This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Allegations of romantic, sexual affair with Rose Hanbury
Reports exist at non-deprecated sources of allegations that the subject had an affair with Rose Hanbury in 2019 and [potential libel removed by Meticulo (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)]. Deprecated sources have suggested that the highly publicised fight between Princes William and Harry in 2019 came because Harry had been critical about the affair. If this were to be reported in a non-deprecated source, it should probably be inluded here. For now, of course, it should not be. In the meantime, I think media discussion of the affair allegations should probably be included but perhaps the [potential libel removed by Meticulo (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)] comments go too far and seem unecessarily offensive given their unproven nature. Any thoughts, anyone?
NB. Hi, @DrKay, I see you reverted because there was no source. I assumed good faith would apply as this is not the article itself, but I have now inserted a non-deprecated source as you request. I entirely understand your point about unsubstantiated allegations, but this page exists to discuss whether something is indeed substantiated to a degree that it is notable enough to be contained in the article. Please do not revert it again, and allow other editors to express a view. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:DAILYBEAST: "Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." WP:BLP applies to all pages, including talk pages. DrKay (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for this. The Daily Beast is not deprecated and as such is a perfectly suitable basis for a discussion at an article Talk page about whether or not particular material should be included in an article. I agree that some Daily Beast reports may not be a strong basis for inclusion in an article itself, but that is a matter for consensus achieved through discussion here. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
IMO, don't think it should be included. Wikipedia is not for scandal-mongering; they are just allegations, nothing is concrete, it may not have even happened, it's not really encyclopaedic, and no different to thousands of other scandals that aren't included in their respective biographies. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
If the Daily Beast is anything like the tabloid magazines in North America? I wouldn't put too much faith in their stories. For years, some North American tabloid magazines kept repeating that Elizabeth II was going to replace Charles with William, as her heir-apparent. Well (constitutionally) she couldn't & didn't. GoodDay (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Unproven nonsense at its best. The person who actually made up the rumour came clean and said that he had made the whole thing up. Not to mention that the story can only be traced back to tabloids. No respectable journalist or author has ever reported on it as there is no evidence. Keivan.fTalk 07:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
With genuine respect, these objections are very weak, imho. This isn't a fan club. It's a Wikipedia article. Here's Rolling Stone and here's a useful Wikipedia essay on sources (scroll to "Rolling Stone"). This article reads like a fanpage, again in my opinion (I completely respect that it's been produced by editors in absolute good faith); its weak as a consequence. However, I have been persuaded elsewhere that the story I refer to is too immature and the subject too important to pursue these matters at this point. Emmentalist (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I've made only 6 edits to this article (all reverts I believe). It's not been "produced" by me in any shape or form. Yet I think you are wrong. You might like to consider that your opinion doesn't attract support for reasons other than defence of a "fanpage": the difference between an encyclopedia and a news outlet, for instance. DeCausa (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
It's a fanpage. No other biographical article would evade the fact that the Duchy of Cornwall is worth £1B and, even at the minimal level of public knowledge permitted, provides income in the tens of millions to the subject of this article. None would note, without further comment, that the subject pays tax "voluntarily". The whole article is rooted in truth evasion and therefore amounts to an absurdity of editing. Anyway, I'm off to somewhere more interesting. With great respect, and I appreciate your genuineness, only royalty fans in Great Britain could think this is anything other than a terribly flawed biographical article. IMHO only. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
You have no clue, and cannot have any clue, what my or any other editor's motivations are. That's why to ascribe a motivation to other editors and to dismiss their views because of it is considered a personal attack for which you could be blocked. As it happens, not only have I not "produced" this article, I favour abolition of the monarchy (not that it's relevant). As I said, you have no clue. You need to consider other reasons why your view isn't persuasive. DeCausa (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
You are throwing in different arguments unrelated to your initial proposal to justify the inclusion of a piece of information about a living person that is not backed by a single reliable source. And your accusations are unfounded. For instance, the section on "Wealth and inheritance" states that he has inherited the Duchy of Cornwall from his father with a direct link to the article on the duchy. Information about the duchy is also included under the section "Education" and it reads according to a CNN report in 2014, the duchy is "a £760 million (about US$1.25 billion) entity established in 1337 to provide a private income for use by the reigning monarch's eldest son", which William inherited when his father became king in 2022 (update: I have now moved this part to the section on "Wealth and inheritance" to avoid confusion in the future). So right there you're wrong and I don't see where this idea that this piece of information was withheld came from. Obviously you don't expect the whole article on the duchy be copy pasted onto this page, which is why we have a separate article for it where detailed info can be easily included. Additionally, as DeCausa pointed out, you have no idea what other people's personal beliefs are, and by indirectly labeling everyone as 'fans' as a mean to undermine their arguments, you are simply showing that you don't have a solid reason behind your initial proposal. Keivan.fTalk 19:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@Emmentalist: I'm hardly a fan of royals. I happen to favour a republic for my country. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Don't include - maybe the reported legal struggle is worth mentioning in "Privacy and media", but all sources - including Rolling Stone - seem to trace the allegation back to unreliable sources (i.e Deuxmoi) or journalists who said they were joking (i.e Giles Coran.)--Bettydaisies (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The article contains this sentence: "given his family's ancestral connections to colonialism and the Atlantic slave trade." What connections are being referred to, exactly, other than royal assent to certain laws that a constitutional monarch couldn't have refused? Neither of the two sources used backs up the assertion, either. ₪MIESIANIACAL 21:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Mention that colonialism helped end the ages-old practice of slavery in Africa. Maybe those who went along with the local practice and purchased slaves from the chiefs could get an award for multicultural tolerance of native culture, or something? 2A00:23C7:E287:1901:51E6:E8B6:58BB:2982 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Hyperlink to Wales
This article on the Prince of Wales contains no hyperlink to Wales. Such a hyperlink may be useful to people like me, who did not know what is Wales. (I don't live in Europe.) I tried adding a hyperlink to the first occurrence of "Wales" in the article, but someone reverted that edit. Is there anywhere else we can add the hyperlink? Thatsme314 (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Problem was you added it in the bolded part of the intro and as part of breaking the noun/title Prince of Wales (which has it's own article -appropriately linked at the true first mention in the infobox), so there was multiple problems with putting it there. I suppose it could perhaps be added the first time Wales is mentioned where it's not part of a larger noun, title, style, or name, which in the current iteration of the article looks to be about a quarter of the way in at the end of the third paragraph under 'Military and Air Ambulance service'. However, given how well known Wales is, and how many of the relevant linked articles ('Prince of Wales', 'Wales Air Ambulance', etc.) all in turn link to Wales, thus I'm not sure it's needed (as anyone not knowing what Wales is would likely first follow one of those links and from there follow a relevant link to Wales). Gecko G (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I went ahead and added a link there, as if the OP didn't know what Wales was, we can assume others wouldn't know either. Gecko G (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
It's unnecessary per WP:OVERLINK. Anyone who really didn't know what what Wales is would have already clicked on Prince of Wales. DeCausa (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Ancestry
This section ends, and the article concludes, with a paragraph on the claim that William's mother's family had an Indian/Armenian woman among their predecessors. It's sourced, not strongly, a blog/links that don't work, to discussion of the claim made by BritainsDNA, a commercial genealogy outfit that appears to be defunct. Even if it is accurate, and I think it's more of a claim than a proven fact, is it remotely important? KJP1 (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Even if the claim were impeccably sourced, I see no good reason to single out this particular ancestor for a mention. Just delete the paragraph, IMO. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I see no problem with The Times or New Statesman. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Even so, why single out this particular ancestor? William has 127 other great-great-great-great-grandparents... Rosbif73 (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Why not? The other 127 great-great-great-great-grandparents were most probably British/European. That is not the case for this one. It's like saying we should erase the ancestry chart for Queen Charlotte and her potential African background, arguing that it was many generations behind. Keivan.fTalk 16:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Queen Charlotte's ancestry section documents a racist attitude attributed to the historical racists. If this mention of William's possible non-European descent is to be justified, a comparable explanation of the context is needed, otherwise the racist undertones come across as being in wikivoice. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Highlight the racist attitude attributed to the historical racists on that article's talk page so the issue can be addressed. Keivan.fTalk 17:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't advocate changing Queen Charlotte's page, precisely because the attitude is attributed rather than in wikivoice. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Then I misread your comments the first time. So what is the racist attitude here then? Is it this sentence: She is variously described in contemporary documents as "a dark-skinned native woman", "an Armenian woman from Bombay", and "Mrs. Forbesian". If it's indeed this part it is clear to me that it's not in wikivoice. It says she has been described as such, meaning that there were people at the time who were describing her in this manner. Though the sentence can always be modified to make it clearer that it were some of her contemporaries using that language. The issue of distance of relationship is another thing though. The community can decide if it's of merit or not. Keivan.fTalk 13:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
That he has 1/127 Indian/Armenian ancestry is the worst kind of trivia/royal WP:FANCRUFT, which ancestry sections in royal articles are prone too. Nuke it. DeCausa (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I guess you would advocate its removal from Diana and Harry's articles as well then? Keivan.fTalk 17:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Why would they be different? DeCausa (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I have to mention their names to make it clear that this is a consensus that affects all three pages. So that if no one opposes the arguments made here I can remove that part from all three articles by pointing to this section. Keivan.fTalk 17:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Consesnus here doesn't directly affect another article. It can only ever be article by article. To be honest, I'm a bit surprised that an editor of your experience would think otherwise. DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Not necessarily true if the subject of discussion is exactly the same for each given article. Past discussions on the talk page for House of Windsor affected multiple articles. A paragraph on Eliza Kewark that is repeated in the exact same manner in articles on William, Diana, and Harry is either good to stay in all three pages or completely irrelevant. It's not as if she's not notable in William's case, but she's notable when it comes to Diana or Harry. Keivan.fTalk 19:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I completely disagree with that, and would never accept it on an article I edited. There's no justification in policy for it. It doesn't matter if it's the same issue. Why would my opinion count in an article I don't edit? The judgment call of one set of editors in an article can't bind another set of editors on another article. Obviously, as a matter of practicality, if it's the same set of editors on both articles that's different. And what was agreed on one article might be persuasive in a discussion in another article. But that's as far as it goes. This is basic stuff. It's why we have the warning in WP:OTHERCONTENT. DeCausa (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Then you're welcome to challenge the consensus or the edit on an article that you contribute to. And there's a lot of overlap between the three articles in terms of content and contributors who edit them regularly. Besides WP:OTHERCONTENT is about 'similar' content found within articles that might have overlap. These three articles are about family members and the information in this instance is identical. This is going off topic at this point. The debate was about whether his 5 times great-grandparent was worth mentioning. Thus, far three editors have argued against it. I doubt any of them would support having this part in his brother's article either. Keivan.fTalk 20:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Fine. But to make it crystal clear, you can't use anything I say here (or what anyone says here) to "enforce" a purported site-wide consensus on this particular point on any other article the articles on William and Harry. DeCausa (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
No one is planning on doing any such thing. This is an isolated incident involving the articles on William and Harry. I couldn't care less how other articles have their ancestry sections formatted. Keivan.fTalk 20:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. DeCausa (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, I also support removing it from Diana's and Harry's articles. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I think it's difficult to argue that it's racist to mention Indian ancestry, and insist on its removal, while at the same time retaining content that describes even more distant relationships to posh white Europeans. The sources used for the other paragraphs on his ancestry are no better than those used for the final paragraph. Indeed, one of them is identical. It seems to me that the removal of that specific descent is the racist action, not the retention of it. DrKay (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Nonsense. Neither keeping it or delting it is about racism. It's whether there should be that sort of trivia and FANCRUFT in the article. DeCausa (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I think you've misread because you're agreeing with me that it's not racist to include it at the same time as saying I'm talking nonsense. DrKay (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
removal of that specific descent is the racist action = nonsense. DeCausa (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
In that case, I no longer agree with you that it is trivial and poorly sourced. It is of the same level of interest and as well-sourced as the other content in that section. DrKay (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Nuke the whole section. It reads like a Hello! article (I didn't mention anything about the sourcing though). DeCausa (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Considering the fact that his notability is primarily due to his lineage, I would not support removing the whole thing. Or maybe you're saying we should remove the prose but leave the chart. That is another option. Keivan.fTalk 15:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
His notability is because he's likely the next head of state. His ancestry is relevant to the extent that his entitlement to that position is because he is the eldest son of the currrent head of state. The first paragraph in that section is tangential to that but (barely) ok, IMHO - althought the language is somewhat unctious at points. The second and third paragraphs are squarely in Hello! territory. DeCausa (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I've no problems with keeping or deleting, on this topic. Just please, be sure it's consistent with the other related bios. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
This is a general biography. What we are discussing here is highly-specialized genealogical information. Per WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy, "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." I do not see how this qualifies nor can I imagine it ever finding its way into any biography of William. Is it in any biography of Diana? Surtsicna (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Titles
Why does Prince William's children have Prince(ss) before their names and Prince William does not? Should it not be consistent? Jord656 (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Though they all have the Title of British Princes's or Princess's you are asking about their Style which is different because the type of titles they have. He has substantive title ("THEPrince of Wales") whereas they have courtesy titles ("...of their father's titled place"). It's only confusing because his senior title just happens to be that of a princedom resulting in both being Prince of Wales (but not all being The Prince of Wales) and for him "HRH Prince William, Prince of Wales" would be redundant for a style so the first repeating "Prince" is dropped- If you compare to the other members of the royal family the pattern is clearer: their styles are typically "HRH Prince [Givenname], Duke of xyz", and their unmarried children are "HRH Prince/Princess [Givenname] of xyz", usually (exceptions can be found). Hope that helps to explain. Gecko G (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
it just sounds to me that we are using the style of a divorced person, such as Prince William's mother. Should we not just use "Prince William" and keep the Prince of Wales bit in the "titles/styles" section? Jord656 (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Oh, are referring to the article name? It would be more appropriate to discuss it somewhere more central (ie WT:PEER or MOS:BIO or such), but I'll say that the pattern used on these articles was developed long ago as a compromise between the person's proper "Style" and what does and doesn't work on wikipedia (for both technical issues and disambiguation issues IIRC), so no, it doesn't specifically match the proper style but it is used for a reason. Gecko G (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
William, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester. The second is the oldest of the two titles. Dr Paul Booth (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
this would be speculating that Prince William will use the regal name of William, the name of the page should just be future coronation of Prince William Jord656 (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
New Picture
After my lifelong's journey to get a new photo for James, Earl of Wessex's page has been completed, it is time for a new quest. I know it's hard to find images of the British RF in the public domain, but this image of William has very poor lighting and an awkward angle. If possible, it would be a good thing if a new image could replace the current one. StrawWord298944 (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
StrawWord298944, I suggest searching FlickR first for suitably licensed photographs. Afterwards you can try to persuade copyright-holders of other photographs to change their licenses. 19:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Inescutcheon
Sodacan's current graphic of William's armorial achievement omits the inescutcheon of the Principality of Wales but photographs from a visit to Birmingham on 20th April show that said inescutcheon was included on the flag and shield atop his car roof.[[1]][[2]] Robin S. Taylor (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
That's great news. RicLightning (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
@Robin S. Taylor: The inescutcheon that's being used is the same as his father's, but do we know how the overall coat of arms looks like? Is this meant to be an update to his previous arms where only the inescutcheon is changed, or is he using the same coat of arms as his father when he was Prince of Wales? If the latter is the correct scenario, then this file should be used: . Otherwise, the current file needs to be updated. Similarly for his wife, it needs to change to this one: Keivan.fTalk 21:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Mmm. I don't see it in the video at all. In the still it's on the plaque. According to the upload on Getty Images, Max Mumby (who he? seems to be a freelancer) says the photo was on that Birmingham visit in April. Is that RS? Not sure. I think it's premature to use that. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I just looked at the video, and it's there alright. No question about it. RicLightning (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
This isn't WP:RS anyway. DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
It is visible in the photo, no doubt about it. But my question still stands. Should we update his arms or simply replace it with the one used previously by his father? We cannot speculate; we need a source. Keivan.fTalk 22:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
The issue is not whether it's visible in the photo. The issue is whether the photo is RS. It clearly shows the inescutcheon but is the source reliable for the date and circumstances of the photo description? DeCausa (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Apparently, Max Mumby has been photographing the royal family frequently. I have no reason to believe that the image contains inaccurate information. Keivan.fTalk 23:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I have yet to see William's full achievement since his father's accession, so I cannot verify the other elements.Robin S. Taylor (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree. At the moment the only element of William's arms we can verify is the escutcheon, so for the moment we should use that rather than the full achievement. Reliability is more important than consistency. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Nick name
William wasn't actually given the nickname of Willy by Harry as they were growing up. It was known that he was called Wills or Wombat within the family. Willy is something that Harry has just started calling him in Spare for some reason, as he was never known as such before. 82.30.193.7 (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
(non-automated message) Greetings, fellow Wikipedians! I have initiated a move request here that especially pertains to this article on William, Prince of Wales. While participation is optional, I would appreciate any feedback! (Please note that I have not initiated this process before, so I apologize if this message is unnecessary.) HurricaneAndrew (444) 23:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Minor edits
I simply changed "British monarch" to "King" because I think it makes easier sense that way. Besides, Anne, Princess Royal's article says she "performs official duties and engagements on behalf of the King". So, why shouldn't this article? RicLightning (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
His grandmother was a woman, on whose behalf he performed official duties and engagements. DrKay (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Prince of Wales citation incorrect
The citation the Prince of Wales is the Prince of Scotland is not categorically correct. When in Scotland the Prince of Wales is known as The Duke of Rothesay.
-—His Royal Highness the Duke of Rothesay
William has since been known as "His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales", except in Scotland, where he is called "His Royal Highness the Duke of Rothesay". The letters patent formally granting him this title and that of Earl of Chester were issued on 13 February 2023.
The article already says: William has since been known as "His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales", except in Scotland, where he is called "His Royal Highness the Duke of Rothesay" instead. The title Prince and Great Steward of Scotland is in the official announcement of the letters patent issued by the Crown Office: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4290979. The letters patent is also already in the article: The letters patent formally granting him this title and that of Earl of Chester were issued on 13 February 2023.DrKay (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
One might question if one holds the title of Prince of Scotland, why is this title not used when The Prince of Wales is in Scotland? The reason is in the peerage…Duke is the highest royal title in Scotland so not a Prince but a Duke. Britishroadshow (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Why is there no Prince of Scotland?
Whatever this is about it's got nothing to do with this article. DeCausa (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
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.
Scotland and England are kingdoms. Wales was never a kingdom, but a people, ultimately conquered and assimilated into Great Britain and thereafter ruled or reigned over by a prince: so the home of the Welsh became a principality.
See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Article talk pages should not be used to post polemic, nor should multiple discussions about the same topic be started simultaneously across multiple pages. See also Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. DrKay (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
The conversation is on one page. Making policy threats to hide the facts is somewhat concerning. Considering there is other dialogue on the same set of facts, perhaps this is why Wikipedia is asking for additional sources? Britishroadshow (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
"The conversation is on one page." "Considering there is other dialogue on the same set of facts." These statements are mutually incompatible. I see no policy threats. I see no request for additional sources. There is no need for any of the above material to be in the article, which is a biography of William not an exploration of British constitutional history. DrKay (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Are Williams Titles not linked British Constitutional History? Why are there citations to titles that do not exist under the British Constitution? Britishroadshow (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Wales had many native-born Princes of Wales before 1282. RGCorris (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
What on earth is this thread about? It makes no sense. What change is being asked for? DeCausa (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I see no reason @Britishroadshow for the above changes to be made to this page. As of now, all accurate details with regard to Prince William are on this page. The page is accurate and up-to date for now. MSincccc (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
What changes? I don't see where they've said what they actually want to change in this article. DeCausa (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The article is not historically correct. The Royal Family website shows the chronological order on the Scottish Monarchy which ends with James I. The Kingdom of Scotland and England become unified. The highest royal rank according to Scottish Peerage is Duke. The Prince of Wales is called the Duke of Rothesay while in Scotland. If the Prince of Wales is not called the Prince of Scotland while in Scotland there is a reason…. Because he is a Duke and the title does not exist. Search Prince of Scotland on the Royal Family website.,.you will find no results. The article was updated from Prince of Scotland to Prince and Great Stewart of Scotland. The article should be about Duke of Rothesay or merged with other articles. For there to be a Prince of Scotland it would require act of Parliament. The Queen never crowned Charles Prince of Scotland but Prince of Wales. William is the modern monarchy and the Royal Family has made no claims to a Royal Title of Prince of Scotland but claim Duke of Rothesay. Which is historically correct: Britishroadshow (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
@Britishroadshow What changes are you suggesting? The title of this page be William, Prince of Scotland? Or are you talking about a different article as @DrKay puts it. MSincccc (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not, William is Prince of Wales and Duke of Rothesay. Any citation with William as Prince of Scotland is not Historical correct. Britishroadshow (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
@Britishroadshow Is this discussion over now? I think it is. You are already discussing the thing on the Prince of Scotland's talk page. So it is seemingly unnecessary to continue this conversation here any more. MSincccc (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no Prince of Scotland Title page as it was been udpated to Prince and Great Steward of Scotland as it was not historically correct. I guess the discussion would be over if the Prince and Great Steward Article was not used as Citation on this article. Maybe the citation should be reomved while the facts are indispute? I will leave it at that. Wikipedia is often critized for not being reliable....and here we are. Britishroadshow (talk) 14:11, 29 October 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.
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.
Will start review tomorrow. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
@Tim O'Doherty As of now, the lead seems alright with accurate URLs. Given that I am part of the review just like Keivan.f I would love to help regarding the review and actively participate as put forth yesterday. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
@Tim O'Doherty also I have gone through the "Public Image" section. It’s accurate with solid references as Keivan.f put it previously. MSincccc (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, but it's not just about references. The sections might need to be trimmed down in accordance with WP:MOS. We cannot order the reviewer around. You have to let them do their job and you in return will implement the necessary changes alongside me if I cannot catch up with the feedback on time. That's the way it works. For now the changes suggested for the lead are complete. We have to wait for more comments. Keivan.fTalk 02:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@Keivan.f and @Tim O'Doherty For the second change, instead of "William was made Duke of Cambridge immediately before his wedding to Middleton in 2011" a more accurate phrase would be "William was made Duke of Cambridge immediately before his wedding in April 2011." Catherine Middleton has already been mentioned. So rather than even mentioning "Middleton" it would be more accurate to use the new phrase. Also mentioning the month is only appropriate here though the exact date is not to be mentioned here. Further this phrase make it clear that he wed Middleton:He earned a Master of Arts degree in geography at the University of St Andrews where he met his future spouse, Catherine Middleton. So "to Middleton" is unnecessary. MSincccc (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Keivan.f and Tim O'Doherty, my recent edits include adding "Prince" and "Princess" before the names of William and Catherine's children given the latter gave us the discretion "but I'll leave that to you as it's not part of the MoS and I can't withhold GA status based on that." But the same can't be done for Elizabeth II as she was born "Princess Elizabeth", became Duchess and only Queen upon her father's 1952 demise. But William and Catherine's children have been so called since their birth. Hence, it would be more accurate to mention "Prince" and "Princess" before their names in lead of their parents' articles for the time being unless they receive new titles later. MSincccc (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Sure, they have held the titles since birth, but that doesn't mean we are obliged to use them. IMO the lead would be more fluid without. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@Rosbif73 But retaining the titles doesn't make much of a difference. After all, the children have no other titles. The present lead is accurate indeed. MSincccc (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
We don't put those titles in running text. MOS:HONORIFIC. DeCausa (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@MSincccc - I've added them back, but not too fussed: if you really want them, add them back and I won't object. My reasoning was based on brevity in the lead and the fact this is a biography: we want the names of his children, not the full titles you might find on an RF webpage. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@Tim O'Doherty I agree to your edit now. Made similar changes to Catherine's page. By the way, what's the use of "if you really want them, add them back and I won't object" when I actually see some other editor reverting them some point of time later. Anways this form is accurate. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
By the way, what's the use of [...] when I actually see some other editor reverting them some point of time later.: could it be that we don't actually have consensus one way or the other? In that case, the status quo or the advice of a third party (here the GA reviewer) should apply. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
GA reviewer shouldn't act as a WP:3O. I've never seen a GA go like this with active editing happening in parallel to the GA review. Editors should stand back, let the review happen and then contemplate the results. DeCausa (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Given we know that's something is for sure to take place, making those necessary changes don't harm. For instance, Heads Together might not be the most significant among William's ambitions (hence only Earthshot is mentioned in lead), it is Catherine's best known programme till date given her work on Early Childhood and Shaping Us is still in growth changes. So one should actually be seeing specifically to whom the article belongs before making an edit which in this case is purely justified and accurate. MSincccc (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@DeCausa - has this been posted somewhere? Why are there two (you and Rosbif73) uninvolved editors commenting in the review? Not that you're not welcome (more reviewers is a good thing) but I find it a bit strange. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Huh??!! It';s on the article talk page. "Uninvolved"?? What are you defining as "involved"? Anyone can comment in a GA of course: WP:GAN#N4. That's is a super strange comment. This is not some private show between you and MSincccc. DeCausa (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Needlessly aggressive there. Just a question, as I've never had five people comment in a single GAN. Didn't know if this had been posted to a WikiProject or to editors' talkpages (as happened with Charles III), so thought I'd ask. Yes, I know it's on the talkpage, as with all GANs. And MSincccc is not the nominator either, Keivan.f is. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Anyone watching the article talk page is likely to comment - that's normal. not sure what GARs you've seen. It's also posted at Wikipedia:Good article nominations to attract further attention. DeCausa (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
In my experience, it's not normal to get talk page watchers commenting, even on large articles. Again, I don't care that you're here (you're perfectly welcome) but like I said, 5 commenters is abnormal, even when it's within the rules. I've never been involved in a GAR, and that's besides the point. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I have. Often. In my 13 years here. I'm not just a watcher, by the way. I've edited it too. DeCausa (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I've never seen a GA go like this with active editing happening in parallel to the GA review. Editors should stand back, let the review happen and then contemplate the results. We don't need to contemplate about reasonable or necessary changes when they can be implemented immediately. That is not to say that I will blindly agree to whatever it is that the reviewer might be suggesting, but since the review is proceeding slowly it makes sense to respond to the posted comments at the moment rather than wait for endless days until the whole review is complete. I've seen it done with multiple reviews. That being said, DeCausa is right to some extent. All the back and forth on the article history makes the page appear rather unstable. As the nominator, it is my obligation to read all the comments but I'd really appreciate it if multiple people do not edit and revert at the same time. That will only result in this page failing the review. Keivan.fTalk 20:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Also, I'm glad that this review has grabbed the attention of other interested editors. Even though the initial reviewer is the only person who can pass it as a GA, additional constructive comments are definitely welcome. Keivan.fTalk 21:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@Keivan.f and @Tim O'Doherty I am just making suggestions and not giving any orders mark it. But I would prefer that we get done with this review by the end of the weekend or within 3-4 days now. I hope we can with our collaboration and accurate contributions. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
@MSincccc - Been a bit busy IRL recently, will review when I get some spare time. Apologies again for being slow, find myself stretched quite thin these last few months. Can review some bits now. Cheers - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, it's out of my hands. I will implement the changes once new comments are available. We don't have a strict timeframe for any reviews, but just like anyone else I would like to see it wrapped up sooner rather than later. Let's be patient though. Keivan.fTalk 14:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
@Keivan.f and @Tim O'Doherty I am not ordering around but given that its been some time now since the last comments, I just wanted to notify that I have gone through the "Public Image" section thoroughly and find the length to be accurate. Also if I am not wrong it was Keivan who had previously stated that the section has solid sources which should not be removed back in September. MSincccc (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
It definitely has solid sources. But a third opinion is required to evaluate the significance of the information included in that section. Not to mention that that part wasn't written by me. Keivan.fTalk 14:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
@Keivan.f By the way, if I am there around I can implement the changes, isn't it? Not necessarily that only you will be taking all the load on your arms. Also your previous revisions had a few typos and grammatical errors fixed by me. MSincccc (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to share the workload. And yes, there were some errors, but that's what happens when you try to rush things at 11:30 pm. I'm glad there was a third person who could go over them. Keivan.fTalk 14:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
@Tim O'Doherty I know that in British English it is more common to omit the comma after dates like here as in "In 2020" or "In July 2020" but in this case i.e. "On 8 September 2014 it was announced that Catherine was pregnant with her second child." wouldn't it be more accurate to use comma after 2014 as its the actual date in full? Even I confirmed it. The web and dictionaries prefer my format. MSincccc (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
@MSincccc - I don't think so, but it's so minor that I'm not overly fussed. Do as you will. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
It is so. I even confirmed it with chatbots and a few experts. After full dates, comma is necessary for accuracy though it is omitted after just year dates. You can do the same by putting both sentences with and without commas on the web and the chatbot prefers the comma in British English if it is a full date with day, month and year. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
@Keivan.f, @MSincccc - a few days ago I gave the article a copyedit. Some of it was down to the MoS, some down to BrE, and some down to personal preference. I've had another look at the article, and believe that it now meets the GA criteria. Well done to you both. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Optional: I'd remove the titles from the names (Queen Elizabeth II -> Elizabeth II, Prince George -> George, Princess Charlotte -> Charlotte etc) but I'll leave that to you as it's not part of the MoS and I can't withhold GA status based on that.
Done
In December 2014, he launched the "United for Wildlife" initiative - why is this singled out? same with "Heads Together". I'd remove these as his charity work in these areas is already summarised in he undertakes projects through The Royal Foundation, with his charity work revolving around mental health, conservation, homelessness and emergency workers. I understand Earthshot though, as that's probably his best known initiative internationally.
Done I agree. The summary is sufficient. I only kept Earthshot Prize as that's his most prominent initiative.
prior to his wedding to Catherine Middleton - don't need to put "Catherine" here, as you've already introduced her: "Middleton"'ll do.
Done
Optional - remove dates for brevity? Leads benefit from being concise and the exact timeline is specified below, so things like In October 2020, William launched the Earthshot Prize become In 2020, William launched the Earthshot Prize.
Done Removed all dates, except for the date on which his father ascended to the throne, because the sentence coming after it wouldn't make sense without it.
Forgot to say this in my Diana review, but it's best practice in British English to remove commas immediately after dates, so in 2020, William would be in 2020 William.
Done
William was made Duke of Cambridge prior to his wedding - yes, but very, very soon before (currently reads like it was weeks, months or years): add "immediately" or something to that effect.
Done
To make up for the content removal, you could add a sentence at the end on the last paragraph with something on his popularity or something like that, like the Queen had. Not sure, just floating an idea out there if you want to compensate for it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, I think it's at a decent length. But that's just my opinion. If you feel that it has to be longer, let me know.
@Tim O'Doherty I think it would be more accurate to mention "Prince" and "Princess" before their names in lead of their parents' articles for the time being unless they receive new titles later as they receive that status by virtue of birth. Also you left the thing to our discretion as t's not part of the MoS and does not effect the GA status.
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
Claims needing a ref (may be more soon):
William was christened in the Music Room of Buckingham Palace by the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, on 4 August coinciding with the 82nd birthday of his paternal great-grandmother, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother (this might be in the footnote's ref, but I'd copy it just to be safe).
Done Introduced a new source.
William gave his fianceé his mother's engagement ring
Done
Some refs still have locations, which are inconsistent with the others: you can do Ctrl+F and copy-paste in |location in the box in source editing to find them all.
Done Removed for online sources, but not for books.
Some publications are linked and some aren't.
Done All de-linked for consistency
Some of the The Times sources aren't marked as paywalled.
Done
Some of the newspapers have ISSNs, inconsistent with the others.
Done There were only two. So I just removed them.
You have both The Independent and Independent UK.
Done Only one instance of Independent UK being used; so went with The Independent for consistency.
Is there a better source than PopSugar that can be used?
Done
Is there a better source than BritainsDNA that can be used?
I can rephrase that sentence, but just so that you know, the chief scientist at BritainsDNA at the time was "Dr Jim Wilson, a geneticist at the University of Edinburgh" (link)
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
I've read up to Duke of Cambridge. Overall, I don't think the quality of the writing there is great. A lot of inconsistencies ("U.S." and "US" both used, "President" and "president", false titles v no false titles, some punctuation errors "Washington D.C," (which has now been fixed), etc), and I'm concerned that there's a lot of public tour info following the format of "In Octobruary 20XX William went [here]. He met [head of government] [there]. He made a speech on [this]. In Augtember the following year [...]". I'm not sure a lot of these tours had a big impact: is his brief 2015 visit to Japan warranted? What about his 2016 Canadian tour? Some are notable, such as trips which broke precedent or were places that royals hadn't visited in decades. I think it could be judiciously summarised: things like In February 2015 William visited Japan, meeting Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko at the Imperial Palace and visiting survivors devastated by the 2011 tsunami.[168] In March he visited the Chinese cities of Beijing, Shanghai, and Yunnan and met Xi Jinping. It was the first royal visit to mainland China in almost three decades, with press referring to William's diplomacy as "deft" and "polished".[169][170][171] In April 2016, William and Catherine undertook a tour to India and Bhutan.[172] could very easily become In 2015 and 2016, William embarked on various visits of Asian countries, including Japan, China, Bhutan and India; he was the first royal to visit mainland China in almost three decades, with press referring to William's diplomacy as "deft" and "polished".[169][170][171]. I'd have a close look at the flow of the prose here, Keivan and MSincccc; I'm not sure it meets the GA criteria as it stands, looking more like a trivia bucket from the dark days of Wikipedia. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Tim O'Doherty Thanks for the feedback. I don't think it's something that cannot be fixed. It just requires a lot of trimming which I will do later today. MSincccc and others can then check the flow and see if something needs to be added or further removed.
Tim O'Doherty Fixed a few typos and grammatical errors. Also made a few necessary changes. Waiting for further recommendations.
Done Took care of the inconsistences. Removed the 2016 Canadian tour and some of the other ones that were trivial (they are already covered here anyway). Condensed the paragraph that covered the 2015 and 2016 visits in Asia.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Yep, neutrally written.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
There's been a bit of back-and-forth in the article history, but nothing to jeopardise this aspect: it doesn't change significantly from day-to-day.
Tim O Doherty, it depends. At times when there is a conflict or some event is taking place such as the Coronation, an overseas visit, a new campaign, etc. one can expect multiple daily edits. Otherwise in the past year there have been instances of the page going even 25-30 days without a revision.
That is expected when the page is involved in a current event. Disputes can occasionally rise as well. None of these indicate that the page is unstable.
Well I've passed it now, so it doesn't really matter. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
6.Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
File:William Submarines Crop.png - are images from the Royal Navy under OGL? Understand that images from the Ministry of Defence are, but don't know about those from the navy.
@Tim O'Doherty:Here's what their website says: Pre-cleared Crown copyright images have been made available for use under the Open Government Licence (OGL). You are encouraged to use these images freely and flexibly, with only a few conditions. These images can be downloaded at high resolution. The image used in the infobox is taken from this page. I cannot tell if the image has been pre-cleared or if the Crown copyright still applies. You're welcome to take a look and if you believe it's suspicious we can change the image.
With US president Joe Biden in Boston, December 2022 - false title, add "the" before "US".
Done
7. Overall assessment.
Source spotchecks
Numbers chosen at random. Based off of this revision of the page:
28 - Y, along with other ref
80 - N - where is "he graduated in September 2010"?
Done New source added
81 - Y
90 - Y
120 - Y, along with the others
145 - Y, along with other ref
179 - Y
194 - Y, along with the others
213 - Y
262 - Y
292 - Y
313 - Paywall, AGF
Mostly good, just one thing needing to be resolved. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
@Tim O'Doherty What's that tell us? By the way if that's what you say "Mostly good, just one thing needing to be resolved." are you passing the article as GA in the next two days or so? Just asking. Regards MSincccc (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
@MSincccc - Meaning the spotcheck. Article should be passed in the next few days too. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:43, 6 November 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.
Importance of recording heads of state greeted/Listing state visits to the UK by other Heads of State
A mention of William welcoming the South Korean president and first lady has recently been added. It seems highly likely that William will greet many heads of state and other VIPs during his tenure as Prince of Wales, and we surely aren't going to list them all. Is there anything that makes the Korean visit special? Rosbif73 (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
A recent suggestion put forth by user Rosbif73 challenged the significance of listing all state visits under the "Prince of Wales" section. Here are three reasons to include all state visits in which Prince William greeted the visiting Head of State, including Cyril Ramaphosa and Yoon Suk Yeol, under the “Prince of Wales” section:
1.Historical Accuracy: Including these state visits provides a comprehensive and accurate record of Prince William’s diplomatic engagements as the Prince of Wales. This is crucial for historical documentation and for readers seeking detailed information about his role and responsibilities.
2.Significance of the Visits: State visits are significant diplomatic events that often involve discussions on important bilateral issues. Prince William’s involvement in these visits as the Prince of Wales underscores his role in the diplomatic relations of the UK.
3.Recognition of His Role: Prince William greeting visiting Heads of State, such as Cyril Ramaphosa and Yoon Suk Yeol, highlights his active role in the royal family’s state affairs Documenting these events in his Wikipedia article acknowledges his contributions and gives readers a clearer understanding of his duties as the Prince of Wales.
Including state visits in Prince William’s Wikipedia article provides historical accuracy, highlights the significance of these visits, and acknowledges his role as the Prince of Wales. While it’s impractical to lt all greetings, specific visits with notable outcomes or significant diplomatic progress, like the South Korean President’s visit, could warrant a mention. This approach aligns with Wikipedia’s aim to provide comprehensive, notable, and verifiable information.
Also state visits are rare, taking place once a year or not even that. Regards MSincccc (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
No not needed. Comes under WP:NOTDATABASE. There needs to be some significance to the meeting beyond the mere fact it happened. Otherwise the article becomes William's 'Dear diary'. The second paragraph in the "Prince of Wales" section already reads like that (all the items, not just the South Korean and South African visits). At this rate, it's going to become a very long and very boring section after a while. DeCausa (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Not necessarily long or boring. I understand the concern about the article becoming a database of events. However, it’s important to strike a balance between comprehensiveness and relevance. While not every greeting can be included, those with significant diplomatic outcomes should be considered. This doesn’t make the article a ‘Dear Diary’ but rather a reflection of Prince William’s impactful engagements as the Prince of Wales. The key is to focus on the quality of information, not the quantity, ensuring the section remains engaging and informative. For the time being let's refrain from making any further changes before we are furnished with the opinions of all time-top contributor Keivan.f and GA reviewer Tim O'Doherty. I myself have been an active contributor and rank second among all-time contributors. Once the others stated have put forth their viewpoints, we can navigate the mostsuitable and appropriate course of action. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Take a look at the section of his father's page relating to official duties as Prince of Wales, which lists very few meetings with heads of state. As you say, not every greeting can be included, those with significant diplomatic outcomes should be considered. Are there any significant diplomatic outcomes resulting from William meeting Yoon? or Ramaphosa or Duda (earlier in the paragraph) for that matter? Rosbif73 (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I might agree with you at this point but won't be removing any details until a consensus is reached. Also it would be actually be worthwhile to know the opinions of @Keivan.f and @Tim O'Doherty given their relation to this article as stated previously. But if we can settle on this I had support you because nothing significant has happened for William out of this. But Duda should be mentioned as it formed part of the Polish visit. Can't compromise there. Regards MSincccc (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
MSinccc, it's probably not what you want to hear, but I did suggest in the GA review cutting down on the "he did this. He did that. Then he did that [...]" aspects of the article. I passed the GA because it was just my personal opinion and not part of the GA criteria, meaning I couldn't reasonably fail it, but now as I'm acting beyond my capacity as the GA reviewer I would advise heavily summarising most of the information on the visits William has given and received (and, in the case of the most recent South Korean one, surely that's something to go in Charles's article, not William's, right?). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
@Tim O'Doherty Should I retain the State Visits part by Cyril Ramaphosa and Yoon Suk Keol or should I remove that part from "Prince of Wales"? What would be the best option? MSincccc (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
@MSincccc - It's up to you. I'd just take some of my and other's advice on board and do what you think's best for the article. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
@Tim O'Doherty I expected a clearer justification from you. If I had to remove it here, I would have to do the same for Catherine's page of which you are presently GA reviewer. Thus your stance is required presently. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, you'd asked for my opinion and I gave it. I never intended to give instructions. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Unless King Charles III isn't feeling well & Prince William has become regent? I don't think we should list how many world leaders he's going to meet. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Totally agree. Charles may well reign into his 90s, and William will most likely be greeting hundreds of heads of states over the course of two decades. It is absolutely trivial and unnecessary to include every single one of them. We will then end up with a list of people he has greeted over the course of years which is not very encyclopedic. It's not even something that needs to be summarized. It might as well be discarded. Keivan.fTalk 00:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Then I am closing this discussion. Removing the state visits he has greeted as PoW i.e. Ramaphosa and Yun but not meeting with the Polish Prez as that was part of what he did while in Poland and very much diplomatically. Regards MSincccc (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Meeting Duda in Poland was part of his diplomatic visit. If that needs to be removed , then the Poland portion will also have to entirely go away. No point in retaining half details. Should that portion be also removed?@Keivan.f@Rosbif73@Tim O'Doherty If we can come to a suittable conclusion, I had carry it out. Regards MSincccc (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Meeting someone on a diplomatic mission is a little bit different from welcoming them on a state visit. He didn't make a foreign trip to meet South Korea's president and he was not even the host; his father was. The trip to Poland was different in nature as he was meeting with Polish and British troops involved/affected by the Ukraine-Russia conflict. That's not something he does every single year unlike greeting heads of state in London which he is expected to do throughout the remainder of his life. Keivan.fTalk 05:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
@Keivan.f I also felt so. Hence, meeting with Prez Duda should remain. Regards MSincccc (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. But where can one be found? The ones I found on commons.wikimedia.org aren't good enough. They hardly have one of him with a smile. I think it will be some time before a good photo of Prince William as Prince of Wales gets uploaded. RicLightning (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
I mean for example, this one pic of the Prince from 2023 doesn't have a smile. But I suppose it could work if everyone thinks it might. 2023 Prince of Wales (cropped)02RicLightning (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
No it will never work. First he is not looking at the camera and while the picture quality is good you need one like the present. That's the general standard. MSincccc (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Got it. But where can you find a photo like that? RicLightning (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
@RicLightning Lets wait. Thats the best thing to do. We will get a new photo as per our wishes once William acedes to the throne. And remember the upcoming South Korean state visit. We might get a good portrait from the picture of William and Catherine greeting the South Korean prez just like we got one from Prez Cyril Ramaphosa's state visit. MSincccc (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Can someone make a cropped version from this for Prince William? RicLightning (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
@RicLightning Great that you got this picture. I was also hoping to get this one to WP. However there's just one issue. If we could just find a trimmed version of just William then it would be best. Then I had replace the present one given it is usable and fits in. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Do you suppose you know someone who can crop a trimmed version of just William from this? RicLightning (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
How do you know this image is licensed as cc-by-4.0? I was unable to find that license at the source. DrKay (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
@DrKay In my previous response, I had stated "given it is usable". So, if the image is not licensed then it is evident that it should not be used. By the way, I have no connection as to the photo. Ask @RicLightning for that. MSincccc (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
A shown by the indentation, I was replying to Ric not you. DrKay (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
The truth is, I'm not really sure. I just found it on twitter, and I really haven't done a lot of image uploading these days. So I think maybe you guys might look into it. RicLightning (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion. Do not make up licenses. Do not upload copyrighted images. DrKay (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I see that the "King" part has been stripped out of George V's title in the early life section. It looks a little weird to call George without his title but call his wife Queen Mary. If anything, it makes it appear that Mary was a sovereign and George was the consort. Векочел (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
That was done to bring consistency with the names of Elizabeth II and Charles III which appear earlier in the paragraph. However, I think consistency with his wife's name should take precedence in this instance. Keivan.fTalk 04:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
@Векочел While most of your edits were fine and acceptable, the fact that you replaced "the couple" with "William and Catherine" was not. When it has been just previously mentioned that "William and Catherine" wed, "the couple" is the most accurate choice. Even @Keivan.f will agree to that. Regards MSincccc (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Mentioning of children in lead.
Peacefully and succesfully resolved discussion. MSincccc (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
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 page has been thoroughly reviewed for GA and specifically the last paragraph in lead. There's no scope of mentioning children here being inaccurate in any way. Also it does not obstruct the flow of titles. We are being logical by mentioning children after the wedding's been mentioned. I expect comments before any further reversions to that part Rosbif73,Keivan.f and Tim O'Doherty. (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Please provide a diff to the previous discussion on this issue. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
There's nothing sacred about the GA review, further improvements are still possible. And there's nothing "inaccurate" being suggested, just a question of which option flows better. Two editors made our preference clear in edit summaries, yet were unilaterally reverted. I'd suggest thinking closely about the way you word your edit summaries and talk comments, MSincccc, to avoid accusations of WP:OWNERSHIP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosbif73 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
And I know that there's nothing sacred about the GAR and anybody is welcome to make edits here if they are helpful and accurate. But in this case the original version was fine in itself. Also I know what WP:OWNERSHIP states and I am not practicing anything of the sort. By the way, Rosbif73 you being a WP:WIKIGNOME just like me we both do tend to have common behaviours and are somewhat similar. I assume good faith. Regards (talk)
Indeed, I too assume good faith, which is why I simply suggested that you might like to rethink so that people don't construe your edit summaries and comments as trying to exercise any form of ownership. For instance, stating the original version was fine in itself is pretty close to statement 6 in WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR.
To get back to the actual matter at hand, could you point us to the previous discussion, as Celia Homeford requested? Rosbif73 (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
@Rosbif73 First lets bury the hatchet if there was really any enmity here. I want to be friends with all and co-operate with all. As for the previous discussion, you will find it on William, Prince of Wales/GA1. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I can't see where in that discussion the placement of the children in the lead is discussed? I think the flow is better with the children mentioned with the family and marriage rather than the titles. It also avoided the argument over whether couple is a plural or singular noun. DrKay (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
@DrKay The children have been mentioned under Personal Life's "Marriage and children" section that's natural. But it should have a place in lead as well as done for other royals. Further the current state of the page is fine. I don't see why any modifications should be made to the lead at this stage. If we could all agree to this it would be fine. Just a suggestion though. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
To reiterate and clarify: I can't see where in the GA discussion the placement of the children within the lead is discussed? I think the flow in the lead is better with the children mentioned with the family and marriage in the second paragraph rather than with the titles in the fourth paragraph. Placing the children in the second paragraph also avoided the argument over whether couple is a plural or singular noun by removing the phrase the couple have/has from the fourth paragraph. DrKay (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
@DrKay and @Rosbif73 Done. Now someone please close this discussion. I am convinced. Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for making the change – which is all that's needed to close this informal discussion! Rosbif73 (talk) 19:00, 27 November 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.
Banners, flags and standards: As heir apparent
Just made a little change and update the Banners of arms part. You know, gave it a multiple image infobox for the photos, that's all. RicLightning (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Creation of a William, Prince of Wales taskforce
Now that we have a taskforce for Charles III, I would like to propose the creation of a taskforce for William as well now that his article has been promoted to GA status and will possibly be put up for FA in future. Prominent contributors to the article till date can thereby put forth their views here at the conclusion of which I had decide whether to create or not create the Taskforce. Keivan.f, DrKay, Rosbif73 and others please decide and let me know of your views as to such. Regards MSincccc (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
It is a good idea and I'm not against it. And I think it's a very simple process where you gather all the relevant pages in one place so that interested users could make their own contributions. Let's see what everyone else thinks though. Keivan.fTalk 13:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Reverted
Why did my edit get reverted, as all i did was change "the Queen" to "Queen Elizabeth II" as she is no longer "The Queen"? Joddd334 (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
@Joddd334 Yours was a good faith edit that was unnecessary. Its understood from the page that "Queen" refers to Elizabeth II. That's all. Its mentioned a number of times like "Queen Elizabeth II". Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
So, if the Queen is ever mentioned in the present time, what will she be called? The user was right, I understand that the general public thinks of Queen Elizabeth II when they hear "Queen of England" or "British Queen," but this has been inaccurate for quite some time now. StrawWord298944 (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@StrawWord298944 Queen Elizabeth II +, the full name, was mentioned in the very previous sentence and also multiple times on the same page. So the edit was unnecessary. We can't go about using the same full name to refer to the same person multiple times in the same paragraph. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
this is the confusing part cause now the term "the queen" is Queen Camilla. Her mother-in-law is technically "HM Queen Elizabeth II" or "Elizabeth II" Joddd334 (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
"He became president of England's Football Association in May 2006 and vice-royal patron of the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) in February 2007, supporting the Queen as patron." This is the sentence in question. Its true that Camilla is the present Queen but going by the date it is clear that "The Queen" refers to Elizabeth II here. Also as previously mentioned, "Queen Elizabeth II" as a whole has been mentioned multiple times in the article. So for anyone who actually visits the article, by the time he/she reaches this sentence its clear that the Queen here refers to Elizabeth II, not Camilla. Also repetition of the same phrase is not preferred. I hope its clear. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
RFC: What should William be known as in the article lead
Procedural close. This is not an RfC; please follow the instructions at WP:RFCST, and particularly observe the notes per WP:RFCBEFORE, WP:RFCBRIEF and especially the importance of notifying interested parties: These include a Village Pump forum, a Noticeboard, the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects and talk pages of closely related articles.Use {{RFC notice}} for a neutrally-wortded notification. Note also that An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration. ——Serial 15:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
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.
How should William be defined in the article lead?
2, The issue I have with the present wording is, it explicitly omits the 14 other realms (The United Kingdom is also a realm), all of which have legally distinct thrones, of which he is also the heir apparent. The current wording implies that realms are either crown dependencies or overseas territories through the linking of only British throne, the exclusion of which is knowingly misleading the readers. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 22:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
2: If Charles III is described as "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms", then his son should be defined as the heir to all those thrones. The current version omits the 14 other realms of which his father is sovereign. William is heir to all the 15 thrones, and all should be included. My preferred format would be "heir apparent to the throne of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms", mirroring Charles and Camilla's lead introduction. Peter Ormond 💬 23:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
1. The first sentence should be short, succinct and summarise the main reason the subject is notable. It should not contain any concepts that can be argued over or that require complex explanation or counteracting statements. Option 2 introduces a rare term of art and is bias towards the view that there are multiple thrones, but there are shared aspects of the monarchy/monarchies as well as separate aspects. There is a single line of succession, not 15. Most, if not all, sources describe it as "the British throne". There are no sources that say "the throne of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms". Nor should the lead sentence contain material that is not covered later on in the article. Option 2 introduces a concept that is not covered anywhere else in the article, where it probably doesn't belong anyway. This is a biography of one British man who works and lives in Britain. It is not an article about esoteric and debateable points of constitutional law and practice. DrKay (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
1 I feel like 1 is short but still accurate. We should not lose sight of the fact that we are still talking about a single line of succession. His situation is not really comparable to that of his father. Charles has different titles and has a constitutional role in each of the realms where he is king. William, however, is Prince of Wales (a title originating from Britain) and has no formal constitutional role in any of the realms. This will remain the case until he is king. Keivan.fTalk 13:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Considering the input from @DrKay and @Keivan.f, both significant contributors to the article, akin to my contributions, can we affirm that the prior consensus reached on Charles III's page during his tenure as Prince of Wales should be retained? Is there anything further to add or justify, @Nford24? Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I would say we should let the RfC run for a couple of days so that we can determine what the consensus is. This is not a voting contest, but everyone's arguments should be heard. Keivan.fTalk 14:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I understand this isn't a voting contest. However, my question was directed at @Nford24, who initiated the RfC. I would like to know his current views on the matter at this stage of the discussion. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2024 (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.
Is this the MSincccc who self-describes as among the 5 all-time highest authors of this page, but has *checks notes* 4.7% of the authorship. ——Serial 17:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, I had to tag everyone who was involved in the dispute, so…. Keivan.fTalk 17:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129 I do not self describe myself as a significant author rather I am the 4th largest author of the page. Also I am also of the view that the present version of the page should stay till William ascends to the throne. Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Agree the opening sentence should stay as it is per DrKay and two previous RfCs. ——Serial 17:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Ah yes, we may as well move the conversation over here. The glaring issue I have with the present wording is, it explicitly omits the 14 realms, all of which have legally distinct thrones, of which he is also the heir apparent. Now the argument I had been given defending the current wording is that describing the realms as crown dependencies and overseas territories is sufficient. This is both legally wrong and generally offensive to the said 14 realms. Now I have quickly read through both RfC's and I found in them both arguments by editors that leaving the realms out was considered inaccurate and misleading by omission, and that was in 2017. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I think in order to override the consensus reached at a previous RfC a new one might be needed. Because I see at least one other user opposing at the moment so it would be best to secure a consensus before making any further changes. Keivan.fTalk 22:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Keivan.f and Nford24 That's all fine. Then I had make the changes once the consensus has been achieved and this discussion is closed. Regards and hoping for the best, MSincccc (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
A procedural close on a page only focused RfC that’s formed perfectly fine after only four inputs, that also demonstrate a clear divide in consensus? I see the editors of this article don’t like different opinions but atleast I tried, so I’ll leave you all to it. Have fun. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 18:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The status quo should remain. Also (as already mentioned) this general topic has already been through two RFC (at his father bio page) & the consensus was "... British throne". GoodDay (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Apparently it can't even be discussed in an RfC without it being closed immediately to avoid the discussion. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 02:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Initial phrase commas
As far as I know, in British English, initial phrases such as "In 2021" do not need following commas, unless a subordinate clause is being introduced, and so the commas are redundant. Is the intention to consistently employ these in the entire article, or to consistently not employ them, or to use them at random, as the fancy takes us? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Both versions are accurate and acceptable in British English. But for consistency reasons if the commas are omitted in one place, similar changes need to be made in other areas as well which is not necessary given both versions are equally accurate and acceptable. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I understand your first sentence, although I disagree with it. Both forms may be acceptable, but I do not believe they are equally preferred. I'm not sure that accuracy is a factor. I'm unsure what your second sentence means, sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd rather see the article consistently use a form that's preferred than consistently use a form that's not. I don't see any benefit in using superfluous punctuation. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Closing this discussion then. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
So you have no objection to me removing all those superfluous commas? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC) p.s. you just removed one here that I think is correct, as it introduces a subordinate clause.
@Martinevans123 Removing the commas only if it's starts like "In [year]" not if it's like "In [date] [month] [year] or "In [month] [year]". Are you clear'd? MSincccc (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's reasonable. I think it probably depends on how long that initial phrase is. I raised this question at WP:MoS a while back, and that seemed to be the general consensus. It's having a comma used after two words, that I object to. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
"Pre-wedding relationship"
A wedding is an event which takes place on a given day. The phrase "pre-wedding relationship" suggests the relationship that may have existed on the morning of the wedding, similar perhaps to a "pre-wedding" drink or a "pre-wedding photograph". Isn't the phrase "pre-marriage relationship" more accurate? Where was the consensus to use "pre-wedding relationship" established? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Martinevans123. The following argument should suffice for any future discussions related to this matter- The sub-heading "Pre-marriage relationship" is more accurate for the "Personal life" section of the Wikipedia pages of Catherine, Princess of Wales and William, Prince of Wales. This choice aligns more closely with British English patterns and maintains consistency with the terminology used in similar articles about members of the British royal family. Additionally, "Pre-marriage" accurately reflects the period leading up to their wedding and encompasses the entirety of their relationship before marriage, including courtship, engagement, and any significant events or milestones during this time. From a Wikipedia perspective, this choice adheres to the principles of clarity, conciseness, and neutrality, ensuring that readers understand the chronological sequence of events in the couple's relationship without ambiguity or confusion.
While "Pre-wedding" is a valid term, "Pre-marriage" is preferred for the "Personal life" section of the Wikipedia pages of Catherine, Princess of Wales and William, Prince of Wales due to several reasons. Firstly, "Pre-marriage" is more commonly used in British English and aligns with the linguistic conventions of the region, ensuring consistency across Wikipedia articles related to members of the British royal family. Secondly, "Pre-marriage" encompasses a broader timeframe, including not only the period leading up to the wedding but also the courtship and engagement phases. This comprehensive term provides a more accurate portrayal of the couple's relationship history. Lastly, "Pre-marriage" maintains neutrality and avoids potential ambiguity, clearly indicating the focus on the period before the formalization of their marital union. Overall, "Pre-marriage" is the preferred choice for its clarity, adherence to linguistic conventions, and comprehensive coverage of the relevant timeline.
Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Where was the consensus to use "pre-wedding relationship" established? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, the above argument justifies the use of "Pre-marriage relationship". I hope you will close this thread now. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm guessing there is/was no consensus. I'm quite happy to leave this thread open in case other editors wish to comment. Your latest edit to that section heading is fine by me. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@Martinevans123 There was no formal consensus but the term has been there since long and a previous discussion on Catherine's talk page culminated with the term "Pre-wedding relationship" being retained. Nothing more and I hope we will not be discussing each and every edit on the Talk page in future. Let peace be with you. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
The talk page is the place for discussion. Discussion via edit summary is discouraged, I think. I guess it will depend on whether other editors agree with edits. Hard to predict, in my experience. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@Martinevans123 I am not against discussion and all for collaboration and accuracy. But there are far more serious and important discussions going regarding the article's subject. Anyways let's see what the others say. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
You needn't @ me every time. I am aware of these discussions, thanks.Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I think the current heading is fine. "Marriage" refers to that act of marrying whereas "wedding" typically refers to the ceremony and fanfare. Keivan.fTalk 04:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Standard for the Duke of Cambridge
Standard for the Earl of Strathearn
Former Canadian personal Standard for Prince William.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
The redirect Coronation of William V 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 § Coronation of William V until a consensus is reached. Estar8806 (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
. Otherwise, the current file needs to be updated. Similarly for his wife, it needs to change to this one: 
Keivan.fTalk 21:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
, along with other ref
- where is "he graduated in September 2010"?
Done New source added
02.JPG)
