[go: nahoru, domu]

Talk:Charles III

Latest comment: 1 day ago by Wehwalt in topic British prince
Good articleCharles III 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.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 21, 2023Peer reviewReviewed
May 11, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
May 22, 2023Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 4, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 1984, Charles, Prince of Wales described a proposed extension to the National Gallery as a "monstrous carbuncle"?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 28, 2004, July 29, 2007, July 29, 2008, July 29, 2009, and July 29, 2010.
Current status: Good article

Yet another photograph suggestion

edit
 

Recent D-Day commemorations have given us a smattering of new photographs of His Majesty. I suspect we will get a few more at Trooping the Colour and Garter Day later this month. I'm particularly fond of this one of him saluting next to Macron. The colour of the uniform is just different enough from the stone wall that he doesn't blend into the background and, despite a bit of shadow from his hat, the lighting on his face is better than in the photograph currently being used. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are there any other new photos without hats (? 2401:E180:8830:1AF0:7DFB:714D:B468:C5A (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
None from that event, nor from Trooping the Colour. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
 
The full image
 
A tight crop

There is one from the Portsmouth part of the commemorations, but there would be two other people's heads in the background. You could try to cut him out but that would be very difficult as his suit is almost the same colour as the drapes, uniforms and steps behind him. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, the fact he is looking somewhat downwards at that moment makes it a bit of a problem. Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, in the wide shot it makes sense because you can see he's standing on a stage holding one arm out but as a close-up it just looks like his neck and shoulders are the wrong shape. The Portsmouth shot has much clearer lighting on his face but the Normandy one has him with a better facial expression. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
They are both valid points, but in addition the colouration in the Normandy is really bad - he seems to have become heavily sunburned overnight. Neither of these are better than the present lead photo. - Davidships (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
How do you mean? RicLightning (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
After opening the photos, just compare the more-or-less normal complexion in Portsmouth on 5 June and the beetroot appearance in France the following day. Perhaps something acceptable will emerge from the coverage of the Japanese state visit. - Davidships (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd say his skin looks worse in the Portsmouth one. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The current picture has the advantage that it is not specifically tied to any of the Commonwealth Realms. The blue business suit is neutral in that respect. The D-Day photo shows him in British uniform. A neutral image for the infobox is a good thing, in my opinion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
In that sense the UK military cosplay is especially apt, as seemingly his primary notability is so exclusively that as king of the UK that not only is his also being -- say -- monarch of Canada not mentioned in terms in the lede, it's not said explicitly anywhere in the main article text. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It’s in the very first sentence of the article. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, the word "Canada" does not appear there at all. Just an offhanded reference implicitly -- and for most readers likely entirely opaquely -- including it among the "other Commonwealth realms". Which is explicitly different from it being "explicitly said anywhere in the main article text". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just noting here that official portraits of Charles & Camilla for New Zealand and for Australia have now been released.-Radicuil (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Let's stick with the current image. GoodDay (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. There's obviously nothing better than the current image, at present. RicLightning (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2024

edit

Please add the category Category:Lord High Stewards of Scotland 98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 03:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

British prince

edit

Why was the Category:British princes removed? It's a fact that he was at one point a British prince. Векочел (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Possibly because he's now a King. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are other categories on the page that Charles does not currently fit, but historically he was a member of. Should these categories be deleted as well?
  • Dukes of Cornwall
  • Dukes of Edinburgh
  • Dukes of Rothesay
  • Heirs to the British throne
  • Princes of Wales
  • Lord High Stewards of Scotland
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Those are titles. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
They are not titles he currently holds. And « Heirs to the British throne » is not a title. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
It should be re-inserted. This article is about his whole life, in which he was a prince for over 73 years; and for the first ten years he was not Prince of Wales (a subcategory of British princes). - Davidships (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
While I'm sure there are exceptions, categories seem to work on "highest rank". Eisenhower is under US Army generals, but not under the lesser ranks he held earlier. Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
By that analysis, why is Eisenhower in the “General in the US Army” category at all? Commander-in-chief outranks all generals. That was Eisenhower’s last position in the chain of command, so shouldn’t the “General in the US Army” category be deleted from Eisenhower’s bio, and from the bios of other US presidents who were previously generals, like Washington, Taylor, and Grant?
That analysis would also require deleting the various title categories I’ve already flagged from Charles’s bio. “King” outranks “Heir to the British throne”, and “Prince of Wales”, and all those mere dukes, so shouldn’t all those categories be deleted from his article?
Similarly, judges outrank lawyers, but it is customary to include the applicable “lawyer” category in bios of judges. Should the “lawyer” category be deleted from all bios of judges? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Judges are lawyers at all times. Charles is not a prince. He may be a prince again someday should he abdicate but he is not one now. Interestingly, looking at this version from 2021, it doesn't seem we put Charles in general princely or nobility categories even when he held those ranks, just the specific category of Prince of Wales and his specific dukedoms. Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Edit Request: Pertaining to His Majesty's title in the infobox

edit

In the infobox it currently has His Majesty listed as "King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth Realms", however, I believe that instead of simply say "other Commonwealth Realms " that each nation should be listed here.

I believe this as, while it would certainly extend the length of the infobox, it would better reflect the fact that the Commonwealth Realms are not a single entity and that all of the Kingly titles held by His Majesty are of equal status and below that of the United Kingdom.

Each crown that His Majesty has is equal in status to that of the UK and thus should be treated as such in the infobox, as opposed to being clumped together into the Commonwealth Realms. whilst I know that they are clumped together in each respective realm after his Kingly title in that realm (e.g. King of Australia, His other realms and territories) this is done as to both shorten the title and to distinguish which title is primarily being used. Since rhis title isn't just about His Majesty as the King of the UK, rather being about His Majesty as a whole, including all his Kingly titles, I truly think that it would be better if all the Realms were listed in the infobox and given equal prevalence to the UK.

Aggressively Monarchist Australian (talk) 03:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll ask you to please revert your own edits for now, as I don't want to engage in edit warring: as I've tried to articulate, they go against the strong existing consensus that has been hammered out on these talk pages over the past several decades. It's not best to explain every detail as to why the consensus is how it is over edit summaries, which results in undue disruption—I recommend taking a look and at least appreciating the principle of Bold. Remsense ‥  04:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Edit Request: Pertaining to the short description and exclusion of the Commonwealth Realms in relevant places

edit

In both the short description and certain other spots, namely the beginning of the section on the reign of His Majesty, I have attempted to simply add the line "and the other Commonwealth Realms" or equivalent as this is important information. However, each time I have attempted this it has been removed. So, I have come down to the talk section in order to discuss this.

I firmly believe that it would better reflect the fact that the Commonwealth Realms are of equal status to that of the United Kingdom.

Each crown that His Majesty has is equal in status to that of the UK and thus should be treated as such in the short description and whenever appropriate to do so, as opposed to being excluded from relevant spots. Since this article isn't just about His Majesty as the King of the UK, rather being about His Majesty as a whole, including all his Kingly titles, I truly think that it would be better if the Commonwealth Realms were given equal prevalence to the UK. I see no reason why this isn't an entirely reasonable request as, like I said, all of these crowns are entirely equal to each other.

Aggressively Monarchist Australian (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

These was discussed in the past & the consensus was to follow WP:WEIGHT, which is why the intro, infobox, reign sections are as they are. GoodDay (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply