Jump to content

Talk:Investiture of the prince of Wales

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

Picture suggestion

[edit]
Edward I & II

This article is a bit picture-heavy already, but here is a more or less contemporary manuscript drawing of the original creation. Lampman (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goodness yes please! What a lovely find. Prince of Canada t | c 03:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category

[edit]

Shouldn't the article also be put in the category Coronation? Summer Song (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 November 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. I have no faith in relisting being productive in this case. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Investiture of the prince of Wales → Investiture of the Prince of Wales – The proper capitalization of the title is "Prince of Wales". Sources such as BBC use this capitlaization when describing the event. 2601:241:300:B610:6D13:B6DE:EA6B:D16F (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:JOBTITLES and Oxford Manual of Style; there is no need to capitalize a common noun. BBC does so out of deference to the royal family, which Wikipedia does not have to show. Compare with similarly lower-case Powers of the prime minister of the United Kingdom, Powers of the president of the United States, Enthronement of the Japanese emperor, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This has been discussed on Wikipedia for positions such as presidents and prime ministers, and the consensus is to use lowercase for titles such as this. See this discussion for more detailed reasoning. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, on the basis job titles or descriptions, such as prime minister or president, are treated differently from unique titles. "Prince of Wales" is a unique title, there is not a Welsh royal family or numerous princes of Wales. We shouldn't be adopting rules in conflict with the real world treatment of these titles - as the proposer points out, the BBC and all other media outlets capitalise the title. Even MOS:PEOPLETITLES says "Titles should be capitalized when attached to an individual's name, or where the position/office is a globally unique title that is the subject itself". Sionk (talk) 12:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You've misquoted PEOPLETITLES a bit. It says, in full, the position/office is a globally unique title that is the subject itself, and the term is the actual title or conventional translation thereof (not a description or rewording). The table below at JOBTITLES (which BarrelProof has helpfully provided here) tells you how to determine when a title is the subject itself, and . . . not a description or rewording. Since prince of Wales is preceded by the modifier "the" here, it is a description per that table. Wallnot (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've quoted PEOPLETITLES word for word. Prince of Wales is not a job title or description. Sionk (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather lazy argument, not least because the guideline cites "king of France" as an example. Surtsicna (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the (unfortunately rather common) misunderstanding of the guideline, I must say it is unclear who exactly treats titles such as prime minister and president differently from titles such as prince and why. The title "prime minister of Iceland" is just as unique and there are not numerous prime ministers of Iceland. It is not true that "all other media outlets capitalise the title"; certainly most of academic publications do not.[1][2] Surtsicna (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unmodified, denoting a title Modified or reworded, denoting a description
Richard Nixon was President of the United States. Richard Nixon was the president of the United States.
Theresa May became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2016. Theresa May was the prime minister of the United Kingdom.
Louis XVI became King of France and Navarre in 1774, later styled King of the French (1791–1792). Louis XVI was the king of France when the French Revolution began.
—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And what about this line: When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis).? This is exactly what is happening here. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which specific person would that be? This is about all investitures of all past and present princes of Wales, so that line doesn't apply here, as I note below. Wallnot (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I'm not sure the article is internally consistent. For example Prince Charles was made Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester by letters patent on 26 July 1958. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The example you cite is correct as written because Prince of Wales is not preceded by a modifier. Wallnot (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not refer to any specific person. It discusses William as much as Charles. On the other hand, Investiture of Charles, Prince of Wales is an article about the investiture of a specific person. Surtsicna (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah. Fair enough. Still looks awful though. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree. The guideline is a compromise between the academic lower-case-preferring practice and the popular liberal capitalization, which, as we see, produces a lot of confusion and unsightly inconsistency. I, for one, would still rather have that than see Wikipedia step even further away from academic standards. Surtsicna (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per MOS:JOBTITLES, MOS:PEOPLETITLES. Straightforward application of these guidelines: "Prince of Wales" is preceded by the modifier "the" so it is lowercase per JOBTITLES bullet 3. Note that most of the opposition fails to cite guidelines/policy. Note also that the examples they point to in media are somewhat different; where using Prince of Wales as a substitute for the current holder's name (i.e., instead of saying HRH Prince William), Prince of Wales is properly capitalized per JOBTITLES (see JOBTITLES bullet 2). However, where it is being used in a generic sense to refer to the office of the prince of Wales, as here, it is properly lowercase. Wallnot (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to differ: there is only one Prince of Wales in the world at any one time, and each investiture is of one specific holder of the title. Comparisons with presidents and prime ministers are not valid, because there are numerous people worldwide with the same title; a better comparison would be with the Dalai Lama which nobody here would dream of writing in lower case. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is also only one President of the United States at a time. Yet the title is properly lowercase when preceded by a modifier.
Your argument that a specific investiture is held only for a specific holder is irrelevant; this article is about the general practice of holding investitures for princes of Wales, and as such, “prince of Wales” is not a substitute for the name of a specific holder during their time in office. Wallnot (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS @BarrelProof: You forgot to sign your post. Wallnot (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Done. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be an almost universal interpretation, on Wikipedia. There must be at least 30 capitalizations of 'job titles' in the Duke of Edinburgh article, for example. Sionk (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are not 30 instances of MOS:JOBTITLES contravention in the Duke of Edinburgh article. The title is capitalized when part of a name and when not preceded by any modifier, such as the definite article. Surtsicna (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per MOS:JOBTITLES. Cases like this are exactly why that guideline exists in the first place. RMs like this only happen because not everyone reads the guidelines. Pretty much no one capitalizes "assistant manager of Jimbob's Burgers"; the urge to over-capitalize almost always applies to fairly high offices, and our rule is to not do it, except when it's directly attached to a name: the president of the United States, vs. President Biden.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly right. Traditionally, in the U.S., "president" was always capitalized whenever it was reference to the president of the United States out of respect and reverence for the office, but we do not follow that formatting rule on Wikipedia (example: Powers of the president of the United States). The prince of Wales is no different and therefore should not be capitalized in running text according to our formatting rules. The exception is if the article title is the title of the office itself, then it should be written in title case (such as Vice President of the United States. So, hypothetically, if we used the definite article in the article title The Prince of Wales, then "prince" would be capitalized in the title because we would use title case for that. But this article's title should use sentence case, not title case. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Orthography, Andrewa. And how do you propose Wikipedia fix the Oxford Manual of Style, The Chicago Manual of Style, AP Stylebook, and the other academic style guides out there? Surtsicna (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna There's no need to constantly question or challenge people who've stated their opinion, as @Andrewa has done here. Those manuals of style are free to do their own thing, as is Wikipedia, which is what we're concerned with here. Bazza (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Andrewa is giving a suggestion and I am asking how he means we can implement it. And Wikipedia has done its thing. It's at MOS:JOBTITLES. That guideline did not appear out of thin air. Surtsicna (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the purpose of a Page Move discussion, to determine consensus in this particular case. The guideline is clearly open to interpretation. 'Implementation' would mean changing the capitalisation of this article, surely. Sionk (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk Despite my opposition to this move, I agree that it's not clear whether MOS:JOBTITLES capitalisation rules apply in this case. Is "Prince of Wales" a job title? It would likely be considered by most that "a prince of Wales" is; but there are arguments expressed above that "Prince of Wales", or "the Prince of Wales" is not. We shall see once the Requested Move process has run its course what the consensus is as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Bazza (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna You did not ask how @Andrewa might implement his suggestion, you asked how Wikipedia would change other organisations' own guidelines. It's a pointless question here, and I don't know why you asked it other than to continue the trend of having a go at anyone who might not hold the same opinion as you on the matter in hand. Bazza (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusation is unjustified and frankly hurtful since I responded to only three out of nine dissenting editors. The point I wanted to make was that Wikipedia's guideline stems from common practice in academic publishing. In any case, I am sorry if my contribution to the discussion comes off as combative. Surtsicna (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in "fixing" other style guides. Just in improving Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is somewhat different to the publications for which those style guides were prepared. We are focussed on the online, and are now adapting to mobile online. They were focussed on print, and are still adapting to online.
They may benefit from following us, but the other way around is far less likely. Andrewa (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prince of Wales

[edit]

If I recall properly, Wales intended for the bestowment to only be to one individual, not many. 74.82.228.73 (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Investiture_of_the_prince_of_Wales&oldid=1217959129"