Jump to content

Talk:Charles III

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Earnulf Gery (talk | contribs) at 14:55, 9 September 2022 (→‎Requested move 8 September 2022: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

When he becomes King

I assume when Charles becomes King, we'll use Elizabeth II's current intro & infobox, as a basis for his BLP. In other words we'll be using in the intro "...King of the United Kingdom and # other Commonwealth realms..." & in the infobox "King of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" (with the collapsed list mechanism). Mentioning this now, so we can avoid any disputes, when he becomes King. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The man is 73-years-old. At this point, it seems questionable whether he will live long enough to succeed to the throne. Dimadick (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In 2022, the average life expectancy in the UK is 81.65 years. Charles turns 74 in November 2022. That said, his mother is currently 96. Her mother died at age 101, and Charles' father died two months before his 100th birthday. Sampajanna (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The figure you actually need to be using is not current life expectancy for everyone, but the life expectancy for people already aged 73. It will be higher. And yes, what we know about his parents and grandparents counts for a lot. HiLo48 (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This didn't age well... Ocemccool (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He is 23 years younger than Elizabeth II. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was guidance made public last year and reported here. "At 10 a.m. on the day after the queen’s death, the Accession Council — which includes senior government figures — meets at St. James’ Palace to proclaim King Charles the new sovereign.... The proclamation will then be read at St. James’ Palace and the Royal Exchange in the City of London, confirming Charles as king." According to this report (which may or may not be reliable), he "will have the opportunity to pick a new name for himself once he assumes power as the monarch... [He] actually has two options available; he can take the traditional route to his "regnal title," and become King Charles III. However, if he doesn’t go the traditional route, he may adopt a new kingly name. His full name is Charles Philip Arthur George, which means that as King, Charles can adopt any of the names in the full title. In this regard, he could choose to become King George VII or King Philip...". Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
" His full name is Charles Philip Arthur George, which means that as King, Charles can adopt any of the names in the full title. In this regard, he could choose to become King George VII or King Philip...""
Really? They went with "King George" and "King Philip" as examples when they could've led with King Arthur?! 2A02:2121:289:93CA:B933:2356:2AB8:BD04 (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I say stick with "Charles, King of the United Kingdom" until Reliable sources confirms whether or not Charles will use that name. Gust Justice (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should this not list the 14 realms in full instead of in an info box? They are all equally important and should not be demoted to "other". Sygmadelta (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that this is a sensitive situation, but one issue we need to address is what we call the article. There may be a short interval between him becoming monarch and official confirmation of his new title. He might become Charles III or George VII, what do we call him before we know for sure? PatGallacher (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To complicate matters, do we describe him as "of the United Kingdom"? There are only a couple of George VII's, both rather obscure, but there are a pile of Charles III's, including an important king of Spain. PatGallacher (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If he sticks with the name Charles? We'll simply 'rename' the disambiguation page as Charles III (disambiguation) & give the British monarch the article title Charles III. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His page should only be called "Charles III" if he is more likely to be the subject sought than all other Charles IIIs combined. That might be the case, but it's debatable. The other Charles IIIs include a King of Spain, a King of Hungary, and a Holy Roman Emperor. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's certain he will be the Charles III most saught on the English Wikipedia at least - I am not sure if any of the other Charles IIIs are living monarchs in existing monarchies, but the media interest in his forthcoming coronation will be massive. Of course he could decide not to have Charles as his regnal name, which would alter all of this. The Land (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the monarch can pick any regnal name, the current article title seems like the only appropriate compromise in the circumstances. That will change in the coming hours or days, when we find out what name he has picked. But for now, we can't use a crystal ball to try and guess what the name will be. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that, as long as he is living, he will be the most sought after. After his death, whenever that may be, it should be changed to Charles III of the United Kingdom. SabreOnYouTube (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm sure there is particular protocol that it should be "of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms" or something like that. The current theory is that he is equally the monarch of all the Commonwealth realms ... Comparing to the Wikipedia page of QE II's titles suggests that Charles has a separate but parallel title for each realm. 66.31.109.155 (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This proved strangely prophetic... 121.99.69.54 (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Current Events - London Bridge Task Force

I wanted to let editors know and invite editors to the WikiProject of Current Events new task force The London Bridge Task Force, which will be working on improving all the articles around the death of Elizabeth II. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity sentences in first paragraph

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_III&diff=1109235939&oldid=1109235830 this edit and similar from User:Uhooep seem wildly out of place, and seem to mostly demonstrate the effectiveness of editing Wikipedia for political means. They should probably be reverted, or at minimum, moved out of the first paragraph. 2001:5B0:2B42:CED0:B4DE:BA42:F7A8:BFCE (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stick them in the accession paragraphs. A near 50/50 split in public opinion is notable IMO but in the lead is wildly out of place. Dralwik|Have a Chat 18:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's the only popularity polling we have to go on, and it asked specifically how the pubic felt about him becoming King. Uhooep (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is currently the subject of an edit war, with User:Uhooep having re-added it three times after removal by others. 2001:5B0:2B42:CED0:B4DE:BA42:F7A8:BFCE (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it as suggested in this talk page. I don't think it should keep being removed. Uhooep (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 September 2022

– I propose that we move this article to Charles III of the United Kingdom and restore the disambiguation to Charles III, where it was prior to bold moves today. The naming convention for royalty is extremely clear that the typical format is [Monarch's first name and ordinal] of [Country]}, which would render this as "Charles III of the United Kingdom". Moreover, there is no evidence that the current King of England is the primary topic with respect to long-term significance, so the DAB should take Charles III. The current series of moves, which have been contested, show extreme WP:RECENTISM and are out-of-line with our royalty-specific naming convention. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that [i]n article title discussions, in the event of a lack of consensus the applicable policy preserves the most recent prior stable title, which would return the title of the dab page to Charles III. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If we want to change it to Charles III of United Kingdom, we should in fact change it to Charles III of United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. which is so long! Aminabzz (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent shows that British Monarchs are styled as just "of the United Kingdom" The Radioactive Box (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per DFlhb Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 01:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "Charles III of Spain" wasn't actually named Charles. He was named Carlos. So there's that. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this point. It would help if Wikipedia stopped anglicizing names. Earnulf Gery (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As with many things relating to monarchy, translating names is common. Every Spanish Speaker called Elizabeth II "Isabel." The Radioactive Box (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In which case we could put King Carlos III along with something explaining that the name King Charles III has been used in the English speaking world; for example English: Charles III. That would be more precise. The article would use his proper name, and recognise how his name has been anglicized. Earnulf Gery (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this may be a misconception that is echoed in several places below, whether or not this Charles should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Charles III cannot depend on his potential future accomplishments as King, as that would be WP:CRYSTAL. This discussion should be based solely on the principle of whether an English speaking user would be much more likely to be searching for this Charles than any other Charles when searching Charles III. It also doesn't seem like using current press coverage is a good strategy as that seems to be WP:Recentism. Instead I think the clarity of names like George V, Edward VIII, and George VI all indicate that the significance of the British Royal Family means that most people will probably be looking for this Charles when searching Charles III . INLegred (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how the material accomplishments of the Spanish Charles III really matter here. The fact that Charles has not done anything significant as King yet doesn't change his level of actual fame, and I find it incredibly unlikely that more people searching for "Charles III" on would be searching for this spanish king or any other historical Charles III than the son of one of the longest reigning monarchs of all time, whose appointment as King is known widely. Yes, it's "long-term" significance, but I feel that the fame of the subject matters more than what they have accomplished, as the point here is to make the article's title as non-confusing as possible. I don't see how calling him "of the united kingdom" changes that. 2A00:23C7:5484:B01:C21:1E9F:4AAB:6FBD (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. " of the United Kingdom" is not part of the article title of his predecessors. It is not the Wikipedia standard: Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, George V, Edward VII, William IV, George IV, William III Rmhermen (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia standard is elicited at WP:NCROY. I find it extremely dubious that this person is more significant with respect to long-term significance than Charles III of Spain and all other people named Charles III combined. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "significance than Charles III of Spain and all other people named Charles III combined" That is not how Primary topic is determined even if it is applicable. Rmhermen (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly how it's determined. The standard is "more likely than all the other topics combined". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. I should have specified the following text: "There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors,..." Rmhermen (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, very little is "absolute" on Wikipedia. WP:IAR, WP:ILIKEIT, let a thousand piles of poo bloom. But what reason do you have in this case dismissing this one of two "major aspects that editors commonly consider"? (The other being "long-term significance" -- of a style that was unofficially announced all of a couple of hours ago, and is yet to even be formally proclaimed by the usual ceremonial protocol.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec*2)The "Wikipedia standard" is to use the common name in English, according to what's the primary topic. It's far from clear that's been established here, especially given that until very shortly ago it was a matter of speculation what the regnal name was intended to be -- and indeed isn't yet formally proclaimed, just leaked by the prime minister and then confirmed by Clarence House press release. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize that William III, which you listed as an example, is a disambiguation page? Regards SoWhy 07:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We should maintain consistency with the patterns that have come before, just as Rmhermen explained. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I on the other hand, do see him having a higher long-term significance over the other Charles IIIs, both because I disagree with the notion that his significance compared to other Charles IIIs can only be measured from today and not be based on his entire life, and also because there comes a significance from simply being the British monarch and Head of the Commonwealth. I would also argue that there is an already established precedent of British monarchs and Heads of the Commonwealth being titled as such, back to George II George III.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  19:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The page for George II is a disambiguation page... — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you can understand it's difficult to correct your comment when there's new edits being made every 10 seconds.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  19:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a tough case. There are other Charles IIIs that have reigned before, and we don't know how long this one will reign. This one seems obviously the primary topic, but I also understand concerns of recentism.
wizzito | say hello! 19:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Rmhermen and Ved havet's arguments on consistency. If we must disambiguate, Charles III of the Commonwealth Realms is a more neutral title per DeCausa. Dralwik|Have a Chat 19:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comments that ignore the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue should be ignored. He has been king for a few hours and his achievements as king are zero. There are many other notable monarchs at Charles III (disambiguation). As the articles says, he is the oldest and the longest-serving heir apparent in British history. Hard to see how he can be at the primary topic when his main achievement seems to be that he hasn't been king for a very long time. Maybe I should also get an article in that case, I have also not been king for a very long time. Vpab15 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're referring to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC while ignoring that A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. That's what comments opposing the move is arguing. His achievements however, are not' relevant to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It also doesn't matter if his achievements or notability was gained as heir apparent or not, he's just got one article.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  19:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You forgot the question of long-term significance: A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. Vpab15 (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, WP:CRYSTAL DeCausa (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think his page views in the last month – not just today – compared to those of Charles III of Spain, speak for themselves on his long-term significance. I don't know where this idea that his significance as King is the only thing relevant, and that because he's just become King, his significance has somehow had to start from scratch. That's just silly.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  19:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The page views are hugely compelling to what is and isn't the primary topic. That's per the guidelines. GedUK  10:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I don't think there's any Charles III with the same notability, even if it's been a couple of hours only. Not that we should define notability this way but look at article views for Charles III of Spain vs Charles III [4]. Let's keep in mind what users search and expect to see. Different naming than most British monarchs might also bring more confusion for readers who might end up wondering if his status is different than Elizabeth II while only our title would be different. AlanTheScientist (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It seems the height of recentism (or English bias) to assume Charles becomes the primary topic for "Charles III" immediately upon accession. As such, we should revert to the status quo until such time as it becomes apparent that he is the primary topic. Powers T 19:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is clearly not the primary topic, it is a literal impossibility for it to be the primary topic for Charles III since that has been his title for oh, checks watch, about an hour and a half. This is not Commonwealthepedia, and per our policies on article titles Charles III should be a disambiguation page. And all the votes that dont even attempt to discuss PRIMARYTOPIC are directly at odds with our policy, and so is the move warring that brought this article to this title now (which should also be reverted). nableezy - 19:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right but he's King of 14 other realms beside the UK. See my proposal above. DeCausa (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I support that disambiguation too. nableezy - 19:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether Charles Mountbatten-Windsor is the most renowned Charles III in terms of achievement is a bit of a red herring. The reality, English bias or no, is that en.wikipedia.org is an English-language wikipedia, it will be primarily read by English language speakers, and the majority of those speakers who are searching Charles III are going to be looking for Charles of the UK, the only current Charles III of note. Indeed, in the anglosphere that makes up the majority of the site's readership, a reference to any other Charles III is more likely to be to Bonnie Prince Charlie than to any ACTUAL Charles III outside the British isles.
    If, however, there is a link instead to a disambiguation page, Charles III of the United Kingdom would be the proper title - he may have 14 different titles from his various realms, but they all arise from the British Monarchy in the first instance. Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As "King Charles III": As per the naming scheme of the former British monarchs, the trend shall live on. Name should be changed to "King Charles III". ElusiveTaker (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with the arguments of consistency, but I also understand that there are other (possibly more) important Charles III and the argument of bias. However, at the moment most people will be searching for this Charles III, so I don’t think it needs to be moved right now. If an alternate name is needed, I think Charles III of the United Kingdom would be ok. SunderB (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on grounds of consistency.--Smerus (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At time of writing (which is the only reference point for discussion per WP:CRYSTALBALL), this Charles III is not the primary topic for "Charles III" over Charles III of Spain and others. With respect to their role in the state, the monarch of the UK today has less significance than most monarchs in history. I would suggest that the disambiguation page should be at Charles III and this page should be under some sort of place modifier like "of Great Britain". — Bilorv (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Same reasons as the ones before. Mainly consistency though.--Bakir123 (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For consistency. Hektor (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Perhaps when he dies, but as the living Charles III he’s likely the result anyone searching that name will be looking for. The Kip (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Consistency with his predecessor, and he is not just King of the United Kingdom but also of several other countries. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For consistency as reasoned above but also he is King of more countries and dominions than just the United Kingdom. Yeoutie (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest "Charles III (King of the United Kingdom)", with the parenthetical added to disambiguate without suggesting that it is part of his title. Pmetzger (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This would violate WP:NATURAL and past article title precedent e.g. Macbeth, King of Scotland. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose On the grounds of consistency with predecessors.--Mr Serious Guy (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In historical context, he is very unlikely to become more relevant than other rulers who have been called Charles III. The past several monarchs of the United Kingdom did not really have very notable competition as the most famous or influential monarch of their respective names, whereas Charles III clearly does. Keeping it as just Charles III to me seems like presentism and somewhat biased toward the importance of Britain specifically. TKSnaevarr (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I support the change from Charles III for the sake of consistency with most of the Wikipedia translations and because, as stated, he is not the only Charles III of historical significance. To what it should be changed to, I don't know. Of the commonwealth, of the UK and Northern Ireland, etc.; I'll leave that to everyone else to decide. Christopher Arturo Aragón Vides (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've suggested above "Charles III (King of the United Kingdom)" to follow a frequent disambiguation convention. Pmetzger (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are sufficient ways to disambiguate this article that can avoid parentheses. I strongly oppose this article having any title that involves parentheses. Anarchyte (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not just for consistency, but also because there is no good alternative: as others have pointed out, "of the United Kingdom" is accurate but imprecise; listing all the realms of which he is King would obviously be asinine; and the shorthand "of the Commonwealth Realms" (as was suggested above) moves the problem from imprecision to inaccuracy, since plenty of Commonwealth countries do not have Charles III as head of state. I would also argue that he is both currently the primary topic for Charles III and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 20:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the vast majority of your point, but Commonwealth Countries and Commonwealth Realms are different and the Realms are ones that he is specifically King of. So the fact he isn't head of state for the whole commonwealth doesn't mean he isn't head of state for all Commonwealth Realms. However, it's still not his official title in any sense so is inaccurate. Warpfactor (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree on this - Charles III is king of several places, but of no division known as "the Commonwealth Realms" which is rather a group label for the separate and distinct kingdoms - it does seem a bit odd to think of him or any British monarch as King Charles III of Jamaica, King Charles III of Australia or King Charles III of Canada, but technically those are also titles of his Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose None of Charles' predecessors are "...of the United Kingdom" Thurlow0391 (talk)
    Strictly speaking true, but only because George II of Great Britain preceded the Union with Ireland. Also a classic WP:OTHERSTUFF argument (as are almost all these Opposes), rather than having any sound basis in the naming conventions. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If we had stuck with the original name styling pf "Name # of country"? There'd be no dispute, here. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The articles on the previous monarchs of the United Kingdom get to leave out the "...of the United Kingdom" in their titles because said monarchs have indisputably been the best-known ones with those regnal names since long before Wikipedia existed. Charles III, in contrast, didn't even have that regnal name until today (indeed, before today, it wasn't even known if he would take that regnal name), and the vast majority of references to a Charles III are still referring to one of the numerous other Charles IIIs. If this Charles III eventually comes to outstrip all the past ones in topical primacy, the article can always be moved back to the shorter title. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 20:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. He is – for now – the King of 15 independent countries. His role as a multinational monarch is even more entrenched than that of his mother at the start of her reign. None of his most recent predecessors' articles are named "..of the United Kingdom". No doubt most references to "Charles III" will be to this King Charles. --Hazhk (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Charles III of Spain was the sovereign over Spain, Parma, Naples, Sicily, all of South America except for Brazil, all of Central America, and the Western half of North America. If we're counting land, the Spanish Empire was quite large and much larger than the land governed by the current UK Monarch. And he wasn't just a figurehead. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    most people *now* who are searching Wikipedia will be looking for the current King Charles III (and likely many of them don't even know another Charles III existed) 74.113.189.218 (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is WP:RECENTISM in a nutshell. Regards SoWhy 07:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If this Charles III doesn't already have a higher profile than every other Charles III combined, that will shortly change, and very likely persist for his lifetime. Maybe in 50 years he will be a historical figure and this decision can be made based on the standards for historical figures. At that point there may again be some doubt whether Charles III means the British one or the Spanish one or the Austrian one. But if one looks as far ahead into the future as a week or two, there will be absolutely no doubt which Charles III is the most prominent. The Land (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even pretended to read WP:CRYSTAL. And since youve deigned to comment here finally, maybe revert your undiscussed move now? nableezy - 20:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For an English-speaking general audience (which the English Wikipedia has), this Charles III is by far the primary Charles III. Arguments could be made that other Charleses were more historically impactful and may be more interesting to those interested in European history, but per WP:ASTONISH, I believe the general audience will be better served by retaining this Charles III as the primary article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know, right now, this week and likely this month, that is true. But there is zero way of saying that it will be true in a year. What if he dies in a week? What if his entire tenure as king, and as Charles III in fact, is one week's time? But yes, right now, this is the target that most people expect. But we aren't writing for right now, and what is recent and in the news is not what is the criteria for primary topic. nableezy - 20:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are writing for right now as we expect people to come here right now and read updated content. We can change the name when he dies, but it’s a virtual guarantee as long as he’s alive he’s the Charles III. The Kip (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are looking for the future. As I pointed out above, it can be done at a later time if warranted. Also, there are way, way more pageviews for the English Charles than the Spanish Charles. (also won't most researchers would type Carlos III instead?) 2001:4453:54A:CA00:1961:5035:C97A:EE3 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have it backwards here, when the sources support that this Charles III is the primary topic against all other Charles III, then this article is titled at this name. Not well I presume that this will be the primary topic so until it is proven otherwise in some unknown time then this is titled as though it is the primary topic. nableezy - 21:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When Charles III, more famous as Charles V, was born in 1500 the Holy Roman Enpire accounted for 5% of the world's population and Spain accounted for 2%. The UK accounts for 0.87% of the world's population and Charles' powers are de jure, but will certainly never be used. Jon698 (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He was Charles II in the Burgundian realm and I in Spain - never III.irrelevant any way as his article isn't entitled Charles III. DeCausa (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He was Charles III, Count of Flanders, though. Emcfsv (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination and Powers. Any move back to this title after reestablishing status quo should be based upon weighing notability wit the other quite-notable Charles IIIs. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Charles is a historically irrelevant king who serves a ceremonial role and as a tourist trap for Americans. It is recentrism to give him sole control over the Charles III name. Jon698 (talk)
  • Support, unimpressed with arguments of consistency. I don't at this time WP:PRIMARYTOPIC favours this title. Cakelot1 (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reverted the rather abrupt and inappropriate closure of this discussion to allow more people the opportunity to respond. One hour of discussion is not sufficient for enough people to see and respond here.
    NoahTalk 20:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond that, this isnt a vote, and nearly every single oppose comment is directly at odds with our policy on naming and primary topic. nableezy - 20:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They absolutely are not. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not state that the person's achievements are relevant. It also does not state that we for some reason must disregard any significance an individual has achieved before e.g. becoming King. It's absolutely clear from measurables such as page views on Charles' previous article, compared with page views on Charles III of Spain's article, that this Charles is the most significant Charles to the readers – by far.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  20:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    First test: A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. -- Clearly this Charles III is the person people are searching from now on
    Second test: A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. -- Don't see any reason why this Charles III wouldn't have enduring notability even after his ascending the throne IlkkaP (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it seems that most people citing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC definitely relied on test two way too hard. It could be that Carlos III (of Spain) would be the primary topic in the Spanish Wikipedia even after the English one formally takes the throne, but this is the English version, which would you like it or not would bias it into what's commonly used in English. 2001:4453:54A:CA00:1961:5035:C97A:EE3 (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the comments re consistency should be tossed as uninformed/mistaken, frankly, due to the indisputable lack of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and instead go for Charles III of the Commonwealth Realms as another user said above. "of the UK" does not tell the whole story, he is King of the Commonwealth. --WR 20:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is not "King of the Commonwealth" but "Head of the Commonwealth". He isn't King of all 56 Commonwealth nations but only the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth Realms. AviationEnzo (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the fact that he the King of 14 other Commonwealth realms, not just the UK, and for consistency with predecessors. 2605:B100:13A:6B07:107:FAD0:951:BA7A (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Just like Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, George V, and many more before this Charles III. –– MayThe2nd (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose name is in line with other modern British monarchs, and this Charles is going to get more traffic than any other bearer of that name before, irrespective of how much any of them have achieved, this is the one a general audience will be looking for.
Also please quickly close this discussion, the article is going to get millions of views over the next few days, the discussion notice on top won't be doing it any favors. -jonas (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that "...the discussion notice on top won't be doing it any favors...". Having this discussion here acts as a magnet for editors who may agree or disagree with the current setup and prevents the rather evident issue of editors creating several new sections about the article titles prior to this move request being opened. Best keep it all in one place than have it spread around, and the fact of the matter is that the title of Charles' article (and his actual title, quite frankly) is definitely going to be a point of discussion for at least the next few days. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support makes sense to me given the sheer number of people named Charles III. Would be consistent with Charles I of England and Charles II of England.--Woko Sapien (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. He won’t be king for that long. Shwcz (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CRYSTAL — if he lives to 96, that would still be 23 years —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The only way this would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would be due to WP:RECENTISM. I see a bunch of people saying that it doesn't fall in line with conventions of British monarchs, but that's not true. All British monarchs have been named in accordance with WP:NCROY - it just happens to be that the previous monarchs were the primary topic of their names (as in, they were much more significant than other people named Elizabeth II, George VI, etc.), while Charles III of the United Kingdom is not the primary topic of Charles III. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 21:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Charles III of the Commonwealth Realms since (1) a few hours of media frenzy do not determine the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; in a year's time this factor could hypothetically change, but that's highly speculative; (2) WP:WORLDWIDE: this is an encyclopedia about world knowledge written in the English language, not an encyclopedia about what is important to English-speaking countries. Boud (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I deeply agree with your last point here as I've seen the point being made that this should remain the same because that's what the anglophone world is "expecting". Christopher Arturo Aragón Vides (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Charles III or Charles III of the United Kingdom. PS - "Charles III of the Commonwealth realms"? Absolutely not GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. He has been king of the United Kingdom for less than a day. While he is certainly notable on his own right, I fail to see how he would be the primary topic for Charles III, seeing as there have been many other notable Charles III's in history. JIP | Talk 21:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Let's be consistent with precedent. Pretty sure someone decided to move the Charles III page to redirect to the disambiguation page only today. This is English Wikipedia, it seems fairly obvious that King Charles III of the United Kingdom is going to be far and away the most prominent Charles III in the English-speaking world. Let Spanish Wikipedia debate him vs. Charles III of Spain. Valadius (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I've rarely hear about or read about Spain's Charles III. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an argument in favour of encouraging different knowledge in different language encyclopedias rather than trying to correct the unavoidable tendency in that direction. That policy would lead to keeping Spanish physics and English physics articles different in content, and Spanish maths and English maths different in content. Boud (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. As much as possible, each Wikipedia should seek to be a translation of the others, not a completely new approach at knowledge. We should avoid English-bias which dismisses Charles III of Spain based on the thought that English speakers won't look for him.
    It will do no harm to refer to Charles as Charles III of the United Kingdom, or Charles III of the Commonwealth. El Dubs (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The presumption is against his being the primary topic, given that he just became king. This can be revisited if and when the preponderance of published English usages come to refer to him. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Based off the List of current monarchs of sovereign states: it seems there are 11 countries where royal monarch pages has the name of the country listed, i.e. Philippe of Belgium, Abdullah II of Jordan, etc. and 16 pages that do not i.e. Felipe VI (Spain), Tupou VI (Tonga), etc. Being as there are 20 or so articles using the title of "Charles III" I think it'd be pertinent to include the country in His Majesty's title/page. Snickers2686 (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to consistency with predecessors, and that in English speaking Wikipedia at least, he is likely a more notable Charles III DRYT.Motorsport (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, keep as Charles III. Is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC even hours into his reign based on sheer number of subjects. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: As stated by many others above, Charles III of Spain remains, as of now, much more relevant historically, and this Charles III is only the primary topic because of recentism. Main article should be the DAB. DominikWSP (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I am quite shocked by the amount of opposes, there is no way that he is more significant than Charles III of Spain, who reigned for 30 years and had a significant impact on his country and the rest of the world. -- Maykii (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We don’t disambiguate by historical significance, we do it based on what the most likely intended search target is. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Regardless of the long term significance of the Spaniard, we should put articles where our readers expect to find them and if someone is searching for Charles III now and for the foreseeable future, the odds are very strongly they're not looking for the Spaniard. Oppose any construct such as "of the Commonwealth Realms" as inconsistent with our other articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: per WP:COMMONNAME Charles III would usually refer to Charles III of Spain. From this point on a disambiguation page is needed. --Plumber (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This page is now the primary meaning of Charles III, and “of the United Kingdom” is just as bad as “of England”, thanks to the other kingdoms. Moonraker (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree You are correct is a major difference between using "of the United Kingdom" and "of England" but I would argue England would be out-of-place as the WP:COMMONNAME for the Commonwealth is the United Kingdom, not Kingdom England and a list of others. So following WP:RECENTISM the name change to King Charles III of the United Kingdom would be fitting, while King Charles III of England, etc. would be inappropriate.
    Detsom (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Detsom, I was not suggesting “of England”. You are wrong to think “the Commonwealth” means the same as “the United Kingdom”. In any event, Charles is not the king of the Commonwealth (as most members are republics) but he is king of many more countries than the United Kingdom. Moonraker (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: There are enough other "Charles III"s of substantial notability that it's presumptuous to declare this one the Primary Topic. "Charles III of the United Kingdom" is a perfectly cromulent disambiguation following WP standards and practices. The !votes citing "consistency" are just demonstrating that they don't know what they're talking about, because look at those 20 other "Charles III"s. Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is none, which is why Charles III should be a disambiguation page the way it was prior to an admin move warring it out in favor of this article. nableezy - 21:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're confusing the concepts of 'moving' and 'move warring'. The Land (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you moved this first at 17:37, 8 September 2022, were reverted, another person moved it again, they were reverted, and then you moved it once more. You did move war, and you violated multiple policies in doing so. Here is the first deletion you made to make way for the move, and here is the second. You should still be self-reverting yourself, but then again the legacy admins who could never pass an RFA of this place arent known for actually following the rules. nableezy - 21:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see your misunderstanding. I initially moved the page to Charles III. This was then further moved by someone else to Charles, King of the United Kingdom, on the grounds that his regnal name was unclear. At that point, I accepted that rationale (there is a discussion somewhere further up the page). It was then announced that his regnal name was in fact Charles III, at which point I attempted to move the page to Charles III again, as the issue was now resolved. The discussion about whether he was the primary topic had not then commenced, and I didn't expect it to be controversial. In fact I did not move the page as someone else had already done so. I am sorry if this has caused you any distress, but it seemed quite straightforward to me at the time. I think I now have a better understanding of the reservations people have about this, but self-reverting at this point would cause yet further confusion. Regards, The Land (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the second move back was specifically about PTOPIC and requesting that anybody wanting to move it make a move request. You then deleted the Charles III article, and yes another person moved it before you did, but you also moved the talk page as well. But when it was moved to Charles III the second time that was after it had been challenged as a primary topic. nableezy - 13:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do either of those even begin to support your position here? How many results here refer to the topic of this article? nableezy - 21:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From now on, vast majority of English language Wikipedia users expect to land on this article when searching for Charles III, not on a selection list of 20 or so other Charles IIIs, regardless of their importance to the history. IlkkaP (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And this is based on what exactly? nableezy - 21:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense? Khuft (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. You've fallen into a Wikipedia bear trap. That's called WP:OR and is forbidden. DeCausa (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. It would be OR if I added non-referenced material to the article. We're on the Talk page here, where we're exchanging arguments in order to reach consensus. Stating that most people looking for Charles III are likely to be looking for this one is just obvious, based on the fact that he's the current monarch of the most well-known monarchy still in existence - but just in case you don't trust my judgement on it, many other wikipedians have added statistics and rationale that support this claim in this discussion. Khuft (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think this is more well known than the Spanish monarchy, the Saudi monarchy, the Japanese monarchy and so on? Yes, obviously, right now, this is the most searched for Charles III. But the requirement be that it be the primary topic in comparison to all other Charles III's combined, and part of that is determined by usage in sourcing. There is quite obviously nothing besides news accounts in the last 12 hours that have ever primarily referred to the subject of this article as Charles III. It is strictly the same systemic bias that the rest of the project deals with, people think whats important to them is definitionally the most important thing. But we, as always, base our decisions on the sources, not on the personal feelings of a group of Wikipedia editors. nableezy - 00:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And god forbid that an encyclopedia informs those readers that there are other notable monarchs with the same name. Vpab15 (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article already has ”For other uses, see Charles III (disambiguation).” as the very first line. IlkkaP (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make me divulge into the cluelessness of your response, Nableezy. ♦ jaguar 23:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This monarch may be more well known because he's monarch of 15 countries, whereas the monarchs of Spain and Saudi Arabia are each monarchs of only one. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For your information the most well known Charles III, Charles III of Spain, was monarch of the Kingdom of Spain and the Spanish Empire, a vastly larger and more important kingdom/empire than what this one-day-king of a medium-sized European nation is king of. In addition, he held far more political power over his kingdom and empire than this merely symbolic British king. Charles III (of Spain, obviously) is clearly the primary topic. --Sveinkros (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose He is not only the King of the United Kingdom. There are 14 other countries in which he is the sovereign. Keivan.fTalk 21:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's consistent with several hundred years of predecessors and it avoids the "Charles III of...what?" issue. Based on readership numbers of his article going into today's events, there's no reason to believe that interest in him will suddenly wane, so WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is already met. —C.Fred (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We need to maintain consistency. Per articles on other monarchs, e.g. Harald V of Norway. Also, there are other kings called Charles III including Charles III of Spain whose historical importance is far greater and more established than this essentially new man and one-day-king. The goings-on here is a textbook example of UK-centrism. --Sveinkros (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    English-centrism is not wholly unreasonable on the English Wikipedia. The Spanish Wikipedia may prefer to prioritise Charles III of Spain. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As others have said, people searching for "Charles III" most of the time are going to be looking for this one. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It’s not who’s “more important”, it’s about primary usage, and we can already say that the vast majority of those seraching for “Charles III” will be searching for the current King of Canada, Jamaica, and all those other realms. —ThorstenNY (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:COMMONNAME is for names that have prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. What proportion of these sources are about the current King of the UK? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. From an encyclopedic point of vue, there is no reason for this monarch to have a different treatment than all the other Charles III. Elme12 (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From the point of view that an encyclopaedia is supposed to be useful to its readers, we have to consider which Charles a reader is most likely to be looking for when searching for Charles III - and it’s this one. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As "Charles III of Great Britain" Given WP:NCROY, WP:COMMONNAME, and established convention, it appears that the decision most consistent with established convention (see George II of Great Britain for instance) would be to move the current page to be titled "Charles III of Great Britain." This is the style consistent with what I've seen for other British monarchs and, as per WP:NCROY, the monarch's most relevant title should be used in their article title. This is indisputably Charles' title as King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not that of reigning monarch of the Commonwealth Realms. Given established precedent in Wikipedia's reference to other British monarchs, and WP:COMMONNAME, it is my personal opinion that using "Great Britain" in his title as opposed to "United Kingdom" is preferable, as it follows common usage and custom (as well as being more specific, since the UK isn't the only united kingdom). I've seen debate about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and I think there won't be any clear resolution on that issue; therefore, I would recommend that, given the sheer number of monarchs bearing the name Charles III out there (of Spain, France, Monaco, etc.), that Charles III be a disambiguation page and not the name of any one person's article. Theologus (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to Oppose After reading a few of these comments, I don't think that keeping the article as titled would be an example of WP:RECENTISM or in violation of custom. British monarchs on the English Wikipedia do tend to have their articles titled only by regnal name and ordinal number, and I see no reason to deviate from that. In reference to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, although historically this Charles is (and likely will continue to be) less relevant than others of his name, he is indubitably the primary topic here. This is the English Language Wikipedia, after all, and I would say that anyone more recent is more likely to be considered a primary topic. Why should anyone care about Charles III of Spain or of France when this Charles III is alive today? He's clearly more relevant to the modern reader, and statistics have already been given to show that. Theologus (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more than a tendency since George III, due to a mixture of their personal notability, and their preposterously high regnal numbers acting as "natural disambiguation". (How many Edwards do most nations need?) But even just starting from the Union of the Crowns, it's very mixed before that. James I of England (and VI of Scotland, comparable to the Commonwealth in that they're another sort of 'personal union'), Charles I of England (ditto, and all the following), Charles I of England, Charles II of England, William III of England, Mary II of England, Anne, Queen of Great Britain, George I of Great Britain, and George II of Great Britain. (Aside an aside about your struck comment, there are indeed several current and were other historical "United Kingdom", but that's the usual short-form name of the modern state, and very much the primary topic. It's also distinct from Great Britain, albeit they're used near-interchangeably in many contexts, some very informal, others oddly formal. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as said by User:Rmhermen, the use of Charles III in this case seems entirely normal, the consistency in the naming of former British monarchs is important in this situation. As well I would put that because Charles III is the only currently reigning Charles III that then there can be the clear knowledge that one is looking for him when searching it up, especially at this present time. As well Charles III is the monarch of more than only the United Kingdom, as he is as well he is the monarch of all commonwealth realms, yet it would not make sense to list them out in the title and Charles III sums it up quite nicely at least in my opinion on this topic. --CIN I&II (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The page views tool suggests that the “Charles, Prince of Wales” article was at least two orders of magnitude more sought-after than “Charles III of Spain” over the last 90 days, and that gap is only going to widen over the coming weeks. I think we can safely say that >99.9% of readers searching for Charles III will be expecting to find this article. Therefore keeping it under this name is tremendously helpful to our readers. When public interest reverts to the mean, the decision can be revisited, but I would still expect this Charles to be by far the most likely search target for a general audience.
Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I completely agree that this is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the arguments that for English Wikipedia, Charles III mostly likely refers to this Charles III. I'd be more on the fence if there was a good alternative disambiguation instead of the non-WP:COMMONNAME Charles III of the Commonwealth Realms and problematic Charles III of England. I know that he is the King of the United Kingdom but using Charles III of the United Kingdom presents much the same issues. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 22:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - He is a living and notable monarch linked to a notable event. His reign extends beyond the United Kingdom. Lastly, such change would make it incosistent. Mat Jarosz (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It would be very useful to users who have become accustomed with the naming conventions of the last several British monarchs as simply their regnal name and their ordinal. I also agree with many of the other folks here who have cited page visit statistics compared to Charles III of Spain. I believe that most users who will search for a monarch named Charles III will be searching for this specific Charles, as substantiated by past page visits preceding today's events. Also, I don't believe it is necessarily a biased viewpoint that the relevance of the British monarchy to users of English Wikipedia is substantial, at the very least in this specific case. Similarly, I don't believe claims of WP:RECENTISM are entirely reasonable, either, as a subject's relation to recent events doesn't necessarily discount its importance to current culture, and thereby current interest and usage by users.
JoshyBigMac (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
Support renaming as there are many Charles III's. Besides the recentness I see no reason we shouldn't stick to the current convention. Most people have known him as "Prince Charles" or "Prince of Wales" so not sure there will be a lot of confusion with other historical Charles IIIs as others have mentioned. Queen Elizabeth was considered exceptional given the length of her reign, among other things. Charles III of United Kingdom hasn't been King long enough to warrant an exception to the current convention yet. Detsom (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong opposition Charles III is now king of many other realms, coequally with the UK per the Statute of Westminster 1931.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per naming convention for British monarch, and clear evidence that he is now the most known monarch of that name and ordinal Marcelus (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above and Charles III of Spain XxLuckyCxX (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would hold off on naming him as Charles III until he chooses his regnal name. He had previously said he debated reigning as George VII in honor of his grandfather. Intersting (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been confirmed that he's chosen Charles III. -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. You are correct is stating that the naming convention for royalty is clear; it is clear that articles on British monarchs going back to George III are simply named by their regnal title, not "[Monarch's first name and ordinal] of [Country]" as you claim. I would also contest your claim that "there is no evidence that the current King of England is the primary topic with respect to long-term significance", as every British monarch going back to George III, including Charles, Prince of Wales[5], have far more page views than all other royalty of the same name combined. And the heavily mentioned fact in this thread that he's only been King for a few hours is wholly and completely immaterial as to whether or not he is the primary topic. Arguments of what each Charles III's achievements are and their historical significance are irrelevant and should be ignored. Charles III of the United Kingdom is clearly the primary topic. -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Looking at all-time pageview stats, 'Charles, [former] Prince of Wales' has many times more page visits than any other Charles III, as well as higher daily averages and medians (most other Charles III's don't have enough traffic to even generate a median stat in the tool). Even with a short reign, I doubt that will decrease the amount of traffic this page gets in the next decade, so the WP:RECENTISM points should be thrown out. 'Charles, Prince of Wales' had 61,850,725 pageviews before today, versus 1,667,956 pageviews for Charles III of Spain, for example. Similarly, none of the other Charlie 3's get anywhere near the traffic of the former Prince of Wales' page. CoatGuy2 (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    +1  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  23:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as it would be consistent for other monarchs having names in common with others. There have been many Charles III across history. Using the name alone should only be the case when there is zero (or close to zero) ambiguity, which is true for his mother, but not so much him. Funnyhat (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible that any of the other members of the commonwealth who still have a royal family would not have the head of that family be the person who accedes to the throne of the United Kingdom? nableezy - 14:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The usages for other recent English/British monarchs as precedent in several comments is given undue weight: looking at all monarchs without a qualifier, only William IV has enough other candidates on the disambiguation page for there to be a meaningful argument over which one, if any, should get primacy over the others. 96.252.41.90 (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:IAR. The assertion that the "Charles III" name fails WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does appear accurate; however, it's obvious that this is an excessively legalistic interpretation that prevents us from "maintaining Wikipedia" in an accurate and accessible format. Charles as an individual is a far more prolific figure than the others mentioned, and "Charles III" is the name used to reference this individual. Furthermore, as "Charles III" is both his regnal name and consistent with WP titling for monarchs since George III, it seems entirely appropriate to me. Marquisate (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There have been many important kings Charles III in history, and this new Charles III isn't even very notable yet compared to some of those found in the disambiguation page. MaeseLeon (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose primarily on grounds of consistency, and secondarily on grounds of likely search frequency. Pages on other British monarchs are either titled with just the name or, in the case of Charles II, with of England. WP:Recentism is an essay rather than a policy, and the policies it references are focused on content rather than page naming. Page naming should prioritize ease of use, rather than neutrality between popular and obscure topics. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is more probable that when searching Charles III an individual will be searching for the current Charles III as head of state of UK instead of another Charles III. It is also not right to list the article as "of United Kingdom" because it does not consider Commonwealth countries that have and do not have him as head of state. "of Commonwealth countries is also not right" he will not be head of state for all of them. Also it would discount other territories outside the commonwealth in which he plays a constitutional role. Tindy1986 (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A hypothetical move of Charles III of Spain to Charles III would be a lively debate, for this one, there's nothing to discuss. You should be extremely wary when you find yourself thinking that the most recent thing is the primary topic. Also, just "of the United Kingdom" is fine, it's purpose is to disambiguate, not list every country he is the king of. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 23:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This change is clearly in line with WP:NCROY. There's no "standard" of having British monarchs specifically not be linked in this way and not all others are (e.g. George II of Great Britain). It's clear Elizabeth II was the primary subject being searched for under that name, but less clear with Charles III. There's also no reason this move can't be redone at a later time; it's not like primary topics never change, and it seems premature to treat the new Charles III as the obvious default. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 23:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Charles III → Charles III of the United Kingdom, given there are many Charles IIIs, and there is a a question mark over which Commonwealth countries he will be king of. But Oppose Charles III (disambiguation) → Charles III: that should stay as it is now, with Charles III becoming a redirect. Then the argy-bargy can be confined to deciding which article it should redirect to. (My vote is to redirect it to the new king.) Samatarou (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While there may be a question of which Commonwealth countries he will be King of long term, he is automatically king in any country in which his mother was Queen. That includes Australia, Canada, New Zealand, even Antigua, which said in April that it would cut ties with the monarchy after QEII's death. They're all automatic. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The newly minted Charles III is the only monarch or ruler of his name on the disambiguation page who has ever ruled over substantial English speaking territories. There is a strong expectation that a primary speaker of the language will know him by name alone, and not by any one of his many titles, of which it may be difficult to identify primacy. - Jz4p (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect, however, that this is the wrong time for this discussion; we should hold it again in a few months when the coverage of the subject has reduced. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those examples are not a direct comparison. I'm not familiar with the governance history of each of the nations, but Canada didn't convert from a monarchy to a constitutional monarchy until 1867, Australia in 1900. And it wasn't until the Statute of Westminster 1931 that a separate Canadian title was established, meaning that only George V, Edward VIII, George VI, Elizabeth II are comparable in terms of the distinct titles. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of them are really comparable in terms of distinct titles; for example, Charles won't be an Emperor, but the first three you listed were. Overall, however, I'm not sure what point you are making? BilledMammal (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: 'A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.'
Since the beginning of records for pageviews in July 2015, 'Charles, Prince of Wales' had gotten 61,850,725 pageviews as of yesterday. If you add up the pageviews for all the other Charles III articles listed on Charles III (disambiguation), they total 24,672,659 (I won't link to every single page in the tool, but feel free to check my math!) Which is to say that historically, this Charles III accounts for 71% of pageviews for pages on the Charles III disambiguation page, more than satisfying the guidance that a primary topic should be a more likely search term than all similar terms combined. And I see no reason that his being King of the UK should negatively affect traffic to his page. CoatGuy2 (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. It would be WP:RECENTISM to consider a relatively powerless monarch to have greater enduring notability and educational value than many of the other Charles III's. BilledMammal (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He does have long-term significance. His name may have changed a few hours ago, but he notable and widely searched before that, so it's not recentism. This topic has a long history of being more widely searched than the other figures on the Charles III disambiguation page, and it's unreasonable to assume that will change. You personally might think that Charles III of Spain or Charles III of Bohemia is more important/significant than Charles, former Prince of Wales, but what matters to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is that far more Wikipedia users have searched for this topic (and almost certainly will continue to do so) over the long-term. CoatGuy2 (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Primary topic does not say what you think it does; it doesn't establish that usage alone determines what a primary topic is, and in fact establishes the opposite. BilledMammal (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that many of the !votes in opposition are against the proposed disambiguation, rather than the need to disambiguate. It may be worth discussing alternative forms of disambiguation. BilledMammal (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Also King of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many others.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- He isn't only "of the United Kingdom", he's the king of 14 other commonwealth realms. WanukeX (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The countries he is king of is irrelevant; the open question is whether or not he is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC under this name or merits disambiguation. "of the United Kingdom" clearly serves the disambiguation purpose (there is no monarch of the UK alone and not other commonwealth realms). Page titles don't otherwise need to completely encompass a person. A person who is known for acting and directing work, but primarily acting, could appear at a page called "Name (actor)" without this implying they never directed, for instance. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 01:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, there are two open questions. First, what is the correct title for an article about this guy? And second, is this guy the primary topic for the name "Charles III," even if that exact name is not the correct name for his article? The proposal suggests that he is not the primary topic, because it would redirect "Charles III" to the DAB, instead of to this article. To answer the original comment, though, WP:SOVEREIGN states, "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state." So it's consistent with the guideline to use the name of a realm in the article title, even if it is not the only realm over which he has sovereignty. --DavidK93 (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as he is king of several countries. Also the proposer's reliance on WP:Recentism is misguided since that is about article content, not article naming. The reality is that anyone searching for "Charles III" will probably be looking for this guy. Richard75 (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The original article (disambiguation page) located under the title Charles III should not have been moved without discussion in the first place. We need consensus to displace the disambiguation page and treat this one-day-king as the primary topic as compared to Charles III who ruled for three decades, and the other Charles III, not the other way around. «No consensus» in this case means the disambiguation page stays under the title Charles III, and that there is no consensus that a new king is suddenly the primary topic, or that we should ignore the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) (compare: Harald V of Norway, not just Harald V; or for that matter Charles II of England). --Sveinkros (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Tisnec (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. There is a discussion below about which name to use in case of no consensus. I think the proposed name in the request has quite a strong consensus, so it should probably be moved there. Vpab15 (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose -- Adding to this discussion: check Google News, search for "Charles III", and search only for stories between Sept 1st 2021 and Sept 1st 2022. (the search query to do this is: "charles iii" when:1y before:2022-09-01. Most of the news stories in the past year mentioning "Charles III" are about him; and certainly, all the notable ones are. Then check [Ngram], where since the year 1824, any mention of a "Charles III" has been practically non-existent in the corpus; until 2008, with reference to (speculation regarding) the current one. Since 2012, he has been the most talked-about "Charles III" (again, due to speculation on his future reign) on Google N-gram. Much of this rebound in popularity for the term "Charles III" was caused by a play that came out in 2014 and was widely popular in the UK and on Broadway, was widely covered by the news media, and turned into a radio play, then into a film which aired in the UK and US. So the strongest arguments against this move are: WP:COMMONNAME, since Charles III has clearly been used to refer to him for more than a decade, consistency (with Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, George V, Edward VII and more; and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Beyond that, "of the United Kingdom" is clearly inaccurate or at best incomplete. DFlhb (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding to my arguments for Strong oppose (to be clear, I oppose moving the disambiguation page to this one). The primary argument in favor of the "Charles III of XYZ" format is WP:NCROY; but I encourage everyone to read the arguments presented in Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#RFC: Regnal names. The arguments against "Charles III of XYZ" would be: 1) specifying the country would be unnecessary disambiguation (WP:PRECISE), and lack of concision (WP:CONCISE). The arguments in favor of "Charles III of XYZ" simply don't apply here: 1) the ambiguity guideline doesn't apply; since as in the discussion above this one, the vast majority of visits to a "Charles III" page are to this one already and we can expect the gap to grow; 2) we should use commonly recognizable names WP:UCRN; the excessive precision of "Charles III of XYZ" might actually confuse people and make them think he is a different person than the King Charles III they naturally expect to find. For example, if the page for Mother Teresa was moved to Mother Teresa of Calcutta, I expect most people might be confused and think that "that" mother Teresa is not the one they're looking for, since they expect the one they're looking for to occupy a more WP:CONCISE page. The WP:CONCISE guideline exists to provide consistency and avoid this type of confusion; and I think most Wikipedia readers are intuitively aware of WP:CONCISE due to how consistently it's been applied all over Wikipedia, and deduce that unnecessary precision in the article name means that article is not referring to what they're looking for. Lastly, look at Google News; you'd expect national UK media to simply call him "Charles III", but international media refers to him as "Charles III" as well, not "Charles III of the United Kingdom". DFlhb (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial Support - I support this article having the title Charles III of the United Kingdom, per WP:SOVEREIGN. (I don't know why articles for other recent UK monarchs don't follow the guideline.) The guideline explicitly states, "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state." This preemptively refutes claims that the proposed article title is incorrect because Charles reigns over other realms. However, recentism notwithstanding, I believe that this Charles III has already become the primary topic for Charles III, and therefore Charles III should redirect to this article and the DAB should stay at Charles III (disambiguation). --DavidK93 (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As to the change in naming convention for recent monarchs, that's the result of Statute of Westminster 1931, which legally recognized the various Dominions as independent nations. It wasn't the same as full sovereignty (Canada's came in 1982), it was enough to require new titles like King of Canada. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: He is king of the 15 Commonwealth realms which have independent monarchies, so could equally be titled Charles III of Tuvalu. Furthermore, in the coming months/years/etc if you say Charles III people will no doubt immediately think of the modern day King, rather than some 18th century Spanish one. Stanley Bannerman (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC) On a further point this has not been an issue before e.g. George V vs George V (disambiguation) so not sure why we are even discussing this.Stanley Bannerman (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support-ish I much more prefer Charles III of the Commonwealth, but The UK will do as a second choice. The current format is recentism and English bias at its height and we should seek to do better there. Since there are other Charles III similar or greater significance, Charles III should be a disambiguation. An English speaking user is indeed most likely going to be looking for this Charles, but the disambiguation page will see them to the right place. El Dubs (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: It seems rather likely that if one is searching for "Charles III" on English Wikipedia, they will (99 times out of 100) be looking for the King of 15 countries including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. The British/Commonwealth Royal Family is a global interest topic Yeehaw45 (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This seems entirely consistent with the recommendations under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Arguments that this is inconsistent with Charles' predecessors don't appear to recognize the far lesser need for disambiguation. If users get to the DAB page by searching on "Charles III," they are just one link away from Charles U.K.'s page if that's what they were looking for. If they area searching for a more historical Charles III, they are similarly closer to their actual search target. BPricePople8 (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There were lengthy discussions before that settled on using just the monarch's regnal name for articles about the Commonwealth Realms' monarchs. Hence, we have Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, etc. There's no sound argument for why this page should be different by way of attaching Charles' article to one country when he's king of 15. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a real argument, and it has already been addressed by others here. The article on the monarch of four sovereign entities (the two kingdoms of Denmark and Norway and the two duchies of Schleswig and Holstein that were not part of either kingdom) is just titled Christian VII of Denmark, and the same goes for numerous others. We use the most common country designation. The same goes for British monarchs. Apart from that, if anyone is the primary topic it's Charles III of Spain, an important monarch with 29 years as king under his belt, who was monarch of the Kingdom of Spain and the Spanish Empire, a vastly larger and more important kingdom/empire than what this one-day-king of a medium-sized European nation is king of, and who held far greater political power as well and left a lasting legacy, as opposed to the merely symbolic Charles III of the United Kingdom. --Sveinkros (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, for this reason, he should be detailed "Charles III of the Commonwealth". El Dubs (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But, he is NOT king of the Commonwealth. There are many Commonwealth countries of which he is not king. At most, he is, at present, head of the Commonwealth, but that could change. 91.125.135.116 (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above comments, page views show a vast majority of hits for any of the Charles IIIs point to this Charles III (prior to his rise to the throne). And that majority is only going to get bigger with him now being the king. Frank Anchor 02:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As a person of dual citizenship in both the UK and NZ, it is obviously wrong to favour one realm over another. The neutrality, simplicity and consistency of the current title makes the most sense. E James Bowman (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose none of the other Charles III are alive and this one is the one most people will be searching for Cidician (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain On one hand, consistency. On the other hand...let's be honest, the simplicity adds a certain irresistible gravitas. I mean, yes, the other arguments like fairness to the realms too; it's a tough call. I will say though as noted above, Charles III of the Commonwealth is a bold idea albeit likely too risky. Ironically, the simplest name without title may be the most WP:NPOV.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 02:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An alternative option would be "Charles III Windsor". It's unconventional, but it should address editors concerns about focusing on United Kingdom to the detriment of the other realms he is king of. BilledMammal (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The more I think about it, the more Charles III Windsor does sound right, although it might cause confusion as if that is his surname (which it is kind of, but not really). It sounds neutral and pleasant though without being long-winded.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 03:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The concerns leading to the omission of "of the UK" from other British monarchs (i.e. the legitimate concerns of other Commonwealth subjects) are just as valid as they were yesterday. The current title does not, by its 11 characters nor by its omissions, express a judgement about Charles' current or expected historical importance relative to any other King Charles. The "common name" principle is not helpful for this purpose because it would not lead to any form of his regnal name, but instead to "Charles, PoW" which is no longer accurate. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose He won't be king of just the UK any more than his mother was queen of just the UK (even if like his mother he will more than likely be officially wrongly numbered in those other nations). Waerloeg (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Readers are certainly much more likely to be searching for this article than for Charles III of Spain—whose article title already contains natural disambiguation. Granted that in a few centuries Charles III of Spain's historical significance may make him the more likely search target again, but unless the subject of this article changes his mind and decides to reign as "George VII" or something else, this is who the great majority of readers who type "Charles III" will be searching for in the foreseeable future. The proposed title may be technically correct—although that seems to be disputed—but it seems like unnecessary disambiguation. Hatnotes should be adequate to bring readers searching for other Charles III's to the disambiguation page or other articles. P Aculeius (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It depends. Strong Oppose for Charles III of the United Kingdom (he is king of other independent nations). Strong Oppose for Charles III of the Commonwealth (there are many Commonwealth nations with their own heads of state). Strong Oppose for Charles III of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Realms (that is UK-centric and diminishes the other nations). Support for Charles III of the Commonwealth realms (it is not UK-centric, does not diminish the other independent nations, and does not presume to be head of state of all of the Commonwealth. 122.106.220.75 (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Charless III of the United Kingdom is not accurate. For example, like his mother under the constitutions of Canada, New Zealand, Australia he is known as "separately" and legally distinct as the King of Canada, the King of New Zealand, and the King of the Commonwealth of Australia. Some of the other Commonwealth Realms have this automatic inclusion, some of them do not and will require a change to the constitution, of which some are looking to remove entirely and become republics. Charles III of the Commonwealth is incorrect as he is not the head of state for all Commonwealth Nations, Charles III of the Commonwealth realms would be more correct but it is not an offical title used anywhere, risky and confusing. If Charless III of the United Kingdom was selected then we would have to also have a page for Charles III of Canada, Charles III of New Zealand, Charles III of Papua New Guinea and so on, which is far from ideal. Charles III of each of the individual Commonwealth realms? That is would be more descriptive but horrid in application. It is not as straightforward in that a catch-all descriptor can be appended. Skippingrock (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have no doubt that for English speakers, the British monarchy will remain the main monarchy people will be aware of, and so this Charles will be the primary Charles III anyone will refer to. There are no other living Charles III than this Charles; the others are all lesser-known historical figures. This Charles should be the primary Charles III. -boldblazer 04:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for most of the reasons brought up above. While I agree it feels like recentism, not only is he King of more than just the United Kingdom but it also breaks precedent on the page given that other British monarchs have been listed by their regnal names alone. It's inconsistent as heck and sticks out like a sore thumb. piyo99 (talk) 5:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
    Looking at List of British monarchs, at three were not listed by their regnal names alone. In addition, consistency is not a valid reason to reject disambiguation in general, although it can be used to reject specific forms of disambiguation - if disambiguation is required, then it is required, and the only question is what form the disambiguation should take.
    I note this is a consistent part of many of the opposes, and encourage the closer to take this into account; they aren't rejecting disambiguation, they are rejecting this disambiguation. BilledMammal (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Extremely likely to be by far the most searched for Charles III (and I do study and like some of the other Charles III); fits previous naming. If his reign turns out to be extremely brief and inconsequential, consensus and common sense can change. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 05:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Is there a primary topic?. The article certainly meets one of the considerations: it is much more likely that readers punching in "Charles III" are looking to the king of UK rather than all of his other namessakes put together. It isn't user friendly to ask readers to peruse a list of 20 monarchs when we know they are almost certainly looking for this one. The other consideration, long-term significance, may be more difficult to assess, since Charles reign has just begun. But he has already achieved greater significance than them, that is, he has received more coverage in reliable sources. Now if he had the same ordinal as Charles X, there might be a reason to question which was the primary topic. TFD (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose: Anything other than Charles III pointing to the current king will make Wikipedia look extremely out of touch, so that's out of the question. If he turns out to be an insignificant king, we can revisit the issue later, after his death. Plus, he's king of much more than the UK, so that would be directly wrong. Strong oppose to a proposal that is severely out of touch (letting Wikipedia policies override common sense) and factually incorrect. CapnZapp (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close At ~150 participants (with roughly 2/3s opposing in raw votes), it's highly unlikely that consensus will develop in support of this proposal. I can't see the benefit of keeping this discussion open or retaining the move proposal hatnote on a page currently with such high traffic. This can always be revisited later. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The former Prince of Wales overwhelmingly meets the first prong of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC test based on pageviews, getting more than ten times the pageviews of monarchs primarily known as "Charles III". Even if you generously include monarchs better associated with other regnal numbers, he would be about double the pageviews. These ratios will obviously only trend upwards since he is now king. The second prong of the test, long-term significance, is less clear. He has just become king of 15 sovereign countries, more than previous monarchs, but with little actual power. Historically, British monarchs have had significant enduring significance despite this. We won't be able to properly assess this for decades, but we can reasonably conclude that any deficiencies in actual power versus previous similarly named monarchs would not be sufficient to overcome the overwhelming reader desire for the British monarch. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Let's keep it consistent with his mother etc. As for the other kings named Charles III - often only so named because, for some reason, people use the English equivalents of their name, rather than their actual name (Carlos III of Spain, I'm looking at you) - they are clearly less searched on the English Wikipedia. Charles has been a major public figure for decades; he's far more prominent than any of the others. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as "Charles III" is fine as it is per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and each of the five points from WP:CRITERIA: recognisability, naturalness, precision, concision, and consistency. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - he's king of several countries besides the UK. Other Charles IIIs can be adequately handled by a hatnote/disambiguation page. Readers are overwhelmingly more likely to be searching for the UK king and not historic foreign ones. Bazonka (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As all suggested alternative titles are either inaccurate or incomplete, the simple form seems most likely to be helpful to our readers. Tim riley talk 07:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The evidence is clear – the current King Charles is the primary topic with respect to usage. Yesterday, the readership was 1.5 million. And, over the last 7 years, Charles, Prince of Wales averaged 24,119 per day. The historical rivals are not in the same league as the strongest of them, Charles III of Spain, only averaged 638. So, the current Charles dominated long-term readership traffic by a factor of 38:1 and this is going up now. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and speedy close– current naming scheme is standard for British monarchs, primary topic for the foreseeable future; by the reactions so far it’s clear that there won’t be any consensus to move; and it looks odd for Wikipedia to be unnecessarily engaging in a protracted move debate in what will be a time of mourning for millions of people. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 08:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For the reasons staed by many: (1) Among English-language sources, he is already more notable thn any other possible contenders, including Charles III of Spain. (2) "of the United Kindom" is inaccurate, as he is also king of 14 other countries (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Jamaica, etc.) SRamzy (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per Tamzin, Guerillero, and others. The British monarch may the primary topic for this moment of time, but has not been historically, and we have no way of knowing whether he will be down the road. Very many of the comments strike me as rank anglocentrism. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per lesser historical relevance in comparison to other Charles III's. In academia, Charles III is most commonly the king of Spain of the 1700s. --Cantabrucu (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Charles III of the UK, would be under-descriptive, given that Charles is the King of multiple realms and a serving monarch Kalamikid (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As per consistency with just any other monarch with that shares name and numeral with other significant individuals. The thought that UK or commonwealth monarchs should have precedence above any other king is absurd. When we say that this is the English Wikipedia we mean "in English", not "of England".--RR (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Don't conflate the popularity of the person with the popularity of the name. Currently, at least, "Charles III" would likely mean the King of Spain in people's heads, or nobody at all - many will still be thinking of this one as PRINCE Charles. Of course, that is no longer his name; but while he may be a more notable INDIVIDUAL, if one were to base this decision solely on the inclination of the popular consciousness of Wikipedia's reader base, Prince Charles would be the way to go. But that would obviously be inaccurate. You can either go all the way, one way - the "popular" name - or all the way, the other way - in favour of ACCURACY and precision. --121.99.69.54 (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the move. A subject's notability needs to be taken as a whole. Taking Google Search as a rough measure, Prince Charles had already achieved greater notability (in an English-speaking context) than Charles III of Spain. It is highly unlikely that Charles III's notability will reduce as king. The Parson's Cat (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the move. As Charles III will be what people will look for. Endymion87 (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per consistency. Beshogur (talk) 09:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support policy and practice are in agreement on this one. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 11:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Look up the stats. Our article on Charles gets 50 times the pageviews of all our articles on the other Charles IIIs combined. Jheald (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Agree with arguments above about Wikipedia's policy on names. By the way, as an example, we have titled Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, and no one is arguing that it should be Charles I, King of Spain, or any other of his several titles. The most relevant and, for which he is known, should be in the title. TheRichic (Messages here) 13:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Midway. As a third option, we could rename the page Charles III (United Kingdom), safeguarding both consistency and the distinction between other Kings similarly named.--93.40.2.204 (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current monarch of 15 nations and leader of a commonwealth three times that is, unquestionably, the primary topic. Argue recency bias all one wants... this is also the article anyone searching Charles III will be looking for and expect. Serve the readers. Resolute 13:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. per page views this is the primary topic. Desertarun (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Charles III of the United Kingdom. All monarchs that we had/have here in Europe were/are also kings/dukes/counts/lords of many other places. Dozen of places in some cases. Charles the III of the UK being king of 14 other places (commonwealth realms) doesn't have any relevance here. We should use his primary title, that of the King of the United Kingdom Daduxing (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Keep with the conventions. It's "Elizabeth II" not "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" 14:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Who is going to type out "charles iii" into their search bar only to become confused when they arrive at this page. The convention makes sense, and all the alternatives are different kinds of wrong. TheSavageNorwegian 14:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of disambiguation options

The current proposed disambiguation options are as follows.

  1. Charles III of the United Kingdom
  2. Charles III of Great Britain
  3. Charles III of the Commonwealth realms
  4. Charles III of the Commonwealth
  5. Charles III Windsor

If there is no consensus, or a consensus that he is not the primary topic, but no consensus on what the disambiguation should be, it may be useful to the closer for us to discuss these and identify which is the best option. BilledMammal (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Charles III of the United Kingdom" is the only appropriate option among these. There is no sovereign "of the Commonwealth" or "of the Commonwealth realms". Likewise, "King of Great Britain" hasn't existed since the 1800 Act of Union, which united the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland. Before the Act of Union, the Kings of Great Britain held Ireland as a separate realm with a separate crown, much like the Commonwealth realms today are separate realms with separate crowns. 68.96.220.168 (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree, although I could be convinced of a "commonwealth" one, and I do think that "Charles III Windsor", despite being unconventional, would also be appropriate as natural disambiguation. BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Charles III of the United Kingdom", that's it. The rest? no way. GoodDay (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Charles III of the Commonwealth" - This is the most accurate, and most relevant, and most unambiguous answer. It is clear when you say it who you are referring to. Even major BBC articles list him as Head of the Commonwealth. It's an answer relevant to 2.4 billion people. El Dubs (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely oppose Charles III Windsor. That is a not an accurate name. Either Charles III, Charles III of the United Kingdom or Charles III of the Commonwealth realms. I prefer, and support, Charles III without a modifier. cookie monster 755 04:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I recall that the Elizabeth II article used to have a passage on this topic, stating that the regnal name is not bound by ordinary customs (e.g. family surname) but falls under the royal prerogative. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not inaccurate, as Windsor is his family, and by including his family it would naturally disambiguate him from the other Charles III's, without needing to specify a single country. BilledMammal (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you guys think about the title Charles III, Head of the Commonwealth? This solves the "he's the head of several other countries" issue. - 84.236.124.64 (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. PS - Charles III can (if he wanted to) change the royal house name to "Mountbatten". GoodDay (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not say "Charles III, King of the United Kingdom?" That's more precise and correct. "of the United Kingdom" sounds like a territorial name, that royalty sometimes use in instead of a surname. For example, Prince Harry's family are referred to as the Sussexes. But Charles III is more likely to use the name of his house, which is Windsor. TFD (talk) 06:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur. "of the Commonwealth" is a problem, since I'd expect many readers from non-English speaking countries or young readers to not even know what the Commonwealth refers to; and therefore to assume that "King Charles III of the Commonwealth [realms]" is not the one they're looking for. "of Great Britain" is simply wrong. "of the United Kingdom" is the best of these bad options; but honestly, given that there is so little consensus on these naming options, I think that tilts the move request discussion further towards oppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DFlhb (talk • contribs) 10:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've never understood why we don't do disambiguation for monarchs like we do for everyone else. e.g. "Charles III (something)". Would get around the need to find something formally "correct", because it would obviously be a disambiguator. Gives more possibilities like "Charles III (King of the Commonwealth realms)", "Charles III (Commonwealth realms)", "Charles III (British king)" etc. Would be easily adapted for other monarchs where "X of Y" doesn't work, e.g. "Victoria (Queen of the United Kingdom)". Won't happen, but would solve a lot of problems. Charlie A. (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting comment because this is exactly what the German-speaking Wiki has been doing forever, and I think it's a lot more convenient. Mhapperger (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wiki convention on royalty does not override WP:COMMONNAME and essentially no-one is calling him "King Charles III of the United Kingdom" right now. That may change at some point in the future, but right now Charles III or King Charles III are the names being used. Bermicourt (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really "Charles" and not "George" or "Arthur" etc?

News reports still say that King ex-Prince Charles has yet to choose his regal name. Is it actually "Charles III" or will be choose one of his other forenames, like Philip? So... the namechange on the article seems premature. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He has chosen it, it has been confirmed to the press, but it has not yet been ceremonially announced. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has been stated in multiple reliable sources that Buckingham Palace confirmed the Prime Minister's announcement of the Charles III regnal name. Marquisate (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ABC World News Tonight with David Muir reported this shortly after 2230 UTC (6.30 p.m. EDT).[1][2][3]—dah31 (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
Just a curious question, if he had chosen Arthur as his regal name, would he have been Arthur II after the legendary King Arthur or would he just have been Arthur I? As far as I am aware there have been no other King Arthurs in the entire country's history. JIP | Talk 13:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If he had chosen Arthur, then he would have been know as "King Arthur". He would not have been "King Arthur II" as all previous Kings before 1066 are excluded from the numbering sequence. Also he would only have be known as "King Arthur I" once a second King Arthur comes after him, as it is with Queen Victoria. Incidentally he could have chosen any name, as he is The King and his regal name could have been anything he wanted it to be. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 13:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew

No mention of his pretty famous brother anywhere in the page. Even the Alec Baldwin’s page mentions all of his (much less relevant and much less controversial) brothers. Is this really the “free encyclopedia”? Does “free” only mean that people don’t need to pay to read it, or is it also free from the interference of politics and power? Cicalinarrot (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His brother Nicholas is mentioned in the page, albeit briefly. Which brother are you talking about? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prince Andrew's controversies belong to – and are already well covered in – his own article. They are not relevant to Charles' article just because they are brothers.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  19:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not what I said. I said they are brothers and siblings are almost always at least mentioned in the biography, and they surely are if they’re famous. I found this out because it wasn’t clear to me and I want this information to be on the page. It’s supposed to be there, no doubt about it. The controversy, of course, belongs to Andrew’s page, but they’re still brothers. Cicalinarrot (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree; normally there's a brief "personal life" section, and (in)famous sibs are mentioned and linked there, and even obscure ones will often at least be enumerated. This article has huge chunks on his personal life -- it's practically all "personal life", frankly, given that the royals are the world's biggest soap opera, and he's never had a real jobs or accomplishment in his life -- but this has fallen between those various stools. I'd like to suggest that the "Early life, family and education" section, mentioning as it already does his sis, at least passingly refers to Andy and Ned. As for the controversial angle, there may be a case to mention his reported role in "forcing out" his brother from his various official roles, and to settle the legal case against him, but I don't know if that'd be Due Weight or not. (For example, the Guardian: "After an intervention by his mother, the Queen, and his older brother, Prince Charles, Andrew last week announced he would “step back from public duties for the foreseeable future”.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If two first-degree relatives are each notable, their respective articles should mention each other. This is true even if the notability is for different reasons, such as the commander of Operation Entebbe and the former Prime Minister of Israel. Animal lover |666| 07:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Charles has three living siblings, not one. Dimadick (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some infoboxes have a "relatives" entry but the Royalty infobox doesn't (guess because they usually have a few dozens relevant relatives). It's also already a pretty crowded infobox so I wouldn't touch that even if it was possible.
I agree any sort of mention in the early life section would be enough. Otherwise, "he has three siblings, ...".
Andrew's page mentions Charles quickly (to me, "brother to the King of England" doesn't seem like information you would avoid saying explicitly, but at least the information is there, even if in an indirect way). Cicalinarrot (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's article mentions her sister a dozen times, in a range of contexts. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Among other reasons, that is because a) they were the only siblings, b) much closer in age, c) Queen Elizabeth's accession at a young age placed her in a position of having to approve her sister's marriage, d) Charles had not been in the same position regarding Andrew, and e) Margaret's death was worthy of mention in Elizabeth's article as one of a series of unfortunate events that happened around that time. Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Few times or once would still be ok, not even once is definitely weird. There’s a considerable age gap and for what I seem to get, Andrew has never been a prominent element and the rest of the family has obviously distanced themselves from him (which, as Charle’s decision, may also be featured in here) so there’s probably no reason for a dozen mentions. Not once is not ok though. Cicalinarrot (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. It's a bit odd Early Life doesn't mention all his siblings. It's not like there's ten of them. Immediate relatives are important: at least worth a few lines. TheSavageNorwegian 14:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Image

What do we think of changing the image to this? Charles Prince of Wales.jpg I recently found it and believe it fits better.

Charles_Prince_of_Wales

Is this the talk page of Charles III, current King of England? I get redirected here from his page. Isn’t Andrew, duke of York, his brother? I had to open three more wiki pages to try to understand it, I’m starting to get paranoid. Cicalinarrot (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is regarding the king of England. JaySDEA (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone deleted my section.
I also got redirected from here. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The opening/lead

When she was alive, we used "Queen of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms". For Charles, we should use "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms". This is per WP:WEIGHT, WP:COMMONNAME & whatever else you got. We don't need to go through all this -list all the realms- arguments again. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that all the commonwealth realms allow for a King; some are very specific in that the Queen is their constitutional monarch. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perth Agreement and previous constitutional convention makes it pretty clear, I'm not sure which country's constitution requires the monarch to be a queen. —WildComet talk 20:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jamaica likely requires amendment. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, but the queen's death may hasten their desire to become a republic. BilCat (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment they're still realms. They didn't become republics upon Charles III's accession. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't implying that. Jamaica has been slowly working it's way toward republichood for over 10 years, and more so since Barbados became a republic last year. This may hasten the process. BilCat (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know. By the time William becomes king, there'll likely be only four realms left. That's not a knock against Charles, but rather a nod to the mid-to-late 21st century. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, @Red-tailed hawk cited an order-in-council, not the constitution of Jamaica itself as currently in force. Either way, it would be a matter of Jamaican law to determine whether a textual reference to a specific or generic queen or king could be treated as a generic reference to the present sovereign—and then a separate matter whether the text is self-amending by implication, or if there needs to be a formal process. Is this seriously at issue in that jurisdiction, and what do the relevant authorities say? TheFeds 21:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The document you're linking to is a high-level summary of their constitution, not the constitution itself. Did you mean to link a different pdf? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See this tweet. [6]--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Queen of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" was never the common name for the Queen. TFD (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

infobox picture

the info box picture has been changed over and over again. and there's no consensus for it so this is a talk section just for it, I'm taking a page out of the book of The Talk sections of Olivia Newton-John and Mikhail Gorbachev and doing a !vote section.

Cast your !vote
  • Option 1
    Option 1
  • Option 2
    Option 2

I have compiled a gallery of all the candidate images, Just sign under your choice(s) 4me689 21:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1

  1. Shwcz (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  13:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Surprised that Option 2, with such an inane grin, is even in the running. Moonraker (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2

  1. --Marbe166 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. much clearer and better photo, can use until an official royal photo of some sort comes out  — Amakuru (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Ladderstuff2 (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. much more official looking in my opinion —Cooluncle55 (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. AlanTheScientist (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The best of the two. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Both are good, but this one is the better. As noted above, there will probably be an official (public domain) image released shortly anyway. 23skidoo (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I guess it's an attempt to correct where he was leaning in towards Biden in the original, but it looks absolutely bizarre to have the curtains crooked behind him. --B (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. As above, useful as≈ interim prior to official image Epsilon.Prota (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Definitely the better of the 2, a lot clearer than the first one
  11. Although an outdoor portrait would be nice, 2 is definitely the better portrait, it wouldn't look out of place on a postage stamp ;) Samatarou (talk)
  12. More recent, good quality. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Better Picture. --Lucthedog2 (talk)
  14. --Llwyld (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  15. His cheeks aren’t so red here Someonefromohio (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Until a coronation picture is obtained, at which point that may be better. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:511C:AF18:1F68:CFEB (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  17. It's simply better. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the 9 September 2022 dates for Australia, New Zealand, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.

I have withdrawn my personal support from my proposal, and I am instead supporting my alternative. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC) Hello. I get that we usually put dates for where they happen, however, I feel that in the case of that the Commonwealth realm is 15 countries big, we should put some footnote or efn after the "8 September 2022 – present" to note that it was actually 9 September 2022 in Australia, New Zealand, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu. People are already getting confused, as that when you go on the monarchy pages for those countries, people are changing it back to "8 September 2022". Example If a US President died in Australia on 9 September 2022 but it was 8 September 2022 in the US, we would put that his term ended in 8 September 2022 in the infobox. Thank you for considering. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick with Sept 8, which was the date in the UK, where she died. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay Yes I am aware we use the date of where they die as the date we use here in wiki. However, the office/royalty date is different, as it is affecting the actual country. My U.S. President example above explains it. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In staed of trying to imagine new scenarios, lets look at a real one: Zachary Taylor died in the US at 10:35 PM on July 9, 1850. This is obviously on July 10 UTC; yet Millard Fillmore's article clearly gives the 9th as the start of his term. Animal lover |666| 23:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should we consider an addition to "Notes"? -- Zanimum (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanimum What I was considering is either a footnote/ref/etc. either in the infobox or in the actual article when it first mentioned the date. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you want consistency within an article. If the article is about New Zealand, such as Monarchy of New Zealand, you would use 9 September. However since Charles primary place of residence is the UK, then on this article, you'd use 8 September. El Dubs (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Supertrinko Yeh I actually thought about that before I posted it but I feel like that concerns his personal info (stuff after the royalty in infobox). As a native Kiwi, I would be extremely confused as to why everywhere says the 8th of Sept when he assumed royalty on the 9th here. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It surprises me that on Wikipedia we don't use a template for all dates and provide an option to choose local time, or the time where the event occured. El Dubs (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bbraxtonlee: As well-intentioned as you are, I think you're making it up as you go along. Deaths are ALWAYS recorded as at the place where they occurred, and according to the time zone of that place at that moment. The fact that the Pacific nations did not discover the Queen had died until the morning of 9 September, does not mean anything. She in fact ceased to be Queen of Australia, New Zealand, PNG, Tuvalu etc at the moment of her death, on 8 September 2022, and that is the date, the only date, that will appear wherever relevant. If a US President died in Australia on 9 September, THAT is his date of death for all purposes, despite the fact that it was still only 8 Sept in the US. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JackofOz I agree on the death part and I am not arguing that. But the office part I will disagree with. Example: Biden dies in Australia now, 9 of September. In Wikipedia, we would put he died on the 9 of September. However, he left his office on the 8 of December because that is the time America is observing. How would it be possible that Biden left presidency on 9 of September yet Kamala Harris would become President on 8 of September? I think I should reword my original claim because people are mixing up the death and offices/royalty and mixing them. In New Zelanad, Australia, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu and Solomon Islands, their start date for THEIR KING is the 9 of September. Notice how his infobox says "King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms". But again, I'm not arguing the death date, please be aware of that. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think your logic is sound, but -- as I commented in one of the many other sections on this page, all alike -- it needs a source. After all, we don't even have an exact time of death, so maybe he became King of New Zealand at 11:59pm local time, or maybe there's some convention -- or someone decides to invent one -- that the NZ monarch runs on British Summer Time, etc. Might be better to keep it as Sept 8 until clearly cited otherwise, to avoid any appearance of OR. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Monarchy New Zealand put out a press release dated 9 September which said "The Queen died earlier today." Is that good enough? StAnselm (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Something a little more robust as a source is article, which includes, "Buckingham Palace has announced that Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth has died today", and it's dated 9 September. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would a "footnote" at Elizabeth II's death date (intro & infobox) & a footnote at Charles III's accession date (intro & infobox) cover the problem, concerning Australia, New Zealand, Tuvalu & Solomon Islands? Otherwise having September 8/9, 2022, would kinda look silly. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: YES! Obviously it would need consensus as I have tried to do that and it has gotten taken down for "confusion purposes" but yeah. And we should try to find all the other countries monarchies press releases to use as sources. Someone already mentioned New Zealand's: Monarchy New Zealand Dated 9 September 2022 "The Queen died earlier today."Bbraxtonlee (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would "8 September 2022 (UTC)" be acceptable? Only needed for global figures like the Royal family where clarifying the date is important. El Dubs (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Supertrinko: Yes, but we might need to build a consensus as it is prone to be taken down. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think such a consensus needs to be built at a more general level, since it's something that could develop into a guideline for across Wikipedia. Handling events that impact multiple time zones has been an issue on Wikipedia for a long time. El Dubs (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go along with the adoption of a footnote for both bios. GoodDay (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Supertrinko and GoodDay: Same to both comments. We can definitely start here because it is obvious there isn't a general rule on it. So maybe one of us could create a whole new section asking for a consensus for support or opposition on adding the UTC. The one thing I would say is to use the BST as that is the place where it all happened and we should still respect that the monarchy is based in the UK, just that it spans across multiple countries. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Create a whole new section meaning here on the talk page. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 04:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay and Supertrinko: Done. Talk:Charles III#To add a footnote to Charles III's intro and infobox to clarify his succession of the throne was on BST :) Bbraxtonlee (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poundbury is about Environmentalism New Classical architecture, not personal taste

Since 1993, Charles has worked on the creation of Poundbury, an experimental new town based on his architectural tastes.

Suggest edit "based on his architectural tastes" to "as a replicable experiment of an environmentally sustainable alternative to surburban sprawl. It has nothing to do with taste, taste is the consequence of the provision of using local materials and crafts - in the same way that sustainable cuisine uses locally farmed food. 181.230.187.119 (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Classical_architecture[reply]

It has to do with both. You can build both modernist and more classical looking houses either with industrial methods and materials or with local materials and crafts, and all four combinations are also actually used. Poundbury is definitely on the classical side in taste.151.177.56.148 (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla Parker Bowles

It has been stated elsewhere that the maiden name or highest title of one's own right should be used in info boxes but Camilla is referenced as the King's wife by her name when with her first husband.

Should it not be Camilla Shand? Or is their precedence for choosing the name previous to marriage? 173.212.65.254 (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we are rigid on that score (see Aristotle Onassis, his wife is deemed Kennedy, not Bouvier) but in any event I think this is someplace we would if necessary express common sense about and describe her as she has been most familiar to the public, that is, Parker Bowles. Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arms and Royal Standard

King Charles III, upon his accession today, immediately inherited the Royals Coats of Arms for use in England and Scotland, and the two corresponding Royal Standards. These should be added to his Arms section. 2600:8803:F51C:D900:EDD0:C1EE:9A69:2ACB (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add a footnote to Charles III's intro and infobox to clarify his succession of the throne was on BST

I would like to ask on a consensus of adding a footnote to Charles III's intro and infobox to clarify that his succession of the throne on 8 September 2022 was in British Summer Time. Why? Well, the commonwealth realms of Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu, and the Solomon Islands were all in the early morning hours of 9 September 2022 when the succession happened. Even Monarchy New Zealand issued a press release dated 9 September 2022 stating "The Queen died earlier today...", which could cause even more confusion, as Charles ascended the throne right after his mother's passing. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Right now we're in a situation where on Oceanic pages we'll have references to 9 September, and on other pages it'll reference 8 September. Just sticking with 8 September (as that's where it happened) is wrong because the "Accession of the King of New Zealand" did not happen on 8 September.
I do prefer just formatting dates as "8 September 2022 (UTC)" on general pages, and "9 September 2022 (NZST)" on NZ pages. This clarifies why there's a difference, however I'd still support a footnote instead. It surprises me that there is not a general feature on Wikipedia for handling events and time zones. Surely some template and view feature could work together for such things to make it specific to the reader's location (if they so choose) El Dubs (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm in favour of 9 September for four countries - excepting Australia. Happy to have a footnote clarifying, or just the timezone in brackets. It has just occurred to me that in Western Australia it was, in fact, still the 8th, which is a complicating factor. StAnselm (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm: This consensus is to put a footnote to clarify Charles III's succession of the throne at 8 September 2022 at 4:30 P.M. British Summer Time in his intro and infobox due to the above countries times when he ascended the throne there. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a bit early to say that we have a consensus. I'm still confused about whether you're saying Monarchy of New Zealand should have 8 September (with a footnote) or 9 September (with a footnote) in the infobox. StAnselm (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm: I know it's to early, my bad. I was talking about Charles III's infobox and intro. Something along the lines of "Charles ascended the throne on 8 September 2022 at 16:30 British Summer Time, which was 9 September 2022 in the monarchies of New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and most of Australia." If someone has a better way of wording it if consensus is reached I feel like we could work with it. Regarding your above comment, I feel like there really isn't a consensus needed for the individual monarchy pages, as those only concern that country so it eases the situation there. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with that wording. StAnselm (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't actually know the time, do we? He spoke to the PM at 16.30. He became King some time in the afternoon. Don't know how long he spent privately before the call to Downing Street. The Land (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support footnote for this article. StAnselm (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't have strong evidence one way or the other (and would be grateful if anyone does have some) but this notion of giving a different date for the accession in different realms seems a little bit like WP:OR. The date of accession to the thrones of NZ and Australia is presumably a well-defined official concept, and the basis on which subsequent events like jubilees are calculated. Absent explicit sourcing stating that his accession date was 9 September in those places, I think it would be preferable to stick with the 8th throughout. Note that Monarchy of New Zealand had always said 20 January for the transfer from George V to Edward VIII, but in the past 24 hours it has been changed to 21st (he died at 23.55 London time I believe). Using dates related to US presidents doesn't seem like a lot of clear evidence anyway... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru: Hello. This statement from Monarchy New Zealand, the organization responsible for the NZ monarchy I think strongly supports putting it in. Dated 9 September 2022, it states “Earlier today the Queen died…”. I do agree though that it should be all one date, but what gets me is that the monarchy of New Zealand has little to do with the UK as a country. Charles III is the King of New Zealand, and saying he ascended that throne on 8 September 2022 isn’t correct. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, interesting... A counterpoint to that is that the official page of the NZ governor General states the Queen's death as 8 September. It may be one of those things that doesn't become clear until later, as lot of websites haven't updated yet and they aren't really listing accession dates. I can't see a lot of evidence on NZ govt pages for when George V and Edward VIII took the throne (both similar cases, their predecessors died late at night). Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru: That is interesting. However, she said “8 September 2022 in Balmoral” which IMHO means in Balmoral time she dies 8 September 2022. However, I do agree that it is too confusing with the two different dates. However, to say the King of New Zealand ascended the throne on 8 September 2022 when the press release was released in 9 September 2022 NZ time seems off to me IMHO. That’s why I think we should put the following, or something close to the following footnote in Charles III’s intro and infobox: "Charles ascended the throne on 8 September 2022 at 16:30 British Summer Time, which was 9 September 2022 in the monarchies of New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and most of Australia." Again, it doesn’t have to be that but something to note the date was 9 September 2022 in those commonwealths. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another question is that did Charles become the Head of State of Cook Islands on 8 September? PRIME MINISTER’S STATEMENT--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, worth clarifying the timezone. The Land (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Rohsopht and The Land: Same. It seems that it just uses the New Zealand monarchy infobox. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Prince Charles (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an error, that move discussion doesn't appear to have anything to do with this page, and there is already a very lengthy move discussion here? The Land (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The move effects a redirect to this page (Prince Charles -- which will become a disambiguation page) and so the bot has correctly notified the target of the redirect proposed for deletion. DrKay (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Prince Charles

He also claimed the names Charles III, so shouldn't there be a 'see also Bonnie Prince Charles' at the top for Charles III? 171.6.236.236 (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think there's any risk of confusion between them. Unless you are particularly loyal after nearly three centuries to the Stuart cause, you will not type in "Charles III" and expect to wind up at the Young Pretender's page. Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And there's already a hatnote directing loyal but confused Jacobites to Charles III (disambiguation) where they'll be relieved to find the monarch they expected to see. DeCausa (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022

Add Prime Minister please thank you. 136.158.65.148 (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this proposed edit. There must be 15 different prime ministers, plus first ministers and premiers in the territories, so it's inappropriately messy, long and complex for an infobox. DrKay (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: It's not clear what changes you are asking to be made. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image once he is crowned

I propose pre-emptively that upon his coronation, the old pictures are done away with entirely and his official coronation photograph is used (no matter how terrible it is). 121.99.69.54 (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That will depend on how the image is licensed and whether it is copyrighted, which they are usually. See Wikipedia:Image use policy. DrKay (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page Archiving

Apologies if anything important was removed. I have tried to parse through the comments here and archive anything non-important or finished to try and limit the size of this talk page, which has been growing considerably. NoahTalk 13:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_III&oldid=1109385504"