Talk:Charles III/Archive 12

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2023

Would like to update page with main image, File:King Charles 3.jpg for more officiality after coronation. Nohun (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please ensure the image on Commons meets Wikipedia's licencing criteria before it can be added here. Lizthegrey (talk) 04:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The uploaded image information says this was for publicity for the coronation, it’s actually years old, so that alone suggests the image might be under copyright. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. 109.etc (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Appears to be a licensed, copyrighted image (from Getty) hence its nomination for deletion. 109.etc (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2023 (2)

We should change "Charles in 2019" to "Formal Portrait, 2019. This could be seen as unnecessary, but according to the Image's source it is an official portrait of Charles. I feel this should be done to fit in with the pages of previous UK royals. MrNoobNub2 (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done - with slightly amended capitalisation. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 11:43, 7 May 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)

"Age of realms order"? That'll be fun. Found a source for the use of that recently, following your assertions that "seniority" was the required order, and why would it ever need to be glossed or cited? Indeed, having been both reverted on that and on the wrong side of an informal RfC the matter, doggedly raising it again here is somewhat ironic given your extreme stress on process, the status quo, and precedent elsewhere for the purposes of this page.

More relevantly, you've already reverted text on this that had absolutely no "SEAOFBLUE" whatsoever. So you're providing a rationale opposing a straw man edit, while adamantly refusing to explain your own actual past ones. 109.etc (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

We're concentrating on the "Accession..." section, now. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Later today, I'll be opening an RFC (or two) on this topic & the 'reign' topic. TBH, I don't see any reason for listing any country in those areas. Just mentioning that he became king, should be enough. We already have the rest in the article lead & infobox. So no need to repeat it, even if in differing wording. GoodDay (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing in the lede or infobox that would also be in the "Accession and coronation plans" section if you didn't keep reverting the changes made to that section. The accurate way of putting what you're saying is there is a footnote in the lede and infobox that contains information that would be in the "Accession and coronation plans" section. A footnote does not count as the article body and the purpose of the lede, which you insist on ignoring, is to summarize the article. A word-for-word repetiton is not a summary. The only way one could summarize "Charles is king of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" would be "Charles is king of 15 countries" or "Charles is a king". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest not changing the 'fourth paragraph', as it's part of the opening section. As for the "Accession and coronation plans" section? merely mentioning "King", would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

We're no longer discussing the fourth paragraph of the lede. You raised "the 'reign' topic". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad the 'fourth paragraph' dispute, has been discontinued. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 2 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)

There don't seem to be any reliable sources for that. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

https://www.express.co.uk/dayandnight/42424/Kanga-s-sad-life-airs-on-TV 49.15.231.159 (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Daily Express isn't regarded as a reliable source. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Our article on her (wrongly, as you say) uses that citation, but also has the Sunday Torygraph saying something similar. So I think this is sourceable. The next gate for it to pass through is, is it WP:DUE? Either here or in a possible yet-another future subsidiary article. 109.etc (talk) 23:17, 2 May 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)

I think it's poor practice to put matters of significance only in infoboxes and footnotes (and the MOS seems to agree with me on that). Whether it's due weight is perhaps more arguable, but if it's to be mentioned any place at all -- and it's not important important enough to make it into the lead section, which is obviously the first time we give his "full" name -- then this seems the place to do it, no?

As for his four predecessors, actually there is indeed some "surname" discussion in the body of the article. For the ones prior to that, bear in mind this is then before the various proclamations on the issue, the change of name of the House, and any real practice of using a surname at all. 109.etc (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2023

Article: Charles III Under Caimilla Park Bowles the name of the archbishop of Canterbury is misspelled; it should read Williams. 64.229.75.189 (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It does say "Williams". GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

"The blessing by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams was televised." Not seeing any spelling error. 109.etc (talk) 00:16, 6 May 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[1] and of course the same phrasing has been discussed multiple times in relation to its use elsewhere on this page (e.g.[2][3][4][5]) [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[6]. 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)

And yes, in the interests of clear credit (or blame?), it was modelled heavily and consciously on an earlier suggestion of @DeCausa's. I also think it'd work in paragraph four of the lead section, it playing as it does the role of "bit more detail of her reign", much as P3&4 does for the Elizabeth II, including yes, a list of realms. But if not there, then IMO in the body for sure, IMO. A variation on the theme would be to also enumerate the Pacifics, there being only two, and just long-tail the Caribbeans. No strong preference for me between those. 109.etc (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

When the 'lead RFC' is closed & a result given. I'll be opening an RFC concerning the "Accession..." section topic. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Some future RfC has no relevance to editing that section now. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

We're in disagreement, but then what's new. GoodDay (talk) 03:30, 3 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)

An RfC does not mean a moratorium on editing. As I told you, this is not a hostage situation. Three editors now outright support the changes, while two do not. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Request for comment: "Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved." Celia Homeford (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

"Avoid" is not a synonym for "do not" and "raised objections" goes both ways here. But now one way has more support than the other and GoodDay is aiming to open an RfC only because he's on the "other" side; he wants to use the very wording you quoted to override the majority, as well as the essence of the taskforce that's been working on this article for months, to freeze his preferred wording in place past the taskforce's deadline of coronation day. You can see numerous comments here over the last few days calling out that very behaviour. He can open an RfC if he wants. But, if he continues to revert-war while making absolutely no constructive contribution to discussion on what he's reverting, I fear uninvolved administrator intervention will have to be sought. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

As we can now see, GoodDay's implied threats of further reverting is one of the only two things standing in the way of this article getting the desired GA status before 6 May. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Cool off. I've thought it over (for hours) & will wait until the (current) lead RFC has concluded. There's no deadline to be met (concerning GA), as Charles' status won't change on May 6, 2023. Post-coronation, he'll be able to wear the Imperial state crown, when he opens the UK Parliament, as king. Where's before the coronation, he would've (as king) had to have the crown brought in on a pillow, ahead of him & Queen Camilla. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

And yet where's the friction that produces the heat?

Regardless, are we to infer from the above that you won't object to DeCausa's/109.etc's/my edit going into the "Accession and coronation plans" section now? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

What are you proposing for that section? GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

This can't be real... If you don't know, what have you been so steadfastly opposed to all this time? This is exactly where BRD breaks down and just becomes BRBRBRBRBRBRBR. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I oppose contentious changes being made & then being re-made (i.e restored), without a consensus. The ONUS is on you, to get a consensus for the change or changes you wish to make. The ONUS isn't on those who're maintaining the status quo. Best thing to do? Sit tight & wait until the end results of the coming RFC. There's no deadline. GoodDay (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

"I oppose contentious changes" tells us nothing if you can't (or won't) tell us why they've contentious. Or if they're magically made contentious by the very act of you reverting them, thereby bootstrapping the rationale ex nihilo. Ideally I'd prefer not to have a month-long RfC for every sentence in the article. 109.etc (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Your proposal or proposals will be among the options in the upcoming RFC. As for why I oppose the said proposed changes in the "Accession..."? Charles III is recognised first & foremost as the British monarch. He resides in the UK (thus negating the need for a governor general). His coronation will be held in the UK. After his death, he'll likely be buried in the UK. The United Kingdom is also the oldest country, he's monarch of. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

That tells us nothing about why you find the edit contentious Every version of it gives the UK first place ahead of the other realms. So, now that you're finally aware of what edit you've been adamantly objecting to all this time, what exactly do you find contentious about it? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

What conceivable relevance does any of that have to the edit in question? I think (at least!) one of the two of us is very confused at this point... 109.etc (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

You both already know, I'm oppose to the "15 Commonwealth realms" & "15 independent countries" style. Note - Listing all the countries, via age of the realms - thus "United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, etc", will also be an option in the upcoming RFC. You both know my stance on this topic. I'm not going to repeat myself. GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

We already know? Just a moment ago you didn't even know what edit you were opposed to. How, then, could you know, let alone us? That's why we asked. And your response is to shift the goalposts; again. Now you just don't like "the '15 Commonwealth realms' & '15 independent countries' style". Again, we're back to you just saying it's contentious without explaining why. These types of moving, guessing, vague, irrelevant, tautological replies are what prolong disputes, creating and maintaining the very lack of consensus you then use to bluntly revert "any" change ad infinitum. That's not good faith engagement in the BRD process.

You go on about RfCs, which are votes. You respect the vote result when it goes your way. Presently, three editors favour the edit to the "Accession and coronation plans" section to two who don't. But, suddenly only some vote tallies matter and you need another one. That's like holding endless referenda until the voters vote "correctly". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I think we can very safely say you are going to repeat yourself. "Best to do <thing I like>." "No consensus to change from the status quo." "That edit was contentious." "We'll wait and see." Just not to address the question of how you get from a personal preference to a rationale based in good Wikipedia practice. Or indeed, just competent writing generally. And quite how you list all the realms in an intelligible manner without stating their number perplexes me too. On the one hand you complain of repetition, and now you appear to imply we must have exactly the same "1+14" sort of construction at every mention. 109.etc (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Believe what you want. Meanwhile, I'll be opening an RFC up on the aforementioned content dispute, when the current lead RFC has concluded & the result is known. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Some future RfC has no relevance to editing that section now. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford: Why? The RfC has nothing to do with that section and is all but done at this point, anyway, according to the agreement about the RfC before it was started. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I second this question. @Celia Homeford, if you think this sentence needs an RfC, at least start it. If it doesn't, then please provide a rationale -- ideally in an edit summary, but "ideal" sailed a long while ago, I realize -- for your edits. I appreciate that there's now three of you at this "I'm reverting to the status quo, can't actually say why though" business, but to paraphrase Robert Bolt, an editing practice may be commonplace, and yet remain rampantly unconstructive. The edit addresses GoodDay's one (sorta) articulated objection that "15 independent countries" or "15 Commonwealth realms" is somehow bad, so even "reverting in case they don't like it" seems premature. Is there somehow a blanket objection to saying where he's king in in the text of the article prose anywhere? That seems a little... backwards. We should be a little more concerned that we don't. 109.etc (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

You can add GD to those who need to answer the question. (Not that anyone expects one; or one that makes sense, anyway.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, Celia. It's becoming more inevitable that WP:ANI will eventually be the next step, in this process. I personally, won't be reporting anybody. But, I do foresee the event happening :( GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty: made a comment (likely (but, not certainly!) unaware of its future relevance) in the discussion ahead of opening the RfC above: "the current lead sentence tells us just as little about what he is king of as any of the proposed alternatives." The lede tells us little about what he is king of; which is the very reason there should be more information elsewhere in the article, as if WP:LEDE ("the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article") wasn't good enough. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I often make comments unaware of their future relevance. Usually not in a good way. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Just say off the top of your head who'll win this year's Stanley Cup...

But, seriously (and addressing all participents here), that "little information in the lede" part is a key reason to expand on the lede and one both reverting editors are totally ignoring. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

No idea who this "Stanley Cup" is. But, if we're making predictions, I'm betting Humza Yousaf will resign this year. But anyway... Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I assure you, Tim. Though it may well take longer then planned. This BLP will obtain GA status. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Why? Are you going to do the review? DeCausa (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Positive thinking. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

If only there were the positive edits to go with. @DeCausa, my money is on anti-agathics. If we improve one sentence per month, we might be a GA while some of us are still alive. If not -- as at present -- there's always our heirs and successors. 109.etc (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, forgetfulness and butterfingers when writing edit summaries aside, I attempted to:

• Expand on the lede so that the lede meets WP:LEDE--"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic [...] and summarize the most important points"--and WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY--"The lead, being a summary of the article, promises that the body will deliver fuller treatment of each point."
• Aside from meeting the MoS, expand as favoured by:
  • Myself--"the article body should expand on the lede irrespective of the exact order of the 20 to 26 words that comprise the lede's first sentence"
  • 109.etc--"Matters too convoluted for the lede... should appear in helpful detail later"
  • DeCausa--"Are you referring to edit? If so, I agree with it"
  • (Possibly) Tim O'Dhorety--"the current lead sentence tells us just as little about what he is king of" (I may be misappropriating Tim's remark; he's free to strike or delete this)
• Account for Celia Homeford's disfavour toward a truncated list--""I oppose a truncated list"--and use of the plural "thrones"--"There is a shared throne"
• Account for GoodDay's disfavour toward use of "15 independent countries" and "15 Commonwealth realms"--"I'm oppose to the '15 Commonwealth realms' & '15 independent countries'"--and demand for the UK to be mentioned first--"Charles III is recognised first & foremost as the British monarch. He resides in the UK"

However, GoodDay has once again performed one of his patent brutal reverts. GoodDay best peruse WP:DISRUPT, in particular:

• "A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as [...] Does not engage in consensus building: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits" and
• "Bad-faith disruptive editors attempt to evade disciplinary action in several ways [..] Their comments may avoid breaches of civility by refraining from personal attacks but still interfering with civil and collaborative editing and discussion."

People have been, for many days now, making a concerted effort to find a compromise. There's no justification for actively blocking those efforts at every turn. None.

If GoodDay has some objection to the latest try at a solution--an objection that doesn't involve the irrelevant RfC on the lede and a supposed lack of consensus simply because GoodDay reverted and declared a lack of consensus--he'd best clearly state it here or cease reverting without reason. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

There's no consensus for the change you attempted, as it was already reverted by another. Be assured though, it will be among the options in the upcoming RFC on the matter. Trying to push it now, will only create tension. Furthermore, it's best to avoid making a content dispute, into a personality dispute. I have no malice towards you (Mies) & wish you would stop bashing me. Bashing an editor, will only make the basher look bad & their position appear weak. You have no consensus for the change you wish to make in the "Accession section", right now. Perhaps after the upcoming RFC concludes, you might have that consensus you're seeking. Trying to 'force' a change & (perhaps) bludgeoning a discussion, toward that end? is counter-productive & not good for this BLP. If I didn't revert your latest change? Somebody else likely would have. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The inanity of your tautological "there's no consensus because I revert because I say there's no consensus" fallacy has been called out for what it is numerous times already.

Only you reverted my last edit because my edit was not identical to any prior edit; it took into account Celia's objection to the version that preceded it. So, either you're deliberately misrepresenting what happened or you don't know what's going on; you just see an edit and hit the revert button.

Since you joined a taskforce that aimed to improve this article you've contributed next to nothing. Out of your 24 edits to the article since taskforce-CIII was started, 19 have been blunt-force reverts (the remaining five were minor). Most if not all of your commentary has been to say, "no" or "delay"; something that quickly started getting on people's nerves and hasn't abated one bit. Editors have bent over backwards first to comprehend what exactly it is you want and then to give it to you. And, even though we have given you our attention and made edits that accomodate your wants, including the WP:IDONTLIKEIT one, you're still reverting our work; that's why you can't give a sound justification for your actions. It's "United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms" and nothing else. There's no rational argument for it. That's not anyone's fault but yours. So, don't cry about the obvious being pointed out. You've once again put yourself on extremely thin ice. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I will not be bullied or baited & you've no idea what option or options I'll support, in the coming RFC. GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

You say that like it's a good thing. "Johnny Tightlips, what content to you favour, and why?" "I ain't sayin' nuthin'. Let's just vote on everything." 109.etc (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

reading over the back and forth, it seems very clear that GoodDay has been WP:DISRUPTIVE with WP:DEs and an attempt to WP:WIN. At this point GoodDay seems to be WP:DE, WP:TE, and WP:GAMING, especially by making no other substantive edits. I'd write up a Notice Board report but do not have the time or all the necessary knowledge for that. To quote WP:WIN:

"If you are one of these individuals, you need to lay aside the need or impulse to allow ego, pride, or winning to take precedence over collaborative construction of an encyclopedia. To quote Mr. Spock, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." Regardless of who the one is—be it an editor, a body of editors, or a group on Wikipedia—the only thing that matters is Wikipedia as a whole."

While the solution suggested may not be the solution that is settled on, neutral observers would almost certainly agree that all the nations Charles is King of should be mentioned somewhere in the main body of the article (not a footnote). Ha2772a (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'd thought it wouldn't be much of an AN/I report; pretty much just "look at Talk:Charles III" and the rest would be obvious. Maybe that's an unrealistic vision. Regardless, there is/was the concurrent matter of a few editors trying to get this article to GA status. A reviewer said he'd start next week and one of the main contributors to improving this article expressed a concern that any AN/I cross-over at the time of review would guarantee a fail. GoodDay, though, has started that pointless RfC now, which, if it somehow manages to carry on, will itself stop the article from reaching the goal of GA for at minimum a month. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I've begun the RFC concerning the "Accession and coronation plans, sub-section". Reason given for moving up the start date, in the RFC's discussion sub-section. GoodDay (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

GA review review

The GA reviewer looks to have passed the article, given the "Pass/fail: ". Was holding back on adding this article to the list given the images are unassessed, but the reviewer's note "A good article on a subject of interest", along with the aforementioned seal of approval, seems to give us the go-ahead. So, well done everyone. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted this. (a) The article does not seem to have been reviewed, and (b) as the nominator you must not pass your own article. —Kusma (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The article was reviewed, see above. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

As it says, "need to review all refs", which doesn't seem to have happened, otherwise things like citing Metro and the IB Times would have been picked up. See WP:METRO and WP:IBTIMES. —Kusma (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

But, does the little green plus-sign next to "b. (citations to reliable sources)" not mean that criteria has been deemed fulfilled? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Kusma, he passed the citation section. You're fretting over trifles. He also said "easily replace with reliable sources", which you left out. So, as far as I'm concerned, it's for the reviewer to pass the article (which he did) and you have no mandate to overturn it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I haven't overturned the reviewer, I have overturned you. Passing the article by updating the talk page is up to the reviewer and no one else. —Kusma (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't pass it myself. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

How can 6b be "criteria unassessed" and still have an overall pass? Also, how on earth does it pass criteria 5! stable?? There's one ongoing RfC, seems like 2 or 3 others threatened and a talk page full of current bickering. DeCausa (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

An RfC doesn't automatically make a page unstable. Same goes for a talkpage of bickering. As long as there aren't too many edit wars, it should be fine. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not true. Not having a content dispute is the requirement. There are several also ongoin. Also, the reviewer marked 2b as pass with the comment "need to review all refs but any dubious refs can be easily replace with reliable sources" which is the weirdest GA pass for 2 that I've ever seen. have to question this review. DeCausa (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

That's fine, but we need to keep in mind that the reviewer passed the article. Even if people disagreed, they should have taken it up here, and should never have stripped it of its status as a reviewed GA article without input from the reviewer himself. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

No one's stripped it of anything. Look at the GA instructions. The reviewer updates the talk page designation. Not you. Kusma has already pointed this out to you. That's when it passes. But if it does pass it looks like it might need to go to GAR. DeCausa (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I've admitted I made an error there. However, let's wait for the reviewer's input, before any further discussion on this. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@RonaldDuncan Any input? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Certainly this is one of the briefest GA reviews I've seen, and I tend to agree with DeCausa's doubts expressed above re criteria 5 and 6b. In accordance with WP:RGA § Dealing with disputes, anyone here can ask for a second opinion before the reviewer sets it to GA status. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The brevity of the review is a more fundamental point. There is not one issue raised. I'm not sure I've ever seen that in a GA - it's more like DYK. DeCausa (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

There is one content dispute. Before the RfC was started, it was agreed it would be a shortened request for input within the remaining time before the taskforce's deadline of Charles' coronation day. Given we're a mere four days away from that date, it's safe to assume we've got the input we need from the RfC. As to the actual content dispute, your input last night broke the stalemate (which was perpetuating because of one party's blunt-force reverting, rather than an equilibrium of arguments, anyway). So, as far as I can tell, the dispute is settled so far as the edit can be made to the page and left that way pending the development of some other consensus/majority opinion. And, if an editor or two still continue to undo any changes made to the "Accession and coronation plans" section, outside administrator intervention can be quickly sought. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The Metro and International Business Times references seem to be gone now. Any others? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

No. 163 in this revision is still from the International Business Times. —Kusma (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

In this case though, I don't see any reason to doubt the IBT. If needed though, I'll find another source. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Mm. I see. The source of the "positive public reaction" is a little suspect; the article says, "Twitter generally reacted positively to the publication." That's not quite the same thing as "reaction from the public was also supportive". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

This is just the tip of the iceberg. It illustrates the inadequacy of the GA review. Meanwhile this is going on. The GA nomination was premature and should be withdrawn. DeCausa (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

And then this. This is not a stable article within the meaning of 5. DeCausa (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

That version of the beginning of the accession section was stable for 6 months from September last year[7] until 2 weeks ago when it was first changed[8]. DrKay (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

So what? This is about whether it meets GA stability. What difference does it make if it was previously stable. It's not stable now. DeCausa (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

And finally, I'm sure the reviewer was acting in good faith. However, unfortunately this is not the level of WP experience for a GA reviewer of such a prominent article. DeCausa (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

What should we do? Do we find a new reviewer? Overturn this review? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, I wouldn't use edit count, of all things, as a measurement of editing prowess. I'm sure I had around the same number of edits, or perhaps even less, when I reviewed Boudica. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree. But for "prowess" I would substitute knowledge of WP policy. DeCausa (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Even so: should Boudica's status as a GA be removed because I only had around 1000 edits at that point? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I've no idea. I haven't looked at it and have no intention of doing so. There's no edit count requirement for being a GA reviewer. But experience and the knowledge that comes with it matters in a wide variety of activities on WP. You don't know what you don't know. If I were to look at that review and found similar problems to this review I think it wouldn't be too difficult to link it to inexperience. (I would add that user is doing in most years around 100 edits or less per year. There's no currency.) DeCausa (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kusma Removed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, work's being done to get this resolved ASAP. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

So... what GA stage, is this BLP at? GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Just having some problem with dubious sources, which have since been removed. There is an issue with stability, but shouldn't be a deal-breaker. Still think it'll pass, but whether that's under a more in-depth version of the current review, or an entirely different review, I've no idea. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm slowly doing a check of the references. I'm sure someone following behind me would catch what I've likely missed. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

While the edit wars seem to be about relatively minor issues, the lack of stability is concerning, and many if not most experienced GA reviewers would fail this article without looking at the details just because of this. It is very difficult to get an article that is so much in the spotlight as this one to GA status, probably more difficult than it should be. —Kusma (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I second this sentiment, cause just looking at the GAN process above... that is one of the shortest GANs I have ever encountered (especially for an article of this size and stature). To be frank, I haven't looked at the article itself (at least with a GAN lens), but just looking at the process above, if that is all that the GAN will encompass, I would seriously recommend the reviewer or other editors involved in this ask for a second opinion (WP:GAN/I#2O), so this article can be refined through a thorough GAN process. Leventio (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

OK. I'll look into that. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

As I said before, the attempted GA is premature. It's not stable enough. Tbh, Kusma is right about getting an article to GA (let alone FA) while it is so much in the spotlight - near impossibility. It needs to be a quiet backwater. That may or may not ever happen with this article - it's certainly not now. DeCausa (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't lose faith, Tim. Though it may take a bit longer then planned? This BLP will achieve GA status. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Why is the introduction a single sentence?

I've seen this pattern on other pages (Andrew Tate, Donald Trump, Kanye West). What did Charles III do to have his article's introduction be a single sentence? 71.222.65.84 (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Camilla and Charles affair

Their affair has been documented to be going on before 1986. User:Tim O'Doherty what grounds do you have for deciding what's "editorial"? Because it's clearly a statement backed up by multiple sources. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

"Prince Charles, Baron Carrickfergus" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Prince Charles, Baron Carrickfergus has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 7 § Prince Charles, Baron Carrickfergus until a consensus is reached. Estar8806 (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

15 not 14

As of 2023, there are 15 Commonwealth realms 88.109.64.38 (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

See the first two of three RFCs, above. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure we say that. Just in the form "UK and 14 others". (Say that quite a lot, indeed.) Attempts to express it slightly differently in different places in the article have been... rather doggedly resisted. 109.etc (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

"United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms": UK (1) + 14 = 15. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Ancestry

Hey, is it ok if we can extend King Charles III ancestry another generation? 76.9.206.94 (talk) 76.9.206.94 (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Why would we? The pertinent information seems to be covered already. DrKay (talk) 15:33, 8 May 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)

I have no strong opinion between the two personally, and candidly I've previously complained about the frequency of such discussion...

... but full disclosure, in past discussions many "!"voters have expressed a strong preference for a Mystical Aura of Majesty pic, and as this ticks that box, and seems to have an acceptably Free licence, this is possibly due some consideration.

Mind you, as a corollary of Sod's Law, we're very close to the anointy-nointy stuff now. Thus time next week no doubt people will be saying "we urgently need a post-coronation photo of him, above all else!" 109.etc (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Recently released official photos of the Charles iii (? 2401:E180:8892:A446:21E2:95EC:7A91:B49C (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Once an officially sanctioned image of the crowned King Charles is available, with an acceptable licence, that's what we should use, lets not mess with it until then. Revdan 20:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm unclear about the rights situation, but surely, the image available here of the King seated, in full regalia with the orb and scepter is most appropriate at this point? 209.210.152.92 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Update: it's Crown Copyright, so not free, but usable under fair use for non-free Crown Copyright materials, as detailed here? 209.210.152.92 (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

No prospect that we'd use a fair-use image when there's acceptable free alternatives. 109.etc (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Let's use the official coronation portrait released today. https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1655618582875713547/photo/2 (not official source but it was released on royal family website) imo much better than the current one 75.25.129.9 (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Charles III and Queen Camilla Balcony (cropped Charles III).jpg

This would be a great image if it survives the licence challenge

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RevDan (talk • contribs) 03:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Coronation in info box?

How does one add this, as it appears in the info boxes of virtually all other crowned monarchs? Can't figure it out. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing - It’s already there. DDMS123 (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2023

Camilla should be put as Queen Consort, not Queen. 2001:1970:54DC:3F00:B2D1:AAE1:4A6D:CF77 (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Goes against the consensus agreed upon. See Talk:Queen Camilla. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Thrones

Thrones are not the same as Realms or Crowns. There are exactly 15 Realms. There are far more Crowns. There is a Crown for each Realm, but there is also a Crown in right of Scotland, a Crown in right of Nova Scotia, a Crown in right of Jersey, etc. There are multiple Crowns: federal, national, territorial and provincial. Similarly, the number of thrones does not equal the number of realms. There is a shared throne. There is no shared Crown, so even if we accept that the number of thrones equals the number of separate Crowns (which is not necessarily the case), there will still be at least one more throne, because there is a shared throne in addition to all the individual ones. It is therefore misleading to say, or imply, that there are 15 thrones.

On the behavioural issue, it is obvious to any neutral observer that the opening of the Reign section is related to both previous and current requests for comment. It should therefore not be changed while the RfC is in progress. See Wikipedia:Request for comment: "Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved." Note that "editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring" relates to any edit. Not just the specific wording listed at the start of any one particular RfC. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

"It is obvious to any neutral observer" that you are not a neutral observer, nor able to properly speak for them. It also appears that you're reverting on sight, and without giving any rationale for doing so, material which is not "content under RfC discussion". A "behavioural issue" indeed. "Related to" is an unworkably vague standard. We're not, as far as I can see, having an RfC on whether it's permissible to have in the article prose mention of, in some reasonably clear form, places of which the subject is sovereign. (Though maybe we should, and clearly the answer should be no... it's mandatory.) To turn it into an omnibus discussion not just on one sentence -- which is, on its face plainly, what it's actually about -- but on the footnote (also reverted similarly as being equally nebulously "related"), on paragraph four, and the #Reign section would be an unwieldy mess. To have four in a row would be the stuff of a Kafka novella, but to be fair, that ship admittedly may have long since sailed. Those other matters aren't functionally dependent on the first sentence, and hence not on the outcome of that RfC. Accordingly they're not "related" in any sense that sensibly demands a version-freeze on all of those. (And what else besides? The list seems to expand constantly, and no scoping statement has been offered, even after the fact, and even on request for such.) On any outcome of the RfC, those edits are entirely defensible on their own merits.

On the thrones, crowns, and realms, I can only assume this is raised in objection to the wording "... British throne, as well as those of Canada...", etc. I don't know off the top of my head if your observation about the numbers of each is correct in a legal, protocol, or convention sense, and you're not really being at all clear which you're appealing to, or on what basis. But it certainly doesn't amount to a valid objection about the use of the phrase in natural language. No isomorphism between the respective sets is asserted or implied. That construction merely requires that those thrones exist, in some conceptual sense. And unless you're planning to make it a global style issue we never say "Canadian throne" -- or by extension, "British throne", as the version you reverted to does -- I think we have to conclude that they do indeed exist in (at least) that sense. I'm open to be persuaded that in some notional sense he acceded to "the shared throne of the UK, Canada...", but I'm skeptical that it'd be a more helpful formulation in this context, in the article. Or an argument that we throw up our hands and say, wherefore it is not possible to speak of which places he's monarch of, it is better to remain enigmatically and misleadingly silent. 109.etc (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

To repeat, I didn't say I supported either of the two opinions on the opening sentence of the Reign section. While I don't support the latest attempt using 'thrones' or truncation of the list, which is arbitrary at best, I may support a list in the prose of the article body eventually. My point is that given the disruption and the obvious link between this and other attempts, consensus for change should be demonstrated and clear before edits are made to the existing text. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

"It is obvious"? If it were so obviously connected to the RfC on the lede sentence, you wouldn't have three editors telling you it's not. The "Accession and coronation plans" section is no more related to the lede than any other part of the article is related to the lede, since the lede is meant to summarize the article body. Do you therefore want to undo every edit made since 28 April? From your actions, it would seem not. So, why the extremely fine selectivity? Additionally, I quite clearly pointed out to you yesterday that the RfC "is all but done at this point, anyway, according to the agreement about the RfC before it was started." The RfC is doubly irrelevant to the "Accession and coronation plans" section.

As to consensus: you must not have paid much attention to the lengthy discussion above. We presently have: three editors favouring at least this version and three who don't: one whose defences for his reverts amount to "I don't like it", "I want Britain first" when Britain is first, and the tautological "there's no consensus [because I revert because there's no consensus because I revert because... ad infinitum]"; one who reverts and never participates in the discussion; and yourself, who, aside from the untenable RfC argument, also seems (based on your remarks above) to hold that because GoodDay reverts because there's no consensus because he reverts, you ought to revert, too. Consensus lies at the end of rational and WP policy-based negotiation, not blind reverting, straw man arguments and non-sequiturs, and demands for what one wants because one wants it. A few of us would call in an uninvolved admin or two to make that point clear, if one of us hadn't been asked not to do that just yet for the sake of the GA review.

And as to "thrones": it was put in in an attempt to appease GoodDay's perennially unexplained dislike of "15 independent countries" and "15 Commonwealth realms", despite there being no policy-based reason to accommodate such a thing (indeed, it's openly discouraged); if nothing else, it serves as a clear illustration of how some of us actually are trying to construct a consensus out of even the most irrational nonsense. There's nothing misleading about "the thrones of Canada, Australia..." and so on; those are all sovereign states (part of what we're trying to communicate with the whole sentence), whereas England, Ontario, Queensland, etc are not. However, if you're fine with the other version, insofar as it doesn't offend you, as you have no preference, either way, then, that, at least gives it a leg up over the "thrones" version and, as mentioned, it also has three editors' support. However, that does put us right back in the face of GoodDay's unwavering demand that we follow his personal preference. So, we can either ignore that demand (which policy says we should) or... Well, do you have another suggestion for the wording? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 13:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

If it was unrelated, a neutral observer wouldn't have told you that it was[9]. In reality we all know it is related, which is why no-one has started a new RfC yet. There is one running already and no-one is willing to have two concurrent or consecutive RfCs on the same topic. If you really believe it is an entirely unrelated topic, then there is no moratorium on starting RfCs on unrelated topics.

ANI is unlikely to view counting "!votes" positively, and and even so, if "!votes" are deadlocked at 3 versus 3, then the status quo holds.

I did make clear that I oppose a truncated list, which is arbitrary at best. So, no I'm not fine with that version. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Allow me to be more precise, then: three lengthily and heavily involved editors have told you the RfC is not related to the "Accession and coronation plans" section. Robert McClenon is neither lengthily nor heavily involved, yet still observed "the topics are different". There're many ways to interpret his use of "interrelated". And there could be many reasons for why someone hasn't yet opened another RfC. Speculating on either is pointless, though, as 1) (for the third time) those who agreed to start the RfC on the lede now consider it effectively done and 2) the article body should expand on the lede irrespective of the exact order of the 20 to 26 words that comprise the lede's first sentence; otherwise, the lede isn't doing what it's supposed to do and readers aren't getting information they ought to. We don't need an RfC to determine that; MOS:LEDE spells it out: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." Repeating the same thing twice, word-for-word, or, worse, having the article body say less than the lede very obviously doesn't cut it.

I never said anything about asking an administrator to count votes. I said some of us have considered asking an administrator or two to make sure everyone here knows and abides by WP:BRD, with emphasis on the discussion part, with emphasized emphasis on focused, clear, consistent, policy/guideline-based, flexible, cooperative discussion. There wouldn't be any need for any more RfCs (in the forseeable future) if that were to happen; and RfCs certainly shouldn't be gamed as delay tactics or ways for certain editors to skip responsibility for their actions.

I misread what you said about not supporting either of the two opinions; I saw "options". Apologies for the confusion. Do you object to the full list, as GoodDay put in? As in, "Upon his mother's death on 8 September 2022, Charles became King of the United Kingdom, as well of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and St Kitts and Nevis; collectively termed the Commonwealth realms. He simultaneously became head of the Commonwealth", to also take the "thrones" matter away. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

This section seems pointless to me. With the article in crisis and discussions on (by my count) 4 parts of the article (that people insist are linked together, even though the RfC has nothing to do with the other 3) and a GA review that no-one knows what to do with, this feels like a disjointed distraction. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

May be best to withdraw the GA nomination, for now. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I've requested a second opinion since I published that comment. Withdrawing the GAN now doesn't solve any of the fundamental issues with the article right now; we can't paper over the cracks. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

"With the article in crisis"? That's a wild overstatement - it's just WP business as usual. There are some articles in real crisis over in the WP:CTOPICS. This is nothing. DeCausa (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Mm. No, I stand by that. The article is nearing the unworkable. It's becoming harder to get anything that sticks than it is to control a sphere of butter over a convex frying pan. I'm sure you've heard about the ANI proposal, or the 4 reverts this morning, or the disagreements over what goes into the first, fourth, and thirty-eighth paragraphs, or the shambles of the GA review, or the dispute resolution. Is that normal for an article? I don't think so. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The biggest event in this guy's life is happening in a couple of days. I think a bit of confusion is expected. In any case, nominating the article for GA a week before the article would anyway be changed significantly was a ballsy move, to put it lightly. There are no deadlines on Wikipedia—take a month, wait for the hotheads to naff off, then nominate again. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand your point; however, we started this initiative in March. Two months of work for a botched review with the backdrop of a talkpage omnishambles is frustrating. Really hoped we could get it to GA by May 6; that's obviously not going to happen anymore. So, @AirshipJungleman29: I won't withdraw the nomination, but I get why you think I should. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough Tim O'Doherty; I am willing to do the second opinion on the GA review, but in the interests of stability I don't think I could comment with any real conviction before, say, the 12th. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It'll be good to get a fresh pair of eyes on the article. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with @DeCausa, Tim, this isn't "crisis". That it might be regarded as "WP business as usual" is dispiriting in its own way of course. Why weep for one article's worth of dysfunction? All of it deserves tears. But I do sympathise with Tim, who's really done the heavy lifting on this, and has had caltrops thrown under his feet at every turn. The GAN clusterfrack would be the last things his jangling nerves would need. But in that Stoic spirit, it might indeed "stabilise" over time. The corollary is that the rate of improvement might go from frustratingly slow to entirely glacial. (OTOH the next "!deadline" is when he's dead, and he evidently comes from very robust stock on thae longevity front.)

@AirshipJungleman29, I do agree that the GAN was on the optimistic side, and it seems clear in hindsight wildly so on the timeline. But to be fair to Tim, partly it was with a view to have a fresh read to try to catch any major issues, ideally before it gets another several million pairs of eyeballs on in and and around the "big day". Evidently the all the "content issues" and the "dispute" processes are either effectively non-processes due to lack of activity, or have a much more efficient process of rejecting things from their process than actually processing them as described, so GAN is streets ahead by way of having done anything at all, frankly.

But from the point of view of the article (rather than the subject, perhaps) the coronation isn't as big an event as it's had lately. We're basically still struggling to properly integrate the whole "is king" thing -- apparently some editors feel that would sensibly take a year from when it happened -- "has been crowned" is much more of a local updating issue. 109.etc (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I nominated the article early on purpose, because it usually takes a few weeks to get a reviewer on board. Winding the clock back to 19 April, there wasn't too much of the first and fourth paragraph and "Accession and coronation plans" debate going on; it was all lingering in the background. At CIII, there were coal canaries about the first paragraph (as there had been for over a decade), but I didn't think that would seriously threaten the article's shot at GA. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Celia Homeford: I want to challenge what you said in your opening post (which seems to have been drqwned out in all the rest of it) because I think it's incorrect and you've just made an edit at Commonwealth realms based on it. Do you have a source that backs up your claim that realms, crowns and thrones are not to be used synonymously? The phrase "crown in right of...." is used as either a sub-division of crown rights (as in Canadian provinces - a subdivision of the Canadian crown) or as an accretion to the British crown (as is the case with the chanel island jurisdictions). It never indicates a separate "crown" AFAIK. (Crown in rght of Scotland is highly debateable as a concept and is rarely used by the way.) DeCausa (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Lede

Please remove the article, as there are more than 14 Commonwealth realms. Also, please change number form of “fourteen” to “14” as it is standard in English grammar to use numerals for numbers from and after 10. AKTC3 (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@AKTC3: I'm not sure what you mean by "remove the article", but if you mean delete the article, that will not happen under any circumstances. Regarding the number of Commonwealth realms, in addition to Great Britain, currently there are fourteen Commonwealth realms. We don't change it based on your opinion. If you have evidence to the contrary from a reliable source, feel free to provide a complete citation for that source here for consideration. As for using digits or words for numbers, Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that allows numbers higher than nine to be expressed as words. It's not a matter of "English grammar", it's a matter of style. There are numerous writing styles for English, some of which allow use of words to express numbers. Different publications may adopt any widely used style, and Wikipedia created it's style by consensus of editors; that's the way guidelines and policies are developed on Wikipedia, not from one person's opinion. Wikipedia's style is not any better or any worse than any other style. Sundayclose (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

After looking at the Wikipedia article, I think by "article" you mean the word "the" rather than the entire Wikipedia article. The phrase "King of the United Kingdom and the fourteen other Commonwealth realms" is perfectly grammatical. Sundayclose (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I can understand keeping the article “the,” not it is true that the use of “fourteen” instead of “14” isn’t wrong but it is not standard. As it is standard to use numerals past nine, and the Manual of Style on Wikipedia terms support this, I think it’s best to use the numerals per standard. I don’t even understand why it was changed in the first place if it didn’t violate Wikipedia’s Manual of Style. AKTC3 (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually you make a good point. I checked the article history. It was only recently changed to "fourteen". "14" is the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Feel free to change it. But note that numerals is not "standard". As you point out, either way is acceptable. Sundayclose (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Image requests

new image

I think Charles (52877352018) (cropped).jpg should be on the article because he is the King. Superman011 (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

See above. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

New image

A more recent image like the official portrait for the King’s coronation is perhaps more appropriate than a photo from before his accession. 2A00:23C4:29E1:2E01:C437:5DF3:45FE:299A (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Is this the image we've been waiting for? Cards84664 16:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

definitely 90.254.150.98 (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It is copyrighted and thus cannot be used on Wikipedia. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It's Crown Copyright - surely the image qualifies under the non-free Crown Copyright guidelines? 209.210.152.92 (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

So? There are copyrighted images everywhere on Wikipedia. IP logos, movie posters, works of art, even official portraits of previous monarchs British or otherwise. Surely this one is fine to use here. --GuitarHeroAero (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Coronation Portrait

Can we add the recently released portrait of King Charles III to this page? MichaelCCasey (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

No, as it's not a free image. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Moved from the GA review The official photos taken for King Charles III and Queen Camilla's coronation ceremony were being released Monday by Britain's royal family. The first of the photos, published on the royals' official Twitter page, shows the king, who was formally crowned Saturday, seated in ceremonial robes with his Sovereign's Sceptre in one and the Sovereign's Orb in the other. It´s a beautiful photo. You could use on the article 2804:D84:2280:2400:9BA:6E9C:8137:ABF (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion for here, and the photos aren't freely licensed. You'll need to get permission from the royal household to use them. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2023

I have requested to change the portrait of King Charles III to his new official Portrait from his Coronation as King. Jordan10823 (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done See above discussions. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2023 (2)

File:King Charles III of UK.jpg

King Charles with Coronation regalia 2023.

Photo Update

This more Respectful and Professional photography will look better on the King's Wikipedia article and depicts current times. The current photo is 3 years old. Editor-910382914 (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done See above discussions. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Picture

We should change the picture of Charles lll. He has a official portrait as King now. Nick.968 (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

There's already a discussion on this open above at Talk:Charles III#Profile image update - feel free to contribute there Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2023

I wish to change the official photo in the biography box to his portrait wearing full regalia following the coronation. Diamondgamer33 (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Ignore that, I've just seen the above messages. My apologies Diamondgamer33 (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

New photo

Why isn’t there an official photo in the main box showing Charles in full regalia? 198.166.207.188 (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Image use policy for guidance. DrKay (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2023

Change the photo of HM King Charles III to that of his Official Coronation Portrait. 86.25.152.92 (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia cannot host copyrighted images of living people. DrKay (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2023

Delete the two square brackets after 'paparazzi' in the Lady Diana Spencer section.MimiBix (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC) MimiBix (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Heart ^(talk) 04:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charles III/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 15:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Starting review

The article has been resubmitted, having been withdrawn after an inconclusive first GAN. I have explained to the nominator that I have not hitherto read the article, and I shall now do so. My usual method at GAN is to have a first brisk read-through looking for typos etc, followed by a thorough second perusal, examining the content in detail. First review to follow tomorrow, I hope. Tim riley talk 15:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

General thoughts

Drive-by comment, I have read through the article briefly, but my main concern to the nominator is "a moving target is hard to hit". Taking a high profile BLP to GA is a worthy task - the problem is keeping it at that status when the article will be edited by many newcomers or inexperienced editors who don't know or care what the GA criteria are. So think carefully before you want to put continual effort in over many years. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I can't disagree with any of what Ritchie333 says: wise words. But I'll review the existing article as requested. Tim riley talk 10:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Eh, I see your point. But, we did manage to get Elizabeth's article to GA (and later FA) during her reign. Charles's article is 30/500 protected, so we shouldn't get too many edits from naïve editors; if we do, we can just fix those without too much trouble. Charles isn't going to do anything that'll really destabilise the article; his "duties" will likely just consist of things like cheese-tasting in Yeovil and tree-planting in York; so, as far as I'm concerned, the content of the article won't suffer a massive shift for at least the next few years. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Tim O'Doherty and Tim "not O' " riley, for taking this article towards GA class. While it is true that a very popular article is often difficult to stabilize, that does not mean that popular articles should despair of reaching GA level. The most popular articles are the ones that really need to be (shown to be) of good quality. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Ssilvers. I've been mulling over whether I've got strength enough to develop it over the next few months and try to get it to FA-class. Will need a lot of academic and biographical sources though, and less news sources. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a major undertaking, in which I would expect the FAC nominator(s) to really decide which biographies are really the most important and objective ones about Charles and have them to hand. A couple of tasks can be done more easily, though, if you have time: (1) there are a few hidden comments in the article that, I think, should be resolved. Some of them just give advice to editors, but others seem to call for a statement and citation, like the one about the queen's ring. Search for <!-- to see them. (2) The "Arms" and "Banners" sections still need slimming down and sub-articling, like the one in Elizabeth's article. (3) As I mentioned to you, I think the statement that "Within five years, the marriage was in trouble due to the couple's incompatibility and near 13-year age difference is inadequate. I think we should also list Charles's carrying the photo of Camilla in his diary, wearing the CC cufflinks and calling Diana "chubby" early on in the marriage, his jealousy of her popularity and his insensitivity regarding Diana's health. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I saw the thing about QETQM's ring; it was a sourced statement, and I don't know why it was pushed into the hidden comment. I agree with you about the Arms section, and that'll be on my hitlist. The thing with Diana is I don't want to make his seem like the "antagonist" of the marriage, and I say this as no huge fan of Charles: his behaviour was out of line in the 80s, fine, and I might well put something like "Charles was perceived as envious of Diana's popularity and fame" or something similar, but I'd leave out the anecdotes about the "chubby" comment and the fainting episode, as it's meant to be an overview. Like I said, if it's an issue here, it's an issue in Diana's biography too. I would also need to find it in biographies of Charles or Camilla or Diana or Elizabeth or whomever, if we want to use high quality sources. In any case, I won't be doing it for the next few months at least; I'm trying to get Tony Blair there first. Regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I do think a footnote would be better than nothing, and I suspect that when you do review the "high quality" sources, you will conclude that Charles was objectively the principal "antagonist" of the marriage, at least during the first five years, and if that is so, we should say so (and obviously also say so in the Diana article), though perhaps still footnoting the details. I think that in our desire to write "neutrally", we (that is, all the WP editors) may have failed to report the objective history. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand the breakdown of the marriage, and I'm not saying that Charles's behaviour was acceptable. But in real life, "antagonists" don't exist. Things aren't binary like that: if we're going to pick an antagonist though, we may as well pick somebody else (eh, Camilla?) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said that I suspect that you will conclude that the weight of the "high quality sources" agree that his series of specific insensitive actions were the key initial impetus for the failure of the marriage. Maybe not, but from all I have read over the years, I suspect the objective evidence will require a stronger statement than the 50/50 impression that the current text gives. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree: "the key initial impetus", being the operative phrase, though. After that, they both began to have affairs regardless of each other. So maybe a bit more emphasis on Charles's actions during the initial stages of the marriage, but the summary should remain similar 1986-92-ish. I mean, Camillagate is the same level of bad as Squidgygate, "objectively". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

First comments

From a canter through for typos etc I have only two queries:

• The OED gives the term for a resident of Hong Kong as "Hongkonger": (one word, not two)

Putting in my oar. I think that would be unnecessarily awkward. If it appears in the article, I'd definitely say "Hong Kong resident", people from Hong Kong, etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, Celia Homeford removed the speech mention from the article yesterday. So no need to worry :) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that he read his mother's statement was a rather trivial factoid. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• I am quite prepared to be told that "checkered" is a heraldic term, but the normal spelling in BrE (or perhaps in this context I should say "in the King's English") is "chequered".

More anon after a close perusal of the content. Tim riley talk 13:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

All done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Waiting for the results :) GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I have set aside time tomorrow to do the main review. More then. Tim riley talk 18:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. Looking forward to it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Further comments

I have found very little to quibble about during my first close read-through. The points below are given for your consideration rather than as affecting the promotability of the article:

• "He was given the name Charles Philip Arthur George" – is that a name or names? Looks like the latter to me.
• "the investiture was controversial in Wales" – you might briefly explain why – it isn't self-evident.
• "But, due to a lack of public enthusiasm" – Although in AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
• "After the passing-out parade " – could do with a blue link or a word of explanation
• "they were wed in St Paul's Cathedral " – "wed" is a bit twee. Every edition of Fowler from the first, in 1926, to the latest, in 2015, has advised against its use in everyday prose.
• "Charles set a precedent by being the first royal father to be present at his children's births since Prince Albert" – then surely it was Prince Albert, not Prince Charles, who set the precedent?
• "Charles was one of the first world leaders to express strong concerns about the human rights record of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu" – is it appropriate to describe Prince Charles as a world leader at the time? And we could do without the rather lumpen false title, too.
• "the memos were variously described in the press as "underwhelming" and "harmless" and that their release had "backfired " – the syntax has gone off the rails here. There are any number of ways it can be recast, but given the usual preference for active over passive it might be as well to redraw on the lines of the press variously described the memos as "underwhelming" and "harmless" and said that their release had "backfired".
• "he memorably described a proposed extension to the National Gallery in London as a "monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved friend"" – "memorably" is perfectly true, but is decidedly editorialising
• "but, takes a break for tea at 5:00 p.m. " – is the comma wanted?
• "Charles is a supporter of Burnley F.C." – How surprising! Do we know why? I recall in the Prince's (and my) youth Burnley were a major team at the highest level, but even so, the town of Burnley has no obvious special connexion to Charles.
• "Aside from hunting, " – In BrE "apart from" is more usual than "aside from", which is more AmE.
• "Charles has been involved in performance since he was a member of Dryden Society" – I seem to recall that he was seen onstage before that, playing the Pirate King in The Pirates of Penzance while still at school.
• "Charles inherited from his mother, Elizabeth II, " – you've already told us who his mother was.
• "Banners, flags and standards" – to my mind this section goes on more than somewhat, telling us a great deal more than we need to know, or want to wade through, about vexillological arrangements that are now obsolete.

Over to you. Tim riley talk 16:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Will do. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

All admirable except that you have mistaken my meaning about the false title for Ceaușescu: it isn't the description to which I object (who could?) but the phrasing. A false title, inappropriate in formal BrE, is when you refer to "composer John Smith" instead of to "the composer John Smith". This usage, familiar from tabloid newspapers, is technically known as an anarthrous occupational nominal premodifier; it is not suitable for an encylopaedia article written in the King's English. It can easily be remedied by the insertion of a definite article. Tim riley talk 18:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Will be done in the next 30 or so seconds. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tim riley Right, most are done. I elected not to change it to "names", just because I think it sounds a bit strange. I added a quick bit of context for the PoW title controversy from the reference; tweaked the wording of the governor-general proposal bit; wikilinked "passing-out parade"; "wed in" has now been changed to "the wedding took place in"; the royal father precedent sentence has been removed; "world leader" is now "prominent individual" (that sounds a bit odd too, so if anybody reading wants to change that, go ahead), but I've retained "Romanian dictator", as that's how he's described in his own article; the black spider memos bit's been cleaned up; removed "memorably"; comma is gone, as is the semicolon; kept the bit about Burnley; changed to "since his youth"; "Elizabeth II" has vanished; the banners section I'll look at a bit more carefully, rather than including it in this package of edits. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with all of Tim's preferences and suggestions above. Re: the Banners, flags and standards section, I note that the Elizabeth II article has a section called "Titles, styles, honours, and arms", which summarizes this sort of stuff and then relies on a link to a sub-article, and I think something like that would be better. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

All looking good. I shall have another read-through tomorrow, with a particular eye on the referencing and then, I hope, we can proceed to the ribbon-cutting. Tim riley talk 19:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

References

• The sources are extensive and on the whole self-evidently authoritative. There are a few that are not obviously reliable sources, and I should like to be certain that they meet WP's standards in that respect. What makes each of these a reliable source? –

• 9Honey
• David Colquhoun's two cited blogs
• Female First
• londonlovesbusiness.com
• Modern TV
• Planned Seniorhood
• secularism.org.uk
• The Morton Report

• There is one thing about your referencing that mystifies me: why do you put the bibliographic details of some books (sometimes incompletely, e.g. Bower and Singh/Ernst, or without page numbers, e.g. Paget) in the References section and others in the Sources section? This mishmash is arguably just about passable for GAN but would certainly fail a source review at FAC.
• ISBNs: it is customary to give them in the full hyphenated form: this site is a simple way of getting them.
• I cannot see why some references (e.g. 77, 202 and 203) include whacking great quotes but other citations confine themselves to the customary Author (date), p. number form.
• When citing the BBC you sometimes call it just "BBC" and at other times "BBC News". Is this intentional? Ditto for "ABC News" and "Australian Broadcasting Corporation".
• The Independent: You should distinguish between the London paper of that name and the Milton Keynes Independent MK
• You translate "Prinţul Charles, fermier de Fălticeni" but not "Princ Čarls u manastiru Kovilj".
• Ref 34 needs tidying: the first citation runs into the second, it appears.
• Is there a distinction between The Telegraph and The Daily Telegraph? We have citations to both.
• Why does ref 108 give an ISSN number for the Telegraph when other references to it don't?
• Ditto for ref 168 for The Guardian when other citations to it have no ISSN.
• Mountbatten-Windsor, Charles (1989) seems a somewhat perverse way of citing the author, given that you say in the text that he doesn't really use a surname. I suggest "Wales, Prince of" or some such would be less awkward.
• Ref 124 has a half sentence tacked on to the end that seems to have no relation to the rest of the citation.
• Ref 257 has an upright divider character that seems superfluous.
• Ref 269 is wholly inadequate: no page number and no bibliographical details.

Over to you. Tim riley talk 11:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright, on it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tim riley I've split ref 34 into two, so that should be fine. The long quote from 77 is gone. I'll work on moving the bibliographical information from the refs to the sources in my sandbox (I did similar on Tony Blair's article) later, as it's a lot more complex; it could take a while, but if you're happy to pass the article, I'll do it fairly soon. The divider on 257 is gone. I don't have the book ref 269 cites, and I can't find it on the Internet Archive. This isn't great, so if someone else can find it digitised somewhere, they can change it. Refs 108 and 169 have been stripped of their ISSNs. The "Mountbatten-Windsor" bit: the article says "As the reigning monarch, Charles does not usually use a family name, but when one is needed, it is Mountbatten-Windsor". I've elected not to change it, but I won't protest if someone does change it to "Wales, Prince of" (or even just "Charles III": the person wrote it, not the title, but then it introduces an anachronism, so I'm unsure there). 124's half-sentence has gone too. I'll try to untangle the "ABC News" vs "Australian Broadcasting Corporation", "BBC" vs "BBC News", "The Telegraph" vs "The Daily Telegraph" and "Independent MK" vs "The Independent" in a bit, as well as translating the Bosnian and tackling the ISBNs. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the ref to The Morton Report; the other reference does fine on its own. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

"National Secular Society" as a source does seem to have some integrity. David Colquhoun seems to know his stuff, so he's probably safe too. I can't find where the Modern TV and Female First refs are, so perhaps you could point them out. I've converted the ISBNs, and I'll get around to fixing up the disparity between BBC and BBC News, etc. soon. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Female First: ref 84. Modern TV: ref 231. Tim riley talk 18:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tim riley - The "mishmash" of sources and refs has now been disentangled. The "Female First" ref is gone, the "Modern TV" one doesn't look too egregious, reliability-wise, as it's just reporting on a BBC2 documentary. I've converted most of the remaining book references to the "efn" format, and the inconsistency with the names of the news sources has been resolved. The rest of the things you pointed out, like the long quotations, the ISSNs and the 257 divider have been removed, and the Bosnian title has been translated, 34 has been tidied, and the ISBNs are now all consistently formatted. Over to you. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Mountbatten-Windsor: I replaced this ref with a Bloomberg article that comments on the book and places it in context. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Cool. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Highgrove reference to £336,000, see: this and this. Perhaps you can replace the incomplete book ref? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Re ABC/ABC News, note that there is also a prominent American Broadcasting Company (ABC) that this may refer to in some cases. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

We progress. I shall be away all day tomorrow, and will look in here again on Sunday to see how we are getting on. I had better put the review formally on hold, in the circs. Tim riley talk 18:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. I've fixed all the refs now, so we should be good to go. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:REPEATLINK, I don't think you should blue-link BBC News,Telegraph, etc. every time, just the first time they are seen in the Lead, the first time they are seen in the text above, and the first time they are seen in the refs, right? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I thought about that. I linked "The Independent (UK)" every time per Tim's suggestion, that we should differentiate between the two similarly names papers. Same with BBC News vs BBC; however, I've removed them now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, I left in the (UK) to differentiate, but removed the bluelinks after the first two. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Right. I'm re-working the references, trying to hew out the book info from them and then moving it down into sources, and using the "[Surname], [First name] [Year], p. [No.]" ref format. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you need first name except for the two Browns. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

My mistake, I wasn't thinking. I meant "[Surname] [Year], p. [No.]" Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

As they'd say on Downton Abbey: Golly! One must admire, chaps, the commitment and attention to detail you've shown here, equalled only by the degree of pomp 'n' pageantry afforded the newly coronated couple themselves. Given their druthers, no doubt C. & C. would've preferred to live their incomprehensible privileged lives considerably less ornately and conspicuously (my overuse of adjectives provided as a bonus metaphor for said requisite historical ostentation)—so the least we can do is to represent them here fairly, accurately, and well-grammardly (ack! LOL). Well done; we're lucky to have you. I'll hang up now and enjoy the rest of the programme as it airs. – AndyFielding (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm grinning like an idiot reading this. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks—tho I get the feeling I should've added it to the "Final read-through" section instead. Sorry if I failed to follow protocol, esp. any Royal-related. [blush] – AndyFielding (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Final read-through

All looking good, at first glance. I shall have a final (I hope) perusal of the article tomorrow and report back here. Tim riley talk 18:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Profile image update

Charles III/Archive 12
Head of the Commonwealth
Charles in 2023
King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms
Reign	8 September 2022 – present
Coronation	6 May 2023
Predecessor	Elizabeth II
Heir apparent	William, Prince of Wales

There are coronation day images now available. Perhaps one of these would be suitable as a profile image for the infobox? Titus Gold (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

There was an RfC held on this in February. Even if there hadn't been one, I doubt any of the coronation images of Charles are of better quality. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

This looks to be the only coronation photo of Charles alone. Doesn't seem to be a great lead image. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Iunno. It's a Free image, and does rather capture the ridiculousness of the whole business. And must be the best one for people able discern that mystical majestic aura in pics. Upgraded from a minimally qualified king to a fully lubed one! 109.etc (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Mm, still think it's an inferior image. And another RfC to change the image? Not bloody likely. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• I think a more formal photograph of the King in a suit, like the one that is currently used, is more appropriate. We're not going to be seeing him in a crown outside the State Opening of Parliament, and certainly not in full coronation regalia. The image of King Charles wearing a suit is the image I'd imagine most people would have in their minds when they think of him. 195.99.8.22 (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of pages for British monarchs have images of them in royal or coronation regalia. Queen Victoria, George IV, and George III are but a few examples. The photo used should definitely be from his reign, and in my view should have changed by now. This one, or perhaps one of these, would do well.

• 
  This one is less formal and has a slightly odd texture, but its definition is better than the one of him wearing a crown.
• 
  This one is nice

222.154.88.112 (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure, plenty monarchs do have images in coronation regalia, but the examples you mentioned aren't modern and pretty much all of their images are professional paintings (or in Queen Victoria's case, a limited number of photographs done with her approval).

I'd agree that we should have an image from King Charles's reign, but for the time being I think the current photo is best. The first one looks like it has been upscaled by an AI. The second one, although it is a good quality, is looking away from the article and the people in the background can be distracting. 195.99.8.22 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Crowned photo definitely most appropriate. Rare for our times and defining for the whole article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• There is no requirement that the featured image for a monarch include them in their crown. Unless a close up headshot of Charles with a crown is an option, it will never be better than the uncrowned photos we've had. The Queen's page had her uncrowned in the feature image for most her life. Much less, the photo of Charles on the balcony with the crown is ridiculous and does not begin to meet the guidelines for lead image. Can we have a serious discussion about images for once? Ha2772a (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  Ridiculous is appropriate in its own way... OTOH likely fails WP:RECENT. Sadly. 109.etc (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Keep current. Still no image which really looks suitable to me...  — Amakuru (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Crowned photo. Same as Serge Von bismarck (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

There's a new one just released, the official coronation portrait. That one's the best. Crowned Photo

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1655618582875713547/photo/2 75.25.129.9 (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Keep current. The new image should be included in the article body but we should have a clear view of his face in the lead image, which should be high resolution. There's nothing wrong with showing him as he usually appears in the main image. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  Is there any chance we could license this photo here? The one of him seated

  https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/28/uk/king-charles-iii-camilla-photographs-intl-scli-gbr/index.html

  Credit is Hugo Burnand/Buckingham Palace via AP

  Or perhaps we could look at these ones https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65523802 222.154.88.112 (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  If a reputable and experienced editor with an account could contact Hugo Burnand or the AP to get a license under, say, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/1.0/ that would be great 222.154.88.112 (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Official Photo I'm not sure 100% if this is what Von bismarck is referring to but, the palace just came out with this https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1655603604957306882/photo/1 which is their official portrait of the kings seated wearing all the regalia. I think that it would be wise to go forward with it because of the formality of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayaanIrani (talk • contribs) 15:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  We can't use it though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  This photo was uploaded but has been requested to be removed by others.

  File:1 HMK seated Throne Room.jpg 2401:E180:8884:64D6:20FB:CDE0:1244:B783 (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  Looks like this photo is in the same situation.

  File:QUEEN CAMILA (2023).png 2401:E180:8884:64D6:20FB:CDE0:1244:B783 (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  It belongs to the same photo as the previously deleted photo. 2401:E180:8883:9AFC:56A2:FF1:2493:1592 (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  I was talking about the photo in the example infobox sorry for the misunderstanding Von bismarck (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  I Found a New Official Portrait for Charles III on this website.[10]

  Can you please use that portrait? Please. 2601:40A:8400:5A40:6C87:1B58:25AA:D606 (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  is it under copyright? Von bismarck (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  At present, someone is trying to upload a coronation photo that is the same as the previously deleted photo. I don’t know if this photo has a qualified authorization.

  File:King Charles III official portrait.jpg

  File:Queen Camilla official portrait.jpg 2401:E180:8880:A474:1CDD:EC04:5031:2007 (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  There is one more

  File:CharlesIII.png 2401:E180:8880:319D:9379:7C8C:DEB8:1B49 (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  exactly the same photo. 2401:E180:8880:319D:9379:7C8C:DEB8:1B49 (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Religion

please consider changing protestant to Anglican. 2A00:23C6:F202:C101:583:B9A4:9437:3AA4 (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - Please provide a reliable source. This has been discussed before. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2023

Change the picture of King Charles the third with a recent one, with the royal crown. From coronation 103.175.62.160 (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done See numerous previous discussions. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Tremendous bias

No other monarch, living or otherwise, has had their finances so scrutinized on wiki. We basically pay nothing for them after the numbers are crunched. Keep it academic and throw your pity party elsewhere. 2600:1700:2C0:B730:358F:2784:4D7D:CBB8 (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any bias in that section. It's all correctly sourced and neutrally worded. If you can provide a compelling reason as to why it should be removed, you're welcome to make your case. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Should the portrait not be changed to the official portrait that was released recently?

The portrait by Hugo Burnand, I would think it should look more 'official' than the current picture on the article. 79.73.196.183 (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

We cannot use copyrighted pictures of living people on wikipedia. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)