Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Mentioning exact dates

"On 22 March 2024,..." Is mentioning the exact date required here? In the previous paragraph also "16 January" is not mentioned and rightly so. The exact dates are not going to be significant in any case lest it's a specific case. How to hear from the others soon. Regards MSincccc (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I would have thought the timing was quite significant. It's been suggested that 6 pm on Friday was chosen to fit in with the start of the Easter school holiday. There are 31 days in March. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

But it's trivial in the long run. Also the exact date need not be mentioned as done in the previous paragraph for the surgery announcement part. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It's just six digits at most, for maybe three dates. It is informative and isn't going to hurt. starship.paint (RUN) 09:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not about the amount of bytes here but the relevance. I would like to hear from all other major contributions before any further revisions on the same topic to avoid warring. @Keivan.f: MSincccc (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible edit conflict, it will help readers understand how long it took for the matter to be clarified given the long period of confusion. Without dates, it could be as little as one month (Jan 31 to Mar 1), or it could have been two months (Jan 15 to Mar 15), or three months (Jan 1 to Mar 31). starship.paint (RUN) 09:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Its the only thing that happened to her in March 2024. Mentioning "late" or the exact dates don't make any difference lest something else happens later this month. Lets wait and see what the others have to say. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The Where is Kate? controversy effectively lasted from 17 January to 22 March. That's the significance. starship.paint (RUN) 09:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There's also many dates which are mentioned, that I assume have implicit consensus by virtue of not being removed. She attended William's Passing Out Parade at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst on 15 December 2006 [...] On 17 May 2008, Middleton attended the wedding of William's cousin Peter Phillips to Autumn Kelly in William's stead, and met Queen Elizabeth II for the first time [...] On 19 July 2008, she was a guest at the wedding of Lady Rose Windsor and George Gilman [...] On 3 December 2012, St James's Palace announced that Catherine was pregnant [...] The first engagement that Catherine carried out after the birth of Prince George was on 30 August 2013 [...] upcoming tour of New Zealand and Australia from 16 to 25 April [...] On 11 October 2016, Catherine made her first solo foreign trip to The Netherlands [...] In Cornwall on 11 June 2021, William and Catherine attended the G7 summit for the first time [...] On 27 September 2022, Catherine and William visited Anglesey and Swansea and more... starship.paint (RUN) 09:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Tend to agree. I really don't see the value in having just months and not dates as well. In this case the day of the week may also have been relevant. The interview was recorded on Wednesday and then broadcast on Friday. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Well removed it all. Thanks for that. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That seems a little rash. I guess we need another discussion thread now? I had thought the idea was to establish consensus here? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Not rash. All those dates might have been included by similar users but since nothing else happened that month, the exact dates can be omitted. The page looks fine now. Regards and looking forward to future collaborations between us, MSincccc (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Gosh, "since nothing else happened that month, the exact dates can be omitted" is not an argument one often comes across in an encyclopaedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

But in the long run, do these exact dates matter as much? Like on 22 March she only announced that she had cancer. More important facts to be included are-She returned to public duties on (exact date). {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) MSincccc (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Like I said before, March has 31 days. I find it quite bizarre that the date can be just ignored. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

How does the number days in th month matter? September has 30 days yet we have to mention 8 September 2022 for Elizabeth II's death date. MSincccc (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we can remove peoples' dates of death if "nothing else happened that month"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

See below please. I have explained it. Birth, death, wedding and engagement dates are not to be removed. They should be exact obviously. Regards MSincccc (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I see. These are the only ones we're allowed? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily so. These are there always but not that all other events fall out of the purview of being mentioned with their exact dates. Depends on the significance. MSincccc (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I must say I do not agree with the rationale that simply because since nothing else happened that month, the exact dates can be omitted. starship.paint (RUN) 09:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I get it now, you don't like dates. All but one of those dates were in the article when it was promoted to Good Article status in December 2023. Clearly nobody had a problem with them, and one was even added after that! starship.paint (RUN) 09:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Its not about my likes. Let me explain-birth and death dates, their wedding and engagement announcement day, these dates are significant. The other dates can be referred to only by mentioning the month name lest their is not a conflict because of something else also happening in that month. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it's not about your likes. It's about consensus. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I will add back "22" before March 2024 once other contributors have put forth their opinion. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

And all the other dates you've just removed? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Not significant as I said. Tell me one date which I removed which has relevance on this article. Also I carefully sorted out and then removed those dates. MSincccc (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case we should start adding exact dates also as to when she was appointed as patron of a charity. Regards MSincccc (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not an argument I'd advance. I think significance will vary. I'd suggest that the merits of each could be discussed. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

We will see to that. Lets bury the hatchet for now. Regards MSincccc (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

What a good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 Your problems have been sorted out. MSincccc (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

How? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 I have mentioned the date in a suitable way. So we can close this discussion hopefully. Regards MSincccc (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

People may have a view on all the other dates you've removed (with no discussion)? And, as I've noted in the thread above, where do the sources say "through a video message released by Kensington Palace"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I only removed the exact dates as they were not as significant. By the way, I have made certain changes you ought to see. Regards MSincccc (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess they are "not significant" in your personal view. Other editors may have a different view. They've not been discussed. This article was already at GA status? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Let others comment on the matter. Then we will see. I was just waiting for a few significant contributors to comment on the matter and then I will do as decided by consensus. I hope you would wait till then. I am also a significant contributor. Regards MSincccc (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, so we'd better keep this thread open? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes we will keep it open. By the way, shouldn't we collaborate peacefully rather than argue and engage in warring on the article so that it's quality can be significantly improved? I ask this as a friendly and collaborative and contributor Regards MSincccc (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I have undone none of your changes, so not sure where "warring on the article" comes from. Congratulations for being a "significant contributor". I'm sure you are only trying to improve the article from your viewpoint. But I think some of your edits have been a bit "bold". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 Being a middle schooler, I am obviously not the boldest guy here and possibly the youngest. Anyways, I am always open to recieving comments for improving myself from others. As far as my most recent mainspace edit is concerned, the sentence and the citation were unnecessary given the BBC source in the previous sentence makes it clear that at the beginning, the issue was not cancer related. Regards MSincccc (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's another editor who disagrees with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That would be me. I quote BBC: The palace did not disclose further details about her condition but said it is not cancer-related. Clear attribution. [1] starship.paint (RUN) 12:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Associated Press [2] The princess’ office at Kensington Palace didn’t offer further details, but said her condition wasn’t cancerous. GMA [3]The palace did not provide further details on the type of surgery Kate underwent but confirmed to ABC News that the princess's medical issue was non-cancerous. USA Today [4] Kensington Palace, Prince William and Kate’s office said it was not cancer-related. The attribution was obviously needed because no one in the media really knew what was going on with Kate, even now no one even knows about the abdominal issue. starship.paint (RUN) 13:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Except the hospital staff who peeked at the medical notes and are now going to be sacked? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: - hard to tell if you are joking. If not, provide source? starship.paint (RUN) 13:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It was reported by BBC News, so probably not a joke. Not even a bad one. They said "disciplinary action would be taken", if I remember correctly. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

[5] I see, but they do not confirm that access was granted, just that attempts to access were made. starship.paint (RUN) 13:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's hard to know what a "breach report" might include. I would have thought that more than one member of staff ought to have tried to access her notes. I guess they meant "unauthorised member of staff". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Starship.paint We do know now that certain tests carried out post or during her abdominal surgery showed that she was suffering from a form of cancer. This is similar to Charles III's case-while he underwent operation for an enlarged prostate, certain tests showed that he was suffering from a form of cancer. Obviously the Palace is not going to provide specific details unless they are obliged to. By the way do either of you support the creation and existence of the Where is Kate? article? Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

What you mentioned was what was claimed by Kate herself (or the palace). I am afraid I am not that trusting unless our reliable sources independently corroborate the claims. The palace has already published a doctored photo and blamed Kate, that should be enough reason for us to not immediately believe everything they say. I must say that I haven't looked into Where is Kate? too deeply, but I am guessing that the topic does pass WP:GNG, and will be historically analyzed in terms of public relations strategy. starship.paint (RUN) 13:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Well they say that the article goes against WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Th article has also being discussed on the Biographies of Living Persons Policy Noticeboard. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that and deletion review. I am not very inspired to participate in that at the moment. I wish you good day, and my hope is that you do not waste your youth. Also, if in any circumstance in the future, if editors are using certain text (and not intending to delete it) to back up their arguments on the talk page, I would suggest not immediately and unilaterally deleting the text. Comes across as a bit off-putting. starship.paint (RUN) 13:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I was tagged here but obviously I cannot go through this wall of text and respond to every single issue raised. With regards to the dates I think we can have them included. At first it did not really matter when exactly she had the surgery, but given that there is now a time period between the surgery and her announcement during which she was subjected to a witch hunt in the press and on social media, then I'd say we better be specific about it. Keivan.f^Talk 15:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Roughly agree with this. They didn't exactly announce when she had surgery, though it's either 16 Jan or 17 Jan, and our article now does narrow it down to these two days. Though I think BBC did report it is 16 Jan. I think the key period is 17 Jan to 22 Mar, the time period between the two announcements. starship.paint (RUN) 02:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Introduction Lead: Isn't all chemotherapy treatment "preventative"?

Do we need the "preventative" adjective? By its very nature, chemo is administered after a diagnosis and the event cannot be erased. Jaymailsays (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's the phrase she used herself. There are different types of chemotherapy and given the recent announcement even the press is discussing them now. Keivan.f^Talk 20:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

No. The use here is as precaution. Meaning they think they have all of the cancer out a d are using the chemo as a preventative measure in case some small amount of cells were left behind. You wouldn't call it preventative if she was stage 2, 3, 4 etc.

Also as said, it's important to use the sources terminology. 71.7.195.204 (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't edit, but what she actually said was "cancer had been present," not "cancer was present," which is what this article says. This is an important distinction because it implies that there was no remaining cancer after the surgery and is the reason why the chemotherapy would be preventative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100F:A017:7CFA:1582:B2C7:4DCD:5907 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I deleted this, it was restored, and I'm planning to do this again. As per the Guardian, there is no such thing as "preventative" chemotherapy. See: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2024/mar/22/catherine-princess-of-wales-kate-middleton-health-latest-updates?page=with:block-65fddd458f08ed13c27ca547#block-65fddd458f08ed13c27ca547. There's no reason to include this descriptor; it's not medically accurate, and chemotherapy by itself is perfectly fine. If you want to add it back in, please ensure you make it clear these are her words and not medically accurate term, ideally by placing it in quotes. Mvolz (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jaymailsays made the edit concerned. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course there is preventative chemotherapy, it is just that the NHS does not use that term. Since Kate was treated largely privately, that is why the term crept in. In America they tend to use the description chemoprevention. https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/chemoprevention Jaymailsays (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

"Catherine" is generally preferred in Wikipedia discussions. Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to call her "Kate" you have to go you know where, don't you. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

"Kate Middleton Effect" should be changed to "Kate Middleton effect" and general comment

The capitalization is inconsistent and I would also link it directly to the paragraph on her fashion page rather than just the fashion page. I also just wanted to comment that I think an effort should be made to make her main page more neutral with the addition of the "Where is Kate?" conspiracy theory information because right now it almost sounds like it is blaming her. I should expand on what I mean in that she received an insane amount of harassment before and after the picture controversy and the picture controversy itself was also insane because it was nowhere near the first Photoshopped image to have been released by a public figure and yet it got a kill order presumably because of the media's impatience with her "unexplained" (not fully explained clearly due to privacy concerns) absence. 74.12.2.239 (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Changed the capitalization "issue". Not delving into the other page concerns, as that can be discussed on the fashion page. Natg 19 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Some would say this should be called the "Catherine Middleton effect" LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Is It Mother's Day or Mothering Sunday Portrait?

The BBC and the press call it Mother's Day! Jaymailsays (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Commonly it can be referred to as Mother's Day, but in the UK it is specifically Mothering Sunday. Here's the post from the Royal Family referring to it as such. Keivan.f^Talk 11:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This is yet another example of the overly formal writing style this article has. They themselves call it 'Mother's Day' https://twitter.com/KensingtonRoyal/status/1767135566645092616 and so does BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68534359. Only on formal occasions, such as a post from the main Royal Family account, is it called 'Mothering Sunday'. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This is what it is in the UK. Just as we have an article on Mother's Day in the US, then one covering the UK holiday is Mothering Sunday. Keivan.f^Talk 23:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Mothering Sunday is exclusively a religious christian festival during Lent, for those souls who are baptised into the christian church. It is unconnected to any aspect of the commercial Mother's day which can be celebrated and is, by all non-christians and christians alike. The Waleses communication/photo was focused on Mother's Day, the commercial one.

Half the country hasn't or has any intention to be ever baptised, they can never visit their mother church to pay homage to the day they joined the church's family because they are excluded from the club, due to the mortal sin they carry for eternity.

Use Mother's Day and not the exclusionary, archaic and outdated Mothering Sunday festival. Jaymailsays (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest the two phrases are inextricably linked. Errrm, "mortal sin they carry for eternity"? Not a sentiment one often sees in the verses of "Happy Easter" cards. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I was being flippant, linking baptism and mortal sins to the christian festival of Mothering Sunday which is linked to the baptised christian individual, visiting (or making a pilgrimage) to the church where they were baptised on Mothering Sunday and not necessarily visiting their own mother.

Do christians send Happy Easter cards? Isn't the Easter sentiment expressed as, "Christ died on the cross for our sins"?

As previously stated, Mother's Day is the correct commercial description for sending gifts or cards to ones mother, or for releasing a family photograph. Jaymailsays (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Missing information on "Kate" name

Article does not explain why she is known as "Kate". She's still being referred to as "Kate" in top-tier media sources: AP, Reuters, AFP. starship.paint (RUN) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

BBC. To many people in the UK they are "Wills and Kate" or even "Wills and Katy". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That may very well be true but your source does not explain it, and neither does our article. starship.paint (RUN) 14:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Top-tier sources also refer to her as Catherine (CNN). The woman clearly wants to be referred to as Catherine and that should be respected per MOS:IDENTITY. We went over this about 3 weeks ago and then again about a week ago, and the consensus was that the nickname should not be added to the lede; MOS:NICK states that common English-language hypocorism do no necessarily need to be listed (Kate or Cate is a common English-language hypocorism of Catherine, Katherine, Katharine, etc.). However, if it were to be added, it could be thrown in the "Early life" section, similar to how Elizabeth II or Alexandra of Denmark's articles handle it. If it were to be included in the lede (which is unlikely due to lack of consensus), it could be added where her full maiden name is given. Keivan.f^Talk 15:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Also The Times, Time magazine, The Guardian, SkyNews, The Independent, and countless others. Just sayin'. Perhaps you covered all of these in previous discussions. "Kate" makes for a snappier headline, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Not this again. I propose we shouldn't open up a new a ‘include the name Kate review’ until six months from the last one has closed. On a discussion I recently started, consensus closed for the name not to be included (which I disagree with, but respect the consensus). TheSpacebook (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You could open an RfC to decide on a time limit... And it's not just "Kate", of course, in many places she's still "Kate Middleton". It's almost as if some newspaper editors have not even read this Wikipedia article! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

But her family and all official announcements still refer to her as "Catherine" given its her birth name. She herself has never acknowledged the name "Kate" in public. Does anybody here have an idea who gave her that name because I was not there on Earth when she wed? Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Not on a different planet, I'm assuming. I think she was known more as Kate than as Catherine, to the British public, before the couple married. The fact that it's such a common hypocorism is the main reason it's not included in the opening sentence? Courtesy generally prevents anyone addressing her as Kate in public, so she's not often in any position to acknowledge that name. More properly, she's not Kate or Catherine, but "Her Royal Highness." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Everyone, please relax. I’ve never called for “Kate” to be in the lede. We could simply have a line somewhere in the body that “the media has widely referred to her as Kate or Kate Middleton”, if that is actually what happened. I am a native English speaker but I did not know that Kate is a hypocorism of Catherine. Perhaps non-native speakers might not know too. I've inserted a few sentences at Catherine, Princess of Wales#Privacy and the media. We have over 150 references in this article itself calling her "Kate Middleton". We should at least explain that. There's no need to have it in the lede. starship.paint (RUN) 02:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

In April 2004, British media outlet The Sun published pictures of William and Middleton at a ski resort and alleged that she was his girlfriend. With "Kate" being a nickname for "Catherine", the media originally reported her name as Kate Middleton, and this name persisted in the public sphere despite changes in her name and titles in 2011 upon marriage to William, and in 2022, upon Queen Elizabeth's death.

References

Well but did you ask the other users before adding information regarding this to the page? Like a consensus would have been necessary. I have no issues with it lest other users start a new discussion in this regard. Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I was being WP:BOLD. With no less than 156 references in the article stating "Kate Middleton", the name certainly is WP:DUE within the body. starship.paint (RUN) 05:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it's better to throw it under "early life". It's also relatively at the beginning of the article. As I said it's been done for many pages, including the ones on her husband or Elizabeth II. I can also give some examples from celebrities but you get the point. Keivan.f^Talk 14:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I’m not going to stand in the way of that change. starship.paint (RUN) 01:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Whatever Wikipedia can do to diminish, rather than support, the power which tabloid media assign themselves in deciding what royal people are to be called, is a credit to Wikipedia. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Red-top comics like The Telegraph, The Times and The Spectator? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France Presse are definitely not tabloid media. They are reputable news agencies with content produced internationally. starship.paint (RUN) 01:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Are people on here really out of touch or just deliberately not adding her name out of absurd formality. Literally everyone here in the UK refers to her as Kate Middleton, I don't know a single person who says Catherine, regardless or age or interest in the royals. Furthermore her close family e.g. Harry and Meghan in their recent statement about her health called her 'Kate'. [6] I liked a suggestion from above:

- Catherine, Princess of Wales, GCVO (born Catherine Elizabeth Middleton; 9 January 1982), known widely by the nickname Kate Middleton, is a member of the British royal family. She is married to William, Prince of Wales, heir apparent to the British throne.

- I don't know about there being consensus for this change (with the very specific people editing this page) but it seems insane not to add the name Kate Middleton at the forefront of the article when the BBC, Times, Guardian, Telegraph, Daily Mail, and international outlets such as CNN, Fox etc all call her Kate Middleton. What is the point in hiding the name away when the media, her family, and the general public all call her Kate Middleton. [7] [8] [9]

- Furthermore as others have pointed out most of the page is sourced by articles who refer to her as Kate Middleton. Nobody is suggesting to change the main title page, but to add Kate Middleton to the beginning seems like common sense at this point.

- Also for those who point out that her birth name is Catherine and that she doesn't call herself Kate, I don't see anybody changing Emma Stone's page to Emily Stone even though she refers to herself as Emily to her friends and family both in public and in private. This is because she is popularly known as Emma Stone. The same logic should apply to Kate.

- This is just my opinion and feel free to disagree, however I do strongly feel that there should not be so much controversy over such a small change. Jasp7676 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussions came to the conclusion that the name "Kate Middleton" should not be mentioned in the lead though because of its notability and excessive use in media it should be recognised under the Early Life and education section which has been done recently. I hope your doubts have been resolved @Jasp7676. Regards MSincccc (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Harry and Meghan's statement is irrelevant, given that Harry refers to his wife as Meg and to his brother as Willy. Emma Stone's example is equally irrelevant. She has established a public identity under the name Emma Stone. The Princess of Wales on the other hand, refers to herself as Catherine in the public sphere, signs her name as such, and uses the initial "C" (there are tons of examples on her X/Twitter account). Statements such as Literally everyone here in the UK refers to her as Kate Middleton are vague and generalized. Members of the general public tend to refer to her as Kate and to her husband as Wills, but of course we cannot speak for everyone. And she hasn't been a Middleton since almost 13 years ago. Nevertheless, the nickname is mentioned in an appropriate section relatively at the beginning of the article. There is no consensus to add it to the lede so please stop rehashing the same thing over and over again. Keivan.f^Talk 04:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f, @Martinevans123, @SergeWoodzing and @Starship.paint cites WP:BOLD and WP:COMMONNAME to add the name "Kate Middleton" to lead. His edit summary also says "...proposed talk page changes" which is false as there was no agreement as to add the name to lead. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Eh, that was LegalSmeagolian, not me as the sentence could have been interpreted. If there was a previous RfC then I'll respect that. The nickname in the body is a needed minimum, that's what I feel. starship.paint (RUN) 15:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I know who it was. There were previous discussions which also culminated with users agreeing to put the nickname under "Early Life and Education" not in lead. Just wanted the others to make this user and others understand once and for all to prevent similar future edits. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about "nickname" (like Cookie or Brenda?) It was actually almost her birthname and is still used "by most Brits" as her real name.... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

And Americans use it as well, in both the press and the general public, hence WP:COMMONNAME should be considered. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

That wasn't them it was me. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Your edit summary was, perhaps, a bit ambiguous. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@LegalSmeagolian One more revert will put you in a position where you violate WP:3RR. There is no consensus to have the nickname in lead. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

3RR rule is more than three reverts. LegalSmeagolian (talk) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It will be more than three reverts if you continue. Major editors, including me and Keivan, believe that having covered the matter under Early Life and Education is accurate enough. You do not have consensus to mention it in lead @LegalSmeagolian. MSincccc (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

"major editors" oh my lord. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I pinged them so as to make you understand that there is no consensus to have the name mentioned in lead. It has been sufficiently covered under "Early Life and education". Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Mention that she is widely known under a different name is relevant to the lede and first line. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@LegalSmeagolian You don't have consensus for that. I and Keivan are the active major authors. Further, others agree that it should not be mentioned in lead. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure that you and Keivan constitute a consensus, when many other editors have came to the page expressing concern over the lack of this common name in the article. Can you please link the last time this was formally under RFC, as I cannot seem to find it, yet you keep claiming clear consensus that it should not be mentioned in lead. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I and Keivan are only the major authors. But the fact that the nickname should not be mentioned in lead was backed by many others including @Martinevans123, @SergeWoodzing and @Starship.paint. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@LegalSmeagolian Inexperienced new editors, including multiple IP users did come I agree. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I demand to be called a major editor or else be given a full refund! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus says no TheSpacebook (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Erm, actually, if push comes to shove, my actual opinion is that I'd put "Kate Middleton" in the lede too, same argument, WP:COMMONNAME. But the difference is that I'm not very interested in a conflict over the matter, and I'm fine with compromise that has it in the body. starship.paint (RUN) 15:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Starship.paint Think of "Queen Elizabeth, also called Lilibet" or "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, also called Meg". MSincccc (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

More like "Meghan Markle", which is already in the lede. starship.paint (RUN) 16:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m not suggesting the following right now, as I respect that the consensus is against the inclusion. However, if this topic comes up again, here is a future suggestion, in the way the Prince Harry article handles this issue:

Catherine, Princess of Wales GCVO (born Catherine Elizabeth Middleton; 9 January 1982) is a member of the British royal family. She is married to William, Prince of Wales, heir apparent to the British throne.

The footnote reads “She is commonly referred to as “Kate Middleton” in the media, but has never styled herself with that name. “Kate” is a diminutive form of “Catherine”.” TheSpacebook (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not just "the media", but that's all we've got to go on, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I think “media” is encompassing. Like with the Where is… erm… Catherine, Princess of Wales? article, “media” refers to news media, broadcast media, and social media and is qualified when necessary. TheSpacebook (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I might be tempted to place the footnote later in that sentence, perhaps after the bracket. But largely the same feelings as starship.paint above. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m indifferent as I respect the consensus. However, I am of the opinion that this article may be editorially attempting to undertake some sort of circular reporting:

Wikipedia calls her Catherine though? Ok we’ll do that too. WP:RSP call her Catherine, we’ll do that too.

in an attempt to rid the media of the name “Kate”… if so, it hasn’t worked. TheSpacebook (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f,@LegalSmeagolian,@Martinevans123,@SergeWoodzing,@Starship.paint and @TheSpacebook I have added an accurate footnote. Looking forward to knowing from others. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I respect the consensus from when I opened the issue up before, so am indifferent on the names inclusion. TheSpacebook (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This is good enough, thanks. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Just would like to leave this here: William: Well, I was torn between asking Kate's dad first and then the realisation that he might actually say 'no' dawned upon me. So I thought if I ask Kate first then he can't really say no. Telegraph, 2010. starship.paint (RUN) 16:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It’s incorrect to say in the article she’s “never publicly acknowledged” the name Kate, because in that 2010 Telegraph interview, the interviewer was calling her “Kate” and she responded, hence acknowledging the name Kate. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, that was the bad old days when Willy didn't read Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Just for the record, most of her family have called her Kate at least once (copied from previous discussion):

Uncle, Gary Goldsmith: https://news.sky.com/story/amp/meghan-accused-of-creating-drama-by-princess-of-waless-uncle-on-celebrity-big-brother-13087915

Brother-in-law, Prince Harry: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w-gkAM0XZMU&pp=ygUSUHJpbmNlIGhhcnJ5IGthdGUg (timestamp 1:32)

Sister-in-law, Meghan:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xiMXc98Zlx4

Sussexes also referred to her as “Kate” in their recent statement (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-harry-meghan-statement-kate-middleton-cancer-b2517512.html)

Husband, Prince William, responded "we must tell Kate" upon finding out about Meghan being pregnant: https://www.thelist.com/1433119/prince-harry-shared-pregnancy-with-william-eugenies-wedding/. And when informing Prince Harry that his wife was not travelling to Scotland when the Queen died, he said "No other wives were coming, Kate wasn't coming" https://people.com/why-kate-middleton-didnt-travel-scotland-when-queen-elizabeth-died-7967178.

Grandmother-in-law, Queen Elizabeth II, commented on her hair calling it "Kate's beautiful mane.": https://www.womanandhome.com/life/royal-news/kate-middletons-iconic-asset-the-queen-was-obsessed-with/ TheSpacebook (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Well @TheSpacebook has boldly added information regarding the "Kate" name to lead having moved it from the "Early life and eductaion" section. I would like to know the others opinion in this regard so that a consensus can soon be established. Regards @Keivan.f, @Jasp7676, @Martinevans123, @Tim O'Doherty @SergeWoodzing, @Starship.paint, @DrKay, @Celia Homeford, @DeCausa and @Rosbif73 MSincccc (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I did it as per George VI having his nickname in the top section of his article. And to help the international readers. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The only nickname I can see in that article is "Industrial Prince", in Military career and education? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Top section of George VI reads (underline added): “The future George VI was born during the reign of his great-grandmother Queen Victoria; he was named Albert at birth after his great-grandfather Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and was known as "Bertie" to his family and close friends.” TheSpacebook (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

But no members of the royal family use "Kate" to refer to her, as far as the senior members are concerned. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see it now, in the second para of the lead section, thanks. But I'm really not sure why it needs to be there at all. "Bertie" appears in only two other places. It's hardly a defining characteristic. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Also the Edward VII article reads in the top section: The second child and eldest son of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Edward, nicknamed "Bertie", was related to royalty throughout Europe. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Did you do that one as well? Yes well, I guess those are topics for discussion elsewhere. And a case of Other Royals Existed. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

No I didn’t do that one as well. Check the edit history, but it certainly wasn’t me. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I think those examples are fine. It's only a couple of words and it explains the name change from Bertie to Edward in one case and George in the other. It's also in the body of the article with sources. My objection is devoting an entire paragraph in the lead to a short version of her ordinary name, which is undue. DrKay (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point. Based on that, I’ll just make one more suggestion for the top section:

Born in Reading, Catherine grew up in Bucklebury, Berkshire. She was educated at St Andrew's School and Marlborough College before studying Art History at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, where she met Prince William in 2001, and picked up the nickname "Kate". She held several jobs in retail and marketing and pursued charity work before their engagement was announced in November 2010. They married on 29 April 2011 at Westminster Abbey; she became Duchess of Cambridge. The couple have three children: George, Charlotte, and Louis.

as per this source from People Magazine: https://people.com/royal-family-real-names-kate-middleton-prince-harry-meghan-markle-7814164 and this source from Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/kate-middleton-childhood-nickname-2017-6 TheSpacebook (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't it in 2004 according to the media who introduced the name "Kate"? Her friends and William would have been calling her "Catherine" as far as sources of the time say. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think so. She was also called "Beautiful Kate" at university. I am certain, however, that the name "Kate" is not a media invention. She even asked her friends to stop calling her Kate: (https://news.yahoo.com/why-kate-middleton-asked-her-103100801.html), which suggests it wasn’t created by the media. Business Insider also reports that she picked up Kate at university (https://www.businessinsider.com/kate-middleton-childhood-nickname-2017-6), writing “It was only when she went to university that she began to be known as "Kate.". TheSpacebook (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm really unsure about use of "picked up". I has some rather unattractive connotations. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

“acquired the nickname” is the best I can think of! TheSpacebook (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Other, admittedly loose, examples Queen Victoria top section: earning Victoria the sobriquet "grandmother of Europe", and William IV top section: William served in the Royal Navy in his youth, spending time in British North America and the Caribbean, and was later nicknamed the "Sailor King". TheSpacebook (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

They look very different cases to me. If she was about now, she'd probably be known as Vicky. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes but in this case, a large number of international readers don’t know that Kate is short for Catherine, as per the articles that have explained this confusion for the public. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@TheSpacebook Hence the citations and detailed explanation being under "Early life and education" is accurate in itself as we do not want the lead to have unnecessary citations. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Then I'm not sure why you offer Victoria as a useful comparison. Were people confused, back in the 19th century, over who was the "grandmother of Europe"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

It was an, admittedly loose, example of how nicknames given to a member of royalty are in the top section. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd say "each case is probably different". But at this stage I'm raising my thumb and fingers in the sign of a large Whatevs. I'm sure others may want to chip in. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Move paragraph to a footnote. An entire paragraph with sources in the lead is undue weight and contrary to the Manual of Style. The lead should be a summary of the article and should not contain citations or detailed information. DrKay (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  @DrKay The footnote covered the information concisely and accurately and other editors were fine with the detailed info regarding the "Kate" name to be put under "Early Life and Education" until this recent move by @TheSpacebook. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  My objection is to the massive sourced paragraph in the lead, not to a footnote or material in the article body. DrKay (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  I did it as per George VI having his nickname in the top section. Should the cites just be removed then? TheSpacebook (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  So should we revert to the revision prior to TheSpacebook moving the paragraph to lead? Reagards MSincccc (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Citations are necessary in this case. Move it to the "Early life and education" section from where you had removed it @TheSpacebook. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

These examples above prove the original point. Also calling yourself a major editor doesn't make your opinion any more valid than anyone else's.... Yes you may be significantly more experienced on Wikipedia than others, but perhaps a fresh perspective is important, especially when lots of people seem to agree to the change! Perhaps a final vote could clear up the issue once and for all? Jasp7676 (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jasp7676 Done. The changes have been made. Congratulations "Kate Middleton" is a part of the lead now. Regards MSincccc (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• For future editors wishing to build a consensus, I’m not going to go back-and-forth about this, as I respect the current consensus. But here is my suggestion for the last paragraph of the top part, if any future editors wish to build a consensus: “Initially, the media reported her name as "Kate", which is the diminutive form of "Catherine", and this name persisted in the public sphere despite changes in her name and titles later in life. It has been noted that the British media opt for "Kate" in their headlines as a result of search engine optimisation, but mostly use "Catherine" in the body of their articles.“ TheSpacebook (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Its fine under the "Early life and education" section with the citations to support it. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  I respect the current consensus. My point is only to the international readers who don’t know that “Kate” is short for “Catherine”. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  When you search for "Kate Middleton" here you get redirected to Catherine, Princess of Wales and on a search engine too its the same suggestion pointing out to the Princess lest you search for the freediver of the same name. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  I have just removed text from the lead claiming that she acquired the nickname "Kate" at university. Firstly, Kate is a diminutive, not a nickname. Secondly, it seems highly unlikely that she was never known as Kate prior to then – and we certainly don't have a reliable source saying that she became known as Kate at that point. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nDKGAPppxwU (timestamp 10:55) she says she’ll “answer to most things” ! TheSpacebook (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  We cannot cite YouTube as a reliable source though especially in a high profile article like the one here. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  I’m not suggesting we cite it, I was just using it as an example. That’s strange as it’s literally Catherine herself saying it? On the BBC too? TheSpacebook (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/kate-middleton-childhood-nickname-2017-6 and People Magazine: https://people.com/royal-family-real-names-kate-middleton-prince-harry-meghan-markle-7814164 both say she acquired it at university. And her parents exclusively call her “Catherine”, but they do use her sisters nickname of “Pippa”, which could suggest that her parents are okay to use nicknames; and Catherine wouldn’t have been living with them when the sources say she acquired it at university. “where she met Prince William in 2001 and reportedly acquired the nickname "Kate".” might be a bit wordy, but I think it works too. TheSpacebook (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Someone pinged me. No idea what this is about and by the looks of the heading I doubt that I'd care. For the record I'm not going to read a thread that long because of a ping. DeCausa (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Everyone in the UK has to be "okay to use nicknames", even if it's BoJo the BREXIT Clown. But this isn't a nickname, it's a regular Brit diminutive. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Clearly I've missed a lot as someone has pinged me in this long threat. Can I ask where the footnote at the beginning has gone? Didn't we all come to a consensus 2 days ago and agree to the change. Why is this debate now being stirred up again, I thought we were all relatively happy with the outcome. Could someone please re-add the footnote after the long discussion we had a few days ago. Jasp7676 (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

So silly. I've restored something similar. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, I appreciate it! Lets hope we never have to discuss Kate Middleton's name again :) Jasp7676 (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Simplicity and concision

Hey @MSincccc, I don't really understand your revert. I don't see why that much simplicity is needed, and this oversimplification makes it sound like the photograph was made after everyone knew she had cancer. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu Your edit made was actually unnecessary. It made the language overly complex, I had say. Anyways no bad feelings about it I hope. Looking forward to our future collaborations. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu You start the sentence with "Around 10 March 2024,..." which is a vague beginning indeed and it also goes against WP:Proseline.

Furthermore, the phrase ", which she announced on the 22nd." is all the more not required here as the aim is to convey to the reader the fact that she had already started chemotherapy before the announcement. Your tone actually does not align well with Wikipedia though you are an experienced editor. Any other editor to this page would have done the same. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

No bad feelings indeed, but...

The opening is less vague than the current version in the article that just says March. What proseline actually cautions against is formulaic, repetitive prose that goes "On A, B. On B, C. On D...", not the beginning of paragraphs with dates as a whole. It even uses "By January 1990" as a positive example. (Also, although I agree with it, proseline is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Be careful when citing such.)

Your aim may have been only to convey the reason she may have altered the photographs, but I consider the information that the public did not know at the time important. Currently the article sounds like the media picked on a woman with cancer for no reason.

I'm also not sure what you mean by tonal issues. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Well @Aaron Liu your edit is unjustified. "Around 10 March" is a vague phrase as well as not accurate as it was "on 10 March". Also, the version you suggest makes the information overly complex. I would like to hear from others before your version is accepted because the present version was put in place by experienced editors. @DrKay:@Keivan.f:@DeCausa: @Celia Homeford:@Martinevans123: Regards MSincccc (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

You may want to look at the timeline again. It used to be "In March", and never was "on 10 March", which isn't factually correct anyways since different media outlets removed it on different days. Just adding a half sentence to a single-clause sentence does not make it complicated by much IMO.
(For the pinged: the edit in question is Special:Diff/1216858982. By the way, the bulk of that subsection was added by @Slamforeman.) Aaron Liu (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@MSincccc Oh, and pinging only works if you add a signature in the same edit, i.e. editing your message to include pings won't work. There's documentation about this at Help:Fixing failed pings. @DrKay @Keivan.f @DeCausa @Celia Homeford @Martinevans123 Aaron Liu (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@MSincccc Aaron Liu (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about this but "Around 10 March 2024" is a vague phrase IMO. It could range from 8 March to 12 March. So instead of having something that is not precise, we can have "In March 2024" as we are sure that the incident (in this case the photo being taken down) definitely occurred in March. Conversely we could use "In early March 2024". The section covering the Mother's Day photo needs to be trimmed anyway. It's bloated and full of unnecessary details and info that is mentioned elsewhere in the article. It's full of fluff (like details about her daughter's sleeve in the photo :| ), just like the ridiculous Where is Kate? article. Keivan.f^Talk 06:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

No objections to "In early March 2024". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Me neither. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f and @Martinevans123 Would either of you warrant the inclusion of the phrase-"which she announced on the 22nd" to the sentence in dispute here? Looking forward to knowing from the others. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

That paragraph looks fine as it is, to me. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is fine now but what happens when you add the additional phrase "which she announced on the 22nd" at the end of the paragraph. What about that additional phrase at the end? Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu, @Keivan.fand @Martinevans123 The present version removes the phrase "which she announced on the 22nd," making the sentence more concise while still conveying the same information about Catherine's chemotherapy treatment for cancer. It's already been covered under "Health" section of "Personal Iife". Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, readers of a specific, popular section should not be expected to have read a subsection 8 subsections prior. It does not complicate the sentence much and dispels a possible misreading that everyone knew that she was getting chemotherapy and bashed the photoshopping anyway. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing more to be added to the "Privacy and media" section. The fact that the photograph was released after she had began chemotherapy is clarified here and those further interested in the health related details will go to the "Health" section. "On the 22nd" is not a preferable way to refer to dates in an article like this. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about that. The video, with the announcement, was aired on the key date in this whole sequence, when all the speculation was finally resolved. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

But there are other ways to include it here. Not to say "which she announced on the 22nd"- a phrase which is clearly not the best of the lot. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You can suggest better phrases. And either way a bad but clear phrase is way better than none. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I will once other users whose responses I am presently anticipating have put forth their views. I hope you will let the present version of the article stay intact before we come to a conclusion. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Are the only reasons you oppose this change that you think it is bad phrasing (which I don't see) and it complicates the single-clause sentence by adding another clause? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Since it's been 2 days, and consensus seems to be slightly in favor of the half-sentence, may I add it? Not sure why you seem to hate it that much. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

It's already been added[10]. DrKay (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, nice, it seems I've missed it because of the lack of credit. Is the omission of the comma a BrE thing? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes @Aaron Liu MSincccc (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

"Catherine, Princess of Wales cancer diagnosis" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Catherine, Princess of Wales cancer diagnosis has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 8 § Catherine, Princess of Wales cancer diagnosis until a consensus is reached. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion very good

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Extended content
I am delighted that Where is Kate? has been deleted and merged into a small section here. Everyone who had a part in this considerable benefit to English Wikipedia and the project's reputation can hold their heads high. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC) There wasn't enough content to support a full separate page. It was always silly. 71.7.195.204 (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Where is Kate?" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Where is Kate? has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 14 § Where is Kate? until a consensus is reached. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2024

Change ‘committed suicide’ to ‘took her own life’ as per standard language for reporting on suicide which highlights that suicide is no longer considered a crime in the UK. 2A02:C7C:6B23:3000:98F:56FE:5579:3C9E (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Now changed to "died by suicide", which is consistent with the wording at the target article Suicide of Jacintha Saldanha. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Should we primarily refer to the Princess of Wales as "Kate" or "Catherine" in this article?

It's Catherine and has been discussed multiple times before.
I think we should call her the former (Kate) because WP:COMMONNAME Coddlebean (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Have you seen Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales/Archive 10#Missing information on "Kate" name and Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales/Archive 9#The name 'Kate Middleton' in the first sentence.? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Coats of arms and copyright

A discussion is going on at the Commons concerning the copyright status of several coats of arms that are in use on pages related to British royalty. Please feel free to share your comments and input at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Coat of arms of Queen Camilla.svg. Thanks. Keivan.f^Talk 18:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

2nd public appearance since cancer diagnosis.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Catherine's 2nd public appearance since her cancer diagnosis was at Wimbledon today. Especially because of the continuing press speculation about her condition, I would suggest adding:

• Her next appearance was in July at the final of the 2024 Wimbledon Championships as royal patron.

citing "Kate, the Princess of Wales, hands Carlos Alcaraz his Wimbledon trophy in a rare appearance for her". MSN. 14 July 2024. Retrieved 14 July 2024. and Kindelan, Katie (14 July 2024). "Kate Middleton attends Wimbledon men's final amid cancer treatment". GMA. Retrieved 14 July 2024. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

But it would be trivial to continue adding material and provide a running commentary on her appearances. It will be WP:NOTNEWS. The fact that she attended the 2024 Trooping the Colour was enough. I have an alternative-I would add a reference related to her appearance and a related sentence but not exactly mention that she attended the Championships. Please wait and let me know if you like my version @Ssilvers. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ssilvers I have added a suitable sentence along with a high quality reference to address your suggestions. Her next one or two engagements may also be outlined here but only in the form of a single reference from the event. The sentence She also mentioned in the same letter that she "hope[d] to join a few public engagements over the summer". covers it all. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

No, that is decidedly worse. What she hoped is not encyclopedic. I am not suggesting a "running" commentary. But instead of adding speculations to the article and WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion, please revert that unhelpful addition, and wait to see if anyone else agrees with me. If the consensus is not to add my suggestion, fine. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ssilvers I agree with what you suggest. Given that I am improving the article for its second FAC, I would be pleased to invite any constructive suggestions from other uninvolved editors. The point is that the The Daily Telegraph article mentions the fact that it was her second public engagement since announcing her cancer diagnosis and her first since Trooping the Colour last month. So, the reference would stay.

Could you suggest a sentence that should be suitable according to you? I would hence add it to the article.

Regards. MSincccc (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ssilvers Is the rephrased sentence fine? Please do put forth your suggestions, if any. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no violent objection to it, but it is even longer than what I proposed and contains a vague reference to "speculation". In your quest to tighten the article's prose for your next run at FAC, I think it would be better to say, more directly, "Her next appearance was in July amidst ongoing cancer treatment." If it turns out that she begins making more regular appearances, this could be changed to "She began to make more regular appearances in July amidst ongoing cancer treatment." -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it fine now @Ssilvers? MSincccc (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, except that, per WP:CITEKILL, you don't need 3 refs for the prev. sentence. You should keep the best two. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ssilvers If you have any further suggestions for the article, please feel free to post them at the peer review discussion page. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image alteration scandal in lede

The lede mentions nothing about her image alteration scandal or cancer diagnosis. This seems fit for that section, no? natemup (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Her cander treatment probably should be but the image alteration was trivial and soon blew over. Not worth including in the introduction. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Catherine recently released a video in which she announced the completion of her chemotherapy treatment and how she is looking forward to staying "cancer-free".

Even Sarah, Duchess of York, suffered from cancer recently but has since then undergone treatment which has deemed her cancer-free. Hence her article lead does not state it.

It's a similar case with Catherine. Unless, it's serious and has a major impact on her life (not one year of public engagements), it would not be worthwhile to have it in lead. I would still prefer including it later on if it does become serious. Looking forward to what others have to say on this. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The fact that Catherine is married to Prince William suggests that her medical condition and treatment will have a much more noticeable impact than the comparable circumstances on Sarah? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

True, but she has completed her chemotherapy treatment and is fine now, as per the Palace and her own statement. Anyways, it has been covered under the "Health" section. In future, if anything more serious occurs due to her cancer diagnosis, we would include it in the lead. MSincccc (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Her image alteration was a global scandal, however brief, and led to the public revelation of her cancer diagnosis in the first place. That seems unique and lede-worthy. natemup (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The image alteration led to the public revelation of her cancer diagnosis? I had assumed they were wholly separate events. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Martinevans123 that they were wholly separate events. They would have revealed her diagnosis only when they felt it was appropriate to do so (just like the recent video in which she announced the completion of her chemotherapy treatment). Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a non-sequitur and a bald assumption unsupported by any source. The simple fact is that the palace did not previously announce her cancer diagnosis, and the image scandal is what led to worldwide questions and media inquiry into Kate's well-being (which was obviously being hidden). They announced the cancer literally days after she admitted to manipulating her appearance in the photo. This is fully supported by the sources, which have been kneecapped in the article to make it seem as if there's no connection between these events that occurred causally all within 12 days. natemup (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Events which occur sequentially do not necessarily occur causally. That's a fundamental error of basic logic. My dog barks every morning just before sunrise; that doesn't mean his barking causes the sunrise. A period of 12 days is quite a long time in any case. Which sources would you use to show the causal connection? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The British royal family is known for its Never complain, never explain approach towards the media. Anyways, the palace had made it clear that they would be providing updates on her health as and when they felt it was appropriate to do so (and mentioned in the sources). Also, the fact that the announcement was made in response to the global coverage regarding the image alteration scandal (and William's withdrawal from his godfather's service just days ago) is also not supported by any of the major sources. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Even the most cursory Google search dispels that whale of a mistruth. This Washington Post report is just one example.

"Weeks passed without a public appearance by the princess. Then in early March, the palace released a cheerful photo of Catherine and her three young children, which — as it later admitted — had been edited. As major news organizations retracted the photo’s publication, the incident raised more questions and supercharged the conspiracy theories. Then came Friday’s [cancer] video, in which a wan-looking Catherine sits alone on a bench before a garden of spring blossoms." natemup (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Natemup I have been following each and every report about the royal family in the past five years and have come across dozens of articles like the one you mention here. These articles simply mention the timeline of events and similar ones can be found even on the BBC News, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, and other reputed news websites. My meaning in saying is that no source, whether internal or external, actually related the image alteration scandal with the revelation of her cancer diagnosis. MSincccc (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can read the above quote and still make that statement. As a journalist, I would say the "dozens of articles" you admit to reading are clear in their meaning: that the worldwide, headline-making image scandal led to the public revelation of her cancer. natemup (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

None of them actually state it. It's all part of the timeline:the abdominal surgery in January, William's withdrawal from his godfather's service in late February, the alteration scandal on Mother's Day and then the revelation of her diagnosis in a pre-recorded (and pre-planned) video on March 22.

Also, to quote another user who has contributed a lot to Catherine's article over the years:

If this is concerning the recent comment on the article's talk page I must say that I side with the user who opposed the inclusion of any info about the photoshop fiasco. The whole thing was a storm in a tea cup.

Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

To conclude that the image alteration (which is something social media influencers and even some politicians do every day!) led to the revelation about her cancer diagnosis, we would have needed the subject herself to state that what prompted her to do the video was the reaction to the image she posted on social media, and that is something she never explicitly stated. To draw a conclusion by looking at the sequence of events and try to add meaning to it is the classic example of WP:SYNTHESIS. Keivan.f^Talk 03:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

My understanding of Wikipedia is that in order to include claims of causation, we would merely need reliable sources, not merely the subject herself, state such claims (which many have done). The reliable sources themselves are adding the meaning. You are suggesting the claims shouldn't be on wiki unless the subject agrees with the sources. natemup (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

There shouldn't be an agreement between the subject and the sources but there should be consensus among sources. Not all of the online sources drew the conclusion that she posted the video because of the reactions she received to the photo alterations; which is no wonder cause they're not in her head and cannot know the the reasoning in this case unless she states it. Keivan.f^Talk 12:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Consensus ≠ "all". Wikipedia policy makes this clear. And journalists need not be in someone's head to assess a situation as a whole, given obvious pressures and the basics of public relations. natemup (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

They gotta sell newspapers, after all, haven't they. Even they just make it all up, knowing there'll be no official denial? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

True @Martinevans123. But I fail to find an article which states that the image alteration scandal led to the revelation of her cancer diagnosis. All we have is the timeline which almost all major newspapers and magazines have published. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Quite agree. Don't think I've seen one either. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)