Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty/Charles III task force

Getting Charles's article to GA/FA status

Hello. This discussion has been split off from Charles's talkpage in order to go into more detail about how to achieve its goal. It is an initiative to get HMTK's article to either "Good article" or "Featured article" class. Below will be a breakdown of the article by section which can serve as a suggestion on how to improve it. This will require discussion and consensus-building from other editors on how best to go about this.

Breakdown

Lead section

Possible issues:

• Length;
• Textual discussion of the "realms".

I think my present preference for "king of 15 independent countries, including the United Kingdom" or "king of 14 independent countries, in addition to the United Kingdom" (the British monarchy website's wording) is known. I'm more partial to the former, as it makes clear, using less words, that the UK is a Commonwealth realm. However, either seems to address concerns expressed elsewhere; namely that 1) the UK gets special mention, 2) the not-UK realms, which include G7, G20, and NATO countries, don't get relegated to the anonymous, second-rate blob of "other" and 3) the term "Commonwealth realm" is avoided, as it's assumed most people don't know what that is and will, given point 2, just assume it's a different way of saying "British colony". They're, therefore, compomises (which, of course, means "an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions [emphasis mine]"). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I shouldn't have been quite so terse, my bad. Here I meant less the lede sentence, which I think there's considerable consensus needs to be kept short'n'snappy. But now that we have a "reign" paragraph (albeit clinging by its fingertips with one bare sentence), there's the possibility of expanding on that. I can think of several options:-

1. Nope, retain the status quo.
2. Restate the same information from the lede sentence, but in different words, to avoid screaming redundancy, and ideally to spell out the co-equal status of the realms, etc.
3. A partial list of the realms, such as (as was suggested in a slightly different context), the half-dozen most populous, linking to the realms article for the 'tail'.
4. Similar, but organised geographically.
5. A complete list.

My current preference would be for #3 or #4, but IMO anything but #1 would be a decent-sized step forward. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't strongly oppose #3. My immediate reaction to it is always "it will lead to an endless argument over what criteria govern which countries are named explicitly. But, then, I recall limited lists are all over Wikipedia and don't seem to cause much, if any, controversy, so long as the parameters are clear. So, I guess I'd say my preference is for #2 first (in either of the ways I worded it above), followed by #3. I know #5 will never fly with some editors. And putting the non-British realms in a footnote (from the lede; the infobox is a whole other issue) screams colonialism, which is grossly out of touch with reality. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

DeCausa pointed out in the "infobox" discussion that there's a fair-sized population cliff after Jamaica, so if one were todo it by size, IMO that's the place. As a piece of writing, it's also plenty for the reader to get the hint that it's the start of a list of theoretically coequal independent countries, and doesn't scream "just the white former dominions" too much. Alternatively, if we list everything but the smaller Caribbean countries we have a longer list, but arguably a more structured one. But I can certainly live with the "explain don't enumerate" option if there's support for that. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

How about a footnote in the prose itself rather than a list in the paragraph? This would allow us to list all of them there, rather than just the half-dozen if it were to be a part of the text. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I was assuming we'd keep the existing footnote (in all cases other than #5, I suppose necessarily). I do feel that the footnote (and any IB mention) is insufficient on its own. I think that's pretty much minimal as regards "summariz[ing] the most important points", per the MOS. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Didn't you already propose something like this, at Charles III's talkpage? So far, that proposal hasn't gotten a lot of support. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned at Talk:Charles III, there's the Good Country Index. Four of Charles' realms fall into the top 20. Of course, they're thought to be the "old, white" realms; but why and whether or not they actually are anymore is a whole other debate to be covered at other Wikipedia articles.

But, all of this is what keeps pulling me back to "king of 15 independent countries, including the United Kingdom".

1) It significantly lessens the potential for persistent questioning of why only certain countries are named,

2) it doesn't use any more words than "King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms" (it's actually one word shorter),

3) it still names the UK explicitly while, simultaneously, recognizing its equal status with the non-British realms (it being shown to be in the 15, not as apart from the 14 "other"),

4) it doesn't relegate the non-British (some globally and economically important countries) to a forgotten space of "other",

5) it doesn't use the term "Commonwealth realms", which most people probably don't recognize and aren't likely to want to find out just from a throwaway obviously begrudgingly tacked on to the end of a sentence in the lede of Charles' bio, and

6) it will fit into the lede of Elizabeth II and, maybe, others, whereas the partial list, I suspect, won't work (nor will it after Charles is deceased; a long way off, I know, but, since we're coming up with arguments...).

What goes in the infobox, I think, will depend on what's in the lede. Presently, the problems are exacerbated by both the lede and the infobox using the same biased wording. If one wasn't so biased and explained things more honestly, the other could be more tolerable. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I must disagree with you proposal. The United Kingdom should be listed first, as it's the realm that Charles resides in & is most recognised with. Indeed, the UK being his primary residence, negates the need for a UK governor-general. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

That is a straw man argument. I didn't propose a list in which the UK is not first. Please comment on what has been argued or don't comment. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Bloating the section, with the 14 other Commonwealth realms (fully or partially) isn't the way to go, IMHO. A footnote for them (like in the lead) would be best. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You've expressed that opinion twice in one day now and multiple times elsewhere. You can safely assume everyone's aware of your preference and your inflexibility on it. In fact, I addressed it earlier today when I noted that it's based on thinking from a colonial era. We are trying to formulate a wording that communicates the facts of the 21st century--the realms are equal, Charles is king of each realm equally, some of the non-British realms are globally significant, Charles lives in and is most directly involved with the UK--in the most succinct way possible. Putting G7, G20, top UN, and NATO countries in a forgotten footnote is woefully insufficient. But, rest assured, everyone knows you disagree. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

We're also well aware of your preferences, which you keep pushing. But please, let's not start mud slinging. This is about how to present content. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

If you truly believe I didn't just recently come to favour what I see as the compromise "15 independent countries, including the United Kingdom", you're only proving you haven't been paying attention.

This is about content, which is why I'm having a discussion with 109.255.211.6 about a partial horizontal list versus "king of 15 independent countries, including the United Kingdom", since neither of us is (or at least s/he doesn't seem to be) wholly against either option. But, thanks for chiming in. We were already aware you hate everything but "king of the United Kingdom* *footnote of whatever countries". (Though, to see you, after so very long, suddenly shift against even "King of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" is a surprise and, thus, frankly, it's suspicious. But, that's what you've now said and it's noted.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't have hate within me. I also don't oppose using "King of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", concerning the lead section. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The way I see it is, that whilst it is a fact Charles is the king of all the separate, independent countries equally, those countries were united "through common allegiance to the British Crown". Whilst officially Charles rules over the realms with no specific partiality to the United Kingdom, people still treat him as de facto "just king of the UK (oh, and some other Caribbean islands)". It's a classic example of Wikipedia's "truth v. Truth v. fact" conundrum. However, what I think doesn't bear much weight in the grand scheme of things; if I were to argue on the other side of the debate though, I think Timothy N-F does make a good point here for equal treatment of all of the CRs. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, true. (Or is that True? Or fact?) Adding to the challenge is communicating the truth and facts, in part explicitly, in part implicitly, about one man and a personal union of 15 countries that are both equal to one another and different to each other both demographically, economically, militarily, historically, etc and in terms of where the monarch spends most of his time, and do it all in one sentence of 10 words or less. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

WP does have to strike some sort of balance between "technically correct, but useless and incomprehensible" (cf. our articles on maths and music, which I'm sure are great if, hobbit-like, you like having articles on things you already know) and "reflecting popular misconceptions merely because they're commonplace". I think we should use the "reign" paragraph (albeit zygotic as it presently is) with a degree of added detail beyond what's in the first paragraph, which necessarily needs to be very concise. (Though actually the Liz2 article is significantly wordier in this respect. That article also has a complete list of the then realms (its P3 and P4 are entirely "her reign" stuff), which serves to make the "multiple independent(ish) monarchies" point that bit clearer. Miesianiacal's suggestion is helpful if we use something like it in P4 because it restates the P1 formula in different words, which is stylistically better, and makes it more likely that the point will be understood by even a slight reformulation, especially given the slight flipping of the placing of the 'distinguished' UK case. I think an at least partial list of countries would be clearer still, but I'm not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the better. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, we don't need to list out all the realms in any part of Charles III's BLP. We only need to show the United Kingdom (which is his primary residence), then put the 14 other realms into a footnote, as @DrKay:'s footnote does for the intro. GoodDay (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead paragraph, second sentence

Without wanting to reopen the can of worms of the first sentence, I think there's a small tweak we could make to the second one. He was the longest-serving heir apparent and Prince of Wales, and at the age of 73, became the oldest person to accede to the British throne, upon the death of his mother, Elizabeth II, on 8 September 2022. That's quite a lot of sentence, with a lot of subordination and relativisation. Bordering the run-on. To be fair several of them are related -- "man waits long time to become king" -- but I think the "upon the death of his mother, Elizabeth II" is honestly one more clause -- and two more commas -- than we sensibly need. Other "monarch" articles don't seem to use this formulation at all. Not Elizabeth II, not George VI -- a combo-breaker case, at that! -- not George V. I recommend we move that into the fourth paragraph, thereby also giving the "reign" para a more logical and natural-reading beginning. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. When she was alive, Elizabeth simply used "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is Queen of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms." We should do the same for Charles, and just have "Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" for the first paragraph, and when (if) Charles dies, we can add some more detail there. William IV, the oldest king at the time of his accession, just has "he inherited the throne when he was 64 years old" in paragraph 2. Edward VII, the longest serving heir apparent to accede until September has "He was Prince of Wales and heir apparent to the British throne for almost 60 years" in paragraph 2. So yes, a briefer version should be included elsewhere in the lead. As you say, the fourth paragraph would be a natural place to put it. What would you think about the following?:

"Charles inherited the throne of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms upon the death of his mother on September 8, 2022. At the age of 73, he was the oldest person to accede to the British throne, after having previously been the longest-serving heir apparent and Prince of Wales in British history. After brief speculation that he might choose a different regnal name, it was announced he would reign as Charles III. His coronation will take place on May 6, 2023."

Still a bit wordy, but I think it is an improvement nevertheless. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Works for me. You could trim the 'speculation' part, potentially -- that seemed to have a mixed reception when floated on the C3 page. Or say something on the lines of "prime minister Liz Truss announced...", or "in a departure from the expected protocol..." 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think putting Liz into Charles's lead is the best way to go about it. I'd advise excluding politics from a supposedly unifying figure such as Charles - no doubt it would lead to comments on the talk page protesting Truss's inclusion. She doesn't directly relate to Charles, and the sentence works fine with "announced" on its own. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that'd put a markedly political skew on matters, it just happens to be the office-holder, at the time very much acting in their capacities are royal lackeys, who first 'officially' used the name, when there was a lot of yammering about how the yammering about his name would go on even longer, until the accession council and proclamation. It's just a context to put that in. Or "announced in Downing street", or "by the then-prime minister", if you wanted so say something similar. As I say, I think the basics are the accession itself, the announcement of the name, and the future coronation. People may be a little muddled by the distinction between those, so helpful to set it out out explicitly in a little context. Might also put when the coronation date was announced. More "timeline", and makes it seem like less of an editorial crystalball statement. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

We'll see; I'm not overly bothered either way, and when the inevitable RfC on Charles's talkpage takes place on whether improving his article is outwith the competence of this task force, we can give the commenters a choice between "it was announced" and "prime minister Liz Truss announced". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, this new wording is an improvement to what was there before. DDMS123 (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

Charles III
Charles in 2019
King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms
Reign	8 September 2022 – present
Predecessor	Elizabeth II
Heir apparent	William, Prince of Wales
Born	Prince Charles of Edinburgh (1948-11-14) 14 November 1948 Buckingham Palace, London, England, United Kingdom
Spouses	Diana Spencer ​ ​ (m. 1981; div. 1996)​ Camilla Parker Bowles ​ ​ (m. 2005)​
Issue	William, Prince of Wales Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex
Names Charles Philip Arthur George
House	Windsor
Father	Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
Mother	Elizabeth II
Religion	Protestant
Signature	Charles's signature in black ink
Head of the Commonwealth
Education	Gordonstoun School
Alma mater	Trinity College, Cambridge (MA)
Military career
Allegiance	United Kingdom
Service/branch	Royal Navy Royal Air Force
Active service	1971–1976
Rank	See list
Commands held	HMS Bronington

• Length;
• List of realms?

(Top-posted for the sake of maintaining same order as article.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the infobox is one of the few things in the article that isn't grotesquely bloated. All the information within it seems to be consistent with other royal bios, and seems to be relevant and important. As I've said, there are far worse examples found all over the 'pedia, like James Callaghan, Neil Kinnock, and Theresa May's ludicrously long 'boxes. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The infobox seems fine. It will just need to be updated after May 6 to include the coronation in the infobox. DDMS123 (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

All credit to you there Tim, your WP:OTHERSTUFF examples are certainly becoming increasingly well-researched! Couple of those are indeed monstrous. (Your earlier ones were IIRC no worse than C3's, and in some cases a little shorter.) But if those are "bad", you're stipulating that this is "bad". Bad isn't good. Let's ideally try to get to good. Would there be any degree of support for keeping all the existing content (arguendo) but making some of the existing sections (or parts of sections) collapsible? If we did that it'd be very easy to get the visual length down to "one-section length" in the browser version. It apparently is rendered quite differently in the mobile version, so that's at least no worse off, and arguably is already fine. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I said that Charles's infobox is one of the "few things in the article that isn't grotesquely bloated". I don't think that it is a problem infobox, and I've said that having a long infobox isn't necessarily a bad thing. Off-topic, I'd definitely put May's shadow cabinet posts into an auto-collapsed box à la Ed Miliband or Jim Callaghan, but that's not the topic at hand. Charles's infobox is consistent with that of his mother, his father, his sons and his wives, so as far as this task force is concerned, we don't need to take any considerable action. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

On a narrower point, the IB starts like:

• Charles III
• Head of the Commonwealth
• [Photograph of Charles III]
• Charles in 2017
• King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms

Which is essentially saying two things of due weight (pic of the subject of the article; his primary notability) in five fields. I think HoC is wholly misplaced. It should be in the IB certainly (so I'm not proposing any "shortening" in this respect), but not in this "key points of the key points" header area. The others are merely somewhat redundant. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

We already (closed in October 2021) had an RFC on whether or not to have HoC in the infobox & where, concerning George VI, Elizabeth II & Charles III. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder and the link. But its closure was "The consensus is to include “Head of the Commonwealth” in the infobox". No mention in the closure of -- and at initial inspection, not even any discussion -- a determination of where in must be placed. So seems entirely consistent with the above. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Many editors didn't want it squeezed in with "King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions" & "King/Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", because it would've made that infobox parameter bloated. PS - Merely pointing out, why the RFC result is implemented the way it is. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus can and does change over time. There is no reason why we should be bound to consensus reached two years ago. It might be time for a new RfC. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually about 17 months ago. FWIW, I'd rather that "Head of the Commonwealth" be entirely removed from the infobox. But for now, I'd recommend we not tamper with it. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, who knows. By the time this process is over, it might actually be two years ago. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Heavens no, not there! I think it's clearly infobox-quality material, it just doesn't merit quite the prominence it currently gets. It's not his primary "title", the field it's currently squatting in. It's even worse in the case for George VI, who's ended up with a "title" that he didn't hold for most of his reign, and needs to be footnoted to point this out. Ick. I'll lay you odds that won't survive its FAR. It's not really a natural fit for IBRoyalty at all, as it's not a "royal" title -- it's the elective presiding figure in a club of mostly republics. Maybe it needs to be in an "embed", after the IBR fields proper? Or else as another ad-hoc "moretext" field, after the primary titles. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

That is rather inappropriate to put Head of the Commonwealth in the "title" field. That said, if Head of the Commonwealth is added at the end of "King of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", below his portrait, all 41 other Commonwealth member-states would have to be listed to both be consistent with, and differentiate them from, the list of 15 Commonwealth realms. And, then, what does go in the "title" field? "The King"? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Head of the Commonwealth should still be shown in the infobox as it is one of his formal titles. He is recognised as 'Head of the Commonwealth' in Commonwealth nations that are not realms. DDMS123 (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply the title Head of the Commonwealth shouldn't be in the infobox. The problem is: where? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

So is "Defender of the Faith", but we aren't putting that alongside Head of the Commonwealth. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

He is only recognised as Defender of the Faith in Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom whereas he is recognised as Head of the Commonwealth in every Commonwealth nation. DDMS123 (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I know that; it doesn't matter. It is still one of Charles's titles, regardless of how many countries "recognise" him as such. We don't remove "King of the United Kingdom" because he doesn't rule over all commonwealth countries, for instance. He has varying degrees of control in varying parts of the world, so we either keep all of them or none of them (barring King). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

We'll just have to wait and see if consensus changes and if there is a future RFC on this. DDMS123 (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, another reason why there was much debate over whether or not to add HoC & (if so) where, was because it's a purely symbolic title. It has no reserve powers. In a way, it got added to George VI's, Elizabeth II's & (in 2022) Charles III's infoboxes, kinda like an afterthought. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

My preference is to keep it however if it were removed, I wouldn’t mind. DDMS123 (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The current IB is actually a three-headed gnoll consisting of: a) IB Royalty, b) IB person (for the education fields) and c) IB milbio, for the chunk at the end. The HoC is officially and expressly not a 'royal' title, so I'd much rather see it moved out of the IBR segment entirely, and appearing, for example, at the top of the IBP portion, immediately after that. Certainly it has no actual powers (Commonwealth as a body doesn't exactly have much power to exercise, much less any need to reserve any for its head) but it could be seen as having a de facto ceremonial role, as well as a symbolic one. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@109.255.211.6: Could you give us a visual example, of what you're suggesting? GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Iunno, maybe something on the lines of this? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, that rearrangement wouldn't get much support. Other monarch bios have King/Queen below the image in bold font. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I rather anticipated a "please code the whole proposed change up so I can object that it's a change" response that entirely ignores the substance of what I'm actually proposing. And lo and behold. I'll tweak it further once I've had a belt of breakfast beverage, and a close look at the spaghetti-coded nightmare that is some other such examples. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe you may find it difficult to get a consensus to re-locate "Head of the Commonwealth" anywhere else in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Early life, family and education

• On the whole, this section doesn't look too bad. Maybe some minor rewording needed around paragraphs 4 and 5, but overall provides a good, succinct summary.

  I suggest a small addition here to deal with the "he doesn't have a surname,but if he did..." issue. Does seem incorrect that this is currently only addressed in a footnote, and via the infobox, at that. Those aren't supposed to "supplant" the article text per se. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Prince of Wales

• Perhaps some of the more minor aspects could be moved to other sections (his trip to the United States, for example, could be moved to the "Official duties" section).

Military training and career

• I would suggest removing "following in the footsteps of his father, grandfather and two of his great-grandfathers" as it doesn't provide much, as royals do typically serve in the forces, and Philip, George VI and Edward VIII's time in the RAF isn't noted despite Charles's service there too. I would also suggest the removal of "requested and" and "On 8 March 1971, he flew himself to the Royal Air Force College Cranwell to train as a jet pilot" as we don't need a blow-by-blow account of his training.

Relationships and marriages

Bachelorhood

• I would suggest the removal of "In June 1980, Charles officially turned down Chevening House, placed at his disposal since 1974, as his future residence. Chevening, a stately home in Kent, was bequeathed, along with an endowment, to the Crown by the last Earl Stanhope, Amanda's childless great-uncle, in the hope that Charles would eventually occupy it. In 1977, a newspaper report mistakenly announced his engagement to Princess Marie-Astrid of Luxembourg" as, whilst true and verified, isn't too important that he never lived in a specific house. It also wouldn't go amiss to slightly copyedit the third paragraph either.

Lady Diana Spencer

• Suggest the following:

Reword

• "[...] in February 1981 and their engagement became official on 24 February." - surely this doesn't need to be so wordy. Even a bit of punctuation would help.
• "[...] 29 July of that year. - we don't need "of that year", we just need "They married [...] on 29 July."
• "(known as "Harry") - just put "Harry" straight away.
• "(nee Shand) - unneeded clarification.
• "It is thought [...] - per WP:WEASEL.
• "British prime minister - remove altogether. "John Major" works fine on its own.
• "Parliament -> "the House of Commons"
• "which was dubbed "Camillagate" and "Tampongate" by the press -> "dubbed "Camillagate" and "Tampongate"."
• "that was broadcast -> "broadcast"
• "after being formally advised by the Queen in December 1995 to end the marriage. - recommend shortening.

Move to Diana, Princess of Wales

• "In a videotape recorded by Peter Settelen in 1992, Diana admitted that by 1986, she had been "deeply in love with someone who worked in this environment."[58][59] It is thought she was referring to Barry Mannakee,[60] who was transferred to the Diplomatic Protection Squad in 1986 after his managers had determined that his relationship with Diana had been inappropriate. - too long, and whilst relevant, Diana had other flings. Not directly related to Charles.

Move to different section/paragraph/article or reword

• "Charles and Diana's evident discomfort in each other's company led to them being dubbed "The Glums" by the press.
• "The couple shared custody of their children.

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

All sounds good to me. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Camilla Parker Bowles

Official duties

• This is probably the worst offender of irrelevant content in the article. The following quotes I would recommend the removal of:

1. In 2008, The Daily Telegraph described Charles as the "hardest-working member of the royal family". - What The Telegraph said 15 years ago doesn't matter all that much.
2. In 1970, Charles visited Bermuda to mark the Parliament of Bermuda's 350th anniversary. In his speech to parliament and referring to the actions of Charles I, Charles joked, "Bearing in mind I am the first Charles to have anything to do with a Parliament for 350 years, I might have turned nasty and dissolved you". - It's a good story to tell, but otherwise not needed.
3. In 1981 he became the patron of the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum, and in 2001 he placed a specially commissioned wreath, made from vegetation taken from French battlefields, at the Canadian Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. - He became patron of a museum 42 years ago and laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Whilst the latter was a sombre event and should be treated respectfully, these things unfortunately don't hold much long-term significance.

(I'm unsure of how to voice my opinion here--do I just interject like this...? If this is the wrong way to go about it, please correct me.) Regarding the Warplane Heritage Museum: there's already a section on philanthropy. There's also already the article List of Canadian organizations with royal patronage. I'm sure that info you're quoting can get condensed and moved to the other section and, somehow, a link to the associated article (and similar ones, if they exist) can be worked in there. To the wreath: That info can go to Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (Canada) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

1. He has attended official events in the United Kingdom in support of Commonwealth countries, such as the Christchurch earthquake memorial service at Westminster Abbey in 2011. - "
2. In 2013, Charles donated an unspecified sum of money to the British Red Cross Syria Crisis appeal and DEC Syria appeal, which is run by 14 British charities to help victims of the Syrian civil war. According to The Guardian, it is believed that after turning 65 years old in 2013, Charles donated his state pension to an unnamed charity that supports elderly people. In March 2014, Charles arranged for five million measles-rubella vaccinations for children in the Philippines on the outbreak of measles in South-East Asia. According to Clarence House, Charles was affected by news of the damage caused by Typhoon Yolanda in 2013. International Health Partners, of which he has been Patron since 2004, sent the vaccines, which are believed to protect five million children below the age of five from measles.
3. In the run up to Charles's visit, two Irish republican dissidents were arrested for planning a bomb attack. Semtex and rockets were found at the Dublin home of suspect Donal Ó Coisdealbha, member of a self-styled Óglaigh na hÉireann organisation, who was later jailed for five and a half years. He was connected to a veteran republican, Seamus McGrane of County Louth, a member of the Real IRA, who was jailed for 11 and a half years. - Given undue weight in this section.
4. Charles made frequent visits to Saudi Arabia in order to promote arms exports for companies such as BAE Systems. In 2013, 2014, and 2015, he met with the commander of Saudi Arabia's National Guard Mutaib bin Abdullah. In February 2014, he took part in a traditional sword dance with members of the Saudi royal family at the Janariyah festival in Riyadh. At the same festival, British arms company BAE Systems was honoured by Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz. Charles was criticised by Scottish MP Margaret Ferrier in 2016 over his role in the sale of Typhoon fighter jets to Saudi Arabia.[128] According to Charles's biographer Catherine Mayer, a Time magazine journalist who claims to have interviewed several sources from Charles's inner circle, he "doesn't like being used to market weaponry" in deals with Saudi Arabia and other Arab Gulf states. According to Mayer, Charles has only raised his objections to being used to sell weapons abroad in private.
5. In April 2021 and following a surge in COVID-19 cases in India, Charles issued a statement, announcing the launch of an emergency appeal for India by the British Asian Trust, of which he is the founder. The appeal, called Oxygen for India, helped with buying oxygen concentrators for hospitals in need.
6. On 25 March 2020, it was announced that Charles had contracted COVID-19 during the pandemic. He and his wife subsequently isolated at their Birkhall residence. Camilla was also tested but returned a negative result.[136][137] Clarence House stated that he showed "mild symptoms" but "remains in good health". They further explained, "It is not possible to ascertain from whom the prince caught the virus owing to the high number of engagements he carried out in his public role during recent weeks."[137] Several newspapers were critical that Charles and Camilla were tested promptly at a time when many NHS doctors, nurses and patients had been unable to be tested expeditiously.[138] On 30 March 2020, Clarence House announced that Charles had recovered from the virus, and that, after consulting his doctor, he was no longer isolating.[139] Two days later, he stated in a video that he would continue to practise social distancing. - Recentism. I would mention that he had COVID elsewhere in the article, but briefly, as it is notable that he contracted the disease; we would mention if Edward III had caught the Black Death, for example.

Other things there can be reduced down, but those were the most obvious ones to tackle, in my eyes.

Reign

Polling

• Suggest incorporating this into "Accession and coronation plans"

Accession and coronation plans

• Once the coronation has taken place, I would say that instead of simply putting "Plans for Charles's coronation have been made for many years, under the code name Operation Golden Orb. Reports before his accession suggested that Charles's coronation would be simpler and smaller in scale than his mother's in 1953, with the ceremony expected to be "shorter, smaller, less expensive and more representative of different faiths and community groups – falling in line with the King's wish to reflect the ethnic diversity of modern Britain. Nonetheless, the coronation will be a Church of England ceremony and will require a coronation oath, the anointment, the delivery of the orb and the enthronement" into past tense, we should remove it altogether as it will have served its purpose.

For all I sympathise with Tim's urge not to give The Other Liz the oxygen of publicity, I do think that the Downing-Street announcement should be mentioned here. The text in the live version of the article sounds like ClarHou was confirming "speculation" that he'd be C3, not the PM having just announced that, and people wondering "... did she mean to do that/is she allowed to do that/is that even right?" 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd be fine with mentioning Prime Minister Quick under "Accession and coronation plans", but maybe not under the charity section. Something like: "This speculation continued for a few hours following the death of Queen Elizabeth II, until Liz Truss announced and Clarence House confirmed that Charles would use the regnal name "Charles III". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

My mistake, botched full-talk-page edit, fixed. That's what I intended. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@109.etc: I've tried to make both proposed edits (merging "Polling" with the accession section and Truss's announcement at the lectern) but the wording as is, particularly for the latter, doesn't fit naturally with the section in its present form. Have a stab at it if you want. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's best fit for the S&T section. Let the revertfest begin! 109.etc (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Philanthropy and charity

Investigations of donations

Personal interests

Built environment

Livery company commitments

Natural environment

Alternative medicine

Sports

Visual, performing and contemporary arts

Publications

Religion and philosophy

Media image

Reaction to press treatment

Guest appearances on television

• Suggest removing this section entirely as trivial. In particular, the paragraph on Ant & Dec was added in 2006 and never removed. It is, in essence, a longstanding WP:RECENTISM.

Elizabeth II has a whole "Media depiction and public opinion" section and there's a separate atticle, Personality and image of Elizabeth II. Something similar can be done for Charles. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

That'd argue for keeping the section, but making it very short, and more-or-less just enough to hang a hatnote over and make sense of that. Split the rest out to media portrayals of Charles III, media image of Charles III, personality and image of Charles III, or any reasonable facsimile. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds about right. To me, anyway. Condense the whole "Media image" section. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Residences and finance

• A lot of material here should probably be removed as they don't really aid the reader in understanding Charles.

Titles, styles, honours and arms

Titles and styles

Honours and military appointments

Arms

Banners, flags, and standards

As heir apparent

As sovereign

Issue

Ancestry

See also

Thanks for reading. - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Seems fair comment. But let's not forget the lead section (presently inadequate) and the infofox (currently excessive). I know we're already nickel-and-dining those to death ("like herding glaciers which are also cats") on the article page, but they're also important (and per the eyeballs-on criteria suggested by the MOS itself, the most important. Whether one works top-down by trying to do that first, or bottom-up doing it last, or some back-and-forth between the two. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

A consensus for the lead is already established = "...King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms...", with DrKay's footnote. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus changes and the ceaseless dispute around the contentious phrase "King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms" could be rectified with a simple compromise: rearrange the words to "king of 15 independent countries, including the United Kingdom" or "king of 14 independent countries, in addition to the United Kingdom" (which is the exact wording used on the British monarchy website). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Stick with "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms", Tim. Putting it backwards would appear rather odd. BTW - The website that keeps being alluded to is called the British monarchy, not the Commonwealth realms monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

No, Tim, don't. The British monarchy site's wording is rather normal. Also, I'm sure you realize "allude" is not a synonym for "explicit". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I should caution you @Tim O'Doherty:, myself & the preceding posting editor, have been at logger-heads over this general topic, for 15+ years. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I should caution you, Tim O'Doherty, that the preceding posting editor ignores the other party's willingness to compromise, as illustrated by the relatively new acceptance of a wording that highlights the UK (as the preceding posting editor wants) while both avoiding the unfamiliar-to-most-readers term "Commonwealth realm" and relegating the non-British realms to a second class, pseudo-colonial status. But, really, I know you know this isn't really a caution--it's evident from our participation in discussions elsewhere that you're already aware of the issue--and that you're not in charge of changes to the article; we both know it's a team project that endeavours to make things the best they can be, regardless of the presence of certain... Obstacles. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

No comment. :) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It's an old argument between two editors, Tim. You're (of course) free to make your own observations on that old argument :) GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, I'm talking about the entire lead section. If you're here just to play the 'revert to the B-Grade status quo' police role, that's hardly going to be helpful. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

My apologies 109. I thought you were pointing to the lead opening. GoodDay (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. For clarity, I don't see any immediate need to revise the opening sentence or indeed paragraph at all. Unless the rework elsewhere later suggests such, though I can't see why that'd be the case to any significant extent. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a sentence in the lead section of this article that's always bugged me, namely "his support for homeopathy and other alternative medicine has been criticised". Is that criticism really something Charles is widely known for or is it being given undue weight? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's very widely known. He's a patron of a homeopathy charity, and if you google news coverage, mention (at least) is generally made of it. And from pretty much all quarters, too. Here's The Spectator, an eye-wateringly right-wing UK magazine: "But our heir to the throne, who is neither a scientist nor doctor, begs to differ. Prince Charles still clings on to the idea that homeopathy works, and on Tuesday announced that he has become a patron of The Faculty of Homeopathy society. In doing so, he has shown that he has no respect for science." So much for The King's Party! Did you have some other possible wording in mind? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Additional summary-style articles?

Tim has helpfully identified a number of existing related/subsidiary article, but very few of the sections -- as he points out, several of which are very likely infeasibly long -- currently have a {{main}} hatnote. Do we need additional subsidiaries, or is this more of a case of not having joined the dots most effectively? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

We could move some info from the financial section to Finances of the British royal family; it'd be tricky to do right, without polluting that article with unneeded information too. Again, I suggest deleting the TV appearances section entirely as cruft, and put a hatnote on the larger media image section, directing the reader to Cultural depictions of Charles III and then slicing that section in half, only providing a brief overview (we don't particularly need to keep "In 2003, Diana's butler Paul Burrell published a note that he claimed had been written by Diana in 1995, in which there were allegations that Charles was "planning 'an accident' in [Diana's] car, brake failure and serious head injury" so that he could marry again." and "In 1995, he obtained an injunction that prevented a former housekeeper's memoirs from being published in the United Kingdom, although they eventually sold 100,000 copies in the United States."). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Oops, see, I knew I might be missing a mapping to an existing article in some cases. Yes, that'd work fine for that one -- we (or ideally, someone else!) can tweak the name and the scope later if it comes to that. As a human-factors exercise, always good to be able to say "don't panic, I didn't delete anything, it's alive and well and living on a farm-- eh, in another article." Might indeed be worth keeping with just the "family" article, if the "good" content that'd be separate is slight. A fork-and-dump and worry later is an option too though. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Publicising this discussion

I thank the editors that have already participated in this discussion; your contributions in the consensus-building do not go unnoticed and are, as always, very much appreciated. However, per WP:TF, a task force more or less needs 5-10 people or so to become effective. @Surtsicna @Peter Ormond @Celia Homeford @Cliffmore @DeCausa @Timothy N-F @DrKay @Amakuru @Unlimitedlead @Dudley Miles @DDMS123, I don't know if you'd have anything to add to the sections above in order to achieve the article upgrade, but if you do, of course feel free to. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I also informed the relevant WPJs/NBs that had flagged themselves as "Top-Importance" interested parties, and GoodDay says they'll be notifying interest groups related to the other realms. There may also be useful places to flag up to non-specialist centralised discussion of 'article improvement drives', in the spirit of willing to help out with general copy-editing, MOS issues, etc. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your second sentence: that might be a good idea, given the high-profile nature of Charles's article. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I've contacted the rest of the WikiProject realms, about this taskforce. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

My bluff being called on that, Tim, I now have to think where that might be! I thought of WP:VA/WP:VIT, but "level 5" is at the bottom of their tiers. Their "article improvement" drive subpage also seems to be dormant, but you never know. WP:AFI is active, we'd just have to lobby to join their queue, and wait for that week to roll around. WP:PR might be another possibility. Then there's WP:RFC/BIO. Who knows how many other process nooks and crannies I might be missing... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:AFI and WP:PR seem to be the most viable options, possibly along with WP:RFC/BIO. If we want to put Charles's article forward, I see no harm in doing so; in the time between joining the queue and the people at AFI/PR getting back to us, this task force might have already finished its goal in trying to cut down or rearrange sections of the article, and the last thing to do would be a thorough copy edit or peer review to get it to either GA or FA. Speaking of which, WP:GOCE might be a good avenue to go down too. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

That one would work too, yes. I've no strong view as to which, but I'd be inclined to say pick one and stick with it, at least for a given interval of time. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the best course of action would be to wait until the consensus becomes clear here on how to improve the article, put that forward to Talk:Charles III for an RfC on if it's to be accepted (putting it at WP:RFC/BIO), and if it passes, (and we make the changes to the article itself, obviously) we get WP:PEER to check it, get feedback from them, tweak the article according to their feedback, and then we can nominate it as a FAC. Fingers crossed that that works out with no unexpected derailments. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to be unduly cynical, but the danger with "wait[ing] until the consensus becomes clear" is if we get very little input here at all, aside from the occasional chime in to say things like "no consensus to change". But that shouldn't be an obstacle to making at least some changes, if there are no objections to the, or if there's more substantial input enough to be decisive in cases where there are. I fear it's quite a bit away from being a plausible FAC -- not that it isn't good to be ambitious! -- and if we manage the above up to the last step and then at least smuggle it through GAR, then it wouldn't be a total disgrace to Wikipedia if he were run over by a wine-powered Bentley the morning after, and we had to put it on the front page. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, should have worded it better. What I meant by "consensus becom[ing] clear" was waiting until we'd scraped together some form of "what are we leaving, what are we rewording, what are we removing, what are we rearranging, how do we clean this bit up, do we need to move this to a different article, is this section relevant, how can we best present this information, etc.". Then we can present our planned changes to Talk:Charles III where the editors there will (hopefully) approve it. This would probably be in the form of an RfC, which should ideally be put on RFC/BIO. If we get the go-ahead, we make the changes; WP:PEER or another third party article-improvement service like WP:GOCE can also look over it too if needs be. Then we can show it to GA/FA; they hopefully say "looks good to us" and a proclaim a shiny new GA/FA. Then, as you say, it won't defile Wikipedia if Charles unexpectedly derails. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. That works for me also. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Most of the rewording suggestions put forward above are totally uncontroversial and can just be WP:BOLDly applied. The same can probably be said for deleting much of the trivia – just do it (and discuss after the fact if anyone objects). Reorganisation into sub-articles, on the other hand, is best discussed first. And then there are the hot topics such as naming the realms, but these can be dealt with separately. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, haven’t been on here much lately. This is something I would like to be a part of if still possible Timothy N-F (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK there's no fire, and certainly WP:NODEADLINE and people are willing to chime whenever we wish. I think the article was in a poor state for when it obviously attracted a lot of attention and traffic at his enkingisation, but if we can improve it by when he's crowned, that's a worthy achievement. Failing which -- or ideally, building on top of which -- by the time of the eventuation of circumstances you'd traditionally end up in the Tower for contemplating... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

There's no deadline, but ideally it should be done by sort of mid-April. Any later is probably cutting it too close to the coronation. I think we should probably finish our work on this talk page by the end of the month and hold a 7-day-long RfC on Charles's talkpage to approve it (hopefully around 7 April-ish). We need to leave enough time for the folks at GOCE or PEER to get back to us and work on it; that would probably bring us up to the cut-off point. Of course we need to consider how long the GA review will take, and this is assuming everything goes smoothly - in fact, it's assuming our plans won't be dead in the water if the RfC fails - but hopefully it shouldn't take more than a day or two to review. This is obviously flexible, but if we do want it done by the coronation, now is probably the time. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Oops, that might be a tiny bit of a deadline, after all. I agree that's a logical short-term target. Where we go after that is more arguable, but understandable if peop,e want to stand back from their short-term push, yeah. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

FWIW - RFCs last 1-month. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Not necessarily - this one could benefit from being a bit shorter, given that if we want this finished by the coronation, we need to give time for the GA review and GOCE. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a bit of a case adding another later of process, just to try to cheesepare it back a bit. If there are uncontested changes that are independent of other parts that are under discussion, maybe we should be updating the live article to see what sticks, sooner. Or if we don't want to do that for some reason, on a draftspace version. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd recommend waiting a few months (at least three) after the coronation, when things have settled down. GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's wait a year after he's dead. Be grand and stable by then. Yay eventualism! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

By then (20+ years), there may be no need to include the title at all in the infoboxes of George VI, Elizabeth II, Charles III, etc. As there may be only the United Kingdom & one or two other Commonwealth realms left, within the Commonwealth of Nations. That's assuming the Commonwealth itself is still in existence. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Even if that dystopian future became a reality, it wouldn't change George, Elizabeth, and Charles's past roles as Commonwealth Supremo. That would be a problem for William and George's infoboxes; until then, I recommend we try to get this done by the coronation. August-September is entirely too long away. Coronation day will, no doubt, be Charles's biggest day this year in terms of page views, so best to get this article well-written for the millions visiting the article by then. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I still recommend about six months after the coronation. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Why? "[W]hen things have settled down", but the article is stable now. If it's because the coronation might destabilise the article (which I doubt) we should just agree on an oven-ready paragraph to put in on 6 May, similar to Elizabeth's "Despite the death of Queen Mary on 24 March 1953, the coronation went ahead as planned on 2 June, as Mary had requested. The coronation ceremony in Westminster Abbey was televised for the first time, with the exception of the anointing and communion. On Elizabeth's instruction, her coronation gown was embroidered with the floral emblems of Commonwealth countries.". We can surely come up with a similar one, so that other editors don't stuff the article full of recentisms. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay, do you plan on making any contributions here other than "keep the sub-par status quo"? Or even, slightly fewer of those? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your wanting to change things at Charles III's page. I'm merely pointing out to you & others, that I do have a strong sense of which way the winds are blowing at the BLP-in-question & what the chances are for such proposals being adopted or rejected, depending on when they're presented. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Funny... Where's all that objection now? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK, nothing (yet) has been agreed on, to propose at Charles III's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

No, not yet. I think it depends less on when they are presented and more on what is presented. If we strap the controversial infobox changes and wording around the 15 Commonwealth realms to the entire bundle of proposed changes, it would almost certainly be voted against at the Talk:Charles III RfC. I would say to stop trying to challenge and change those, because they have little to no impact on the article's quality rating, but a big impact on whether or not people will vote for the plan or not. I would advise to get some work done on trimming and improving the overlong sections and subsections in the article, for now at least, and leave the infobox and first sentence to separate discussions on Charles talkpage, rather than here. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

"Controversial infobox changes"? If the scope of the "task force" is to tiptoe around things like "should we have a non-royal title in the royalty section of a royal's infobox" as "controversial", why's it even necessary? If we're restricted to changes that have complete unanimity, why aren't we -- I say "we", but technically excluding myself for this purpose -- making them directly on the live article? And unless I've missed it, no changes at all have been proposed for the first sentence, so that seems to be treading extra-cautiously to avoid a landmine that isn't even there. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

If we've requested people participate here and they decline, do they continue to have a right to immediately revert and keep reverted whatever we work out in this side-project? I'd say no. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and all that. It's pretty much impossible to bind the hands of future editors. The concept of a "right to revert" is OTOH behaviourally problematic. Common enough as it may seem to be. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This task force isn't tiptoeing around anything. These (so far) three sections of this task force's job is not necessarily to change the infobox and lead sentence, but to get Charles's article to GA. That isn't achieved by minute changes; GA noms aren't won in inches. You and I and many others here know that these are being pored over in much more detail than can ever be articulated here on HMTK's talk, so there is no point in going over it again on this talkpage, which right now is trying to get the king's article to GA. Now, of course this task force's "scope" is to improve Charles's and Charles-related articles more generally, but if you really want to start up the perennial infobox-lead debate, start a new section, rather than discussing it in the GA sections. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

... again, I've not proposed changing the lead sentence at all. And sure, we can leave the infobox alone and still get to GA status, maybe even to FA status, I'm not arguing that's in the critical path. But I do think changes to the lead section, especially the final paragraph, are most-dos: GA status requires proper summary style, and part of that is having an adequate lead. I'm not sure what you mean by the "GA sections". We're addressing the article section-by-section, I added one for each of the lead and the infobox. So done and done, no? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

In agreement, Tim. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:AFI, WP:PR, WP:RFC/BIO

I dropped a notification at the first of these, and candidly it seems to be far from the hive of activity I was hoping for. Doesn't seem likely it'll be helpful on the timescale we were initially looking at, and even in the longer term they might take the view of "B-Class?!! Loooxyuhry." I'm inclined to move to to the second, but it might have a certain desperate whiff of venue-shopping about it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. Agree that WP:PR would probably be better than AFI. If not, GOCE wouldn't be bad. In regards to the timeframe, we don't have much time to waste now. I'd suggest just ploughing through with what we've already got on here for an RfC on Charles's talk, and then if we have any new ideas, to just add them during the RfC process. But it is a good idea to start asking around to see if any WikiProject or other would like to be our article reviewer. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I started nominating the article of for peer review, but... guess what. Can't be done without autoconfirmed page-creation privs. The edit-right-now-proofing of Wikipedia continues. Tim (or anyone else that cares to rouse from their slumber), if you could start the request here, that'd be great, thanks. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Charles III RfC

If we want this to be done by May 6, we now need to push ahead and hold the RfC soon, ideally by tomorrow or by Monday. Would like to get some agreement on this as soon as possible. Pinging involved users: @DDMS123: @Векочел: @Estar8806: @Cliffmore: @AKTC3: @Miesianiacal: @GoodDay: @Timothy N-F: @Surtsicna:. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why this has to be done & completed before his coronation. The coronation isn't going to change his status as a monarch. The only difference is that he'll get to wear a crown (usually at the opening of the British Parliament), from May 6, 2023 onward. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Because we want to provide the best content we can for the millions who'll flock to the article on the 6th. It does no harm to improve the article quickly. We can't just let it fester for months. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that there doesn't have to be a deadline. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

No, but even so. It's a realistic, achievable, and important target. We've had almost 24 days to discuss improvements, and we'll have another week. We can keep working on it, but it's best to lay the groundwork for putting that same work into practice. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Preferably, the RfC would come from someone outside the project, but that is just my suggestion rather than any hard and fast rule. I may do some copyediting in the next few days. In terms of deadline, I don't think we need a set date to improve, as long as we are working to improve the article one step at a time. Векочел (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The article has come a long way, but I struggle to see how any biographical article that fails to mention the subject's last name anywhere in the prose, let alone in the lead, can be considered top quality. Surtsicna (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Then we can work that out. We're discussing improvements, not reviewing the article for GA in its current form. And (and I don't doubt that it is mentioned somewhere in the text) I don't see Elizabeth's article shouting about her surname too much either. So, by all means, give us a way to incorporate Charles's last name in the prose. I'll support it all the way. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not reviewing it either; just expressing a concern. The omission of the last name is made particularly conspicuous by the inclusion of the middle names in the lead sentence. I believe the last name should naturally follow his first and middle names, as indeed it does in official documents; and I see no reason to list one without the other. This is normally considered the most basic biographical information. Surtsicna (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

(ec)Top-quality? We're vaguely hoping to get it above B-grade, which is very far from 'Top'. Unfortunately, we seem to have a rather aimless, meandering, process-bound effort. One not helped by the specific discussions getting sat on by all-purpose "no consensus to change" responses, and where we do have reason to discuss process, we're greeted by whatabouts about particular content issues. I despair of this getting anywhere before there's been another few million page-impressions of the article with its pants down needlessly. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

My position on the 'surname' topic, is already known. So, I won't repeat it 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding surnames, MOS:ROYAL says the following: "Only incorporate surnames in the opening line of royal biographies if they are known and if they are in normal use. But do not automatically presume that the name of a royal house is the personal surname of its members." My understanding is that Windsor is only used as a placeholder surname if needed, and the note in the infobox clearly indicates this. Векочел (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the opening line is the issue here. Or at least, it shouldn't be. If he had no title, he'd be Charles Mountbatten-Windsor, but clearly he does. (I'm not sure if he was "Lieutenant Wales", "Lieutenant Windsor", "Lieutenant Mountbatten-Windsor" or "Lieutenant Your Royal Highness" back when he was in the RN, but that's a somewhat separate matter.( The IB does cover this, but not stylistically adequately. It should also appear in the article text proper. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay: @109.etc: @Miesianiacal: - At the risk of jumping the gun again, I'm going to nominate Charles's article for GA. Any later seems to be cutting it a bit fine. I understand concerns about the way that the task force's goals have been carried out, but Charles's article, regardless of why or how, is much better than it was in March. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I noticed you'd done that. My immedaite thought was, "is the article ready for GA nomination?" But, then I quickly had the other thought that the nomination might spur other editors to get busy making improvements. The countdown's on... --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm in full support of it being GA and I'm surprised it wasn't already. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply to this thought earlier, was cogitating on it somewhat. Not sure I could make a "good faith good article" nom at this point, but indeed, in theory the review process itself should be a help! 109.etc (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's cross our fingers & our toes. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Scottish Coronation draft article

Hello everyone, Just in case you'd like to contribute I've created a draft article related to Charles's Scottish coronation service at Draft:2023 Presentation of the Honours of Scotland if anyone has anything they'd like to add. Cheers, estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Estar8806 Might it not be better (and simpler) to put it in mainspace immediately? Looks fine to me. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why not. I'll go ahead and do that now. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Cool. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)