Talk:Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject British Royalty (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Wiltshire (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wiltshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wiltshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Cornwall (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


we discussed this a while back, where you claim the other picture was blurry which is why it should not be increased, pictures on Wikipedia are enlarged all the time, especially a nice picture, and this pic you agreed it's fine, so now your eye's not about you, no one has complained about this image being big, please stop making this an argument, its unnecessary, also why are you screaming, why do you sound so angry over a picture on an article which you are not a main contributor? (Monkelese (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I also said: "It's even worse in infoboxes, as it usually makes them look heavy and unwieldy." If you believe that there is something wrong with default width, please take it to WP:WikiProject Infoboxes. Pictures are enlarged only when necessary. See GA such as Marie of Romania or FA such as Alexandra of Denmark. No images there are enlarged. The lead image is sometimes enlarged when the article contains no infobox, but this one does have an infobox. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." So, why is an exception to the general rule warranted? Surtsicna (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Again why is this image of an article you barely contribute to bother you so much, i know the image rules, let me try to remember you, the previous one you said was too blurry, not good, now this you have your reason. also the rules, it says an image which was cropped, can be enlarged, which this one was. This seems to bother you only, if there was a problem with it being enlarged, i would have been told long ago about it. I will keep reverting it and i'm sure you know what will happen to both of us.(Monkelese (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC))
There is no reason why this image needs to be enlarged from the default size. --NeilN talk to me 18:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm certain that no-one has mentioned it previously because it's very trivial and it's only been in place for less than a month [1]. Surtsicna has explained why the default is fine, but there is no explanation as to why the image should be forced to be wider. Consequently, it would seem more reasonable to adopt the default as that is backed by a rationale whereas the alternative is not. DrKiernan (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
this image was cropped, it looks much more presentable with a little size, what I added is not much that should be such a problem (Monkelese (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
By that standard, every photo would look more presentable with a little size. If this is your criteria, please revert your last edit. --NeilN talk to me 19:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I have to say that new lead image is super! Thanks, Surtsicna. DrKiernan (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"acknowledged their transgressions???"[edit]

The writer of the article on Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, shows the usual illiteracy regarding the worship-traditions of the Anglican Communion. This particular nonsensical, somewhat "sensational" little comment came from one of the networks, I'm sure, as they are also notoriously ill-informed on religious practices. Specifically "service of blessing, which included acknowledgement of their transgressions and repentance.[91]" The "General Confession" is a part of EVERY Anglican service and was NOT specific to the relationship of the Prince of Wales and the Duchess. Somebody picked up on this and thought it was the couple doing penance of some kind for the adulterous nature of their relationship. Whoever posted this article really should have done their homework a little better.. from a WELL-WRITTEN article about Anglican worship:

Anglican General Confession

The Anglican Communion, which includes the Church of England, The Episcopal Church (in the United States) and other member churches, has its own act of contrition, referred to in the Prayer Book as the General Confession. This is said by the Congregation en masse during regular worship services. The original form in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is:

ALMIGHTY and most merciful Father; We have erred, and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep. We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts. We have offended against thy holy laws. We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; And we have done those things which we ought not to have done; And there is no health in us. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders. Spare thou them, O God, who confess their faults. Restore thou those who are penitent; According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesus our Lord. And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake; That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, To the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.

Modernized forms can be found in other Anglican Prayer Books."

17:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC) Nancy Kenfield-Lea — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

there are other writers, don't know who you're putting all the blame on, this part was added by a writer and it seems there is no source. This information will be removed since there is no reliable source for it. (Monkelese (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary changes[edit]

Childhood and young adulthood section education and career obviously consists of both of it..she went to school from her childhood to her young adulthood. She had a career in her young changes needed or new section is necessary. If you would like you can add education to the section title. I also don't understand by what you mean her career in 2005, I said her friend Virginia Carrington who was her roommate became an aide to her and Charles, it has to do with Carrington, not

Second marriage section look at the first marriage section, it starts with her wedding, then married life and children and divorce. Second marriage section is obviously about her engagement and wedding, no married life added, that sub section should remain, no need to remove it.

Again making this an argument is unnecessary, it has remain since I edited the page and should remain, don't start an edit war for a stupid reason (Monkelese (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Monkelese: I really respect your edits on this article but I believe that you think you own this article or any other article you have created and when someone edits them you become angry. That's my feeling. I also don't want to get to an edit war with you. Actually you undid my explained edits and called them unnecessary changes and said that those sections should remain the shapes they have now, but I don't think like this.

Early life: First of all I agree that I made a mistake when reading this section as you said above. Anyway, when we talk about early life we mean childhood, and as you said young adulthood, her career or education. First I thought that we can have two separate sections one for her early life and one for her education and career. Now I think we can have both of them under the main title "early life". But I believe using the title "Childhood and young adulthood" is silly because every person on this earth knows what an early life section consists. See Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Sarah, Duchess of York and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother.

Second marriage: I think just second marriage is enough. Marriage sections just contain information about engagement and wedding or maybe children. Take a look at the Queen Mother's article. I think the period that she was the Duchess of York or Queen Consort were also parts of her married life. Camilla and other British princesses are not exceptions. When the married life of a person is notable, then it will be divided to different parts. As you have completely explained how Charles and Camilla got to know each other and how their relationship started so nothing remains to be added to their marriage section. As with many other royal articles the marriage section obviously has information about the wedding. So I think we can remove that "engagement and wedding". Keivan.fTalk 06:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It's current edit is should stay and no discussion further needed (Monkelese (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Monkelese: As you can see DrKiernan also supported the idea of changing those sections' titles. I also think that nothing is left to be discussed. But let me tell you something, there's no "should" here. Everything can change by everyone. Be happy. Keivan.fTalk 06:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Monkelese: I also like the title "childhood and young adulthood". It's better than early life. Keivan.fTalk 06:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not necessary to have a third-level heading when it merely repeats the second-level heading. Third-level headings are used to create sub-sections within a section but here we have only one section, rendering the third-level heading redundant to the second-level one (or in other words the sub-section and the section are the same). The section covering her life before her first marriage could be split into more than one section, or sub-section, or re-titled, but having a single sub-section within a section (i.e. a third-level heading immediately below a second-level heading and no other third-level headings in that section) unnecessarily balloons the table of contents without any gain in ease of navigation or understanding. DrKiernan (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Minor issue of capitalization[edit]

"Although she will legally become Queen if Prince Charles becomes king..." I know for sure that Prince is capitalized in this sentence, as it is attached to "Charles". "Queen" and "king" are capitalized differently here, though it seems as though their usage is the same. I simply don't know the rule about these titles if not attached to proper names. If someone with a clue knows for sure, it's an easy fix. (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)