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)

King Charles (2)

His majesty has been diagnosed with cancer after a short time in a private hospital. The Prime Minister has wished him a quick and speedy recovery and so has Keir Starmer 86.15.35.15 (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The announcement of his diagnosis has already been included. The addition of individual messages of support may be WP:UNDUE. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Something regarding his health needs to be added to the body of the article. Obviously as of this post, not much is known. But the lead should only contain summaries of facts covered in the body of the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It has been added, in the "Reign" section. But the lead section should just summarise what's there. I don't see that sources for this are also needed in the lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend not including it in the lead, unless the situation effects his constitutional duties. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Here in Australia, Charles is our king. A large number of us are males aged older than Charles. More than half of us have had cancer, most commonly skin cancer. We are still alive and kicking, and expect to be so for many more years. Until more is known, this is a minor issue. HiLo48 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I still think that, due to Buckingham's inherently secretive nature and their reluctance to say anything until they absolutely have to, that the death of His Majesty should be taken into account and prepared for. A few friends and I have already started up a draft of this page in past tense so that it can be immediately edited. His death is unlikely, but rather safe than sorry. Mooseman7325 (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd disagree. His death is extremely likely. The exact date rather less so. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

There's really no need. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It certainly has interfered with his duties generally, and the UK doesn't have a constitution (and in other places he kings, a viceroy performs such chores), so that's not really a meaningful qualification of the significance. There should be a brief mention in para four, the 'reign' nanosummary, which continues to be oddly underweight. Partly as it's been so short, and partly due to editors having idiosyncratic preferences in that respect. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it's too early to put something in the lead. We don't know enough. Time, not only palace announcements, will tell. If nothing is said, but he is absent from the usual royal events such as Royal Maundy in March, which his mother almost never missed, it may be time to reconsider. As for the body, I think we've put all we need to. All we could add would be speculation. Wehwalt (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything else be added to the body, just as I say a minimal additional summary in the lead section of what we have there. We can certainly qualify it as a palace announcement if that's felt to be required on the basis of it being a suspect and self-serving primary source, but reliable secondary sources also characterise it as "an indefinite break from public duties" and such phrases. That's neither speculation nor undue. Indeed I think it's a lack of due weight to not mention it at all: burying the lede, as it were. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, we don't mention King Harald V of Norway's health problems in his lead, nor his son serving two extended periods as regent. GoodDay (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Which is a considerably shorter (and less cruft-filled) article. It doesn't for example mention where Harald went to school for six months 60 years ago either (as this one does). So "not much", IMO. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Change the article to: Charles III of the United Kingdom

There already have been other Charles IIIs example Charles III of Spain or Charles the Simple. So if someone searches Charles III, it will be in disambiguation 174.94.54.119 (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Further up this page are links to several move discussions that have taken place on this topic in the past 18 months. Each time what you propose has been rejected. Wehwalt (talk) 05:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Which is silly because anyone searching for Charles III or 'King Charles' is looking for this King Charles, not some dead King of Sweden from 600 years ago. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

That's the way the ball bounces. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

After three attempts and a review within a year of each other, all failing - safe to say it would likely fail if proposed. Would also be a waste of time for everyone involved. JM (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)