Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales (disambiguation)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, Prince of Wales (disambiguation) → Charles, Prince of Wales – Charles III has been king for well over a year now, I don't think it's very likely anyone looking for his article is unaware of this. He will be known to history as Charles III. Gazingo (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose,
  Charles, Prince of Wales is a justified primary redirect. 162 etc. (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support deletion of this re-direct. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a redirect deletion discussion though, and "Charles, Prince of Wales" is a valid name given that there were three princes of Wales named Charles. People are arguing 'where' it should be redirected. Keivan.f^Talk 15:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. StAnselm (talk) 05:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the current king is still the clear primary topic for
  Charles, Prince of Wales, a title by which he was known for 64 years. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment, unsurprisingly given the previous section, note that there's a related move-discussion simultaneously occurring at Talk:Prince Charles (disambiguation)#Requested move 13 May 2024, on the off-chance someone's aware of this, but not the other. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The current king is still the clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Arguably this is a
  WP:ASTONISHment and navigation-failure at ending up where they did. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  This was the title of his article for many years, and as a result there are still over 2800 links to this redirect [1]. Sure, that in itself is not a reason to oppose, in that all these links could be changed to point at the current article, though it is a datapoint to be taken into account in determining whether the redirect is primary. However, changing these links would be a major undertaking, especially since many (but not all) would need to be piped to avoid anachronistic wording. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SOFIXIT. I'd not be opposed (to opposing, as it were) to kicking for touch for a while longer while they're cleaned up, but this seems like an objectively good thing to do anyway on its own account. And basically is just a bot task if there's no motivation to look at whether the respective link-texts are anachronistic as they stand. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose: The provided "rationale" seems completely off-topic. The question is what does "Charles, Prince of Wales" refer to? What topic are people looking for if they look for that? Note that people sometimes read things that were published a few years ago, or things that describe a situation as it existed some years ago. As far as I can tell, "Charles, Prince of Wales" still primarily refers to the same person that it referred to a few years ago. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think the current king is the primary topic for both this redirect and
  Prince Charles (see Talk:Prince Charles (disambiguation)#Requested move 13 May 2024 for recent community input on the latter). Keivan.f^Talk 15:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Oppose At least three former kings, not including the current monarch, held the title. Hence, my opinion. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, Charles Edward Stuart was a pretender. Nevertheless, I gather that you're of the opinion that this page should remain as a redirect to Charles III rather than becoming a disambiguation page. Keivan.f^Talk 16:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f Yes. MSincccc (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I am going to have to agree with 109.255.211.6 on this one. Enough time has passed for users to be looking up the monarch as Charles III. I highly doubt users would look him up as "Charles, Prince of Wales" (although I'd argue that "Prince Charles" should still redirect here as that would be a more common search term than "Charles, Prince of Wales"). cookie monster 755 22:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fine, but irrelevant. The question here is not whether most people will look for "Charles, Prince of Wales" or "Charles III" or "Prince Charles" or "Charles" or "Charlie" when they look for information about Charles Philip Arthur George. The question is what topic the subset of people who look for "Charles, Prince of Wales" are looking for, regardless of how small that subset is. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The argument being used here to discount the current king, that he's not known as a prince, applies just as much to the other entries on the disambiguation page, who were also princes that became kings. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There's no rationale to move this: the current situation reflects the current primasry topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]