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)

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)

Just because he does not play, doesn't mean he isn't still involved. See this article for an explanation of trivia on Wikipedia. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Danainlondon: - your last edit violates the WP:3RR rule - please self-revert and wait for consensus to be reached. You reverted 3 times before coming here and then reverted a fourth time before consensus was reached - this is not following WP:BRD. The current sponsors name is not used in the domain name for the team. Pushing your employers name is not necessary (unless that is your goal).

There appears to be very little coverage about the Welsh team on google. And that is as likely to either omit the sponsors name or use a previous sponsor. noq (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Danainlondon: your association with the sponsor is relevant - you are being paid by a company whose name you are inserting into the article: that is a conflict of interest and means you should propose the change here first. I agree with Absolutelypuremilk that this feels like trivia and the statement that Charles no longer plays polo does not imply anything more. Even if the patronage were to be added back (but again, why this as opposed to anything and everything else?) I still do not think it should have the name of the sponsor. Melcous (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Information to be added or removed: To the Sports section under Hobbies and personal interests please add – Charles currently acts as the Patron for the Centtrip Wales Polo Team.

Explanation of issue: The sentences give the impression that Charles is no longer involved in polo, however this is false.

References supporting change:

Danainlondon (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The thing is if you do a search for 'prince charles polo', you get a number of hits but this patronage isn't among the first 50, so is it really that important? His own page merely says 'The Prince maintains his interest in polo and follows the sport through his two sons' continued participation.' Even if it is included, the name of the sponsor isn't relevant: 'Charles remains patron of the Wales Polo Team.' is just as informative, but shorter. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion Celia Homeford. What would you think of a contribution without the sponsor name? I still think it's important to add due to it's readability giving off different impressions - this doesn't sound like a neutral addition to me. I understand if you think the sponsor name is not important so that does not have to be included (even though my declared COI would assume I would believe otherwise). Thoughts? Danainlondon (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)