Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:01, 6 May 2023

Charles III is currently a Royalty, nobility and heraldry good article nominee. Nominated by Tim O'Doherty (talk) at 17:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC) An editor has reviewed the article, and left comments on the review page. However, this editor has requested a second opinion either from a more experienced reviewer, or someone with more expertise on this subject, to gain further consensus that this article meets the good article criteria. In the meantime, editors are encouraged to revise the article based on the first reviewer's comments. Short description: King of the United Kingdom since 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charles III article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Article milestones Date Process Result April 21, 2023 Peer review Reviewed
	Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 28, 2004, July 29, 2007, July 29, 2008, July 29, 2009, and July 29, 2010.

Section sizes Section size for Charles III (40 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 8,122 8,122 Early life, family, and education 15,985 15,985 Prince of Wales 7,041 61,447 Military training and career 4,304 4,304 Relationships and marriages 34 26,214 Bachelorhood 2,783 2,783 Lady Diana Spencer 16,845 16,845 Camilla Parker Bowles 6,552 6,552 Official duties 23,888 23,888 Reign 17,340 17,340 Health 5,367 9,611 Diet 4,244 4,244 Charity work 4,575 14,030 Investigations of donations 9,455 9,455 Personal interests 13,401 74,947 Built environment 14,108 14,108 Natural environment 11,423 11,423 Alternative medicine 9,779 9,779 Sports 4,308 4,308 Visual, performing, and literary arts 7,802 7,802 Religion and philosophy 14,126 14,126 Media image and public opinion 7,268 13,453 Reaction to press treatment 6,185 6,185 Residences and finance 7,758 7,758 Titles, styles, honours, and arms 1,682 18,756 Titles and styles 10,854 10,854 Arms 2,119 2,119 Banners, flags, and standards 73 4,101 As heir apparent 2,915 2,915 As sovereign 1,113 1,113 Issue 739 739 Ancestry 908 908 Published works 698 698 See also 369 369 Notes 26 26 References 17 2,834 Citations 31 31 Bibliography 2,786 2,786 Further reading 5,350 5,350 External links 6,615 6,615 Total 258,988 258,988

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Template:London Bridge task force Template:Charles III task force Biography: Military / Peerage and Baronetage / Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Top-importance). United Kingdom Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. London Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Cornwall Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Misplaced Pages coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CornwallWikipedia:WikiProject CornwallTemplate:WikiProject CornwallCornwall-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. See drop-down box for suggested article edit guidelines: Be bold - if you know something about Cornwall then put it in! We value your contributions and don't be afraid if your spelling isn't great as there are plenty of spelling and grammar experts on clean-up duty! Articles on settlements in Cornwall should be written using the standard set of headings approved by the UK geography WikiProject's guideline How to write about settlements. At WikiProject Cornwall we subscribe to the policies laid down by Misplaced Pages - particularly civility and consensus building. We are aware that the wording on Cornish entries can sometimes be a contentious topic, especially those concerning geography. You don't have to agree with everything but there is no excuse for rudeness and these things are best solved through consensus building and compromise. For more information see WP:CornwallGuideline. These pages are not platforms for political discussion. Issues relating to Cornish politics should be restricted to those pages that directly deal with these issues (such as Constitutional status of Cornwall, Cornish nationalism, etc) and should not overflow into other articles. Most of all have fun editing - that's the reason we all do this, right?! Wales Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. British Royalty Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / Maritime / British / European / Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Maritime warfare task force British military history task force European military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Commonwealth This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth Australia Top‑importance Charles III is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Canada: Governments / Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada. This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada. New Zealand Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Children's literature Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks you can do: edit history watch purge Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles. Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}} Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project. Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Deletion discussions: listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject. References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs. Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature Stubs: Improve a stub-class article edit

Template:Vital article

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages. The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: RM, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales → Charles, Prince of Wales, Moved, 2 September 2007, discussion RM, Charles, Prince of Wales → Prince Charles, Not moved, 23 August 2012, discussion RM, Charles III → Charles III of the United Kingdom, Not moved, 8 September 2022, discussion MRV, Endorsed, 11 September 2022, discussion

Article history

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2018, 2020, 2021, and 2022. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 22 times. The weeks in which this happened: July 21 to 27, 2013 December 10 to 16, 2017 December 17 to 23, 2017 December 24 to 30, 2017 May 13 to 19, 2018 May 20 to 26, 2018 November 17 to 23, 2019 December 1 to 7, 2019 November 15 to 21, 2020 November 22 to 28, 2020 November 29 to December 5, 2020 December 6 to 12, 2020 December 13 to 19, 2020 March 7 to 13, 2021 March 14 to 20, 2021 April 4 to 10, 2021 April 11 to 17, 2021 April 18 to 24, 2021 September 4 to 10, 2022 September 11 to 17, 2022 September 18 to 24, 2022 September 25 to October 1, 2022 This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 94 million views since December 2007. This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Jody Serrano (9 September 2022). "How Misplaced Pages's 'Deaditors' Sprang Into Action on Queen Elizabeth II's Page After Her Death". Gizmodo. And then there was Charles, the Queen's son who has waited to become King for what seems like an eternity. "What name would he take as King?" the Misplaced Pages editors wondered. They changed his name in the Queen's article—from "Charles, Princes of Wales" to "Charles III" to "Charles, King of the United Kingdom"—a number of times. (Charles settled on "Charles III.") Annie Rauwerda (9 September 2022). "Who the hell updated Queen Elizabeth II's Misplaced Pages page so quickly?". Input. Over on the article for now-King Charles III, there was a frenzy of title changes as editors waited for his regnal name to be announced. Charles' article changed titles five times while people waited for his official regnal name. Jeff Parsons (9 September 2022). "How Misplaced Pages responded when news of the Queen's death broke". Metro (British newspaper). For instance, King Charles' article changed five times as the internet waited for his official title to be revealed.

RfC on opening sentence

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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 here and here.

Presently, there are six options:

1. is king of 14 independent countries, in addition to the United Kingdom.
2. is king of 14 independent countries, in addition to the United Kingdom, collectively known as the Commonwealth realms.
3. is king of 15 independent countries, including the United Kingdom.
4. is king of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms.
5. is king of the United Kingdom and 14 other independent countries, all known as the Commonwealth realms.
6. is king of the United Kingdom, , , , and the other Commonwealth realms.

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 Commonwealth page 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. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: Hardly anyone reads footnotes. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 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. Nigej (talk) 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. IsiahBerlin235 (talk) 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. @Nigej, 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 WP:UNDUE 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) 109.etc (talk) 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.

Commonwealth realm 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. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 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. Celia Homeford (talk) 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 no 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. GoodDay (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4, status quo. 95.149.88.240 (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 - if not, I would suggest: "is the king of the United Kingdom and 14 other independent countries". If I had to pick an already-proposed alternative, I think that would be Option 5. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 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. DrKay (talk) 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. DrKay (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• 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. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Per @GoodDay. DDMS123 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 linking Commonwealth realm - consistent with Elizabeth II--LJ Holden 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. Keivan.f 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? 109.etc (talk) 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. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 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). 109.etc (talk) 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. Keivan.f 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 WP:UNDUE 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. 109.etc (talk) 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. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. XAM2175  11:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• 4 followed by 5 per above as the best solution. J947 † 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 @User:MangoMan11.) 109.etc (talk) 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. Rosbif73 (talk) 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. Ex nihil 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. Penguino35 (talk) 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 @Ex nihil, and anyone of a similar view, be at all supportive of some text like #3, except flipped around? Like king of the United Kingdom and 14 other independent countries? 109.etc (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Butting in, but I'd support that if the status quo has to change. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 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.) 109.etc (talk) 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. DeCausa (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 Simple and clear. Thriley (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 5, but preferably (and entirely for stylistic reasons) worded is king of the United Kingdom and 14 other independent countries, all known collectively as the Commonwealth realms. I feel that this is the clearest way of showing the UK within the group without awkwardly trying to step around its de facto primacy therein, while not unfairly diminishing the other realms, and also that it's a more-natural way of introducing the term "Commonwealth realm". XAM2175  11:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 6 where the countries included are the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand. These are ordered by population. It is best to include more than just the UK, but including all of the realms is too lengthy, if we are going to cut the list down further it should be done by population (though an argument might be made that New Zealand is a more influential country, with deeper ties to the monarchy, and a greater GDP). If not Option 6, we should go with Option 3 where it continues "is king of 15 independent countries, including the United Kingdom, collectively known as the Commonwealth realms.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's been argued -- and I've come to rather agree -- that the "natural break" in population size is after Jamaica. Which would only be one more than your suggested list. 109.etc (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 6 is the best option. As I see it, the problem is the realms consider themselves legally co-equal, but there should be some weight given to the UK as the oldest realm that originated the others through colonization and the country most associated with the King. The solution then should be one that emphasizes the equal status of the realms but gives weight to the UK. Not listing out geopolitically significant countries like Canada and Australia in the first sentence would be WP:UNDUE as Charles has the ability to directly influence politics in these countries that are leaders on the international stage. While ideally all countries would be listed, that would tend towards excessive for the lead. In terms of sorting for option 6, I would suggest population and cutting it at the top 5 (including the UK). If Option 6 were not available, I guess I'd go with option 4. Most version proposed are extremely awkward. I'd suggest simply linking out the "X other countries" to the Commonwealth realms page. If we still want to mention the Commonwealth we could include "Head of the Commonwealth of Nations" at the end. So something like: "is king of the United Kingdom and 14 other independent countries as well as head of the Commonwealth of Nations." Ha2772a (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 simple, correctly emphasises the UK.Newystats (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Not this again. I am absolutely certain that the equivalent topic was discussed at Talk:Elizabeth II within the last 2-3 years. Stick with that consensus, and drop the matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  Whether or not to conduct this RfC was discussed. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  That's hardly a speedy revisit. As opposed to the biweekly RfCs on images, for example... 109.etc (talk) 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. 109.etc (talk) 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". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 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. 109.etc (talk) 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". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Should 'King' be capitalised or not? I would've recommended, that be a separate discussion. GoodDay (talk) 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. 109.etc (talk) 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. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 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. 109.etc (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

A footnote reading "members of the wider Commonwealth of Nations ... have Charles III as their head of state" is too easily misread and could lead to more confusion. DrKay (talk) 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. 109.etc (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The footnote did not contain the word "not". DrKay (talk) 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. 109.etc (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

He is indeed formally 'King of the United Kingdom', King of New Zealand' etc, so should be capitalised. Ex nihil 09:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

But not formally "King of the Commonwealth realms". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Remember folks, don't Bludgeon

FWIW - I hope editors will respect WP:BLUDGEON, as this is a 'request for comment', rather then a 'request for debate'. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep, it's nearing Talk:British Isles levels of contention. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You better change your mind about that, or else...! --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Fourth paragraph

Place all your fourth-paragraph related gripes below. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, how about "input", rather than "gripes"? Regardless, I can see what @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. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 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 Elizabeth II. 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. 109.etc (talk) 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. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 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. 109.etc (talk) 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. GoodDay (talk) 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 -- WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL aside -- called "trying to improve the article", and the recommend means of doing so is WP:BRD. You should try it sometimes, rather than merely getting in your full daily quota of reverts in before troubling to make even "best to do what I think's best" 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 WP:SUMMARY, WP:LEAD and WP:INFOBOX 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". 109.etc (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I feel your pain, I really do. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 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. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 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) ". 109.etc (talk) 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. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

If it's not a personal attack then it's at best a short commute to one via some musteloid grammatical constructions. 109.etc (talk) 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. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 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. 109.etc (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

"Most topics", i.e. this. 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. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 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 @Miesianiacal's pain, I don't think I'm turning this into a dossier, rather you and they rather are. 109.etc (talk) 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 mudslinging. That's since been resolved. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

There's likely an air of "personalness" about this because the editor's habit is the problem in the way of resolving the problem.

Are we--you, @109.etc:, and myself--okay with the last change to the footnote? I can say I am. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Suggest we wait until others give their opinon. 109's proposed change wasn't an improvement as the United Kingdom is already mentioned in the lead & the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I will point out people have already been voicing their opinions. That ship has sailed. Additionally, Your revert didn't remove mention of the United Kingdom from the footnote. Your worry about repetition therefore (to continue the aquatic theme) holds no water. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I've begun a 'Footnote's content' discussion (see below), as this isn't about the fourth paragraph. GoodDay (talk) 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.

@Miesianiacal, 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. 109.etc (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I've begun a separate discussion (below), concerning the content of the footnote. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, other editors have reverted you, concerning the 'fourth paragraph'. GoodDay (talk) 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 becoming head of state of 15 independent countries known as Commonwealth realms -- being potentially useful. Any specific thoughts on that wording, or pressing reasons not to include it at all? 109.etc (talk) 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. GoodDay (talk) 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. 109.etc (talk) 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. GoodDay (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you so much!

Just so it's clear: There are other options besides reverting. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Seeking a consensus without making bold changes, is one of those 'other' options. But anyways. GoodDay (talk) 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. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

We'll see what other editors positions are on the bold changes made or proposed, on this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 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. 109.etc (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

We'll wait & see what the other editors input will be. GoodDay (talk) 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. 109.etc (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Already made it quite clear, what my position is, concerning the fourth paragraph. GoodDay (talk) 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. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

For clarity sake, are the two editors-in-question, myself & @DrKay:. That you are referring to? GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@109.etc: I'd support that in the fourth paragraph, albeit reduced down to "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. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 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. 109.etc (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Please quote the rationale, as I've looked all through this talk page and the edit summaries and found none. The "previous reverting editor" merely stated "this was all fully explained", begging the same question, and "restore from previous revision", which isn't a rationale. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 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. GoodDay (talk) 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. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather you moved on. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

That's also not a justification for your reverts. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

(Aside): And so it continues... Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

As @Redrose64: mentioned days ago, in a related-topic. "Not this again". It's been over 15 years & counting. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, Redrose has a point. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 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. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

If you want to open an RFC on this topic? have at it. GoodDay (talk) 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? 109.etc (talk) 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. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 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 WP:SEAOFBLUE, but ya never know. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you this isn't a hostage situation. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Show some confidence in your arguments & open up an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 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. 109.etc (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

We're concentrating on the "Accession..." section, now. GoodDay (talk) 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. GoodDay (talk) 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". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 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. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

We're no longer discussing the fourth paragraph of the lede. You raised "the 'reign' topic". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad the 'fourth paragraph' dispute, has been discontinued. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Copyediting

(We're down to the nitty-gritty now. Is this a good thing?) Two points: 1) Must we start every sentence with "on " or "in "? 2) "Prime Minister" was Johnson's title; "British" is simply an adjective placed in front of the title. It's "with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson", as it's "U.S. President Joe Biden", "Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau", "Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness", etc. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:JOBTITLES, "prime minister" is a common noun, "British" is the adjective. So, "A controversial American president", not "A controversial American President". Same goes for "British prime minister". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:JOBTITLES: "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. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 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. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Or perhaps "Prime Minister Boris Johnson of long infamy the UK" if it's necessary to be that specific. 109.etc (talk) 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. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright, "p/Prime m/Minister" has vanished. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Like a zombie, it has risen again. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Zombie gone. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Boo! Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

That's one persistent zombie. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Footnote's content, for lead & infobox

I believe the (status quo) content within @DrKay: footnote, for the lead & infobox, suffices. I see no reasons for changing it. Particularly, while an RFC on the lead is in progress. GoodDay (talk) 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. 109.etc (talk) 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". GoodDay (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

109's proposed change wasn't an improvement as the United Kingdom is already mentioned in the lead & the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 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 of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms"; mention of Commonwealth realms straight to detail about the Commonwealth realms. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 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. GoodDay (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Then don't dispute it until after the RfC is concluded. Easy, peasy. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 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. GoodDay (talk) 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. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

As already pointed out to you, not every frequent visitor to this page, has given their input 'yet'. GoodDay (talk) 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. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 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. GoodDay (talk) 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. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

You're forgetting the WP:BRD bit. We've already been through 'Bold' & the 'Revert' phase. Now it's the 'Discuss' phase. GoodDay (talk) 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 WP:IDONTLIKEIT about every other variation on the footnote's composition. So, unless you have something else to try besides reverting... --₪ MIESIANIACAL 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. 109.etc (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

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. GoodDay (talk) 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. DrKay (talk) 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. 109.etc (talk) 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 WP:ENGVAR tripwires or the like if there's reason to keep the existing practice as long-established. 109.etc (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Numerals is best, when it's above 10, IMHO GoodDay (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

It's under MOS:NUMERAL: "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. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 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... 109.etc (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The MoS has its... quirks. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 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. DrKay (talk) 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. GoodDay (talk) 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. DrKay (talk) 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. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You are condemned by your own words: I personally don't need to hear GoodDay's opinion; I'm well aware of what it is." You know the issue. You know the arguments. You've been intimately involved with and acquainted with them for 18 years. DrKay (talk) 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. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 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..." DrKay (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Now, now, you two... Tim O'Doherty (talk) 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? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to edit? 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. DeCausa (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

If you're meaning the edit under Line 143, then, yes, you've got it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 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. DeCausa (talk) 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 Commonwealth realms: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Jamaica, and nine less-populated nations in the Caribbean and Pacific", then, yes, you've got it. It's one of 109.etc's attempts at composing the start of that section. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

And yes, in the interests of clear credit (or blame?), it was modelled heavily and consciously on an earlier suggestion of @DeCausa's. I also think it'd work in paragraph four of the lead section, it playing as it does the role of "bit more detail of her reign", much as P3&4 does for the Elizabeth II, including yes, a list of realms. But if not there, then IMO in the body for sure, IMO. A variation on the theme would be to also enumerate the Pacifics, there being only two, and just long-tail the Caribbeans. No strong preference for me between those. 109.etc (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

When the 'lead RFC' is closed & a result given. I'll be opening an RFC concerning the "Accession..." section topic. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Some future RfC has no relevance to editing that section now. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

We're in disagreement, but then what's new. GoodDay (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The use of the disputed wording in the introduction is still under discussion. 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...). 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. Celia Homeford (talk) 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. DeCausa (talk) 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. Celia Homeford (talk) 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. DeCausa (talk) 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; this was discussed 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. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 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. GoodDay (talk) 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. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Request for comment: "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." Celia Homeford (talk) 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 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. 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. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 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. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 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. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

And yet where's the friction that produces the heat?

Regardless, are we to infer from the above that you won't object to DeCausa's/109.etc's/my edit going into the "Accession and coronation plans" section now? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

What are you proposing for that section? GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

This can't be real... If you don't know, what have you been so steadfastly opposed to all this time? This is exactly where BRD breaks down and just becomes BRBRBRBRBRBRBR. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I oppose contentious changes being made & then being re-made (i.e restored), without a consensus. The ONUS is on you, to get a consensus for the change or changes you wish to make. The ONUS isn't on those who're maintaining the status quo. Best thing to do? Sit tight & wait until the end results of the coming RFC. There's no deadline. GoodDay (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

"I oppose contentious changes" tells us nothing if you can't (or won't) tell us why they've contentious. Or if they're magically made contentious by the very act of you reverting them, thereby bootstrapping the rationale ex nihilo. Ideally I'd prefer not to have a month-long RfC for every sentence in the article. 109.etc (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Your proposal or proposals will be among the options in the upcoming RFC. As for why I oppose the said proposed changes in the "Accession..."? Charles III is recognised first & foremost as the British monarch. He resides in the UK (thus negating the need for a governor general). His coronation will be held in the UK. After his death, he'll likely be buried in the UK. The United Kingdom is also the oldest country, he's monarch of. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

That tells us nothing about why you find the edit contentious Every version of it gives the UK first place ahead of the other realms. So, now that you're finally aware of what edit you've been adamantly objecting to all this time, what exactly do you find contentious about it? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

What conceivable relevance does any of that have to the edit in question? I think (at least!) one of the two of us is very confused at this point... 109.etc (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

You both already know, I'm oppose to the "15 Commonwealth realms" & "15 independent countries" style. Note - Listing all the countries, via age of the realms - thus "United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, etc", will also be an option in the upcoming RFC. You both know my stance on this topic. I'm not going to repeat myself. GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

We already know? Just a moment ago you didn't even know what edit you were opposed to. How, then, could you know, let alone us? That's why we asked. And your response is to shift the goalposts; again. Now you just don't like "the '15 Commonwealth realms' & '15 independent countries' style". Again, we're back to you just saying it's contentious without explaining why. These types of moving, guessing, vague, irrelevant, tautological replies are what prolong disputes, creating and maintaining the very lack of consensus you then use to bluntly revert "any" change ad infinitum. That's not good faith engagement in the BRD process.

You go on about RfCs, which are votes. You respect the vote result when it goes your way. Presently, three editors favour the edit to the "Accession and coronation plans" section to two who don't. But, suddenly only some vote tallies matter and you need another one. That's like holding endless referenda until the voters vote "correctly". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I think we can very safely say you are going to repeat yourself. "Best to do <thing I like>." "No consensus to change from the status quo." "That edit was contentious." "We'll wait and see." Just not to address the question of how you get from a personal preference to a rationale based in good Misplaced Pages practice. Or indeed, just competent writing generally. And quite how you list all the realms in an intelligible manner without stating their number perplexes me too. On the one hand you complain of repetition, and now you appear to imply we must have exactly the same "1+14" sort of construction at every mention. 109.etc (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Believe what you want. Meanwhile, I'll be opening an RFC up on the aforementioned content dispute, when the current lead RFC has concluded & the result is known. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Some future RfC has no relevance to editing that section now. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford: Why? The RfC has nothing to do with that section and is all but done at this point, anyway, according to the agreement about the RfC before it was started. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I second this question. @Celia Homeford, if you think this sentence needs an RfC, at least start it. If it doesn't, then please provide a rationale -- ideally in an edit summary, but "ideal" sailed a long while ago, I realize -- for your edits. I appreciate that there's now three of you at this "I'm reverting to the status quo, can't actually say why though" business, but to paraphrase Robert Bolt, an editing practice may be commonplace, and yet remain rampantly unconstructive. The edit addresses GoodDay's one (sorta) articulated objection that "15 independent countries" or "15 Commonwealth realms" is somehow bad, so even "reverting in case they don't like it" seems premature. Is there somehow a blanket objection to saying where he's king in in the text of the article prose anywhere? That seems a little... backwards. We should be a little more concerned that we don't. 109.etc (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

You can add GD to those who need to answer the question. (Not that anyone expects one; or one that makes sense, anyway.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, Celia. It's becoming more inevitable that WP:ANI will eventually be the next step, in this process. I personally, won't be reporting anybody. But, I do foresee the event happening :( GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty: made a comment (likely (but, not certainly!) unaware of its future relevance) in the discussion ahead of opening the RfC above: "the current lead sentence tells us just as little about what he is king of as any of the proposed alternatives." The lede tells us little about what he is king of; which is the very reason there should be more information elsewhere in the article, as if WP:LEDE ("the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article") wasn't good enough. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I often make comments unaware of their future relevance. Usually not in a good way. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Just say off the top of your head who'll win this year's Stanley Cup...

But, seriously (and addressing all participents here), that "little information in the lede" part is a key reason to expand on the lede and one both reverting editors are totally ignoring. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

No idea who this "Stanley Cup" is. But, if we're making predictions, I'm betting Humza Yousaf will resign this year. But anyway... Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I assure you, Tim. Though it may well take longer then planned. This BLP will obtain GA status. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Why? Are you going to do the review? DeCausa (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Positive thinking. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

If only there were the positive edits to go with. @DeCausa, my money is on anti-agathics. If we improve one sentence per month, we might be a GA while some of us are still alive. If not -- as at present -- there's always our heirs and successors. 109.etc (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, forgetfulness and butterfingers when writing edit summaries aside, I attempted to:

• Expand on the lede so that the lede meets WP:LEDE--"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic and summarize the most important points"--and WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY--"The lead, being a summary of the article, promises that the body will deliver fuller treatment of each point."
• Aside from meeting the MoS, expand as favoured by:
  • Myself--"the article body should expand on the lede irrespective of the exact order of the 20 to 26 words that comprise the lede's first sentence"
  • 109.etc--"Matters too convoluted for the lede... should appear in helpful detail later"
  • DeCausa--"Are you referring to edit? If so, I agree with it"
  • (Possibly) Tim O'Dhorety--"the current lead sentence tells us just as little about what he is king of" (I may be misappropriating Tim's remark; he's free to strike or delete this)
• Account for Celia Homeford's disfavour toward a truncated list--""I oppose a truncated list"--and use of the plural "thrones"--"There is a shared throne"
• Account for GoodDay's disfavour toward use of "15 independent countries" and "15 Commonwealth realms"--"I'm oppose to the '15 Commonwealth realms' & '15 independent countries'"--and demand for the UK to be mentioned first--"Charles III is recognised first & foremost as the British monarch. He resides in the UK"

However, GoodDay has once again performed one of his patent brutal reverts. GoodDay best peruse WP:DISRUPT, in particular:

• "A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as Does not engage in consensus building: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits" and
• "Bad-faith disruptive editors attempt to evade disciplinary action in several ways Their comments may avoid breaches of civility by refraining from personal attacks but still interfering with civil and collaborative editing and discussion."

People have been, for many days now, making a concerted effort to find a compromise. There's no justification for actively blocking those efforts at every turn. None.

If GoodDay has some objection to the latest try at a solution--an objection that doesn't involve the irrelevant RfC on the lede and a supposed lack of consensus simply because GoodDay reverted and declared a lack of consensus--he'd best clearly state it here or cease reverting without reason. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

There's no consensus for the change you attempted, as it was already reverted by another. Be assured though, it will be among the options in the upcoming RFC on the matter. Trying to push it now, will only create tension. Furthermore, it's best to avoid making a content dispute, into a personality dispute. I have no malice towards you (Mies) & wish you would stop bashing me. Bashing an editor, will only make the basher look bad & their position appear weak. You have no consensus for the change you wish to make in the "Accession section", right now. Perhaps after the upcoming RFC concludes, you might have that consensus you're seeking. Trying to 'force' a change & (perhaps) bludgeoning a discussion, toward that end? is counter-productive & not good for this BLP. If I didn't revert your latest change? Somebody else likely would have. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The inanity of your tautological "there's no consensus because I revert because I say there's no consensus" fallacy has been called out for what it is numerous times already.

Only you reverted my last edit because my edit was not identical to any prior edit; it took into account Celia's objection to the version that preceded it. So, either you're deliberately misrepresenting what happened or you don't know what's going on; you just see an edit and hit the revert button.

Since you joined a taskforce that aimed to improve this article you've contributed next to nothing. Out of your 24 edits to the article since taskforce-CIII was started, 19 have been blunt-force reverts (the remaining five were minor). Most if not all of your commentary has been to say, "no" or "delay"; something that quickly started getting on people's nerves and hasn't abated one bit. Editors have bent over backwards first to comprehend what exactly it is you want and then to give it to you. And, even though we have given you our attention and made edits that accomodate your wants, including the WP:IDONTLIKEIT one, you're still reverting our work; that's why you can't give a sound justification for your actions. It's "United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms" and nothing else. There's no rational argument for it. That's not anyone's fault but yours. So, don't cry about the obvious being pointed out. You've once again put yourself on extremely thin ice. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I will not be bullied or baited & you've no idea what option or options I'll support, in the coming RFC. GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

reading over the back and forth, it seems very clear that GoodDay has been WP:DISRUPTIVE with WP:DEs and an attempt to WP:WIN. At this point GoodDay seems to be WP:DE, WP:TE, and WP:GAMING, especially by making no other substantive edits. I'd write up a Notice Board report but do not have the time or all the necessary knowledge for that. To quote WP:WIN:

"If you are one of these individuals, you need to lay aside the need or impulse to allow ego, pride, or winning to take precedence over collaborative construction of an encyclopedia. To quote Mr. Spock, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." Regardless of who the one is—be it an editor, a body of editors, or a group on Misplaced Pages—the only thing that matters is Misplaced Pages as a whole."

While the solution suggested may not be the solution that is settled on, neutral observers would almost certainly agree that all the nations Charles is King of should be mentioned somewhere in the main body of the article (not a footnote). Ha2772a (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'd thought it wouldn't be much of an AN/I report; pretty much just "look at Talk:Charles III" and the rest would be obvious. Maybe that's an unrealistic vision. Regardless, there is/was the concurrent matter of a few editors trying to get this article to GA status. A reviewer said he'd start next week and one of the main contributors to improving this article expressed a concern that any AN/I cross-over at the time of review would guarantee a fail. GoodDay, though, has started that pointless RfC now, which, if it somehow manages to carry on, will itself stop the article from reaching the goal of GA for at minimum a month. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I've begun the RFC concerning the "Accession and coronation plans, sub-section". Reason given for moving up the start date, in the RFC's discussion sub-section. GoodDay (talk) 08:09, 6 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. 184.15.112.116 (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Lede image

Favouring re MOS:LEADIMAGE "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. JJLiu112 (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@JJLiu112 - There was an RFC 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. DDMS123 (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion between the two personally, and candidly I've previously complained about the frequency of such discussion...

... but full disclosure, in past discussions many "!"voters have expressed a strong preference for a Mystical Aura of Majesty pic, and as this ticks that box, and seems to have an acceptably Free licence, this is possibly due some consideration.

Mind you, as a corollary of Sod's Law, we're very close to the anointy-nointy stuff now. Thus time next week no doubt people will be saying "we urgently need a post-coronation photo of him, above all else!" 109.etc (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Recently released official photos of the Charles iii (? 2401:E180:8892:A446:21E2:95EC:7A91:B49C (talk) 08:13, 5 May 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. Векочел (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought it already was in a footnote; there was discussion about this earlier. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it's poor practice to put matters of significance only in infoboxes and footnotes (and the MOS seems to agree with me on that). Whether it's due weight is perhaps more arguable, but if it's to be mentioned any place at all -- and it's not important important enough to make it into the lead section, which is obviously the first time we give his "full" name -- then this seems the place to do it, no?

As for his four predecessors, actually there is indeed some "surname" discussion in the body of the article. For the ones prior to that, bear in mind this is then before the various proclamations on the issue, the change of name of the House, and any real practice of using a surname at all. 109.etc (talk) 00:48, 4 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 Knowledgework69 (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

See this. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charles III/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RonaldDuncan (talk · contribs) 16:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Hi Ronald, anything in particular that needs addressed in regards to the images? Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@RonaldDuncan - I've done some work in the way of improving the use of images in the article, please check to see if it's now suitable. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Tim O'Doherty.....there is still a long way to go before review is over. SEE Talk:Elizabeth II/GA4 for an idea of the process.Moxy- 00:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why you're telling me this...I'm not the reviewer. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Moxy: He's not the reviewer, RonaldDuncan is. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 07:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes yes understand...review not over Moxy- 12:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty Absolutely do not add the GA icon yourself, especially since this review was not explicitly closed as pass by the reviewer. A bot will take care of it. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Right, you're not the first to tell me this. The "Overall" pass/fail marked as a plus seemed explicit enough to me. Maybe I jumped the gun, and I'm sorry for that, but I don't need 5 editors telling me at once. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

So, forgive me if I'm asking a question already answered elsewhere and I missed it, but, is the above an actual GA review by a reliable reviewer? Or is this a review of the review by the not-so-reliable reviewer? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

It's an actual GA review; there are questions about its legitimacy though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

If faced with all this, I think Kafka himself might back away slowly into a hedge. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback. I was hoping to carry out the full review before the Coronation, however that was not possible. My initial analysis was that it is a good article, and clearly it is a very relevant subject at the moment.RonaldDuncan (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Second opinion

I'll provide the second opinion. Because of the obvious stability issues that will arise over the next couple of days however, I'll pick this up again a week after the coronation on 13th May; I do not believe that carrying out a review during the next few days would prove productive. The review will include source spotchecks for plagiarism and close paraphrasing, so I would take care that any information added over the next week meets those guidelines. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Just a note before the second review's carried out: Earwig says ~98.7% similarity. The site that has that level of similarity is a copy-paste of Charles's article, right down to the references. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

An unfortunate consequence of this article's visibility. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Look forward to your 2nd Opinion, when things calm down.RonaldDuncan (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty and RonaldDuncan:, well, with this article now the subject of a WP:ANI discussion, along with the simultaneous RfC and lengthy talk page disputes, I'm afraid that I have to recommend not promoting the article to GA, on the grounds of stability alone. I see no chance of this vociferousness dying down in the next month, let alone the next week. Tim, I realise that this is a dispiriting opinion, but I do think that the initial goal was too ambitious, giving little heed to the possible issues that lay ahead. Remember Misplaced Pages has no deadline either in terms of time or nominations, but that this will be a demanding task and not one which can be rushed—Elizabeth II took five years and six attempts to become a GA, in a time when the GA criteria were more lax than they are now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hypothetically, if there were no dispute and no RfCs, would the fact the article body says less than the lede does about where Charles is king of (the complete opposite of what WP:LEDE and WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY say to do) be a point against the article when assessing it for GA status? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 - Sorry for the late response, I've been thinking about the best way to approach this. I said to Mies that if he could get the AN/I report finished by 13 May (when you said that you would begin the second review), then he should go ahead with it if he wanted to. The intention was to get it done by then, so it wouldn't be immediately failed due to the (in)stability of the article. 109 said "f that reviewer withdraws their offer, it'll be closely as a "quickfail", especially with an ongoing AN/I. Which it likely deserves, except that I'd personally really like to get the review, to have a fresh pair of eyes put their verdict in black and white, so that at least we have a possible roadroad to finish the job on a second go. So I'd recommend waiting on then". Slightly more of a "go to AN/I after the review", which, looking back, would have been the better course of action, although it is partially my fault; I gave my "alright, go on then". I thought that you wouldn't begin the review until the 13th, so I thought that if the AN/I was settled by then, then the article would be stable.

I don't believe that the article is all that unstable anymore: it's certainly more stable than it was seven days ago. The AN/I report has little to do with the meat and potatoes of the article, and more with the editors' conduct at the article's talk. The content disputes, which are to do with minor wording changes around the first paragraph and the "Accession and coronation (plans)" section wouldn't change the article much if it were to be a GA, whichever way the content dispute went.

I was hoping that you would conduct a "fuller" review, looking at the actual article itself, i.e. making sure the writing, verifiability, broadness, neutrality and illustrations were at GA-level, and suggesting improvements to the article, rather than a quickfail. If there really, truly is a serious problem with stability, then the review can go on hold; this is what happens to other GARs when something doesn't meet the criteria, e.g. the writing needs some copyediting or the images need better captions; likewise, we can wait until the "problem" (if there is one) with stability is fixed, and the article can pass.

So, AJ29, it's up to you if you want to look at the article more in-depth, or if you want to leave it at that. If you do want to leave it there, we'll have to wait for Ronald to either look at the meat of the article himself, or for him to pass it regardless. If either of those options fail, I'll wait until the article is stable in June-July-ish and then renominate, because it seems to me that whilst there is nothing wrong with the article itself (spelling, prose, SS etc.), there are concerns over behind-the-scenes shenanigans.

Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

"More stable than seven days ago" is not really that high a bar, so I think I'll leave it there, and leave it up to you and RonaldDuncan. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe, AirshipJungleman29, that the increasing stability in the BLP-in-question, as well as the 'Accession and coronation' RFC's results, will seal the GA deal :) GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Seeing as my second opinion has immediately been hijacked by two disputing sides, I really don't think "increasing stability" is the phrase I would've gone for. Miesianiacal, to put it bluntly, 1) not really and 2) how about you put down the hypotheticals and start dealing in facts? The talk page is a good place for that.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Excellent news! GAC 1b now entirely redundant, much work saved thereby. Now all we need to do is to quantify the degree of doldrums required to satisfy #5, and we'll know exactly when to come back! I imagine that if the "status quo" editors doggedly stonewall for a couple more months, that might well do the trick, by way of causing everyone else's spirits to wilt until they go away. So much for Edits that do not apply to the "stable" criterion include good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) , as well as complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections. AJ29, I fully respect your decision not to go ahead with the second review (or to review it as a quickfail, perhaps if one would rather say). And as TOD says, indeed rather anticipated it. But generic advice like "The talk page is a good place for that." is, to be reciprocally blunt, redundant, ill-directed, and it seems to be out-of-band. It's also rather a cleft stick to be poking at people, as too much talk-page activity has itself been cited as a quickfail criterion. 109.etc (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, if the average post on the talk page contains this much unnecessary sarcasm, condescension, and patronising language, it's really not hard to see why no progress is being made. Good luck on Misplaced Pages in the future. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Dale 'Kanga' Tryon

Could one of the editors please include Dale Tryon, Baroness Tryon 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. 49.15.234.88 (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

There don't seem to be any reliable sources for that. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

https://www.express.co.uk/dayandnight/42424/Kanga-s-sad-life-airs-on-TV 49.15.231.159 (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Daily Express isn't regarded as a reliable source. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 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 WP:DUE? Either here or in a possible yet-another future subsidiary article. 109.etc (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

GA review review

The GA reviewer looks to have passed the article, given the "Pass/fail: ". Was holding back on adding this article to the list given the images are unassessed, but the reviewer's note "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. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 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. —Kusma (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The article was reviewed, see above. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 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 WP:METRO and WP:IBTIMES. —Kusma (talk) 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? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 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. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 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. —Kusma (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't pass it myself. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 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. DeCausa (talk) 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. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 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. DeCausa (talk) 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. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 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. DeCausa (talk) 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. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@RonaldDuncan Any input? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Certainly this is one of the briefest GA reviews I've seen, and I tend to agree with DeCausa's doubts expressed above re criteria 5 and 6b. In accordance with WP:RGA § Dealing with disputes, anyone here can ask for a second opinion before the reviewer sets it to GA status. Rosbif73 (talk) 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. DeCausa (talk) 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. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The Metro and International Business Times references seem to be gone now. Any others? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

No. 163 in this revision is still from the International Business Times. —Kusma (talk) 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, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 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". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

This is just the tip of the iceberg. It illustrates the inadequacy of the GA review. Meanwhile this is going on. The GA nomination was premature and should be withdrawn. DeCausa (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

And then this. This is not a stable article within the meaning of 5. DeCausa (talk) 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. DrKay (talk) 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. DeCausa (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

And finally, I'm sure the reviewer was acting in good faith. However, unfortunately this is not the level of WP experience for a GA reviewer of such a prominent article. DeCausa (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

What should we do? Do we find a new reviewer? Overturn this review? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 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 I reviewed Boudica. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree. But for "prowess" I would substitute knowledge of WP policy. DeCausa (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Even so: should Boudica's status as a GA be removed because I only had around 1000 edits at that point? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 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.) DeCausa (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kusma Removed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, work's being done to get this resolved ASAP. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

So... what GA stage, is this BLP at? GoodDay (talk) 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. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm slowly doing a check of the references. I'm sure someone following behind me would catch what I've likely missed. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

While the edit wars seem to be about relatively minor issues, the lack of stability is concerning, and many if not most experienced GA reviewers would fail this article without looking at the details just because of this. It is very difficult to get an article that is so much in the spotlight as this one to GA status, probably more difficult than it should be. —Kusma (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I second this sentiment, cause just looking at the GAN process above... that is one of the shortest GANs I have ever encountered (especially for an article of this size and stature). To be frank, I haven't looked at the article itself (at least with a GAN lens), but just looking at the process above, if that is all that the GAN will encompass, I would seriously recommend the reviewer or other editors involved in this ask for a second opinion (WP:GAN/I#2O), so this article can be refined through a thorough GAN process. Leventio (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

OK. I'll look into that. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

As I said before, the attempted GA is premature. It's not stable enough. Tbh, Kusma is right about getting an article to GA (let alone FA) while it is so much in the spotlight - near impossibility. It needs to be a quiet backwater. That may or may not ever happen with this article - it's certainly not now. DeCausa (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Thrones

Thrones are not the same as Realms or Crowns. There are exactly 15 Realms. There are far more Crowns. There is a Crown for each Realm, but there is also a Crown in right of Scotland, a Crown in right of Nova Scotia, a Crown in right of Jersey, etc. There are multiple Crowns: federal, national, territorial and provincial. Similarly, the number of thrones does not equal the number of realms. There is a shared throne. There is no shared Crown, so even if we accept that the number of thrones equals the number of separate Crowns (which is not necessarily the case), there will still be at least one more throne, because there is a shared throne in addition to all the individual ones. It is therefore misleading to say, or imply, that there are 15 thrones.

On the behavioural issue, it is obvious to any neutral observer that the opening of the Reign section is related to both previous and current requests for comment. It should therefore not be changed while the RfC is in progress. See Misplaced Pages:Request for comment: "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." Note that "editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring" relates to any edit. Not just the specific wording listed at the start of any one particular RfC. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

"It is obvious to any neutral observer" that you are not a neutral observer, nor able to properly speak for them. It also appears that you're reverting on sight, and without giving any rationale for doing so, material which is not "content under RfC discussion". A "behavioural issue" indeed. "Related to" is an unworkably vague standard. We're not, as far as I can see, having an RfC on whether it's permissible to have in the article prose mention of, in some reasonably clear form, places of which the subject is sovereign. (Though maybe we should, and clearly the answer should be no... it's mandatory.) To turn it into an omnibus discussion not just on one sentence -- which is, on its face plainly, what it's actually about -- but on the footnote (also reverted similarly as being equally nebulously "related"), on paragraph four, and the #Reign section would be an unwieldy mess. To have four in a row would be the stuff of a Kafka novella, but to be fair, that ship admittedly may have long since sailed. Those other matters aren't functionally dependent on the first sentence, and hence not on the outcome of that RfC. Accordingly they're not "related" in any sense that sensibly demands a version-freeze on all of those. (And what else besides? The list seems to expand constantly, and no scoping statement has been offered, even after the fact, and even on request for such.) On any outcome of the RfC, those edits are entirely defensible on their own merits.

On the thrones, crowns, and realms, I can only assume this is raised in objection to the wording "... British throne, as well as those of Canada...", etc. I don't know off the top of my head if your observation about the numbers of each is correct in a legal, protocol, or convention sense, and you're not really being at all clear which you're appealing to, or on what basis. But it certainly doesn't amount to a valid objection about the use of the phrase in natural language. No isomorphism between the respective sets is asserted or implied. That construction merely requires that those thrones exist, in some conceptual sense. And unless you're planning to make it a global style issue we never say "Canadian throne" -- or by extension, "British throne", as the version you reverted to does -- I think we have to conclude that they do indeed exist in (at least) that sense. I'm open to be persuaded that in some notional sense he acceded to "the shared throne of the UK, Canada...", but I'm skeptical that it'd be a more helpful formulation in this context, in the article. Or an argument that we throw up our hands and say, wherefore it is not possible to speak of which places he's monarch of, it is better to remain enigmatically and misleadingly silent. 109.etc (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

To repeat, I didn't say I supported either of the two opinions on the opening sentence of the Reign section. While I don't support the latest attempt using 'thrones' or truncation of the list, which is arbitrary at best, I may support a list in the prose of the article body eventually. My point is that given the disruption and the obvious link between this and other attempts, consensus for change should be demonstrated and clear before edits are made to the existing text. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

"It is obvious"? If it were so obviously connected to the RfC on the lede sentence, you wouldn't have three editors telling you it's not. The "Accession and coronation plans" section is no more related to the lede than any other part of the article is related to the lede, since the lede is meant to summarize the article body. Do you therefore want to undo every edit made since 28 April? From your actions, it would seem not. So, why the extremely fine selectivity? Additionally, I quite clearly pointed out to you yesterday that the RfC "is all but done at this point, anyway, according to the agreement about the RfC before it was started." The RfC is doubly irrelevant to the "Accession and coronation plans" section.

As to consensus: you must not have paid much attention to the lengthy discussion above. We presently have: three editors favouring at least this version and three who don't: one whose defences for his reverts amount to "I don't like it", "I want Britain first" when Britain is first, and the tautological "there's no consensus "; one who reverts and never participates in the discussion; and yourself, who, aside from the untenable RfC argument, also seems (based on your remarks above) to hold that because GoodDay reverts because there's no consensus because he reverts, you ought to revert, too. Consensus lies at the end of rational and WP policy-based negotiation, not blind reverting, straw man arguments and non-sequiturs, and demands for what one wants because one wants it. A few of us would call in an uninvolved admin or two to make that point clear, if one of us hadn't been asked not to do that just yet for the sake of the GA review.

And as to "thrones": it was put in in an attempt to appease GoodDay's perennially unexplained dislike of "15 independent countries" and "15 Commonwealth realms", despite there being no policy-based reason to accommodate such a thing (indeed, it's openly discouraged); if nothing else, it serves as a clear illustration of how some of us actually are trying to construct a consensus out of even the most irrational nonsense. There's nothing misleading about "the thrones of Canada, Australia..." and so on; those are all sovereign states (part of what we're trying to communicate with the whole sentence), whereas England, Ontario, Queensland, etc are not. However, if you're fine with the other version, insofar as it doesn't offend you, as you have no preference, either way, then, that, at least gives it a leg up over the "thrones" version and, as mentioned, it also has three editors' support. However, that does put us right back in the face of GoodDay's unwavering demand that we follow his personal preference. So, we can either ignore that demand (which policy says we should) or... Well, do you have another suggestion for the wording? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 13:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

If it was unrelated, a neutral observer wouldn't have told you that it was. In reality we all know it is related, which is why no-one has started a new RfC yet. There is one running already and no-one is willing to have two concurrent or consecutive RfCs on the same topic. If you really believe it is an entirely unrelated topic, then there is no moratorium on starting RfCs on unrelated topics.

ANI is unlikely to view counting "!votes" positively, and and even so, if "!votes" are deadlocked at 3 versus 3, then the status quo holds.

I did make clear that I oppose a truncated list, which is arbitrary at best. So, no I'm not fine with that version. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Allow me to be more precise, then: three lengthily and heavily involved editors have told you the RfC is not related to the "Accession and coronation plans" section. Robert McClenon is neither lengthily nor heavily involved, yet still observed "the topics are different". There're many ways to interpret his use of "interrelated". And there could be many reasons for why someone hasn't yet opened another RfC. Speculating on either is pointless, though, as 1) (for the third time) those who agreed to start the RfC on the lede now consider it effectively done and 2) the article body should expand on the lede irrespective of the exact order of the 20 to 26 words that comprise the lede's first sentence; otherwise, the lede isn't doing what it's supposed to do and readers aren't getting information they ought to. We don't need an RfC to determine that; MOS:LEDE spells it out: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." Repeating the same thing twice, word-for-word, or, worse, having the article body say less than the lede very obviously doesn't cut it.

I never said anything about asking an administrator to count votes. I said some of us have considered asking an administrator or two to make sure everyone here knows and abides by WP:BRD, with emphasis on the discussion part, with emphasized emphasis on focused, clear, consistent, policy/guideline-based, flexible, cooperative discussion. There wouldn't be any need for any more RfCs (in the forseeable future) if that were to happen; and RfCs certainly shouldn't be gamed as delay tactics or ways for certain editors to skip responsibility for their actions.

I misread what you said about not supporting either of the two opinions; I saw "options". Apologies for the confusion. Do you object to the full list, as GoodDay put in? As in, "Upon his mother's death on 8 September 2022, Charles became King of the United Kingdom, as well of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and St Kitts and Nevis; collectively termed the Commonwealth realms. He simultaneously became head of the Commonwealth", to also take the "thrones" matter away. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

This section seems pointless to me. With the article in crisis and discussions on (by my count) 4 parts of the article (that people insist are linked together, even though the RfC has nothing to do with the other 3) and a GA review that no-one knows what to do with, this feels like a disjointed distraction. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

May be best to withdraw the GA nomination, for now. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I've requested a second opinion since I published that comment. Withdrawing the GAN now doesn't solve any of the fundamental issues with the article right now; we can't paper over the cracks. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

"With the article in crisis"? That's a wild overstatement - it's just WP business as usual. There are some articles in real crisis over in the WP:CTOPICS. This is nothing. DeCausa (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Mm. No, I stand by that. The article is nearing the unworkable. It's becoming harder to get anything that sticks than it is to control a sphere of butter over a convex frying pan. I'm sure you've heard about the ANI proposal, or the 4 reverts this morning, or the disagreements over what goes into the first, fourth, and thirty-eighth paragraphs, or the shambles of the GA review, or the dispute resolution. Is that normal for an article? I don't think so. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The biggest event in this guy's life is happening in a couple of days. I think a bit of confusion is expected. In any case, nominating the article for GA a week before the article would anyway be changed significantly was a ballsy move, to put it lightly. There are no deadlines on Misplaced Pages—take a month, wait for the hotheads to naff off, then nominate again. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand your point; however, we started this initiative in March. Two months of work for a botched review with the backdrop of a talkpage omnishambles is frustrating. Really hoped we could get it to GA by May 6; that's obviously not going to happen anymore. So, @AirshipJungleman29: I won't withdraw the nomination, but I get why you think I should. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough Tim O'Doherty; I am willing to do the second opinion on the GA review, but in the interests of stability I don't think I could comment with any real conviction before, say, the 12th. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It'll be good to get a fresh pair of eyes on the article. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with @DeCausa, Tim, this isn't "crisis". That it might be regarded as "WP business as usual" is dispiriting in its own way of course. Why weep for one article's worth of dysfunction? All of it deserves tears. But I do sympathise with Tim, who's really done the heavy lifting on this, and has had caltrops thrown under his feet at every turn. The GAN clusterfrack would be the last things his jangling nerves would need. But in that Stoic spirit, it might indeed "stabilise" over time. The corollary is that the rate of improvement might go from frustratingly slow to entirely glacial. (OTOH the next "!deadline" is when he's dead, and he evidently comes from very robust stock on thae longevity front.)

@AirshipJungleman29, I do agree that the GAN was on the optimistic side, and it seems clear in hindsight wildly so on the timeline. But to be fair to Tim, partly it was with a view to have a fresh read to try to catch any major issues, ideally before it gets another several million pairs of eyeballs on in and and around the "big day". Evidently the all the "content issues" and the "dispute" processes are either effectively non-processes due to lack of activity, or have a much more efficient process of rejecting things from their process than actually processing them as described, so GAN is streets ahead by way of having done anything at all, frankly.

But from the point of view of the article (rather than the subject, perhaps) the coronation isn't as big an event as it's had lately. We're basically still struggling to properly integrate the whole "is king" thing -- apparently some editors feel that would sensibly take a year from when it happened -- "has been crowned" is much more of a local updating issue. 109.etc (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I nominated the article early on purpose, because it usually takes a few weeks to get a reviewer on board. Winding the clock back to 19 April, there wasn't too much of the first and fourth paragraph and "Accession and coronation plans" debate going on; it was all lingering in the background. At CIII, there were coal canaries about the first paragraph (as there had been for over a decade), but I didn't think that would seriously threaten the article's shot at GA. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Article: Charles III Under Caimilla Park Bowles the name of the archbishop of Canterbury is misspelled; it should read Williams. 64.229.75.189 (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It does say "Williams". GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

"The blessing by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams was televised." Not seeing any spelling error. 109.etc (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Accession and coronation subsection, lead

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Which intro for this subsection should we use? GoodDay (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
If anyone wants to add more options, please do. But do so only within the first 24 hrs.

I'm inclined to choose A since many (if not all) of the realms never formally renounced Dominion status 675930s (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• A - The status quo - "Charles acceded to the British throne on his mother's death 8 September 2022."
• B - "Upon his mother's death on 8 September 2022, Charles became King of the United Kingdom, as well as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis."
• C - "Charles acceded on 8 September 2022 upon his mother's death."

Survey II

• A - Because we already have the UK & the other countries (in footnote), listed within the page. C - Would be my second choice. B - Third option. GoodDay (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose B - He's king of other places besides those included in the list. (By which I mean those parts of the realms of New Zealand and the United Kingdom that are not themselves part of New Zealand or the United Kingdom.) The realms are listed twice elsewhere in the article. The rationale for the order of the list is not clear to any casual reader. DrKay (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Commment this RfC is pointless. There has already been extensive discussion above, over the course of almost two weeks, working out a consensus, as it never has been, nor is now, a matter of A or B. It's about finding a compromise that adheres to policy and the WP Manual of Style. If any question were to be asked first, it would be: should the article body expand on the lede? Since the lede actually presently says more than the article body does about where Charles is king of. But, that question's already answered by WP:LEDE--"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic and summarize the most important points"--and WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY--"The lead, being a summary of the article, promises that the body will deliver fuller treatment of each point." So, the question asked in this "RfC" is null. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 08:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• B - All of the realms should be mentioned somewhere in the main body of the article. The only current mentions of Antigua and Barbuda, for example, are in the footnote and navboxes. As suggested by WP:OBVIOUS this article should not assume that the reader knows Charles is King of fourteen other countries in addition to the UK, and that list should be provided self-contained within the main body of the article. No one reads footnotes, much less that gives them WP:UNDUE weight. Navboxes are not shown on mobile, so the only mention of many of the realms he is King of exist in a footnote few will read. Ha2772a (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RFC, speedy close. Starting editor gives every impression of wishing to tie up screamingly obvious and much-needed improvements to the article in endless process -- and constant reverts. Stonewalling comments, and rationales for their personal preference which are contradictory, thin in the extreme, not grounded in policy or guideline, and most commonly of all, entirely absent. "Let's spend a month voting on every sentence in the article" is the precise opposite of the intended mode of operation of this entire project. 109.etc (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)-

Discussion II

I wanted to wait until the other ongoing RFC had concluded. But it appears there's an urgency (not sure why) to bring stability to this page quickly & then get it to GA status, as soon as possible. GoodDay (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

No Bludgeoning

As always, we should respect editors' choices in the 'survey' section & thus be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON. Remember, trying to push an editor to 'change' their position on an RFC topic, will usually have the opposite effect. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It's rich that you find the need to remind everyone not to bludgeon the process. Maybe you should read up on the policy yourself, particularly WP:SATISFY Ha2772a (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I will respect the result of this RFC. No matter what that result will be. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

You don't get to cherrypick what processes you'll respect and which you won't.

Aside from the fact this RfC itself is asking whether or not to abide by the MoS, it's fundamentally your try at a get-out-of-jail-free card for your obstinate refusal to respect WP:BRD and, more specifically, WP:TALK#USE over the last two weeks or more. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should read up on the policy WP:NPA. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Strong look to the beam in thine own. GoodDay has been making hectoringly directive comments here for months, while making no detectable contributions to the content of the article, or discussions thereof. Give it a rest. 109.etc (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees seeking second opinion
• Good article nominees on review
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Biography articles of living people
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (military) articles
• Top-importance biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• B-Class biography (peerage) articles
• Top-importance biography (peerage) articles
• Peerage and Baronetage work group articles
• B-Class biography (royalty) articles
• Top-importance biography (royalty) articles
• Royalty work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class United Kingdom articles
• Top-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• B-Class London-related articles
• Top-importance London-related articles
• B-Class Cornwall-related articles
• Top-importance Cornwall-related articles
• All WikiProject Cornwall pages
• B-Class Wales articles
• Top-importance Wales articles
• WikiProject Wales articles
• B-Class British royalty articles
• Top-importance British royalty articles
• WikiProject British Royalty articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class maritime warfare articles
• Maritime warfare task force articles
• B-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• B-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• B-Class Cold War articles
• Cold War task force articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Commonwealth of Nations articles
• B-Class Australia articles
• Top-importance Australia articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• B-Class Canada-related articles
• Low-importance Canada-related articles
• B-Class Governments of Canada articles
• Low-importance Governments of Canada articles
• B-Class Political parties and politicians in Canada articles
• Low-importance Political parties and politicians in Canada articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• B-Class New Zealand articles
• Top-importance New Zealand articles
• WikiProject New Zealand articles
• B-Class children and young adult literature articles
• Low-importance children and young adult literature articles
• Spoken Misplaced Pages requests
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment