Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 14#Prince Charles}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 14:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 14#Prince Charles}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 14:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
== "King of the Commonwealth realms"? ==
An editor(s) is trying to push "King of the Commonwealth realms" into the opening of the fourth paragraph. Now, there are titles and positions of "Head of the Commonwealth", as well as "King of the United Kingdom", "King of Canada", "King of Australia" etc. There's no such thing as "King of the Commonwealth realms", but I wouldn't oppose (in the fourth paragraph) listing the realms in full, starting with the oldest one (the United Kingdom). ] (]) 10:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Revision as of 10:27, 17 April 2023
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
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.
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 must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
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 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
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
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
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?!
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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
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
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:
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
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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
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
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
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
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.")
Shortening the lead paragraph to a single sentence and the rewording of the second sentence, moved down into the fourth paragraph Implemented
Minor copyediting of paragraphs 4 and 5 of "Early life, family and education". Integrating his quasi-surname "Windsor" into the text somewhere has also been proposed Partially implemented
Moving details of his international trips into other articles/sections Not done for now
Removing unnecessary or unrelated text in "Military training and career", "Bachelorhood", and "Lady Diana Spencer" Implemented
Removing anecdotal information from "Official duties" Partially implemented
Merging "Polling" into "Accession and coronation plans". Addition of Liz Truss's announcement that the king would reign as "Charles III" Implemented
After the coronation, removing the paragraph about the planning of said event Not done for now
Removing unnecessary or unrelated text in "Personal interests" Partially implemented
Deletion of "Guest appearances on television" Implemented
Reduction in size of "Media image", addition of a hatnote to "Cultural depictions of Charles III" Implemented
Removing unnecessary or unrelated text in "Residences and finance"/moving some of the information into Finances of the British royal familyImplemented
To come up with a sentence that can be easily copy-pasted into the article on the day of the coronation about the coronation to avoid too much irrelevant info from being added. Not done for now
In more detail: oppose the elimination/movement of the second sentence (other than the "death of his mother" clause, which IMO is misplaced here). Defer consideration of post-crownage text and coronation-day until the time -- or at least, separate from this exercise. Strongly support all other points, contingent on viable edits in support of these admittedly still-somewhat-broadly-described objectives. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
No - The Taskforce can only recommend changes on this bios' talkpage. It can't be used to skip this BLP's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Procedural No This RfC question, as written, is too general for editors to be able to comment on. Editors would have to read through the link and evaluate every section, which is a big ask of volunteers who are working on their own projects. I suggest that this RfC is closed and a new RfC be opened with a specific question about a change that is under dispute. The more specific, the more likely it is that editors without prior knowledge of this dispute will be able to comment. If multiple RfCs need to be opened, then we will take them on one by one. Z1720 (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, which is an ongoing approval of agreed-upon changes being implemented as soon as they're agreed on. Making the changes has to start sometime and having an RfC on every one of them is untenable. As I've noted elsewhere, editors have had plenty of time to look at the discussions preceding these improvements. If they didn't, they can't be interested enough to protest anything. And, even if someone does, those disagreements can be dealt with as they arise. I strongly suspect the majority of edits will be accepted. --₪MIESIANIACAL21:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
No per Z1720. I'm supportive of the aims of this exercise, to make progress and avoid stonewalling, but we can't give carte blanche an outside project to make any changes it likes. Relevant discussions should be held here, not there. — Amakuru (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I understand your point; however, the task force was extremely well publicised, and has been active for over 3 weeks now. I accept that it could have been handled differently, but the task force discussion page is now longer than this talk page, and is split up into 4 sections; too long for a single section here. I would like to hear your thoughts on the content of CIII, rather than the procedure of this RfC. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Well it wasn't publicized enough for me to see it, and furthermore, nobody has explained why a separate page was needed in the first place. This is the talk page for the article. Please bring the changes here and we can consider them. If they're as Uncontroversial as you suggest, there should be no problem. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I have "brought the changes here" (see the "Proposed changes" subsection above) and the task force was also brought here; indeed, it's still here (see talk page banners); I pinged you here; I sent you a message on your personal talk page, and announcements for it were plastered around every tangentially related WikiProject and talk page. If you haven't seen any of this, it wasn't from lack of effort on our part. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Bad RfC per User:Z1720. I'm not going to read the entire very long linked talk page to try to figure out which changes you're talking about. How many changes are under discussion? Are they all controversial? If not, can you just start RfCs about the controversial ones? Can you at least provide a diff or draft of the proposed changes? —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 02:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
You're commenting on a proposal you haven't even read? More than that, it seems you haven't even read this RfC. It addresses your first three questions. For your fourth, instead of writing a draft, just look at the first paragraph of each section and subsection. That should be enough for you to form an opinion. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I have read the RfC statement, which says Should the changes discussed and supported at WT:CIII be made to this article with the goal of getting it to WP:GA class? I don't see how this addresses any of my first three questions.
At your suggestion, I've read the first paragraph of each section and subsection of the linked page. These look like too many proposals to sensibly comment on in a single RfC. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 14:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for adding a list of the proposed changes. I have no objections to the changes, but I still think it's too many proposals to sensibly comment on in a single RfC. As User:Z1720 suggests below, start making the changes, and if anyone objects that's the time to start a more narrowly focused discussion (and eventually an RfC about a specific change, if necessary). —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 17:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Procedural No I must agree with the "bad RFC" comments. If there is one specific version you want to vote on adopting as a wholescale replacement, please provide a diff (either a version in draftspace, or a BOLD-reverted version of this article. Otherwise, make the changes separately and discuss any individual changes that are controversial here. Walt Yoder (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Limited Yes Now that there is a description of the proposed changes, I can comment. As noted below, this shouldn't be "carte blanche" to ignore opposition to any of the changes, but overall they seem like improvements. This is a vote to encourage you to ignore one editor (GoodDay) who is tediously objecting based on procedural complaints without addressing the substance of any proposed changes. I am aware this is a bit harsh, but GoodDay has 12 comments in this discussion, and while he claims he has already voiced "concerns", those concerns are not described in any of those comments. Walt Yoder (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes - The proposed changes are undoubtedly improvements. I do agree with the concern's expressed by others on the fact that the proposed changes are not listed here. Anyone who wants to know further details about the changes will look. It'd be simply too cumbersome to list that discussion here. Then again, I'm sure there's a way to at least sum up the proposed changes rather than having to read through the entire RfC.--Estar8806 (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
In what sense can a widely publicised subpage, which we're currently discussing on the article talkpage, be said to be "skip this BLP's talkpage"? Extraordinary intervention. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
What is (or may be) agreed at the taskforce-in-question. Must then be proposed on this BLP's talkpage. Editors who don't take part in the taskforce, still have a voice on this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
What does "one proposal" mean? An RfC per section? Per subsection? Per sentence? Per word? The reason there's a "discussion" section is to discuss CIII further, not to reject it wholesale. You worked on the task force, so you should have voiced your concerns there; you had 3 weeks to do so. It's too late now: we'll just have to wait and see the results of this one. I will say this to everyone thinking about voting: think very carefully, because if this is rejected, it is a colossal waste. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
I have already voiced my concerns, pointing out that there's no deadline & that it might be counter-productive to push a lot of proposals at once. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
You should take it one step-at-a-time. When an agreement is reached at the taskforce (which doesn't seem to have happened, yet), concerning a certain section, whether it needs improvement, in the BLP. You then bring that 'one section' proposal to this talkpage. From what I can see, there's very little agreement on the taskforce itself, as to what needs improvement. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
There's very little agreement very largely because you appear to have made it your one-person mission to agree to nothing. Including any process to reach agreement. To which add a fair bit of general apathy from editors at large, to be fair. Just a few more weeks left to "maintain" its full B-grade glory, yay! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
It's the editors who haven't taken part in the taskforce, that have to be convinced that this BLP needs improvements & where. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Yep. Never would have thought it would be controversial to improve an article. I've read their arguments and still don't understand the people who are voting no; to me it seems to hinge more on how this RfC was set up rather than the question the RfC is asking. Moreover, even some people who worked on CIII don't want to agree to it. We all have to make concessions and compromise in a collaborative effort to improve something, to find a fair middle ground. Assuming good faith here, but if that is the reason, it must appear that malice bears down truth. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Don't throw in the towel so quickly. I recommend a 'toe in the water' approach. Select an item from the taskforce (you believe will have a chance of getting a consensus 'here') & propose it to 'this' talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Better still, select an item that appears uncontroversial and/or that gained consensus on the taskforce page, and just WP:BOLDly implement it. In many cases further discussion won't be needed. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
This looks like a good approach to me. Make a change, and most likely it will be accepted without discussion. If someone reverts it, start a discussion on talk, and if it's hard to find consensus, then start an RfC about that specific change. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 14:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Before I give an opinion one way or another, I'd just like to be clear on what " changes discussed and supported at WT:CIII" means: Is it that only the changes with agreement will be implemented, leaving those without agreement for... Further work? Or is it that the whole WT:CIII project is wrapping up and only those changes with agreement will be implemented, while those without agrement will be... Discarded? --₪MIESIANIACAL17:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Multiple editors have put forward different changes to be made - some, other people disagreed with, (for example, the proposed changes to the infobox), which wouldn't fall under "supported". I'd say that the proposals that didn't face any opposition, were actively supported, or that most people agreed with would be implemented, but those with majority disagreement would not. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Right. But, I suppose what I'm asking is: What happens to the areas under discussion, still without resolution? Do we continue working on them or drop them? --₪MIESIANIACAL18:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Essentially, Tim is (as I best understand it) trying to fight layer after layer of process inertia with... another layer of process. i.e. if someone tries to improve the article directly, they'll get reverted with a stonewalling "no consensus to change". If you discuss the change here, same result. If you discuss it in the "Task Force"... same same. And now it loops back here, and it's the same discussion, and the identical utter lack of improvement. Eventually, somebody has to make the changes, and the people who don't like 'em will (hopefully!) eventually-eventually-eventually engage with the substance of that, not just assert "there's no consensus because there's no consensus". Which is frankly bordering on the disruptive at this point. On the coronation watershed, there's a theory of the case that "no deadline" means we should do nothing beforehand, on the basis that we'll have our leisure to do so afterwards. Which is in principle true, but in practice it means that the "!deadline" becomes there's now even less hurry, subject's not going to be dead for a while yet, so it's fine languishing at 'not all that bad, somehow' for the foreseeable future. So as Tim says, it's entirely up to editors which changes they wish to pursue when. But I wouldn't suggest waiting for things to change, without a determined attempt to change them. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
My response was an attempt to answer Miesianiacal's question directly in terms of trying to put changes up for acceptance on this RfC. Otherwise, I would encourage people to be bold and make the changes directly: if people want to revert on the basis of "no consensus" then they should challenge that, either by reverting their reversion with a well-explained edit summary, or punching through by using the BRD cycle. I appreciate neither are particularly good options, with the first one contrary to policy, and the second bureaucratic and inefficient, but on Misplaced Pages, nothing is ideal. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
The immediate reverting of any change and maintenance of the status quo on the grounds of "no consensus" or something similar was a concern I myself raised maybe a week (?) ago. If anything, at least this RfC is yet another notice to editors of this page that there have been, and are, discussions about various improvements to this article. As I alluded to earlier, if one has chosen not to participate in those discussions, they don't have the right to simply revert and claim, "no consensus". Even if they have a more cogent argument, their time to voice it was over the last month or so. (That is, excluding anyone who legitimately just coincidentally returned after having not edited this article for a long time and, thus, wouldn't've been aware of WT:CIII.) And, if they're really reverting against consensus, well, we all know how to deal with that. --₪MIESIANIACAL21:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Being a member of the taskforce-in-question or not, doesn't heighten or lower the importance of an editors' input on this BLP's talkpage. Taskforce members can't force changes on this page, without a consensus from all editors who give input on this BLP's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
No, of course not. I'd hoped that people would read the proposals put forth at CIII, formed an opinion, and discussed what they like and don't like about it in the "Discussion" section. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
In skimming through the discussions, and in an effort to bring progress, can editors explain what changes, if any, are currently being disputed? I skimmed through the article and can suggest changes, but I want to encourage others to WP:BEBOLD and fix problems without lengthy discussions if they are not necessary. I'm also struggling to find places where there is major disagreement that would hamper progress. Can any editors point to diffs of disputed changes? Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
The proposed changes to the infobox, moving "Head of the Commonwealth" down from below his name to below his signature didn't get much support. Other than that, the remaining proposals either weren't opposed or were supported. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, I'd rather it be eliminated from the infobox, for the same reason I wouldn't want "Defender of the Faith", there. But anyways. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
@GoodDay:, @Z1720:, @Amakuru:, @Mx. Granger:, @Walt Yoder:, does the enumeration of proposed changes above address any of your procedural objections? And if not, out of idle curiosity, do you nonetheless have any substantive thoughts on the content of any of them? Would a consolidated diff by sufficient? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I still won't give a carte blanche approval of changes, but I encourage those interested in improving the article to WP:BOLDly make changes. If there is anything I disagree with, I will implement the R and the D in WP:BRD and open a discussion underneath. Z1720 (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not asking for carte blanche approval, I've literally just asked if you had specific feedback on each. I do sympathise with the lack of live-page edits to a point. I foresaw this to an extent as soon as the 'off-page' effort was set up. But as jaded and cynical as I am, I didn't quite realize it would be quite this much process inertia -- actually, in some cases, process vigorously shoving in the opposite direction -- for not a single improvement to the article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
The taskforce can only bring proposals to this talkpage. Best way to do that? is propose 'one' item at a time. GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
And has done. They're literally itemised up above. 12 RfCs? Best way to do nothing for a month or seven in favour of more process, more process about the process, more process about that, etc. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
If there's no consensus for a proposed edit (be it from the taskforce or not), then that proposed edit doesn't get added to this page. The WP:BRD process doesn't change. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
It's a little atypical to hold in-depth article discussions on a task force page, but it may be a more effective way to collaborate on one article. Equivalent high-profile talk pages tend to have far too much inertia; minor improvements are possible, but attempts at true "improvement spurts" get diluted, shot down, or ignored, so I like this idea of incubating suggestions elsewhere, and bringing them here afterwards. I get the backlash, but it's an interesting experiment. DFlhb (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
You describe the underlying problem very well. Unfortunately, this "solution" has resulted in... epic levels of inertia, shooting down and ignoring. As well as process arguments, meta-arguments, and pata-arguments. 109.etc (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
FWIW - Why did you make these changes 'while the RFC is in progress'? It's usually 'standard operating procedure' to wait until the RFC tag expires (in early May), followed by an outside editor declaring a decision. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
That aside, several procedural objectors and caveators had qualms about being asked about blanket approval without being able to look at actual live diffs. So pragmatically, decision aside, this is necessary either way. 109.etc (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, looking at the "DoNotArchiveUntil" bot. That expired yesterday. Despite that, the votes are 7 in support and 4 against, with every opposing editor finding fault with the RfC (faults that have since been corrected), not the proposed changes themselves. So, unless a gaggle of editors descend from on high and bombard this RfC with Opposes, I don't see any harm in initiating the process now. We have just under 3 weeks until the coronation. We were always looking to get it done by then, and if we want to see this at GA as soon as possible, we should get it over with. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Just pointing out that you & (maybe) 109, might be jumping the gun, a bit. It would've been better to wait until the tag expired & a decision made by an outsider. I understand you're both eager, to do what yas want before May 6, 2023. But it would've been better, if you had waited two more weeks. FWIW, I think all the 'opposing' editors in the 'survey' section should be pinged, to let them know about the (possible premature) changes you've made. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
If you really want, GoodDay. But understand that editors get frustrated by the endless hoops of bureaucracy that they've had to jump through for the past 6 weeks to improve an article, which should be completely uncontroversial. "Early May" is too late to improve the article. I think that since last night, the article has improved. It has became more alike his FA mother's article. No editor in their right mind would deliver a "failed RfC" or "no consensus" verdict against this RfC. I'd encourage you to edit this article yourself if you want to improve it, rather than going cap-in-hand to WP:CR. Until then, we should all collectively try to improve the article ourselves, rather than Puritanically adhering to Misplaced Pages's overlong bureaucratic systems. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
As you can see. I've contacted the other three fellows & if they're alright with this changes? fine. As for bureaucratic systems? That's the route you chose to take, when you opened this RFC. Merely a suggestion - If (in future) you open an RFC here or any other page? Let the process play out. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I had always said that it would be a 7-day RfC. Barring just one vote, every comment in the survey was made within 7 days. When you advised that it should be a 1 month RfC, I decided that we could meet in the middle and do 15 days. This RfC, as intended and in practice, is over. There haven't been any new votes since the changes were made. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
We'll see in two weeks time, when the tag expires. At that time, I'll request closure at the board-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
@Z1720:, @Mx. Granger: & @Amakuru:, seeing as many of the proposed changes in this ongoing RFC - have been implemented (in the last few hours). Do you 'now' approve? I note, this RFC still has two weeks to go. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
@GoodDay: no, of course I don't approve. The changes that have been made don't look like improvements to me, and they don't look like they were discussed here. For example, the last paragraph of the lead, which previously read "Charles inherited the throne upon his mother's death. His coronation is scheduled to take place on 6 May 2023.", which we painstakingly agreed a few weeks ago, has been turned into repetitive duplication again... The prior version should be reinstated and changes discussed properly. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I simply do not understand you. This has been discussed at WP:CIII and further discussed here, with it being edited down this morning. Why didn't you contribute in discussions here and at CIII before, rather than just opposing any change made now? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Why do you keep mentioning this CIII page? I'm not in the Royal Family wikiproject, and neither do I wish to be. It has no authority over this article. Bring proposed changes here, and I will happily comment on whether I like them or not, as will others, and we'll form consensus in the usual manner. — Amakuru (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
But the taskforce has 'no' authority over this BLP. I've been a member of a previous taskforce (years ago, concerning usage of British Isles on pages) & it became ineffective, the moment it over-stepped its boundaries. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the task force has overstepped. We had an RfC on the proposed changes, most people voting in the RfC said yes. I accept the way the RfC was set up and the matter of the process being spread across two different talkpages was a bit disjointed, but so far, I haven't seen anyone complain on the changes themselves, only the process in which they were made. If I've made an error here I apologise, but we can still move forward and get this article to GA. That's what it's all about. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
The RFC is still in progress, though. You should've waited until the RFC tag expired & then request closure from an outsider. There's no GA fire, no deadline. PS - I would also suggest that you no longer put "DO NOT REVERT", etc, in your edit summaries. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I think this change was not properly discussed by the task force either. I agree with the overall restructuring, but the part about him obtaining an injunction to prevent a memoir from being published is notable IMO; same with the part about him and his wife being named in the list of news media phone hacking scandal victims. I'm not saying that they should have remained there in their previous state, but I think the article would have benefitted more from condensing than outright removal. Keivan.f16:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Hopefully it was all notable, otherwise it shouldn't have been added in the first place. But there are many subsidiary articles we can farm things that aren't necessarily in the first-order of notability for the primary topic. Without necessarily expressing a view on which category that particular example might fall into. 109.etc (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Truly Kafkawiki in (in)action. If an editor is studiedly ignoring the TF, then necessarily the RfC, which is framed entirely in terms of that effort, is moot for their purposes. I suggest addressing the edits on their individual merits. Doesn't seem to me to make a great deal of sense to run the clock out on a process that some objected to happening in the first place, some actively urged us to make the edits in place in order for people to better judge their merits, etc. 109.etc (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
One proposal at a time (even if each one meant an RFC) would've been the best route. Trying to make a deadline, with multiple proposals at once, is nearly always going to end in mixed results. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Our target was always pre-coronation. 12 RfCs, one of which being "are we allowed to copyedit paragraphs 4 and 5 in "Early life"" would be a farce. In hindsight, we should have given more time to the RfC and less time on CIII, but the problem is some people just do not want this article to change at all, and I cannot see any other motive for dragging this article through this bureaucratic process hell. A 2 week RfC would have been ample, but even with a glaringly obvious consensus, it doesn't seem to be enough. CIII was just made so that we didn't overwhelm this talk page with its 80 thousand bytes, but now it's being treated as some sort of foreign body trying to made unwanted advances on this page, which was never the intention to begin with. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Lede
At what point would it be necessary to leave everything out of the lede except for the first sentence like his mother before him? AKTC3 (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
At no point. Why would we have a one-sentence lede? Liz2 doesn't, so the comparison there confuses me. I'd favour moving the mention of the death of same out of the first paragraph (to the fourth), but other than that it seems perfectly good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Just about ended my poor computer going back to then to confirm this, so not going to push my luck to get to the Legacy FA version. But I would regard that as an even more inadequate lead paragraph, and certainly not a model to aspire to. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
That's a discussion on the first sentence. This is a proposal to entirely eliminate (or move elsewhere perhaps) the second. The two keep getting conflated, less than helpfully. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but everything everywhere all at once, while a great movie premise, isn't the best organising principle for Wikidiscussions. 109.etc (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
That's been discussed with the task force; you were part of the discussion. I don't know about others, but, personally, I'm holding off on bringing it here, for the time being, as it seems like there's a lot going on already regarding how to implement changes and when. That all needs settled first. --₪MIESIANIACAL22:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
The proposed first paragraph would read: "Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms.". The second sentence would then be relocated to the fourth paragraph (handily giving para 4 a bit more of a reason for existing), which would read: "Charles inherited the throne of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms upon the death of his mother on September 8, 2022. At the age of 73, he was the oldest person to accede to the British throne, after having previously been the longest-serving heir apparent and Prince of Wales in British history. After brief speculation that he might choose a different regnal name, it was announced he would reign as Charles III. His coronation will take place on May 6, 2023." However, if people don't want to keep the regnal name speculation, that's a sacrifice I'm happy to take. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
There seems to be a degree of support that we should at least allude to the question of a surname in his "early life" section. Exact wording, as ever, still to be determined, but perhaps at least something corresponding to (or better yet, instead of!) the infobox note. However, my understanding is that he did also use a surname ("Windsor", which would have been the original default-by-proclamation, albeit not the then-current one) while in the RN. Here's a low-grade source: "Relinquishing his royal titles for the purpose of naval discipline he became Lieutenant Charles Windsor." Obviously a better one would be better, and it might not be worth mentioning at all. (In contrast there was quite a lot of hooha about his kids being "Lieutenant Wales" and "Captain Wales".) 109.etc (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware of the past discussion of the infobox (which is clearly this a minor parenthetical of the "matter" I just raised). Once the article body deals with the surname issue that's clearly new facts on the ground as far as the thinking (mistaken as it always was) that "oh, we'll deal with that in an infobox footnote,then never mention it again"). I look forward to your comments on the substance of such questions, whenever you plan on starting to make them. 109.etc (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Best we not use 'surnames' concerning royals. But (of course), we'll certainly allow others to give their input. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Any chance we could have arguments as to what's "best", rather than just assertions? Ideally ones grounded in policies and guidelines, and pertinent to the questions posed. But as the article already "uses surnames concerning royals" -- in the footnote that you just opposed removing -- I'm unclear as to what you even want, much less why. 109.etc (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, you can breath anytime you wish. Now, am I correct that you're suggesting we use several (for lack of better description) surnames, within this BLP (outside, the infobox)? GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
There was a pronouncement that "no article can be GA class without having the subject's surname mentioned in prose." To the best of my knowledge, Elizabeth's article doesn't talk about it either, although I may have missed it. I do agree, however, that nothing should be in the infobox if not in the article body as well. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Once more, that's not in fact related. There's no suggestion here to add (any mention or question of) a surname to the lead section. Just to the article prose, which as Tim correctly says, should not be something the infobox "supplants". 109.etc (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I draw your attention to the clause 'the question of a surname in his "early life" section' at the start of the discussion. 109.etc (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Going by your recent addition. You merely wanted to 'point out', that Charles wasn't given a surname, upon his birth. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Essentially. Technically the (first) proclamation gives him a "backup surname", and one that he did then later use, but basically we just need to cover the same ground as the existing infobox-footnote. A lampshade, not a whole treatise. 109.etc (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Which of course, this being KafkaWiki, has been reverted on the grounds that we don't have a source for his name(!), or the fact of his being christened(!!), notwithstanding the same information is still blithely asserted in the infobox on the basis of the exact same source, and the very sentence before. I'll look into how to bombproof this later (and/or, just exasperatedly revert, as the case may be). 109.etc (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I stand by my opinion that failing to clearly and promptly provide basic, easily verifiable biographical information–which the subject's last name certainly is–should disqualify any biographical article from a GA status. Having a string of three middle names in the lead only serves to highlight the bizarre omission. What is even the point of the middle names without a last name? Surtsicna (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
If anything he was born "Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor", if you look at it very hard through republican goggles, or had there been abolition of the monarchy right about then. But there wasn't, and we shouldn't, so that (neither version) is clearly not a flier here. @Surtsicna, what do you believe to be the means of verification of this information? 109.etc (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
@109.etc Was he born "Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor" though, or was he born "Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten"? Because apparently he and Anne were born with their father's surname, but since after her accession Elizabeth II insisted on keeping the royal house name as Windsor, people were wondering if any other children she and Philip could have would be bastards if they were to take their mother's surname. There was an internal debate going on about it at the time, which is why Elizabeth announced that her descendants should have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor right before Andrew's birth. So, Surtsicna, are you suggesting we should include Mountbatten-Windsor in the lede? And should we clarify that he was probably born with the surname Mountbatten? Keivan.f16:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
My mistake on the sequencing there, apologies. Two slightly different proclamations in between the batches of M/W kids. I was sloppily thinking the first two were born after the first, but before the second. Yes, in this hypothetical titleless scenario there's a case they'd have been Mountbattens. But they weren't really "born with" any surname, due to the whole "we don't have a surname, unless we do" game the royals insist on playing. I'd continue to favour something on the lines of my twice-reverted addition to the "early life" section to cover this, but not asserting that he was born with, christened as, or his birth registered as giving him any surname. That he's subsequently used a surname complicates, but doesn't materially change matters. 109.etc (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
On the "surname in the navy" matter, I see it repeatedly in several places around the interwebz that 'It has been reported in the American press that as a practical day-to-day matter in their active Royal Navy service, both Charles and Andrew were referred to as "Lieutenant Windsor".' That has the whiff of being Misplaced Pages-mirrored, and I see no suggestion of a source for it. I'm inclined to ignore that unless someone has something better. 109.etc (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Reading through this, I was struck with the thought: if it's this confusing for we editors, it must be a mystery to readers, meaning there should be some explanation in article-space somewhere; perhaps at House of Windsor (which presently covers only the surname for those without style and princely title), with a subtle link there from here; a footnote, maybe. --₪MIESIANIACAL06:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I suppose that's strictly true. I thought that article somewhat implied the situation for the titled types, but adding the same reference as we use here and adding something more explicit might indeed be helpful. 109.etc (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
An editor(s) is trying to push "King of the Commonwealth realms" into the opening of the fourth paragraph. Now, there are titles and positions of "Head of the Commonwealth", as well as "King of the United Kingdom", "King of Canada", "King of Australia" etc. There's no such thing as "King of the Commonwealth realms", but I wouldn't oppose (in the fourth paragraph) listing the realms in full, starting with the oldest one (the United Kingdom). GoodDay (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion met.jpg)
.svg)
.svg){kind=logo}
wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
Implemented
Partially implemented
Not done for now
The redirect Charles, Prince of Wales has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 14 § Charles, Prince of Wales until a consensus is reached. Векочел (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)