Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Catherine, Princess of Wales article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 30 days

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.

Catherine, Princess of Wales is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Catherine, Princess 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 19, 2005	Articles for deletion	Kept
October 26, 2005	Articles for deletion	Kept
April 27, 2017	Good article nominee	Not listed
August 4, 2018	Guild of Copy Editors	Copyedited
December 21, 2023	Good article nominee	Listed
June 8, 2024	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 9, 2024. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Catherine, Princess of Wales (pictured), is a keen amateur photographer and the patron of the Royal Photographic Society, and has taken many official photographs of her children?
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 17, 2010.
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

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 sourced must 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.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal 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 articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Top-importance).

British Royalty High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Berkshire Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berkshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Berkshire 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.BerkshireWikipedia:WikiProject BerkshireTemplate:WikiProject BerkshireBerkshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom High‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

England High‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Wales High‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Catherine, Princess of Wales is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Other talk page banners

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Section sizes

Section size for Catherine, Princess of Wales (34 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	6,866	6,866
Early life and education	17,489	17,489
Personal life	18	33,991
Relationship with Prince William	12,959	12,959
Marriage and children	14,291	14,291
Health	6,723	6,723
Public life	16	31,803
Within the United Kingdom	14,425	14,425
Outside the United Kingdom	17,362	17,362
Charity work	46	76,096
Patronages	15,453	15,453
Sport	5,457	5,457
Military and armed forces	3,610	3,610
Health and medical initiatives	11,848	11,848
Photography	5,949	5,949
Community causes	4,717	4,717
Mental health advocacy	17,291	17,291
Early years and childhood development	11,725	11,725
Public image	499	14,465
Fashion	5,862	5,862
Public opinion and influence	8,104	8,104
Privacy and the media	26,575	26,575
Titles, styles, honours, and arms	110	7,030
Titles and styles	4,950	4,950
Honours	1,970	1,970
Ancestry	6,228	6,228
Bibliography	17	4,269
Book contributions	1,015	1,015
Authored articles and letters	3,237	3,237
Notes	24	24
References	28	2,726
Sources	2,698	2,698
Further reading	436	436
External links	2,741	2,741
Total	230,739	230,739

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2011.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 6 times. The weeks in which this happened:

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Mariella Moon (20 March 2024). "Getty flags another British royal family photo for being digitally altered". Engadget. Retrieved 21 March 2024. The princess' absence from public events since Christmas last year has, as you might have expected, spawned all kinds of conspiracy theories. It even gave rise to a whole Wikipedia article entitled "Where is Kate?" because people around the world are apparently that invested in the British monarchy and can't quite believe that she'd undergone abdominal surgery.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Catherine, Princess of Wales was copied or moved into WP:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) with this edit on 5 April 2024. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Pinned Thread: Consensus on usage of "Catherine" vs. "Kate", "Kate Middleton"[edit]

Closed as an explanatory thread. Safiel (talk)

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.

The Wikipedia Community has reached a consensus on "Catherine" vs "Kate" in favor of Catherine. Please do not post threads on this subject without at least reading the following threads:

There are numerous additional threads on this subject in the archives as well. Safiel (talk)

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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.

2nd public appearance since cancer diagnosis.[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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.