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)

Prince's title

William is 'The Prince of Wales' not William, Prince of Wales. Leaving the article out implies he is divorced from a Princess of the blood from whom he derives his title. Add the "The" ....Queen Elizabeth established that the article is important during the divorces of Diana, Princess of Wales (note the lack of article) and Sarah, Duchess of York (insert similar comment) 2603:6081:64F0:82D0:E40B:CE9A:D1F7:AEDF (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Nothing's changed since the last time you raised this issue[1], or the one before that[2]. DrKay (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Prince William

even Prince Andrew gets Prince before his name on his Wikipedia page....maybe we ought to pay more attention to accuracy? 2603:6081:64F0:82D0:E40B:CE9A:D1F7:AEDF (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Already discussed at Talk:William, Prince of Wales/Archive 5#Titles. Repetition of redundant word is unnecessary. DrKay (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

"Personal interests" section

An editor has repeatedly attempted to add trivial information about Prince William's interests under the "Charity work" section, although it would be more appropriate to include such details under "Personal life". Moreover, the sources cited—such as The Mirror (UK), BuzzFeed, WWD, SheKnows, and YouTube—are not generally considered reliable as per WP:RSPSOURCES. Additionally, the content in question does not specifically address his interests but rather comments he made during previous public engagements.

This is the extract in question: As president of the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, he has regularly attended the British Academy Film Awards. He has also attended film premieres including for Top Gun: Maverick, No Time to Die, Spectre. War Horse, and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Hobbit actor Martin Freeman recalled meeting William at the film premiere and said he was an enthusiastic fan of J. R. R. Tolkien. William has also said that he has watched Homeland and Game of Thrones. William has also said that he has watched Homeland and Game of Thrones. I look forward to hearing the community's perspective on this matter. Regards. 09:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC) MSincccc (talk)

MSincccc I don't really care where they go, but I think these cultural aspects should be put somewhere. And the Sports section already covers things beyond charities like favorite football team or about being enthusiastic motorcyclists, so seems like the cultural equivalents of that kind of thing could fit somewhere too. The Youtube link is CNN footage of the Hobbit premiere (and also shows him talking with Martin Freeman, supporting the Express article), both the SheKnows/WDD articles are just photographic collections of attendance at particular events.(there's probably individual sources for those too, but not in all one place always). And there's also things in the Conservation and LGBT section that aren't directly tied to Charity. but also opinions about certain issues etc.And the Bafta aspect is both a link to charity work but also to a broader cultural interest. newsjunkie (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Sourcing should be reliable, and if such information can be sourced using RS, I think it would be more appropriate to add it to the "Personal life" section. Векочел (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Newsjunkie

I fail to see how mentioning that Prince William has watched a particular film or spoken to an actor at an event, or attended film premieres (a common practice among royals), qualifies as material for inclusion under "Personal interests". Such details are trivial and inappropriate for an article about a future king.

A more suitable approach would be to note his support for Aston Villa F.C. and his interest in other sports and music (such as Taylor Swift) in a concise "Personal interests" section under "Personal life". Furthermore, as a potential future FA and a current GA-class article, it is essential to adhere to WP:RSPSOURCES by citing reliable secondary sources. MSincccc (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see what's inappropriate about knowing a future king's interest in literature or films. newsjunkie (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Newsjunkie Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and articles on living persons are summaries of that person's (in this case, the future King's) life, not a place to record everything that is published in the media. MSincccc (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

If there is evidence that he is passionate about these things (including taking the time to talk substantively with an actor), i wouldn't take it for granted especially as a future king. There have certainly been rulers throughout history who have been known to have a greater interest in such areas, and others who have less. It is an example of showing what he values and also would value as a future king. newsjunkie (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Newsjunkie William has not shown "a greater interest" in films and television. In contrast, he is passionate about homelessness, the environment, and the club I mentioned above. MSincccc (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that the evidence does point to personal interest in these topics, including his regular attendance at Bafta, where he has also spoken occasionally when delivering awards, and that his literary/film interests can be just as important as the sports club interests. newsjunkie (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Newsjunkie I agree that mentioning his involvement of the Baftas is important, and also reliable or non reliable, sometimes it's the content that is most important, and some of these things can be added because the trivia is important to Prince William's life. Cltjames (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Further example: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2024/02/18/prince-william-bafta-films-kate-surgery-oppenheimer/ "When asked if he had been able to watch many of the 38 feature films nominated at the awards, he said: “I’ve done the fewest I’ve ever done before, with my wife it’s been a bit – hopefully we’ll catch up.

“I’ll make my list tonight,” he added.The Prince, who has been president of the Baftas since 2010, also told Charlotte Moore, the BBC executive, that he was a “big fan of Christopher Nolan” and that he would be “pleased” if Oppenheimer received an award." (This quote suggests that he usually watches *more* of the nominated films. newsjunkie (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

From the 2020 Baftas giving the award to Kathleen Kennedy: "One of the great privileges I have as president is to present the fellowship, the highest honour the Academy can bestow. This year the award goes to a simply legendary figure in film, someone whose films I have been watching all my life and continue to watch time and time again. I couldn’t be happier she’s receiving this award." https://www.bafta.org/media-centre/press-releases/kathleen-kennedy-winners-acceptance-speech-fellowship-award-ee-british-academy-film-awards-in-2020 newsjunkie (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I also don't think that chatting with Martin Freeman about The Hobbit deserves a mention. Agree that concise details about Aston Villa F.C. and Taylor Swift might be WP:DUE if sources are good enough. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. The first sentence about being president of BAFTA is fine, but the rest of the excerpt above seems unduly trivial. I'm not convinced that Villa and Swift are due either, however well sourced. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's undue. This is just the standard puffery trotted out whenever the royals go out for the evening. I watch TV and films is the sort of thing that could be said about almost anyone. The notable thing would be if he didn't do these things, not that he does them. DrKay (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't an encyclopedic article take such comments at face value of him expressing an interest in in the area? newsjunkie (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Or that it's any more or less "puffery" when saying things like the environment is important or bullying is bad? newsjunkie (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Many people in power think the environment is not important and are bullies. They still watch tv and films. Something that can be said about anyone does not belong. DrKay (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

References