Talk:William, Prince of Wales

Good articleWilliam, Prince of Wales has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You KnowIn the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 14, 2023Good article nomineeListed
May 2, 2024Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 31, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Prince William reportedly used the name "Steve" while studying at the University of St Andrews to avoid attracting attention from the media?
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 17, 2010.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 21, 2024, and June 21, 2025.
Current status: Good article

Did you know nomination

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

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that Prince William was the first future heir to the British throne to be born in a hospital?

ALT 1:... that Prince William reportedly used the name "Steve" while studying at the University of St Andrews to avoid attracting attention from the media?

    • Reviewed:
    • Comment: As per Reviewer's suggestion and also because it meets the criteria

Improved to Good Article status by MSincccc (talk). Self-nominated at 16:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/William, Prince of Wales; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Not a review, just a comment, but I do have two suggestions: 1. I think the first hook could go without the mention of the hospital's name since the main point is that he was the first British heir to be born in a hospital and adding extra detail somewhat detracts from the point, and 2. while I think the original hook is pretty good, since this is Prince William we're talking about here, are there any other possible alternative hook suggestions you could give? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since this hasn't been reviewed yet, I'll leave this to another reviewer, but I do think ALT1 is the more surprising hook here and thus probably the better option. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article is evidently long enough and well written/sourced. It has recently been promoted to GA status. I'll trust that PQP isn't required yet for the nominator. Both hooks are interesting, though I have problems with both of them: the first (1st born in hospital) does not seem to be cited or mentioned in the article and surely, if this hook was to progress, it should say "heir to the British throne" or similar? The second hook (called himself "Steve") has a citation, but only to the homepage of the Herald Scotland, so without a full url, or page number, or access date, surely this citation isn't complete? I'd suggest the word "reportedly" is added to the hook if this one goes forward. Finally, the article has some issues which are being addressed on the Talk page, with reverts and heavy editing of the lede introduction. We might need to wait for this to be resolved before progressing the nomination. Sionk (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well Sionk the discussion regarding lead has been peacefully resolved and thus you can proceed with the DYK nomination process if possible. (talk)
I've made the change to ALT0. For what it's worth, the hospital thing has been reported in multiple sources before (I remember reading about it before), such as Time and The Independent, so a source should easily be found to report on that. Looking online there are also multiple other reliable sources that mention the Steve thing so this is probably also another case where a source could just be added. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a better reference for "Steve" (FWIW many of the reliable sources mentioning this trivia item give their source as the Daily Mirror which is of indeterminate reliability, so I've selected a magazine that ought to be reliable, doesn't cite the Mirror, and hasn't been discussed at RS/R). Rosbif73 (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for improving the source for ALT 1. Before it's approved, I'm wondering whether it should say "Prince William, heir to the British throne, ... considering there are numerous Prince Williams. Sionk (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sionk Are we going to proceed with the nomination? The status shows that the hook has been reviewed. What's next? Will this ever appear on the Main Page of English Wikipedia. Just seeking an update from you. Regards MSincccc (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK good to go with ALT1 hook. Citation query has been resolved. There's no great reason to further amend the hook because Prince William is blue linked. Sionk (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Inclusion of criticism of William by Republic?

Hello,

I am personally surprised that the Prince of Wales's article has made it to WP:GA status without a single reference of the criticism he has received from Republic, his country's primary anti-monarchist advocacy group. (When I searched for "Republic" in the article version at the time of this post, I only found one mention, and even then, not in the text per se.)

I understand that there is a legitimate discussion on Republic itself as a source in general and WP:BIASED. However, per WP:NPOV and #4 of WP:GACR6, I do believe that discussion on the suitability of including the following specific citations from Republic into the article for posterior reference is warranted. Among others, these links:

  1. Ditch the Duchies Appeal - A campaign by Republic to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall William holds
  2. Report by Republic regarding Ditch the Duchies Appeal
  3. 6 November 2025 Republic press release regarding Ditch the Duchies Appeal
  4. 18 August 2025 Republic press release criticizing the relocation of the Prince and Princess of Wales to Forest Lodge, Windsor
  5. 3 October 2025 Republic press release criticizing the Prince of Wales's participation in The Reluctant Traveler
  6. 26 June 2023 Republic press release criticizing the Prince of Wales's Homewards initiative

Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Sincerely,

AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are all self-references. Material in the article should have been covered in multiple mainstream secondary sources. I for one have never heard of the campaign, so I don't think it's gained much public attention. DrKay (talk) 08:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for raising this, even though I concur with DrKay here. The difficulty is that all the links you’ve provided are Republic’s own statements, so they fall under self-published, primary material. MSincccc (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose their inclusion. I have never even heard of this campaign. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that an organization called the Republic would naturally criticize the heir of a monarchy; but we cannot rely on primary sources as that gives undue importance to their stance. Incidentally, their sister organizations mount similar criticisms against heirs to the thrones of other countries, but then again we just don't go by primary sources otherwise we should give space to statements by the Australian Monarchist League, etc. as well. Keivan.fTalk 15:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms Update

It is been reported in a few sources (not particularly highbrow ones, admittedly) that the programme for the Royal Variety Performance 2025 used an illustration of the conjugal arms of William & Catherine as Prince & Princess of Wales. [1] [2] None of the magazines spot it, but Wikipedians should instantly recognise the Sodacan style. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is not the first time that an official entity has used publicly available coats of arms from Wikimedia Commons on their documents or shows. The Royal Household used Eugenie's coat of arms on her wedding's order of service and the BBC used the late Queen and Duke of Edinburgh's coats of arms when announcing their deaths live on air. If anything, it further shows that the arms available on the Commons are in line with the descriptions available in sources and can be used in articles. Keivan.fTalk 16:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrilineal descent

"Patrilineally, William is a member of the House of Windsor . . ": This should be "On his father's side," analogous to the beginning of the next para, where the mother's sides is described. The patriilne goes only to the House of Oldenburg. The royal family now tracks lineage bilineally, with the lineage passing through the previous monarch considered primary from early 20th century on. ~2025-31339-17 (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William,_Prince_of_Wales