Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 109.etc (talk | contribs) at 04:36, 30 April 2023 (→Fourth paragraph: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page. 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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Template:London Bridge task force Template:Charles III task forcePlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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?! Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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.

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)

Hopefully by 15 April, depending on the discussion above. See this for more details. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

At no point. Why would we have a one-sentence lede? Liz2 doesn't, so the comparison there confuses me. I'd favour moving the mention of the death of same out of the first paragraph (to the fourth), but other than that it seems perfectly good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Elizabeth had one whilst still alive. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Just about ended my poor computer going back to then to confirm this, so not going to push my luck to get to the Legacy FA version. But I would regard that as an even more inadequate lead paragraph, and certainly not a model to aspire to. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Just as a sidenote - it was discussed in almost ludicrous detail here. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a discussion on the first sentence. This is a proposal to entirely eliminate (or move elsewhere perhaps) the second. The two keep getting conflated, less than helpfully. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The proposal you speak of was also discussed at CIII, see my reply below. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but everything everywhere all at once, while a great movie premise, isn't the best organising principle for Wikidiscussions. 109.etc (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd recommend leaving the opening sentence, alone. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

And I'd recomment not. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Changing the lead paragraph was discussed at CIII. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you could present 'here', the proposed paragraph-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

That's been discussed with the task force; you were part of the discussion. I don't know about others, but, personally, I'm holding off on bringing it here, for the time being, as it seems like there's a lot going on already regarding how to implement changes and when. That all needs settled first. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I was asking Tim, but no matter. Yes, there's a lot going on already. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 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)

Understood, thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, we were actually discussing "Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is king of 15 independent countries, including the United Kingdom." But, that discussion's clearly not over and, again, there are other fish to fry first. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: Should be 8 September 2022 and 6 May 2023 as dmy dates. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Should we revisit this now? (I personally don't need to hear GoodDay's opinion; I'm well aware of what it is.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Revisit what? The wording around the Commonwealth realms, or the reduction of the lead paragraph? (I personally don't much care for this passive-aggressive ad-hominem-style rivalry - just try to keep things constructive.) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I assumed I was just carrying on from the words immediately above. In hindsight, I suppose my outdenting obscured that intention. So, yes, the wording around the Commonwealth realms: "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" to "king of 15 independent countries, including the United Kingdom." --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose that change. The current lead, is best. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

If you want. I've already stated my preference for "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms", so that is my position. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm just trying to read the room, so to speak. I'm hesitant to start an RfC with one already ongoing above. I'll wait to see what more, if any, reaction there is to my question about revisiting the opening sentence at this point. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to this idea, but I think "including" is a little too caʒ. What about something like "fifteen independent countries, most prominently the United Kingdom"? 109.etc (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@109.etc: The British monarchy's website phrases it this way: "The King is sovereign of 14 Commonwealth realms, in addition to the UK". I tweaked it to "king of 15 independent countries, including the United Kingdom" because 1) someone (Surtsicna? Tim O'Doherty? Keivan.f?) rightly pointed out that most readers who come to this article won't know what a Commonwealth Realm is and will likely just assume it's some kind of self-governing country under the British monarchy (a Dominion by a different name) and 2) "in addition to" misleadingly separates the UK out of the group of Commonwealth Realms. None of the synonyms for "include"--"incorporate", "embrace", "involve", etc--work in the sentence. So, I'm not sure what's better. "King of 15 independent countries, most directly the United Kingdom" is the best I have, at the moment; but, I'm quite far from loving it; in part, because it adds another word; though, the sentence is still has one word fewer than what's in the lede now. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. Charles III is known first & foremost as the British monarch (King of the United Kingdom). He also primarily resides in the the United Kingdom & thus the UK doesn't have or need a governor-general. We have the 14 other Commonwealth realms listed in a footnote, which any reader can click onto. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @GoodDay, he is mostly known as the British monarch first so the status quo should remain. DDMS123 (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@DDMS123: Sure. But, nothing anywhere here says otherwise. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The current P1 is excessively -- frankly absurdly -- short anyway, so I don't think we need angst too much about wasting a word or two here. But I don't think "directly" is useful here, though I think I can discern what you're seeking to imply by it. I might add my own wording to the article so someone can do a "Best to keep the status quo because it's best to keep the status quo" revert on it, unless I think of some other wheeze. I agree that "Commonwealth realm" obscures more than it reveals here. We should either use a different wording in P1, and then use CR in P4, or vice versa if we must for some ineffable reason use CR in the lede, a fuller and clearer exposition of what that means in plain language. The first is probably objectively better, but the second may be more wikipolitically feasible. 109.etc (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

There's always "king of 14 independent countries, in addition to the United Kingdom, all collectively known as the Commonwealth realms." The other issue with simeply "king of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" is that globally significant, G7, NATO countries get buried under "other", which is nonsense. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I could live with something on those lines. The "but where is he king of?" issue has been botched for months -- and systematically reverted to the botched version, yea even until this very day -- so I despair of it getting before he's the former king. At which point if anything it'll be be even harder, because then we'll have an increasing dead (as it were) weight of "but for consistency with the previous MotKRs..." to contend with to fix it for King Willy. 109.etc (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Best to keep the status quo "King of the United Kingdom and the 14th other Commonwealth realms", with @DrKay:'s footnote. GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@109.etc: Well, as there's only one other MotCRs at the moment (and for the next decade or so), I don't see the existence of the former MotCRs' bio as a huge impediment, if one at all. The only real roadblock is the opposition expressed here; albeit, none of it supported by reasonable explanation. So, my hunch is an RfC (read: vote) will be necessary. Do we have any other suggestions besides

• "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms",
• "king of 15 independent countries, including the United Kingdom", and
• "king of 14 independent countries, in addition to the United Kingdom, all collectively known as the Commonwealth realms"? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I might be inclined to support a flipped-around version of the third, more resembling the first, but with the addition of a spelled-out "independent countries" clause one way or another. I'm not hugely wedded to the exact wording if those key points are addressed.

We (rather artlessly) use almost exactly the same phrase in IIRC three different places -- and then never actually say what the others are, outside of a footnote, bizarrely -- so for clarity, I assume this is only about the one in the lead sentenograph? 109.etc (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean "king of the Commonwealth realms: 14 independent countries, in addition to the United Kingdom"?

I am focusing on the top lines of the article. As to other mentions of where Charles reigns, is there not only one editor objecting to "king of the Commonwealth realms"? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

No, something on the lines of, "king of the United Kingdom and fourteen other independent countries, all known as the Commonwealth realms". 109.etc (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I don't particularly like that one, as it still diminishes globally significant nations as "other". However, it is another option and I recognize that it replaces the unexplained and, hence, potentially confusing term "Commonwealth realms" with the more widely understandable "independent countries". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"Fourteen further"? I do think that on balance the UK should get 'first billing', though it's not a hill I'd choose to die on. I'd favour on second mention (ideally in P4, if not in the "reign" section) we switch the wording around and make it more symmetrical. 109.etc (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That's why I've come to favour "15 independent countries, including the United Kingdom," or "14 inependent countries, in addition to the United Kingdom," as it's a compromise that, I think, appeals to those who don't want the non-British realms in some "other" corner along with the dust bunnies, as well as those who want to give the UK prominence.

Regardless, perhaps it's time for an RfC. (I just hope editors haven't reached "Carolean fatigue" yet.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it is. I would prefer retaining the current wording, but with a footnote in the opening sentence listing the realms in alphabetical order, as it is in the infobox. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Tim, I really don't think a footnote is adequate. "So where is he king of?" isn't something a competently written article on someone entirely notable for being a king, and waiting a long time to be a king, should be coyly doing the dance of the seven veils on. Just tell us. In the article text proper. (I mean in general here, not in the lede paratence.) Miesi, the thing about summary style is that it requires that we put the most blitheringly obvious stuff first. We should have text in the article that makes clear the '15 separate yokes' legal niceties, but it's beyond any reasonable argument that "king of the UK" is the crux of the key points of the most important stuff. It has to go first. On how phrase the "and" stuff I'm pretty flexible. Bear if mind if you start an RfC now, it'll run during the crowning-antics period. Which might increase attention and participation... but potentially in a fairly chaotic manner. Caveat emptor. 109.etc (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

109, with all due respect, the current lead sentence tells us just as little about what he is king of as any of the proposed alternatives. "15 independent countries, including the United Kingdom" is just as much information as "the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms." It isn't so much about the information as it is about how that same information is presented. I have to say, I don't see the benefits in switching the wording around. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

You're conflating two different points. In the lead sentence (as I just said), I favour mentioning the UK first, just adding greater clarity on the "independent countries" point. Elsewhere in the text of the article, I'm pretty determined that we should a) list the realms, and b) make clear the supposed symmetry and alleged equality between each monarchy. 109.etc (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I still think that the footnote does just fine on its own. It lists what he's king of without being to intrusive, and is right at the top of the article. I don't see how adding "independent countries" helps. If it is really needed though, how about "Charles III is King of the United Kingdom and 14 other independent countries", with "independent countries having a link to Commonwealth realm? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

We tried that previously, it didn't take. I'm largely fine with it (apart from the use of numerals, and possibly the case of "king"). I still don't think it deals with the "where's he king of" question, but that's largely a separate issue. (I mentioned it here largely in the context of offering to Miesi by way of trying to deal with their concerns about it under separate cover.) 109.etc (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that the casing of "K/king" is a problem. I think we need to have "King of the United Kingdom" but we should also acknowledge that he isn't "King of 14 other independent countries". The obvious solution is "King of the United Kingdom and king of 14 other independent countries", although I'm not taken by this either. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

IMO we don't actually need to have that, as he's both "King of the United Kingdom" ((part of) his title), and "king of the United Kingdom" (a factual description). The link we can textually scope differently, or skip here (as we might possibly mention the fact of his being king once or twice elsewhere, so can link it there instead). 109.etc (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

If we did have a lowercase k, we'd need to have "the king of the United Kingdom ". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we can blow another word of the lead-paragraph-length budget. 109.etc (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Any way we can truncate an RfC into a week? (That's asked (mostly) tongue-in-cheek.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Haha. Might want to look at what happened when I tried to truncate an RfC into one week. I'd say go for it, but make it explicitly clear in your opening statement that it's just for 7 days. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

There's apparently no policy or even guideline on length, but for all the lip service to WP:VOTINGISEVIL, clearly Wikipedians like well-run "elections", will have them incessantly, and treat them as such. But arguably it's contrary to the spirit of "uninvolved closure" to specify when the closure must happen in advance. OTOH it's hardly Wikianarchy to say, "let's look at the preliminary results after a week, and reopen it later if needed". 109.etc (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I concur. 1 month long RfCs are excessive, especially when we need to get things done quickly, as in the CIII approval process. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Tim, RFCs generally last a month, which is when the RFC tag expires & is removed by the Legobot. Then an editor goes to Misplaced Pages:Closure requests, to seek an uninvolved editor (preferably an administrator) to close & make a decision, on the RFC result. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I know they do. I'm saying that there can be occasional exceptions, and in the case of Mies' proposal, it would be wise to get it through quickly before the GA review. It's not always the case either, as the RfC held here on the WP:CIII proposals was archived today, and not closed by anybody, sysop or otherwise. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I've been in many RFCs & I can assure you, 'deadline' RFCs tend to have little teeth. A regular (1-month) RFC, has a stronger consensus. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Not always. For example, this RfC was closed after 5 days and has determined the consensus for going on 8 months now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Trust me, this topic isn't anything like the image RFC. Anyways, you can either accept my advice or ignore it. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"Generally" is doing a lot of work there. There's expressly no such requirement, and we're not supposed to be making machine-paced work to suit the bot. And that characterisation of "what then happens" misstates two key details, as is clear enough if you follow your own link. 109.etc (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll take your advice, GoodDay, but I disagree with you. A consensus made in a week can be just as strong as one made in a month. I'm in favour of the lead sentence RfC lasting a month, provided it takes place after the review, as it's not a good idea to have an RfC during it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps rather than attempting to throw process at the problem, then throw process at the process, ad infinitum (see Chuck3 archives passim), we should just aim at having a "focused discussion" on the topic, with a view to implementing the preliminary consensus of that in a timely manner. The way y'know, Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. Albeit rarely does. 109.etc (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Barbados

The Queen wasn't Barbadian. Any claim that she was is absurd, and somewhat distasteful. The monarchy was abolished because it was not Barbadian. Republicanism in the realms is driven by the desire to have a local head of state and not one imposed by a foreign hegemony. She was deposed because the monarchy wasn't Barbadian. It was alien and colonial. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Eh? Does this relate to your repeated edits to add back the phrase "removed the Queen as Barbadian head of state"? I don't follow the logic of this at all. Our "Monarchy of Barbados" article -- which is what we're linking to in either case -- doesn't assert or imply that either the then-monarch or the present one are Barbadian (in anything other than in the most legalistic sense). "Deposed" would be even worse though! This was the abolition of a monarchy, not a palace coup in favour of someone else, Barbadian or otherwise, carrying out the monarchical role. Which is moderately clear from the previous sentence, but this really does its best to re-muddle it. 109.etc (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "repeated efforts". I've only added that phrase back once and then only to restore the article to the original version in line with wikipedia policy on reverted changes. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I beg your pardon: in the other edit I had in mind the exact phrase was "abolished the Elizabeth II's role as monarch of Barbados", so arguably not precisely "repeated" in a narrow sense. I don't really see how this assists us on the merits of either version. Nor do I see how reverts to a long-standing mediocre article are the lucent ideal and objective of policy, while everyone else is "edit warring". At any rate, does this amount to an objection that on the one hand "monarch of Barbados" or "monarchy of Barbados" are permissible constructions, but "Barbadian monarchy" isn't? 109.etc (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

That she was "monarch of Barbados" is incontrovertible and uncontroversial. Both of the other phrases are arguable at best. They rely on the idea that the monarchy was 'of Barbados' or 'Barbadian', but this is not an unbias view. Another view is that the monarchy was British and foreign. Another view is that the monarchy is shared and common. 'monarch of Barbados' is the only phrase of the three that is neutral. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It was only "shared" to the extent that there was an agreement that all sixteen have the same one; they're clearly separate titles, and succeed separately in the law of each. Obviously regarding it as "British and foreign" is/was a perfectly valid view, but one that's more of a political argument for getting rid of it than a linguistic one for how to best describe it. I can't really intuit any feasible distinction between "monarch" and "monarchy" here, and if there's one I'm missing, we have bigger problems, to wit the article monarchy of Barbados. But erring on the side of assuming that I indeed am, I'll use that form. 109.etc (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Political, yes. Valid, no. There can't be both a monarchy of Barbados and a foreign British monarchy in Barbados; a country can't be both a colony and sovereign. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems that the user is only here to spread his or her political opinions for no good reason. StrawWord298944 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I don't entirely agree with the connotational concerns that user raises, but I think they have some sort of at least possible basis. 109.etc (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Proclamations

Edit Suggestion

I'm not sure of the standard practice, but it seems for a lot of noble figures, their house is listed in their info box. I think this justifies adding that King Charles' house is Windsor in his info box. StrawWord298944 (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. Sorry. I didn't see it. :| StrawWord298944 (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Charles's vs Charles'

I don't know if this is some British English vs American English situation, but what is the explanation over using Charles's and not Charles'? StrawWord298944 (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Both are grammatically correct. Misplaced Pages has decided to standardise on the former for consistency. See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Possessives. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Many people would disagree with your first sentence, including all the English teachers I ever had, but the second sentence is correct. (I still find it ugly, but I just deal with it.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Many prescriptive style guide would disagree with those people referred to in the first clause of your first sentence, including The Chicago Manual of Style, APA Publication Manual and MLA Handbook. On your second, I can only sympathise: De gustibus, etc. Aesthetic preferences are purely personal, but language is fundamentally a matter of (more-or-less) agreed convention. 109.etc (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Praise of views on alternative medicine and homeopathy

@Tim O'Doherty: I see you reverted my revert of the addition of this claim. Can you explain why you consider mentioning this praise to be DUE, especially in the lede? It appears to be the view of a tiny minority - aligning with the tiny minority that supports alternative medicine and homeopathy - and thus would be WP:UNDUE to include.

In addition, even if it is WP:DUE to include we need sources to support the claim that it is praised, and the content needs to be added to the body before it can be added to the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry BilledMammal, reverted the wrong person. My mistake. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries, thank you for clarifying. BilledMammal (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Charles III Proposition. Please consider :)

So I believe that the text in the lead should be changed to “his support for homeopathy and other alternative medicine has been both criticised and praised, the latter to a lesser extent.” to make the article more neutral and clearly show that not everyone criticises Charles on this matter. I recognise that Charles’ opinion is of a small minority, thus this has been represented in the text (“to a lesser extent”). My reasoning can be seen a discussion I had with another editor here: User talk:Tim O'Doherty#Charles III. I understand that most people, including me, disagree with the use of homeopathic remedies yet I believe the article must be amended. What do others think? Scientelensia (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This isn't an article about what people think of Charles, nor is it an article about the benefits or otherwise of homeopathy, so we shouldn't really be going down either of those paths. I would stick to something very simple, along the lines "Charles has expressed some support for homeopathy." HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Good plan. Scientelensia (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Question is, is it WP:DUE? Obviously homeopathy has its supporters, but unless they've prominently and publicly supporting CMW for supporting it, to a degree comparable to those criticising with it, you'd have a point. Just general "homeopathy good somehow" sources wouldn't work for that purpose. 109.etc (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally I do think it is due owing to the phrasing but yet I see your point. Scientelensia (talk) 06:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

GA nomination instructions

Tim O'Doherty, the GA instructions require that significant contributors to the article should be consulted before a nomination. The top six contributors to this article are Keivan.f, GoldRingChip, Yitzilitt, Monkelese, Miesianiacal, and DrKay; pinging them to see if they agree this article is ready to be nominated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The instructions state: If you are not a significant contributor to the article, you must secure the assent of the significant contributors before nominating. Am I not a significant contributor? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

You've certainly done a lot to the article, but see this breakdown; for a heavily edited article like this it takes quite a few edits to get into the top ten. Nobody has objected so far, so this is probably fine; just wanted to check. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; I'm surprised to even be in ninth place, if I'm honest. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, you're in eighth place. Click onto the G2bambino account ;) GoodDay (talk)

• It's OK with me. —GoldRingChip 19:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• In favour of nomination. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• It wasn't ready, and is only improving slowly if at all, hence the edit-wars, arguments and bad faith actions that have occurred as a result. However, I don't resent or blame Tim for trying, nor should it in my view prevent a nomination. DrKay (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  It might not have been ready when I nominated it one week ago. A lot has happened since then: do you think it's ready now? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think it's a strong article in most particulars and independent review can be helpful. DrKay (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  I oppose the promotion of this article to GA status. It fails criterion 4. It is not stable and will not be stable until some time after the coronation. DrKay (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  I admit it's been a bit turbulent, but I don't think so much so that it prevents GA. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  If you're in favour of nomination, isn't this the wrong venue to opposing promotion? Much as I hate to cite process, after my intermittent moans about people spiking improvement with it... 109.etc (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• The article has potential and would benefit from an independent review. Yes, there was a lot of back and forth between editors, but we should try to assume good faith moving forward, if we intend to further improve the article. Keivan.f 17:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  We did attempt a peer review. It went stagnant once the article was nominated. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  In fact, between Tim and I we tried about as much venue-shopping as we could get away with this side of spamming the whole Wiki of looking for peer review or something similar, and pretty much all these processes seem to be moribund. Or "working to their own pace", to put it as kindly as possible. So this is rather the last throw of the "improve it before it gets another two million hits in a week" dice. 109.etc (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• While I think it still requires a bit of work, the article has, on the whole, been significantly improved. So, I'd say it's about ready for a nomination. No doubt that will bring in outside input on desired/needed fixes. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

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)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

Sidebar

Any objections to this sidebar being created at Template:Charles III sidebar and added to the article? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it duplicates the function of the existing navigation template Template:Charles III. DrKay (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Eh? Tony Blair, Donald Trump, Ed Miliband, Theresa May, Joe Biden, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, John Major, Margaret Thatcher, James Callaghan, all have their own navboxes and sidebars. That's not a valid point. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 April 11#Template:Member states of the European Union sidebar for recent precedent. DrKay (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I haven't seen that sidebar, so I don't know how similar it was to the other template - I think that the proposed one is sufficiently different. @GoodDay: @109.etc: @Miesianiacal: I don't know if you have any opinion on this. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd recommend against adding the sidebar-in-question. Appropriate for politicians, but not (IMHO) for a constitutional monarch. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not strongly against inclusion of the sidebar. But, it does repeat parts of Template:Charles III. It also appears to be a "tradition" for politicians, but not monarchs. It looks good, though; far better than Template:Charles III; I'll give it that. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happier about it if these nav boxes didn't end up looking like "infobox, Part Deux". Or if the actual infobox was a little more... concise. 109.etc (talk) 21:58, 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)

FWIW, other editors have reverted you, concerning the 'fourth paragraph'. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 29 April 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)

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)

• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees on review
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• 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