Talk:Charles III/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

RfC: Getting this article to GA class - Wikipedia:CIII

Should the changes discussed and supported at WT:CIII be made to this article with the goal of getting it to WP:GA class? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed changes

(These points are expanded upon at WT:CIII)

• Shortening the lead paragraph to a single sentence and the rewording of the second sentence, moved down into the fourth paragraph  Implemented
• Minor copyediting of paragraphs 4 and 5 of "Early life, family and education". Integrating his quasi-surname "Windsor" into the text somewhere has also been proposed Partially implemented
• Moving details of his international trips into other articles/sections Not done for now
• Removing unnecessary or unrelated text in "Military training and career", "Bachelorhood", and "Lady Diana Spencer"  Implemented
• Removing anecdotal information from "Official duties" Partially implemented
• Merging "Polling" into "Accession and coronation plans". Addition of Liz Truss's announcement that the king would reign as "Charles III"  Implemented
• After the coronation, removing the paragraph about the planning of said event Not done for now
• Removing unnecessary or unrelated text in "Personal interests" Partially implemented
• Deletion of "Guest appearances on television"  Implemented
• Reduction in size of "Media image", addition of a hatnote to "Cultural depictions of Charles III"  Implemented
• Removing unnecessary or unrelated text in "Residences and finance"/moving some of the information into Finances of the British royal family  Implemented
• To come up with a sentence that can be easily copy-pasted into the article on the day of the coronation about the coronation to avoid too much irrelevant info from being added. Not done for now

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  In more detail: oppose the elimination/movement of the second sentence (other than the "death of his mother" clause, which IMO is misplaced here). Defer consideration of post-crownage text and coronation-day until the time -- or at least, separate from this exercise. Strongly support all other points, contingent on viable edits in support of these admittedly still-somewhat-broadly-described objectives. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• No - The Taskforce can only recommend changes on this bios' talkpage. It can't be used to skip this BLP's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
• Procedural No This RfC question, as written, is too general for editors to be able to comment on. Editors would have to read through the link and evaluate every section, which is a big ask of volunteers who are working on their own projects. I suggest that this RfC is closed and a new RfC be opened with a specific question about a change that is under dispute. The more specific, the more likely it is that editors without prior knowledge of this dispute will be able to comment. If multiple RfCs need to be opened, then we will take them on one by one. Z1720 (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, which is an ongoing approval of agreed-upon changes being implemented as soon as they're agreed on. Making the changes has to start sometime and having an RfC on every one of them is untenable. As I've noted elsewhere, editors have had plenty of time to look at the discussions preceding these improvements. If they didn't, they can't be interested enough to protest anything. And, even if someone does, those disagreements can be dealt with as they arise. I strongly suspect the majority of edits will be accepted. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - DDMS123 (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• No per Z1720. I'm supportive of the aims of this exercise, to make progress and avoid stonewalling, but we can't give carte blanche an outside project to make any changes it likes. Relevant discussions should be held here, not there.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  I understand your point; however, the task force was extremely well publicised, and has been active for over 3 weeks now. I accept that it could have been handled differently, but the task force discussion page is now longer than this talk page, and is split up into 4 sections; too long for a single section here. I would like to hear your thoughts on the content of CIII, rather than the procedure of this RfC. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Well it wasn't publicized enough for me to see it, and furthermore, nobody has explained why a separate page was needed in the first place. This is the talk page for the article. Please bring the changes here and we can consider them. If they're as Uncontroversial as you suggest, there should be no problem. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have "brought the changes here" (see the "Proposed changes" subsection above) and the task force was also brought here; indeed, it's still here (see talk page banners); I pinged you here; I sent you a message on your personal talk page, and announcements for it were plastered around every tangentially related WikiProject and talk page. If you haven't seen any of this, it wasn't from lack of effort on our part. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RfC per User:Z1720. I'm not going to read the entire very long linked talk page to try to figure out which changes you're talking about. How many changes are under discussion? Are they all controversial? If not, can you just start RfCs about the controversial ones? Can you at least provide a diff or draft of the proposed changes? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  You're commenting on a proposal you haven't even read? More than that, it seems you haven't even read this RfC. It addresses your first three questions. For your fourth, instead of writing a draft, just look at the first paragraph of each section and subsection. That should be enough for you to form an opinion. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have read the RfC statement, which says Should the changes discussed and supported at WT:CIII be made to this article with the goal of getting it to WP:GA class? I don't see how this addresses any of my first three questions.

  At your suggestion, I've read the first paragraph of each section and subsection of the linked page. These look like too many proposals to sensibly comment on in a single RfC. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  The RfC, the Request for comment's comments answer your questions. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for adding a list of the proposed changes. I have no objections to the changes, but I still think it's too many proposals to sensibly comment on in a single RfC. As User:Z1720 suggests below, start making the changes, and if anyone objects that's the time to start a more narrowly focused discussion (and eventually an RfC about a specific change, if necessary). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural No I must agree with the "bad RFC" comments. If there is one specific version you want to vote on adopting as a wholescale replacement, please provide a diff (either a version in draftspace, or a BOLD-reverted version of this article. Otherwise, make the changes separately and discuss any individual changes that are controversial here. Walt Yoder (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Limited Yes Now that there is a description of the proposed changes, I can comment. As noted below, this shouldn't be "carte blanche" to ignore opposition to any of the changes, but overall they seem like improvements. This is a vote to encourage you to ignore one editor (GoodDay) who is tediously objecting based on procedural complaints without addressing the substance of any proposed changes. I am aware this is a bit harsh, but GoodDay has 12 comments in this discussion, and while he claims he has already voiced "concerns", those concerns are not described in any of those comments. Walt Yoder (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - The proposed changes are undoubtedly improvements. I do agree with the concern's expressed by others on the fact that the proposed changes are not listed here. Anyone who wants to know further details about the changes will look. It'd be simply too cumbersome to list that discussion here. Then again, I'm sure there's a way to at least sum up the proposed changes rather than having to read through the entire RfC.--Estar8806 (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes; each of these changes would improve the article. DFlhb (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

In what sense can a widely publicised subpage, which we're currently discussing on the article talkpage, be said to be "skip[ping] this BLP's talkpage"? Extraordinary intervention. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

What is (or may be) agreed at the taskforce-in-question. Must then be proposed on this BLP's talkpage. Editors who don't take part in the taskforce, still have a voice on this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Which is what this RfC is, GoodDay. And was, I'd like to add, your idea. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

One proposal (i.e one RFC) at-a-time, not a big multiple items proposal. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

What does "one proposal" mean? An RfC per section? Per subsection? Per sentence? Per word? The reason there's a "discussion" section is to discuss CIII further, not to reject it wholesale. You worked on the task force, so you should have voiced your concerns there; you had 3 weeks to do so. It's too late now: we'll just have to wait and see the results of this one. I will say this to everyone thinking about voting: think very carefully, because if this is rejected, it is a colossal waste. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I have already voiced my concerns, pointing out that there's no deadline & that it might be counter-productive to push a lot of proposals at once. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. What is "one proposal"? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

You should take it one step-at-a-time. When an agreement is reached at the taskforce (which doesn't seem to have happened, yet), concerning a certain section, whether it needs improvement, in the BLP. You then bring that 'one section' proposal to this talkpage. From what I can see, there's very little agreement on the taskforce itself, as to what needs improvement. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

There's very little agreement very largely because you appear to have made it your one-person mission to agree to nothing. Including any process to reach agreement. To which add a fair bit of general apathy from editors at large, to be fair. Just a few more weeks left to "maintain" its full B-grade glory, yay! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It's the editors who haven't taken part in the taskforce, that have to be convinced that this BLP needs improvements & where. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep. Never would have thought it would be controversial to improve an article. I've read their arguments and still don't understand the people who are voting no; to me it seems to hinge more on how this RfC was set up rather than the question the RfC is asking. Moreover, even some people who worked on CIII don't want to agree to it. We all have to make concessions and compromise in a collaborative effort to improve something, to find a fair middle ground. Assuming good faith here, but if that is the reason, it must appear that malice bears down truth. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't throw in the towel so quickly. I recommend a 'toe in the water' approach. Select an item from the taskforce (you believe will have a chance of getting a consensus 'here') & propose it to 'this' talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Better still, select an item that appears uncontroversial and/or that gained consensus on the taskforce page, and just WP:BOLDly implement it. In many cases further discussion won't be needed. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a good approach to me. Make a change, and most likely it will be accepted without discussion. If someone reverts it, start a discussion on talk, and if it's hard to find consensus, then start an RfC about that specific change. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Before I give an opinion one way or another, I'd just like to be clear on what " changes discussed and supported at WT:CIII" means: Is it that only the changes with agreement will be implemented, leaving those without agreement for... Further work? Or is it that the whole WT:CIII project is wrapping up and only those changes with agreement will be implemented, while those without agrement will be... Discarded? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Multiple editors have put forward different changes to be made - some, other people disagreed with, (for example, the proposed changes to the infobox), which wouldn't fall under "supported". I'd say that the proposals that didn't face any opposition, were actively supported, or that most people agreed with would be implemented, but those with majority disagreement would not. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Right. But, I suppose what I'm asking is: What happens to the areas under discussion, still without resolution? Do we continue working on them or drop them? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Up to the respective proposers if they want to continue to pursue them or not. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for clarifying. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Essentially, Tim is (as I best understand it) trying to fight layer after layer of process inertia with... another layer of process. i.e. if someone tries to improve the article directly, they'll get reverted with a stonewalling "no consensus to change". If you discuss the change here, same result. If you discuss it in the "Task Force"... same same. And now it loops back here, and it's the same discussion, and the identical utter lack of improvement. Eventually, somebody has to make the changes, and the people who don't like 'em will (hopefully!) eventually-eventually-eventually engage with the substance of that, not just assert "there's no consensus because there's no consensus". Which is frankly bordering on the disruptive at this point. On the coronation watershed, there's a theory of the case that "no deadline" means we should do nothing beforehand, on the basis that we'll have our leisure to do so afterwards. Which is in principle true, but in practice it means that the "!deadline" becomes there's now even less hurry, subject's not going to be dead for a while yet, so it's fine languishing at 'not all that bad, somehow' for the foreseeable future. So as Tim says, it's entirely up to editors which changes they wish to pursue when. But I wouldn't suggest waiting for things to change, without a determined attempt to change them. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

My response was an attempt to answer Miesianiacal's question directly in terms of trying to put changes up for acceptance on this RfC. Otherwise, I would encourage people to be bold and make the changes directly: if people want to revert on the basis of "no consensus" then they should challenge that, either by reverting their reversion with a well-explained edit summary, or punching through by using the BRD cycle. I appreciate neither are particularly good options, with the first one contrary to policy, and the second bureaucratic and inefficient, but on Wikipedia, nothing is ideal. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The immediate reverting of any change and maintenance of the status quo on the grounds of "no consensus" or something similar was a concern I myself raised maybe a week (?) ago. If anything, at least this RfC is yet another notice to editors of this page that there have been, and are, discussions about various improvements to this article. As I alluded to earlier, if one has chosen not to participate in those discussions, they don't have the right to simply revert and claim, "no consensus". Even if they have a more cogent argument, their time to voice it was over the last month or so. (That is, excluding anyone who legitimately just coincidentally returned after having not edited this article for a long time and, thus, wouldn't've been aware of WT:CIII.) And, if they're really reverting against consensus, well, we all know how to deal with that. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Being a member of the taskforce-in-question or not, doesn't heighten or lower the importance of an editors' input on this BLP's talkpage. Taskforce members can't force changes on this page, without a consensus from all editors who give input on this BLP's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

No, of course not. I'd hoped that people would read the proposals put forth at CIII, formed an opinion, and discussed what they like and don't like about it in the "Discussion" section. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

No one said anything about the importance or lack thereof of any editor's input. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Tim & Mies, I'm grateful we've clarified that. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

In skimming through the discussions, and in an effort to bring progress, can editors explain what changes, if any, are currently being disputed? I skimmed through the article and can suggest changes, but I want to encourage others to WP:BEBOLD and fix problems without lengthy discussions if they are not necessary. I'm also struggling to find places where there is major disagreement that would hamper progress. Can any editors point to diffs of disputed changes? Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The proposed changes to the infobox, moving "Head of the Commonwealth" down from below his name to below his signature didn't get much support. Other than that, the remaining proposals either weren't opposed or were supported. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd rather it be eliminated from the infobox, for the same reason I wouldn't want "Defender of the Faith", there. But anyways. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay:, @Z1720:, @Amakuru:, @Mx. Granger:, @Walt Yoder:, does the enumeration of proposed changes above address any of your procedural objections? And if not, out of idle curiosity, do you nonetheless have any substantive thoughts on the content of any of them? Would a consolidated diff by sufficient? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I still won't give a carte blanche approval of changes, but I encourage those interested in improving the article to WP:BOLDly make changes. If there is anything I disagree with, I will implement the R and the D in WP:BRD and open a discussion underneath. Z1720 (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not asking for carte blanche approval, I've literally just asked if you had specific feedback on each. I do sympathise with the lack of live-page edits to a point. I foresaw this to an extent as soon as the 'off-page' effort was set up. But as jaded and cynical as I am, I didn't quite realize it would be quite this much process inertia -- actually, in some cases, process vigorously shoving in the opposite direction -- for not a single improvement to the article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The taskforce can only bring proposals to this talkpage. Best way to do that? is propose 'one' item at a time. GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

And has done. They're literally itemised up above. 12 RfCs? Best way to do nothing for a month or seven in favour of more process, more process about the process, more process about that, etc. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

If there's no consensus for a proposed edit (be it from the taskforce or not), then that proposed edit doesn't get added to this page. The WP:BRD process doesn't change. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

May we have an elaboration on the 'first' point, in this RFC? I presume it's this bit? -- GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a little atypical to hold in-depth article discussions on a task force page, but it may be a more effective way to collaborate on one article. Equivalent high-profile talk pages tend to have far too much inertia; minor improvements are possible, but attempts at true "improvement spurts" get diluted, shot down, or ignored, so I like this idea of incubating suggestions elsewhere, and bringing them here afterwards. I get the backlash, but it's an interesting experiment. DFlhb (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You describe the underlying problem very well. Unfortunately, this "solution" has resulted in... epic levels of inertia, shooting down and ignoring. As well as process arguments, meta-arguments, and pata-arguments. 109.etc (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I've made a lot of the "cutting" changes now. I'll have a look at the nitty-gritty tomorrow (or, I suppose, later today). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

FWIW - Why did you make these changes 'while the RFC is in progress'? It's usually 'standard operating procedure' to wait until the RFC tag expires (in early May), followed by an outside editor declaring a decision. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The RfC tag expired yesterday. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Which one? The current was open on April 1 & the tag is still there. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

That aside, several procedural objectors and caveators had qualms about being asked about blanket approval without being able to look at actual live diffs. So pragmatically, decision aside, this is necessary either way. 109.etc (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Just wondering which RFC tag expired, when was closure requested for that expired RFC & where's the closer's decision? GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, looking at the "DoNotArchiveUntil" bot. That expired yesterday. Despite that, the votes are 7 in support and 4 against, with every opposing editor finding fault with the RfC (faults that have since been corrected), not the proposed changes themselves. So, unless a gaggle of editors descend from on high and bombard this RfC with Opposes, I don't see any harm in initiating the process now. We have just under 3 weeks until the coronation. We were always looking to get it done by then, and if we want to see this at GA as soon as possible, we should get it over with. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Just pointing out that you & (maybe) 109, might be jumping the gun, a bit. It would've been better to wait until the tag expired & a decision made by an outsider. I understand you're both eager, to do what yas want before May 6, 2023. But it would've been better, if you had waited two more weeks. FWIW, I think all the 'opposing' editors in the 'survey' section should be pinged, to let them know about the (possible premature) changes you've made. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

If you really want, GoodDay. But understand that editors get frustrated by the endless hoops of bureaucracy that they've had to jump through for the past 6 weeks to improve an article, which should be completely uncontroversial. "Early May" is too late to improve the article. I think that since last night, the article has improved. It has became more alike his FA mother's article. No editor in their right mind would deliver a "failed RfC" or "no consensus" verdict against this RfC. I'd encourage you to edit this article yourself if you want to improve it, rather than going cap-in-hand to WP:CR. Until then, we should all collectively try to improve the article ourselves, rather than Puritanically adhering to Wikipedia's overlong bureaucratic systems. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

As you can see. I've contacted the other three fellows & if they're alright with this changes? fine. As for bureaucratic systems? That's the route you chose to take, when you opened this RFC. Merely a suggestion - If (in future) you open an RFC here or any other page? Let the process play out. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I had always said that it would be a 7-day RfC. Barring just one vote, every comment in the survey was made within 7 days. When you advised that it should be a 1 month RfC, I decided that we could meet in the middle and do 15 days. This RfC, as intended and in practice, is over. There haven't been any new votes since the changes were made. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

We'll see in two weeks time, when the tag expires. At that time, I'll request closure at the board-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720:, @Mx. Granger: & @Amakuru:, seeing as many of the proposed changes in this ongoing RFC - have been implemented (in the last few hours). Do you 'now' approve? I note, this RFC still has two weeks to go. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay: no, of course I don't approve. The changes that have been made don't look like improvements to me, and they don't look like they were discussed here. For example, the last paragraph of the lead, which previously read "Charles inherited the throne upon his mother's death. His coronation is scheduled to take place on 6 May 2023.", which we painstakingly agreed a few weeks ago, has been turned into repetitive duplication again... The prior version should be reinstated and changes discussed properly. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I simply do not understand you. This has been discussed at WP:CIII and further discussed here, with it being edited down this morning. Why didn't you contribute in discussions here and at CIII before, rather than just opposing any change made now? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Why do you keep mentioning this CIII page? I'm not in the Royal Family wikiproject, and neither do I wish to be. It has no authority over this article. Bring proposed changes here, and I will happily comment on whether I like them or not, as will others, and we'll form consensus in the usual manner.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Why do I keep mentioning this CIII page? Because it's in the RfC question. It has been from day one. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

But the taskforce has 'no' authority over this BLP. I've been a member of a previous taskforce (years ago, concerning usage of British Isles on pages) & it became ineffective, the moment it over-stepped its boundaries. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the task force has overstepped. We had an RfC on the proposed changes, most people voting in the RfC said yes. I accept the way the RfC was set up and the matter of the process being spread across two different talkpages was a bit disjointed, but so far, I haven't seen anyone complain on the changes themselves, only the process in which they were made. If I've made an error here I apologise, but we can still move forward and get this article to GA. That's what it's all about. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The RFC is still in progress, though. You should've waited until the RFC tag expired & then request closure from an outsider. There's no GA fire, no deadline. PS - I would also suggest that you no longer put "DO NOT REVERT", etc, in your edit summaries. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I think this change was not properly discussed by the task force either. I agree with the overall restructuring, but the part about him obtaining an injunction to prevent a memoir from being published is notable IMO; same with the part about him and his wife being named in the list of news media phone hacking scandal victims. I'm not saying that they should have remained there in their previous state, but I think the article would have benefitted more from condensing than outright removal. Keivan.f^Talk 16:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully it was all notable, otherwise it shouldn't have been added in the first place. But there are many subsidiary articles we can farm things that aren't necessarily in the first-order of notability for the primary topic. Without necessarily expressing a view on which category that particular example might fall into. 109.etc (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Truly Kafkawiki in (in)action. If an editor is studiedly ignoring the TF, then necessarily the RfC, which is framed entirely in terms of that effort, is moot for their purposes. I suggest addressing the edits on their individual merits. Doesn't seem to me to make a great deal of sense to run the clock out on a process that some objected to happening in the first place, some actively urged us to make the edits in place in order for people to better judge their merits, etc. 109.etc (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep. Some people urged us to be bold and make them without the RfC. Some said the RfC was absolutely necessary before any change could occur. Seems we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

One proposal at a time (even if each one meant an RFC) would've been the best route. Trying to make a deadline, with multiple proposals at once, is nearly always going to end in mixed results. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Our target was always pre-coronation. 12 RfCs, one of which being "are we allowed to copyedit paragraphs 4 and 5 in "Early life"" would be a farce. In hindsight, we should have given more time to the RfC and less time on CIII, but the problem is some people just do not want this article to change at all, and I cannot see any other motive for dragging this article through this bureaucratic process hell. A 2 week RfC would have been ample, but even with a glaringly obvious consensus, it doesn't seem to be enough. CIII was just made so that we didn't overwhelm this talk page with its 80 thousand bytes, but now it's being treated as some sort of foreign body trying to made unwanted advances on this page, which was never the intention to begin with. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Surname

There seems to be a degree of support that we should at least allude to the question of a surname in his "early life" section. Exact wording, as ever, still to be determined, but perhaps at least something corresponding to (or better yet, instead of!) the infobox note. However, my understanding is that he did also use a surname ("Windsor", which would have been the original default-by-proclamation, albeit not the then-current one) while in the RN. Here's a low-grade source: "Relinquishing his royal titles for the purpose of naval discipline he became Lieutenant Charles Windsor." Obviously a better one would be better, and it might not be worth mentioning at all. (In contrast there was quite a lot of hooha about his kids being "Lieutenant Wales" and "Captain Wales".) 109.etc (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

There's been past discussions on this matter. Best to leave the footnote style in place, at the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of the past discussion of the infobox (which is clearly this a minor parenthetical of the "matter" I just raised). Once the article body deals with the surname issue that's clearly new facts on the ground as far as the thinking (mistaken as it always was) that "oh, we'll deal with that in an infobox footnote,then never mention it again"). I look forward to your comments on the substance of such questions, whenever you plan on starting to make them. 109.etc (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Best we not use 'surnames' concerning royals. But (of course), we'll certainly allow others to give their input. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Any chance we could have arguments as to what's "best", rather than just assertions? Ideally ones grounded in policies and guidelines, and pertinent to the questions posed. But as the article already "uses surnames concerning royals" -- in the footnote that you just opposed removing -- I'm unclear as to what you even want, much less why. 109.etc (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, you can breath anytime you wish. Now, am I correct that you're suggesting we use several (for lack of better description) surnames, within this BLP (outside, the infobox)? GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

There was a pronouncement that "no article can be GA class without having the subject's surname mentioned in prose." To the best of my knowledge, Elizabeth's article doesn't talk about it either, although I may have missed it. I do agree, however, that nothing should be in the infobox if not in the article body as well. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

There was a related RFC held on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Once more, that's not in fact related. There's no suggestion here to add (any mention or question of) a surname to the lead section. Just to the article prose, which as Tim correctly says, should not be something the infobox "supplants". 109.etc (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm having a lazy brain day. Maybe @DeCausa:, or @Celia Homeford: can better understand fully, what you're proposing. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I draw your attention to the clause 'the question of a surname in his "early life" section' at the start of the discussion. 109.etc (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Going by your recent addition. You merely wanted to 'point out', that Charles wasn't given a surname, upon his birth. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Essentially. Technically the (first) proclamation gives him a "backup surname", and one that he did then later use, but basically we just need to cover the same ground as the existing infobox-footnote. A lampshade, not a whole treatise. 109.etc (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Which of course, this being KafkaWiki, has been reverted on the grounds that we don't have a source for his name(!), or the fact of his being christened(!!), notwithstanding the same information is still blithely asserted in the infobox on the basis of the exact same source, and the very sentence before. I'll look into how to bombproof this later (and/or, just exasperatedly revert, as the case may be). 109.etc (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I stand by my opinion that failing to clearly and promptly provide basic, easily verifiable biographical information–which the subject's last name certainly is–should disqualify any biographical article from a GA status. Having a string of three middle names in the lead only serves to highlight the bizarre omission. What is even the point of the middle names without a last name? Surtsicna (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Clarify - You're suggesting "(Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor; born 14 November 1948)"? GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

If anything he was born "Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor", if you look at it very hard through republican goggles, or had there been abolition of the monarchy right about then. But there wasn't, and we shouldn't, so that (neither version) is clearly not a flier here. @Surtsicna, what do you believe to be the means of verification of this information? 109.etc (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@109.etc Was he born "Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor" though, or was he born "Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten"? Because apparently he and Anne were born with their father's surname, but since after her accession Elizabeth II insisted on keeping the royal house name as Windsor, people were wondering if any other children she and Philip could have would be bastards if they were to take their mother's surname. There was an internal debate going on about it at the time, which is why Elizabeth announced that her descendants should have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor right before Andrew's birth. So, Surtsicna, are you suggesting we should include Mountbatten-Windsor in the lede? And should we clarify that he was probably born with the surname Mountbatten? Keivan.f^Talk 16:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

My mistake on the sequencing there, apologies. Two slightly different proclamations in between the batches of M/W kids. I was sloppily thinking the first two were born after the first, but before the second. Yes, in this hypothetical titleless scenario there's a case they'd have been Mountbattens. But they weren't really "born with" any surname, due to the whole "we don't have a surname, unless we do" game the royals insist on playing. I'd continue to favour something on the lines of my twice-reverted addition to the "early life" section to cover this, but not asserting that he was born with, christened as, or his birth registered as giving him any surname. That he's subsequently used a surname complicates, but doesn't materially change matters. 109.etc (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

On the "surname in the navy" matter, I see it repeatedly in several places around the interwebz that 'It has been reported in the American press that as a practical day-to-day matter in their active Royal Navy service, both Charles and Andrew were referred to as "Lieutenant Windsor".' That has the whiff of being Wikipedia-mirrored, and I see no suggestion of a source for it. I'm inclined to ignore that unless someone has something better. 109.etc (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Reading through this, I was struck with the thought: if it's this confusing for we editors, it must be a mystery to readers, meaning there should be some explanation in article-space somewhere; perhaps at House of Windsor (which presently covers only the surname for those without style and princely title), with a subtle link there from here; a footnote, maybe. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I suppose that's strictly true. I thought that article somewhat implied the situation for the titled types, but adding the same reference as we use here and adding something more explicit might indeed be helpful. 109.etc (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That's about what I was thinking. Would a footnote following his name at the very beginning of the lede work? Just a brief blurb with a link to House of Windsor and there add information about the surname of the styled and titled members of the family. (I am assuming that info isn't covered elsewhere. I did a look around the places one might expect to find it and, well... Didn't.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 10:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The lede of this article? Seems somewhat undue to me. I (still) think (per my own attempts) that #Early life is the place to deal with it. If we wanted to get into the nitty-gritty we'd point out that the registration of his birth had no surname, but that's likely the wrong level of detail for this article. 109.etc (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The footnote in the lede of this article, yes. But, it was only a suggestion. It can go elsewhere. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I would support a footnote in the lead. Isn't too intrusive, and solves the problem of having something in the infobox that isn't in the rest of the article. Doubly so as we get to keep the "Charles Philip Arthur George", which is well known as his full(ish) name. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Keivan.f, 109.etc, what I suggest is either adding his present (Mountbatten-Windsor) last name to the lead to say "Charles III (Charles Arthur Philip George Mountbatten-Windsor; born 14 November 1948)" or having neither the middle names nor the last name: "Charles III (born 14 November 1948)". I know of no other context in which the parentheses contain the subject's middle names but not the full name, so here we strongly imply that Charles Arthur Philip George is the full name, i.e. that he has no last name. That is, at best, highly debatable, if for no other reason then because the subject's own website states that he has a last name. Of course, we could also say "Charles III (christened Charles Arthur Philip George; born 14 November 1948)" but that somehow does not look elegant to me. What do you say? Surtsicna (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The status quo - "Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948)" or this version - "Charles III (born 14 November 1948)", are the only options I would support. This would (of course) cover all monarchs & other royal family members. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Best you start saying why things should be done the way you want them done rather. Otherwise you are not contributing at all, as already pointed out in this discussion. I am very much against the idea that we should pretend that the king of Spain and the prince of Monaco have no last names because that is misleading to the readers.. Surtsicna (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I share your exasperation with GD's signature anti-contributions, but evidently they're unlikely to change tack just because we ask them to, so evidently we have to put up with it, ignore it, or take that to another venue. I'm not clear those two cases are comparable, however. While doubtless you'd be frowned upon (or banged up in their equivalent of the Tower) for referring to them as "Señor Borbón y Grecia" or "M'sieur Grimaldi", I don't think they affect such a extensive conceit of "we don't have a surname, unless we want to have one, in which event we'll whimsically choose from one of several". 109.etc (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: sorry about the delayed response & pardon my lack of clarity. I meant 'all' the British monarchs & royal family members. Not 'all' monarchs & royal families. I reckon for now, Charles III is the focus. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Best keep the status quo then. I think removing the full name next to the DoB is maybe cutting off our nose to spite our face, but instead of spiting our face, we've just gotten scared of using a surname that isn't even there in the first place. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Why not say "Charles III (christened Charles Arthur Philip George, born 14 November 1948)"? That way we do not remove anything while also not omitting anything. Surtsicna (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

What's the primary source that says he has a last name? My understanding of The Firm's position is that non-titled members "have" a surname, those with titles may (or may not) "use" one. And clearly when they have used one, it's not always been M-W. I suggest that we go at this a little bottom-up. We have no article-body prose on the surname at all at present. (Not through the want of trying on my part, I might add.) We can't correctly add a lead-section summary of something that doesn't exist. Full disclosure, I'm skeptical that it's "lede-worthy" at all, but let's do this step at a time either way. 109.etc (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image caption

I notice that the infobox image of Charles is an official portrait from the website of the governor-general of New Zealand. Typically, when an official portrait is used in the infobox it is captioned as such (in this case it would be captioned as Official portrait, 2019; see Boris Johnson, Cindy Kiro, Joe Biden and Anthony Albanese for examples). This is just a case of nit-picking on my part, but I propose that we change the infobox image caption from "Charles in 2019" to "Official portrait, 2019" to reflect the official status of the image and for consistency with other articles. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd hesitate to call in that; in your examples, the people listed are only in power in one country (and therefore their portrait is official everywhere they're in charge), whilst Charles is head of 15 + Head of the Commonwealth + Defender of the Faith. Having his Kiwi official portrait labelled as the definitive official portrait for all his realms is misleading. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

"King of the Commonwealth realms"?

An editor(s) is trying to push "King of the Commonwealth realms" into the opening of the fourth paragraph. Now, there are titles and positions of "Head of the Commonwealth", as well as "King of the United Kingdom", "King of Canada", "King of Australia" etc. There's no such thing as "King of the Commonwealth realms", but I wouldn't oppose (in the fourth paragraph) listing the realms in full, starting with the oldest one (the United Kingdom). GoodDay (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the editors in question intended "king of the Commonwealth realms" as a description, as in "a king that rules over the Commonwealth realms". So, whilst it's untrue to say "Charles is King of the Commonwealth realms", it is correct to say "Charles is the king of the Commonwealth realms". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That distinction in capitalization is entirely a Wikipedia invention, however. It does not exist outside our little community. In all of academia and most of media common nouns are always lower cased. Surtsicna (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Even so, descriptions still exist outside the 'pedia. He rules over the Commonwealth realms as king, even though there isn't such a title as "King of the Commonwealth". Harm done by adding it in Charlie's article? Zero. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I am completely in agreement with you. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty, Surtsicna, and 109.etc: As am I. So, why are we not using "king of the Commonwealth realms"? (I'm assuming we're actually talking about the first paragraph of "Accession and coronation plans". The fourth paragraph of the lede is another matter...)

And, on the subject of capitalization, isn't "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" inaccurate? While Charles is King of the United Kingdom, he is small-k "king of the 14 other Commonwealth realms." The phrase "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" reads like a title that doesn't exist. The right phrasing would be "King of the United Kingdom and king of the 14 other Commonwealth realms", which is needlessly wordy (and too many "kings") when "king of the Commonwealth realms" will do concisely and correctly. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@DrKay:,@Celia Homeford: & @DeCausa:: Attempts were made & (correctly) reversed by different editors, concerning changing to "King of the Commonwealth realms". As for capitalising or uncapitalising of "King" in "King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms? That can be worked out among the pro-capitalise vs anti-capitalise folks. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a repeated misconstrual of those edits that I've already explained in excruciating detail. Please knock it off. 109.etc (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

There are actually a number of uses of the term "monarch of the Commonwealth realms" outside Wikipedia, including by the Commonwealth itself. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not doubt that. My comment was about capitalization. Surtsicna (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now. I misread what you wrote. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't entirely following your reasoning or claim here, as it appears to immediately contradict itself. Indeed, in most media -- certainly the Guardian's style guide is helpfully explicit about this, the one is capitalised, the other is not. jobs all lc, eg prime minister, US secretary of state, chief rabbi, editor of the Guardian[;] titles cap up titles, but not job description, eg President Barack Obama (but the US president, Barack Obama, and Obama on subsequent mention); the Duke of Westminster (the duke at second mention); Pope Francis but the pope. Exactly as with king vs King here. 109.etc (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry for being unclear. I was referring to MOS:JOBTITLES' guidance to capitalize job titles when they are formal titles (e.g. "he is King of the United Kingdom") and yet to use lower case when the job title is descriptive ("he is the king of the Commonwealth realms"). That sort of distinction exists only on Wikipedia, and is the unfortunate result of an unwise compromise. The Guardian, as well as virtually any academic publishing, would only have "King" capitalized when preceding (forming part of) a name. But we digress. Surtsicna (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You're suggesting that the Guardian would have "Duke of Westminster" but "king of the United Kingdom"? I think clearly not: they're both titles. If anything the Gnaur is on the lighter side of the caps spectrum, but this seems pretty explicit. 109.etc (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting that. Surtsicna (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no difference in accuracy between "King of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" and "King of the other Commonwealth realms". Neither is a proper title. Surtsicna (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Those are (IMO constructive) edits, not "pushes". You might wish to correct the record if it wasn't your intention to imply some sort of WP:POVPUSHing. The idea of listing said realms in full (or at least at greater length according to some scheme) in P4 is a good one ("it accords exactly with my own"), but as the song says, it's been proposed before, and the support wasn't exactly overwhelming. 109.etc (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The Commonwealth realms aren't 'one' entity, therefore my objections to "King of the Commonwealth realms" or "the king of the Commonwealth realms". GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand your concerns: just saying, that with slightly amended capitalisation, we can retain the description. Although it looks like the wording has been changed to "king of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms" now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, the capitalisation needn't be amended, other than in GD's incorrect characterisation of the edits actually made. 109.etc (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems alright, as long as realms is lowercase...  — Amakuru (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Images of arms and other content matters

I understand that, presently, the way the various coats of arms are displayed in this article matches the same on George VI, George V, and Edward VII. However, that doesn't change the fact that the right-most coat of arms is effectively "off the page", overlapping the Wikipedia menu on the right side of the screen ("Tools", "Actions", "Subscribe", etc.). The same problem exists at George VI and George V. (Edward VIII does not follow the same format.) The layout I changed it to yesterday fixed that issue. The other biographies should follow suit, rather than them all having bad graphics. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, reverted. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

....Well, that was easy. How dare you be so cooperative!

I'll fix the other articles. Thanks for drawing my attention to those pages. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal Can you explain your edit moving information down into "Personal interests", as I don't really understand it. I think, in particular, the black spider memos were better suited where they were, and moving the goalpost (i.e. renaming the section so that you could move it in) wasn't the best idea. I won't undo it, because I've hit the revert limit and I want to hear your side first. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The letters aren't pertinent to his official duties.

And, on the subject of "impertinence", the same "Official duties" section contains info about Charles' bouts of COVID. That should be elsewhere... But, where? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

No, but equally impertinent in "Personal interests". It's only after you changed the title of that section so that it would be. Apart from that, I find some of your rewording changes odd. Why did you remove "government" from "government ministers", for example? Regarding the COVID - obviously that impacted his duties too. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The letters pertained to his causes. So, it seems more appropriate to put mention of them adjacent to the info about his personal causes than under the header "Official duties". This article is, of course, still a work in progress.

"Government ministers" is a pleonasm. Unless you're suggesting there's some need to differentiate them from religious ministers?

I'm sure his brushes with COVID affected more than just his official duties. The whole pandemic interfered with his official duties. I can't see how it's sensible to put the information about his illnesses under "Official duties". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Could be construed as Christian ministers. Besides, since you have offered no alternative on where to put the information on Charles's COVID infections, they should stay, as yes, they did impact his duties, as did his memos. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Obviously the mentions of COVID will stay until a better location is found. Where else would they go? And where is the connection between his letters and his official duties? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to move the mentions of COVID anywhere. In Elizabeth II's case, she has a designated subsection for COVID. Maybe one for Charles could be made. Again, I don't think the memos quite fit in "Official duties", but I don't think they fit to where you've moved it to either. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I still feel that there is a connection between Charles' letters and his personal interests--again, that's what the letter were all about. But, what about a separate sub-section titled "Communications with government", or something like that, within the "Prince of Wales" section, below the sub-section "Official duties"?

As to the COVID info... There doesn't seem to be enough of it to warrant its own section. Elizabeth II has a dedicated section for the pandemic. Did Charles do a great deal during the pandemic? He launched his Great Reset idea. But, that's already got a mention under "Natural environment" --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm also curious: what's wrong with this image? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it, I just felt it cluttered the section. You can add it back if you want, I'm not vehemently against it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit Suggestion

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

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

Barbados

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Praise of views on alternative medicine and homeopathy

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

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

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

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

Charles's vs Charles'

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

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

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

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

Charles III Proposition. Please consider :)

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

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

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

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

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

Proclamations

Argument perpetuated for the sake of argument. DrKay (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Which one of the 11 citations on the disputed claim supports the content? Per WP:CITEOVERKILL, I suggest removal of all but that one, if there is one. Otherwise, it's original research by synthesis. DrKay (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC) How is it an "excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. Specifically, excessive lists of various proclamations"? You haven't explained that. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC) WP:CITEOVERKILL, a list of 11 sources for 10 proclamations is excessive. DrKay (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC) There you go, Keivan.f has sorted it out. Happy now? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC) On the basis of the edit summary that may have been made on a slightly faulty premise, as it's not a matter of there being a "body that reads out the proclamation" in each realm, they -- or at least, most of them -- are making their own localised "principal proclamation". That realm gets top billing, that particular GG signs it etc, etc. But that's likely more detail than the article needs, especially as then we'd be getting into the details of which exact body is "taking note" of the accession (likely some variation of the cabinet and the executive council, but maybe some plot twist on that in some cases, no sure), which isn't necessarily the same group of people who then appear in public to read out that version of the proclamation. But moot as far as (that version of) the article text is concerned. 109.etc (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC) I'm happy with this version, providing it sticks. DrKay (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC) Fine. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC) And, yet, if there weren't a source for each proclamation, mention of proclamations being read in each realm would get deleted because it isn't properly sourced. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC) You are correct it wasn't properly sourced, as originally written. DrKay (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC) This may be a potentially useful combo-source, though it by no means covers all 15 (or even 10). https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9621/CBP-9621.pdf 109.etc (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC) Yes, we only need that one. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC) But we do not need it for the ambiguous wording about ceremonies that could be interpreted as meaning the other realms parroted the British proclamation, which seems to be exactly how you've misunderstood the actual events. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC) I haven't misunderstood anything and your attempt to twist a content dispute into a personal one by insulting me again merely reflects badly on you. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC) No one insulted you. In your edit summary restoring the fuzzy statement "proclamation ceremonies were held in other realms", you stated the Research Briefing says (but not where), "the Proclamation of the Accession of His Majesty King Charles III as Monarch of the United Kingdom and head of the Commonwealth of Nations." Of what relevance is that in the context of the non-British realms if not a statement that either the King in his British Council made himself king in all the non-British realms (as if it were 1922, rather than 2022) or the non-British realms just read out the British proclamation? Either way, it's a misunderstanding ot the events, the truth of which was supported by all the citations that you simply deleted. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC) No, I did not say that. "the Proclamation of the Accession of His Majesty King Charles III as Monarch of the United Kingdom and head of the Commonwealth of Nations" is a quote from the citation that you added and that I removed: https://bahamaschronicle.com/proclamation-of-accession-of-his-majesty-king-charles-iii-delivered-in-an-official-ceremony-in-parliament-square/ not the Research Briefing that 109.etc provided. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC) You removed nine citations, retaining just one. How was one to guess, then, that "the citation" you were referring to was one of the nine and not the one you left behind? Regardless, putting aside how something in one citation justifies removing all nine to justify the re-implementation of fuzzy phrasing, "the citation" actually quotes the Bahamian proclamation, which announces Charles' accession as "sovereign of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas", not as "as Monarch of the United Kingdom and head of the Commonwealth of Nations". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC) The citation reads "Former Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Hubert A. Ingraham, reads the Proclamation of the Accession of HIs Majesty King Charles III as Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and head of the Commonwealth of Nations, at a ceremony in Parliament Square, Nassau, The Bahamas, September 11, 2022." and "With loud cheers, trumpet fanfare from the balcony of the Senate building, and a 21-gun salute by the Royal Bahamas Defence Force, the Proclamation of the Accession of His Majesty King Charles III as Monarch of the United Kingdom and head of the Commonwealth of Nations was officially delivered, Sunday, September 11, 2022, in Parliament Square, Downtown, Nassau." Trying to claim that it doesn't, when we can all read it for ourselves, is bound to fail. DrKay (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC) I didn't say the article doesn't. I said the proclamation doesn't. The article isn't a proclamation. Did you read beyond the image caption? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Obviously, I did since my second quote is not in the image caption. I'm already on your list of enemies -- there's no reason to double down on it by asking me dismissive and snarky questions which are designed to insult, berate and goad and not to evince information. DrKay (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC) I mean, you've never disguised your disdain for me. But, that's neither here nor there; I was writing with a focus squarely on the issue at hand. And, getting back to that: Alright, so, the original wording of my previous comment was more on the mark; I shouldn't've changed "first paragraph" to "image caption". I'll say sorry for that; but, not for being forthright when passively accused of deliberate misrepresentation (which is just a nice way of saying "lying"). It's one thing to simply not have read something and an entirely other thing to have read it and then tried (i.e. made a conscious effort) to claim it wasn't there. I trust everything's clear now regarding "the citation"; though, it appears to no longer be moot, since everyone seems to find the Research Briefing to be a sufficient source. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC) I removed one citation, the one I was referring to, when I referred to "the citation". Of course, I was not referring to any of the other eight removed by an earlier edit. A fact that you are and were already well aware of. No-one, including you, thought I was referring to any of the other eight. You are just being argumentative for the sake of it, pretending that the one citation I was referring to could somehow be confused with eight others that had been removed earlier in the day in a different edit. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC) You deleted nine. One of them was "the citation". So, as it turns out, you were indeed referring to one of the nine when saying "the citation", or "it". The question therefore stands. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Lede

At what point would it be necessary to leave everything out of the lede except for the first sentence like his mother before him? AKTC3 (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was asking Tim, but no matter. Yes, there's a lot going on already. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The proposed first paragraph would read: "Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms.". The second sentence would then be relocated to the fourth paragraph (handily giving para 4 a bit more of a reason for existing), which would read: "Charles inherited the throne of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms upon the death of his mother on September 8, 2022. At the age of 73, he was the oldest person to accede to the British throne, after having previously been the longest-serving heir apparent and Prince of Wales in British history. After brief speculation that he might choose a different regnal name, it was announced he would reign as Charles III. His coronation will take place on May 6, 2023." However, if people don't want to keep the regnal name speculation, that's a sacrifice I'm happy to take. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GA nomination instructions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sidebar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd be happier about it if these nav boxes didn't end up looking like "infobox, Part Deux". Or if the actual infobox was a little more... concise. 109.etc (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Numbers of realms

In a few places we have reason to refer to the number of Commonwealth realms (15 total, the "other" 14, etc). Is there a particular reason to do that in numerals, rather than words? I think the latter would look stylistically better in a couple of these places, but I don't want to set off any establish WP:ENGVAR tripwires or the like if there's reason to keep the existing practice as long-established. 109.etc (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

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

It's under MOS:NUMERAL: "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words. Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words"; we only need be consistent. At the start of sentences, of course, the number should always be spelled out. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware, though I did have to refresh my memory after your own edit. Unfortunately it's left that paragraph looking a little inelegant in that respect as we have a "15" and a "nine", but I didn't want to change that to "fifteen" lest I open yet another can of worms. But of course that might yet prove to me moot... 109.etc (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The MoS has its... quirks. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words. Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently. DrKay (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Official Duties as King

The following text is in the wrong sub-section... "Charles arrived in Germany on 29 March 2023 for his first foreign visit as sovereign and became the first British monarch to address the Bundestag."

It appears in the sub-section Prince of Wales -> Official Duties, but he was not Prince of Wales in March 2023. No sub-section for his Official Duties appears under his Reign.

This should be moved, however no suitable sub-section exists. 184.15.112.116 (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Active Service in the Armed Forces

Should we not add the Active Service the King served in the British armed forces Into His Infobox, Similarly as it is to George VI etc, and Similarly to the Prince of Wales.

The King did serve in the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy between 1971 and 1977 Knowledgework69 (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

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

GA Review

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

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

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

First review

It is reasonably well written. a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): good clear article with large amount of editors b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Nicely layout It is factually accurate and verifiable. a. (reference section): over 100 refs b. (citations to reliable sources): need to review all refs but any dubious refs can be easily replace with reliable sources c. (OR): None visible d. (copyvio and plagiarism): no violations It is broad in its coverage. a. (major aspects): good set of coverage b. (focused): has multiple summaries of separate articles It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: seems to be well protected It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is a high profile subject with a large amount of interest It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate. a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): good media b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): Overall: Pass/fail: A good article on a subject of interest (Criteria marked are unassessed)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyediting

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

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

Per MOS:JOBTITLES: "They are capitalized only in the following cases: When followed by a person's name to form a title". It's "Prime Minister Boris Johnson". The placement of "British" in front of it is irrelevant to the fact "Prime Minister" is the title followed by Boris' name. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Then just have "Prime Minister Boris Johnson". Adding "British" to it means it can be interpreted in different ways. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Or perhaps "Prime Minister Boris Johnson of long infamy the UK" if it's necessary to be that specific. 109.etc (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Or just "Boris Johnson". He isn't some unknown governor-general or prime minister of an island with a population of 155. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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