Talk:William, Prince of Wales

Did you know nomination

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

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Prince William was the first future heir to the British throne to be born in a hospital?

ALT 1:... that Prince William reportedly used the name "Steve" while studying at the University of St Andrews to avoid attracting attention from the media?

• • Reviewed:
  • Comment: As per Reviewer's suggestion and also because it meets the criteria

Improved to Good Article status by MSincccc (talk). Self-nominated at 16:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/William, Prince of Wales; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Not a review, just a comment, but I do have two suggestions: 1. I think the first hook could go without the mention of the hospital's name since the main point is that he was the first British heir to be born in a hospital and adding extra detail somewhat detracts from the point, and 2. while I think the original hook is pretty good, since this is Prince William we're talking about here, are there any other possible alternative hook suggestions you could give? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Since this hasn't been reviewed yet, I'll leave this to another reviewer, but I do think ALT1 is the more surprising hook here and thus probably the better option. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Article is evidently long enough and well written/sourced. It has recently been promoted to GA status. I'll trust that PQP isn't required yet for the nominator. Both hooks are interesting, though I have problems with both of them: the first (1st born in hospital) does not seem to be cited or mentioned in the article and surely, if this hook was to progress, it should say "heir to the British throne" or similar? The second hook (called himself "Steve") has a citation, but only to the homepage of the Herald Scotland, so without a full url, or page number, or access date, surely this citation isn't complete? I'd suggest the word "reportedly" is added to the hook if this one goes forward. Finally, the article has some issues which are being addressed on the Talk page, with reverts and heavy editing of the lede introduction. We might need to wait for this to be resolved before progressing the nomination. Sionk (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Well Sionk the discussion regarding lead has been peacefully resolved and thus you can proceed with the DYK nomination process if possible. (talk)

I've made the change to ALT0. For what it's worth, the hospital thing has been reported in multiple sources before (I remember reading about it before), such as Time and The Independent, so a source should easily be found to report on that. Looking online there are also multiple other reliable sources that mention the Steve thing so this is probably also another case where a source could just be added. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I've added a better reference for "Steve" (FWIW many of the reliable sources mentioning this trivia item give their source as the Daily Mirror which is of indeterminate reliability, so I've selected a magazine that ought to be reliable, doesn't cite the Mirror, and hasn't been discussed at RS/R). Rosbif73 (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the source for ALT 1. Before it's approved, I'm wondering whether it should say "Prince William, heir to the British throne, ... considering there are numerous Prince Williams. Sionk (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Sionk Are we going to proceed with the nomination? The status shows that the hook has been reviewed. What's next? Will this ever appear on the Main Page of English Wikipedia. Just seeking an update from you. Regards MSincccc (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK good to go with ALT1 hook. Citation query has been resolved. There's no great reason to further amend the hook because Prince William is blue linked. Sionk (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Opening sentence

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)

Tagging Nford24 and MSincccc. Keivan.f^Talk 16:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this the MSincccc who self-describes as among the 5 all-time highest authors of this page, but has *checks notes* 4.7% of the authorship. ——Serial 17:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I had to tag everyone who was involved in the dispute, so…. Keivan.f^Talk 17:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 I do not self describe myself as a significant author rather I am the 4th largest author of the page. Also I am also of the view that the present version of the page should stay till William ascends to the throne. Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@MSincccc: Completely disingenuous to the point of misleading. Jimmy Wales speaks for me. ——Serial 15:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree the opening sentence should stay as it is per DrKay and two previous RfCs. ——Serial 17:09, 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)

I think in order to override the consensus reached at a previous RfC a new one might be needed. Because I see at least one other user opposing at the moment so it would be best to secure a consensus before making any further changes. Keivan.f^Talk 22:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, so I guess we’re gonna have a new RfC soon on it. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 03:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Keivan.f and Nford24 That's all fine. Then I had make the changes once the consensus has been achieved and this discussion is closed. Regards and hoping for the best, MSincccc (talk) 08:57, 26 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)

Apparently it can't even be discussed in an RfC without it being closed immediately to avoid the discussion. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 02:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Initial phrase commas

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)

Both versions are accurate and acceptable in British English. But for consistency reasons if the commas are omitted in one place, similar changes need to be made in other areas as well which is not necessary given both versions are equally accurate and acceptable. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand your first sentence, although I disagree with it. Both forms may be acceptable, but I do not believe they are equally preferred. I'm not sure that accuracy is a factor. I'm unsure what your second sentence means, sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd rather see the article consistently use a form that's preferred than consistently use a form that's not. I don't see any benefit in using superfluous punctuation. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Closing this discussion then. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

So you have no objection to me removing all those superfluous commas? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC) p.s. you just removed one here that I think is correct, as it introduces a subordinate clause.

@Martinevans123 Removing the commas only if it's starts like "In [year]" not if it's like "In [date] [month] [year] or "In [month] [year]". Are you clear'd? MSincccc (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's reasonable. I think it probably depends on how long that initial phrase is. I raised this question at WP:MoS a while back, and that seemed to be the general consensus. It's having a comma used after two words, that I object to. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

"Pre-wedding relationship"

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)

Thanks @Martinevans123. The following argument should suffice for any future discussions related to this matter- The sub-heading "Pre-marriage relationship" is more accurate for the "Personal life" section of the Wikipedia pages of Catherine, Princess of Wales and William, Prince of Wales. This choice aligns more closely with British English patterns and maintains consistency with the terminology used in similar articles about members of the British royal family. Additionally, "Pre-marriage" accurately reflects the period leading up to their wedding and encompasses the entirety of their relationship before marriage, including courtship, engagement, and any significant events or milestones during this time. From a Wikipedia perspective, this choice adheres to the principles of clarity, conciseness, and neutrality, ensuring that readers understand the chronological sequence of events in the couple's relationship without ambiguity or confusion.

While "Pre-wedding" is a valid term, "Pre-marriage" is preferred for the "Personal life" section of the Wikipedia pages of Catherine, Princess of Wales and William, Prince of Wales due to several reasons. Firstly, "Pre-marriage" is more commonly used in British English and aligns with the linguistic conventions of the region, ensuring consistency across Wikipedia articles related to members of the British royal family. Secondly, "Pre-marriage" encompasses a broader timeframe, including not only the period leading up to the wedding but also the courtship and engagement phases. This comprehensive term provides a more accurate portrayal of the couple's relationship history. Lastly, "Pre-marriage" maintains neutrality and avoids potential ambiguity, clearly indicating the focus on the period before the formalization of their marital union. Overall, "Pre-marriage" is the preferred choice for its clarity, adherence to linguistic conventions, and comprehensive coverage of the relevant timeline.

Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Where was the consensus to use "pre-wedding relationship" established? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, the above argument justifies the use of "Pre-marriage relationship". I hope you will close this thread now. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing there is/was no consensus. I'm quite happy to leave this thread open in case other editors wish to comment. Your latest edit to that section heading is fine by me. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 There was no formal consensus but the term has been there since long and a previous discussion on Catherine's talk page culminated with the term "Pre-wedding relationship" being retained. Nothing more and I hope we will not be discussing each and every edit on the Talk page in future. Let peace be with you. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The talk page is the place for discussion. Discussion via edit summary is discouraged, I think. I guess it will depend on whether other editors agree with edits. Hard to predict, in my experience. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 I am not against discussion and all for collaboration and accuracy. But there are far more serious and important discussions going regarding the article's subject. Anyways let's see what the others say. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You needn't @ me every time. I am aware of these discussions, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the current heading is fine. "Marriage" refers to that act of marrying whereas "wedding" typically refers to the ceremony and fanfare. Keivan.f^Talk 04:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Inescutcheon

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 think those edits were only visible for a short time and have been reverted. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I see. RicLightning (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Commas in the lead sentence

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)

You might want to check with User:SMcCandlish, with whom I have had some recent discourse on this topic. I think he would probably agree with you that it's "more a matter of choice rather than necessity", but the key criterion seems to be whether or not it enhances clarity. To me it looks like redundant clutter. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

But user ZeroAlpha disagrees with the presence of the comma. Looking forward to hearing from the others on the subject-@Keivan.f, @Rosbif73, @DrKay. MSincccc (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I've been told by SMcCandlish, in no uncertain terms, that "it's not an EngVar matter". So perhaps just coincidence at all these similar royal pages? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

There's simply no reliable evidence that commas of this sort are used consistently across one country's publications, and avoided consistently across another's.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

This is definitely parenthetical usage, so another comma would be needed at the end of the parenthetical (if more clause-terminal puncutation didn't take its place, such as "." or ":", neither of which would work in this context of course). However, the parenthetical after "William" is actually a complex multi-part one, consisting of a chain of parentheticals ending in a nested one (in round-brackets). 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)