Talk:Charles III/Archive 13

RfC on opening sentence

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I have found consensus for option 4; that is to say, keep the current lead sentence.

Support for option 4 enjoyed a clear numerical majority in this discussion; according to my count (in which I had to exercise some discretion to pick one option for participants who offered several, so your results may differ slightly), 20 participants primarily supported option 4, with none of the other options even reaching half of that.

As for the strength and policy basis of the arguments provided, this discussion did not see major disagreements about WP:P&G. Rather, arguments were centered on style and weight. WP:DUE was cited; though the content of that section of WP:NPOV is not exactly meant for this situation (it is about weighing the "popularity" of viewpoints, not the significance of facts), the related idea, that each realm's significance to Charles should influence whether to mention that realm, guided the discussion. Supporters of option 3 consider it to emphasize both the equality of the Commonwealth realms and the prominence of the UK in a fair way. Insofar as supporters of option 4 address this theme, they argue that Charles is mostly associated with the UK, and that his reign over the other realms is, through colonialism, only due to his being king of the UK. Option 5 is similar. Supporters of option 6 argue that several other of Charles' realms are also very significant internationally and therefore should be mentioned. Several others pointed out the difficulty of choosing a criterion for which countries should be mentioned and which should not. Supporters of option 7 argued that all realms are equally significant. Very few participants agreed with this.

Having said all this, none of the options except for number 4 had enough support to contend for consensus.

The capitalization of the word king was also discussed. No clear consensus arose from this side-discussion. I shall however take it upon myself to try to resolve this matter now, to save everyone the effort of having to discuss it further. According to MOS:PEOPLETITLES, titles (like king) should only be capitalized when used specifically, and not generally. In our winner sentence, Charles III is the king of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms., king appears to be used generically: there is no King of the 14 other Commonwealth realms. On the other hand, the 14 other Commonwealth realms might be seen as implying a list of Commonwealth realms: King of the United Kingdom, King of Canada, King of Australis, et cetera. I think relying on this still makes King more arduous to justify than king. In case someone does challenge this capitalization decision, I am not interested in defending this position any further, and in no case would I claim this has an RfC consensus behind it.

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

---

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

Presently, there are six options:

1. is king of 14 independent countries, in addition to the United Kingdom.
2. is king of 14 independent countries, in addition to the United Kingdom, collectively known as the Commonwealth realms.
3. is king of 15 independent countries, including the United Kingdom.
4. is king of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms.
5. is king of the United Kingdom and 14 other independent countries, all known as the Commonwealth realms.
6. is king of the United Kingdom, [country], [country], [country], and the [X] other Commonwealth realms. [Which countries are named depending on a to-be-determined criteria]
7. is King of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand,the Solomon Islands, the Bahamas, Belize, Saint Lucia, Grenada, Saint Vincent & the Grenadines, Antigua & Barbuda, Saint Kitts & Nevis and Tuvalu. (no note)

Issues of concern appear to be, so far:

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

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

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

• I'd go for 5. He's basically the king of the UK and the others only for historical/colonial reasons. After all he's not the third king of Australia called Charles, he's the first, so Charles III doesn't make sense for Australia. Nigej (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with option 5 as probably the best. The monarchy is based in the UK and the monarch lives full-time in the UK. The monarch is head of state of other countries by virtue of the history of the British Empire. As far as I know, the monarch's functions in Commonwealth states that retain the monarchy are performed on his behalf by the Governor General rather than the monarch personally, so his direct role is somewhat diluted.

  Please note that in 2, 4, 5 and 6, reference to "the" Commonwealth realms seems to imply that all Commonwealth members have him as head of state. However, this is not the case as some members e.g. Rwanda, India are republics, so I suggest tweaking this.

  There seems to be a typo as far as Charles' middle name Arthur is concerned. IsiahBerlin235 (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not just some, in fact most of the 56, less the Realms and a handful of separate monarchies. Isiah, that's exactly the motivation for the "independent states" wording, because while "Commonwealth realm" has a different meaning than "Commonwealth country", many readers -- and I suspect some editors! -- will see this and be either actively confused (the better alternative, as then they're likely look at the footnote or the link), or passively confused (thinking this means "the Commonwealth", "various dependencies", etc) and not even realizing their mistake. @Nigej, he's not even the actual "III'rd" of the UK (and still less was Liz the "II'nd"). The regnal numbers have been determined to be entirely discretionary. We could arguably stand to get into the weeds of that too, but it's likely WP:UNDUE for this entire article (given its size and the number of things it has to cover), but hopefully it's covered properly in one of the many subsidiary articles. 19:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC) 109.etc (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4, followed by 5, followed by 2. The UK should be mentioned first, because it's obviously the most important realm. "King of the UK and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" makes perfectly clear that these are a group, while giving due prominence to the UK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  That’s ridiculous, Santa Lucians are not stupid. We know which countries are more important to mention. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

  Agreed. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 4, then Option 6. Option 4 keeps it simple as required for being in the lead. There is an argument that not mentioning that he is the Head of State of some major countries eg a G7 country like Canada is somewhat strange - hence 6. Option 4 has the slight avantage of avoiding the inevitable debate of who gets mentioned and who doesn't. DeCausa (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 Simple and clear. Thriley (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 5, but preferably (and entirely for stylistic reasons) worded is king of the United Kingdom and 14 other independent countries, all known collectively as the Commonwealth realms. I feel that this is the clearest way of showing the UK within the group without awkwardly trying to step around its de facto primacy therein, while not unfairly diminishing the other realms, and also that it's a more-natural way of introducing the term "Commonwealth realm". XAM2175 ^(T) 11:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 6 where the countries included are the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand. These are ordered by population. It is best to include more than just the UK, but including all of the realms is too lengthy, if we are going to cut the list down further it should be done by population (though an argument might be made that New Zealand is a more influential country, with deeper ties to the monarchy, and a greater GDP). If not Option 6, we should go with Option 3 where it continues "is king of 15 independent countries, including the United Kingdom, collectively known as the Commonwealth realms.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's been argued -- and I've come to rather agree -- that the "natural break" in population size is after Jamaica. Which would only be one more than your suggested list. 109.etc (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 6 is the best option. As I see it, the problem is the realms consider themselves legally co-equal, but there should be some weight given to the UK as the oldest realm that originated the others through colonization and the country most associated with the King. The solution then should be one that emphasizes the equal status of the realms but gives weight to the UK. Not listing out geopolitically significant countries like Canada and Australia in the first sentence would be WP:UNDUE as Charles has the ability to directly influence politics in these countries that are leaders on the international stage. While ideally all countries would be listed, that would tend towards excessive for the lead. In terms of sorting for option 6, I would suggest population and cutting it at the top 5 (including the UK). If Option 6 were not available, I guess I'd go with option 4. Most version proposed are extremely awkward. I'd suggest simply linking out the "X other countries" to the Commonwealth realms page. If we still want to mention the Commonwealth we could include "Head of the Commonwealth of Nations" at the end. So something like: "is king of the United Kingdom and 14 other independent countries as well as head of the Commonwealth of Nations." Ha2772a (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 simple, correctly emphasises the UK.Newystats (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 agree with everything said above by those supporting this option. --Bduke (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 - agree that it is status quo, consistent with other articles, brief and to the point, and that it all flows from the UK coronation. I'm actually not sure that all 14 have gone thru their accession processing as yet -- I did see that Saturday Gov. Gen. Mary Simon and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau signed an order in council and a proclamation of accession, but have not looked for others. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  It doesn't all [flow] from the UK coronation, though. Charles' accession occurred immediately upon the death of Elizabeth II, and took effect simultaneously throughout the realms with no need even for acknowledgement, let alone any form of "processing". The coronation is certainly an important formal investiture, especially from a religious perspective, but it conveys no additional legal effect. XAM2175 ^(T) 21:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not nowadays, anyway. Empress Matilda might disagree. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  That would be relevant if we were discussing the 12th century, perhaps. XAM2175 ^(T) 21:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Just a joke. No need to take it so seriously. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Very slight legal effect. The oath is legally required, but he could have popped down a registry office to do that, rather than all the metaphysical guff and medieval cosplay. 109.etc (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Slimmed down coronation indeed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 per everyone else. 6 is a non-starter unless its proponents can even agree on which countries to list/what criteria to use; 1, 2 and 3 excessively de-emphasise the fact that he is king of the UK, which is surely what he is best known for; 5 strikes me as less concise than 4 for little obvious benefit, though I would prefer it to any of the other options. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 or 5 per everyone else. I like the idea of 6, but I don't think that there would be room for a consensus to determine which realms are listed.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 but with a modification - instead of “is king of the United Kingdom”, using “is the king of the United Kingdom” with a “the” before the king would be helpful to readers and makes the text flow more smoothly. Interstellarity (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 or 5 - Slight preference for 5 as being more explanatory for those who don't know what a commonwealth realm is, but 4 is nice and concise so I certainly don't object to it. The fact that his coronation oath did not mention any of the commonwealth realms individually really cinches it for me that the lead should not expand them either. Fieari (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 7 - why it obvious to nobody but me (?) that all the countries are equally important and must all be mentioned, preferably (as suggested) in order of the total population of each?! Imagine being a citizen of the Bahamas and being told by WP that you are insignificant! Please! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It's obvious to many, @SergeWoodzing:, including the majority of editors who were actively working on improving this article before Charles' coronation. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The footnote did not contain the word "not"[1]. DrKay (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

FWIW - Charles III's coronation oath, didn't read out the other 14 realms, after the United Kingdom. Rather (following the United Kingdom), he read out "...other Realms and Territories". GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

that does not seem like the best demonstration of how to refer to non-UK realms Charles is head of. People watching the coronation are much more likely to know of the other realms. Wikipedia should be written for a general audience (WP:OBVIOUS), and that audience willnot necessariy know the fifteen realms charles rules Ha2772a (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The other realms are in the footnote. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Which is blatantly not giving WP:DUEWEIGHT to them -- especially to Canada, one might say -- in the context of the article prose proper. And indeed makes a nonsense of the later out-of-context mentions of (say) Canada without having properly set this out beforehand. To say nothing of those realms mentioned nowhere in the prose. 109.etc (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I support a half-list of realms in "Reign" (UK, Can, Aus, PNG, NZ, Jam). Seems like a fair compromise if the first and fourth paragraphs remain unchanged. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

if we really must settle it by means of a "I don't have a good rationale for my strong preference, so count my vote!" exercise, it might have made more sense to do it one "where should we list (or third-list, or half-list, etc) one, rather than a whole series of them. Which is frankly absurd. 109.etc (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not especially relevant, considering that that's his style for use in the UK. Consult the list at List of titles and honours of Charles III § Full style and you'll see that "...other Realms and Territories" is simply the standard formulation to avoid having to list all the other realms. XAM2175 ^(T) 21:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Brevity, is indeed favoured. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s also that the investiture in England is specifically the English investiture, for that crown and those traditions. The Canadian accession proclamation naming him King of Canada is a different event. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer "King of the Commonwealth Realms". Not as a title, but as a statement of fact. This gives no undue weight to any particular nation. El Dubs (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Per the MOS, only titles should be capitalised, so that's incorrect and misleading. 109.etc (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Quite right, thanks for the correction. Then it'd make sense to put it as "King of the Commonwealth realms". 'Commonwealth' being a proper noun should be capitalised, 'realms' should not because "Commonwealth Realms" isn't a title. El Dubs (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:WEIGHT (just one example), the United Kingdom gets mentioned first. Also, the UK is where the monarch resides, was born, had coronation, doesn't require a UK governor-general & upon death, will likely be buried in the UK. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Weight is a subjective matter and must be applied carefully. You've listed several things that apply to the UK that are all really just one reason: He resides there. The rest are all because of that fact. Where he lives at least in my opinion has very little weight when considering someone who is Monarch of 15 nations spanning the globe. It's a simple fact that he has to live somewhere. Him being the king of 15 Commonwealth realms is far more important and to me is of far larger weight to note than him being king of the realm that he lives in. But that's just how I see it, I don't imagine I'm in the majority for consensus here. El Dubs (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, we disagree on this topic, concerning weight. But, it's alright for editors to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed! El Dubs (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I mean the "K" (too). He's "King of Australia", "King of the Solomon Islands", etc (all actual titles), but "the king of the Commonwealth realms" (a job description (if you call that working)). 109.etc (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh right, I'm not sure whether k/King should be capitalised, I see there's a discussion going on about the matter. But it's besides the point of the suggestion, whether King or king, I stand by my suggestion. El Dubs (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

There is indeed. To say "the king of the the Commonwealth realms" would be correct in fact and in style, but I think really "buries the lede" on his UKishness. Plus the opacity (and potential misleadingness) of the phrase argues against it too. 109.etc (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Most articles on people I've seen specify that the person is British, or American or whatever. I agree that shouldn't be buried. Having looked at other biographical articles that follow the standard of "[Name] is a(n) [ethnicity] [area of interest] who is/was [title/role]", with some variation on punctuation.

With that in mind, we might consider: "Charles III is a British monarch who is king of the Commonwealth realms." Again, Chuck a full stop in the middle or adjust capitalisation or include "As of" dates, that I don't mind, but the general format and flow I think works. El Dubs (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

That's misleading, as the British monarch is not king of the Commonwealth realms. The realms are all completely independent of one another. As British monarch, Charles is king only of Britain. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The British monarch is indeed king of the Commonwealth realms. He is a monarch, he is British, therefore he is a British monarch. The fact that he is king of New Zealand does not change that he is British. New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm, therefore the statement that "Charles III is a British monarch who is king of the Commonwealth realms" is true and correct. It does not suggest that the realms are dependent of one another, and Charles III has only one ethnicity. He is British. I think you're interpreting "British monarch" as "Monarch of Britain". It's merely stating he is a monarch who is British. El Dubs (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Ascribing a nationality in these circumstances can be both misleading and also sensitive, because the splitting of the crown means that the monarch is effectively considered to be a national of the realm in which they're acting in right of. In 1982, for example, Prince Philip refused an appointment as an honorary Companion of the Order of Canada because, as consort of Elizabeth II, he considered himself Canadian and thus entitled to a substantive award. XAM2175 ^(T) 13:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The only reason I included it is because another user suggested I was burying the lede his UKishness. Ascribing nationality is secondary to my suggestion and only there to show my suggestion works with or without it. Either way, I simply stand by the inclusion of "king of the Commonwealth realms." and stand firmly against "king of the United Kingdom". El Dubs (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

There's no such position called "king of the Commonwealth realms", though. There's a title called "Head of the Commonwealth". GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I've referenced this above. It's just a factual statement, not a position. Just as "king of 15 independent nations" is not a title, but a factual statement. He is indeed "king of the Commonwealth realms". There's no requirement that we must list the title in the lede, especially if we consider that maybe something else is more relevant than just one of his titles. El Dubs (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out, "King of the Commonwealth realms" would not get a consensus, concerning this BLP's lead. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Probably, but it's even less likely to get consensus if I don't put my thoughts out there. It's the discussion section after all. El Dubs (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I would happily accept "king of the Commonwealth realms", actually, but the possibility of it being mistaken for a description of nationality means I would almost certainly oppose including "British". XAM2175 ^(T) 21:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not tied to its inclusion, but some seem intent on recognising his nationality. Perhaps a middle ground would be "Charles III is a monarch of British nationality who is king of the Commonwealth realms." Only if including nationality is an absolute necessity. El Dubs (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's even worse. "A monarch" is an awkward and silly-sounding construction, and the "of British nationality" even moreso. It's not just a matter of nationality. It's his primary notability, it's his residence, it's where he doesn't farm out duties to a viceroy, it's where he served in the military, was educated, etc, etc. It'd be less awkward as "the British monarch and king of the Commonwealth realms", but that's replicating the same "unwary reader" trap as the status quo, perhaps in even worse form. 109.etc (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

A reasonable construction could be along the lines of "Charles III is king of the Commonwealth realms, which include the United Kingdom, [x], [y], ...", which improves upon option 6 by better introducing the concept of the realms but still gets the UK in first. XAM2175 ^(T) 23:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I could live with something on those lines. The arguments that will inevitably be deployed against it are the "reader so casual they fall asleep after the first clause" point, so that the UK has to go first, and the various opposition to listing them either partially or fully. I think it's not ideal, but would be better than the status quo. 109.etc (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. His primary notability is not his ethnicity. Lots of people are British, lots served there, lots were educated there etc., etc., that's not very interesting. What's interesting about him is he's a monarch, and what's particularly interesting about Charles III is he is the monarch of over 150 million people across the 15 Commonwealth realms. That I think is his primary notability. The reason so many countries tune in and pay attention to him, because he's relevant to 15 nations as their heads of state. Not because he's the king of the UK, but because he's their king.

For this reason, I think it's desirable to not give undue weight to his role as king of the UK above his role as king of the Commonwealth realms. It's also important not to link his Britishness to his role as the king of other countries, because the two things are not related. "The British monarch is king of Canada" I think is awkward and distasteful.

He also certainly is "a monarch", there are a fair few monarchs out there, he is one of them. Writing "The British monarch" should be avoided. It makes it read more like a role, rather than just a recognition that his nationality is British. He's not just the British monarch (The monarch of Britain), he's also the Australian monarch (The monarch of Australia). Therefore, saying "A monarch", even "A British monarch" makes the word British more about nationality than role.

There are a few ways to meet the need to not give the UK undue weight.

Options:

1. Charles III is a monarch of British nationality who is king of the Commonwealth realms.
2. Charles III is king of the Commonwealth realms. He is of British nationality.
3. Charles III is king of the Commonwealth realms.
4. Charles III is a British monarch. He is king of the Commonwealth realms.
5. Charles III is a British monarch. Since 8 September 2022, he has been king of the Commonwealth realms.

To re-iterate, it's my opinion that his status as the king of the UK is of lesser relevance than his status as king of all Commonwealth realms. Any of these options fulfils that. El Dubs (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's not his ethnicity, and that's not at all what I said. He's primarily notable as the UK monarch. It's exactly WP:DUEWEIGHT to reflect that. The "a monarch" thing is factually correct, but stylistically infeasible, as I said. #3 is the least-worst of your suggestions, but a disapprovement even on the status quo. I suppose arguably it's better in the respect that some people will feel so confused by it that they'll be forced to click on the link or the footnote, but that's really not good presentation. I think this would be better addressed later in the article. (Specifically in the fourth paragraph of the lead section, or the #Reign section.) 109.etc (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

But that's not what you pointed out, nor what was proposed. 109.etc (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Remember folks, don't Bludgeon

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

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

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

Speaking of blunt instruments, my news feed has "Charles III Crowned King Of The UK & Other Headlines". Dicklyon (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promotional not factual

Elements of this article read more like a PR package — specifically the section on his "philanthropy," which starts with "From young adulthood, Charles encouraged understanding of Indigenous voices, claiming they held crucial messages about preservation of the land..." This doesn't sound to me like the right tone for an objective Wikipedia article. 184.146.163.75 (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Reign

Don't you think they should add more events of the King's reign in that section by now? I mean, other things to it. Not just about his coronation. RicLightning (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have anything specific in mind for inclusion? Remember that Charles has been king for just under 9 months (approximately 1% of his life), so it is normal that events during his reign represent only a small proportion of the article. You may like to read WP:DURABLE and WP:RECENTISM. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Accession and coronation subsection, lead

Which intro for this subsection should we use? GoodDay (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
If anyone wants to add more options, please do. But do so only within the first 24 hrs.

• A - The status quo - "Charles acceded to the British throne on his mother's death 8 September 2022."
• B - "Upon his mother's death on 8 September 2022, Charles became King of the United Kingdom, as well as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis."
• C - "Charles acceded on 8 September 2022 upon his mother's death."

Survey II

• A - Because we already have the UK & the other countries (in footnote), listed within the page. C - Would be my second choice. GoodDay (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• A or C - He's king of other places besides those included in the list. (By which I mean those parts of the realms of New Zealand and the United Kingdom that are not themselves part of New Zealand or the United Kingdom.) The realms are listed twice elsewhere in the article. The rationale for the order of the list is not clear to any casual reader. DrKay (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  My "by population with long tail" construction (one of the many reverted edits on this -- possibly by your good self: so many reverts, hard to keep track!) made this clearer. The "list all 15 by population without saying so" seems to be GD's own construction, for the sake of opposing it. The dependencies issue seems pretty much moot: that's inherent in the very concept on "dependency". It's also to make a distinction not reflected in person's full title,. where the get mentioned separately. The realms `are factually not "listed twice in the article". Many of the realms appear in the article prose proper not at all, but only in one (1) footnote, referred to in the IB and the text. It'd be yet another MOS lapse if it were to be referred to only in the IB, so this is hardly duplication per se.. Other realms, having never been mentioned prior are suddenly then mentioned out-of-context (discussing their coats of arms and other relative fripperies).

  For the casual reader, it seems highly unhelpful to insist that any textual mention of the realms at all be omitted on the basis of at best second-order concerns about dependencies, order of listing, etc. I trust there will in due course be some improved suggestion -- ideally outside the context of this IMO even more unhelpful process -- that'll better address them. 109.etc (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  They're not listed by population, which proves my point that the rationale for the order is opaque (as well as the inclusion criteria). DrKay (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Pointless RfC There has already been extensive discussion above, over the course of almost two weeks, working out a consensus, as it never has been, nor is now, a matter of A or B. It's about finding a compromise that adheres to policy and the WP Manual of Style. If any question were to be asked first, it would be: should the article body expand on the lede? Since the lede actually presently says more than the article body does about where Charles is king of. But, that question's already answered by 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." So, the question asked in this "RfC" is null. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 08:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• B - All of the realms should be mentioned somewhere in the main body of the article. The only current mentions of Antigua and Barbuda, for example, are in the footnote and navboxes. As suggested by WP:OBVIOUS this article should not assume that the reader knows Charles is King of fourteen other countries in addition to the UK, and that list should be provided self-contained within the main body of the article. No one reads footnotes, much less that gives them WP:UNDUE weight. Navboxes are not shown on mobile, so the only mention of many of the realms he is King of exist in a footnote few will read. Ha2772a (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to choose A since many (if not all) of the realms never formally renounced Dominion status 675930s (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain this further? All of the Commonwealth Realms are legally separate from the UK today. The UK Parliament has no power to legislate over the other realms, which began as early as 1931 when the Statute of Westminster 1931 was first adopted. Some realms did not adopt it until later, but all in existence at the time have. Ha2772a (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

There's yet another reason why this RfC is not helpful; it's not a request for comment", it's a vote--there's not even an option asking for alternatives not listed--and at least some participants vote without knowing about what they're voting on. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

They are legally separate yes, but they are provided sovereignty and whatnot as dominions. Like, as a formality, the title of dominion has never been dropped 675930s (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Only in the official name of Canada. Much like how several us states are officially named "Commonwealths", with no legal effect. The distinct class of entity in law of "dominion" no longer exists. Furthermore, almost all of them were never dominions. Furtherfurthermore, even if this were true, it's the opposite of a reason not to say what they exactly are, and simply call them "14 Commonwealth realms", an explicitly different status. 109.etc (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Canada#Etymology suggests otherwise, or at the least that insisting on calling modern Canada a "Dominion" is pedantic Ha2772a (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RFC, speedy close. Starting editor gives every impression of wishing to tie up screamingly obvious and much-needed improvements to the article in endless process -- and constant reverts. Stonewalling comments, and rationales for their personal preference which are contradictory, thin in the extreme, not grounded in policy or guideline, and most commonly of all, entirely absent. "Let's spend a month voting[sic] on every sentence in the article" is the precise opposite of the intended mode of operation of this entire project. 109.etc (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)-
• A or C. B raises more questions than it answers, such as Why these countries? Why in this order? Why are other places excluded? Celia Homeford (talk) 07:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion II

I wanted to wait until the other ongoing RFC had concluded. But it appears there's an urgency (not sure why) to bring stability to this page quickly & then get it to GA status, as soon as possible. GoodDay (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

No Bludgeoning

As always, we should respect editors' choices in the 'survey' section & thus be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON. Remember, trying to push an editor to 'change' their position on an RFC topic, will usually have the opposite effect. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It's rich that you find the need to remind everyone not to bludgeon the process. Maybe you should read up on the policy yourself, particularly WP:SATISFY Ha2772a (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I will respect the result of this RFC. No matter what that result will be. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

You don't get to cherrypick what processes you'll respect and which you won't.

Aside from the fact this RfC itself is asking whether or not to abide by the MoS, it's fundamentally your try at a get-out-of-jail-free card for your obstinate refusal to respect WP:BRD and, more specifically, WP:TALK#USE over the last two weeks or more. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should read up on the policy WP:NPA. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Strong look to the beam in thine own. GoodDay has been making hectoringly directive comments here for months, while making no detectable contributions to the content of the article, or discussions thereof. Give it a rest. 109.etc (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of "Agnatic house"

Should the infoboxes for Charles III (and other descendants of Elizabeth II and Philip Mountbatten, and by extension their respective spouses where appropriate) include a mention of their agnatic descent from the house to which Prince Philip belonged. This is done for Juliana, Beatrix and Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands and for Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg and Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg.

If the agnatic house is included should it be:

• the House of Glücksburg, the house of the kings of Greece from which Philip (and therefore his children) biologically descend; or
• the House of Mountbatten, the house in which Philip was 'adopted' before his marriage to Elizabeth in 1947, and therefore the house to which he would have technically belonged when his children were born?

Both houses are mentioned on Philip's article.

For simplicity, responses in the format of Support (Glücksburg), Support (Mountbatten), or Oppose are preferable

Cheers! Estar8806 (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose -- I understand the rationale for including this, but there doesn't appear to be any sources out there that support this inclusion. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• There must be a seasonal discount on out-of-context "let's all vote, not discuss!" efforts. In some senses, according to some "house reckoning" traditions this would be the case, I suppose. But it doesn't seem to have any general popular or official currency in the UK (beyond a boast by Louis of that ilk which was rather firmly put down). And if it were to be included in the IB it'd need (per MOS:LEAD) context and citing in the article prose. Best to speedy close as premature pending provision and discussion of those. 109.etc (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The European monarchs are different because their royal families hold (or use) titles associated with the paternal line in their official styles and titles (Count of Monpezat, Jonkheer van Amsberg, Prince of Bourbon-Parma, etc.). DrKay (talk) 06:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Why is this RfC here? RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable. Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC. DeCausa (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Close this RfC - maybe a good question, but not for now. There's an ongoing GA review, and currently 2 other unclosed RfCs on this talkpage. Try again when the article's stable, or take it up on WP:ROY, WP:BROY, or WP:CIII. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Or just raise it in a thread as normal. DeCausa (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  That works too. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RFC, speedy close - a discussion of this topic would've shown that most editors would've been opposed to this change and it never would've gotten to the point that an RFC would be needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ha2772a (talk • contribs) 18:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - FWIW, Mountbatten is Philip's maternal family's name. Used to be called Battenberg :) GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Close this RfC - Per @Tim O'Doherty and @Ha2772a. DDMS123 (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment As defined and settled after much discussion in the House-of-Windsor article Charles descendants & siblings belong genealogically to the House of Oldenburg. We have no reliable source for anything else, neither an actual branch nor an adopted such. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Infoboxes are supposed to be a simple summary of the main facts. It's not clear to me that these are main facts or simple. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per @Celia Homeford. I don't see this as necessary infobox material. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Close RfC for failure to follow WP:RFCBEFORE. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Coronation Portrait(s)

When will the coronation portrait(s) be allowed on here? StrawWord298944 (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

What licensing do you have in mind? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with licensing nor copyright law. I was asking people who might when they would be allowed on here. 2604:2D80:A610:9300:FCE8:33A7:A69D:E5C2 (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Proper reply: Not for many years, is likely, since they all are likely to remain under copyright for decades. Wikipedia articles do not use copyrighted images. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2023

Under Issue, change Harry to Henry 2A02:6B6E:880F:0:9C1F:62B6:15D3:C0EF (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - His common name is Harry, not Henry. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Royal Family of Charles III

Hello,I have notice a place where we can add a little more to make it correct in case of genealogy. It is the fact that Charles III agnatically descended from the House of Glücksburg through his father, Prince Philip. So I suggest that we correct it in this way: House: Glücksburg (agnatic)

      Windsor (cognatic)

I hope some established user apply my suggestion since I am just starting my Wikipedia account. 2402:8100:2461:21C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "I have notice a place". If you mean the Infobox this has been discussed multiple times before and rejected. DeCausa (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I meant I have noticed a place. 2402:8100:2466:1353:0:0:0:1 (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Those types of 'family trees' have been removed from 'royal' bios pages, these last two or so years. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Image (Again!)

Since we've established that we won't get access to the coronation portraits for many decades, how about this one from Trooping the Colour. It's sharp with good contrast and it shows him acting in capacity as king at a significant royal event. The only downside is that the bearskin hat obscures his face. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd oppose this. Nice image, but bad for illustating Charles's likeness. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Surely the best portrait to now use is the official one here... https://www.royal.uk/the-king Tlk1991 (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

We cannot use copyrighted images of living people, and copyrighted images of dead people only when no free alternative exists. DrKay (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Titles of Pages About Monarchs

Why do British monarchs' pages only have their name and regnal number when every other country has to have "of [x]"?

For example, Margrethe II is the only Margrethe reigning currently. "Margrethe II of Denmark" her page title reads.

Another. there have been many other Charles IIIs in Europe throughout history, yet, since he is reigning, it has just "Charles III".

We need some consistency. StrawWord298944 (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you. There was a VPR discussion on this in January, and NCRAN continues to support the "of X" format. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

We had consistency among the monarch pages, several years ago, via the 'Name # of country' style. But several RM on individual pages, have removed that consistency. Some resulted in changes to just the name (like Louis XIV), while others resulted in changes to nickname (like Frederick the Great). GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The largest part of the problem is that Charles is not just king "of UK". he is king of 15 independent Commonwealth Realms, so we would have to list them all to avoid allegations of UK centric bias. Moons of Io (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Short Answer: he's not just king of the UK. And no, it's not just the British monarchs. Felipe VI, Juan Carlos I, Carl XVI Gustaf, and Louis XIII are other examples (a recent RM to add "of Spain" to the name of several Spanish monarchs failed; see Talk:Alfonso XII#Requested move 30 March 2023). In Charles's case, adding "of the UK" is simply wrong because he is king in multiple countries. In other cases, if the name is common enough and unambiguous and the subject is the primary topic then there is no need for territorial designations (see the examples listed above). Margrethe II's case can be discussed via an independent RM on her page. Keivan.f^Talk 17:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Image (My Idea)

Perhaps we could use this photo of him waving from the Buckingham Palace's Balcony at his coronation? I think it looks more formal than the already existing photograph of him visiting Aotearoa. (Plus, the Aotearoa photograph was taken during his princedom, while this more current one was taken while he was King). Additionally, this photograph of him at his coronation is also used in the List of British Monarchs article. I know this was already discussed, but I feel as if it is a good image and feel as if we should consider it again. TheGoldenPickaxe (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree; I think that one of these would be better than the current image; however, at the risk of repeating myself, I'll let others weigh in first. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but that picture is frankly awful. All other coronation images used do at least look regal, I hate to say it but that picture looks like a (very old) kid has been rummaging through his mum's dressing-up box. Moons of Io (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but it probably looks that way because of better picture quality than ever before and modernity. StrawWord298944 (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

What about this one which is an official portrait on the royal website https://www.royal.uk/the-king or this which is the official coronation portrait and still shows a very good likeliness of the King but in full regalia https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/styles/920xh/public/images/2023-05/1%20HMK%20seated%20Throne%20Room.jpg?itok=nlDmSK8X Tlk1991 (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Multiple comments all saying we can't use the official coronation portrait. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

We cannot use copyrighted images of living people, and copyrighted images of dead people only when no free alternative exists. DrKay (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC) We cannot use copyrighted images. Period. Makes no difference whether or not subject person is living or dead. The only thing that matters is recent enough copyright for the photographer. After 70-100 years copyright is no linger valid. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC) That is wrong. Copyrighted images can be used in limited circumstances per policy where no free equivalent exists or can be created. DrKay (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC) You are greatly simplifying guideline. "where no free equivalent exists or can be created" far from stands alone as permissive criteria. There are 10 requirements which all must be met. My main objection was your comment om living vs. dead persons, which is absolutely irrelevant. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC) I'm simplifying? Obviously, I am summarising an entire policy page in a single sentence. On the other hand, "We cannot use copyrighted images. Full stop." is not only a gross and misleading over-simplification, it is also plain wrong. It is hypocritical to lead with such an idiotic over-simplification and then complain about simplification when a better-informed editor provides a superior single-line summary. At no point did I say there was a single criterion. I said explicitly "in limited circumstances". Your opinion on fair use images of living people is noted, but other members of the community (Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people and Wikipedia:Replaceability of fair-use images#Living people) do not share your opinion. DrKay (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC) We cannot use copyrighted images. Period. That's fundamental Wikimedia foundation policy worldwide. It takes a whole list of qualifications to invalidate copyright for any specific image, in which case it is no longer considered copyrighted for that particular usage. Only the author, the photographer h-self, of any photo can impact copyright in any way whatsoever, which normally is accomplished through Commons's OTRS system. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Fair use doesn't invalidate copyright. The official policy says copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files may be used on Wikipedia where all of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria are met. So, copyrighted files can be used in the limited circumstances permitted under the policy. Copyrighted images of Charles cannot be used on wikipedia because free equivalents are available. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC) If a photographer identifies h-self to Wikimedia Commons and objects to any photo of hers/his being used under what we call "fair use" that photo will be deleted. That's what literally is called copyright. My main point when I began to comment here is that there is no difference in copyright whether or not a photo is of a dead person or a living person. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This is wikipedia not commons. Different sites. Different rules. DrKay (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC) A vast majority of the images used in Wikipedia articles are uploaded first to Commons. If deleted there, for example because of copyright problems, they are automatically removed from any Wikipedia articles where they may have been in use. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

We need to change the image in the infobox to File:King Charles III (July 2023).jpg Catfurball (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Open an RfC, in that case. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Charles, Prince of Wales Disambiguation Page

I didn't know where to go about this, but someone messed up the Charles, Prince of Wales disambiguation page, and I can't edit it back. If someone could fix it, I would appreciate it. Thanks. StrawWord298944 (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2023

To change the photograph to King Charles III 2023.jpg, as his official Coronation Portrait. 86.25.152.92 (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. That file is currently tagged for speedy deletion because it is a copyright violation. We cannot use it. --Jayron32 14:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Astra Carta

I recently created a draft for the Astra Carta, a set of space sustainability principles proposed by Charles. Thriley (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Consensus Needed, whether or not to change the re-direct of King of the United Kingdom from List of British monarchs to Monarchy of the United Kingdom (as it was previously)

I have reverted the link on the info box to redirect to the page for the position of Monarch of the United Kingdom, as opposed to a list of monarchs, I believe there was some confusion amongst some editors, Queen Elizabeth IIs page was edited to link to the list of monarchs instead of the position of monarch post her demise in 2022, as Charles III is the current office holder it follows standards set on other pages for Monarchs such as King Felipe VI (King of Spains Page) as well as Elizabeth IIs page prior to her demise. I don't believe the link in the info box should be changed again and should remain linked to the wikipedia page of the Position of British Monarch not the Lists of former monarchs Knowledgework69 (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Can a consensus be reached on this, as currently the link used in the info box is out of step with other Monarchs wikipedia pages as well as that of other heads of state, e.g Joe Bidens page redirects to the office of POTUS page not list of former POTUS Knowledgework69 (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I think what you're seeking (or should be seeking), is whether or not to change the re-direct of King of the United Kingdom from List of British monarchs to Monarchy of the United Kingdom. PS - There seems to be an inconsistency on this matter in infoboxes of a number of monarchs of other countries. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

yes however the re-direct of Queen of the United Kingdom was to Monarchy of the United Kingdom on Queen Elizabeth IIs page up until her death, it was at that point it was changed, Charles IIIs Wikipedia page also used that redirect for a long period up until fairly recently Knowledgework69 (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I checked over the infoboxes of the other current monarchs & also the history at Elizabeth II. Therefore, I've restored your pipe-link to Monarchy of the United Kingdom. Otherwise, we would need pipe-links for the infoboxes from George I to George VI, if we changed the re-direct. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

much obliged I am glad we sorted this out Knowledgework69 (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's interesting that King of the United Kingdom and Queen of the United Kingdom redirect where they do and it looks like both redirects have been the subject of past edit wars over this. I've opened a discussion at RfD to try and gather consensus on the appropriate target. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)