Talk:Princess Charlotte of Wales (born 2015)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Princess Charlotte of Wales (born 2015) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 28 days

Princess Charlotte of Wales (born 2015) has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 8, 2014	Articles for deletion	Kept
November 12, 2021	Articles for deletion	Kept
March 23, 2024	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Mid-importance).

British Royalty Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Commonwealth

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth articles

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

London Mid‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

On 10 September 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Princess Charlotte of Wales. The result of the discussion was Not moved.

Accidentally messed up her birth date and age[edit]

I accidentally messed up her birth date and age can someone fix it GothicGolem29 (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done DrKay (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2023[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can someone please add in the intro paragraph at the TOP of this page that she was born fourth in the line before the death of Queen Elizabeth II? Please. 2601:40A:8400:5A40:5D06:8B55:7DFB:5226 (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pinchme123 (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been adding what number in the line to the throne members were placed when they were born. For instance, Charlotte was 4th in the line when she was born. Since the death of Queen Elizabeth II, she is 3rd in the line. 2601:40A:8400:5A40:C07:B81B:21C0:BD97 (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 September 2023[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The consensus below is that there is not a primary topic. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 19:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– Out of the two pages bearing the name Princess Charlotte of Wales - this Charlotte has the higher page count by about 70%, is currently alive, and will remain more relevant. Furthermore Princess Charlotte of Wales (1796–1817) perfectly describes the other Charlotte and users can find this quite clearly (as they already do). This should clear up any confusion for users looking for Princess Charlotte during high profile events such as the coronation, royal weddings etc Jasp7676 (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: pages with content, such as Princess Charlotte of Wales, are ineligible to be proposed titles in move requests unless they, too, are formally dispositioned. "Princess Charlotte of Wales → Princess Charlotte of Wales (disambiguation)" has been added to this request to meet that requirement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm not seeing a massive difference in page views: [1]. DrKay (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very very weak support - While there's not a massive difference and page views (only a difference of ~70,000), I think the WikiNav results here are very interesting. Most navigation from the dab Princess Charlotte of Wales go to the older princess [2], while most from just plain Princess Charlotte go to the younger [3] (arguably a primary topic-like difference, but I definitely don't think this should be moved to just "Princess Charlotte"). To me, that means most readers are searching for this Charlotte and not the daughter of George IV, but people looking for his daughter are more aware that she was "of Wales". Personally, I wouldn't see any harm in doing a trial run with this article at the base name, and then revisit in a few months of the WikiNav results show a concerning percentage of readers navigating to the Hanoverian princess through the hatnote. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Being alive does not make one the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no big difference between the two pages in terms of views. Frankly, how readers get to each page does not matter. The raw number of page views indicate that both subjects are of equal interest to readers. It does not matter that one if dead. Keivan.f^Talk 04:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is no big difference of course as @Keivan.f said. Also @Jasp7676 it would be better if the present article name is kept just as it is. Anyway in a few years' time when her father ascends to the throne her official name will differ from the other Princess Charlotte and we do have disambiguation pages also. MSincccc (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is not a very good argument. TarnishedPath^talk 03:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious oppose Page views are not always decisive. We do have a large number of articles on obscure minor royals who only just pass notability. However the earlier Princess Charlotte is a significant figure, she would have become monarch if she had lived, and her premature death sparked off a significant crisis, see the start of Lytton Strachey's biography of Queen Victoria. The present princess is only 8, things may change as she grows older. There may be a degree of recentism. PatGallacher (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PatGallacher your argument is not definite. What do you mean by a "Cautious Oppose"? Are you in or out? My meaning in saying this is are you supporting the move which the majority of us see as unnecessary and unwanted or are you with us? MSincccc (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Premature. The first Princess Charlotte of Wales will always be known as Princess Charlotte of Wales and has a very high chance of retaining the long-term significance of that name over the span of history. The new Princess Charlotte has a very high chance of being called something else in a few years' time and people will come to know her by that name. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. When King Charles pops his clogs I think she will become "The Princess Charlotte". She may well be eventually given an additional title, e.g. Countess of Something, or Princess Royal. PatGallacher (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think there is a good case to be made for the birth dates to be used both for the subject of this article and George IV's daughter. The name Princess Charlotte of Wales for William and Catherine's daughter may be temporary. It is likely that her title will change when her father becomes king. Векочел (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

GA Review[edit]

Pass - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Princess Charlotte of Wales (born 2015)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: MSincccc (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty (talk · contribs) 16:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing upon request. Will begin today or tomorrow. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty Thanks for taking up the review. I hope this is successful and that you are doing well in real life. Looking forward to the coming days and your subsequent comments. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article's so short there isn't much need for a table...

Prose:

We have "King Charles III" and "Elizabeth II" - one style should be used consistently
her grandmother Diana, Princess of Wales - we have just "Charles" in the same sentence: "Diana" alone'll do.
On 4 May, ..., etc - commas aren't needed
She joined her brother Prince George - I'd put "older brother" here
On 8 September 2022, Charlotte's paternal great-grandmother Elizabeth II died - again with the comma, but you've told us who her great-grandmother is already: "Elizabeth" or "the Queen" will be fine.
Introduce Brand Finance
Due to the implementation of the Perth Agreement -> "Because of the implementation of the Perth Agreement"

Sources:

Don't use the Evening Standard or Fox News please - replace with something else
Some refs have quotes and others don't - I'd standardise that
Some refs have publisher locations (eg ref 5's "London") - all or nothing again
Inconsistencies between Telegraph refs (eg refs 6 and 21): differences between the name, italicisation, subscription parameter, etc. Standardise.
You have both "'BBC News" and "BBC": pick one
Sources I spotchecked: 1, 2, 8, 11, 14, 21 and 23 are generally fine, although 11 is Fox News and doesn't support that she was known as "Charlotte Cambridge"
Earwig clocks in at 8.3 per cent, which is fine

Images...

are fine.

Good article overall. Some issues need fixing, but nothing too serious. Pinging MSincccc. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 September 2022,... This requires a comma as it is a full date rather than just the year or the month followed by the year. Removed publisher locations and also retaining "BBC News" not "BBC" as the former is more common. Regards MSincccc (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I could not find suitable sources on the same event to replace Evening Standard. Would you please help me? Regards. MSincccc (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty Would you please help me with replacing the Fox News and Evening Standard refs? I could not find any alternatives on Google. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misremembered here: Fox and the Standard seem to be permissible per WP:RSPS (just about). Just a couple of prose things left then. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically for prose: bullet points 4, 6 and 7. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues 6 and 7 have also been resolved. Then only point 4 left. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty What do you mean by "Introduce Brand Finance"? MSincccc (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Describe what it is in a few words. Is it a newspaper, organisation, think tank, company, etc. Introduce it briefly to the reader. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The valuation is made by Reader's Digest not Brand Finance. The latter does not appear in prose. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty Don't you think that beginning a sentence with "Because" does not seem that good. It's taught in British English. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's better than "due to", at any rate. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making the changes now but in school my teacher does not accept it when we begin a sentence with "Because" and I am studying British English like you once did in middle school. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given all the prose-related changes I have now made, I hope this article will be passed as GA by tomorrow. Let me know if any further changes you would like to see in a Good Article. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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