This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Victoria Starmer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2024. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red
This article was nominated for deletion on 29 May 2024. The result of the discussion was Draftify.
@SferaEbbasta87, last week's Guardian said that the (very few) articles saying she's 60 are off by a decade. See here for the Guardian article and also the first reference where it says that she elected Unveristy Student union president in 1995 at the age of 21. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, perhaps we shouldn't use public records as sources, but can't we make use of them informally to determine which of the published dates are plausible? If Companies House gives a date of birth in 1973, but some sources are giving her age as 60, I'd be inclined to disregard those sources. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Starmer being aged 60 has been debunked in more recent articles, including the Guardian one in my initial reply so we can safely rule that out. I can't be 100% certain even then whether 1973 is correct or not. My stance is that the exact date of birth should replace the approximate one.
@MSincccc, there's a book on Keir Starmer by Tom Baldwin but not on Victoria though I'm sure she is mentioned in it.
And yes, the Guardian did debunk the polticics.co.uk age which, as you will have noticed, didn't get her title right either. So definitely not reliable. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you're curious, you'll find a full date of birth in the filing history of UNIONFINCH Ltd. for August 1995. I presume there's no reason a jounalist or biographer couldn't have found the same information, but as "Omnis Scientia" rightly says, we should wait until they do before adding it to the article. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Jean-de-Nivelle, likely and understandably because books aimed at writing about her husband will write about her in relation to him rather than focus on her. They will give the basic biography of her but not all of it. She is also quite private.
Also journalists are seldom interested in wives of politicians, unfortunately. They don't make the news unless they do something big or outrageous. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago31 comments5 people in discussion
This article is written in British English, and I would suggest that the majority of sources written in British English use "King Charles" when introducing him in their articles with respect to Keir Starmer, and not just "Charles III", or even "King Charles III" (I could list 100s of examples, but that proves nothing). This may be different in US sources of course. The context disambiguates it - Starmer wasn't PM during the reigns of either of the other two King Charleses.
@MSincccc, we shouldn't limit our vocabulary to just the terms used in Wikipedia article titles, we should write prose in natural English. "Charles III" is unnatural and unclear - readers should not need to click the link to understand that this means King Charles. Please revert your change and wait to see if you get a consensus for your view on this. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
It should be Charles III or King Charles III but not simply King Charles. The numerical should be there as it is consistantly with other articles mentioning monarchs. Its best to even avoid even the slight chance of confusion because Charles III is far from the only King Charles in history even if he is the only one at the moment (as far as I'm aware; does the King of Sweden - Carl - count?).
Do you think the context (Starmer becoming UK PM) and the link to the 'Charles III' article would be sufficient for clarification, without the use of the unnatural "III" in the prose? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
It should be. The previous monarch of the same name was known as Charles II. Hence, just mentioning Charles III here won't be an issue. The 'King' can be simply omitted as has been done in the articles of multiple British premiers and their spouses. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wellington was PM only under George IV. But there are five other Georges so we mention the "IV" even though, in context, we know it can't be the rest of them due to two being dead before George IV was born and two coming long after him and his father, George III, being incapacitated for ten years during which Wellington was off to war anyways and not even close to entering politics.
Either “King Charles” or “the King” with a Wikilink to “Charles III” are equally acceptable. The identity of the King is obvious from the context - if there is any doubt in the reader’s mind, the Wikilink will clear that doubt. For the record, the opening words of the court circular in today’s Times are “The King received …”. 2A00:23C8:1DAE:2401:EDA5:8A0:BE94:82BA (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's court circular in today's edition Times newspaper so its pretty obvious who "the King" is to anyone who is reading the Times newspaper. This is a wikipedia article and the goal is to avoid confusion and make it clear for someone who isn't as well-versed in this stuff as you or others in this chat may be. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Worth noting, @DeFacto, that this is a small page so its unlikely that your enquiry would get an answer unless you ping someone into the convo and start a debate. No answer does not automatically mean people won't have objections. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
We should use Charles III or King Charles III. I'd like to point out that this is an encyclopedia that is read not only by British people but by people from all around the world. The term King Charles is vague. There have been dozens of kings named Charles throughout history. So from a historical perspective and for better accuracy it's better to have the regnal numbers attached to his name at least in the very first instance when his name is mentioned. We can then switch to "the King", "Charles III", "Charles" or even "King Charles" subsequently. Keivan.fTalk14:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
3) I have twice removed the "King" leading to DeFacto starting this discussion.
Hence the question that lies ahead of us is whether "Charles III" or "King Charles III" is used. The former was used in the article as it has been done for multiple other premiers-Cameron, Truss, Johnson,etc.
I would be in favor of King Charles III since it reads in a flow and also establishes his title and leaves no ambiguity -- only in the first instance, mind you. Then, as Keivan.f suggests, we can move to "the King" or simply "Charles". Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Again, I personally have no strong preference as long as it is clarified in the first instance that the king in question is "Charles III". I should also point out that we don't have a rule which says the prefixes "King" or "Queen" cannot be attached to a monarch's name. We have several articles that refer to his mother as "Queen Elizabeth II" rather than "Elizabeth II". Both convey the same meaning. So as Omnis Scientia said, we can go with "King Charles III" in the first instance and then switch to something shorter. Keivan.fTalk15:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
As of now, Charles has been mentioned only once in the entire article. By the way, Omnis Scientia and Keivan.f what is wrong with just mentioning "Charles III" as done prior to DeFacto's revision? Looking forward to your responses. MSincccc (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm fine with that too. As long as the numerical is there. I don't have particularly strong preference other than that the numerical be there in the first - in this case, so far, only - instance. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
As I said above, it could mean any of these without clicking the link to see who it actually is. Don't you think it's better to include 'King' to narrow the field a bit, and to follow the British English convention more closely? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
How exactly is "King Charles" less ambiguous than "King Charles III"? It's simple math that the regnal numbers alone eliminate dozens of other monarchs named Charles, including various people named Charles I and Charles II. The current king is not the only English/British monarch to have been named Charles. By all means, keep it as King Charles III. After all he is the king and can be called as such. Keivan.fTalk21:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I said King Charles is no more vague than Charles III, and although I prefer the former of those two, I'd settle for "King Charles III" as second choice. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@MSincccc, so what do you think was wrong with my edit which embraced his full title into the link text that it needed reverting, and what on the talk page were you referring to? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I thought the consensus was to include "King" in his title, so why would would we exclude it from link text - it looks ridiculous outside of it? And you didn't tell me what on the talk page you were referring to in your edit comment. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would be in favor of King Charles III since it reads in a flow and also establishes his title and leaves no ambiguity -- only in the first instance, mind you. Then, as Keivan.f suggests, we can move to "the King" or simply "Charles". Omnis Scientia
Again, I personally have no strong preference as long as it is clarified in the first instance that the king in question is "Charles III". I should also point out that we don't have a rule which says the prefixes "King" or "Queen" cannot be attached to a monarch's name. We have several articles that refer to his mother as "Queen Elizabeth II" rather than "Elizabeth II". Both convey the same meaning. So as Omnis Scientia said, we can go with "King Charles III" in the first instance and then switch to something shorter. Keivan.f
All I did in my edit was move the link brackets back one word to include his full title - changing "King [[Charles III]]" to "[[King Charles III]]". I didn't change the visible text at all, just the span of the blue of link, so I'm not sure what your objection to my change is or what relevance those extracts have. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Omnis Scientia I am aware of the previous conversation. It was DeFacto's recent revision which included "King" within the second bracket (and which stays in the article) that prompted me to ask for opinion once again. MSincccc (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd say, that if the title is used in a grammatically correct way, it should be included in the link. This would include for presidents, popes, lords, emperors, etc. as well as for kings. Why would we want to artificially separate their title from their name? Otherwise, why do the redirects exist, if not for including the title in the link without having to pipe it in? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Because the title IS seperate from their name! And they are redirected because its one of the common names and people do, on occassion, link them as such. Doesn't mean you have to link it as such. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The combination of the title and name is commonly used as a single proper noun to address the person, so it is logical to link the whole proper noun, not just one component of it. Look up where the redirects are used and you will see that it is common and normal practice. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
When did I say that? I disagree with the full linking, with the title as part of the link. You say its common but I don't recall ever seeing it as such and I'm often on articles like it.
@Omnis Scientia, you have misread MOS:SIR - all it says is don't add it when it wasn't originally there. but it also says don't remove it if it's originally there. Article titles do not dictate grammar, they generally reflect the consensus of what the common names is, so are not a name usage guide. Your POV holds no water though. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@DeFacto, I haven't misread it, I just know that everytime its linked as such, the "Sir" is either removed OR is not linked and MOS:SIR is cited for it. I know its usually not written at all.
Seriously though, I only gave my opinion as I was asked to. I don't think the titles should be part of the link because a title not part of that person's name. Plain and simple. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Omnis Scientia, you said "You actually can't write the last one [Sir Winston Churchill] as such", citing MOS:SIR, yet MOS:SIR does not support that, and that form of his name appears in hundreds of articles. Also, MOS:SIR does not even mention links, let alone prohibit includung "sir" in the link text.
Also, your argument for not including "King" in the link is illogical and unsubstantiated, as I've shown. You seem to be confusing article titles with permissible or preferred name forms. See WP:COMMONNAME - it only applies to article title. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I never said "I don't like it" (I do think it looks a bit weird though), I just think that the title is seperate from the name and it shouldn't be linked as such.
On the other hand, why am I being asked to prove this? I only brought up MOS:SIR because "Sir" or "Dame" because it would never be written Sir Winston Churchill. And incidently, I don't see any guideline that says you HAVE to link it with the title every time its mentioned. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Then those are the exception and even then likely written as such because nobody noticed. I have seen many others remove the mention of "Sir" if it has been mentioned.
@MSincccc, as I noted and have given an explanation for, I think that "King" shouldn't be linked. I personally try my best not to use redirect names in any case. I don't know about your opinion there but that's my view of it. Regards, Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@MSincccc, see MOS:RETAIN. It's because there is nothing wrong with using King Charles III, it's used abundantly in the sources (and is possibly used second only to just "King Charles" in British English sources), and there is nothing wrong with using it in Wikipedia. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@MSincccc, I'm fine with that too as I noted in the previous convo; I don't have a preference as to whether or not "King" is mentioned as long as "Charles III" is so that there is no ambiguity as to which "King Charles" it is.
And only in the first mention. Afterwards, it should be Charles only. I don't agree with the title being linked, not least because it just looks odd (though that's just my opinion on aesthetics lol) but mainly because its not part of their name. Its just a title and a way of being addressed.
It doesn't NEED to be linked at all. I'm guess its their preference and that's why they are insisting and I can understand that. But, honestly, it really doesn't. That's just my opinion.
I think it should be left as it was before and other users should weigh in so there can be a consensus. ATM, its my view vs. theirs and we're just going around in circles. Best regards, Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@MSincccc, @DeFacto, @Keivan.f, @ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter. This is ridiculous, frankly, that such a small thing is getting edit-warred over but, since defacto said so, I've reopened this discussion. I hope they can, until a consensus is formed, let the original link be since I don't see any precedent for their preference anywhere. Thanks. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Omnis Scientia, why, after it had be stable for so long, did you decide to start dispute again? And having done so, why do you think your version should be in place during the discussion rather than the status quo per WP:QUO? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The previous version was the status quo too and yet you changed that as well, and we never had a consensus on your version. I feel I'm in the right and I don't know what's such a big deal about this, honestly. If anything, the original version the more common version so... Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I do hope you understand that this isn't out of any pettiness or anything. There was a disagreement over this and its not set in stone. Nobody followed up on the initial ping because there isn't a lot of activity on this article as is - not uncommon - and sometimes discussions need a bit of a push. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
So you objected to the original one - which is more common - and I object to this on the grounds that its not consensus because there are many pages where its not linked as such. I also disagree with it being linked in this way too. I don't see this as consensus or even final, sorry. Perhaps we need a new policy on this and I would welcome that. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Right, I've opened a convo about this on the appropriate policy page which deals with styles and linking and whatnot. I think its best to clarify this instead of it flaring up every few months. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
