body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents
Good articleCharles III has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 21, 2023Peer reviewReviewed
May 11, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
May 22, 2023Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 4, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 1984, Charles, Prince of Wales described a proposed extension to the National Gallery as a "monstrous carbuncle"?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 28, 2004, July 29, 2007, July 29, 2008, July 29, 2009, and July 29, 2010.
Current status: Good article

Did you know nomination[edit]

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

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Charles in 1984
Prince Charles in 1984

Improved to Good Article status by The Cunctator (talk). Nominated by Tim O'Doherty (talk) at 13:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Charles III; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Interesting GA, thank you for relentlessly getting him there! Fine sources, no copyvio obvious. I think most readers would say yes to the original hook. For the ALT, the intended image would need no be in the article, but I don't like the construction "as Prince of Wales, Charles III ...". Can you find something interesting he really did as King? ... best with an image to match? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: How about simply:
Prince Charles in 1972
Prince Charles in 1972
ALT2: ... that in 1984, Charles, Prince of Wales (pictured) described a proposed extension to the National Gallery as a "monstrous carbuncle"?
This avoids the anachronism of "Charles III" and saves on space. There isn't much that isn't already obvious that Charles has done as king, that is illustrated in the article: the only thing that comes to mind is him banning foie gras, but that would be a very boring hook.
If you do require something else, please let me know. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
approve ALT2 if that's what you like ;) - offline sources accepted AGF, the pic is licensed and shows well even small. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Thanks very much. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archival

Is it intended that this section not be archived, or some rather exotic bug? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bug of sorts. The bot that does the archiving will only archive after a certain number of days have passed. Since this whole section transcludes another page, there wasn't actually a date that the bot could see, hence, it was never archived. Someone could either archive this manually, or, since this thread now includes dates thanks to the conversation we are having here, the bot will probably archive it automatically at some point now. Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see! Thanks for that info. I shall now do pat myself on the back for having blundered into "fixing" it, after a fashion. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait Change?[edit]

Just wondering, but should the current photo be switched out for this Hugo Burnand picture from 2023? - https://people.com/king-charles-new-official-portrait-will-be-popping-up-uk-8426453

The favored Wikipedia portraits for British monarchs seem to be of them in dress uniform or their regalia, and this portrait more fits that style. The difference just caught my eye and it seemed fair enough to ask CanadianPrince (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing of that image, is questionable. So we don't use that image. GoodDay (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. CanadianPrince (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Literally came here for this as well. Why is there an issue with the licensing, this seems to be the official photograph of the King. Hamidlinski (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See this discussion here. To summarise: There is no evidence that the image (which I like, a lot) is anything other than Crown Copyright, which means it enters the public domain in 2074. We would use it if we could. Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, that does leave the possibility that it's covered by the Open Government Licence, which would be wikipatible it seems. I don't know how one determines whether it is or not. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be determined by someone uploading it to Commons under that license, and we'd see how that goes. Go for it! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't duplicate files at commons, especially when they are under discussion for deletion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Charles_III_official_portrait.jpg. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I didn't know. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you CH, very useful link and notification. A reupload might make sense if a different version is used, as a view offered there is that the 'full' version may be unlicenced CC, but the gov.uk version OGL'd CC. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
« the 'full' version may be UL CC, but the gov.uk version OGL'd CC. » what does this mean, please? I find it difficult to follow the discussion if it’s got lots of acronyms. —— Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. CC = Crown Copyright, and OGL = Open Government Licence, as above. And by UL I meant 'unlicenced', my bad, wouldn't have killed me to have spelled that out at least. i.e. the lower-res version used here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-official-portrait-of-king-charles-iii-released-for-public-authorities 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a duplicate of the file has been uploaded. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar in lead sentence[edit]

I made an edit to the lead sentence which Rosbif73 reverted as it was “unnecessary”.


From my understanding, ”is the King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms” is more accurate in grammar than “is King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms”. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A definite article is not usually used with a job title when there is only one holder of the title (at any given time). Rosbif73 (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little tricksy, but the general understanding is that saying "the king" would be a description -- name, Charles; profession, kinging -- but "King of the United Kingdom" is a title. Note the different capitalisation. Like saying "President Biden" or "President of the United States", as opposed to "a/the president". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russian media hoax[edit]

I can see some reverts were made on attempts to claim the king has died, purely based on a release from a Russian news source. Thank you for this, and please continue to do so until official confirmation. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When exactly are you expecting official confirmation? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soon. Charles’s successor is “King Bob, the yellow Minion”. DeCausa (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first such edit I saw had an edit summary claiming it was on the BBC website. It wasn't. That was one of our editors lying. A Russian editor? HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely. Charles is alive. Deathinparadisefan11 (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section revisited[edit]

I remain of the view that the lead section is... terrible. The wonder that it ever passed GAN in this state -- without detracting from the sterling efforts editors made considerably improving it in other respects, all kudos to those -- merely increases over time as his reign lengthens, and the "reign" paragraph fails to reflect that.

Specifically, p1 and p4 are absurdly undersized and uninformative, while p2 and p3 are long and trivia-packed. We learn that he spent six months in an Australian school six years ago, but not that he's currently head of state of that country. Nothing at all is said therein about his ongoing break from public duties on health grounds. We should significantly expand the former, and somewhat trim the latter. Or am I a lone voice in the wilderness on that? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]