![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Reports exist at non-deprecated sources of allegations that the subject had an affair with Rose Hanbury in 2019 and [potential libel removed by Meticulo ( talk) 06:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)]. Deprecated sources have suggested that the highly publicised fight between Princes William and Harry in 2019 came because Harry had been critical about the affair. If this were to be reported in a non-deprecated source, it should probably be inluded here. For now, of course, it should not be. In the meantime, I think media discussion of the affair allegations should probably be included but perhaps the [potential libel removed by Meticulo ( talk) 06:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)] comments go too far and seem unecessarily offensive given their unproven nature. Any thoughts, anyone?
NB. Hi, @DrKay, I see you reverted because there was no source. I assumed good faith would apply as this is not the article itself, but I have now inserted a non-deprecated source as you request. I entirely understand your point about unsubstantiated allegations, but this page exists to discuss whether something is indeed substantiated to a degree that it is notable enough to be contained in the article. Please do not revert it again, and allow other editors to express a view. All the best, Emmentalist ( talk) 18:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
If the Daily Beast is anything like the tabloid magazines in North America? I wouldn't put too much faith in their stories. For years, some North American tabloid magazines kept repeating that Elizabeth II was going to replace Charles with William, as her heir-apparent. Well (constitutionally) she couldn't & didn't. GoodDay ( talk) 06:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
according to a CNN report in 2014, the duchy is "a £760 million (about US$1.25 billion) entity established in 1337 to provide a private income for use by the reigning monarch's eldest son", which William inherited when his father became king in 2022(update: I have now moved this part to the section on "Wealth and inheritance" to avoid confusion in the future). So right there you're wrong and I don't see where this idea that this piece of information was withheld came from. Obviously you don't expect the whole article on the duchy be copy pasted onto this page, which is why we have a separate article for it where detailed info can be easily included. Additionally, as DeCausa pointed out, you have no idea what other people's personal beliefs are, and by indirectly labeling everyone as 'fans' as a mean to undermine their arguments, you are simply showing that you don't have a solid reason behind your initial proposal. Keivan.f Talk 19:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Don't rely on the Daily Mail, either? They described Constantine II of Greece as Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh's nephew. Constantine & Philip were actually first cousins-once-removed, Constantine's grandfather Constantine I of Greece was a brother to Philip's father Prince Andrew of Greece. -- GoodDay ( talk) 21:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, means you're all failing at your jobs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:5EF0:8BD0:4004:B864:D966:1404 ( talk) 15:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
The article contains this sentence: "given his family's ancestral connections to colonialism and the Atlantic slave trade." What connections are being referred to, exactly, other than royal assent to certain laws that a constitutional monarch couldn't have refused? Neither of the two sources used backs up the assertion, either. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Mention that colonialism helped end the ages-old practice of slavery in Africa. Maybe those who went along with the local practice and purchased slaves from the chiefs could get an award for multicultural tolerance of native culture, or something? 2A00:23C7:E287:1901:51E6:E8B6:58BB:2982 ( talk) 23:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
This article on the Prince of Wales contains no hyperlink to Wales. Such a hyperlink may be useful to people like me, who did not know what is Wales. (I don't live in Europe.) I tried adding a hyperlink to the first occurrence of "Wales" in the article, but someone reverted that edit. Is there anywhere else we can add the hyperlink? Thatsme314 ( talk) 23:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
This section ends, and the article concludes, with a paragraph on the claim that William's mother's family had an Indian/Armenian woman among their predecessors. It's sourced, not strongly, a blog/links that don't work, to discussion of the claim made by BritainsDNA, a commercial genealogy outfit that appears to be defunct. Even if it is accurate, and I think it's more of a claim than a proven fact, is it remotely important? KJP1 ( talk) 09:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
racist attitude attributed to the historical racistson that article's talk page so the issue can be addressed. Keivan.f Talk 17:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
She is variously described in contemporary documents as "a dark-skinned native woman", "an Armenian woman from Bombay", and "Mrs. Forbesian".If it's indeed this part it is clear to me that it's not in wikivoice. It says she has been described as such, meaning that there were people at the time who were describing her in this manner. Though the sentence can always be modified to make it clearer that it were some of her contemporaries using that language. The issue of distance of relationship is another thing though. The community can decide if it's of merit or not. Keivan.f Talk 13:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
removal of that specific descent is the racist action= nonsense. DeCausa ( talk) 14:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I've no problems with keeping or deleting, on this topic. Just please, be sure it's consistent with the other related bios. GoodDay ( talk) 14:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
This is a general biography. What we are discussing here is highly-specialized genealogical information. Per WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy, "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." I do not see how this qualifies nor can I imagine it ever finding its way into any biography of William. Is it in any biography of Diana? Surtsicna ( talk) 18:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Why does Prince William's children have Prince(ss) before their names and Prince William does not? Should it not be consistent? Jord656 ( talk) 06:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
William, Prince of Wales has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
William, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester. The second is the oldest of the two titles. Dr Paul Booth ( talk) 16:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
There is an RfC on Talk:Charles III#RfC: Inclusion of "Agnatic house" which may relate to this article. Feel free to contribute. Estar8806 ( talk) 03:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
These graphics are a disgrace. Missing pixels needs attention of a specialist:
Timpo ( talk) 17:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Coronation of William V has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 7 § Coronation of William V until a consensus is reached.
Estar8806 (
talk)
18:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
After my lifelong's journey to get a new photo for James, Earl of Wessex's page has been completed, it is time for a new quest. I know it's hard to find images of the British RF in the public domain, but this image of William has very poor lighting and an awkward angle. If possible, it would be a good thing if a new image could replace the current one. StrawWord298944 ( talk) 05:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Sodacan's current graphic of William's armorial achievement omits the inescutcheon of the Principality of Wales but photographs from a visit to Birmingham on 20th April show that said inescutcheon was included on the flag and shield atop his car roof.[ [1]][ [2]] Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 12:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
William wasn't actually given the nickname of Willy by Harry as they were growing up. It was known that he was called Wills or Wombat within the family. Willy is something that Harry has just started calling him in Spare for some reason, as he was never known as such before. 82.30.193.7 ( talk) 22:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
(non-automated message) Greetings, fellow Wikipedians! I have initiated a move request here that especially pertains to this article on William, Prince of Wales. While participation is optional, I would appreciate any feedback! (Please note that I have not initiated this process before, so I apologize if this message is unnecessary.) Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 23:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I simply changed "British monarch" to "King" because I think it makes easier sense that way. Besides, Anne, Princess Royal's article says she "performs official duties and engagements on behalf of the King". So, why shouldn't this article? RicLightning ( talk) 03:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The citation the Prince of Wales is the Prince of Scotland is not categorically correct. When in Scotland the Prince of Wales is known as The Duke of Rothesay.
-—His Royal Highness the Duke of Rothesay
William has since been known as "His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales", except in Scotland, where he is called "His Royal Highness the Duke of Rothesay". The letters patent formally granting him this title and that of Earl of Chester were issued on 13 February 2023.
List of titles and honours of William, Prince of Wales#:~:text=William has since been known,issued on 13 February 2023. Britishroadshow ( talk) 17:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Scotland and England are kingdoms. Wales was never a kingdom, but a people, ultimately conquered and assimilated into Great Britain and thereafter ruled or reigned over by a prince: so the home of the Welsh became a principality.
https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-84806,00.html#:~:text=Scotland%20and%20England%20are%20kingdoms,the%20Welsh%20became%20a%20principality. Britishroadshow ( talk) 18:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty ( talk · contribs) 17:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Will start review tomorrow.
Tim O'Doherty (
talk)
17:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
By the way, what's the use of [...] when I actually see some other editor reverting them some point of time later.: could it be that we don't actually have consensus one way or the other? In that case, the status quo or the advice of a third party (here the GA reviewer) should apply. Rosbif73 ( talk) 16:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I've never seen a GA go like this with active editing happening in parallel to the GA review. Editors should stand back, let the review happen and then contemplate the results.We don't need to contemplate about reasonable or necessary changes when they can be implemented immediately. That is not to say that I will blindly agree to whatever it is that the reviewer might be suggesting, but since the review is proceeding slowly it makes sense to respond to the posted comments at the moment rather than wait for endless days until the whole review is complete. I've seen it done with multiple reviews. That being said, DeCausa is right to some extent. All the back and forth on the article history makes the page appear rather unstable. As the nominator, it is my obligation to read all the comments but I'd really appreciate it if multiple people do not edit and revert at the same time. That will only result in this page failing the review. Keivan.f Talk 20:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@ Keivan.f, @ MSincccc - a few days ago I gave the article a copyedit. Some of it was down to the MoS, some down to BrE, and some down to personal preference. I've had another look at the article, and believe that it now meets the GA criteria. Well done to you both. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 15:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
Lead
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
Claims needing a ref (may be more soon):
|
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
Inline citations are used. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
Per earwig, reword the following:
|
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
I've read up to Duke of Cambridge. Overall, I don't think the quality of the writing there is great. A lot of inconsistencies ("U.S." and "US" both used, "President" and "president", false titles v no false titles, some punctuation errors "Washington D.C," (which has now been fixed), etc), and I'm concerned that there's a lot of public tour info following the format of "In Octobruary 20XX William went [here]. He met [head of government] [there]. He made a speech on [this]. In Augtember the following year [...]". I'm not sure a lot of these tours had a big impact: is his brief 2015 visit to Japan warranted? What about his 2016 Canadian tour? Some are notable, such as trips which broke precedent or were places that royals hadn't visited in decades. I think it could be judiciously summarised: things like
|
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
Yep, neutrally written. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
There's been a bit of back-and-forth in the article history, but nothing to jeopardise this aspect: it doesn't change significantly from day-to-day.
|
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Numbers chosen at random. Based off of this revision of the page:
Mostly good, just one thing needing to be resolved. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 17:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
A mention of William welcoming the South Korean president and first lady has recently been added. It seems highly likely that William will greet many heads of state and other VIPs during his tenure as Prince of Wales, and we surely aren't going to list them all. Is there anything that makes the Korean visit special? Rosbif73 ( talk) 08:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
1.Historical Accuracy: Including these state visits provides a comprehensive and accurate record of Prince William’s diplomatic engagements as the Prince of Wales. This is crucial for historical documentation and for readers seeking detailed information about his role and responsibilities. 2.Significance of the Visits: State visits are significant diplomatic events that often involve discussions on important bilateral issues. Prince William’s involvement in these visits as the Prince of Wales underscores his role in the diplomatic relations of the UK. 3.Recognition of His Role: Prince William greeting visiting Heads of State, such as Cyril Ramaphosa and Yoon Suk Yeol, highlights his active role in the royal family’s state affairs Documenting these events in his Wikipedia article acknowledges his contributions and gives readers a clearer understanding of his duties as the Prince of Wales. Including state visits in Prince William’s Wikipedia article provides historical accuracy, highlights the significance of these visits, and acknowledges his role as the Prince of Wales. While it’s impractical to lt all greetings, specific visits with notable outcomes or significant diplomatic progress, like the South Korean President’s visit, could warrant a mention. This approach aligns with Wikipedia’s aim to provide comprehensive, notable, and verifiable information. Also state visits are rare, taking place once a year or not even that. Regards MSincccc ( talk) 08:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
not every greeting can be included, those with significant diplomatic outcomes should be considered. Are there any significant diplomatic outcomes resulting from William meeting Yoon? or Ramaphosa or Duda (earlier in the paragraph) for that matter? Rosbif73 ( talk) 10:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Surely a more up to date photo is required showing him as Prince of Wales? 2A00:23C4:29E1:2E01:9DE1:C1C9:3DFE:7662 ( talk) 22:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I see that the "King" part has been stripped out of George V's title in the early life section. It looks a little weird to call George without his title but call his wife Queen Mary. If anything, it makes it appear that Mary was a sovereign and George was the consort. Векочел ( talk) 20:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page has been thoroughly reviewed for GA and specifically the last paragraph in lead. There's no scope of mentioning children here being inaccurate in any way. Also it does not obstruct the flow of titles. We are being logical by mentioning children after the wedding's been mentioned. I expect comments before any further reversions to that part Rosbif73, Keivan.f and Tim O'Doherty. ( talk) 14:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
the original version was fine in itselfis pretty close to statement 6 in WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR.
Just made a little change and update the Banners of arms part. You know, gave it a multiple image infobox for the photos, that's all. RicLightning ( talk) 20:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Now that we have a taskforce for Charles III, I would like to propose the creation of a taskforce for William as well now that his article has been promoted to GA status and will possibly be put up for FA in future. Prominent contributors to the article till date can thereby put forth their views here at the conclusion of which I had decide whether to create or not create the Taskforce. Keivan.f, DrKay, Rosbif73 and others please decide and let me know of your views as to such. Regards MSincccc ( talk) 10:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Why did my edit get reverted, as all i did was change "the Queen" to "Queen Elizabeth II" as she is no longer "The Queen"? Joddd334 ( talk) 12:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How should William be defined in the article lead?
Nford24 ( PE121 Personnel Request Form) 22:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The format of the opening sentence of the article on the heir to the British throne was established by two requests for comment at Talk:Charles III/Archive 4#RFC: What should be in the article lead, concerning the royal succession and Talk:Charles III/Archive 5#RFC #2: What should be in the article lead, concerning the royal succession. DrKay ( talk) 16:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
among the 5 all-time highest authorsof this page, but has *checks notes* 4.7% of the authorship. ——Serial 17:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Ah yes, we may as well move the conversation over here. The glaring issue I have with the present wording is, it explicitly omits the 14 realms, all of which have legally distinct thrones, of which he is also the heir apparent. Now the argument I had been given defending the current wording is that describing the realms as crown dependencies and overseas territories is sufficient. This is both legally wrong and generally offensive to the said 14 realms. Now I have quickly read through both RfC's and I found in them both arguments by editors that leaving the realms out was considered inaccurate and misleading by omission, and that was in 2017. Nford24 ( PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
A procedural close on a page only focused RfC that’s formed perfectly fine after only four inputs, that also demonstrate a clear divide in consensus? I see the editors of this article don’t like different opinions but atleast I tried, so I’ll leave you all to it. Have fun. Nford24 ( PE121 Personnel Request Form) 18:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The status quo should remain. Also (as already mentioned) this general topic has already been through two RFC (at his father bio page) & the consensus was "... British throne". GoodDay ( talk) 05:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
As far as I know, in British English, initial phrases such as "In 2021" do not need following commas, unless a subordinate clause is being introduced, and so the commas are redundant. Is the intention to consistently employ these in the entire article, or to consistently not employ them, or to use them at random, as the fancy takes us? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 15:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
A wedding is an event which takes place on a given day. The phrase "pre-wedding relationship" suggests the relationship that may have existed on the morning of the wedding, similar perhaps to a "pre-wedding" drink or a "pre-wedding photograph". Isn't the phrase "pre-marriage relationship" more accurate? Where was the consensus to use "pre-wedding relationship" established? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 16:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I just saw on Coat of arms of the United Kingdom, that the "Coat of Arms of the Prince of Wales" Armorial achievement is being used for Prince William alongside his Shield image. What does that mean? RicLightning ( talk) 22:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I would say the comma after "Prince of Wales" is a parenthetical comma, so ordinarily a closing comma would be used. However, in this case there is also a closing parenthesis (bracket) and whether to double up the punctuation mark (closing bracket and closing comma) is more a matter of choice rather than necessity. Celia Homeford ( talk) 11:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
William, Prince of Wales, KG, KT, GCB, PC, ADC (William Arthur Philip Louis; born 21 June 1982), is the ....Here, the red indicates the entire parenthetical construction, so the parenthetical-ending comma goes after the lot of it. And there should be one between "Wales" and "KG", since "Prince of Wales" is one kind of title and "KG" another of a very different sort; "Prince of Wales KG" isn't a thing, and there's no connection between them. In a much simpler sentence, it would be
William, Prince of Wales, is the ....— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
However, it's a permissible style here (for better or worse) to omit commas in a chain of postnominal abbreviations, so this could be reduced to William, Prince of Wales, KG KT GCB PC ADC (William Arthur Philip Louis; born 21 June 1982), is the ....
, by tweaking the postnom template. There are editors who might object to this, but so far they have not gotten the template changed to prevent this, and doing it that way would be preferable to omitting half of a pair of bracketing commas, or omitting a comma between the royal title (which is itself a comma-bracketed parathetical even if nothing else is present) and the chain of postnoms. (This can be done by removing |sep=,
from the template.) That said, there is nothing in any way broken or wrong or confusing or otherwise bad about William, Prince of Wales, KG, KT, GCB, PC, ADC (William Arthur Philip Louis; born 21 June 1982), is the ....
. All the commas in it serve a purpose, just as they do (including the parenthetical pair) in a sentence like "Letters representing vowels and diphthongs, in standard English but not necessarily every dialect, include: a, e, i, o, u, w (sometimes), y (sometimes), ae, ai, ao, au, aw, ay, ea, ...., uw, and uy." Any inline list of more than two things has them separated by commas (or if any contain their own internal commas, then by semicolons) regardless of the number of them. There is no general principle by which we start dropping them because someone thinks there are "too many". That's not even the reason for the no-commas version of the post-nom template (rather, it is because the no-comma style is very commonly attested in RS material that includes a lot of postnoms, so it has demonstrably become conventional for that contextually narrow purpose even if it's not how inline lists of any kind are written otherwise). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
14:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Part of where I have gone wrong, and what has led to this thread becoming 'a thing', is daring 'to be bold', but also failing to declare, in each case, why I removed the commas. I shall try to rectify that now. One of the articles in which my actions have been deemed contentious is ' Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh'. My argument, which does appear in the 'Revision history' section, is that I believe 'Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh' to be an unbreakable unit, and, thus, 'Duke of Edinburgh' is not parenthetical. In the article ' parenthesis', the second sentence states that the parenthetical material could be left out without affecting the grammatical sense; while I know that removing 'Duke of Edinburgh' would not affect the passage grammatically, it does affect it 'logically', in that I believe that the peerage title is integral to the person, and makes the reference a unique one. This is solely the direction from which I am coming. None of this has been a personal crusade about the overuse of commas; indeed, you should be able to see from this extract alone that I am a prolific comma user, believing that, although they can sometimes alter the 'feel' of a piece, it is the lesser of two evils to use them in abundance, similar to using a car's indicators at times when it might not be considered necessary, with a view to avoid falling into the trap of eventually never using them through complacency and laziness. I am not averse to discussion, and hold my hands up to not having the good sense to instigate this myself before any actions. I should like to point out that, irrespective of my recent edits, there are articles out there that do not use the comma in the manner that is under review here, meaning that, ultimately, it seems to come down to preference. ZeroAlpha87 ( talk) 18:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Reports exist at non-deprecated sources of allegations that the subject had an affair with Rose Hanbury in 2019 and [potential libel removed by Meticulo ( talk) 06:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)]. Deprecated sources have suggested that the highly publicised fight between Princes William and Harry in 2019 came because Harry had been critical about the affair. If this were to be reported in a non-deprecated source, it should probably be inluded here. For now, of course, it should not be. In the meantime, I think media discussion of the affair allegations should probably be included but perhaps the [potential libel removed by Meticulo ( talk) 06:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)] comments go too far and seem unecessarily offensive given their unproven nature. Any thoughts, anyone?
NB. Hi, @DrKay, I see you reverted because there was no source. I assumed good faith would apply as this is not the article itself, but I have now inserted a non-deprecated source as you request. I entirely understand your point about unsubstantiated allegations, but this page exists to discuss whether something is indeed substantiated to a degree that it is notable enough to be contained in the article. Please do not revert it again, and allow other editors to express a view. All the best, Emmentalist ( talk) 18:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
If the Daily Beast is anything like the tabloid magazines in North America? I wouldn't put too much faith in their stories. For years, some North American tabloid magazines kept repeating that Elizabeth II was going to replace Charles with William, as her heir-apparent. Well (constitutionally) she couldn't & didn't. GoodDay ( talk) 06:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
according to a CNN report in 2014, the duchy is "a £760 million (about US$1.25 billion) entity established in 1337 to provide a private income for use by the reigning monarch's eldest son", which William inherited when his father became king in 2022(update: I have now moved this part to the section on "Wealth and inheritance" to avoid confusion in the future). So right there you're wrong and I don't see where this idea that this piece of information was withheld came from. Obviously you don't expect the whole article on the duchy be copy pasted onto this page, which is why we have a separate article for it where detailed info can be easily included. Additionally, as DeCausa pointed out, you have no idea what other people's personal beliefs are, and by indirectly labeling everyone as 'fans' as a mean to undermine their arguments, you are simply showing that you don't have a solid reason behind your initial proposal. Keivan.f Talk 19:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Don't rely on the Daily Mail, either? They described Constantine II of Greece as Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh's nephew. Constantine & Philip were actually first cousins-once-removed, Constantine's grandfather Constantine I of Greece was a brother to Philip's father Prince Andrew of Greece. -- GoodDay ( talk) 21:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, means you're all failing at your jobs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:5EF0:8BD0:4004:B864:D966:1404 ( talk) 15:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
The article contains this sentence: "given his family's ancestral connections to colonialism and the Atlantic slave trade." What connections are being referred to, exactly, other than royal assent to certain laws that a constitutional monarch couldn't have refused? Neither of the two sources used backs up the assertion, either. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Mention that colonialism helped end the ages-old practice of slavery in Africa. Maybe those who went along with the local practice and purchased slaves from the chiefs could get an award for multicultural tolerance of native culture, or something? 2A00:23C7:E287:1901:51E6:E8B6:58BB:2982 ( talk) 23:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
This article on the Prince of Wales contains no hyperlink to Wales. Such a hyperlink may be useful to people like me, who did not know what is Wales. (I don't live in Europe.) I tried adding a hyperlink to the first occurrence of "Wales" in the article, but someone reverted that edit. Is there anywhere else we can add the hyperlink? Thatsme314 ( talk) 23:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
This section ends, and the article concludes, with a paragraph on the claim that William's mother's family had an Indian/Armenian woman among their predecessors. It's sourced, not strongly, a blog/links that don't work, to discussion of the claim made by BritainsDNA, a commercial genealogy outfit that appears to be defunct. Even if it is accurate, and I think it's more of a claim than a proven fact, is it remotely important? KJP1 ( talk) 09:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
racist attitude attributed to the historical racistson that article's talk page so the issue can be addressed. Keivan.f Talk 17:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
She is variously described in contemporary documents as "a dark-skinned native woman", "an Armenian woman from Bombay", and "Mrs. Forbesian".If it's indeed this part it is clear to me that it's not in wikivoice. It says she has been described as such, meaning that there were people at the time who were describing her in this manner. Though the sentence can always be modified to make it clearer that it were some of her contemporaries using that language. The issue of distance of relationship is another thing though. The community can decide if it's of merit or not. Keivan.f Talk 13:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
removal of that specific descent is the racist action= nonsense. DeCausa ( talk) 14:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I've no problems with keeping or deleting, on this topic. Just please, be sure it's consistent with the other related bios. GoodDay ( talk) 14:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
This is a general biography. What we are discussing here is highly-specialized genealogical information. Per WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy, "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." I do not see how this qualifies nor can I imagine it ever finding its way into any biography of William. Is it in any biography of Diana? Surtsicna ( talk) 18:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Why does Prince William's children have Prince(ss) before their names and Prince William does not? Should it not be consistent? Jord656 ( talk) 06:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
William, Prince of Wales has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
William, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester. The second is the oldest of the two titles. Dr Paul Booth ( talk) 16:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
There is an RfC on Talk:Charles III#RfC: Inclusion of "Agnatic house" which may relate to this article. Feel free to contribute. Estar8806 ( talk) 03:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
These graphics are a disgrace. Missing pixels needs attention of a specialist:
Timpo ( talk) 17:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Coronation of William V has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 7 § Coronation of William V until a consensus is reached.
Estar8806 (
talk)
18:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
After my lifelong's journey to get a new photo for James, Earl of Wessex's page has been completed, it is time for a new quest. I know it's hard to find images of the British RF in the public domain, but this image of William has very poor lighting and an awkward angle. If possible, it would be a good thing if a new image could replace the current one. StrawWord298944 ( talk) 05:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Sodacan's current graphic of William's armorial achievement omits the inescutcheon of the Principality of Wales but photographs from a visit to Birmingham on 20th April show that said inescutcheon was included on the flag and shield atop his car roof.[ [1]][ [2]] Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 12:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
William wasn't actually given the nickname of Willy by Harry as they were growing up. It was known that he was called Wills or Wombat within the family. Willy is something that Harry has just started calling him in Spare for some reason, as he was never known as such before. 82.30.193.7 ( talk) 22:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
(non-automated message) Greetings, fellow Wikipedians! I have initiated a move request here that especially pertains to this article on William, Prince of Wales. While participation is optional, I would appreciate any feedback! (Please note that I have not initiated this process before, so I apologize if this message is unnecessary.) Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 23:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I simply changed "British monarch" to "King" because I think it makes easier sense that way. Besides, Anne, Princess Royal's article says she "performs official duties and engagements on behalf of the King". So, why shouldn't this article? RicLightning ( talk) 03:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The citation the Prince of Wales is the Prince of Scotland is not categorically correct. When in Scotland the Prince of Wales is known as The Duke of Rothesay.
-—His Royal Highness the Duke of Rothesay
William has since been known as "His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales", except in Scotland, where he is called "His Royal Highness the Duke of Rothesay". The letters patent formally granting him this title and that of Earl of Chester were issued on 13 February 2023.
List of titles and honours of William, Prince of Wales#:~:text=William has since been known,issued on 13 February 2023. Britishroadshow ( talk) 17:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Scotland and England are kingdoms. Wales was never a kingdom, but a people, ultimately conquered and assimilated into Great Britain and thereafter ruled or reigned over by a prince: so the home of the Welsh became a principality.
https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-84806,00.html#:~:text=Scotland%20and%20England%20are%20kingdoms,the%20Welsh%20became%20a%20principality. Britishroadshow ( talk) 18:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty ( talk · contribs) 17:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Will start review tomorrow.
Tim O'Doherty (
talk)
17:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
By the way, what's the use of [...] when I actually see some other editor reverting them some point of time later.: could it be that we don't actually have consensus one way or the other? In that case, the status quo or the advice of a third party (here the GA reviewer) should apply. Rosbif73 ( talk) 16:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I've never seen a GA go like this with active editing happening in parallel to the GA review. Editors should stand back, let the review happen and then contemplate the results.We don't need to contemplate about reasonable or necessary changes when they can be implemented immediately. That is not to say that I will blindly agree to whatever it is that the reviewer might be suggesting, but since the review is proceeding slowly it makes sense to respond to the posted comments at the moment rather than wait for endless days until the whole review is complete. I've seen it done with multiple reviews. That being said, DeCausa is right to some extent. All the back and forth on the article history makes the page appear rather unstable. As the nominator, it is my obligation to read all the comments but I'd really appreciate it if multiple people do not edit and revert at the same time. That will only result in this page failing the review. Keivan.f Talk 20:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@ Keivan.f, @ MSincccc - a few days ago I gave the article a copyedit. Some of it was down to the MoS, some down to BrE, and some down to personal preference. I've had another look at the article, and believe that it now meets the GA criteria. Well done to you both. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 15:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
Lead
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
Claims needing a ref (may be more soon):
|
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
Inline citations are used. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
Per earwig, reword the following:
|
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
I've read up to Duke of Cambridge. Overall, I don't think the quality of the writing there is great. A lot of inconsistencies ("U.S." and "US" both used, "President" and "president", false titles v no false titles, some punctuation errors "Washington D.C," (which has now been fixed), etc), and I'm concerned that there's a lot of public tour info following the format of "In Octobruary 20XX William went [here]. He met [head of government] [there]. He made a speech on [this]. In Augtember the following year [...]". I'm not sure a lot of these tours had a big impact: is his brief 2015 visit to Japan warranted? What about his 2016 Canadian tour? Some are notable, such as trips which broke precedent or were places that royals hadn't visited in decades. I think it could be judiciously summarised: things like
|
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
Yep, neutrally written. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
There's been a bit of back-and-forth in the article history, but nothing to jeopardise this aspect: it doesn't change significantly from day-to-day.
|
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Numbers chosen at random. Based off of this revision of the page:
Mostly good, just one thing needing to be resolved. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 17:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
A mention of William welcoming the South Korean president and first lady has recently been added. It seems highly likely that William will greet many heads of state and other VIPs during his tenure as Prince of Wales, and we surely aren't going to list them all. Is there anything that makes the Korean visit special? Rosbif73 ( talk) 08:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
1.Historical Accuracy: Including these state visits provides a comprehensive and accurate record of Prince William’s diplomatic engagements as the Prince of Wales. This is crucial for historical documentation and for readers seeking detailed information about his role and responsibilities. 2.Significance of the Visits: State visits are significant diplomatic events that often involve discussions on important bilateral issues. Prince William’s involvement in these visits as the Prince of Wales underscores his role in the diplomatic relations of the UK. 3.Recognition of His Role: Prince William greeting visiting Heads of State, such as Cyril Ramaphosa and Yoon Suk Yeol, highlights his active role in the royal family’s state affairs Documenting these events in his Wikipedia article acknowledges his contributions and gives readers a clearer understanding of his duties as the Prince of Wales. Including state visits in Prince William’s Wikipedia article provides historical accuracy, highlights the significance of these visits, and acknowledges his role as the Prince of Wales. While it’s impractical to lt all greetings, specific visits with notable outcomes or significant diplomatic progress, like the South Korean President’s visit, could warrant a mention. This approach aligns with Wikipedia’s aim to provide comprehensive, notable, and verifiable information. Also state visits are rare, taking place once a year or not even that. Regards MSincccc ( talk) 08:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
not every greeting can be included, those with significant diplomatic outcomes should be considered. Are there any significant diplomatic outcomes resulting from William meeting Yoon? or Ramaphosa or Duda (earlier in the paragraph) for that matter? Rosbif73 ( talk) 10:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Surely a more up to date photo is required showing him as Prince of Wales? 2A00:23C4:29E1:2E01:9DE1:C1C9:3DFE:7662 ( talk) 22:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I see that the "King" part has been stripped out of George V's title in the early life section. It looks a little weird to call George without his title but call his wife Queen Mary. If anything, it makes it appear that Mary was a sovereign and George was the consort. Векочел ( talk) 20:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page has been thoroughly reviewed for GA and specifically the last paragraph in lead. There's no scope of mentioning children here being inaccurate in any way. Also it does not obstruct the flow of titles. We are being logical by mentioning children after the wedding's been mentioned. I expect comments before any further reversions to that part Rosbif73, Keivan.f and Tim O'Doherty. ( talk) 14:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
the original version was fine in itselfis pretty close to statement 6 in WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR.
Just made a little change and update the Banners of arms part. You know, gave it a multiple image infobox for the photos, that's all. RicLightning ( talk) 20:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Now that we have a taskforce for Charles III, I would like to propose the creation of a taskforce for William as well now that his article has been promoted to GA status and will possibly be put up for FA in future. Prominent contributors to the article till date can thereby put forth their views here at the conclusion of which I had decide whether to create or not create the Taskforce. Keivan.f, DrKay, Rosbif73 and others please decide and let me know of your views as to such. Regards MSincccc ( talk) 10:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Why did my edit get reverted, as all i did was change "the Queen" to "Queen Elizabeth II" as she is no longer "The Queen"? Joddd334 ( talk) 12:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How should William be defined in the article lead?
Nford24 ( PE121 Personnel Request Form) 22:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The format of the opening sentence of the article on the heir to the British throne was established by two requests for comment at Talk:Charles III/Archive 4#RFC: What should be in the article lead, concerning the royal succession and Talk:Charles III/Archive 5#RFC #2: What should be in the article lead, concerning the royal succession. DrKay ( talk) 16:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
among the 5 all-time highest authorsof this page, but has *checks notes* 4.7% of the authorship. ——Serial 17:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Ah yes, we may as well move the conversation over here. The glaring issue I have with the present wording is, it explicitly omits the 14 realms, all of which have legally distinct thrones, of which he is also the heir apparent. Now the argument I had been given defending the current wording is that describing the realms as crown dependencies and overseas territories is sufficient. This is both legally wrong and generally offensive to the said 14 realms. Now I have quickly read through both RfC's and I found in them both arguments by editors that leaving the realms out was considered inaccurate and misleading by omission, and that was in 2017. Nford24 ( PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
A procedural close on a page only focused RfC that’s formed perfectly fine after only four inputs, that also demonstrate a clear divide in consensus? I see the editors of this article don’t like different opinions but atleast I tried, so I’ll leave you all to it. Have fun. Nford24 ( PE121 Personnel Request Form) 18:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The status quo should remain. Also (as already mentioned) this general topic has already been through two RFC (at his father bio page) & the consensus was "... British throne". GoodDay ( talk) 05:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
As far as I know, in British English, initial phrases such as "In 2021" do not need following commas, unless a subordinate clause is being introduced, and so the commas are redundant. Is the intention to consistently employ these in the entire article, or to consistently not employ them, or to use them at random, as the fancy takes us? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 15:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
A wedding is an event which takes place on a given day. The phrase "pre-wedding relationship" suggests the relationship that may have existed on the morning of the wedding, similar perhaps to a "pre-wedding" drink or a "pre-wedding photograph". Isn't the phrase "pre-marriage relationship" more accurate? Where was the consensus to use "pre-wedding relationship" established? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 16:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I just saw on Coat of arms of the United Kingdom, that the "Coat of Arms of the Prince of Wales" Armorial achievement is being used for Prince William alongside his Shield image. What does that mean? RicLightning ( talk) 22:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I would say the comma after "Prince of Wales" is a parenthetical comma, so ordinarily a closing comma would be used. However, in this case there is also a closing parenthesis (bracket) and whether to double up the punctuation mark (closing bracket and closing comma) is more a matter of choice rather than necessity. Celia Homeford ( talk) 11:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
William, Prince of Wales, KG, KT, GCB, PC, ADC (William Arthur Philip Louis; born 21 June 1982), is the ....Here, the red indicates the entire parenthetical construction, so the parenthetical-ending comma goes after the lot of it. And there should be one between "Wales" and "KG", since "Prince of Wales" is one kind of title and "KG" another of a very different sort; "Prince of Wales KG" isn't a thing, and there's no connection between them. In a much simpler sentence, it would be
William, Prince of Wales, is the ....— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
However, it's a permissible style here (for better or worse) to omit commas in a chain of postnominal abbreviations, so this could be reduced to William, Prince of Wales, KG KT GCB PC ADC (William Arthur Philip Louis; born 21 June 1982), is the ....
, by tweaking the postnom template. There are editors who might object to this, but so far they have not gotten the template changed to prevent this, and doing it that way would be preferable to omitting half of a pair of bracketing commas, or omitting a comma between the royal title (which is itself a comma-bracketed parathetical even if nothing else is present) and the chain of postnoms. (This can be done by removing |sep=,
from the template.) That said, there is nothing in any way broken or wrong or confusing or otherwise bad about William, Prince of Wales, KG, KT, GCB, PC, ADC (William Arthur Philip Louis; born 21 June 1982), is the ....
. All the commas in it serve a purpose, just as they do (including the parenthetical pair) in a sentence like "Letters representing vowels and diphthongs, in standard English but not necessarily every dialect, include: a, e, i, o, u, w (sometimes), y (sometimes), ae, ai, ao, au, aw, ay, ea, ...., uw, and uy." Any inline list of more than two things has them separated by commas (or if any contain their own internal commas, then by semicolons) regardless of the number of them. There is no general principle by which we start dropping them because someone thinks there are "too many". That's not even the reason for the no-commas version of the post-nom template (rather, it is because the no-comma style is very commonly attested in RS material that includes a lot of postnoms, so it has demonstrably become conventional for that contextually narrow purpose even if it's not how inline lists of any kind are written otherwise). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
14:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Part of where I have gone wrong, and what has led to this thread becoming 'a thing', is daring 'to be bold', but also failing to declare, in each case, why I removed the commas. I shall try to rectify that now. One of the articles in which my actions have been deemed contentious is ' Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh'. My argument, which does appear in the 'Revision history' section, is that I believe 'Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh' to be an unbreakable unit, and, thus, 'Duke of Edinburgh' is not parenthetical. In the article ' parenthesis', the second sentence states that the parenthetical material could be left out without affecting the grammatical sense; while I know that removing 'Duke of Edinburgh' would not affect the passage grammatically, it does affect it 'logically', in that I believe that the peerage title is integral to the person, and makes the reference a unique one. This is solely the direction from which I am coming. None of this has been a personal crusade about the overuse of commas; indeed, you should be able to see from this extract alone that I am a prolific comma user, believing that, although they can sometimes alter the 'feel' of a piece, it is the lesser of two evils to use them in abundance, similar to using a car's indicators at times when it might not be considered necessary, with a view to avoid falling into the trap of eventually never using them through complacency and laziness. I am not averse to discussion, and hold my hands up to not having the good sense to instigate this myself before any actions. I should like to point out that, irrespective of my recent edits, there are articles out there that do not use the comma in the manner that is under review here, meaning that, ultimately, it seems to come down to preference. ZeroAlpha87 ( talk) 18:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)