. But anyways. ] (]) 05:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::When you refuse to contribute constructively to the D part of BRD, you most certainly have no justificaion for continuing to revert, in a slow revert-war or not. You are not in charge of reverting on behalf of anyone else, let alone some nebulous group of "others" who you can't possibly know will show up or not. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 06:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::We'll see what other editors positions are on the ''bold'' changes made or proposed, on this BLP. ] (]) 06:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Again, this addresses nothing actually raised in the thread you've posted in. Nor does it stay on-topic -- if you have thoughts on #Reign, probably better not to place them in a #Fourth_paragraph talk-section -- nor again does it accurately describe how BRD is intended to work. ] (]) 06:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::We'll wait & see what the other editors input will be. ] (]) 06:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I believe you've asserted that several times, here and elsewhere. To what purpose I'm not quite clear. If you have nothing responsive to add, possibly consider adding nothing. If you have thoughts on what the fourth paragraph should be, and why -- and you should, as you keep editing it -- then by all means share them. ] (]) 06:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Already made it quite clear, what my position is, concerning the fourth paragraph. ] (]) 06:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Wheeas you've explained your rationale for your edit to the "Reign" section, and I agree--as well as holding that the vague term "the other Commonwealth realms" needs clarification somewhere in the article body and the article literally repeating itself is just bad writing--neither of the two editors reverting your edit to the "Reign" section have given any explanation as to why they're reverting. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 20:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::For clarity sake, are the two editors-in-question, myself & {{ping|DrKay}}. That you are referring to? ] (]) 21:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{ping|109.etc}} I'd support that in the fourth paragraph, albeit reduced down to "{{tq| becoming '''king''' of 15 independent countries known as Commonwealth realms}}". If the status quo remains in the first paragraph, this seems like a fairer compromise. ] (]) 09:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Grand, so. I'm by no means wedded to "head of state". Just thought it might be a little 'elegant variation' from repeating "king" yet again ("repetition" being one of the rationales for removal, much as I disagree with that) and possibly even a bit of gloss of people still struggling with the concept of quite what a constitutional monarch might actually be. ] (]) 20:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Please quote , as I've looked all through this talk page and the edit summaries and found none. The "previous reverting editor" merely stated "", begging the same question, and "", which isn't a rationale. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 02:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:You don't have a consensus for what you want changed, in the fourth paragraph. Honestly, at some point, you're going to have to accept that. ] (]) 20:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::And you don't have a consensus to keep it the way you want. At some point you're going to have to accept that and either defend your reverts with a percipient argument or move on. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 22:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'd rather you moved on. ] (]) 23:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That's also not a justification for your reverts. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 23:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::<small>(]): And so it continues... ] (]) 23:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
::::::As {{ping|Redrose64}} mentioned days ago, in a related-topic. "Not this again". It's been over 15 years & counting. ] (]) 23:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Frankly, Redrose has a point. ] (]) 23:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Indeed. But, does everyone involved in this endless battle really know their role in its perpetuation? Each party ought to ask themselves: who do the words "flexible", "negotiation", "discourse", "reasoning", and "compromise" apply more to and to whom do they not apply? GoodDay's been handed his favourite "United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms" on a platter carried by a dozen or more people. The edits 109.etc has been making to the "Reign" section similarly put the UK in first place, in, as far as I can recall, every variation. But, that's ''still'' not good enough for GD and, evidently, he doesn't feel any need to explain why. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 23:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::If you want to open an RFC on this topic? have at it. ] (]) 00:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::You're reverting because there'e no consensus, and there's no consensus because you're reverting. And it's everyone else's fault whenever that happens, as they ought to have realized you'd revert it. Does that about sum up where we are? Is there a comprehensive list of parts of the article that aren't to be edited without a month-long RfC? ] (]) 23:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Just the parts that say "United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms". It's pretty clear he doesn't care about anything else to do with this article. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 23:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::If you can persuade editors to accept listing ''all'' the realms, beginning with the United Kingdom (ya know age of realms order), then by all means try. They may reject it per ], but ya never know. ] (]) 00:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I'm sorry to tell you this isn't a hostage situation. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 01:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Show some confidence in your arguments & open up an RFC. ] (]) 01:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::"Age of realms order"? That'll be fun. Found a source for the use of that recently, following your assertions that "seniority" was the required order, and why would it ever need to be glossed or cited? Indeed, having been both reverted on that and on the wrong side of an informal RfC the matter, doggedly raising it again here is somewhat ironic given your extreme stress on process, the status quo, and precedent elsewhere for the purposes of this page. |
|
|
:::::More relevantly, you've already reverted text on this that had absolutely no "SEAOFBLUE" whatsoever. So you're providing a rationale opposing a straw man edit, while adamantly refusing to explain your own actual past ones. ] (]) 23:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::We're concentrating on the "Accession..." section, now. ] (]) 23:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
Later today, I'll be opening an RFC (or two) on this topic & the 'reign' topic. TBH, I don't see any reason for listing ''any'' country in those areas. Just mentioning that he became king, should be enough. We already have the rest in the article lead & infobox. So no need to repeat it, even if in differing wording. ] (]) 10:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:There is nothing in the lede or infobox that would also be in the "Accession and coronation plans" section if you didn't keep reverting the changes made to that section. The accurate way of putting what you're saying is there is a footnote in the lede and infobox that contains information that would be in the "Accession and coronation plans" section. A footnote does not count as the article body and the purpose of the lede, which you insist on ignoring, is to ''summarize the article''. A word-for-word repetiton is not a summary. The only way one could summarize "Charles is king of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" would be "Charles is king of 15 countries" or "Charles is a king". --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 18:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'd suggest not changing the 'fourth paragraph', as it's part of the opening section. As for the "Accession and coronation plans" section? merely mentioning "King", would be acceptable. ] (]) 20:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::We're no longer discussing the fourth paragraph of the lede. You raised "the 'reign' topic". --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 22:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'm glad the 'fourth paragraph' dispute, has been discontinued. ] (]) 22:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Copyediting == |
|
|
|
|
|
(We're down to the nitty-gritty now. Is this a good thing?) Two points: 1) every sentence with "on " or "in "? 2) ; "British" is simply an adjective placed in front of the title. It's "with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson", as it's "]", "]", "]", etc. <span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 17:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Per ], "prime minister" is a common noun, "British" is the adjective. So, "{{tq|A controversial American president}}", not "{{tq|A controversial American President}}". Same goes for "British prime minister". ] (]) 18:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Per ]: "They are capitalized only in the following cases: When followed by a person's name to form a title". It's "Prime Minister Boris Johnson". The placement of "British" in front of it is irrelevant to the fact "Prime Minister" is the title followed by Boris' name. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 18:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Then just have "Prime Minister Boris Johnson". Adding "British" to it means it can be interpreted in different ways. ] (]) 18:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Or perhaps "Prime Minister Boris Johnson of <s>long infamy</s> the UK" if it's necessary to be that specific. ] (]) 19:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Or just "Boris Johnson". He isn't some unknown governor-general or prime minister of an island with a population of 155. ] (]) 19:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Alright, "p/Prime m/Minister" has vanished. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 19:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Like a zombie, . --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 01:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::. ] (]) 09:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: ] (]) 22:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::That's one persistent zombie. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 22:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Footnote's content, for lead & infobox == |
|
|
|
|
|
I believe the (status quo) ''content'' within {{ping|DrKay}} footnote, for the lead & infobox, suffices. I see no reasons for changing it. Particularly, while an RFC on the lead is in progress. ] (]) 04:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There's an RfC on the ''first sentence''. The footnote is very clearly a separate matter. "I see no reason to change it" isn't really much of a rationale for reversion: I do, and I've given mine in a (descriptive, I commend the practice to the house) edit summary. ] (]) 04:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::And I disagree with your proposed change. "In addition to the United Kingdom..." flows better (in the footnote), following the intro's & infobox's, "King of the United Kingdom". ] (]) 04:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{tq|109's proposed change wasn't an improvement <s>as the United Kingdom is already mentioned in the lead & the infobox.</s> ] (]) 04:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)"}} Striking that out and returning with "the other way flows better", in addition to trying "don't edit the footnote while an RfC is ongoing", makes it look rather like you're just throwing mud at the wall and hoping something sticks. |
|
|
:::"The 15 Commonwealth realms are..." flows better from "King {{sic}} of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms"; mention of Commonwealth realms straight to detail about the Commonwealth realms. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 04:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::We'll just sit back & see what the other editors (who frequent this page) have to say, about ''how'' the footnote's content should be written up. Honestly, this could've waited until ''after'' the lead RFC was concluded. But anyway. ] (]) 04:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Then don't dispute it until after the RfC is concluded. Easy, peasy. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 04:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Would've been best to leave the footnote's content (DrKay's version) alone, until after the lead RFC & then discuss it. But, here we are. Now to let others give their input. ] (]) 04:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::"Best to leave it alone" is just a statement, not an argument. You're free to leave it alone. |
|
|
:::::::As already pointed out to you, others have already given their input. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 05:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::As already pointed out to you, not every frequent visitor to this page, has given their input 'yet'. ] (]) 05:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Do please point out which policy and/or guideline specifies what qualifies an editor as a "frequent visitor" and requires us to wait until every frequent visitor has given their input. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 05:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::We'll wait until we hear from the others. There's no deadline, where seeking a local consensus is concerned. ] (]) 05:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Right, so there is no policy or guideline requiring us to wait. There is indeed no deadline; people are presently free to edit the footnote. Thank you for clarifying. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 05:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::You're forgetting the ] bit. We've already been through 'Bold' & the 'Revert' phase. Now it's the 'Discuss' phase. ] (]) 05:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::On the contrary. I've more than once now drawn your attention to the fact others have given their opinions in discussion and you've been given the opportunity to make your own argument and, so far, with that opportunity, you've contributed a complaint about repetition that already existed in your preferred version, a made-up rule, and stated your preference for a "flow", which is simply another way saying ] about every other variation on the footnote's composition. So, unless you have something else to try besides reverting... --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 05:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::If the person performing the "R" has no rationale for -- or even frankly, defence of -- their edit, then the "D" phase needn't be a lengthy one. Scolding people to wait a month because there's an RfC on a ''different'' part of the article really isn't following that at all. ] (]) 05:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od|:::::::::::::}}We'll wait & see what others have to say, about the footnote's content. Either they'll agree to the changes or they'll prefer the status quo. ] (]) 05:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:It looks as though the RfC on the opening line will overwhelmingly select option 4, and so the disruption has moved focus from there to the footnote. Editors know this phrasing to be controversial and know that it will be disputed, so there's really not much excuse when they change it without assessing consensus first. ] (]) 07:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::That's a frankly extraordinary characterisation of events. Exactly how do we get from "there's an RfC about the first sentence" to "and so the footnote is inviolable too", to "don't be changing P4", to "or an entirely different section", to "anyone trying to address a glaring problem with the article is a bad-faith disruptor"? Because to ''me'', it's far from clear whether GD's objections are to phrasing, to location, to process, article "stability", to wanting a version-freeze until November, or whatever else. And apparently asking why is unacceptable behaviour too. ] (]) 23:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Numbers of realms == |
|
|
|
|
|
In a few places we have reason to refer to the number of Commonwealth realms (15 total, the "other" 14, etc). Is there a particular reason to do that in numerals, rather than words? I think the latter would look stylistically better in a couple of these places, but I don't want to set off any establish ] tripwires or the like if there's reason to keep the existing practice as long-established. ] (]) 05:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Numerals is best, when it's above 10, IMHO ] (]) 06:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It's under ]: "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words. Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words"; we only need be consistent. At the start of sentences, of course, the number should always be spelled out. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 06:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes, I'm aware, though I did have to refresh my memory after your own edit. Unfortunately it's left that paragraph looking a little inelegant in that respect as we have a "15" and a "nine", but I didn't want to change that to "fifteen" lest I open yet another can of worms. But of course that might yet prove to me moot... ] (]) 06:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The MoS has its... quirks. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 06:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words. Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently. ] (]) 06:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Accession and coronation plans, section == |
|
|
|
|
|
Recent changes have been made in the "Accession and coronation" section, which I don't believe are an improvement. IMHO, the status quo, should be restored. ] (]) 07:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Indeed, another area where editors know that the edit is contentious because of previous discussions on this talk page and of course the same phrasing has been discussed multiple times in relation to its use elsewhere on this page (e.g.) . Changes shouldn't have been made unilaterally. ] (]) 07:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC) 06:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Not one of those links contains any explanation for the undoing of edits to the "Reign" section. The discussion that ''has'' been had about that section has, so far, equally produced no cogent argument defending the reverts, despite both of the reverters having ample opportunity to provide one. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 06:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You are condemned by your own words: " You know the issue. You know the arguments. You've been intimately involved with and acquainted with them for 18 years. ] (]) 07:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Sorry, they key word in my previous comment was "cogent", not "repetitive". Is there a cogent argument for undoing the edits in the "Reign" section? It's been a couple of days now and one hasn't shown up. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 07:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::A couple of days? We've been saying the same thing for 18 years. It's like one of those sit-coms that largely consist of catchphrases and in-jokes. Tim O'Doherty will be along in a minute to say, "Now, now, you two..." ] (]) 07:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Now, now, you two... ] (]) 07:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Then perhaps get to the point. Because deflecting to discussion on the lede isn't doing anything to provide a justification for undoing edits to the "Reign" section. It doesn't justify maintaining fuzzy phrasing everywhere, nor does it justify unprofessionally repeating that fuzzy phrasing word-for-word twice in the same article. Even GooDay's relentless "UK first!" argument is silenced by the fact the UK ''is'' given first place in that section. Is Godot arriving or not? --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 17:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Are you referring to ? If so, I agree with it. I think it's what I suggested as a possibility for the lead a while ago. I can see the problems with taking that approach there. But it makes total sense for the body of the article. ] (]) 06:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::If you're meaning the edit under Line 143, then, yes, you've got it. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 07:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::After 12 years here I've never worked out where you get line numbvering from! It's the diff in my previous post. ] (]) 07:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Oh. I just always assume everyone sees the same Misplaced Pages I see. So, er, I guess, if you're meaning the wording, "upon his mother's death on 8 September 2022, Charles became king of 15 independent countries, collectively termed the ]s: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Jamaica, and ]", then, yes, you've got it. It's one of 109.etc's attempts at composing the start of that section. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 07:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::The use of the disputed wording in the introduction is ]. it would seem sensible to wait for that discussion to close with an outcome before starting another discussion about the same wording somewhere else in the article, such as the fourth paragraph or the Reign section (or the infobox, or the succession boxes...). <s>1) There may be more support for it on the basis of 'elegant variation' or 2) there may be less support for it because it repeats the introduction.</s> ] (]) 07:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::There's different criteria for the lead and the body. As the lead should by a synopsis of the body neither repetition nor "elegant variation" would be relevant. ] (]) 07:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I didn't say I supported either of the two opinions (which are entirely opposing). I was merely describing two potential outcomes out of several. I shall strike them then as they only serve to confuse. ] (]) 07:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::None of the arguments deployed in the RfC have a bearing on what should be in the body as far as I can see. ] (]) 09:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::We only have four more days until the coronation and the RfC on the lede was always intended to be a truncated call for input to roughly guide us on how to compose that part of the article; ] before the RfC was started. At this point, it's pretty safe to assume the lede won't be changing much, if at all. So, the only relevance the lede has to any discussion on the "Reign/Accession and coronation plans" section/s is repetition and, consequently, a lede "summarizing" by repeating the exact same words in the article body; or, the other way around, the article body not expanding on the lede's summary. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 07:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
I'm planning an RFC (perhaps two), for the content dispute concerning the 'reign' section & the fourth paragraph. No matter how each turns out? it's time to put closure on these content disputes. ] (]) 10:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:An RfC does not mean a moratorium on editing. As I told you, this is not a hostage situation. Three editors now outright support the changes, while two do not. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 15:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::See ]: "Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved." ] (]) 15:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::"Avoid" is not a synonym for "do not" and "raised objections" goes both ways here. But now one way has more support than the other <strike>and GoodDay is aiming to open an RfC only because he's on the "other" side; he wants to use the very wording you quoted to override the majority, as well as the essence of the taskforce that's been working on this article for months, to freeze his preferred wording in place past the taskforce's deadline of coronation day. You can see numerous comments here over the last few days calling out that very behaviour.</strike> He can open an RfC if he wants. But, if he continues to revert-war while making absolutely '''no''' constructive contribution to discussion on what he's reverting, I fear uninvolved administrator intervention will have to be sought. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 16:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::As we can now see, GoodDay's implied threats of further reverting is one of the only two things standing in the way of this article getting the desired GA status before 6 May. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 18:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Cool off. I've thought it over (for hours) & will ''wait'' until the (current) lead RFC has concluded. There's no deadline to be met (concerning GA), as Charles' status won't change on May 6, 2023. Post-coronation, he'll be able to wear the Imperial state crown, when he opens the UK Parliament, as king. Where's before the coronation, he would've (as king) had to have the crown brought in on a pillow, ahead of him & Queen Camilla. ] (]) 20:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Official Duties as King == |
|
|
|
|
|
The following text is in the wrong sub-section... "Charles arrived in Germany on 29 March 2023 for his first foreign visit as sovereign and became the first British monarch to address the Bundestag." |
|
|
|
|
|
It appears in the sub-section Prince of Wales -> Official Duties, but he was not Prince of Wales in March 2023. No sub-section for his Official Duties appears under his Reign. |
|
|
|
|
|
This should be moved, however no suitable sub-section exists. ] (]) 15:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{done}} - ] (]) 15:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Lede image == |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
Favouring re ] "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works": a fine, representative image of Charles III in his current (and most high-profile position) as king. Already used on many other language Wikipedias, also more recent than current. Seeking consensus. ] (]) 20:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:@] - There was an ] about the infobox image which closed over a month ago. The result of the RFC was to use the current infobox picture which is the 2019 portrait. ] (]) 20:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Surname in early life == |
|
|
|
|
|
Do we really need to mention in the early life section that he doesn't use a surname? The same treatment is not afforded to his mother, the late Queen Elizabeth, or to her three predecessors. I think a footnote should suffice. ] (]) 23:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:I thought it already was in a footnote; there was discussion about this earlier. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 01:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Active Service in the Armed Forces == |
|
|
|
|
|
Should we not add the Active Service the King served in the British armed forces Into His Infobox, Similarly as it is to George VI etc, and Similarly to the Prince of Wales. |
|
|
|
|
|
The King did serve in the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy between 1971 and 1977 ] (]) 12:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:See ]. ] (]) 12:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
{{Talk:Charles III/GA1}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Dale 'Kanga' Tryon == |
|
|
|
|
|
Could one of the editors please include ] in the "Relationships and marriages" sub-section for the section "Prince of Wales"? He said that she was "the only woman who understands me", she should not be omitted. ] (]) 19:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:There don't seem to be any reliable sources for that. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 19:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::https://www.express.co.uk/dayandnight/42424/Kanga-s-sad-life-airs-on-TV ] (]) 22:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Unfortunately, the ''Daily Express'' ]. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 22:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Our article on her (wrongly, as you say) uses that citation, but also has the Sunday Torygraph saying something similar. So I think this is sourceable. The next gate for it to pass through is, is it ]? Either here or in a possible yet-another future subsidiary article. ] (]) 23:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== GA review review== |
|
|
|
|
|
The GA reviewer looks to have passed the article, given the "''Pass/fail'': {{GAList/check|y}}". Was holding back on adding this article to the list given the images are unassessed, but the reviewer's note "{{tq|A good article on a subject of interest}}", along with the aforementioned seal of approval, seems to give us the go-ahead. So, well done everyone. ] (]) 14:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have reverted this. (a) The article does not seem to have been reviewed, and (b) as the nominator you must not pass your own article. —] (]) 16:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::The article was reviewed, see above. ] (]) 16:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::As it says, "need to review all refs", which doesn't seem to have happened, otherwise things like citing Metro and the IB Times would have been picked up. See ] and ]. —] (]) 16:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::But, does the little green plus-sign next to "b. (citations to reliable sources)" not mean that criteria has been deemed fulfilled? --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 16:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Kusma, he passed the citation section. You're fretting over trifles. He also said "easily replace with reliable sources", which you left out. So, as far as I'm concerned, it's for the reviewer to pass the article (''which he did'') and you have no mandate to overturn it. ] (]) 16:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I haven't overturned the reviewer, I have overturned '''you'''. Passing the article by updating the talk page is up to the reviewer and no one else. —] (]) 16:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I didn't pass it myself. ] (]) 16:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::How can 6b be "criteria unassessed" and still have an overall pass? Also, how '''on earth''' does it pass criteria 5! stable?? There's one ongoing RfC, seems like 2 or 3 others threatened and a talk page full of ''current'' bickering. ] (]) 16:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::An RfC doesn't automatically make a page unstable. Same goes for a talkpage of bickering. As long as there aren't too many edit wars, it should be fine. ] (]) 16:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::That's not true. Not having a content dispute is the requirement. There are several also ongoin. Also, the reviewer marked 2b as pass with the comment "need to review all refs but any dubious refs can be easily replace with reliable sources" which is the weirdest GA pass for 2 that I've ever seen. have to question this review. ] (]) 16:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::That's fine, but we need to keep in mind that the reviewer '''passed the article'''. Even if people disagreed, they should have taken it up here, and should never have stripped it of its status as a reviewed GA article without input from the reviewer himself. ] (]) 17:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::No one's stripped it of anything. Look at the GA instructions. The reviewer updates the talk page designation. Not you. Kusma has already pointed this out to you. That's when it passes. But if it does pass it looks like it might need to go to GAR. ] (]) 17:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::I've admitted I made an error there. However, let's wait for the reviewer's input, before any further discussion on this. ] (]) 17:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::@] Any input? ] (]) 17:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Certainly this is one of the briefest GA reviews I've seen, and I tend to agree with {{u|DeCausa}}'s doubts expressed above re criteria 5 and 6b. In accordance with {{slink|WP:RGA|Dealing with disputes}}, anyone here can ask for a second opinion before the reviewer sets it to GA status. ] (]) 17:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::The brevity of the review is a more fundamental point. There is not one issue raised. I'm not sure I've ever seen that in a GA - it's more like DYK. ] (]) 18:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::There is one content dispute. Before the RfC was started, it was agreed it would be a shortened request for input within the remaining time before the taskforce's deadline of Charles' coronation day. Given we're a mere four days away from that date, it's safe to assume we've got the input we need from the RfC. As to the actual content dispute, your input last night broke the stalemate (which was perpetuating because of one party's blunt-force reverting, rather than an equilibrium of arguments, anyway). So, as far as I can tell, the dispute is settled so far as the edit can be made to the page and left that way pending the development of some other consensus/majority opinion. And, if an editor or two still continue to undo any changes made to the "Accession and coronation plans" section, outside administrator intervention can be quickly sought. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 17:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The ''Metro'' and ''International Business Times'' references seem to be gone now. Any others? --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 19:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No. 163 in ] is still from the International Business Times. —] (]) 19:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::In this case though, I don't see any reason to doubt the IBT. If needed though, I'll find another source. Cheers, ] (]) 19:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Mm. I see. The source of the "positive public reaction" is a little suspect; the article says, "Twitter generally reacted positively to the publication." That's not quite the same thing as "reaction from the public was also supportive". --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 20:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This is just the tip of the iceberg. It illustrates the inadequacy of the GA review. Meanwhile . The GA nomination was premature and should be withdrawn. ] (]) 20:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And then . This is not a stable article within the meaning of 5. ] (]) 20:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That version of the beginning of the accession section was stable for 6 months from September last year until 2 weeks ago when it was first changed. ] (]) 20:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::So what? This is about whether it meets GA stability. What difference does it make if it was previously stable. It's not stable '''now'''. ] (]) 21:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And finally, I'm sure the reviewer was acting in good faith. However, unfortunately is not the level of WP experience for a GA reviewer of such a prominent article. ] (]) 20:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::What should we do? Do we find a new reviewer? Overturn this review? ] (]) 21:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Also, I wouldn't use edit count, of all things, as a measurement of editing prowess. I'm sure I had around the same number of edits, or perhaps even less, when ]. ] (]) 21:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I fundamentally disagree. But for "prowess" I would substitute knowledge of WP policy. ] (]) 21:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Even so: should ]'s status as a GA be removed because I only had around 1000 edits at that point? ] (]) 21:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I've no idea. I haven't looked at it and have no intention of doing so. There's no edit count requirement for being a GA reviewer. But experience and the knowledge that comes with it matters in a wide variety of activities on WP. You don't know what you don't know. If I were to look at that review and found similar problems to this review I think it wouldn't be too difficult to link it to inexperience. (I would add that user is doing in most years around 100 edits or less per year. There's no currency.) ] (]) 22:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] Removed. ] (]) 21:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Well, ] to get resolved ASAP. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 21:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
So... what GA stage, is this BLP at? ] (]) 20:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Just having some problem with dubious sources, which have since been removed. There is an issue with stability, but shouldn't be a deal-breaker. Still think it'll pass, but whether that's under a more in-depth version of the current review, or an entirely different review, I've no idea. ] (]) 21:31, 2 May 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.
