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)

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 that 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)

@SMcCandlish I have made the required changes. Thanks for your explanation. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

After a total of six commas (and a phrase inside parenthetical brackets), I would have thought that most readers might be "all comma-ed out" by that point. But, if I understand you correctly here, your argument is one of grammatical rule-following correctness, not that there might be some reader, somewhere, whose understanding of the sentence will be enhanced by use of that 7th comma? Nor that it resolves any inherent ambiguity? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what your point is (beyond generalized dislike of commas). The fact that some commas are placed because of an MoS or other rule (basically "bracketing commas come in pairs" and "inline lists of items are separated by commas"), and other commas are optional but should be included when they improve intelligiblity or they are more consistent and part of a pattern that improves intelligbility in general (as with commas after introductory dependent clauses), simply means there are multiple reasons to use commas, not that one reason is wrong, or that a comma is wrong if it doesn't suit a particular one of those reasons. Commas aren't a matter of whether a mystical "best number" of them has been reached, failed to be reached, or surpassed. This notion of comma fatigue is something you've invented, and it's not attested in any reliable sources on English writing (or linguistics, or cognitive science, or any related field) that I've ever seen, and that's a whole lot of material).

However, it's a permissible style here (for better or worse) to omit commas in a chain of postnominal abbreviations, so this could be reduced to William, Prince of Wales, KG KT GCB PC ADC (William Arthur Philip Louis; born 21 June 1982), is the ...., by tweaking the postnom template. There are editors who might object to this, but so far they have not gotten the template changed to prevent this, and doing it that way would be preferable to omitting half of a pair of bracketing commas, or omitting a comma between the royal title (which is itself a comma-bracketed parathetical even if nothing else is present) and the chain of postnoms. (This can be done by removing |sep=, from the template.) That said, there is nothing in any way broken or wrong or confusing or otherwise bad about William, Prince of Wales, KG, KT, GCB, PC, ADC (William Arthur Philip Louis; born 21 June 1982), is the ..... All the commas in it serve a purpose, just as they do (including the parenthetical pair) in a sentence like "Letters representing vowels and diphthongs, in standard English but not necessarily every dialect, include: a, e, i, o, u, w (sometimes), y (sometimes), ae, ai, ao, au, aw, ay, ea, ...., uw, and uy." Any inline list of more than two things has them separated by commas (or if any contain their own internal commas, then by semicolons) regardless of the number of them. There is no general principle by which we start dropping them because someone thinks there are "too many". That's not even the reason for the no-commas version of the post-nom template (rather, it is because the no-comma style is very commonly attested in RS material that includes a lot of postnoms, so it has demonstrably become conventional for that contextually narrow purpose even if it's not how inline lists of any kind are written otherwise).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a "generalized dislike of commas". Yes, the "notion of comma fatigue" may be something invented, which is "not attested in any reliable sources on English writing (or linguistics, or cognitive science, or any related field) that you've ever seen, and that's a whole lot of material)." My point is that it aids no reader's understanding of those facts. Perhaps there should be firm advice at WP:COMMA? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Part of where I have gone wrong, and what has led to this thread becoming 'a thing', is daring 'to be bold', but also failing to declare, in each case, why I removed the commas. I shall try to rectify that now. One of the articles in which my actions have been deemed contentious is 'Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh'. My argument, which does appear in the 'Revision history' section, is that I believe 'Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh' to be an unbreakable unit, and, thus, 'Duke of Edinburgh' is not parenthetical. In the article 'parenthesis', the second sentence states that the parenthetical material could be left out without affecting the grammatical sense; while I know that removing 'Duke of Edinburgh' would not affect the passage grammatically, it does affect it 'logically', in that I believe that the peerage title is integral to the person, and makes the reference a unique one. This is solely the direction from which I am coming. None of this has been a personal crusade about the overuse of commas; indeed, you should be able to see from this extract alone that I am a prolific comma user, believing that, although they can sometimes alter the 'feel' of a piece, it is the lesser of two evils to use them in abundance, similar to using a car's indicators at times when it might not be considered necessary, with a view to avoid falling into the trap of eventually never using them through complacency and laziness. I am not averse to discussion, and hold my hands up to not having the good sense to instigate this myself before any actions. I should like to point out that, irrespective of my recent edits, there are articles out there that do not use the comma in the manner that is under review here, meaning that, ultimately, it seems to come down to preference. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I support ZeroAlpha87's view. Although not a native speaker, for me, "William, Prince of Wales" sounds like a name, which is supported by the fact that this is the article's title and that this is written bold in the first sentence. If so, then the comma is not the beginning of a parenthesis but part of the name. (If Prince of Wales were a parenthesis, I think the article's title should be "Willian (Prince of Wales)" according to Wikipedia disambiguation rules and only "William" should be bolded, which seems unreasonable.) --Cyfal (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking forward to these users' definitive opinions -@Keivan.f, @DrKay, @Rosbif73, @DeCausa, @Tim O'Doherty and @Векочел. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the comma should be kept. I see Duke of Edinburgh as a descriptor and a break in the sentence. Векочел (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with SMcCandlish and others that the commas are parenthetical and should be kept. Rosbif73 (talk) 05:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Out of interest, then, does this mean that, if peerage titles are to considered parenthetical, commas separating names and peerage titles should not be bold? To have them in bold suggests, I believe, that they are part of the overall name − again, 'one unit' as I have previously argued. I have doubtless opened a can of worms by asking this; however, it just occurred to me when I edited Robert Laurence Binyon, CH (comma inside, and so bold) to Robert Laurence Binyon, CH (comma outside, and so roman). ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with ZeroAlpha87. "William, Prince of Wales" isn't parenthetical. It's different from eg: "On 25 April William, prince of Wales, did [...]" when introducing him as the prince of Wales, which could also be "On 25 April William—prince of Wales—did [...]" or "William (prince of Wales) did [...]". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)