Talk:Charles III

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Prince Charles in 1984

• ... that Charles III was the oldest person in history to accede to the British throne? Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-62842089/page/17
  • ALT1: ... that in 1984, whilst Prince of Wales, Charles III described a proposed extension to the National Gallery as a "monstrous carbuncle"? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20070927213205/http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/speechesandarticles/a_speech_by_hrh_the_prince_of_wales_at_the_150th_anniversary_1876801621.html
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Has appeared in the ITN section in the last year, although not as a bold link, so I believe it should be fine on this front. Promoted to GA on 22 May 2023.

Improved to Good Article status by The Cunctator (talk). Nominated by Tim O'Doherty (talk) at 13:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Charles III; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Interesting GA, thank you for relentlessly getting him there! Fine sources, no copyvio obvious. I think most readers would say yes to the original hook. For the ALT, the intended image would need no be in the article, but I don't like the construction "as Prince of Wales, Charles III ...". Can you find something interesting he really did as King? ... best with an image to match? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: How about simply:

Prince Charles in 1972

ALT2: ... that in 1984, Charles, Prince of Wales (pictured) described a proposed extension to the National Gallery as a "monstrous carbuncle"?

This avoids the anachronism of "Charles III" and saves on space. There isn't much that isn't already obvious that Charles has done as king, that is illustrated in the article: the only thing that comes to mind is him banning foie gras, but that would be a very boring hook.

If you do require something else, please let me know. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

approve ALT2 if that's what you like ;) - offline sources accepted AGF, the pic is licensed and shows well even small. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks very much. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• The copyvio detector has a 52% score, mostly titles and such. Lightburst (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Charles, Prince of Wales Disambiguation Page

I didn't know where to go about this, but someone messed up the Charles, Prince of Wales disambiguation page, and I can't edit it back. If someone could fix it, I would appreciate it. Thanks. StrawWord298944 (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2023

To change the photograph to King Charles III 2023.jpg, as his official Coronation Portrait. 86.25.152.92 (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. That file is currently tagged for speedy deletion because it is a copyright violation. We cannot use it. --Jayron32 14:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC for infobox image change

Proposed image

There's this new image of King Charles III at Wikicommons which I think would be a great replacement for his infobox. It's in good quality, it's a recent one, it depicts King Charles III and not Prince Charles like the current infobox image and (despite it not being the official portrait) looks like a formal portrait. Opening up an RfC to hear everyone's thoughts! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this is definitely an improvement on the current image used. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Pardon me if this reply is in the wrong place—I'm editing on mobile, which is a bit hit-and-miss with indents—I still maintain that any of the images I'd listed here would be better, and that I think would make better lead images than the current image or this proposal. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@TDKR Chicago 101: This isn't an RfC. It's just a normal talk page discussion. To open an RfC, you need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Creating an RfC. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, do we really need yet another RfC? Perhaps we can continue this informal discussion to determine whether there's any consensus for using this new image... Rosbif73 (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a good choice. I support the change. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t like it. There’s a shadow and a bit of an awkward unprepared look. Thriley (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I also support the change. And no consensus is required. The existing image was put into place by a vote, and it wasn't overwhelming. And the argument then was, we were just waiting for an image of Charles as king. And here is one. And it may not be ideal, but it's as good as what we have.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I support the change as well. I believe every article should get updated every once in a while. RicLightning (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't have changed it without a consensus. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. I got carried away. RicLightning (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

No prob. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

That being said, the current infobox image replaced the previous one after a vote by a margin of 20 to 16. I should not think any greater majority would be necessary to replace this one. Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't like the current image either, but I'm not seeing the twenty !votes needed to displace it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the change earlier on the basis that the current infobox photo was selected in an RfC only four months ago. My impression has always been that RfCs, particularly recent RfCs, present a relatively high level of formal consensus. I do take your point, though, that the margin of the RfC was not large, so perhaps it's not as high a level of consensus as an RfC would typically represent. In any case, I think gathering more input (perhaps through another RfC) would be ideal given how recently the last RfC was conducted. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

There's been a change in circumstances justifying a renewed RFC in that an image of Charles as king is freely available. I think this conversation is an effort to see if there's sufficient opinion informally without the need for a formal RFC. Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Astra Carta

I recently created a draft for the Astra Carta, a set of space sustainability principles proposed by Charles. Thriley (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2023

• Charles III → Charles III of the United Kingdom
• Charles III (disambiguation) → Charles III

– Second try after the previous failed discussion at Talk:Charles_III/Archive_6#Requested_move_8_September_2022.

There is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Charles III". There are many other very notable monarchs at Charles III (disambiguation) and having the British monarch at the base name is a violation of WP:RECENTISM, WP:NPOV and WP:WORLDVIEW. We shouldn't show bias for a monarch from an English-speaking country when other monarchs from other countries are equally notable, if not more. Furthermore, the current title doesn't follow the naming convention at WP:NCROY, which was created in part to avoid this kind of problem with ambiguous titles.

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is determined by looking at two aspects: usage and long-term significance. In terms of usage, the British monarch gets significantly more page views than any other monarch with the same name. Per [1], the British monarch gets around 75% of the total views. However, that is not the full list of monarchs at Charles III (disambiguation), pageviews only allows to compare up to 10 articles. So the percentage would be even lower. The pageviews are indeed higher, but the difference is not overwhelming. For comparison, the fruit is the primary topic for "apple", even though the company gets more than 80% of the views ([2]).

However, the main reason to move the article is that the long-term significance of the British monarch pales in comparison with other monarchs. He is merely a ceremonial figure and he is not a ruler as such. He doesn't govern or make any important decisions and he doesn't have any real military role (he commands no troops). Compare that to Charles III of Spain for example. He ruled as an absolute monarch over the biggest empire at the time, which spanned five continents (Europe, North and South America, Asia and Africa). He commanded the troops that conquered Naples and Sicily from Austria (Charles_III_of_Spain#Conquest_of_Naples_and_Sicily). As the intro of the article puts it: As king of Spain, Charles III made far-reaching reforms to increase the flow of funds to the crown and defend against foreign incursions on the empire. He facilitated trade and commerce, modernized agriculture and land tenure, and promoted science and university research. He implemented regalist policies to increase the power of the state regarding the church. During his reign, he expelled the Jesuits from the Spanish Empire[2] and fostered the Enlightenment in Spain. He strengthened the Spanish army and navy. Although he did not achieve complete control over Spain's finances, and was sometimes obliged to borrow to meet expenses, most of his reforms proved successful in providing increased revenue to the crown and expanding state power, leaving a lasting legacy.

And that is just one monarch of the list, although he is arguably the most notable. But there is also Charles the Fat, the last last Carolingian emperor, or Charles III John of Norway, French commander in the Napoleonic army who somehow became king of Sweden and Norway, to name just two others.

With so many other notable monarchs named Charles III, the British monarch has a very weak claim to be the primary topic and we should make Charles III a disambiguation page.

Some would say he is the monarch of the whole Commonwealth Realm, not just Britain. That is true, but he is mostly known as a British monarch. Even in Australia, where he is also a monarch, the media refer to the British throne, not the Australian or Commonwealth throne ([3]). There are also plenty of other examples where only one of the kingdoms is mentioned in the title, like Charles I of England, also king of Scotland, and Ireland, or Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, also king of Spain.

Finally, I want to preemptively try to refute some possible opposition arguments:

• "We'll need to change so many links." True, but there are tools that make the task relatively easy.
• "Other British monarchs like Elizabeth II or George VI don't mention "the UK", so we should keep the current title to be consisten." That ignores all the above arguments about primary topic and it plays down the importance of the other monarchs mentioned above. The main point of discussion is whether the British monarch is the primary topic. The title of other British monarchs articles is irrelevant, what matters is the notability of other monarchs with the same name.

Vpab15 (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Why are you doing a "second try" for a proposal that already failed? The decision last time was emphatically against, and endorsed at move review. Nominating again, with no indication that anything has changed, is not productive. Suggest speedy close.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Consensus can change, the previous discussion was almost a year ago during the whole succession frenzy. A more calm dicussion can happen now. Vpab15 (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support per NCRAN. We should go back to the "NAME, ORDINAL of COUNTRY" format. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support clear example of systemic bias in favour of the English-speaking countries. He has only been king for less than a year, he could drop dead tomorrow, will he really have much greater long-term significance than e.g. Charles III of Spain? (At his age his reign could well be a relatively short one.) PatGallacher (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  WP:Systematic bias is about bias in content coverage. Our naming and disambiguation guidelines however are deliberately based upon English usage. CMD (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Worth noting that similar cases exist for non-English speaking monarchs. Cleopatra, which is among the 100 all-time most viewed pages on Wikipedia (as is Charles III), is not titled 'Cleopatra VII of Egypt', even though there are more than a dozen Cleopatra's of Egypt, Syria, Syra, Macedon and Pontus, among others. Despite all of the fascinating histories of various Greek queens, most people are looking for that Cleopatra. Similarly, Ahmed I (the Ottoman sultan) receives far more views than any of the other monarchs at Ahmad I (disambiguation), even though I'm sure someone could argue that the Moroccan sultan is just as historically significant. For now and the foreseeable future, most users are looking for the British Charles III, and I don't think we should frustrate a majority of readers just because we think that the Spanish is king as actually more important than the British one. CoatGuy2 (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. As was pointed out above, there are a number of monarchs with the name Charles III. COGNOMEN would seem to have us title him as Charles III of the United Kingdom. Векочел (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:NCROY. While the British sovereign almost certainly meets WP:PT1, it's too soon to tell whether or not he'll meet WP:PT2. This RM is certainly a step in the right direction, as articles like Elizabeth II or George III should be the exception, not the standard. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and WP:CONSISTENT. The British monarch is most certainly the primary topic here. This is the English Wikipedia, and the vast majority of our readers who search for "Charles III" will be looking for this article. That makes it the primary topic. The current title is also the most common name as well as the most concise. And it is consistent with the other modern British monarch article titles: Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, George V, Edward VII, Queen Victoria, William IV, George IV, and George III. As for the guideline at WP:NCROY, guidelines are supposed to reflect consensus, and the consensus for over a decade has been that the modern British monarchs do not need the "of the United Kingdom" in the article titles. WP:NCROY is therefore grossly out of date and should be updated to reflect the current consensus that has been well established through multiple RM discussions over many years. WP:NCROY is also just a guideline, which cannot override policies such as WP:COMMONNAME. WP:NCROY even says this by stating that "If there is an overwhelmingly common name, use it". "Charles III" is the overwhelmingly common name, so according to WP:NCROY we should use it as the article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  COMMONNAME doesn't mean anything here. In context, the shorter version of anything would be the common name. If you really wanted the common name, "King Charles" or "the King" would be better than "Charles III", but they're obviously not suitable article titles. And I'm not sure why you'd pick consistency either: more English/British monarchs use the natural disambiguator; see this. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Only 3 British monarchs use a natural disambiguator (Anne, George I, and George II). All the rest from George III onward do not use it. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Rreagan007 - Not to be an irritant, but I did write "English/British. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I know you did. And in my original post that you were replying to I had written "British". Rreagan007 (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  . Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'll take that to mean you are missing my point, so let's try an analogy. Person 1: “Most sharks give birth to live young”. Person 2: “I don’t know why you would say that since most fish/sharks lay eggs”. Person 1: “Because of the 500 species of sharks, only 100 lay eggs”. Person 2: “I said 'fish/sharks', not 'sharks'”. Person 1: "I know you did, but I originally said 'sharks', not 'fish/sharks'". Rreagan007 (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'll try a different analogy:

  Person 1: The UK is one of the most unstable countries in the world. In 2022, they had four chancellors, three prime ministers and two monarchs.

  Person 2: I don't know why you would say that given that in every year since 1964, the prime minister had always served at least a year, the previous monarch lasted 70 years, and the first chancellor of 2022, Rishi Sunak, lasted two years.

  Person 1: Liz Truss only lasted 49 days.

  Person 2: I said "since 1964".

  Person 1: I know you did, but I said "in 2022".

  See how you can justify a point of view by only covering a very small portion of a topic? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Comment This could be partly because the names used by recent British monarchs haven't been commonly used in other monarchies. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Reply This is indeed the English-language Wikipedia, but it is not the Wikipedia of the English-speaking countries. I entirely accept that most of the monarchs of the UK for some time are the primary topic, although I have some doubts about William IV. (Some of them are the only monarch of this name, so the question of primary topic doesn't arise.) We could have a problem when Princess Victoria of Sweden becomes monarch, may be soon as her father is 77. PatGallacher (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
  • George V is another potential example where the issue of primary topics could come up, given people like George V of Hanover and George V of Georgia. 2601:249:9301:D570:909A:F52B:67C2:D58 (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
    • We can deal with that when it happens, we don't have to anticipate it now. Richard75 (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment Looking at William IV, the article was moved there in 2020 unanimously without much discussion. Might be worth taking another look at that, with more discussion this time. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support, as convinced by nom's arguments. I am very much opposed to systemic bias. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:CRITERIA the current name clearly wins out on consistency (cf. Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, George V, Edward VII, Queen Victoria) and concision. It is natural and recognisable and also geographically neutral (the proposal is systemically biased against the other Commonwealth realms). The OP dismisses these points far too easily in my view - they are very important here. With respect to precision, this is where WP:PRIMARYTOPIC comes in. This article is clearly the primary topic.
  This article regularly gets 20000 views a day, which is around 15-20 times more than all the other Charles III's put together. Charles III of Spain gets around 750-1000 views a day - not nothing, but many times fewer than this article. And this is not a short term trend. If we look at pageview statistics for George VI (died 70 years ago) or Edward VIII (abdicated 87 years ago after 11 months), they still routinely get more than 10000 views a day - ten times what Charles III of Spain gets. Forcing a disambiguation now would do a disservice to our readers who - overwhelmingly - are looking for Charles III. Kahastok talk 16:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Page view stats for 2023. Note the log scale (used because otherwise everything is drowned out by the coronation in May). Kahastok talk 17:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  The guideline says "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; Philip II of Spain, not Philip I of Portugal." For Charles, this is the UK. Would you instead suggest "Charles III of the Commonwealth realms"? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support - As I've always favoured going back to the "Name # of country" style, for monarch bios. That country (for this bio) would be the UK, rather then Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, or Saint Lucia, or New Zealand, etc. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Arguments for it are many, quite strong and have already been given above and at many discussions at WP:NCROY. There is no consensus giving British monarchs some privileged position. Just poor arguments. And in this case in particular, rather ridiculous. Charles III of Spain far and away has more long term significance. Walrasiad (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The consensus for having British monarchs located at the base name as the primary topic has developed over the last 12 years across multile RM discussions. WP:NCROY is outdated in this partiular area and should be updated to reflect the consensus on British monarch titles, but unfortunately the small number of people who bother to comment on the WP:NCROY talk page refuse to accept that reality. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is the English Wikipedia, and this is clearly the wp:primary topic for "Charles III" in the English-speaking world. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, it's the English Wikipedia, but it isn't "England's Wikipedia". We should be countering systematic bias, not fostering it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  No, that's not the issue here. He's not only king in England, he's king of over a dozen countries in the English-speaking world. The name "Charles III" is usually translated in other languages anyway, so most Spanish speakers won't know their Charles III by his English name, but rather as Carlos III. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  There's a difference between translating a name and titling an article Anglocentrically. Spain having "Carlos III" isn't greatly relevant; what matters is "is the article titled Charles III of Spain? In which case, what is this Charles III king of?" Following the guideline, it would be the UK. Whilst relevant, the other Commonwealth realms shouldn't be in the title. If we were striving for inclusivity, we'd have to have, for example, Queen-Empress Victoria or William II of Scotland and III of England. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  The current title is perfectly fine. He's the overwhelming wp:primary topic and that's evidently demonstrable, for instance by pageviews. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Practically every British monarch will be the primary topic for their respective name and ordinal. Edward I and George II aren't going to lose the country from their titles any time soon; Charles III should have his as well. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERCONTENT. Charles III is unique in that he is king of more than one country. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Further reply "Charles III is unique in that he is king of more than one country." Eh? Nonsense! There are umpteen other examples, including oddly enough Charles III of Spain, who was also King of Naples and Sicily. So do we re-name him, and if so what to? This is why WP:NCROY has sovereigns point 3. Also, the Spanish Wikipedia calls him "Carlos III del Reino Unido", they do not treat him as primary topic, neither does the French Wikipedia, although the German does. PatGallacher (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  I was referring to Charles' uniqueness against the specific examples of Edward I and George II, not against every possible example. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Technically, speaking Charles III of Spain wasn't King of Naples and Sicily at the same time he was King of Spain (expect for a brief two month window). Upon succeeding to the Spanish throne, he had to abdicate the other thrones in favor of his younger son. Other points still stand though. 2601:249:9301:D570:909A:F52B:67C2:D58 (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  To pile on the examples, Charles III, Holy Roman Emperor (King of West Francia, East Francia, Aquitaine, Italy, and Alemannia), Charles III of West Francia (King of West Francia and Lotharingia), and Charles III of Naples (King of Naples, Hungary, Croatia, and nominally Jerusalem). Even excluding Charles III of Spain we have three other Charles III's who ruled multiple Kingdoms. BilledMammal (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  It makes sense that other Wikipedias who have their own Charles IIIs would not regard Charles III as the primary topic, given the references in their own-language reliable sources are likely to be more weighted towards their own past monarchs, and on English Wikipedia, per policy, we do not need to be consistent with other Wikipedia's article titling policies ([WP:CONSISTENT]: The English Wikipedia is also under no obligation to use consistent titles with other language versions of Wikipedia).

  If a Francophone was looking for Charles III of France, they would probably type 'Charles III', while if they were looking for Charles III, they would be more likely specify 'Charles III Angleterre'. An Anglophone would probably not try to find Charles III of France or Spain by simply searching 'Charles III', unless they were unaware of there being other monarchs with that name, but would be very likely to just search 'Charles III' (or even just 'King Charles' or 'the King') to find one of the only reigning monarchs in the Anglophone world (the others being the King of Eswatini and the various monarchs of Malaysia). Jèrriais janne (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. When considering through the lens of long term significance there appears to be no primary topic. It's possible that this Charles will have a comparable influence on the world to monarchs like Charles III, Holy Roman Emperor (the last emperor of a unified Carolingian Empire) and Charles III of Spain (ruled one of the world's largest empires, and was its final king before it began its decline under his successor), but he hasn't yet and per WP:CRYSTAL we shouldn't be predicting whether he will or won't. Further, per WP:RECENTISM, we shouldn't be given preference to him because he is recent. BilledMammal (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose notably per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, WP:CONSISTENT... Nothing has changed since the previous RFC. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  WP:COMMONNAME isn't relevant when deciding whether to disambiguate, WP:CONCISE can be argued for both sides (Charles III of the United Kingdom is less concise than Charles III, but Charles III is more concise than Charles III (disambiguation)), and the proposed title is consistent with other articles on British monarchs who aren't the primary topic for their name (eg. Anne, Queen of Great Britain, George I of Great Britain, and George II of Great Britain). BilledMammal (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  But Charles III is the primary topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, but there are other arguments beside his being the PRITOP. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  All of which are incredibly weak compared to all the arguments in favor of the status quo. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and WP:CONSISTENT. Other than the fact that he's clearly the primary topic in this case (the page views attest to that), the format is consistent with that of his predecessors (Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, George V, Edward VII, William IV, George IV, George III, Elizabeth I, Edward VI, Henry VIII). Users also bring up the issue of bias but seem to forget that he's not just "King of the United Kingdom". He is also "King of Canada", "King of New Zealand", etc. Why should the United Kingdom be given a preferential treatment in this instance? Keivan.f^Talk 23:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NCRAN. This individual is clearly not the long-term primary topic for this title, especially when compared with Charles III of Spain (also King of Naples and Sicily), who spent 29 years on the Spanish throne and separately 24 years on the throne of Naples and Sicily. The British monarchs are not special—they ought not take precedence over leaders who have far more long-term significance than them—and moving Charles III of the United Kingdom to have his article in line with the explicit naming convention seems most reasonable. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support
  While putting this idea into consideration, I contemplated 2 items that would be put into question whilst doing this.
  1) Time; is it truly the right time to make this change?
  2) Relevance; perhaps it might not be important in regards to his duty as King of the United Kingdom?
  My decision is that I support it.
  It is time to do so. There have been multiple Charles IIIs of different monarchies around the world as you can see the list here. Dukes, kings, other Charles IIIs in-question.
  I sought it relevant considering his duty as a monarch. Once he passes, and people search up Charles III after his death, maybe months after, they may not be looking for the King of the United Kingdom, which is perfectly why it is in regards to it. People search Charles III to broaden their searches for different persons of the same name that were royals and nobles, not just of the United Kingdom, so it should be.
  I'm hoping more people support it,
  BillClinternet (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is WP:CRYSTALing at its finest. You're speculating about what people might be searching for years after his death, which could be decades away. But what article are people likely to be searching for RIGHT NOW when they search for "Charles III"? They are overwhelmingly likely to be searching for this article, and you know that. And that is why this article is the primary topic and should remain so. Now if that ever changes, like at some time after his death as you are speculating about, then the article can always be moved at that point in the future, but it should definitely not be moved now. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, there is absolutely no reason for this to succeed given nothing has changed since the prior failed request. Charles III is the primary topic as already highlighted, and this is consistent with the naming of recent past British monarchs. Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 06:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I can't see the current King as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Seeing how many other Charles IIIs there's been it does feel like it's a case of WP:RECENTISM Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  The main point to consider is who the majority of readers are likely to be looking for when they search for "Charles III" today. Page views tell us that the vast majority are looking for the only living Charles III. The hatnote is there to help the minority who aren't. It may be, depending on how long and notable his reign is, that at some point after his death he might cease to be the primary topic for Charles III. But that'll be a decision for future generations of editors to take... Rosbif73 (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support Clear case of recentism.★Trekker (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Of all our readers who might search for 'Charles III', the majority will be looking for this guy. Also, consistency with other British monarchs: Elizabeth II, George VI, etc. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is almost totally wrong. Many other people may be looking for other Charles IIIs who have a more historical background.

  BillClinternet (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This was already covered previously, Charles III as well has been the standard for the several British monarchs proceeding him, as well he is the monarch of several other commonwealth realms, so he is not just "of the United Kingdom". To simplify it to that is extremely simplistic and not a correct style to put. As well it is very important to note that nearly every reader who puts "Charles III" into wikipedia is looking for the British King, not any of the other Charles IIIs. I would argue that the idea of "Well they are named Charles III too" would also not really pan out in relation to the article Elizabeth II in relation to Elisabeth II, Abbess of Quedlinburg or Isabella II of Spain who is referred to as the "Spanish equivalent of Elizabeth II". CIN I&II (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. He is, unfortunately, also the king of Australia. His predecessors were Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, George V etc. His article should be labelled the same way. WWGB (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per OP's main reason Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per description. This was clearly a result of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NATIONALISM. --ReyHahn (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Like i said in the previous request, i agree. He is not the only Charles III and all monarchs should be treated the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRichic (talk • contribs) 08:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose on Wikipedia principle. I hated that last discussion and it's outcome so much, so many terrible arguments. I see some of them are even cropping up in this discussion too... But no, you shouldn't redo a whole discussion like this. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ] 07:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support on balance. Primary topic is probably the strongest argument for the opposers. I don't see his other realms as an argument to oppose (Charles II of England?) I think what swings it to Support for me is convenience for the reader. When I came back to the article after the accession, just after it was renamed, I had to check the opening of the lead to make sure I got the right Charles III. I shouldn't have had to do that. I think adding "of the United Kingdom" does no harm but does a service to our readers confirming they have indeed landed where they expected to without further "effort" from them. Linking it to policy, I think for WP:CRITERIA, this comes under the Recognisability requirement. (I think the other UK monarchs should follow the same approach for the same reason.) DeCausa (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per previous discussion. Readers typing in "Charles III" are overwhelmingly likely to be looking for the present king. In the last 20 days 380,000 views for Charles III vs 18,300 for Charles III of Spain. A factor of x20 difference seems to me pretty clear-cut evidence of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Jheald (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  The factor is a very modest x3 at most if all other monarchs with the same name are considered. Vpab15 (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  I haven't confirmed your numbers, but if this article has 3 times as many views as all the other 18 Charles III monarch articles combined, then "modest" is a gross understatement. That's an overwhelming amount and is clear evidence of this article's primary topic status. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure how you calculate x3. Since the beginning of this month, the current Charles III has over 15x more than all other Charles IIIs combined, and over 20x more than Charles III of Spain. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  I gave the link in the nomination ([4]). 17,718 out of 23,670 is 75%, or 3 times more than the others combined. The results can vary depending on which other Charles III articles are selected and which dates. There is a huge peak caused by the coronation for example. Vpab15 (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose A man in my position at Category:Commonwealth Wikipedians and with my stake in the Robinson Treaties cannot afford to look foolish in front of this nominally foreign Crown. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the primary topic per page views. Desertarun (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with the previous discussion and the many well-reasoned points in opposition in this discussion. BCorr|Брайен 07:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – As Jheald comments (four above this), it is overwhelmingly probable that people typing in "Charles III" are looking for this one. If, in due course, that ever ceases to be true we can considerer moving to a longer title, but there is no case for doing so now, particularly as the man is king of several other important countries at present. Tim riley talk 07:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Of course there have been lots of Charles III's but most are only known by historians, whereas this one is known by millions worldwide and is clearly the primary topic. The number of views overwhelmingly reinforces that. Bermicourt (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT. The proposed replacement of "Charles III of the United Kingdom" also fails WP:WORLDVIEW, as Charles is not just also king of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  But also British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, independently and side-by-each (except the last two, kinda). InedibleHulk (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  And I think New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Western Australia too?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Plus Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Turks and Caicos Islands, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, of course... He must be a very busy king!!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  There's no Monarchy in Queensland like there is Monarchy in Alberta (and so on). I think it has something to do with a lot of things. Could be mistaken. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support per OP's main reason. Doomsday28 (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per the overwhelming readership stats detailed by Kahastok above. As it is already apparent that there's no consensus for the move and its repetitious nature makes it vexatious, the discussion should be speedily closed per WP:SNOW. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as Andrew above. Richard75 (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasoning above including WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT. IlkkaP (talk) 08:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I'll give the same reason as I gave before. He isn't just King of one country but King of 15 independent and equal countries, whose monarchies are legally separate from each other. You're suggestion would only work if each of the 14 other Commonwealth Realms were to become republics, which I don't see happening in the majority of them. I agree with all other editors in opposition to this and hopefully this is the last time this comes up. GandalfXLD (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Procedural close and oppose: this is the same proposal that just achieved consensus to not move the article. Despite supporting that one, I accept the consensus. This is not the way to contest a close. — Bilorv (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - nothing has changed since the previous proposal. The current primary topic clearly remains the most-read on that title. Long term significance will see his entire life, not just the bit at the end where he is King of many countries. Arguably, if the crystal ball shows several of them dump the monarchy and become republics during his reign, his significance as monarch will increase. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am not persuaded by the arguments about bias. That the article is a Good Article while none of the articles about other Charles IIIs are any better than B class is an example of systemic bias, but the page name is not. Page view stats indicate it is the primary topic. Nurg (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - as many have stated, nothing seems to have really changed since the last RM, plenty others have stated good reasons why not to move but additionally, comparison to apple doesn't work here since all the Charles III are monarchs and Charles III of Spain isn't a differnt kind of object commonly thought about. Pageviews are still relevant for establishing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC despite Spanish Charles' obejctive relevance to history. We don't normally name other historical pages based on impact or relevance either. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 09:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – We consider all five criteria of WP:CRITERIA when determining article names. Charles III wins out over Charles III of the United Kingdom on four of the criteria. The one on which is may not is precision; the discussion rests on whether King Charles is the primary topic for Charles III. The outgoing pageviews at [5](WikiNav) show that a large plurality (48.3% in June 2023) of outgoing pageviews for the disambiguation article are currently to the regining British monarch. Observation of [6](PageViews) shows that in the last month, Charles III received inordinately more pageviews than Charles III of Spain or Charles III disambiguation. Charles of Spain receiveds just 4.7% of the daily pageviews of the present article. My previous search of Google Books and a similar search of Google News also serves to demonstrate that the present monarch is the primary topic for the search term "Charles III". The demonstrate that Charles is the primary topic in terms of usage without a doubt.
  WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY says that While long-term significance is a factor, historical age is not determinative. Charles III is a current monarch and we cannot determine – and it is not for Wikipedia to do so, as per WP:CRYSTALBALL – the relative long-term significance of different persons with the title Charles III. While you say that "the long-term significance of the British monarch pales in comparison with other monarchs", we do not know this and merely having a ceremonial role over a political one is not determinative of significance. WP:PT2 is based on notability and educational value not how many soldiers one commands or how many decrees one makes (which technically King Charles does command an army & make decrees anyway, even if his actual political power is constitutionally limited). It is as easy to argue that King Charles will be more notable to future readers after his reign as it is to argue the opposite.
  WP:RECENTISM is an explanatory guideline which describes both the positive and negatives of recentism, as similarly is WP:WORLDVIEW – it cannot be violated, it is not a policy (not that Wikipedia policies can be violated anyway – WP:IGNORE (ignore all rules)). Nonetheless, as recommended in WP:WORLDVIEW, we can look at reliable, English-language news sources to incorporate a Global South perspective: [7] [8] (all indicating Charles III = this article's topic) [9] (indicating a mixture of "King Charles III" and "Britain's King Charles III". Finallly, although I dispute its policy relevance here, WP:NPOV says that If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. Jèrriais janne (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Move to King Charles III, for consistency with Queen Camilla and the fact he's generally referred to as "The King"/"King Charles" so WP:COMMONNAME applies. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 09:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  "King Charles III" violates WP:SOVEREIGN. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Technically, WP:SOVEREIGN says that "Article titles are not normally prefixed with "King", "Queen", "Emperor" or equivalent", it doesn't say they never are. And clearly there are exceptions, such as Queen Victoria (used as a form of natural disambiguation). But I see no good reason for an exception to the general rule here, as "Charles III" is the best title for this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you going to meaninglessly oppose everything I say or are you going to even pretend to make a comment that isn't needlessly self-redundant? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I apologize. I can see how that reply could have rubbed you the wrong way, especially in light of our interactions thus far in this discussion. But I was not trying to antagonize you. I was just having an autistic moment. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rreagan007 Sorry man. Was in a bad mood when I typed that. All good. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty: No worries. I know these RM discussions can get very passionate sometimes, and both sides just want the article title to be what they think is the best title. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as nothing significant has changed since the recent identical move request was closed. This name is still the best for this article per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and each of the five points from WP:CRITERIA: recognisability, naturalness, precision, concision, and consistency. Narrowing its scope to just the United Kingdom would be ridiculous and break several of the name criteria given that the majority of his subjects are citizens of his other 14 realms. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - strange to bring this up again, repeatedly when this has been discussed, and under strange covers of evidence, the status quo remains, Charles III to the vast majority refers to the King of the UK and the other realms AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - He is the primary topic, and there is no need to reopen this discussion again. Furthermore, Charles III being monarch of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. and head of the Commonwealth is more significant than also being monarch of "Naples and Sicily". In the case of Charles III, calling him "of the UK" is problematic because of the significance of his other realms and that his status in many are no longer libked to his status in the UK (after long fought reforms in many countries). The OP ignores this. Suggestions that the situation is analogous to the situation and significance of Naples and Sicily several hundred years ago misses the point entirely.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, it is very different. Charles III of Spain personally conquered and ruled over Naples and Sicily and a huge global empire as an absolute monarch. The British monarch is just a figurehead with no real power. Vpab15 (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Modern British, Canadian, Australian monarchs have more influence and impact than lesser known absolute monarchs of a few hundred years ago. Sicily and Naples were minor possessions compared to the modern realms/countries of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. But one of the better reasons that Charles III should refer to the modern one, is that Carlos III of Spain wasn't even known as Charles III in Spain, and even if we allow for the translation of the name he was Charles I in Parma and Piacenza, Charles VII in Naples, and Charles V in Sicily. The modern Charles III is known as Charles III in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

This sort of argument is why the arguments about the opposition to this proposal being WP:RECENTISM and inadvertent WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS against non-anglosphere countries are so convincing. The Kingdom of Naples was a significant power in Europe, and for Charles III of Spain it was his second most consequential possession after Spain itself; in terms of relative power, I suspect Naples had more than Australia or Canada does in the modern world. Even prior to his ascension to the Spanish throne his rule of this Kingdom, given his absolutist control over it, gave him vastly more influence and impact than Charles III of the United Kingdom gains from his rule over the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms. BilledMammal (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. It would be simple opposition if it were just pointing out WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, especially in light of readership statistics, but given that this is a rehash of a recently-closed requested move with nothing changing in the interim...this is a dead horse that need not be beaten. —C.Fred (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The opening paragraph of the argument does it for me - trying to argue that there are other equally notable Charles IIIs out there. There are other Charles IIIs but they are definitely not equally notable. Also if this has already been rejected why is there a second try? The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Every possible reason to oppose this has already been listed here. Is there no rule against repeated failed requests like this? The first one was barely 8 months ago. There is consensus against the move, and I don't think that is going to change for as long as Charles is alive. --jonas (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the Charles III being searched the most here in the Anglosphere. No one would be confused to have this as the title. We should be strive consise when possible, no? TheSavageNorwegian 11:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. All the monarchs from the last 260 years have their names written like Charles. I also agree that he is the main topic and is monarch of other Commonwealth nations. Bakir123 (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC the vast majority of our readers who search for "Charles III" are looking for this article. A quick check of the Page View Analysis for this article and some of the other Charles III pages, it clearly show 10s of thousands more hits for the UK Charles III than any other article Charles III article every single day! It is also WP:CONSISTENT with the other modern British monarch article titles: Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, George V, Edward VII, Queen Victoria, William IV, George IV, and George III. Additionally as per WP:COMMONNAME, he is called Charles III in English, if writing about or discussing any other Charles III from history, that person is labelled to distinguish him from the current UK monarch, not the other way around. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 11:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, I agree with C.Fred that this is a dead horse. People forget how notable Charles III of the UK is, for example he is the head of state of Belize. Sahaib (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - the dab page receives 65 views per day on average; even if we assume that every single one of them came after landing on Charles III first, that doesn't put the smallest of dents in the traffic that this article gets, at well over 18k per day. The idea that this article is not the PRIMARYTOPIC is ludicrous on its face. Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support per C.Fred; absolutely nothing more notable about this guy than the others. Although I can understand non-historians being blinded by bling. In fact, that goes for almost all modern constitutional monarchs: they will never have made the same impact as any of their predecessors... because they cannot. Albeit, the point about Belize above made me chuckle, thanks  :) SN54129
• Oppose page views show a vast majority of hits for any of the Charles IIIs point to this Charles III (75% among the top ten persons who go by that name, and the other Charleses probably got a boost in traffic by people looking up this Charles III and natural curiosity of others with this name). Frank Anchor 12:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it is overwhelmingly likely that a reader from an English-speaking background who types in "Charles III" is looking for the subject of this article. The other candidates are far less well known. Charles III of Spain is probably the most prominent alternate candidate, but while he was a prominent figure in 18th century history he isn't widely known in the English-speaking world, and his article gets an average of fewer than 1000 hits a day, as opposed to this article which gets 15-30,000. This isn't recentism, as the subject of this article will continue to be the primary search term for a very long time, the last British monarch who isn't the primary search term for their name is George II of Great Britain (died 1760). While the current Charles III might not be the primary search term on the a timescale of 3-400 years, that's not a reasonable consideration to use when deciding the article title now. Hut 8.5 12:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support - but this isnt going to happen, because the body of editors who decide these things, and the group of editors who instituted the move to begin with and then reversed the burden of consensus to move it elsewhere, are dominated by those who view this person of little power or importance even to his subjects (giggles) as being the only conceivable target for Charles III. But the nomination is policy based on all counts, this cant possibly be the primary topic as Charles III of England has existed for approximately 0% (slight rounding error but you get the point) of the time people have been writing about Charles III of Spain. It is simply hubris to claim that this Charles III will undoubtedly be the primary topic for Charles III for any length of time. In fact, I was planning on seizing power in Egypt and then expanding my empire to its former glory and giving myself the regal name of Charles III. nableezy - 13:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The living Charles III is quite obviously the primary topic that the vast majority of readers are accessing, and to send them to a dab page is a disservice. As this is a living encyclopedia, I do not think it's "hubris" to say Charles III will be the primary topic for at least the short term, as we can always move the page if Nableezy's coup is successful. Reywas92^Talk 13:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support systemic bias and recentism (guising in the cloak of "consistency") are going to win this one, but in my opinion those are biases to be eliminated. Ribbet32 (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. One of the main arguments by opposers is that the current title is WP:CONSISTENT with the articles of other British monarchs. However, it is not consistent with WP:NCROY ({Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}), like Charles III of Spain. They claim British monarchs shouldn't follow the same naming convention as monarchs from other countries, and that they should occupy the base name and be the primary topic automatically, regardless of the notability of other monarchs of the same name. If that is not blatant bias I don't know what is. Vpab15 (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Your argument is that following WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is "biased". I suppose that's trivially true, but that "bias" is how we always decide which articles will occupy the base name and which will use some form of disambiguation. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree that is it bias. It is not taking any particular stance on a controversial issue (King Charles' common name or official titles, one of which is Charles III of the United Kingdom and His Other Realms and Territories etc., is not a controversial issue), just reflecting the relative importance afforded to the various figures in English-language sources. Of course, English-language sources will generally reflect an Anglospheric world view, but as I have demonstrated in my primary comment, non-Anglosphere, English-language sources also seem to regard the reigning Charles III as the primary topic. Nonetheless, the relevant Wikipedia policy (WP:POVNAMING) states explicitly that If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased, so it doesn't actually matter whether it is biased or not. Jèrriais janne (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Im sorry but that simply is not true. Yes, when discussing the present tense, as news sources reporting the news, or more likely gossip in this case, Charles III will obviously refer to the current Charles III. Like if somebody were to, during George W Bush's presidency, refer to President Bush, that would be referring to the person who was currently known by that title. Not the even at the time still living person who was previously known by the same title. Whether or not that remains true when this person dies is something that is to be determined, and it remains hubris to assume that it obviously will. But it is not true that most sources are showing the relative importance of one subject to another, they are using the name for the current living person because they are the current living person. nableezy - 15:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  In reliable, secondary, English-language sources (not just news), as you say, "Charles III" will obviously refer to this Charles III - exactly why Wikipedia's article title does and should reflect that. Wikipedia does not try to predict the future, including how people will refer to particular historical figures in the future. We don't know that yet, because we don't know how notable Charles will still be in 100+ years, but that is not relevant at the current time. What we do know he is the most notable person in the present to hold that title and the topic English speakers are most likely looking for when they search "Charles III". Moreover, it is possible that, even after he does die, English-language sources may still refer to him as 'King Charles III' without further disambiguation for decades after - we can see evidence of this from past monarchs; for instance, if you run a Google Books search on "Charles II", the first page's results refer to Charles II of England with no extra disambiguation. The one result for Charles II of Spain specifies that it is he who is being referred to. Jèrriais janne (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  That would be true if this were a news and gossip website. We however take in to account all the reliable sources, not just the ones from the past year. And one of the first results I get in google books is actually this. nableezy - 18:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Point of clarity: what specifically in what I said would be true if this were a news and gossip website?

  Yes, we take into account all reliable, English-language sources to determine an article title. Simple tests for that, such as a Google Books search, demonstrate that this King Charles is the primary topic for the disambiguated "Charles III" in English-language books. As I already said, that result for Charles III of Spain specifies the "of Spain", which only reiterates the point that in English-language sources, Charles III on its own does not refer to non-Commonwealth monarchs. Meanwhile, my first page of results which relate to this Charles use "(King) Charles III". In addition to books, we can also look at other reliable, English-language sources international, reliable newspapers, none of which feel the need to disambiguate from Charles III of Spain ([10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]). Jèrriais janne (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  That wed only be concerned with the current news and gossip sources usage. And what about the say JSTOR results for "charles iii" (Wikipedia Library search link). How many of those refer to this Charles III over all the other Charles IIIs? Again, yes, sources discussing the present tense in the present tense will refer to the current Charles III. Just like they referred to the current President Bush and not his father, the other President Bush. Showing me news sources does not refute the point, it enforces it. nableezy - 20:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per PRIMARYTOPIC and most of the other arguments above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. PRIMARYTOPIC is a two-pronged test. The living Charles III very clearly meets the first prong of views/what readers are looking for. Some metrics cited in this discussion range from 3x to 20x in this regard. Given this, the other Charles III would need to have an equivalent imbalance in the other direction. While the others probably will have greater long-term effects on the territories they ruled, it isn't sufficient to overshadow the huge difference in pageviews. Given that most readers are looking for the current British king, searching Charles III shows the other leading contenders, and the presence of the hatnote to the DAB page, keeping it as it is is fine. Also, having this at the current title avoids the question of how to deal with the fact that the "British" Crown isn't solely British anymore, and that Charles III is also King of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. all of which are independent, co-equal countries which have valid claims to be included in any article title. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – Charles III is plainly correct, in line with all previous British monarchs since 1901, and given his shared role across all the Commonwealth Realms it is also by far the best way to cover all of them. Moonraker (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it's in line with all British monarchs article titles since 1727. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Charles III (of the United Kingdom—I use the term here to avoid confusion in a discussion about various persons called "Charles III") sweeps the field in terms of page views and is the primary topic by common sense; in English-speaking countries he is the only one with whom most people will be familiar. This is not a case of recentism, like it would be if most people searching for "Mona Lisa" were expecting a film star or a hit revival of the Nat "King" Cole song, that might be expected to displace the painting in page views only briefly; none of the other articles that might potentially be titled "Charles III" have a realistic chance of displacing this one in the foreseeable future (perhaps if Wikipedia is still around in 2223).

There are certainly figures in the list on the disambiguation page who will presumably have more long-term significance after the time of Charles III of the United Kingdom. But most of them are already distinguished by natural disambiguation (Charles the Fat, Charles the Simple) or are only called "Charles III" in certain contexts (Charles XIV John, Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor, Charles III of Naples). The strongest argument for any other person being primary would be Charles III of Spain, since this is what he was called in English from 1759 to 1788 (previously having been Charles I, Duke of Parma and Piacenza, Charles VII of Naples, and Charles V of Sicily).

The title "Charles III" was previously used for a disambiguation page, which means that none of the others was deemed the primary topic before. As a result, this proposal would return the title to a disambiguation page—and that makes this move seem motivated primarily by spite: "I don't care that there's no other primary topic, as long as this one isn't!" And that's a darned poor reason for a page move. P Aculeius (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it must be spite. Who in their right mind would want to learn about major historical figures who are already dead? I am much more interested in finding out if the great Commenwealth King takes his own toilet seat on his trips ([16]). Vpab15 (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you just made my point for me. Those supporting the move aren't interested in someone else being the primary topic, but in ensuring that a topic they don't think is important about a person they don't respect isn't regarded as primary, even though it's what the overwhelming majority of people searching for the term will be looking for, now and for the foreseeable future. Perhaps some of the commenters genuinely have other reasons for supporting this proposal—but just skimming through the comments it's pretty obvious that the primary motivation is to deny primary status to an article about someone the commenters deem "unworthy". P Aculeius (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I have clearly explain my reasons in the nomination comment. Agree or disagree with them, but do not make up reasons that I have not expressed. Your inability to assume WP:GOODFAITH is getting tiring. Vpab15 (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - I completely agree with User:Jèrriais janne's assessment of the data, page traffic and available sources. This is one of the highest traffic pages on Wikipedia, tied for 40th position on the all-time top 100 list and having appeared in the Wikipedia:Top 25 Report 24 times and the Wikipedia:Top 50 Report in 2018, 2020, 2021, and 2022. We would do a disservice to a significant majority of readers if we ignore the clear and overwhelming data that most users are looking for the British monarch versus any other Charles III. CoatGuy2 (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Further comment: The last time this move was proposed I reviewed the all-time pageview stats and found that 'Charles, Prince of Wales' (the former title of this article) had 61,850,725 pageviews as of 7 Sept 2022. At that time, the combined pageviews for all the other Charles III articles listed on Charles III (disambiguation) totalled 24,672,659. At the time of the previous move request, the British monarch accounted for 71.5% of pageviews for pages on the Charles III disambiguation page. I've done the math again, comparing pageviews between the close of the last move request on 9 Sept. 2022 and 23 July 2023. In that interval, the page for Charles III (of the UK) had 22,000,259 pageviews and all other pages on the disambiguation page total 3,853,251, meaning that the British monarch accounted for 85.1% of pageviews for pages on the Charles III disambiguation page. Bear in mind that Charles III featured in several international news stories (the funeral of Elizabeth II and the coronation) during that period, but move-nominator Vpab15's characterisation of this page's share of views as 'very modest' seems misleading. In fact, Charles III (of the UK)'s share of pageviews seems to have significantly increased since the last move request discussion.

  I think it's also worth noting that page traffic for British monarchs tends to be quite high, in general. Even Edward VII, a short reigning, politically powerless king who died 113 years ago had 28,448,162 pageviews in the same period that all of this Charles III pages had a combined 24,672,659 pageviews. I think it's safe to assume that Charles III (of the UK) will remain the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in 10 or 20 years, which should lay concerns about WP:RECENTISM to rest. CoatGuy2 (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  A number of pageviews of x3 is modest in comparison of other numbers floating around, which I assume are based in the inflated pageviews in September during the succession or in May during the coronation. Outside of those two peaks, the numbers are much less impressive. Vpab15 (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Vpab15: Again 'much less impressive' isn't really useful because it's not backed up by data or sources. I decided to compare Charles III's pageviews during a random one-month stretch in one of the data valleys to see if your claim has merit. Between 16 Dec. 2022 and 15 Jan. 2023, the British king accounted for approximately 80% of page visits when combined with the other nine most-visited pages from the disambiguation page. I would guess that if we added in all of the other pages as well, the British monarch would get between 2 out of 3 and 3 out of 4 visitors, which comfortably satisfies the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC consideration 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. CoatGuy2 (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  FTR if you assume my figures "are based in the inflated pageviews in September during the succession or in May" then you assume wrongly. I gave the source for my figures and it was the baseline for all of 2023. The difference between our figures is primarily that I don't think it's a given that all of the page views for Charles I of Austria, for example, are people who think of him as Charles III of Bohemia. Nor, for that matter, that all the page views for Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor are from pro-Alliance partisans from the early eighteenth century. In reality, most of the articles in your search are on people who are not primarily called Charles III, and as such I think your numbers dramatically understate how likely it is that an individual looking for Charles III is looking for this article. Kahastok talk 21:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - This would be an error to make this change. Charles III is the monarch of fifteen countries; while he may be symbolic, he is absolutely the primary topic here. If the average Wikipedia user or person is looking for a "Charles III", I would imagine 99 times out of 100 that they are looking for this Charles III. We should not be basing decisions on how Wikipedia users will be viewing the history centuries into the future. - Yeehaw45 (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support in principle, although I think the status quo is acceptable in practice. I don't find the argument that "of the United Kingdom" is somehow misleading because it excludes all the other realms convincing. For instance, George II of Great Britain was also the king of Ireland, but no one's seriously insisting that his article be renamed George II of Great Britain and Ireland.--Woko Sapien (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – This is English Wikipedia, and Charles III is currently the King of... England (and a bunch of other English-speaking places). As User:Tim riley and others have said, the bulk of users searching for "Charles III" on the English Wikipedia will be looking for this living king, rather than historical kings from non-English-speaking places. After Charles dies or is no longer king, it may be worth reconsidering at that time, but not now. BTW, I'm an American, so he's not my king, but I (and lots of other WP users!) have searched for this WP page a lot of times since he became king, and the user stats confirm this. It's not a Worldview issue, it's just a question of convenience for our users. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Oroborvs (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, NCROY and PRIMARYTOPIC. Charles III of Spain was one of the most influential European absolute monarchs in history during nearly his 30-year reign, while the incumbent British king is a newcomer in a largely ceremonial role. --Plumber (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

You actually think that "Charles III of the United Kingdom" is a more common name for the subject of this article than "Charles III"? Rreagan007 (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per @Keivan.f and @Rreagan007. DDMS123 (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This was considered previously and the reasoning to have it Charles III still holds. Whatever the Spaniard's merits, this Charles gets overwhelmingly more clicks. "Charles III" should go where the reader expects it to go, not to a disambiguation page, especially since of course the Spaniard's name was Carlos and Charles is just a rendering..--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Are you saying "Charles III of Spain" should be moved to Carlos III? If not, I am afraid I don't understand your comment. Vpab15 (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think the point is that Charles III of Spain is "Carlos III" in Spanish, as opposed to say a Charles of France, whose name would have been "Charles" in both English and French and would ceteris paribus have a stronger argument against the current target being primary. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support, per the excessive number of holders of this name: ten direct titles, and another seven plausible ones, and against WP:RECENTISM. The current "Charles III" is not more important than all the rest combined. BD2412 T 19:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Nobody in this discussion is arguing that Charles III will have more long-term significance than any of the others (although you never know what might happen between now and the end of his reign). Several other people in the list are significant historical figures. But nearly all of them are either better known by other names—"Charles the Fat", "Charles the Simple", Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor"—or are relatively minor figures of whom most non-historians have never heard—Charles III, Duke of Lorraine, Charles III, Prince of Guéméné. The only relatively important one who's usually called "Charles III" is Charles III of Spain, and while he's fairly significant, most people—even many historians—have never heard of him, or know him only as a name on a list; and he's only called that in English; the Spanish-speaking world knows him as "Carlos".

People searching for "Charles III" on Wikipedia will nearly all be searching for Charles III of the United Kingdom; scholars or people like you and me may be happy to read about Charles III of Spain, but the overwhelming majority of all searches for this title will be for this article. Is that "recentism?" Well, it's recent—if only because he's only been king since September—but that's not going to change any time soon. Basing the decision entirely on long-term significance risks ignoring one of the most basic principles of an encyclopedia—getting people the information they're looking for.

That's not how primary topics are determined: based solely on long-term significance, "Madonna" would redirect to "Mary, mother of Jesus", instead of the singer—but that's not what most people will be looking for when they search for "Madonna" on English Wikipedia. And there's no substantial probability that "Charles III" will be redirected to any of the historically-significant figures irrespective of the outcome of this proposed move; if it succeeds then it will simply go to a disambiguation page. Then will the argument be that the current king needs to go at the bottom, since the list is in chronological order, so that the most likely topic for readers to search for by this name will be buried beneath an avalanche of persons better known by other names, or minor- to middling-nobility of the medieval and early modern period?

How much of the support for this proposal is really based on getting people to the topic they want to read about, and how much of it is simply people not wanting King Charles to have the "honour" of being the primary topic for his own name? Given that nobody outside of Wikipedia even knows what a "primary topic" is, that doesn't seem like a persuasive reason to move this article. P Aculeius (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. There is nothing whatsoever that Charles Windsor could ever do that would make him more consequential than Charles Bourbon without causing some sort of revolution. He's a figurehead whose only advantage over the Spaniard is that he was born 200 years closer to the founding of Wikipedia. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support as per nom. Elme12 (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Of the United Kingdom" is not part of his WP:COMMONNAME, and it disregards all of the other realms for which he is monarch. In any case, this Charles is overwhelmingly likely to be the Charles that people are searching for, so WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies. Bazonka (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose per Rreagan007's reasoning. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support The assumption that the most recent monarch is "the default" is clear recent bias and British bias. "Charles III of the United Kingdom" is a clear article title that is easy for people to find. There appears to be a common belief that because this is the "English speaking wikipedia", that we should have English speaking biases. We should aim to avoid any kind of bias and having the assumption that the British King is the "default" is such a bias we should avoid. "consistency" in the past does not mean we should steamroll over the other monarchs who have gone by the name Charles III. El Dubs (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Opppose per standard naming conventions (of the United Kingdom is not), and WP:PRIMARY Topic and WP:COMMONNAME. The monarch of the UK is not commonly known as King Charles of the United Kingdom.>> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Support "Charles III of the United Kingdom" is a clear article and easy to find. Because if you don't say what he's the "third of", then no-one will understand who he is. It makes perfect sense to add "of the United Kingdom" to his name. RicLightning (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  He is also refered to as Charles III (or Charles, the third) in Canada,[17][18] Australia,[19][20] New Zealand etc.[21][22]-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  So what does that mean, exactly? RicLightning (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  That he's not just "of the United Kingdom". He's the king is several independent and equal countries and in all of them he's known as "Charles III". Keivan.f^Talk 02:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly. I am saying that he is equally Charles III of Canada, Charles III of Australia and Charles III of New Zealand... so its not like we have to use the title "Charles III of the United Kingdom" in order to make clear "what he's the third of". People will know, just like they know what Elizabeth II refers to without that being in the title of that article. Further as has already been pointed out, refering only to the UK, ignores that Charles III is also King of 15 co-equal realms and problematicly suggests that they are not equal, or that his status in the other fourteen is only due to his status as "British Monarch".--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Rreagen007's argument. And WP:Commonname, we went over this shortly after the Queen's death. --Peralien (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose who else would Charles III be he is obviously the primary topic Sebbog13 (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support per nom. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Is this suppose to be a question you're asking? You know the who else would Charles III be bit. RicLightning (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and everything from the prior attempt. Comparatively very few readers will be looking for any other “Charles III” besides that of the current one. The Kip (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Also adding, @P Aculeius' arguments throughout this request also hold considerable weight here. The Kip (talk) 02:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

"Charles III" is not his common name, though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Then what is? Rreagan007 (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Charles III of the United Kingdom certainly isn't either, considering he's both the sovereign of multiple other nations and the default Charles III to the bulk of the world's population. The Kip (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose and favor speedy closure. There's no reason to think that consensus has changed. I'm not British, and I don't care about the royals, but it's just a sky-is-blue fact about the language that the recent British monarchs are the primary meaning of their respective designations in contemporary English. Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per the very clear result last time, and per Amakuru etc. Johnbod (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support changing my vote from the last RM per nom's arguments; Charles III of the United Kingdom is an easily accessible title for readers to find and would make sense to anyone trying to find the article on the current king. Yeoutie (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose We went over this exact issue less than a year ago, and the clear decision was to keep the article as "Charles III". I would like to lay out first some facts, then some arguments:

1. There are four relevant guidelines I would like to bring up: WP:NCROY, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:RECENTISM

2. WP:NCROY would suggest that this article be named "Charles III of the United Kingdom."

3. However, as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this would be unwise and we should, in fact, keep this article as-is. This particular Charles III is, undoubtedly, the primary topic: he is by far the most searched Charles III, making him what people are looking for when they come to Wikipedia asking about a Charles III. If someone happens to come to Wikipedia looking for a different Charles III (perhaps the Fat or of Spain), then the link to the disambiguation page is already provided at the top of the page. I would also suggest that perhaps anyone looking for a different Charles III would already be aware of which one they are looking for and would search accordingly.

4. WP:COMMONNAME would also suggest that we keep this article as-is: no British monarch since George II has been referred to by their realm on Wikipedia, and that includes the likes of William IV and George III, of which there are other notable monarchs with the same name. George II was the last British monarch to rule over the Kingdom of Great Britain, and George III the first to rule over the United Kingdom: there is simply so precedent for titling articles regarding recent British monarchs as "Monarch N of the United Kingdom." It would be an inaccurate title and one rarely used by the general population.

5. A common argument is that titling this article "Charles III" would be in violation of WP:RECENTISM, and to that I vehemently disagree: Charles III is the primary topic, and he is who most people are looking for. Is he more relevant than other monarchs sharing his name? At this moment, yes. Less than one year after this was first decided is not the time to be rehashing this: we can come back in five or ten years (pr perhaps even more wisely, years into his successor's reign) to decide whether this Charles III is still the primary topic, and is still the one people are most likely to be searching for when they type "Charles III" into the search bar.

Theologus (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support I agree with Tim O'Doherty above. Tad Lincoln (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose -- (1) I do not see how the circumstances are any different from the previous discussion in September; (2) I do not see any hope for a consensus to develop to changethe status quo; (3) as in the previous discussion, it is clear what the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is for this title; (4) there is still the issue of the other Commonwealth Realms being disregarded if "of the United Kingdom" is included. Let's just leave well alone. --RFBailey (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Eh. I think given normal PTOPIC practice this is a fairly straightforward move, but it was never really going to pass. And I sympathise with the opposers probably the most – if someone searches up Charles III, they shouldn't really be surprised to end up here. And as it is it's a nicer title to have, IMO. J947 † ^edits 05:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Mostly per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONCISE. Ever since Charles' accession, he has been the primary topic for "Charles III" in English-language RS by far and the current usage is what matters the most. Also, the nominator's reasoning based on their own view on the subject's relative significance is not based on any policy regarding article titles and should be discarded. It does not matter what powers, accomplishments, or territories any of the other Charles IIIs in history had as feudal or absolute monarchs compared to this article's subject. None of that is relevant. --StellarHalo (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The previous Kings and Queens did not include Of the United Kingdom, so why include it if readers of articles around the world already know that Charles III refers to the King of England Baqotun0023 (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support. He is not the only notable Charles III in history, on the contrary, there have been quite many. This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the Wikipedia for the United Kingdom, so he is by no means the "default" for the term "Charles III". I had a look at every "Charles" page from I to XVI and the clear majority of them were either disambiguation pages or redirects to a name containing the "of" part. So why should this be any different? For consistency and clarity, I myself prefer to include the "of" part every time I mention a royal for the first time. JIP | Talk 10:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I opposed the original move and, sorry, but "Second try after the previous failed discussion" is ridiculous, just because the vote didn't go your way. Thurlow0391 (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I disagree, this is the primary topic for Charles III. Calls to ignore recentism are a red herring; we don't pretend like people alive right now, reading this right now, are not thinking of this right now. Recentism is about ephemeral ideas not taking precedence over more permanent ones. This is not ephemeral. --Jayron32 17:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - As per my previous comments: He is a living and notable monarch linked to a notable event (PRIMARYTOPIC). His reign extends beyond the United Kingdom and therefore the suffix would be incorrecy. Nothing has changed in this regard since the last discussion. Mat Jarosz (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the current Charles III is clearly the primary topic people would be searching for. I am not sure why this is still, or ever was a discussion.Stanley Bannerman (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Notification

• Note: I have informed all the participants of the previous RM discussion about this discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that was appropriate; notifying 129 editors through talk page messages (presumably using some automated tool, given the rate of notification?) of an RM seems to verge on spamming; as that guideline says, More importantly, recruiting too many editors to a dispute resolution can often make resolving the dispute impossible. Remember that the purpose of a notification is to improve the dispute resolution process, not to disrupt it. BilledMammal (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  No automated tool was used. I sent all the messages myself. And Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification clearly says: "An editor...can place a message...On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include...Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic." Rreagan007 (talk) 09:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  WP:APPNOTE also says Do not send inappropriate notices, as defined in the section directly below, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them. I'm not going to argue this, but I would strongly suggest you never issue notifications like this again, at least not without some prior discussion to determine whether such an act would be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think that I followed the guidelines at Wikipedia:Canvassing to the letter. The guidelines say that you can inform participants of a previous discussion on their talk pages if it is "Limited, Neutral, Nonpartisan, and Open". I limited it to just the participants of the previous discussion, and my message was neutral, nonpartisan, and open. In addition, my message was "polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief" as required by the guideline. It would have been impossible to only inform some of the participants of the previous discussion, as that would have violated the section which says "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." Rreagan007 (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  As I said, I’m not going to argue it; I’ll just recommend that if you believe it is beneficial to notify such a large number of editors of a discussion in the future you do so using pings as it is less intrusive - that method is sometimes seen for RfC’s with broad impact, although I’ve never seen such wide notification for an RM.

  It would have been impossible to only inform some of the participants of the previous discussion FYI, I think you inadvertently did so; the closer said 240 took part in the previous RM but you only notified 130; even excluding the editors who have already contributed you’re still about 100 short; I think whatever method you used to populate your list was flawed. I wouldn’t be too worried about correcting that though; as long as the ratio of !support to !oppose editors is proportionate it isn’t an issue.

  BilledMammal (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  I did try to avoid sending notifications to users who had already contributed to this current discussion, as well as avoiding sending to users who were banned for sockpuppetry and some IP addresses. I tried my best to send a notification to everyone else who participated in the previous discussion regardless of their position, but if I missed anyone it was inadvertent. Rreagan007 (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  That seems right and proper - there was only a large number of notifications because there was an unusually high participation last time. Indeed, I would say that the perspectivess of those who participated last time could be particularly illuminating (though not carrying any special weight) if any had changed their views over time, one way or the other. Davidships (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  And that is the argument for why we need to do this whole discussion all over again, that consensus may have changed, i.e. that people may have changed their minds in the last few months. And the only way to know if people have changed their minds is to ask them. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t see anything inappropriate in their notice (I was one of the recepients), nor do I see anyone who explicitly asked not to receive such a message. Thus, I don’t see how what you cite here applies.Tvx1 09:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) x 3 I didn't receive a message (I didn't take part in the previous discussion), but I don't see a problem in having left a message for those who previously commented on the same RM topic. There was certainly not anything "inappropriate" in the messages or the execution of them in this instance. Either a message or a ping are perfectly acceptable ways of doing it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  I did not see anything inappropriate in the message I was sent. Thank you @Rreagan007 for bringing this discussion to my attention. Jèrriais janne (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  I received one of his messages and I'm quite thankful that he did. GandalfXLD (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  I received a notification and am glad of it. I participated in the previous discussion and no longer have Charles III watchlisted, though I probably would have noticed the discussion as I check in on it every now and then.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  I do not feel that Rreagan007 did anything improper, and I am grateful that you took the time to manually notify so many past discussion participants. CoatGuy2 (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'm surprised that wasn't done earlier, given the short period of time since the previous identical move request was closed. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for sending the notification. I believe this type of notification is entirely appropriate as long it is sent to all involved (outside of IP's, banned users, etc) so as to avoid the appearance of canvassing. This mass-notification was sent to almost all previous participants regardless of previous vote, so it is perfectly acceptable. Frank Anchor 12:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  I concur. There was no canvassing here and the notification was entirely appropriate, especially given that this is basically a repeat of a fairly recently failed proposed move. On which note, while acknowledging that consensus can change, it is customary to allow a little breathing room before reviving failed proposals. We don't want to get into a situation along the lines of "the voting shall continue until the correct result is obtained." -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see any issues with the notification, as long as it was sent to people on both sides of the previous discussion, and the only criteria for not notifying people were reasonable (already commented, banned, anonymous, etc.). If I didn't want to participate, I could simply have ignored the notice. P Aculeius (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  I too received the notification from Rreagan007, as I participated in the last major attempt to move the page shortly after Elizabeth's death. His notification was neutral and informed me that there's a new conversation, but it not once urged me to vote. This is what I received: "There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)" I don't think this is biased, or that Rreagan had any ill intent. --Peralien (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  So, what is it you're saying, exactly? RicLightning (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  That Rreagan has done nothing wrong. I think my message made that clear. Peralien (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Should have been discussed here first. Seems inappropriate and a little suspect, IMO. Particularly given the cascade of "opposes" that came right after. It seems an attempt to tilt the result, or at least to reproduce the prior voting pattern. Walrasiad (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I have seen many repeat RM discussions where all the participants from the prior discussions have been notified (either with a ping or a talk page message) and never once have I seen anyone discuss first whether or not to do so. It appears to be pretty standard procedure to just do it, with the understanding that past participants of a discussion are very likely to want to know about a new discussion on the same matter. It seems inappropriate and a little suspect to me that anyone would oppose doing so. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I have only seen it as an immediate follow-up to an unresolved portion of an RM (e.g. an additional proposal or variation of a proposal that has just closed or been withdrawn). I have never ever seen a mass mailing of all prior discussants from a year earlier. What you did here is unprecedented in my experience. You claim it is "standard procedure", could you cite an example? I'd like to know where. You take umbrage at my suspicion. Very well, might I ask why you did so then? Certainly not to improve discussion. Discussion was not scanty here, but quite active, so it was certainly not stalled nor in need of additional input. Nor does it seem to be about alerting participants who thought this important - those who think it important are already watching. And I'd expect you to notify WikiProjects which might rate this page as important. It seems you just went and contacted every drive-by voter who had an opinion last year to come flood this discussion again. It seems your intention was just to manufacture the same result. If that was not your intention, then it certainly seems like it. It would be a lot less suspect if you had brought it up here first. Walrasiad (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

My intent was simply to let the people who contributed to the previous discussion a few months ago know that there was the exact same proposal (which I did in accordance with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Canvassing) because I thought they would want to know about it. And based on the reaction of people I let know, they did indeed want to know about it. And based on my reading of Wikipedia:Canvassing it would have been inappropriate to simply let some of the past contributors know. If you let one know, then you have to let them all know. And I also personally think they have a right to know on principle. And I also don't like your characterization of previous contributors as "drive-by voters". Just because some Wikipedia contributors don't hang out at WP:RM constantly doesn't make their opinions on title changes any less valid. Now, what is your reason for wanting to hide the current discussion from the contributors of the previous discussion? The only reason I can think of that someone would not want to let previous contributors know about a new discussion is in the hopes that the past contributors simply wouldn't notice so that the title change could be quietly slipped through without a thorough discussion that accurately gauges what the true community consensus is on such a change. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Because I've never seen it done. Ever. In any RM discussion. And I participate in many of them. Never have I seen an editor do what you did here. So claiming this is "standard procedure" is disingenuous. I asked for examples, and am still waiting.

Just because you haven't seen it done before seems like a pretty flimsy excuse for opposing it being done. And it doesn't mean that it can't be done or that it shouldn't be done, as it is clearly allowed by the rules. As far as examples, I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I know I've seen users who participated in previous discussions being alerted when there is a new discussion on the same topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, I know you participate in many RM discussions too, and I have never seen you do it before (not to my knowledge anyway). So your motivation here is obviously different than elsewhere. Or do other RMs not deserve to have past participants notified? Walrasiad (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I think I may have done it before, but I can't remember the specific example. Regardless, I think what motivated me was that it was completely inappropriate for this to be renominated for a requested move after the first one was so overwhelmingly rejected less than a year ago that it was closed in less than 28 hours. And that result was overwhelmingly endorsed by a move review. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems appropriate to me (as a recipient). When someone chooses to reopen a proposal that was very clearly rejected a matter of months ago, they should expect this. And yes, it may well "reproduce the prior voting pattern"; this is entirely to be expected after such a short delay, with nothing new in the nom. Johnbod (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• I was notified of this discussion by User:Rreagan007 and feel that being informed in this way was in no way inappropriate. --RFBailey (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  Seconding this. The Kip (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• I have no problem with this notification or how it was issued. As for the actual RM discussion, it is clearly headed towards some form of "not done", so no need for me to actually participate. I do agree the nom should probably wait longer before trying again. If we see a third try in as many years, that would feel excessive, so my advice would be to hold off until 2025 (at the very least). Perhaps even best to wait until after Charles death before revisiting this issue. CapnZapp (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  What's going on? HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)