Talk:Charles III

Lead should be longer

the article's lead is too short, i just added important things which he has done over the course of the years, which has been much publicised and its impact, you can't just remove it because you don't like it or better you feel its not important, discuss it first, all i wrote was important, i see no reason why it shouldn't be in the lead, discuss before making your unnecessary edit, i don't want to start another edit conflict with you, as an administrator, you should know better, perhaps we need another one to solve this discussion for us. (Monkelese (talk)

Call him what?!?

In today's world of 24-hour royal baby name news, it's hard to find any stupid thing particularly absurd. But November 1948 was a different time. During nameless Charles' hoopla, a reader from Chicago answered an Evening Times poll with such an unbelievably outlandish suggestion that it wound up back across the pond, via AP, where Ottawa Citizen readers shared a hearty "What will those crazy Yankees think up next?"

If you're sitting down with your monocle secured, get ready to hold on to your hat, because it's a doozie!

Is this still what we'd call notably ludicrous, or has that ship sailed? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:15, September 13, 2015 (UTC)

If not, maybe those three consensus "most likely" names could be useful, in a boring trivia way. I think they were the same three favourites for Charlotte's brother, sixty-odd years later. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:20, September 13, 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Prince William and Prince Charles.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2018

Add |birth_name=Charles Philip Arthur George 219.79.96.63 (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done It's already in the infobox under 'full name', I don't see why it needs to be shown again. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit wars

My contribution was removed by User:Melcous. After editing and reviewing my edits keep being removed also by User:Absolutelypuremilk and User:Noq. Can we please discuss this? Please approach with good faith as my contributions definitely are. Danainlondon (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

First, read WP:BRD - you are the one edit warring. Secondly, can you explain why his patronage of this organisation (one of very many) is relevant, and thirdly, if relevant, why the name of the current sponsor (who you have declared is paying you) is relevant to this article. noq (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I have read this page. I've edited, I've reverted, now we're discussing, go team :) Charles, Prince of Wales patronage of the organisation is important particularly under the sports section because Charles acts as both a Patron and a Non Playing Captain for the team, as my source states. The current content gives the impression that Charles is no longer interested or involved in the sport of polo which is false. The name of the sponsor is important because this is the official name of the team. My association to the sponsor is not relevant, I have made sure that my contribution here is completely relevant to Charles and Charles alone. Danainlondon (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't get the impression he is no longer involved in the sport. I don't see how this is anything more than trivia - even if you weren't being paid then this would not belong in the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

"From his youth until 1992, Prince Charles was an avid player of competitive polo. He continued to play informally, including for charity, until 2005." It literally says until this date, how does this not give the impression he is no longer involved in the sport? Also what do you mean by trivia? I'm unsure we're on the same page. Danainlondon (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)