Talk:Charles III

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)

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)

Charles III Proposition. Please consider :)

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

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

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

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

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

GA nomination instructions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC on opening sentence

Input is requested regarding how to end the opening sentence of this article, following the words "Charles III (Charles Philip Athur George; born 14 November 1948)..." Prior discussion on the matter has taken place here and here.

Presently, there are six options:

1. is king of 14 independent countries, in addition to the United Kingdom.
2. is king of 14 independent countries, in addition to the United Kingdom, collectively known as the Commonwealth realms.
3. is king of 15 independent countries, including the United Kingdom.
4. is king of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms.
5. is king of the United Kingdom and 14 other independent countries, all known as the Commonwealth realms.
6. is king of the United Kingdom, [country], [country], [country], and the [X] other Commonwealth realms. [Which countries are named depending on a to-be-determined criteria]

Issues of concern appear to be, so far:

• Brevity (without sacrificing accuracy of information, both explicit and implied)
• Giving prominence to the United Kingdom/Charles' role as king of the United Kingdom
• Not relegating countries that belong to the G7, G20, TPP, NATO, and/or are otherwise relatively significant on the global stage into a diminished group of "other"
• Expressing the reality of the equality of status between the Commonwealth realms and Charles' offices as king of each
• The difference between role and title
• Reader unfamiliarity with the term "Commonwealth realm"

Please state your preference or preferences in order of preference. The aim is to form a consensus within the next week, ahead of Charles' coronation on 6 May; though, it is acknowledged that this may not happen. 04:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: Option 1 is lifted from the Commonwealth page on the British monarchy website, under "The King and the Commonwealth".

Survey

• Option 3 followed by option 6 (if criteria could be worked out) and option 2. Option 3 seems to hit the most marks and, therefore, is the best compromise: it

• says first that Charles is king of many countries (which, on the whole, is what makes Charles unique among presently reigning monarchs)
• makes clear there is one group, thereby implying equality (rather than misrepresenting the arrangement as the UK and "other", which option 1 implies and 4 outright states)
• makes clear the UK is part of the group (option 1 does not)
• does so while giving the UK prominence
• is brief
• avoids the possibly/likely unfamiliar-to-most-readers term "Commonwealth realm"

I'd take option 6, however, if there were consensus on what criteria to use to determine where to cut the list off; i.e. population, GDP, G7 or G20 members, etc. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: Hardly anyone reads footnotes. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• I'd go for 5. He's basically the king of the UK and the others only for historical/colonial reasons. After all he's not the third king of Australia called Charles, he's the first, so Charles III doesn't make sense for Australia. Nigej (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4, followed by 5, followed by 2. The UK should be mentioned first, because it's obviously the most important realm. "King of the UK and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" makes perfectly clear that these are a group, while giving due prominence to the UK.

Commonwealth realm is an important term, used by many reliable sources, and shouldn't be translated away. I propose a slight addition to the note at the end of the lead sentence: "Commonwealth realms are independent countries that have Charles III as their monarch and head of state. In addition to the United Kingdom, the fourteen other realms are ..." (my proposed addition in italics). This should help explain the term without using the awkward wording of Option 5. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4: status quo, consistent with other articles, brief and to the point. Second choice option 5: slightly less concise but avoids any confusion over what is a Commonwealth realm. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4: status quo, brief & to the point, consistent with other articles, recognises that Charles is mostly known as the British monarch. Also, he lives in the UK (which is why the UK has no governor general), his coronation will be held in the UK, he was born in the UK & most likely (after his death) will be buried in the UK. PS - DrKay's footnote already has the other Commonwealth realms mentioned, for our readers. GoodDay (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4, status quo. 95.149.88.240 (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 - if not, I would suggest: "is the king of the United Kingdom and 14 other independent countries". If I had to pick an already-proposed alternative, I think that would be Option 5. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• 4 or 5. All the other titles and roles are sideshows that flow from being British monarch. The most important thing about him should be the first thing said about him. DrKay (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Second clause of option 5 is unnecessary if 'independent countries' is being used to avoid the more unusual term or confusion. Option 5 is also briefer, simpler and more on topic without the second clause. DrKay (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Argument between two editors. Nothing's going to be said here which hasn't already been said. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Your first sentence, of course, is false. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Of course, you can't disguise your disdain for me or resist passively accusing me of deliberate misrepresentation (which is just a nice way of saying "lying"). DrKay (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 – he's best known as the monarch of the UK, so that should be mentioned; not Option 5, because there's no point in trying to squeeze complicated Commonwealth constitutional principles into an opening line; use 4, wiklink "Commonwealth realms", and it's good. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Per @GoodDay. DDMS123 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 linking Commonwealth realm - consistent with Elizabeth II--LJ Holden 20:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 Considering that he's British and resides primarily in the United Kingdom, his role as "King of the United Kingdom" should be acknowledged. Others fall under the umbrella of the Commonwealth realms, and it's better to refer to them collectively, rather than choosing specific countries. Keivan.f^Talk 20:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  That's more of an argument against #6 rather than in favour of #4. Do none of the others have any merit? 109.etc (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  "Others fall under the umbrella of the Commonwealth realms, and it's better to refer to them collectively, rather than choosing specific countries." Agreed. The Commonwealth realms are all of equal status, so refer to them as a group. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  No, all fifteen fall under that umbrella. From the PoV of each it's "Saint Lucia and the fourteen other Commonwealth realms" (for example). 109.etc (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  I never said that UK is not part of the Commonwealth realms, or that it's somehow superior to the other ones. Had Charles been a permanent resident in Canada and carrying out most of his duties there, I would have advocated for "King of Canada and the 14 other Commonwealth realms", but that's not the case. Keivan.f^Talk 07:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Option 5 or some minor textual variation on it. Only stylistically acceptable alternative, IMO. #1-3 aren't viable, because they put the cart before the horse in a WP:UNDUE way. #4 is terrible as it uses a fairly obscure term outside of any context, exacerbated by us failing to clarify it later, and it being all-too-easy to misunderstand. (Several editors here seem to have confused it with "the Commonwealth"; others will likely just take it to mean minor dependencies of some kind, obviously not yoooj countries like Australia and Jamaica. #6 is simply unworkable in the context of the lede. Worst possible place for arbitrary laundry lists. 109.etc (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I can see misconceptions are guiding certain arguments favouring the continued perpetuation of those misconceptions; "the realms are just fancy colonies", "Charles is king of those other places by accident/laziness/forgetfulness", and whatnot. I sense, so far, little allowance for compromise; though, perhaps option 5 has potential. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• 4 followed by 5 per above as the best solution. J947 † ^edits 23:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 and then 5. Both are good options but 4 is simpler. There is the matter of Commonwealth Realms being a potentially confusing term (which 5 clarifies slightly), however readers can get a quick and easy explanation via the wikilink. 03:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  (Above comment by @User:MangoMan11.) 109.etc (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 without a doubt. If this were the Simple English Wikipedia we might want to paraphrase the Commonwealth Realms, but here people can just click on the link if they need an explanation. And the UK should definitely have prominence, for historical reasons and because it is what he is best known as being king of. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 to avoid placing the United Kingdom as separate from and above the other countries, which are equal. Also 'King of the United Kingdom' is a formal title so king is OK for Option 3 but needs capitalising for the other options. Link out to Commonwealth realms. Ex nihil ^(talk) 10:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 implies equality between the independent countries, still links to Commonwealth realms so readers can become familiar with the term, and specially calls out the United Kingdom, giving it more due weight, which is appropriate for reasons stated by editors above. Penguino35 (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Given the groundswell of "!"voters expressing some variation on "UK has to go first" as a rationale, would you (and @Ex nihil, and anyone of a similar view, be at all supportive of some text like #3, except flipped around? Like king of the United Kingdom and 14 other independent countries? 109.etc (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Butting in, but I'd support that if the status quo has to change. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Looks like it more likely doesn't have to change, due to our famous, designed commitment to majoritarianism, but that does seem to address the rationales of both the #4 and the #3 supporters. (And I've no problem with your third-opinioning, but if this turns into another megastring, by all means refactor it into #Discussion, anyone who feels inclined.) 109.etc (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4, then Option 6. Option 4 keeps it simple as required for being in the lead. There is an argument that not mentioning that he is the Head of State of some major countries eg a G7 country like Canada is somewhat strange - hence 6. Option 4 has the slight avantage of avoiding the inevitable debate of who gets mentioned and who doesn't. DeCausa (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Not this again. I am absolutely certain that the equivalent topic was discussed at Talk:Elizabeth II within the last 2-3 years. Stick with that consensus, and drop the matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  Whether or not to conduct this RfC was discussed. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  That's hardly a speedy revisit. As opposed to the biweekly RfCs on images, for example... 109.etc (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• On a minor note, all of the options are presented with lower-case 'king'. That's not the status quo, and for the near-status-quo option would likely suggest a different text scope for the link, and arguably a "the", too. So likely upper-case "King" is intended, at least for that option. The others are perhaps less clear, but that's likely moot in the rush to keep the (terrible) status quo. 109.etc (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hm. I took the lower-case "k" as a given, since it's an unavoidable fact there're no such titles as "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" or "King of the 14 other Commonweath realms". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Another (minor, in the scheme of things compared to the others!) flaw in the status quo. He's "King of the UK, King of Canada, ..." etc, or he's "king of (UK, Canada, ...)". "(King of UK), Canada..." doesn't really work. 109.etc (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. No one else seems to have noticed the lower-case "k" in all the suggestions, though. Maybe it will get "approval by oversignt". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Should 'King' be capitalised or not? I would've recommended, that be a separate discussion. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

So part of the text of lede sentence should be a separate discussion from the "what should the lede sentence be"? But the very existence of this RfC gives you carte blanche for summary "reverts to the status quo" of a footnnte that's not part of the sentence itself? Most curious. 109.etc (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the change you made; it was undoubtedly an improvement. We must remember that editors, whilst involved in RfCs, can act in their own capacity to make changes not directly related to the RfC. But, we also must remember not to edit-war, not only because it's against policy, but because we need to make sure the article is stable for the review. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure. And edit warring starts with exactly this sort of "I'm gonna revert, it's a free hit, and not trouble to discuss" behaviour. 109.etc (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

A footnote reading "members of the wider Commonwealth of Nations ... have Charles III as their head of state" is too easily misread and could lead to more confusion. DrKay (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

All sentences using the word "not" would be inherently "too easily misread and could lead to more confusion" if you assume that people are apt to read the start, zone out in the middle for the key part, and then read the end again. 109.etc (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The footnote did not contain the word "not"[2]. DrKay (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

That's right. Was my point somehow nonetheless not clear? I can always have another go. An arbitrary subsequence of the words in a sentence meaning something entirely different is not an argument against the clarity or utility of that sentence. 109.etc (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

He is indeed formally 'King of the United Kingdom', King of New Zealand' etc, so should be capitalised. Ex nihil ^(talk) 09:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

But not formally "King of the Commonwealth realms". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Remember folks, don't Bludgeon

FWIW - I hope editors will respect WP:BLUDGEON, as this is a 'request for comment', rather then a 'request for debate'. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep, it's nearing Talk:British Isles levels of contention. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You better change your mind about that, or else...! --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Sidebar

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

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

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

See 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)

Fourth paragraph

Place all your fourth-paragraph related gripes below. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, how about "input", rather than "gripes"? Regardless, I can see what @109.etc: is attepmting to do: expand on the article's first sentence. I'll be so bold as to say that--the fourth paragraph--should be where we list every country Charles is king of. The article is long enough that putting such information in the lede won't make the lede disproportionately long and no one can say it gums up the first (miniscule) "paragraph". (Though, I personally wouldn't say listing the countries at the start is a no-no, anyway). If more countries drop out as Commonwealth realms or any (*cough* Fiji *cough*) become one again, that info can be added. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think in P1.S1 is a prospect to hold your breath for. P4 isn't impossible, but it's pushing it, Maybe once we're down to around half a dozen or so, to go by the precedent of Elizabeth II. In #Reign should obviously be a slam-dunk, but that's out of scope here. I've previously suggested a "most populous six", or a geographically organised "everything but the Windies minnows" (which link, and ideally organise the target CR article to make that a little clearer), but I don't think it's at any point troubled the article text. (Apologies in advance if my memory is incorrect and this is "continued attempts to force changes", on a glacial timescale.) Perhaps I'll run something on those up the mast in due course if there's any degree of support for it. 109.etc (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm breathing freely not waiting for addition of all the realms into the first sentence-paragraph. In the "Reign" section is an interesting proposal. Though, I still feel there needs to be something in the opening to express the very relevant and important fact Charles is king of a number of influential countries, not just the UK. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as I say I think there should be some greater "independent countries" clarity in the lede -- currently being "!"voted down overwhelmingly, so many in another 2-3 years' time -- and some element of further gloss of that in the lead section and a full list somewhere in the prose of the body of the article. If I'm somehow wildly wrong about that being an essential part of any halfway-decent article on the topic I'd love to hear why that's the case. As opposed to just getting copious caltrops thrown underneath the feet of actually doing it. 109.etc (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I favour the status quo, "Charles succeeded his mother upon her death on 8 September 2022". It's quite straight forward & doesn't repeat info that's already in the page's lead & infobox. Continued attempts to force changes (i.e. create instability) within the fourth paragraph on the topic-in-question? will only sink this page's chances of obtaining GA status. So... best to seek a consensus 'here', in this discussion, which Tim has begun. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

What'll sink the GAN is that it's not a GA, and that some people seem determined to "maintain" it as a B forever. Or at least until November, for whatever reason. And it's more accurately -- WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL aside -- called "trying to improve the article", and the recommend means of doing so is WP:BRD. You should try it sometimes, rather than merely getting in your full daily quota of reverts in before troubling to make even "best to do what I think's best" contributions to the discussion yourself. It's entirely unhelpful and infeasible to argue that RfCs require a one-month version-freeze of things not even in the scope of the RfC.

You might perhaps profitably peruse WP:SUMMARY, WP:LEAD and WP:INFOBOX rather than complaining that a given piece of information appears more than once in a lengthy article. That's kinda the point. Matters too convoluted for the lede (and m.m. for the entire lead section) should appear in helpful detail later, the better to assist readers with various levels of interest and attention-span. And indeed per the old saw, "tell them what you're gonna tell them, tell them what you're telling them, then tell them what you've told then". 109.etc (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I feel your pain, I really do. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Right you two, this section isn't just meant to be a hit piece on GoodDay. I've no overwhelmingly strong opinions on this matter, so I'm not going to die on anybody's hill, but come on. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Not just a hit piece on GD... But nor is it the place for editors to be launching their own inaccurate personal attacks, like "Continued attempts to force changes (i.e. create instability) [...]". 109.etc (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree entirely with that statement, but I don't condemn it either. GD didn't say that you (and others) were trying to make the article deliberately unstable, but I don't think that you tried to force changes either. Is it a personal attack? Probably not. Is it inaccurate? Almost certainly. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

If it's not a personal attack then it's at best a short commute to one via some musteloid grammatical constructions. 109.etc (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Look: I know you and GoodDay heartily disagree on most topics; that's fine, but let's not turn Charles's talk page into "YouSaidThisNoISaidThat.org". I'm satisfied that things may have got a heated and both said parties things they didn't mean - that's enough. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I responded directly to their comments here in this section, and their reverts on this subject. A response I very much stand by. Your reframing it as "most topics" perplexes me. 109.etc (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

"Most topics", i.e. this. Just to say that even though GoodDay is, in the words of someone else, "on your list of enemies", we shouldn't be making this talkpage into a dossier onto how "I am holier than thou". But I digress. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean 'e.g.', unless that one example was somehow of defining, Platonic proportions in a way that eludes me. But that was resolved (as that edit indeed says) rather speedily, and is unrelated to this, or anything I said about this. While I likewise feel @Miesianiacal's pain, I don't think I'm turning this into a dossier, rather you and they rather are. 109.etc (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Mostly, I agree with you: there shouldn't be a 1 month freeze on changing content that the RfC doesn't cover. I don't think you, Mies or GoodDay were making any personal attacks. But at the same time, there was an air, and I'm not pointing fingers, of mudslinging. That's since been resolved. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

There's likely an air of "personalness" about this because the editor's habit is the problem in the way of resolving the problem.

Are we--you, @109.etc:, and myself--okay with the last change to the footnote? I can say I am. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Suggest we wait until others give their opinon. 109's proposed change wasn't an improvement as the United Kingdom is already mentioned in the lead & the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I will point out people have already been voicing their opinions. That ship has sailed. Additionally, Your revert didn't remove mention of the United Kingdom from the footnote. Your worry about repetition therefore (to continue the aquatic theme) holds no water. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I've begun a 'Footnote's content' discussion (see below), as this isn't about the fourth paragraph. GoodDay (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't make even basic sense. I've not added any additional mention of the UK, and indeed I've decreased its prominence. Your rationale argues for the precise opposite of your action. Though it's an improvement on the one in your edit summary, which was just peremptory nonsense.

@Miesianiacal, well, it was my change, so obviously I'm a little biased! This is of course a separate topic from that in the heading and top comment, though it's somewhat aptly placed as it concerns the same sort of poor behaviour by the same editor. Nonetheless, I recommend refactoring this into a separate heading for clarity on the actual content issue. 109.etc (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I've begun a separate discussion (below), concerning the content of the footnote. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, other editors have reverted you, concerning the 'fourth paragraph'. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

So, returning if we may to the fourth paragraph... There seems to be some support for some additional text -- on the lines of becoming head of state of 15 independent countries known as Commonwealth realms -- being potentially useful. Any specific thoughts on that wording, or pressing reasons not to include it at all? 109.etc (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

If other editors revert your changes or proposed changes, then there's not much support, for those changes or proposed changes. But, we'll wait & see. GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

That... really doesn't address anything. And you might want to pay a little more attention to the edits in question before summing them up with such breezy inaccuracy. 109.etc (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

We'll wait & see what the other editors (who frequent this page) have to say about your propose changes. PS - I did notice the latest changes made by you (and Mies) to the Accession section. I suppose I could've reverted (per BRD), but chose instead to let others look over the changes-in-question. Let them decide on whether or not to revert & why. GoodDay (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you so much!

Just so it's clear: There are other options besides reverting. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Seeking a consensus without making bold changes, is one of those 'other' options. But anyways. GoodDay (talk) 05:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

When you refuse to contribute constructively to the D part of BRD, you most certainly have no justificaion for continuing to revert, in a slow revert-war or not. You are not in charge of reverting on behalf of anyone else, let alone some nebulous group of "others" who you can't possibly know will show up or not. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

We'll see what other editors positions are on the bold changes made or proposed, on this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, this addresses nothing actually raised in the thread you've posted in. Nor does it stay on-topic -- if you have thoughts on #Reign, probably better not to place them in a #Fourth_paragraph talk-section -- nor again does it accurately describe how BRD is intended to work. 109.etc (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

We'll wait & see what the other editors input will be. GoodDay (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe you've asserted that several times, here and elsewhere. To what purpose I'm not quite clear. If you have nothing responsive to add, possibly consider adding nothing. If you have thoughts on what the fourth paragraph should be, and why -- and you should, as you keep editing it -- then by all means share them. 109.etc (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Already made it quite clear, what my position is, concerning the fourth paragraph. GoodDay (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Wheeas you've explained your rationale for your edit to the "Reign" section, and I agree--as well as holding that the vague term "the other Commonwealth realms" needs clarification somewhere in the article body and the article literally repeating itself is just bad writing--neither of the two editors reverting your edit to the "Reign" section have given any explanation as to why they're reverting. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

For clarity sake, are the two editors-in-question, myself & @DrKay:. That you are referring to? GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@109.etc: I'd support that in the fourth paragraph, albeit reduced down to "becoming king of 15 independent countries known as Commonwealth realms". If the status quo remains in the first paragraph, this seems like a fairer compromise. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Grand, so. I'm by no means wedded to "head of state". Just thought it might be a little 'elegant variation' from repeating "king" yet again ("repetition" being one of the rationales for removal, much as I disagree with that) and possibly even a bit of gloss of people still struggling with the concept of quite what a constitutional monarch might actually be. 109.etc (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Please quote the rationale, as I've looked all through this talk page and the edit summaries and found none. The "previous reverting editor" merely stated "this was all fully explained", begging the same question, and "restore from previous revision", which isn't a rationale. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You don't have a consensus for what you want changed, in the fourth paragraph. Honestly, at some point, you're going to have to accept that. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

And you don't have a consensus to keep it the way you want. At some point you're going to have to accept that and either defend your reverts with a percipient argument or move on. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather you moved on. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

That's also not a justification for your reverts. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

(Aside): And so it continues... Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

As @Redrose64: mentioned days ago, in a related-topic. "Not this again". It's been over 15 years & counting. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, Redrose has a point. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. But, does everyone involved in this endless battle really know their role in its perpetuation? Each party ought to ask themselves: who do the words "flexible", "negotiation", "discourse", "reasoning", and "compromise" apply more to and to whom do they not apply? GoodDay's been handed his favourite "United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms" on a platter carried by a dozen or more people. The edits 109.etc has been making to the "Reign" section similarly put the UK in first place, in, as far as I can recall, every variation. But, that's still not good enough for GD and, evidently, he doesn't feel any need to explain why. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

If you want to open an RFC on this topic? have at it. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

You're reverting because there'e no consensus, and there's no consensus because you're reverting. And it's everyone else's fault whenever that happens, as they ought to have realized you'd revert it. Does that about sum up where we are? Is there a comprehensive list of parts of the article that aren't to be edited without a month-long RfC? 109.etc (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Just the parts that say "United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms". It's pretty clear he doesn't care about anything else to do with this article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

If you can persuade editors to accept listing all the realms, beginning with the United Kingdom (ya know age of realms order), then by all means try. They may reject it per WP:SEAOFBLUE, but ya never know. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you this isn't a hostage situation. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Show some confidence in your arguments & open up an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 2 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)

Footnote's content, for lead & infobox

I believe the (status quo) content within @DrKay: footnote, for the lead & infobox, suffices. I see no reasons for changing it. Particularly, while an RFC on the lead is in progress. GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

There's an RfC on the first sentence. The footnote is very clearly a separate matter. "I see no reason to change it" isn't really much of a rationale for reversion: I do, and I've given mine in a (descriptive, I commend the practice to the house) edit summary. 109.etc (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

And I disagree with your proposed change. "In addition to the United Kingdom..." flows better (in the footnote), following the intro's & infobox's, "King of the United Kingdom". GoodDay (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

109's proposed change wasn't an improvement as the United Kingdom is already mentioned in the lead & the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)" Striking that out and returning with "the other way flows better", in addition to trying "don't edit the footnote while an [unrelated] RfC is ongoing", makes it look rather like you're just throwing mud at the wall and hoping something sticks.

"The 15 Commonwealth realms are..." flows better from "King [sic] of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms"; mention of Commonwealth realms straight to detail about the Commonwealth realms. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

We'll just sit back & see what the other editors (who frequent this page) have to say, about how the footnote's content should be written up. Honestly, this could've waited until after the lead RFC was concluded. But anyway. GoodDay (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Then don't dispute it until after the RfC is concluded. Easy, peasy. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Would've been best to leave the footnote's content (DrKay's version) alone, until after the lead RFC & then discuss it. But, here we are. Now to let others give their input. GoodDay (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

"Best to leave it alone" is just a statement, not an argument. You're free to leave it alone.

As already pointed out to you, others have already given their input. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

As already pointed out to you, not every frequent visitor to this page, has given their input 'yet'. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Do please point out which policy and/or guideline specifies what qualifies an editor as a "frequent visitor" and requires us to wait until every frequent visitor has given their input. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

We'll wait until we hear from the others. There's no deadline, where seeking a local consensus is concerned. GoodDay (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Right, so there is no policy or guideline requiring us to wait. There is indeed no deadline; people are presently free to edit the footnote. Thank you for clarifying. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

You're forgetting the WP:BRD bit. We've already been through 'Bold' & the 'Revert' phase. Now it's the 'Discuss' phase. GoodDay (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary. I've more than once now drawn your attention to the fact others have given their opinions in discussion and you've been given the opportunity to make your own argument and, so far, with that opportunity, you've contributed a complaint about repetition that already existed in your preferred version, a made-up rule, and stated your preference for a "flow", which is simply another way saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT about every other variation on the footnote's composition. So, unless you have something else to try besides reverting... --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

If the person performing the "R" has no rationale for -- or even frankly, defence of -- their edit, then the "D" phase needn't be a lengthy one. Scolding people to wait a month because there's an RfC on a different part of the article really isn't following that at all. 109.etc (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

We'll wait & see what others have to say, about the footnote's content. Either they'll agree to the changes or they'll prefer the status quo. GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

It looks as though the RfC on the opening line will overwhelmingly select option 4, and so the disruption has moved focus from there to the footnote. Editors know this phrasing to be controversial and know that it will be disputed, so there's really not much excuse when they change it without assessing consensus first. DrKay (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a frankly extraordinary characterisation of events. Exactly how do we get from "there's an RfC about the first sentence" to "and so the footnote is inviolable too", to "don't be changing P4", to "or an entirely different section", to "anyone trying to address a glaring problem with the article is a bad-faith disruptor"? Because to me, it's far from clear whether GD's objections are to phrasing, to location, to process, article "stability", to wanting a version-freeze until November, or whatever else. And apparently asking why is unacceptable behaviour too. 109.etc (talk) 23:58, 1 May 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)

Accession and coronation plans, section

Recent changes have been made in the "Accession and coronation" section, which I don't believe are an improvement. IMHO, the status quo, should be restored. GoodDay (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, another area where editors know that the edit is contentious because of previous discussions on this talk page[3] and of course the same phrasing has been discussed multiple times in relation to its use elsewhere on this page (e.g.[4][5][6][7]) [and multiple times on other pages for something like 20 years]. Changes shouldn't have been made unilaterally. DrKay (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC) 06:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Not one of those links contains any explanation for the undoing of edits to the "Reign" section. The discussion that has been had about that section has, so far, equally produced no cogent argument defending the reverts, despite both of the reverters having ample opportunity to provide one. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You are condemned by your own words: I personally don't need to hear GoodDay's opinion; I'm well aware of what it is." You know the issue. You know the arguments. You've been intimately involved with and acquainted with them for 18 years[8]. DrKay (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, they key word in my previous comment was "cogent", not "repetitive". Is there a cogent argument for undoing the edits in the "Reign" section? It's been a couple of days now and one hasn't shown up. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

A couple of days? We've been saying the same thing for 18 years. It's like one of those sit-coms that largely consist of catchphrases and in-jokes. Tim O'Doherty will be along in a minute to say, "Now, now, you two..." DrKay (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Now, now, you two... Tim O'Doherty (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Then perhaps get to the point. Because deflecting to discussion on the lede isn't doing anything to provide a justification for undoing edits to the "Reign" section. It doesn't justify maintaining fuzzy phrasing everywhere, nor does it justify unprofessionally repeating that fuzzy phrasing word-for-word twice in the same article. Even GooDay's relentless "UK first!" argument is silenced by the fact the UK is given first place in that section. Is Godot arriving or not? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to edit? If so, I agree with it. I think it's what I suggested as a possibility for the lead a while ago. I can see the problems with taking that approach there. But it makes total sense for the body of the article. DeCausa (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

If you're meaning the edit under Line 143, then, yes, you've got it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

After 12 years here I've never worked out where you get line numbvering from! It's the diff in my previous post. DeCausa (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh. I just always assume everyone sees the same Wikipedia I see. So, er, I guess, if you're meaning the wording, "upon his mother's death on 8 September 2022, Charles became king of 15 independent countries, collectively termed the Commonwealth realms: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Jamaica, and nine less-populated nations in the Caribbean and Pacific", then, yes, you've got it. It's one of 109.etc's attempts at composing the start of that section. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The use of the disputed wording in the introduction is still under discussion. it would seem sensible to wait for that discussion to close with an outcome before starting another discussion about the same wording somewhere else in the article, such as the fourth paragraph or the Reign section (or the infobox, or the succession boxes...). 1) There may be more support for it on the basis of 'elegant variation' or 2) there may be less support for it because it repeats the introduction. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

There's different criteria for the lead and the body. As the lead should by a synopsis of the body neither repetition nor "elegant variation" would be relevant. DeCausa (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say I supported either of the two opinions (which are entirely opposing). I was merely describing two potential outcomes out of several. I shall strike them then as they only serve to confuse. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

None of the arguments deployed in the RfC have a bearing on what should be in the body as far as I can see. DeCausa (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

We only have four more days until the coronation and the RfC on the lede was always intended to be a truncated call for input to roughly guide us on how to compose that part of the article; this was discussed before the RfC was started. At this point, it's pretty safe to assume the lede won't be changing much, if at all. So, the only relevance the lede has to any discussion on the "Reign/Accession and coronation plans" section/s is repetition and, consequently, a lede "summarizing" by repeating the exact same words in the article body; or, the other way around, the article body not expanding on the lede's summary. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm planning an RFC (perhaps two), for the content dispute concerning the 'reign' section & the fourth paragraph. No matter how each turns out? it's time to put closure on these content disputes. GoodDay (talk) 10:14, 2 May 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)

Lede image

My proposed infobox image

Favouring re MOS:LEADIMAGE "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works": a fine, representative image of Charles III in his current (and most high-profile position) as king. Already used on many other language Wikipedias, also more recent than current. Seeking consensus. JJLiu112 (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@JJLiu112 - There was an RFC about the infobox image which closed over a month ago. The result of the RFC was to use the current infobox picture which is the 2019 portrait. DDMS123 (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Surname in early life

Do we really need to mention in the early life section that he doesn't use a surname? The same treatment is not afforded to his mother, the late Queen Elizabeth, or to her three predecessors. I think a footnote should suffice. Векочел (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought it already was in a footnote; there was discussion about this earlier. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:54, 1 May 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)

Dale 'Kanga' Tryon

Could one of the editors please include Dale Tryon, Baroness Tryon in the "Relationships and marriages" sub-section for the section "Prince of Wales"? He said that she was "the only woman who understands me", she should not be omitted. 49.15.234.88 (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)