Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Incorrect title

I would like to change the opening sentence from "Catherine, Princess of Wales, etc...." to "The Princess of Wales, etc..." Her title is not "Catherine, Princess of Wales". This arises from a misunderstanding of the title "Diana, Princess of Wales", which was a special one-off title accorded to Diana after her divorce from Charles. Catherine is simply "The Princess of Wales" - see the official Royal website. Deb (talk) 09:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

That she is formally "the Princess of Wales" is not disputed. Catherine, Princess of Wales#Styles says so. I too have considered what you are proposing, but I am not sure whether starting a Wikipedia biography with anything but the subject's name is a good idea. In any case, this would apply to any article about a peer or a peer's wife. William, for example, is not properly called "William, Prince of Wales" either but "the Prince of Wales". Surtsicna (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's very true, but the article as it stands is notably inconsistent as no other Princesses of Wales are referred to in this way on Wikipedia. Deb (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

If consistency is an issue, the article would start "Catherine Middleton (born etc..." All the others start with the maiden name. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, this would be an appropriate title for the article - but that will never happen. I would not be averse to starting the article that way, but I don't think we would get consensus for it. Deb (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Leave the intro as it is. Don't attempt to fix something, until it's broken. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I often wonder whether the lead should be something like "Catherine (born Catherine Elizabeth Middleton on 9 January 1982), Princess of Wales, is..." Including the appositive title as part of the subject's bolded name looks a bit odd. We do not do it for Charles or Elizabeth, for example. Surtsicna (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no problem in the lead, nor in the first sentence; it is identical to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, which is a good article. Oroborvs (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Meghan's is also incorrect. She is not divorced from Harry so she is Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex. Saying that there is no issue because they are the same is like saying that you did not get the math problem wrong because someone else also did the math incorrectly. Neither woman is divorced and both are styled as if they are on wikipedia 2603:6080:2D40:606:8989:E4FF:D9DB:31F8 (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The lead is alright, the way it is. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Neither of those comments addresses any points raised against the lead, and so neither is helpful. Surtsicna (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That's your opinion. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It is a fact that you addressed nothing and provided no reasoning. Surtsicna (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I oppose any changes to the intro, both here & at Prince William's intro. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This is so obviously biased against Catherine, no doubt by Meghan or someone in her camp trying to denigrate the titles she has earned after 21 years of service. Nowhere on Meghan's page does it say she does not hold any titles herself, or any other female royal's page for that matter, so why the distinction with Catherine? Trying to force her down a peg or two because you're jealous? So pathetic... 142.189.134.56 (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

External links edit

Under the External links section, 'The Duchess of Cambridge' should be updated as it is at the website of the Government of Canada 174.115.15.87 (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify the Government of Canada website says 'Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales' but the page here still has 'The Duchess of Cambridge' so it should either be changed to that or I would just change it to 'The Princess of Wales'. 174.115.15.87 (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Spelling error in escutcheon blazon

In the Arms section, "armed and langed" should be "armed and langued". 84.92.90.18 (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Further updates

I think it would be worth changing referrals to her parents' business as past tense since they have decided to retire and sell the company and I also think the British Institute of Florence could be added as an alma mater between Marlborough College and the University of St. Andrews as she studied there during her gap year. 74.12.3.165 (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Any reliable sources reporting on their decision to sell the company? Keivan.f^Talk 19:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.womanandhome.com/life/royal-news/big-change-for-carole-middleton-amid-struggles-ahead-of-the-coronation/ 174.115.15.87 (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The source says Party Pieces has now allegedly appointed advisors for the possible sale of the company. We have to wait until it's confirmed. Keivan.f^Talk 03:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay but I think the British Institute of Florence could be added as her alma mater since she completed a few courses (at least Italian and history of art from what I read) there. 174.115.15.87 (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Superfluous edits

I don't know why it matters so much to change 'history of art' to 'art history' but if you're going to keep changing it to the Americanized version then you need to remove the 'the' because it's not 'the art history' it's either 'the history of art' or just 'art history'. 74.12.3.165 (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

British people say 'art history'.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13], including at St Andrews University[14], which is where she studied it. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm just saying it's quite a trivial change to make and 'history of art' is still the more formal usage of the phrase since 'art history' uses the noun 'art' as an adjective. I'm not saying to change it again (please stop fighting over it lol). I'm just saying that's probably why the former was used in the first place. 74.12.3.165 (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Once again, the sentence about her Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles and Princess of Scotland titles upon her husband's becoming heir apparent has been removed for no good reason when it should remain both on her main page and on her titles page. 174.115.15.87 (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2023

I would change the Titles and styles section to how it is on her Titles page just without the timeline of her titles:

Upon her marriage in 2011, Catherine became a princess of the United Kingdom and gained the style of Royal Highness. She also gained the titles of Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn and Baroness Carrickfergus. She was normally known as "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge" except in Scotland, where she was instead called "Her Royal Highness The Countess of Strathearn".

Upon her father-in-law's accession to the throne on 8 September 2022, Catherine also became Duchess of Cornwall and Duchess of Rothesay. She was thus briefly called "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge". She additionally assumed the titles Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles and Princess of Scotland upon her husband's becoming heir apparent. On 9 September 2022, the King announced the appointment of William as Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, with Catherine becoming Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester. In Scotland, Catherine is known by her Scottish title, Duchess of Rothesay, and elsewhere by her highest British title, Princess of Wales. Rando65 (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done That section has been controversial in the past. Please get consensus for any changes before using the edit request template. DrKay (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know exactly how to use Wikipedia. She assumed all of her husband's titles and I've already added the citation on her Titles page. The last sentence can stay because I prefer the wording but the rest should be consistent with her Titles page. 174.115.15.87 (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Coronation appearance under Public Life

Greetings!!! Just wanted to confirm whether Catherine's coronation appearance should be mentioned under the Public Life sub-heading. I have twice got my edit reverted. Also specify whether or not the outfit and it's significance should be mentioned or not. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

No. Firstly, her outfit is trivia/WP:FANCRUFT. Secondly, attendance at the Coronation may be suitable at Coronation of Charles III and Camilla but not in her bio. Is every attendee's bio - or every attending member of the royal family - going to referece it? Of course not. DeCausa (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2023

The main hospital in Chester is called 'the Countess of Chester Hospital', in honour of Diana, Princess of Wales. The two titles go together, and the Chester one is the oldest of the two. Dr Paul Booth (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Princess of Wales in 2023 (cropped)01 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file is not of as good a quality as has been used for the portrait. Also the present portrait is a better one than the others taken in 2023. So it would be a better option to not change the present portrait and continue with the current one. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Should a new portrait from 2023 replace the 2022 one?

Greetings!!! Just wanted to confirm whether we should or should not replace the 2022 portrait with a 2023 one. As of now, I can see a new portrait having replaced the 2023 one. Thank you MSincccc (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Hm. Looks like it's been nominated for deletion. Are you sure it's free to use? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2023

Catherine’s correct title is simply The Princess of Wales. No first name at all, since she is not a blood princess. The way you have styled her (Catherine, Princess of Wales) is how she would be styled if she were divorced. 2600:1702:3510:1B40:E18A:A9AE:7A19:BAF5 (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you're talking about the article title, you will need to follow the process at Wikipedia:Requested moves. DrKay (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

No need to : "Making her likely the next queen"

1st thing 1st .No ,she is not. The "likely next queen" is Princess Charlotte if Both her Father and brother had to die... And even if she was ,Why isn't in William's the description page "likely next king?" 41.248.176.227 (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong, and her being the likely next queen is a defining aspect. Surtsicna (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The article says she is "likely the next queen consort". If William and George were to die before ascending to the throne, Charlotte would become a queen regnant. Also, William's page makes it clear that he is the heir apparent, meaning that he's first in line to the throne. Keivan.f^Talk 19:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Then no need to put "consort" since Camilla is only stiled As It was For what happened with diana 196.75.164.200 (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Camilla. Yes, the wife of a British king is usually called "The Queen", but that does not alter the fact that their rank is that of a queen consort and not a queen regnant. Keivan.f^Talk 06:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Then take out "likely".

she is "not likely the next queen consort" .

SHE IS THE NEXT QUEEN CONSORT 196.75.148.123 (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Not if she dies, her husband dies or the royal family is deposed. Her husband's accession is likely but not certain. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

agree, saying likely is a bad phrase to use. I suggested that it should be changed to align with what is written on other european future queen consorts. Instead of likely it should be:

"She is married to William, Prince of Wales, the heir apparent to the British throne, which means that should he ascend to the throne, Catherine will automatically become queen consort. "

This is in line with other european royalty wikipedia pages. Heloeheod34 (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Why do we need say anything more than she's married to the heir? Anything more is either obvious and redundant or WP:CRYSTAL opinion...or both! DeCausa (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

yes that would make more sense then. Heloeheod34 (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

To be clear you can't make this edit with or without that edit summary. I just gave my opinion and you agreed with it. Nothing was "decided". You should self-revert and wait to see if others agree. DeCausa (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

ok well let's decide then. I don't see any 100% decision made to make it 'likely' either. Heloeheod34 (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Firstly the fact that she will be likely the future queen consort needs to be mentioned has already been agreed upon more than a year ago. There is nothing wrong with editing pages,do not misinterpret me but the fact that she would be future queen consort should be clearly mentioned here.It is important for this to be mentioned to uphold the relevancy, accuracy and informativeness of the page. MSincccc (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Where is the agreement of that. I don't like the use of likely as it has negative connotations and as DeCasua said it is obvious and redundant and may fall into the WP:CRYSTAL.

If you want to include the queen consort it is better to say:

"She is married to William, Prince of Wales, the heir apparent to the British throne, which means that should he ascend to the throne, Catherine will automatically become queen consort. "

This sounds much better than likely. Heloeheod34 (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

"should he ascend the throne" sounds like he's entering a raffle to become king. Suggest simply "...which means that on his accession Catherine will become queen consort". DeCausa (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

yes I agree your phrasing of it would sound better. Heloeheod34 (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I have one last query regarding this particular topic. After that we might stop discussing on this matter. Do we really need to lengthen the sentence that much? Now, I have actually adhered to what the two of you have discussed and concluded upon , but is there really a need to drag the sentence too long? Also the phrase "making her a likely queen consort" was active for more than a year and nobody had any issues with it. Is it really needed now for us to mention that she would become a likely queen consort upon the accession of her husband Heleoheod? I don't think so. MSincccc (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball of future prediction and I agree to it. But there are some things which are pretty obvious and not mere or just predictions. For eg, 2 will always come after 1 and a Sunday is always followed by a Monday not Tuesday. Our age itself increases by 1 not by 2 or 3 years at a time. In that case give William is the heir apparent Catherine will become the queen consort in the future. But there is a chance of her not becoming it should William abdicate or for any other undesirable reason likely has been used. But in normal circumstances there is a 99.9 per cent chance that she should become the next queen consort. Hence do not remove the phrase making her likely the next queen consort MSincccc (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Divorce is normal. Natural death is a normal part of life for everyone. We don't need any percentage, and we don't need orders on what to remove or keep. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit. I find slated is better than likely. By the way, could you please name the source which told you that likely is not an encyclopedic word? I would also like to see that source. MSincccc (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Grammatical Error

Can someone who can edit this page please correct the following?

"The couple were given the country home..."

It should be:

"The couple was given the country home..."

This is under Personal Life > Marriage and Children > Paragraph 2. Gringowes (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Keivan.f^Talk 19:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2023

Change "To encourage people to discuss their mental health problems. Catherine envisioned..." to "To encourage people to discuss their mental health problems, Catherine envisioned..." Simple grammar edit. Samdsmith99 (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Callmemirela 🍁 14:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The Wimbledon

She attends the Wimbledon regularly.

Any native speaker would recognize instantly that the above phrase is incorrect. It is the Wimbledon championships or Wimbledon. It is never the Wimbledon. DrKay (talk) 05:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Dr Kay. I have no objections to the edit made by you. The edit was perfectly fine. But remember the tournament is officially called "The Championships, Wimbledon". I think that this discussion is now over and would not be carried forward. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Picnics

We don't need to go into minute detail on every minor activity undertaken by a working Royal simply because it's been reported. Hosting a picnic for school children simply isn't important. It's WP:UNDUE Gugrak (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Gugrak, we are not going into every minor activity undertaken by a working Royal simply because it's been reported. This visit is significant for the following reasons: (I) Its the first ever Children 's picnic at the Chelsea Flower Show (II) The Picnic was only for children from the ten schools who were taking part in the Royal Horticultural Society 's Campaign For School Gardening.

Atleast we should mention that the child ren from the ten schools were participating in the Royal Horticultural Society's Campaign For School Gardening. Thank you MSincccc (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding link to Kate Middleton effect

Since her fashion sense has its own page now I think it would be appropriate to add square brackets to all mention of the "Kate Middleton effect" in this article as it will redirect directly to the paragraph with the same subtitle. 174.115.15.87 (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello anonymous user,

I myself noticed what you actually mean to say here quite some time age. For that reason, to avoid too many redirect links to the same page( like repeated redirect links to the pages of Prince William, her children or any of her charities) i.e. Fashion of Catherine, Princess of Wales, I added a "Main article:Fashion of Catherine, Princess of Wales" under the sub-heading "Public Image and Style". Thank you MSincccc (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding "English socialite" in opening sentence

Hello, just to bring to the attention of other editors of this page I have reverted an edit by user ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 which mentioned the fact that Catherine is an "English socialite" in the opening introductory sentence. Now to be accurate and clear all members of the British royal family are English socialites though all English socialites do not tend to be members of the British royal family (some are just life peers). Also given Catherine is a member of the British royal family (as has been mentioned in her introductory sentence ever since her days as Duchess of Cambridge) she is understood to be an English socialite. Also she is a British royal by marriage not by virtue of birth. So I hope I have made myself clear and please discuss the topic here before making any related future changes in the introductory sentence because it is significant as being the first sentence of the page. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Personal life

@MSincccc where is the consensous that it should be "Personal life"? The section in question constitutes entirely of her courtship and marriage with Prince William (see Elizabeth II Diana, Princess of Wales, etc., therefore why would "Marriage and family" be out of the question? Let's discuss. Bettydaisies (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I also think that this should be discussed because clearly there is a dispute at the moment. I'm sure everyone can come to a reasonable conclusion here. Keivan.f^Talk 20:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello I think it should be "Personal Life" because "Marriage" can be mentioned only after April 2011 or after her engagement in October 2010. Prior to that we are only talking about her relationship with Prince William prior to her marriage not anything about her "Marriage". Hence "Marriage" should be a sub-section which was added only after her marriage under "Personal life". This is reasonable and justifiable enough I assume. MSincccc (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bettydaisies courtship does not account for marriage. Her life before marriage involved other gentlemen whom she dated and also other women William possibly dated. Hence "Personal Life" and "Pre-wedding relationship with Prince William/Catherine Middleton" and then "Marriage and children" on their respective page's under sub-section "Personal Life" would be most accurate and appropriate. I hope you also understand @Keivan.f. MSincccc (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

There's no mention in the section about "other gentlemen". The section is only about the marriage and the lead-up to it. "Personal life" is not the right title - the marriage and how it came about is the crux of her notability and needs to be highlighted accordingly. "Personal life" is in fact misleading. It should be "Marriage and family". DeCausa (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Not at all misleading. @DeCausa you did not have any problem with it for so many days but now. Anyways my reason is justified and it has been "Personal Life" for a definite reason because her pre-wedding relationship cannot be accounted for under a "Marriage" heading and then there is the breakup mentioning as well. I would not argue with you but it would be better that we bring an end to this discussion and look forward to other significant things regarding the Royals coming in future. MSincccc (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree we can bring an end to this discussion and since only you alone want to keep the existing title it should be changed to "marriage and family". DeCausa (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not alone actually. Btw "Personal Life" makes more sense it's justified. What about it @DeCausa@Keivan.f@Bettydaisies MSincccc (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The lead up to the marriage has been described under sub-heading "Pre wedding relationship with Prince William" as done on William's page and the lead up includes their breakup, etc. Hence "Personal Life" is justified since it has a broader sense and application than just "Marriage and family" which has been rightly set as a sub-section rather than section heading. MSincccc (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty (talk · contribs) 16:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Will start review tomorrow. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty Just in case you want to know I don't mind if you don't post comments until next Friday. Also in that scenario how long will it take to pass the article as GA? Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully will be passed before Christmas. Don't want to be doing wiki-work in the immediate run-up to the holidays. So, at most 2-3 weeks. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Ideally, the sooner we wrap this up the better. The reviewer is free to post comments and you can respond when you are free to do so. The article will be passed when all the issues have been addressed. We still have to work on the prose. Keivan.f^Talk 17:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I know that the reviewer is free. It's been great so far collaborating with you both. Ideally, the sooner we wrap this up the better. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Some stuff I think is overlong and I'd personally cut, but the grammar, spelling etc looks good after reading through the article
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Ref 406 has an ISSN  Done Removed Inconsistent publication linking  Done De-linked the remaining ones; which is acceptable per MOS:LINKONCE Some have publisher locations, others don't  Done Removed it for online sources Some have quotes and others don't  Done Removed them; mainly to avoid any copyright issues Is Instagram a paywalled source? (at least, I don't think so ... I don't have it) It's not. Usually you can visit a profile and visit a certain amount of photos before being prompted to sign up (which does not require payments). Also, if you have a direct link to a post you should be able to view it without any problems. Ref 361 has a typo  Done The Times is paywalled  Done So is The Sunday Times  Done Remove link in 394?  Done Some publishers are in different parameters  Done I only noticed it with CNN, Sky News, and ABC News, which I changed to "work" for consistency with other news websites cited Some questionable publications up next: Jezebel Replaced Elle UK Cafe Mom Removed Grazia Daily UK Southern Living Replaced Quartz Marie Claire Town & Country The rest of them, namely Elle, Grazia, Quartz, Marie Claire, and Town & Country, are reputable magazines/publications that are suitable for the context within which they are cited (mainly fashion). Herald Sun Replaced Mirror Removed and replaced Especially do not use Fox News.  Done Replaced them with CNN. Also, we have a few refs in the lead. If all this info is verified further down, we could do with cutting them (the lead is, after all, a summary of the sourced content in the body).  Done moved them to the article's body. Nothing controversial anyway
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Everything has a cite inline, sources are reliable per discussion above.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	A worryingly high Earwig score at over 40 per cent. Granted, a lot of these are titles, but there are some phrases which should be reworded. Could you be more specific about what you mean to convey? The WP:EARWIG plagiarism checker tool has an unusually high score. You can check to see the what the tool has flagged from the article side-by-side with the sources. Do I need to make any changes or is the "Titles and Styles" section good enough as it is ? That's not what he means by titles. You have to open WP:EARWIG, type in this page's title, and then phrases or words that are too similar to the ones included in an external source will be highlighted in red. I wouldn't classify any of these as 'copyright violations'. Most instances involve the software picking up phrases such as "The Prince and Princess of Wales", "the Royal Foundation Centre for Early Childhood", or " the Lawn Tennis Association". None of these can be paraphrased but I'll try and see what I can do with the order of things, and maybe change a sentence or two. Alright. I did some paraphrasing and the score has now dropped to 33.8% (i.e. "violation unlikely"). Now it's giving a score of 63.2% when comparing the article to this webpage. However, that article is dated 15 December 2012 and is almost definitely a copy of the Wikipedia article, which had that exact content back in November 2012 (you can check the WP article's history). So, this is them copying WP, not the other way around. Keivan.f You might have taken a shot at making the page more accurate but I have fixed some of your revisions. Say, for example, the starting line under "Early Life and Education" and the patronage of the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club were accurate and perfect just as it was(see my justification). Also the phrase "to mark" World Mental Health Day was all right. So just making sure you know what I have actually done. I had rather prefer the present revisions which combined with your own make the page clearer and concise. By the way, I hope you understand. I am adhering more to WP standards with this because its only accurate and perfect just as it is. Also please consider providing edit summaries the next time you make edits. It helps. If you have noticed that I have done so for each edit. No, I was not solely taking a shot at making the page "more accurate". I was trying to alter the parts that could be considered WP:Copyvios. Yes, sometimes certain sentences would sound better (I can read English so I can tell), but if they are too close to the ones published by other sources that could result in WP:Copyvios issues and the page failing the GA nomination. Nevertheless, I ran the page on WP:EARWIG again and got a score of 35.9%, so we're good at this stage. Thanks for spending time to correct any potential typos though. Editing at night is not the ideal thing to do, but I had to do something about the reviewer's concerns immediately.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Have some further comments on this I'll add over the coming days. Well Tim yesterday I had to clear up all those details because we have a page describing Catherine's fashion and also because it was an anomaly to have a more info relevant with respect to Catherine's fashion on the main article rather than on the one concerned with only her fashion. Hence I have retained only those parts which speak of her influence and popularity on the main page under "Public image and style" and just ledt a brief starting line as such for fashion while mentioning that there is an entire article for that. Further, I also cut down on the Christmas Carols section previously as it had a lot of irrelevant and trivial matter in there. Nothing more and hoping for the best. By the way, I have had no contact with Keivan since yesterday.[Notifying] Glad that a lot of the nitty-gritty is now gone. I've made clear I'm not a great fan of the formula of "they did this then that" but what can you do. Will do some source spotchecks soon and then pass. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)  Done - checked refs no. 7, 28, 65, 96, 228, 294, 301 and 350, all of which were fine.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Some big things are happening in the article history, but nothing so egregious that I have to fail this.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Kate Natural History II.jpg and File:Wildlife crop II.png - is the Natural History Museum covered by OGL? This is what I found on their website: Any use of Information from the Website should be accompanied by appropriate attribution to the copyright owner and source of the Information, and, where relevant, details of the licence under which it is used. The NHM is unable to license third party intellectual property on the Website. Requests to re-use third party intellectual property should be directed to the rights holder(s) concerned. I personally don't think the images can be used but maybe there's something I'm missing. I'll wait for the reviewer to have a look at their website and then we proceed from there. Keivan, it can be that the person who put up this image got it from a news article on the web or some other source such as Google Images rather than directly from the NHM. Also this picture's been there for quite some time and nobody has actually raised this doubt. So it might be usable but in case it is not where do we get an alternative from? True, but in both cases the URL provided for the images as a source is from the NHM website itself, thus I had to pull up their terms and conditions. Everyone's welcome to take a look at it. Another step would be to consult the images' uploaders and ask for their rationale. If none of these work and it turns out there are potential licensing issues, then we have to go through the Commons and find some suitable replacements. Hm. We also have The NHM or its licensors or contributors own the copyright and all other intellectual property rights in the Marks and Information on the Website. Not sure what "Marks" means. In any case, I don't see that saying on the licence page that the images are OGL is correct. There's no shortage of images of Catherine on Commons, though. Might consider replacing. Ok lets say that we have to replace the images. But we have to in that case and at present I don't clearly see any two images and specifically ones related to Catherine's charities. Even leaving the place blank would not be commendable. Hence Tim if you can would you mind suggesting any possible images from Commons which will make a suitable replacement? Also could you please explain to me in a nutshell how you could deduce that the two images are not for use and that too given the images have been here for long? Also shouldn't in that case the two images be nominated for deletion from Commons? I am just raising a few issues. Yes, they probably would have to be nominated for deletion. Dodgy images get through all the time, it's not really a surprise here. As for other images, File:The Duke and Duchess Cambridge at Commonwealth Big Lunch on 22 March 2018 - 120.jpg could be a replacement candidate. Also could you please explain to me in a nutshell how you could deduce that the two images are not for use and that too given the images have been here for long? I asked this also. The NHM is not part of the British government and therefore it was suspect that the images were marked as OGL. Removed those two and replaced them with the suggested image and this one from Wimbledon
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Suggest adding alts Visiting the Natural History Museum's "Urban Wildlife" project - bit detailed, could trim. Additionally, do we need two NHM pics? I think we first need to deal with the licensing issue. Maybe we will be forced to toss both of them. Four successive generations of the Princess's ancestors had lived at Potternewton Hall Estate, near Leeds - this is a sentence, so needs a full stop per MOS:CAPFRAG.  Done
	7. Overall assessment.

Some other comments

Things of questionable relevance:

• While at Marlborough, she underwent an operation on the left side of her head, reportedly to remove a lump.

Trivial and hence have been removed. Thanks for suggesting.

• Prior to her marriage, Middleton lived in an apartment owned by her parents in Chelsea, London, alongside her sister, which was estimated to be worth £1–1.4 million.

Relevant at least under Early life where its mentioned

I think details about where she lived are relevant, but the price can be omitted. It is an estimate after all.

• She reportedly caught William's eye at a charity fashion show at the university in 2002 when she appeared on the stage wearing a see-through lace dress.

Relevant as it speaks of their first contact with each other and how William came to know her

• She attended William's Passing Out Parade at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst on 15 December 2006.

Relevant as to how she was part of the royal family's activities even as William's girlfriend

• She and her family attended the Concert for Diana in July 2007, where she and William sat two rows apart.

Relevant because it speaks of how Middleton attended William's mother's concert despite their rumoured breakup at that time and how they exhibited their breakup by sitting apart

• On 17 May 2008, Middleton attended the wedding of William's cousin Peter Phillips to Autumn Kelly in William's stead, and met Queen Elizabeth II for the first time.

Again relevant because it shows how she was part of the royal family's activities even as William's girlfriend

• Middleton attended the Order of the Garter procession at Windsor Castle in June 2008, where William was made a Royal Knight of the Garter.

Relevant as to how she was part of the royal family's activities even as William's girlfriend

• On 19 July 2008, she was a guest at the wedding of Lady Rose Windsor and George Gilman while William was away on military operations in the Caribbean, serving aboard HMS Iron Duke.

Relevant as to how she was part of the royal family's activities even as William's girlfriend even in Will's absence

• Her wedding dress was designed by Sarah Burton at Alexander McQueen.

Alexander McQueen is one of her go-to fashion labels and her association with Sarah Burton as significant. Why, she even wore Burton's garments to the Coronation and her outfits have played a major role in Catherine's fashion. Hence this should stay.

• Catherine keeps bees on the grounds of Anmer Hall.

Her brother apparently does the same thing, so it's sort of a family tradition. I think it is a notable personal activity, but if everyone insists on removing it, then I guess we can toss it away.

• Renovations took 18 months at a cost of £4.5 million.

Discussing the renovations without the cost despite it being known makes space for lesser accuracy. Also the renovations were public money note it. But this info is above all relevant

• She remained in hospital for three days.

Removed. The length of stay was not needed in this case.

(Done down to Duchess of Cambridge)

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by nomination?

Per WP:GAI, if the nominator is either the author of less than 10% of the article or ranked sixth or lower in authorship, and there is no post on the article talk page, it can be uncontroversially considered a drive-by nomination. @MSincccc is currently both the author of 1.7% of the article and ranks 8th. I've both skimmed through and tried searching some keywords but could not find any post by MSincccc about GA on this article's talkpage. There are previous discussions they participated in, though. If this is a bad call, sorry. Otherwise, @Tim O'Doherty, are you going to continue the review? Aintabli (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Aintabli I am one of the top 10 in terms of authorship and have made the second largest number of edits to the page. Also I have made my stand clear on almost every discussion on the talk page these past two years that too regularly. I don't see any reason why my status as nominator should be considered drive-by? Both I and Keivanf. who is also working on the page have significantly contributed to this article. Further, I have mentioned the GA on the talk page. In all means, I am a very eligible nominator. Regards MSincccc (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Those are the guidelines, which base it on authorship (top 5) and not number of edits. Could you link the talkpage entry you've mentioned the GA. If you have kind of asked for permission there (I'm not sure if that is what the guidelines refer to simply as post), that could mean you are eligible. Aintabli (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Ask user Keivanf. He is the most significant contributor both in terms of authorship and edits and he is fine with my GA nomination. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm kind of confused if you asked them about it anywhere. In any case, I'm going to ping @Keivan.f. If they give some permission here and now, all could be good. @Chipmunkdavis, would you agree that getting permission during a review is okay? Aintabli (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

That would not a problem. The point of the drive-by restriction is to ensure the time of a reviewer is not wasted through nominators being unfamiliar with an article and its sources. So long as the nominator and other article editors are able to effectively field the review, there is no need to be bureaucratic about the timing of any agreement to collaborate on the GAN. CMD (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis But I am very much familiar with the article and you can check my edit statistics for that reason as well. Also I am actively helping the reviewer along with Keivan. Just that the reviewer is presently engaged and will not be available during weekdays for now. Also once the prose is fixed to full accuracy he will be passing the page as GA. I have justified my contribs to the page multiple times before today itself. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything to further discuss. If Keivan.f sees this and gives a thumbs up like CMD, the review will continue. Aintabli (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, although judging from the above table the reviewer still intends to look at a bit more than just prose. As I noted on WT:GAN, don't worry too much about this side-discussion. The drive-by rule of thumbs are intended to ensure that a reviewer receives effective engagement, so as long as that is occurring things will move along fine. CMD (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

So is this matter done with? I have notified you of my immense contribs to the page since late 2021. MSincccc (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't expect anything to happen here. Aintabli made a good faith check-in and they received an answer they appear satisfied with. Please do continue with your efforts to improve this article. Best, CMD (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Aintabli, CMD Thank you so much for showing interest in the review process for this article. Well, as Aintabli pointed out, MSincccc did not meet the criteria to nominate this article to begin with. But, it was my aim to bring it to GA status anyway. I believe they made the nomination in good faith and were supportive in bringing William's article to GA status. I really did not want to be possessive and put up hurdles just because I'm not the nominator, so I have been helping them along the way. Hopefully we'll be able to finish this review in a week or two. Best. Keivan.f^Talk 13:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question about edit reversion

Yesterday I made some minor edits—I removed repeat links and added some new links, and deleted a bit of information about Carole Middleton that I felt was extraneous (I think it was information about her company that is available elsewhere on the site). Also did some rephrasing, but again, nothing dramatic. I had my edit reverted for being 'unconstructive' and was wondering if this was a reasonable criticism, and if so, why.

Please be nice—I don't have a lot of editing experience, so this is a genuine question! CRYPTNYMPH (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@CRYPTNYMPH I assume you made the edits in good faith. But the fact is that though you might find the info about Carole Middleton "extraneous", the edit needs to be specified there because it is to be necessarily mentioned that she ran Party Pieces (it was her primary job and hence it falling into administration should also be mentioned in brief). Further you unlinked her birth place under "Early Life and Education" at the instance where it was mentioned for the first time which should not have been done. Nothing more. By the way, the article is currently being considered for GA and any such major fixes before recommendation by the reviewer makes the process somewhat shaky. I hope I have made myself clear. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining! I appreciate it. CRYPTNYMPH (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Death of Queen Elizabeth II

Can we mention in the body Elizabeth II's death and Catherine and William becoming Princess and Prince of Wales? This in more in line with articles on other consorts such as Alexandra of Denmark and Mary of Teck who were not consorts when they first married. Векочел (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You surely can but only in this manner is it accurate. Now I have fixed it so it does not require further modification. Also, one sincere request that I want to make from you- Please provide clear edit summaries so that's easier for us to understand your edits. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

One last remark from me. A source is not usually needed in the lead for statements cited in the body. Векочел (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Векочел Would you mind not replacing most pronouns with her first name? Its seemingly disruptive. I am ready to co-operate with you if you agree. Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc Sure, my concern is just that people may confuse the subject of the sentence if it is not mentioned at the start of the paragraph. It is an editorial style, and it is picky, but the goal is clarity. Векочел (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Векочел And mine is clarity and accuracy both. If such edits go on taking place, its difficult tofor me to settle them back. BTW the page is under review and I would not prefer such edits breaking the flow and making the article ineligible as such. Just co-operate and try to discuss before going on an edit streak like this. Also please provide clear and accurate edit summaries for relevancy. Regards MSincccc (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Векочел Also I had prefer you return tomorrow now. We can have a clear discussion then as regards to such edits. Till then please refrain from doing so. This is a request and suggestion both made in line for accuracy. Regards MSincccc (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc I see now that the article is being reviewed by a user who has worked on several pages dealing with the British royals. In the past, I myself have nominated and reviewed a number of GAs related to royalty and other topics. The only change I suggest at this time is to change paragraphs starting with "she" or "her" to Catherine for the sake of clarity. Векочел (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Tomorrow then not today possibly. Regards MSincccc (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

"The " before title to not make it as if she was A divorcee

Hey ,We should change the title to "Catherine ,The Princess of Wales " Since she's not divorcee, We can't write it after the name w/out the Word "the" . It it just British common Law . She is legally : THE PRINCESS OF WALES. 196.64.97.136 (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Catherine, The Princess of Wales as a title. It's either Catherine, Princess of Wales or The Princess of Wales. Meghan is erroneously using your suggestion but no other royal has or will. 74.12.3.165 (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Correct. 2600:1702:3510:1B40:E18A:A9AE:7A19:BAF5 (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thats not accurate. Neglecting the capitalized article denotes her as either a divorced woman who was previously married to The Prince of Wales eg Sarah, Duchess of York, a woman married to a man using Prince of Wales as a courtesy title because it is one of his father's lesser titles and he doesn't have one in his own right eg Viscountess Linley before the death of the first Earl Snowden, or perhaps a dowager Princess of Wales similar to when The Duchess of X becomes Duchess of X after the death of her husband.

There is technically no such title as Catherine, Princess of Wales. She is Catherine Elizabeth, HRH The Princess of Wales. Note how the Royal family website styles royals and also how The Prince of Wales styled both of them on their children's birth certificates. Almost all of the noble titles on Wikipedia pages are incorrect. 2607:F280:301E:120:DEC0:D62B:9160:E858 (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accept exact formal titles but if you will search on the web its Catherine, Princess of Wales and the other titles are the same. Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

We couldn't care less about how the royal webmaster titles these individuals on their website. The world does not revolve around Britain alone. As an example, Charles III is "HM The King" according to them, yet he is not the only king in the world and his page cannot be moved to his official title. With regards to Catherine, she is officially "The Princess of Wales", yet her page cannot be titled as such because she is not the only woman to have borne the title. We cannot expect a clueless reader to be familiar with all the ups and downs when it comes to royal titles and be able to tell what the inclusion or exclusion of the definite article "The" could possibly mean with regards to marital status. That is why Encyclopædia Britannica also has her page at Catherine, princess of Wales. Keivan.f^Talk 05:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Disappearance?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm very surprised that there hasn't been any information from news articles added here about Kate's ongoing disappearance. Wikipedia is the first place that I trusted to come armed with compiled, cited, referenced facts about the situation, and when I came here for actual information about the situation, there's just nothing at all? She literally has a public appearance section and this current extended disappearance, or at the very least the media furore surrounding it, hasn't got even a single line of the article dedicated to it. What is going on here? 2001:8A0:67FE:8800:45C:E4E2:AD78:B956 (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

She's recovering from abdominal surgery. See the Health section of the article. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It's called tabloid journalism - that which you suggest we add here, IP user. William made an official visit today where he accepted flowers for Catherine. Furthermore, Kensington Palace made it clear that the Princess will resume undertaking official engagements as usual only after Easter this year. We should all respect her space and privacy because there's a clear distinction between personal life and public life. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I understand all of that, but lesser scandals than this one have received far more coverage in similar articles, it's just all very strange that despite the amount of concern and confusion about Kate's whereabouts, there hasn't been any actual clarifying statements made as to what is going on. Surely the article should reflect and reference the actual news coverage of this story.

2001:8A0:67FE:8800:45C:E4E2:AD78:B956 (talk) 19:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

What is scandalous about getting a surgery and recuperating afterwards? Camilla had a hysterectomy in 2007 and took 6 weeks off. People who have had surgery know that this is pretty normal stuff. Keivan.f^Talk 20:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 19:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Catherine, Princess of Wales in 2023

• ... that Catherine, Princess of Wales (pictured), is a keen amateur photographer and has taken many official photographs of her children?
• ALT1: ...that Catherine, Princess of Wales (pictured), is known for her fashion sense and has been listed as one of the most influential people in the fashion industry?
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: She is the future Queen and her article has been only recently improved to GA status. Hence this nomination for it to appear on DYK

Improved to Good Article status by MSincccc (talk). Self-nominated at 02:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Catherine, Princess of Wales; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Review in progress. Seddon ^talk 14:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @MSincccc: could you confirm if this is only your 2nd DYK? Also do you want to use to the infobox image? Would potentially make a good DYK photo. No QPQ needed. Paraphrasing dealt with. nom approved. Seddon ^talk 02:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Seddon: Yes this is my second DYK nomination. Also I am not against the use of the infobox portrait as the DYK photo. Even I believe its a good one to use. Also hoping that this hook appears on the Main Page in January on the occasion of her birthday.

Regards MSincccc

@MSincccc: if you can do the copyedit and also propose a caption for the photo (added above) then we should be good to go. Seddon ^talk 13:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Seddon: This image is from a pre-Coronation reception attended by the senior working royals in May. But if you are thinking of a suitable caption for DYK, then "Catherine in 2023" will be most accurate lest you have any other means to make the caption more viable. Regards MSincccc

A possible ALT building on the initial proposal:

• ALT 2 ... that Catherine, Princess of Wales (pictured), is a keen amateur photographer, patron of the Royal Photographic Society, and has taken many official photographs of her children?

@Seddon: I could have mentioned these details (of her being patron) in my original hook but found them to be extraneous hence omitted them. Anyways you know best hence we can proceed with this as a second alternative.

@MSincccc: just a nudge on needing to fix the paraphrasing highlighted by earwig's tool Seddon ^talk 01:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It says 20% so violation is unlikely. MSincccc ^talk 03:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc: if you could still rewrite the associated text as its a very clear lift from a copyrighted source. Seddon ^talk 04:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Seddon:In the article or in the nomination that is the ALT? I don't see any problem with the wordings in the article since it has only been upgraded to GA status this past week and we did remove sources and rewrite material which were not required as such. By the way, I hope the review is successful soon so that the hook can appear on the Main Page on Jan 9 on her 42nd birthday a fitting one. MSincccc ^talk 05:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I've tweaked the offending text in the article. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@DYK admins: the nominator is hoping this might be able to run on Jan 9th which would be Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Prep_area_1. Just pinging due to the timing constraints. Seddon ^talk 03:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I have done all of the checks necessary to move this to prep. But prep 1 is the last so promo will have to wait. The image also is free and appropriate and should go in the image slot. Lightburst (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Where is Kate?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should a new section be added to reflect on current events? If this was happening to any other public persona a section would have been added by now to reflect on whatever is keeping them in the world press at the moment. 2604:2D80:A48F:300:EC12:DB77:2019:C639 (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

But she's not in the press at the present time. People continue to talk about her, as they will, some even (above) calling her recuperation from stomach surgery "a scandal" (WTF?). But that's all just tosh. She herself is keeping out of the limelight, for completely understandable reasons, so there's nothing to write about. End of story. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully , the snark in this comment wasn't necessary. It's very clear from the above discussion topic that the scandal mentioned referred to the media furore surrounding Kate's ongoing disappearance, and not her recovery from surgery. I can't think of any way in which having surgery could possibly be interpreted as being a scandal, nor why you would even think that, but I'm sure you know why you reacted in such a way2001:8A0:67FE:8800:45C:E4E2:AD78:B956 (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Coverage of Kate's disappearance by 'reliable' news sources, (according to Wikipedia's own standards).

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm confused as to the posters above who have stated that "tabloid journalism doesn't find a place on a reliable page like this" [sic], and that Kate is "not in the press at the current time" would either of you like to explain what these mean?

In the first case, the distinction that you're trying to make puzzles me, no one here has asked for tabloid sources to be added to this page. I've been very clearly requesting that reliable references from reputable news sources relating to Kate's ongoing disappearance be added to the article (which, as far as I understand it, is supposed to be a comprehensive biography. A major event such as this would typically be considered important enough to add to the article).

In the second case, Kate is in the press at the moment, most major news platforms are covering this case, with great frequency. To say that she's not in the press at the moment is, in my opinion, disingenuous and dismissive.

Reputable news outlets such as the Los Angeles Times, Vox, People, and Yahoo! News, have all covered this story within the past day, all of these are considered 'Generally reliable in its area of expertise', for news coverage, as per Wikipedia's own list of Reliable/Perennial Sources.

Regardless of all of that, the British royals (Kate included) are, first and foremost, celebrities. Their media presence and influence does primarily fall within the realm of tabloid journalism. When coverage of their latest escapades leaves that realm, which it indeed now has, and gains coverage by major news sources which are considered to be reliable by Wikipedia's own standards, then surely it makes sense for that coverage to be referenced and added to the relevant articles. This is especially true considering the increasing magnitude this particular event is now attaining. 85.245.68.206 (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Kate has had some surgery and is taking some time off. Simples. This is already mentioned in the article. Your talk of escapades and scandals is beginning to sound tiresome. Did you have an actual suggestion for the article? Be sure to supply your accompanying citation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Escapades is a word related to the activities that are carried out by celebrities, generally but not always (as seen in this case), related to travel, and a scandal is typically a word connected to a current event which has received extensive media coverage, and is also accurate in this case.

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here, but the apparent disappearance of a prominent celebrity, the subsequent coverup and the media coverage surround those events certainly constitute a scandal, at the very basic meaning of the word. I honestly don't understand why you, or anyone else here, would want to downplay what is going on.

In relation to your 'simples' remark, and your opinion that I'm becoming tiresome. I have been neither dismissive, condescending nor rude to you, nor have I resorted to any personal attacks against you or your friends here. It isn't necessary of you to speak anyone else in such a manner, much less those seeking the accurate reporting of an important current event on a public discussion forum such as this one. That should have gone without saying, but apparently not.

My suggestions in this current discussion, and in the previous one that I started 6 days ago (closed because of a similar misunderstanding, which was thankfully subsequently resolved), have so far been very clear.

Accurate media references to Kate's ongoing disappearance and the coverage attached to it in reputable sources, should be added to the article.

There's been more than enough coverage in reputable resources (some of which were listed above), for this article about her to simply ignore what has been happening.

85.245.68.206 (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, the Palace clarified that the Princess wouldn't resume public duties until after Easter. Secondly, it's emphasized that the Palace desires her, the Princess, to recover privately with her family and friends. Crucially, her Wikipedia article should highlight her resilience – undergoing surgery and returning to duties within a few months. The ongoing speculation, largely fuelled by online sources and briefly mentioned by certain 'reputable sources,' remains unaddressed by traditional outlets like BBC News, ITV, The Guardian, respecting the Princess' privacy wishes. An individual from ITV explicitly stated that they had no intention of sharing the photograph captured and published by a tabloid yesterday. The emphasis was placed on maintaining discretion and not further circulating the image. I trust this clarifies the situation. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

She was spotted yesterday in Windsor in a car with her mother, so the whole argument that she has disappeared is meaningless. Other examples of members of the royal family having surgery and taking time off was provided above, namely Camilla who had hysterectomy in 2007. An encyclopedia is neither the place for spreading conspiracy theories nor for bullying people who have had surgeries into making appearances. Keivan.f^Talk 21:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The name 'Kate Middleton' in the first sentence.

It reads as overly-formal to not include her name 'Kate Middleton' in the first sentence. It could seem as promoting royalty by refusing to acknowledge her 'commoner' name, which is not in line with Wikipedia's neutral encyclopedic style. The article Sarah, Duchess of York includes her nickname in the first sentence. At a stretch, it can be argued that the name is being censored/suppressed, as almost all sources related to her use 'Kate Middleton'. Perhaps it should read:

Catherine, Princess of Wales, GCVO (born Catherine Elizabeth Middleton; 9 January 1982), still known widely by the nickname Kate Middleton, is a member of the British royal family. She is married to William, Prince of Wales, heir apparent to the British throne.

or

Catherine, Princess of Wales, GCVO (born Catherine Elizabeth Middleton, later known as Kate Middleton; 9 January 1982), is a member of the British royal family. She is married to William, Prince of Wales, heir apparent to the British throne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSpacebook (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

However, I'm not too familiar with the specific manual of style for royalty.TheSpacebook (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The claim that she is 'widely' known by the nickname "Kate Middleton" is questionable. Almost all the articles published about her also refer to her as "The Princess of Wales", "Princess Kate" or sometimes "Princess Catherine". The second option (later known as Kate Middleton) suggests a legal name change and is not suitable. Nevertheless, per MOS:NICK, a nickname should be included only when it is not a common hypocorism[h] of the subject's actual name. Kate is a common nickname for individuals named Catherine. If it were to be included in the article, again per MOS:NICK, it should be presented between double quotation marks following the last given name or initial; which means that the right place for it would be where her full maiden name is given (born Catherine Elizabeth "Kate" Middleton...). Keivan.f^Talk 21:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. I strongly disagree on your point that 'Kate Middleton' isn't the name she's referred to the most. Googling 'Kate Middleton' versus any other name returns the most results of reliable sources. Furthermore, with an overwhelming majority, most of the sources cited on the actual article refer to her as 'Kate'. So I am unsure what your claim otherwise is based on.

My point was based on the fact the names 'Catherine' and 'Kate' don't sound alike. Whilst the name 'Kate' is a diminutive of 'Catherine', across Wikipedia the names are sometimes written as though they are not common hypocorism, or rather if they are, written with clarification: Catherine de Castelbajac, Kate Lonergan, Catherine Coll, St. Catherine University, Catherine "Kate" Carpenter, Kate O'Regan, Catherine Dickens, Kate M. Ainey

Another noble Catherine/Kate is Catherine Courtney, Baroness Courtney of Penwith, which also provides the same clarification.

I don't think its correct to include it in her birth name, as she got the nickname during university according to People (a reliable Wikipedia source): https://people.com/royal-family-real-names-kate-middleton-prince-harry-meghan-markle-7814164. Perhaps it could read as:

Catherine, Princess of Wales, GCVO (born Catherine Elizabeth Middleton, later known by the nickname Kate Middleton; 9 January 1982), is a member of the British royal family. She is married to William, Prince of Wales, heir apparent to the British throne. TheSpacebook (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Google results are not reliable for determining common names/nicknames per WP:GOOGLETEST; it gives extremely inaccurate estimates. By the way, "Princess of Wales" also gives results about the subject of this article with her info box featured in the corner.

Anyway, she was born Catherine Elizabeth, and still is Catherine Elizabeth and as she refers to herself as Catherine, then that name obviously should come first per MOS:IDENTITY because "Catherine" does appear in recent reliable sources. Another approach would be to cover this under "Early life and education" since she 'reportedly' picked it up during college years. This is pretty much similar to how Queen Mary was popularly known as "May" before becoming queen. And that is covered in that article's body as well. Keivan.f^Talk 23:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Well so the suggestion put forward by @Keivan.f here is that the name "Kate" which Catherine picked up during her university days and which was frequently used by William, her friends and the press to address her should be put again into this article. Previous discussions show that the name (which was this article's title until she became Duchess in April 2011) should not be referred to. Also this discussion between me and Keivan in December makes it clear that "Kate" should not appear anywhere her while referring to the Princess. Its either Catherine or the Princess. Also "Middleton" can be used for her pre-wedding life for that reason but not "Kate". Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Does William call her Kate? The People article says he doesn't. This is mirrored in other sources which claim the name used within the family is always Catherine. "Kate" appears to be a popular name for her (like "Queen Mum") rather than one she uses herself. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford I am not aware of who refers to her as 'Kate,' but as discussed earlier on this talk page, the name 'Kate' should not be included in the article. Regards MSincccc (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

She’s referred to as ‘Kate’ at least once in the majority of the sources cited in the article. She’s reliably sourced as being called ‘Kate’, I think it should be included. TheSpacebook (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

She's not reliably sourced as being called Kate by any of her family members at the moment. Every time her husband and other family members are on record they refer to her as Catherine. In the case of Sarah, Duchess of York, she actually self-identifies as Fergie (see her Instagram page). Catherine's entry here matches with how she's presented in other high profile websites, such as Encyclopædia Britannica. Again, the nickname can be introduced in the article's body, same way "May" and "Queen Mum" are mentioned within the articles for Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, respectively. Same goes for other family members, George VI (Bertie), Queen Alexandra (Alix), etc. Keivan.f^Talk 11:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The claim that “every time” family members refer to her as Catherine is incorrect. She is reliably sourced as being called Kate by her family members at the moment:

Her uncle, Gary Goldsmith, has been referring to her a ‘Kate’ whilst on Big Brother: https://news.sky.com/story/amp/meghan-accused-of-creating-drama-by-princess-of-waless-uncle-on-celebrity-big-brother-13087915

Her brother-in-law, Prince Harry, refers to her as Kate: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w-gkAM0XZMU&pp=ygUSUHJpbmNlIGhhcnJ5IGthdGUg (timestamp 1:32)

Her sister-in-law, Meghan, refers to her as Kate:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xiMXc98Zlx4

I still believe it is unencyclopedic and overly-formal to omit all mention of this name. Wikipedia is built on reliable sources, so I don’t believe it to be in line with it neutral style. TheSpacebook (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

TheSpacebook Your claims aren't surprising, considering the majority of online articles refer to her as 'Kate.' However, traditional sources like BBC, ITV, and The Guardian still use her full name, Catherine or refer to her by her titles. Additionally, as mentioned by Celia Homeford, Prince William consistently refers to her as 'Catherine' in the media. While your perspective is noted, a decision will be deferred until we receive input from other users, including @Keivan.f:, @DrKay:, @Rosbif73:, and @Tim O'Doherty:. Let's await their views. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m glad we agree that “the majority of online articles refer to her as 'Kate.'”, I think this is an important fact. I will just add, it seems as though she is referred to as ‘Catherine’ by family members as a formal address, in line with royal protocol. And Wikipedia is adhering to royal protocol (beyond the reach of the Wikipedia writing style) by completely omitting the name she is most commonly referred to as, which isn’t being neutral. It seems very biased towards royal protocol, as royals do suppress the name ‘Kate’, but most non-royal sources do not. I believe the most accurate first sentence is:

Catherine, Princess of Wales, GCVO (born Catherine Elizabeth Middleton, later known by the nickname Kate Middleton; 9 January 1982), is a member of the British royal family. She is married to William, Prince of Wales, heir apparent to the British throne. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Officially she will inevitably be Catherine, but it would be unencyclopedic to excise all mention of "Kate" from the article. She has long been known as Kate, be it by the general public, the media, or in private. She is still very commonly called Kate in reliable sources (e.g. BBC, New York Times, NBC, ITV just in the last few days). However, as "Kate" is a common shortening of Catherine, there's no reason to include it in the opening sentence, per MOS:HYPOCORISM. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I had an edit conflict, so to clarify, I think the most encyclopedic and historically accurate first line should be:

Catherine, Princess of Wales, GCVO (born Catherine Elizabeth Middleton, later known by the nickname Kate Middleton; 9 January 1982), is a member of the British royal family. She is married to William, Prince of Wales, heir apparent to the British throne.

The use of “later known by the nickname” only suggests the start point of this nickname being long after her birth name, and doesn’t suggest an endpoint to this nickname. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose "later known". Kate is a very common diminutive of Catherine and it is highly likely that her family called her that from a very early age. In any case, MOS:HYPOCORISM tells us that there is no reason to include "Kate" in the lead sentence at all. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

You edited your comment with the ‘however’ as I was writing my reply! I have said in this discussion above:

Whilst the name 'Kate' is a diminutive of 'Catherine', across Wikipedia the names are sometimes written as though they are not common hypocorism, or rather if they are, written with clarification: Catherine de Castelbajac, Kate Lonergan, Catherine Coll, St. Catherine University, Catherine "Kate" Carpenter, Kate O'Regan, Catherine Dickens, Kate M. Ainey

Another noble Catherine/Kate is Catherine Courtney, Baroness Courtney of Penwith, which also provides the same clarification. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't usually clarify common hypocorisms in lead sentences, and nor should we. Sure, you can find examples where we do, but that's just WP:OTHERSTUFF. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Harry is a common diminutive form of Henry, and this is clarified at the start of Prince Harry’s article. Although Kate isn’t a legal name change, I still think a similar clarification should be on the article. In fact, it probably makes less sense to clarify on Prince Harry’s article, as he is never referred to as ‘Henry’, but the subject of this article is most commonly referred to as ‘Kate’.

Furthermore, it does seem that she is indeed referred to as 'Kate' by family members.

The claim that her husband, Prince William, refers to her "every time" as Catherine is incorrect. He responded "we must tell Kate" upon finding out about Meghan being pregnant: https://www.thelist.com/1433119/prince-harry-shared-pregnancy-with-william-eugenies-wedding/. And when informing Prince Harry that his wife was not travelling to Scotland when the Queen died, he said "No other wives were coming, Kate wasn't coming" https://people.com/why-kate-middleton-didnt-travel-scotland-when-queen-elizabeth-died-7967178.

Her grandmother-in-law, Queen Elizabeth II, commented on her hair calling it "Kate's beautiful mane.": https://www.womanandhome.com/life/royal-news/kate-middletons-iconic-asset-the-queen-was-obsessed-with/ TheSpacebook (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

But that's all the same source. They are all quoting Spare. This is the book that calls Meghan "Meg" and William "Willy". I don't see anyone attempting to add "Meg" and "Willy" to those articles. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The nicknames 'Meg' and 'Willy' are completely different to the nickname 'Kate', as the former are not common.

- 'Kate' is her most common name, the majority of the sources that are cited in the article refer to her as Kate at least once.

- Highly reputable sources, like the BBC, often call her 'Kate'

- Most of her family refer to her as 'Kate'.

- The diminutive of 'Kate' from 'Catherine' are often clarified on Wikipedia.

- The diminutive from 'Henry' to 'Harry' is clarified on Prince Harry's article.

- Before Prince Harry was married, his article said "familiarly known as Prince Harry"

Not mentioning 'Kate' at any point in the article comes off as adhering to royal protocol, which sacrifices the neutrality. Therefore it's censoring/suppressing the name.

This goes directly against WP:UEIA as it states: "The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all frequently used names by which its subject is widely known." TheSpacebook (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@TheSpacebook My apologies for any confusion. The information provided was based on a general observation and may not accurately represent the preferences of her family or the naming conventions used by reputable sources. It's crucial to rely on specific instances and sources for accuracy. If traditional and reputable sources predominantly use "Catherine," that should be reflected in the discussion. Thank you for bringing attention to this, and I appreciate your clarification. A native Britisher might convey this as:

"It's worth noting that the majority of her family and highly reputable sources, such as the BBC, often refer to her as 'Catherine.' While there may be instances where the nickname 'Kate' is used, the prevailing trend in traditional and reputable media outlets, including The Guardian, ITV, and the Times UK, leans towards the use of her formal name 'Catherine.' Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Your claim that she is referred to as 'Kate' on a few instances is disinformation.

On the BBC News website, her topic page is called 'Catherine, Princess of Wales'. However, most of the articles refer to her as 'Kate': https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cz4pr2gd414t

On the Times UK, her topic page is called 'Princess of Wales', but most articles refer to her as 'Kate': https://www.thetimes.co.uk/topic/duchess-of-cambridge?page=1

Her topic page on ITV is called 'Kate Middleton', and most articles refer to her as 'Kate': https://www.itv.com/news/topic/kate-middleton

Her topic page on The Guardian is titled 'Catherine, Princess of Wales', and does refer to her as 'Catherine' often, which is the exception: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/duchess-of-cambridge

She has multiple topic pages on The Independent. They all tag the same articles, so even on the 'Princess of Wales' topic page, she's called 'Kate' in most articles: https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/princess-of-wales TheSpacebook (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I have pinged @Keivan.f, @Keivan.f, @Rosbif73, @Tim O'Doherty, @DrKay, @Surtsicna and @Векочел. Lets wait for their responses. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

'Kate' is a commonly used nickname for 'Catherine'. I see no reason to list her nickname per WP:HYPOCORISM. Векочел (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose adding "Kate" per MOS:NICK. Just because other articles ignore the MoS doesn't mean this article—a GA—should. "Middleton" is already acknowledged. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting to know. However, I don't think we should completely omit the name. That logic means that some GA's do have seemingly redundant clarification of hypocorisms. Maggie Simpson (possibly a weak example as it's a fictional character), Marie Curie and Herennius Etruscus as examples. GA's Teddy Sheean, Joseph Berrios, and Don Kent (wrestler) all provide common name hypocorism clarification. The closest one to this article is the GA Katherine Ritvo having a common nickname clarification, and I would say that 'Kathy' is closer to Katherine, than 'Kate' is to 'Catherine'.

Also, before his marriage, Prince Harry's article had 'familiarly known as Prince Harry' when he was officially Prince Henry. But now has it has a note about Harry being the diminutive of Henry. TheSpacebook (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The GA Pop Warner repeats the whole name, acknowledging the surname twice.

The GA Bill Anderson (singer) repeats his whole name in the lede with the common William to Bill diminutive, acknowledging the surname twice.

The Kate Bush article doesn’t clarify the diminutive in the lede, but she is referred to as ‘Kate’ throughout the article, in line with the name she is referred to in all the sources.

As I mentioned in my other comment, the name 'Kate' appears around 3 times in the article when referring to her and the other 200 times are in the sources that the article is cited on. I am struggling to see how this is balanced/neutral and not overly biased in favour of royal protocol. WP:NAMECHANGES states that "If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well". Also, MOS:IDENTITY states that "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources". Of all the sources cited in the article, Kate is the most commonly used.TheSpacebook (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus here to add the nickname "Kate" to the lede. It's better to stop beating the dead horse at this point. Keivan.f^Talk 17:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I would accept something along the lines of "popularly known as Kate Middleton" but there is insufficient proof here that it is a name used by her or by people who know her, and so I would currently oppose anything that implied something like that. However, given that the word Kate appears 105 times in the article, including at the very top in a hatnote and in the lead, I see no particular reason to stress it a 106th time. DrKay (talk)

The name 'Kate' appears 3 times in the article when referring to her and the other 200 times are in the sources that the article is cited on. TheSpacebook (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, the editors that insist that she's most commonly referred to as 'Catherine' (when most of the references cited in the article and the majority of highly reputable sources call her 'Kate' most often) and are willing to spread disinformation on this talk page about this fact borders on WP:ADVOCACY for the royal family. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

We should not add the nickname. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Based on that logic, you could be advocating for tabloid rags that call her Kate. Hurling accusations against other editors simply because you're not getting your way is going to further damage your cause. High quality sources 'do' use the name Catherine. The BBC has categorised her as Catherine, Princess of Wales. Same with The Guardian, Encyclopedia Britannica L, etc. Sources from her own country tend to use Catherine alongside Kate whereas American websites or tabloid rags prefer Kate. I don't know why we should necessarily pander to the latter. Nevertheless, some editors have already rejected its inclusion on the grounds of MOS:IDENTITY. Even if it were to be included it's not going to be done based on the wording you have suggested because, as it was explained earlier, there are issues with that too. In my opinion, the most ideal place for it would be where her full maiden name is, per MOS:NICK. If a consensus was secured for this alternative then we could have included it, but at the moment I see no consensus at all. Keivan.f^Talk 00:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

My point is that the name should not be completely removed from the article, as though it doesn't exist. It is a fact that name 'Kate' appears around 3 times in the article when referring to her and the other 200 times are in the sources that the article is cited on. The only times where 'Kate' is mentioned are instances where it would be impossible to replace with 'Catherine' (for example, 'Kate Middleton effect'). An approximate 3:200 ratio is not balanced.

The majority of references cited in the article and the majority of highly reputable sources call her 'Kate' the most often. However, royal protocol insists on never recognising 'Kate'. Adhering to that (by never recognising 'Kate') over the overwhelming majority of sources calling her Kate borders on WP:ADVOCACY for the royal family.

Your claim that "sources from her own country tend to use Catherine alongside Kate" is misinformation as, whilst technically true, it omits the fact that 'Kate' is used with an overwhelming majority. Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't even capitalise 'Princess' in the title of their article about her. Wikipedia also has no consensus whether its reliable or not, so is listed as WP:MREL as per WP:BRITANNICA. More reliably, whilst she has been categorised as 'Catherine, Princess of Wales' by the BBC, she is mostly called Kate in the articles published: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cz4pr2gd414t. Times UK mostly calls her Kate: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/topic/duchess-of-cambridge?page=1. ITV News mostly calls her Kate: https://www.itv.com/news/topic/kate-middleton. The Guardian mostly calls her Catherine, this is the exception: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/duchess-of-cambridge. The Independent mostly calls her Kate: https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/princess-of-wales

WP:UEIA as it states: "The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all frequently used names by which its subject is widely known."

WP:NAMECHANGES states that "If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well".

MOS:IDENTITY states that "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources". Of all the sources cited in the article, Kate is the most commonly used.

Other GA examples include: Katherine Ritvo: Katherine "Kathy" Ritvo, Bill Anderson: James William Anderson III, known professionally as Bill Anderson, Teddy Sheean: Edward "Teddy" Sheean, Joseph Berrios: Joseph "Joe" Berrios, Don Kent (wrestler): Leo Joseph "Joe" Smith Jr.

Other relevant articles include: Prince Harry: before he was married the article read 'familiarly known as Prince Harry’, and now has it has a note about ‘Harry’ being the diminutive of ‘Henry’. Kate Bush article doesn’t clarify the diminutive in the lede, but uses ‘Kate’ throughout the article, in line with all the sources. TheSpacebook (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That's because Prince Harry was frequently referred to as "Harry" by his parents, grandparents, and other family members. Even his entry on the royal website was "Prince Harry" not "Prince Henry of Wales". There were never any MOS:IDENTITY concerns when it came to his name. His example simply does not apply here. The subject of this article has legally been "The Duchess of Cambridge" and "The Princess of Wales", successively, none of which could serve as article titles anyway.

Your claims about WP:ADVOCACY are unfounded. The portion of the article that covers the period preceding her marriage refers to her as "Middleton", her maiden surname. Royal protocol would demand that she be referred to as "Her Royal Highness" throughout the page. Nobody would approve of such language in an encyclopedia.

The links you provided up there are simply a mix of all the different names she is referred to by. ITV mostly calls her "Princess of Wales" and "Kate" but not "Kate Middleton". The BBC has the nickname "Kate" in article titles but refers to her as "Catherine" within many of its articles. The Guardian simply favors "Catherine".

The examples you give from Wikipedia either have the nickname as the article title, or have it in quotation marks after the first and middle name (Katherine Ritvo). The phrasing that you suggested (later known as "Kate Middleton") is both unprecedented and potentially inaccurate since we cannot assume that her family had never used that nickname when she was growing up. Incidentally you mentioned her maternal uncle referring to her as Kate and they were not classmates at college. Again, per MOS:NICK, the nickname should appear in quotation marks where her full maiden name is. But that requires consensus. You have made your point and it's better to avoid heading into WP:BLUDGEON territory. If a consensus is reached, then it will be added to the lede accordingly. Keivan.f^Talk 02:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You don't have a consensus for what you're proposing. Please, drop the stick. -- GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"Public Life" vs. "Public Image and Style"

Perhaps this has been discussed before, apologies if it has, but do we really need these two to be different sections? It seems to me it'd be better to have "Public Image and Style" as a sub-section under "Public Life", especially since it has comparatively less content. Slamforeman (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's in line with other similar articles. "Public life" covers her activities. "Public image" covers her media image. Keivan.f^Talk 04:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

In that case, might it be suitable under "Privacy and the media"? Slamforeman (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Not really. That mostly deals with her privacy being invaded by the press. See William, Prince of Wales, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex as other articles with a similar setup. Keivan.f^Talk 04:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that's fair. Thanks for your input. :) Slamforeman (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Absence of Wedding and Engagement Rings in Official Mother's Day Portrait!

Mother's day portrait! Editors are censoring all references to her jewellery! What's going on? Jaymailsays (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Where is Kate? AfD

Editors may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate?. DeCausa (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

My response to the AfD is relevant to this article, so include it in full here:

Merge into Catherine, Princess of Wales. It's too early for an article like this. The problem is AFAIK there's no reference to the issue in the main Catherine article. The OP says that it's split between the Health and Privacy and the media sections. I don't thiink that's true. I think there's literally no mention of it. There's mention of the photo controversy and the current health issue but no mention of the speculation. It seems to be an overzealous view of NOTNEWS. That's what needs to be corrected - not creating a whole article on it. What the article the subject of this AfD has demonstrated is that there is decent sourcing out there that entirely justifies its inclusion in the Catherine article.

DeCausa (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

IP copied their AfD comment here but it does not discuss this article. DeCausa (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep for now. The subject seems to have been notable for the past few months (so may be past the threshold for recentism) and has been talked about in this talk page a few times throughout, and has spiked in notability within the past 24hrs. The coverage has been notable, and covered by a lot of news sources. I think this may have already passed the threshold of WP:RECENTISM, but may be too early to judge. Furthermore, ITV This Morning has already fallen for a hoax related to Where is Kate? https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/itvs-morning-slammed-falling-kate-32326495. So it would be useful to have an article, as the point of Wikipedia is to be a reliable source to prevent people falling for hoaxes. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposing (again) Where is Kate? spinoff article

Hello! I don't usually edit BLPs, but looking at previous sections of this talk page (and I appreciate that, in recent hours, the milestones have moved significantly), I'm surprised by contributing editors' insistence to shut down proposals for a Where is Kate? spinoff article. Some of the closing comments seem unfairly dismissive, e.g. No point in continuing this discussion. It will lead nowhere. and She was spotted yesterday. The whole hoo-ha here is meaningless.. I'm quite surprised by how quickly these proposals have been shut down, which to me seems to jump the chance to form consensus.

It's clearly beyond the point of tabloid journalism now, and I think the question has received significant coverage by reliable sources for some time (see e.g. this BBC News article from 29 February). Of course, it is now being discussed in international papers too.

I appreciate there might be a WP:RECENTISM concern and we wouldn't want an article pedalling conspiracy theories (some kind of page protection is almost certainly inevitable), but Wikipedia's coverage of this high-interest topic is very much lacking at the moment, and the Health subsection of this article isn't doing it justice. If everything does quieten down soon, it can always be merged back. But as things stand, isn't it time for a separate article? IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Support creating Where is Kate? article. There also needs to be a separate review on this article as it seems as though the editors of this article heavily censor its contents in favour of her. This page is on some North Korea level censorship about her and only paints her in a good light. (Redacted) 86.31.83.194 (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The editors are acting in good faith, and browsing their userpages suggests that they are in good standing and have years of experience editing Wikipedia. I am surprised by the discussions above, and wonder how much BLP and GA concerns play into their positions — I'm experienced in neither areas and I have far less editing experience, so I look forward to their replies. But the fact that good-faith proposals have been closed in less than 24 hours, sometimes by involved editors, does suggest this talk page might not be a shining example of collaboration and consensus-building on Wikipedia. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted) 86.31.83.194 (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's not start a nickname. Good faith goes a long way. We're here to work together. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

It's far too early to say whether the topic warrants/will warrant an article. More consistent reliable coverage would be needed in that case. At present, it might be worth adding to the List of Conspiracy Theories.

If it does eventually become an article, I'd reckon the title should be something like Princess Catherine Conspiracy Theory. "Where is Kate?" is a bit The weather in London-y. Slamforeman (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy theory that warrants an article – it's the (media coverage of) public scepticism about Kate's lack of visibility in recent weeks. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe Media Coverage of Princess Catherine's Absence then? Still likely not the time for such an article. Probably best if we wait a while more until the story fully develops and enough reliable sources discuss it. Slamforeman (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

ITV News have concisely called it ‘Where is Kate?’. If the article is created, it should immediately be protected from vandals https://www.instagram.com/reel/C4JV0jQIMSW 86.31.83.194 (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The Times have also called it ‘Where is Kate?’ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/where-is-kate-prince-william-king-charles-cancer-khktpx9bm 86.31.83.194 (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Titles such as ‘Media Coverage of Princess Catherine's Absence’ are long and arbitrary. It should be titled so people can find it. Such like the Megxit article. The media and public are asking the exact same question… ‘Where is Kate?’ 86.31.83.194 (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The Princess’s uncle was also asked simply ‘Where’s Kate?’ https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/ekin-su-asks-kate-middleton-uncle-celebrity-big-brother-fans-shocked_uk_65e98b9fe4b0c77c74155930/ 86.31.83.194 (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Since when do we create articles based on social media frenzy and trends? What's next? An article on how Obama is still controlling the White House? Or maybe another one on conspiracy theories about Meghan's alleged fake pregnancies? All these outlets ask the question and then simply state that she's at home recovering, where any person who has undergone surgery would usually be. The only thing that could justifiably be added to the article is a sentence at max, which also states that the whole thing originated from some user (possibly troll) activities on social media. Anything more than that would be a massive violation of WP:BLP. Keivan.f^Talk 04:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The topic has been headlining on the BBC (yesterday morning and evening); the picture is going to be front-page headlines on many papers. We're seeing sustained, significant coverage by reliable sources. The cases aren't remotely comparable. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a detailed paragraph already under "Privacy and the media" which in detail discusses the whole fiasco surrounding the Mother's Day photo. And you clearly did not follow the social media frenzy during Meghan's pregnancies. It was even worse. Keivan.f^Talk 04:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I see Where is Kate? has now been created. AusLondonder (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I went ahead and wrote it, subject to an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate?). IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The AfD should be highlighted. I've therefore opened a specific section on it below. DeCausa (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f:, no that's not the case. There is no mention of the 'Where's Kate?' speculation in the paragraph on the photograph. This is the problem and why some of the content of Where is Kate? needs to be merged into this article. the hoo-ha over the photo makes zero sense without the 'Where's Kate?' background. DeCausa (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that now there is a sentence linking it to the detailed Where is Kate? article, I think you should be all satisfied by now. Keivan.f^Talk 00:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't see any sentence linking it to Where is Kate?. There's a "further information" tag in the heading to the photo sub-section. But there's no explanation that the prior speculation is why this very minor incident over the photo has been propelled into headline news across the world. But if you are proposing that a sentence is added that explains the point, then I agree. In fact, there needs to be 2 sentences. A sentence in the Health section explaining that that is what the speculation relates to and an introductory sentence in the photo section giving the context. If the Where is Kate? article is kept then it seems to me that WP:SUMMARYSTYLE demands that a summary is reflected in here. Failures in SUMMARYSTYLE will be brought up at FAC. DeCausa (talk) 07:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

There was a sentence there. But given the fact that the article cannot remain unchanged for 2 hours straight it's now gone. I think first we should wait for the AfD outcome for the article "Where is Kate?" and then we can decide to which extent a merge should occur and what details should remain on the main page. In other words, we cannot do anything until the page is stable again. I expect it to be more manageable today or tomorrow now that the storm in the teacup is almost over. Keivan.f^Talk 08:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear what the FAC expectation is, this is what WP:SUMMARYSTYLE says: The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it, or alternatively, an excerpt of it. If there is a "Kept" result (rather than Merge) which at this point seems likely, this will need to be implemented, although my own view is a whole section is unnecessary provided it is properly covered in both the Health and Public Image sections. DeCausa (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2024

Whereabouts: unknown or missing 2001:8F8:1D6A:79CA:5DD6:2805:1034:460D (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please provide verbatim what you would like to be added or replaced on the page, and where. Furthermore, provides sources and a comprehensive summary of the topic for readers.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 14:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

When did Cosmopolitan magazine achieve "third rate" status?

Over enthusiastic labeling in Catherine PoW of respected Cosmopolitan (magazine) as third rate, is potentially libellous, in my opinion. What do you think? Jaymailsays (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Where does it say that? DeCausa (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Q. Where does it say that?

A.05:27, 11 March 2024

‎

Keivan.f

talk

contribs

‎ −465‎Undid revision

1213113889

by

Jaymailsays

(

talk

). It's micro-examining of a celebrity photo by a third-rate magazine.

See:-

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a60151519/kate-middleton-pic-pulled-manipulated/ Jaymailsays (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/magazines/cosmopolitan-uk-editor-interview/

17m monthly readers of UK website. Jaymailsays (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP the community does not consider it an entirely reliable source. Such questionable sources cannot be added to an article that has been promoted to GA status; especially when a sensitive topic is being discussed. Keivan.f^Talk 12:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

It's just opinion, not something untrue, so it's fine. In addition, one edit summary on wikipedia will not damage the magazine, so there's no liklihood of injury or reputational harm either. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually that's not what WP:RSP says. It's "no consensus" i.e. yellow in the colour coding. "Questionable" is light pink - and it's not that. The No Consensus sources are just left to case-by-case consensus locally. So RSP is neutral about whether it can be used here. (I'm not making any comment one way or other either.) DeCausa (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I totally understand. But I would rather not have a source that the community cannot agree upon in terms of reliability listed as a reference in a GA or FA. And the whole topic is utterly trivial anyway. Keivan.f^Talk 15:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Understood. DeCausa (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@DeCausa and @Keivan.f Please retain the article Where is Kate?, but merging it into the main article could unnecessarily increase the byte count. Moreover, its significance in the long run might be limited. Consider this: 30 years down the line, if she remains in good standing, this information may not be of much use in the main article unless she ceases to be a member of the Royal Family or if a serious controversy arises (which we hope doesn't happen). Also please be polite me and excuse me if anything said by me impacted you. After all, I am a middle schooler. Regards, Yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit-warring

User:MSincccc and User:PK-WIKI: it appears you have both broken WP:3RR. Please remember that editors in breach of the rule may be blocked. DrKay (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Other editor continues to add the same material despite continued evidence that the statement is incorrectly sourced. BLP reverts.

Wikipedia:3RRBLP: Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

Would like other editors' view on the subject.

PK-WIKI (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the content is unlikely to meet the threshold for that exemption. DrKay (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@DrKay Apologies if any error occurred on my part. Would not happen again but it was a "planned" surgery. I would not add the piece again until further consensus. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is being censored, written too formally, and is unbalanced due to suppression.

Myself, and other editors have noticed overall editorial issues with this article (such as a “retirement of encyclopaedic coverage” -@IgnatiusofLondon). I take issue with the overall tone, and I’m not attacking specific editors. On this talk page for example, last year in the article, “Wimbledon” was called “The Wimbledon”. Secondly, an issue that consistently pops up intermittently, which I most recently raised, is the name “Kate Middleton” being completely banished from the article, even though that is what she’s most commonly known by, as per the 200 sources which name her that in their titles. In previous discussions, editors have called it “so annoying when the news media keeps calling her Kate & Kate Middleton”, and all arguments which take the position that not many people will make the link between ‘Kate’ and ‘Catherine’ are furiously refuted. Most recently, primary sources referred to the day they celebrated as “Mother’s Day”, but the editors opted for the more formal “Mothering Sunday”, and provided a source from the official Royal Family channel (which only uses the most formal language) of them using “Mothering Sunday”.

Before the “Where is Kate?” article was created, all discussions to mention it were quickly shut down by the same handful of editors, without the chance to build a consensus. And when the “Where is Kate?” was finally created, the main article seemingly suppressed all mention of it, by only linking to the “Mother’s day photograph” section, and linking the ‘Health’ section to Where is Kate? but suppressing all mention of the commentary surrounding her absence.

I’m not here to attack any editor personally, I’m criticising the overall tone of this article. The specific edits are all in good faith, but I think there is an overall lack in the encyclopaedic writing style that other Wikipedia articles have. This may be some general sort of confirmative bandwagon leading it to be written too formally due to the subject being royalty, so I think I should call a spade a spade. TheSpacebook (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no stakes in this game beyond the two cents I shared in the AfD discussion, principally that I worry GA/FA status is being pursued at the expense of collaboration, consensus-building, and due coverage on issues that contributing editors regard as "trivial". These are editors acting in good faith with extensive editing experience, far more than me, particularly on GA and BLP articles. Even if I agree with some of its sentiment, I don't think a vague talk-page confrontation that doesn't address specific grievances is a helpful way forward: there are established dispute resolution mechanisms, and WP:ANI if all else fails. I don't have a topic interest in this area, and I feel that my edits here have been treated coolly (or have been manually reverted), so there are other articles on which I would rather spend my limited editing time. In other words, I have been discouraged from editing here, and that discouragement in large part fuelled my decision to create Where is Kate? and take it to AfD. If the issue goes to dispute resolution or ANI, I would be happy to repeat what I said in the AfD. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

In response to some of the things you mentioned. There is no consensus to add the nickname "Kate" to the lede. No one said that it could not be mentioned elsewhere. In fact, it has been done for figures such as Elizabeth II, Mary of Teck, etc. When you don't have consensus, the article remains as it is per WP:STATUSQUO. This has nothing to do with censoring her nickname.

The phrase Mothering Sunday is the correct link for the event known as Mother's Day in the U.K. (same way Mother's Day (United States) is the one that deals with the event in the U.S.). I couldn't care less what the text reads as long as it's linked to the correct page. FYI, the article at the moment features the phrase "Mother's Day".

As for the whole "Where is Kate?" debacle; Obviously previous discussions had occurred before the Mother's Day photo disaster that garnered huge media interest. Up to that point the whole thing was nothing more than some social media frenzy pushed by trolls. Once the issue was reported upon by the mainstream media naturally it found its way into the article. The article was edited numerous times during the past few days, and you are not the only person who was not satisfied with the placement of certain information but as of now the link to the "Where is Kate?" article has been added back to the section covering her health issues.

Finally, I find no problems with the "article's tone". It's pretty neutral. She's neither referred to as "Her Royal Highness" nor as "Waity Katie". And there is enough information on her recent surgery and recuperation within this page, which is what half the people commenting on this page over the last 3 days are interested in anyway, but that is no ground for letting a recent event dominate an entire article. Keivan.f^Talk 02:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the link to Mother's Day. The sources make clear that the photo was issued for Mother's Day. not Mothering Sunday. The Mother's Day article makes it clear it covers Mother's Day in the UK. The Mothering Sunday article is specifically about the traditional church celebration and not the modern Mother's Day. They're not the same thing. It's therefore a WP:EGG issue. DeCausa (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That's all fine @DeCausa. But @TheSpacebook's claims are not restricted to the "Mothering Sunday" phrase alone. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't making any comment about the OP's claims. In fact, they were wrong about Mother's Day (just as much as Keivan.f): it's not a "more formal" name for the same thing. As explained in the two articles, they are 2 different things in the UK - one an older Church festival the other a modern secular event, although the name of one originates in the name of the other. DeCausa (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@DeCausa I myself prefer "Mother's Day" over "Mothering Sunday". Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the article has been written any more formally than Elizabeth II, which is itself a featured article. The use of her common name has been broached time and time again on multiple archives this talk page, both in the lead and in other aspects of the article - with consensus to exclude, since her birth name is already mentioned. The closest comparison I can think of is Jimmy Stewart. I'm not incredibly familiar with whatever editorial exchanges happened before the Where is Kate? discourse, - I don't know what happened - but I think the expansion of the media coverage definitely should be considered with due weight when the AfD closes, without overcrowding the page. --Bettydaisies (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@TheSpacebook No one is censoring the article. Our aim is to create a high-quality article that appeals to readers worldwide. It's meant to be a summary of her life, not a detailed diary or record book. As major contributors, we're simply trying to streamline the content to focus on what will remain significant in the long run. We aim for a concise and clear biography similar to that of Elizabeth II, rather than lengthy articles like those of Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't really get why we should exclude nicknames, if they can be sourced in the text. I have never heard of “Mothering Sunday”, and the term sounds vaguely religious to me. Concerning her recent or current health problems, do we have sufficient coverage in sources to explain them? Or mere press speculation? Dimadick (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

My point exactly. It’s unweighted. The majority of the sources call her “Kate”, but I agree we need to have a consensus. However, the article Engagement dress of Catherine Middleton should be renamed to ‘Engagement dress of Kate Middleton’ as that is certainly overly formal as almost zero of the sources cited call her ‘Catherine’. Articles such as Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton might have more reason to use ‘Catherine’ as that’s the official title of the event, but I don’t see why the engagement dress article is formally named? @Bettydaisies said in other comment “I don't think the article has been written any more formally than Elizabeth II”, what’s the reason why all these articles about royalty are so formally written? It just doesn’t seem neutral writing style to me. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@TheSpacebookThere's no justification for renaming the pages Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton and Engagement dress of Catherine Middleton. These titles accurately reflect her name before her royal wedding, and there's no consensus to use "Kate Middleton" as a page title on Wikipedia. Users @Bettydaisies, @DeCausa, @Keivan.f, and @DrKay can provide further explanation and clarification. It's important to seek clear consensus from major authors and contributors before making any changes. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I did not say the Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton should be renamed, I argued that Engagement dress of Catherine Middleton article should. Your reply unfairly skews my argument, as I said ‘Catherine’ is in “the official title of the [wedding]”, but there is no official title for the engagement dress. I understand the consensus to use ‘Catherine’ to reflect her status as a princess, however I don’t see that argument holding weight when she was a private citizen, when she wore the engagement dress. With the majority of sources cited calling her, a private nonroyal citizen, ‘Kate’. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your point to some extent but consistency in article titles (which is a policy) and what is ideal for navigation should be taken into consideration. Keivan.f^Talk 23:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Any discussion of page moves is pointless here. The established process at WP:RM#CM will need to be followed, with interested editors notified, before we can identify consensus to execute any page move. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no point in complaining about stuff when you don't get your way. As much as I did not want us to have an article such as Where is Kate?, I just have to deal with its existence now. A lengthy discussion was held on this talk page concerning the nickname and there was consensus against including it in the lede. I'm sorry but moaning about it will get us nowhere. Keivan.f^Talk 16:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Personal video message

When was the video massage first made public? Was it first broadcast at 6 pm on BBC News at Six? Why can we not mention this and the exact date? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Surely this was a BBC exclusive, as one might have expected. Just like the announcements of recent Royal deaths and medical diagnoses. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The article now says: "through a video message released by Kensington Palace" (although that's not directly supported in the two sources). So did other media outlets release it, or announce it, before the BBC? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The video was filmed by BBC Studios on Wednesday, 20 March, as per the BBC citation. Regards MSincccc (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I was trying to ascertain if the broadcast at 6 pm, on BBC News at Six was an exclusive, as I think might be merit a mention. Apparently BBC Studios made prior announcement that the BBC was gong to release a statement, but most on the BBC production team did not know what it was. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)