Jump to content

Talk:Coronation of Charles III and Camilla

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

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

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Charles and Camilla in 2019
Charles and Camilla in 2019

Created by Surtsicna (talk). Self-nominated at 04:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hi, I am able to review this DYK nomination. This is my first QPQ, so I apologize in advance for any mishaps. I will say that I believe the ALT1 hook to be the most captivating. Do you have a preference? Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am terribly indecisive and will gladly go with what you choose. Have fun with the review! Surtsicna (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I will likely review ALT1 or ALT3. As I am finishing up a GA review at the moment, I may not be able to complete this DYK nomination until Saturday. Thank you for your understanding, and sorry for any inconvenience. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I expected ALT3 to be considered the most bland! There is no inconvenience. Other editors are, as always, welcome to give their opinions/suggestions about the hooks and the article too. Surtsicna (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but ALT1 is expected, it takes a long time to plan, no one would be able to pull it off over night. ALT3 isn't exceptional, I doubt there are many sensible world leaders today who wouldn't make the same claim, and ALT2 doesn't give the same 'fun fact' energy that DYK's typically do. The overlooming threat of the abolishment of the monarchy isn't appropiate for trivia.

EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. The proposed hooks are all interesting in their own right, some more than others; I would not go so far as to disqualify all of them. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input, EmilySarah99! If I understood you correctly, you find the original hook (about scheduling) "expected", not ALT1. That leaves ALT1, the one about Camilla's role, as the best hook in your opinion, right? Surtsicna (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Surtsicna it appears I did get the numbers mixed around. I would say the one about Camilla being crowned is the most intersting, I'm just not entirely sure the announcement in 2005 was 'official'. From my understanding, it was only the Princess of Wales title she refused, not the Queen. And Unlimitedlead you were right, I shouldn't have been so negative. EmilySarah99 (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're good! I apologize for any miscommunication on my part as well. As for your first concern, it was actually announced a while back by Clarence House that Camilla would by styled as 'Princess consort.' Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your evaluation is appreciated and I find your arguments rather convincing. I wonder how Unlimitedlead feels about ALT2. Other opinions very much welcome too. Surtsicna (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Out of all the potential hooks, I actually find ALT2 to be my least personal favorite. It just feels like an extra negative thing to be thinking about, especially in light of the Queen’s death, COVID, monkeypox, etc. If everyone else likes it though, I have no problem going with that one. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think many will view Camilla's coronation as being as negative as the COVID pandemic :D Surtsicna (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I am horribly indecisive, so I will let the two of you decide which hook gets promoted. However, ALT1 and ALT3 are my personal favorites, if you want to keep that in mind. Thank you for your collaboration; I'll see you around! Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Independent voice: would suggest something like "... that the upcoming coronation of Charles III and Camilla has been planned under the codename "Operation Orb"?" or "... that the Stone of Scone will be transported to London for the coronation of Charles III and Camilla?" ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: All the hooks fit the criteria, but I especially like ALT3. Despite some objections to the hook's "interestingness," I find that it is more interesting than other hooks we've had in the past, and it just has a feel-good energy to it. I'm sure many readers of Wikipedia will be pleased to find out that Charles III plans to be more inclusive and respectful, especially in light of recent events. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Unlimitedlead and Surtsicna: I'm not sure I like either hook very much, if I'm being honest. ALT1 is cited to a press release, which strikes me as an immediate red flag – breathless media coverage of the royals means that something that doesn't have independent sourcing doesn't need to be piled in. ALT3, in addition to being a little dull, comes with the risk of appearing to whitewash perception of the royals. Not something we should have to care about in an ideal world, but the reputation of the monarchy is somewhat of an open question among editors and RSes. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean in reference to ALT1. It is cited to an article by The Guardian and can be cited to a dozen more. Surtsicna (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, gotcha – I've recited accordingly. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why I didn't restore the tick – I'm sure that'll come back to me someday. My apologies :) ALT1 is good to go. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox collage images

[edit]

It's probably worth having a proper discussion of the infobox collage, to gain a consensus and some stability.

To kick things off, I'd suggest that we should use no more than four images (and ideally fewer). Any more tends to look over-long. The themes of those images could be:

  • A good image of the King and Queen
  • The procession
  • Protests or some other representation of disagreement/ambivalence
  • The Commonwealth

The reason I don't include an image of the ceremony itself in the above is that, as far as I know, the images we have access to are pretty poor. I suspect we can convey the event well enough without one, but it's a point for discussion.

@Leventio @JonHall1924 @2a00:23c8:1f29:3201:e53e:2edc:9a2b:c7e1 A.D.Hope (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, I believe that including five lead images is appropriate for an article of this size (this aligns with the common practice of having five images in most image montages). However, I'm not attached to that number, and am perfectly fine with reducing it to four if necessary. Nonetheless, I would likely recommend against exceeding five images in the infobox.
That being said, if we are trimming and limiting the number of images in the infobox, I would strongly argue for the removal of both crowd images – both those of protesters and spectators. Neither of these images places the primary focus on the core article topic, which is the actual coronation service and ceremonies.Per MOS:LEADIMAGE, the lead images should ideally present the most natural and pertinent depiction of the topic at hand. With the MOS considered, I'd argue that images showcasing the reactions, whether in favor or against, to the event do not constitute the most natural representation of the topic (the topic being the "coronation of X", not "reactions to the coronation of X"). What I'd argue is most fitting images would be those that primarily showcase the ceremonies themselves and their key moments, which would be:
  1. Procession to Abbey
  2. Ceremony
  3. Procession to Buckingham
  4. Balcony appearance
Choosing these four images aligns itself well with Wiki's MOS aim to keeping the lead images centered on the core article topic. By using these types of images (images of the ceremony, devoid of any crowds in the background), we also maintain NPOV as this image set will not suggest or imply a particular response from the public about the event (pro or anti).
All in all, while image balance is important, we should not be fighting about that through the lead images (given how the main MOS criterion for lead images is naturalness and pertinence to the article title). Lets not forget that while we should be working towards image balance, this is evaluated in its article's entirity, not just the lead image. Leventio (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree. The reaction to said events could be entire articles all by themselves. There is an entire section of the article dedicated to protests/polling/etc. I think your solution is the most sensible and does not over represent the supporters or the protests. JonHall1924 (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite honest I'd be happy to sidestep the issue entirely and just have the balcony image, with the rest incorporated into the article where appropriate. There's no requirement for a collage, after all. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This would also be consistent with all the other articles about British coronations, which use the relevant coronation portrait(s) as their lead images and nothing else. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this. Leventio (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and implemented this given what the discussion above, and it being the last stable image before the introduction of the photomontage. Leventio (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good call. If the lead image is changed again we can perhaps direct editors toward this discussion to continue building a consensus. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing Image Discussion for the 2023 collage

[edit]

This article is a candidate for the ongoing discussion about the 2023 collage image. Feel free to participate here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden table template

[edit]

Minor quibble, but can somebody fix the template for "Bearers and presenters of regalia" which currently sits in the centre of the page. the other hidden wikitables in the "Music" section sit on the left, which looks a lot better (to my eye at least). I would have fixed this myself, but it's beyond my comprehension I'm afraid, and I don't want to mess it up. Alansplodge (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coronation_of_Charles_III_and_Camilla&oldid=1223386790"