Jump to content

Talk:Coronation of Charles III and Camilla

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WeatherWriter (talk | contribs) at 22:01, 25 January 2024 (→Ongoing Image Discussion for the 2023 collage: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 SL93 (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Charles and Camilla in 2019
Charles and Camilla in 2019

Created by Surtsicna (talk). Self-nominated at 04:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hi, I am able to review this DYK nomination. This is my first QPQ, so I apologize in advance for any mishaps. I will say that I believe the ALT1 hook to be the most captivating. Do you have a preference? Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am terribly indecisive and will gladly go with what you choose. Have fun with the review! Surtsicna (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I will likely review ALT1 or ALT3. As I am finishing up a GA review at the moment, I may not be able to complete this DYK nomination until Saturday. Thank you for your understanding, and sorry for any inconvenience. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I expected ALT3 to be considered the most bland! There is no inconvenience. Other editors are, as always, welcome to give their opinions/suggestions about the hooks and the article too. Surtsicna (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but ALT1 is expected, it takes a long time to plan, no one would be able to pull it off over night. ALT3 isn't exceptional, I doubt there are many sensible world leaders today who wouldn't make the same claim, and ALT2 doesn't give the same 'fun fact' energy that DYK's typically do. The overlooming threat of the abolishment of the monarchy isn't appropiate for trivia.

EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. The proposed hooks are all interesting in their own right, some more than others; I would not go so far as to disqualify all of them. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input, EmilySarah99! If I understood you correctly, you find the original hook (about scheduling) "expected", not ALT1. That leaves ALT1, the one about Camilla's role, as the best hook in your opinion, right? Surtsicna (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Surtsicna it appears I did get the numbers mixed around. I would say the one about Camilla being crowned is the most intersting, I'm just not entirely sure the announcement in 2005 was 'official'. From my understanding, it was only the Princess of Wales title she refused, not the Queen. And Unlimitedlead you were right, I shouldn't have been so negative. EmilySarah99 (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're good! I apologize for any miscommunication on my part as well. As for your first concern, it was actually announced a while back by Clarence House that Camilla would by styled as 'Princess consort.' Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your evaluation is appreciated and I find your arguments rather convincing. I wonder how Unlimitedlead feels about ALT2. Other opinions very much welcome too. Surtsicna (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Out of all the potential hooks, I actually find ALT2 to be my least personal favorite. It just feels like an extra negative thing to be thinking about, especially in light of the Queen’s death, COVID, monkeypox, etc. If everyone else likes it though, I have no problem going with that one. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think many will view Camilla's coronation as being as negative as the COVID pandemic :D Surtsicna (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I am horribly indecisive, so I will let the two of you decide which hook gets promoted. However, ALT1 and ALT3 are my personal favorites, if you want to keep that in mind. Thank you for your collaboration; I'll see you around! Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Independent voice: would suggest something like "... that the upcoming coronation of Charles III and Camilla has been planned under the codename "Operation Orb"?" or "... that the Stone of Scone will be transported to London for the coronation of Charles III and Camilla?" ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: All the hooks fit the criteria, but I especially like ALT3. Despite some objections to the hook's "interestingness," I find that it is more interesting than other hooks we've had in the past, and it just has a feel-good energy to it. I'm sure many readers of Wikipedia will be pleased to find out that Charles III plans to be more inclusive and respectful, especially in light of recent events. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Unlimitedlead and Surtsicna: I'm not sure I like either hook very much, if I'm being honest. ALT1 is cited to a press release, which strikes me as an immediate red flag – breathless media coverage of the royals means that something that doesn't have independent sourcing doesn't need to be piled in. ALT3, in addition to being a little dull, comes with the risk of appearing to whitewash perception of the royals. Not something we should have to care about in an ideal world, but the reputation of the monarchy is somewhat of an open question among editors and RSes. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean in reference to ALT1. It is cited to an article by The Guardian and can be cited to a dozen more. Surtsicna (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, gotcha – I've recited accordingly. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why I didn't restore the tick – I'm sure that'll come back to me someday. My apologies :) ALT1 is good to go. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

I've added the POV tag, due the generally adulatory nature of the article. In particular, there is a lack of due weight provided to objections to the coronation, as well as objections to the monarchy sparked by the coronation, and no mention of such objections in the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also protesters have been unduly arrested, including key figures; Head of UK’s leading anti-monarchy group arrested at coronation protest, What is anti-monarchy group Republic and what other royal events has it protested at?, Coronation: Moment protester arrested near Trafalgar Square, More than 20 anti-monarchy protesters arrested ahead of coronation Abcmaxx (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look particularly lopsided to me. There is a whole section dedicated to public opinion including protests. I am fine with addin[g a sentence to the lead about the presence of protestors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue is that objections are limited to that section. For example, the section "Public Celebrations" should be renamed to allow the inclusion of public objections, rather than having sections like Coronation of Charles III and Camilla#Australia having the only hint of objections to the coronation and monarchy being the line The AML opted to not to organize street parties over concerns that they may be disrupted by republican protesters. There also doesn't appear to be a section where topics such as Anthony Albanese's decision to pledge allegiance to the King, and objections to that decision, can be included, as that doesn't appear to fall within "Public Celebrations". BilledMammal (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the article is adulatory, but bias may well have crept in from the relative weight given to celebrations compared to protests and other dissent.
I don't think that the 'Preparation' and 'Coronation' sections need altering, as they're essentially statements of fact (i.e. 'The King had a crown put on his head), but the rest could need rebalancing. I'll start by adding something to the lead. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since this has devolved into a lot of talking and arguing over whether the POV tag is even needed, I have decided to be WP:BOLD and see what sticks. The changes I have made are:
  • Altering the lead to include half a paragraph on the mixed public response in the UK and Commonwealth realms, and the protests in the UK
  • Altered the sections so that they now focus on the UK, the Commonwealth realms, and other Commonwealth members
  • Restructured these new sections so that they now include both criticisms and celebrations.
The United Kingdom section is the most comprehensive, and now includes:
  • Subsections on royal, ecclesiastical, and government/corporate events
  • A subsection on public opinion
  • A subsection on protests within the UK
This should serve as a rough template for the sections on other states, which I'm not in as good a position to fill out. I have, however, added a section on republican responses in Australia and a section on South Africa which summarises objections to the Cullinan diamonds being used.
The important thing to remember is that there is no need to include either positive or negative events and responses, only significant ones. If South Africa's only response to the coronation was negative then that's what we should report, and if the Isle of Man's was wholly positive we should include that as well. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the article as currently written actually gives undue weight to the protests while (from what I can tell) not mentioning those who camped for days to view the processions. The Reactions section should include both positive and negative reactions, but currently only includes negative. 100.6.61.26 (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should include material on the coronation bringing to the forefront objections to the monarchy with formal independence advancing in a number of current Commonwealth states (source), the objection of having stolen jewels adorning the regalia (source) for example. This article, like most coverage of the British royal family, is a complete whitewash, scrubbed of all but the mildest objections. nableezy - 13:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you know how WP:BRD works. Include information in the article you believe improves it. I for one won't object to your specific sourced example regarding the jewels. The objections to the UK monarchy itself that you cite may or may not be appropriate in an article regarding the coronation. Jusdafax (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue is the structure of the article. It is WP:DUE to include issues raised around the use of the Cullinan diamonds, among others ([1] [2] [3]), but there is no clear place to include these objections - they don't belong in "reactions", and it doesn't seem to belong anywhere else. In general, the article is structured in such a way that supports positive coverage but excludes negative coverage. Maybe Coronation of Charles III and Camilla#Vestments and crowns? BilledMammal (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am aware, I have little interest in writing about topics of no importance though. I am remarking on the idea that this article however is "neutral". nableezy - 13:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be wholly factual and written in a fair and balanced way. I think the POV template is unjustified. 86.184.129.47 (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, bringing the republican side into monarchy related pages, where the monarchy still exists? would be a messy situation. AFAIK, the monarchy is in no danger of being abolished in the United Kingdom, Canada 'or' anytime soon in Australia & New Zealand. I'm not certain about the other 11 realms, however. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Formal independence advancing in a number of current Commonwealth states"? Every country in the Commonwealth is independent. There's so such thing as "informal independence", meaning there's no such thing as "formal independence". No article on Wikipedia should contain disinformation. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such events naturally attract malcontents and troublemakers but it doesn't appear that they were at all significant on the day and so they should get correspondingly little weight. For example, compare with the weather which was quite a big deal – concerns about rain and lack of sunshine which may have a big effect on crowds and the numerous outdoors events. The article hardly covers the weather currently -- just a brief mention in a sentence about the flypast -- without providing any detail at all. So, we should reduce the attention given to rentamob and increase that given to material aspects. The neutrality tag should be removed forthwith as that's obviously disruptive for an article of this size and prominence. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely agree. This POV tagging is ridiculous. The article is wholly balanced and reflects factual events. 86.184.129.47 (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, you need to stop removing the tag. The issues raised here have not been resolved and there is not a consensus to remove it. BilledMammal (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ... "the section "Public Celebrations" should be renamed to allow the inclusion of public objections"... is that a joke? If it's not, why not just try changing it and see if anyone supports you? There was no consensus for slapping on the POV tag in the first place. You should have suggested it here first. 86.184.129.47 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not a joke. The article is structured in such a way that encourages bias, and one of those is an entire section on public celebrations. As for removing the tag, see the description; consensus is needed to remove it, not add it. I've restored it, and opened an RfC to see if such consensus exists; I consider an RfC excessive over a tag, but it is not unprecedented and as you are willing to edit war over it necessary. BilledMammal (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole section on protests. What are you complaining about? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, calling those who were arrested for planning a peaceful protest against having an unelected head of state "malcontents and troublemakers" disqualifies one from making a serious comment on bias. BobBadg (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the NPoV tag should be removed, tbh. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any discussion on the merits, or otherwise, of the monarchy itself belong on Monarchy of the United Kingdom. This page is about an event, and reflects that adequately. Moons of Io (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on neutrality tag

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was reached to remove the tag, and the tag was already removed without pushback in the actual article.

Should the NPOV tag be removed from the article? 15:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose. The article has numerous issues; it excludes WP:DUE content, such as objections over the use of Cullinan diamonds among other jewels ([4] [5] [6]), and it doesn't provide due prominence to other objections over the coronation, such as protests and calls for the abolition of the monarchy, particularly calls for abolition of the monarchy outside the United Kingdom.
In part, this is due to the structure of the article, which encourages only positive coverage. For example, there is an entire section on Public celebration, which precludes mention of public objections and results in sections such as that of Australia only obliquely mentioning such objections in lines like The AML opted to not to organize street parties over concerns that they may be disrupted by republican protesters.
Resolving these issues isn't simple, and the tag should remain until they have been resolved. BilledMammal (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removing tag, especially since the arrests. This has made the civil liberties aspect a huge issue, inadequately reflected in the article. BobBadg (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I am not sure we can cover everything, but we do cover protests. Nor should this really be about anything other than the coronation, other issues have their place in other articles. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: the article is about the coronation, not the abolition of the monarchy. Protests are mentioned in some detail in the "Reactions" section. Alansplodge (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is about the coronation, and as a consequence of the coronation and as part of the coronation there were calls for the abolition of the monarchy. They are relevant and given the coverage they have received should be included. That also isn't the only NPOV issue with the article. BilledMammal (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per my edit summary. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Best not to put pro-republican PoVs in monarchy-related pages of monarchies still in existence & not good to put pro-monarchist PoVs in republic-related pages of republics still in existence. Why? Because monarchs don't seek election or re-election & republics rarely become monarchies or change back to monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If inclusion of pro-republican PoV's is WP:DUE, or the inclusion of pro-monarchist PoV's is DUE, then it certainly should be included; to not do so would be a clear WP:NPOV violation, and the argument Because monarchs don't seek election or re-election & republics rarely become monarchies or change back to monarchies makes no sense. BilledMammal (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal - It's balanced in my view. Simple. Jusdafax (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal - This article is neutral and the objections have their section. Goodday and others have displayed there is no merit to the tag.Halbared (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal (Summoned by bot) The question at hand is very obvious - Is there a dispute over NPOV concerns? Rather obviously yes, so the tag should stay. The tag should not be removed till there are clear and non trivial objections still being discussed. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal There's an entire section dedicated to the protests. Speculations about what might happen in some of the Commonwealth realms is not entirely related to the coronation. Additionally, every single bit of objection does not need to find its way into the page; the same is true for the celebrations. Keivan.fTalk 18:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal It's a perfectly balanced article which gives significant coverage of the protests etc. No reason to keep the tag. Atchom (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose removal. I thought the article was pretty good on NPOV (and if anything the lead has slightly more on the opposition than needed) until I got to the Public Celebrations section. Firstly, it should be merged with the following Reactions section (and called Reactions) and cover both celebrations and the opposition in each country. Secondly, the amount of coverage on the celebrations is a WP:DUE problem. Although it might sound somewhat POV forky, it might be better hiving much of it off into a Reactions to the Coronation of Charles III and Camilla article. At any rate there's too much of it here for an article on the Coronation itslef. I think that's what gives it the alleged adulatory tone. DeCausa (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Official celebrations in the other Commonwealth realms do not go under "Reaction". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know. Thats the problem I'm highlighting. DeCausa (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...Am I misreading your suggestion? "[T]he Public Celebrations section. Firstly, it should be merged with the following Reactions section (and called Reactions)". I took that to mean the official events in the non-UK realms should be put under the header "Reactions", since those events were, at the time, within the "Public celebrations" section. Regardless, I see that section has been renamed to "Events and responses in the other Commonwealth realms", anyway, which seems to work okay. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal There is due weight to the fact that some people were indifferent or disapproving of the event, a historical fact that deserves to be in the article. I've added a source that estimated the size of protests, which was "hundreds" in London and 300 in Cardiff (Scotland, I don't know). I don't know how many people watched the procession, but Reuters says "tens of thousands" [7]. Whether that's 10,001 or 99,999, it's far more than who turned up to oppose the event. While we should say that organised opposition (instead of just polling) existed, we shouldn't pretend that it was equal to or greater than the presumably supportive crowd. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's the problem. Those of us who are in Britain (and actually I think the same applies to editors in the US) we are seeing it in those terms. However, the news reports are positioning it much more controversially in 6 or 7 of the realms - notably Australia and Jamaica. Although covered, I think this is what is not coming out as clearly as it should be for WP:DUE. DeCausa (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal - WP:DUE does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. The opposition gets sufficient coverage and the rest of the article is balanced. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 18:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Removal per above. Any issues at this point are minor and can be resolved through the ordinary processes of editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Removal having read the article I don't see any of the issues which others have raised and have no problem with the neutrality of the article - expanded content could also run the risk of WP:FALSEBALANCE as others have said. Turnagra (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Removal for all the reasons stated.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad RfC. Requests for comment are for getting input to solve the underlying dispute, not to determine whether there is a dispute. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal - Issues complained of appear to have been dealt with. Protest need to be given due weight, which they have been. FOARP (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • support Remove WTF is this?! Obviously it should never have been added in the first place and this looks like trolling. time to move on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.154.136 (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal Article seems to adequately deal with negative reactions and protests. No basis for the tag. --Jayron32 13:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal Article seems to adequately deal with negative reactions and protests. No basis for the tag. Opposition and indifference to the event is recorded with DUE WEIGHT. Pincrete (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal - Article is now neutral. Although that said I would much rather these sad lot (Anti-Monarchy, Just Oil, Extinction Rebellion) weren't given any spotlight here but I guess we wouldn't be Wikipedia if we didn't include things like this. –Davey2010Talk 14:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal - The article looks overall neutral and includes a section on "Reactions" that allows readers to go straight to critical responses. If there is a dispute over whether specific points of criticism are DUE, that would be a separate RFC. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:15, 15 May 2023 (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.

Discussion

That's 12 attempts to post in the 'survey' section. I'll wait until traffic slows down, later. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Miesianiacal: Please revert your removal of the tag; per Template:POV#When to remove, it should only be removed when there is a consensus that the issues that caused it to be added are resolved. As there is not any such consensus yet, the tag needs to remain on the article. BilledMammal (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality tag should be removed immediately.. There is no reason.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HulkNorris (talk • contribs) 18:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June

While most people understand royal titles, there are always some people, whether on purpose or through ignorance, keep saying that Britain can't have a king and a queen on the same time( see the edit history). No amount of explanation can make them understand, so I suggest protecting this page. KGOO510 (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is already blocked from several pages for the same reason. It might help to contact the admin who blocked him. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox collage images

It's probably worth having a proper discussion of the infobox collage, to gain a consensus and some stability.

To kick things off, I'd suggest that we should use no more than four images (and ideally fewer). Any more tends to look over-long. The themes of those images could be:

  • A good image of the King and Queen
  • The procession
  • Protests or some other representation of disagreement/ambivalence
  • The Commonwealth

The reason I don't include an image of the ceremony itself in the above is that, as far as I know, the images we have access to are pretty poor. I suspect we can convey the event well enough without one, but it's a point for discussion.

@Leventio @JonHall1924 @2a00:23c8:1f29:3201:e53e:2edc:9a2b:c7e1 A.D.Hope (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, I believe that including five lead images is appropriate for an article of this size (this aligns with the common practice of having five images in most image montages). However, I'm not attached to that number, and am perfectly fine with reducing it to four if necessary. Nonetheless, I would likely recommend against exceeding five images in the infobox.
That being said, if we are trimming and limiting the number of images in the infobox, I would strongly argue for the removal of both crowd images – both those of protesters and spectators. Neither of these images places the primary focus on the core article topic, which is the actual coronation service and ceremonies.Per MOS:LEADIMAGE, the lead images should ideally present the most natural and pertinent depiction of the topic at hand. With the MOS considered, I'd argue that images showcasing the reactions, whether in favor or against, to the event do not constitute the most natural representation of the topic (the topic being the "coronation of X", not "reactions to the coronation of X"). What I'd argue is most fitting images would be those that primarily showcase the ceremonies themselves and their key moments, which would be:
  1. Procession to Abbey
  2. Ceremony
  3. Procession to Buckingham
  4. Balcony appearance
Choosing these four images aligns itself well with Wiki's MOS aim to keeping the lead images centered on the core article topic. By using these types of images (images of the ceremony, devoid of any crowds in the background), we also maintain NPOV as this image set will not suggest or imply a particular response from the public about the event (pro or anti).
All in all, while image balance is important, we should not be fighting about that through the lead images (given how the main MOS criterion for lead images is naturalness and pertinence to the article title). Lets not forget that while we should be working towards image balance, this is evaluated in its article's entirity, not just the lead image. Leventio (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree. The reaction to said events could be entire articles all by themselves. There is an entire section of the article dedicated to protests/polling/etc. I think your solution is the most sensible and does not over represent the supporters or the protests. JonHall1924 (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite honest I'd be happy to sidestep the issue entirely and just have the balcony image, with the rest incorporated into the article where appropriate. There's no requirement for a collage, after all. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This would also be consistent with all the other articles about British coronations, which use the relevant coronation portrait(s) as their lead images and nothing else. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this. Leventio (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and implemented this given what the discussion above, and it being the last stable image before the introduction of the photomontage. Leventio (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good call. If the lead image is changed again we can perhaps direct editors toward this discussion to continue building a consensus. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing Image Discussion for the 2023 collage

This article is a candidate for the ongoing discussion about the 2023 collage image. Feel free to participate here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coronation_of_Charles_III_and_Camilla&oldid=1199075985"