User talk:2A02:1810:280B:9300:FCEC:752B:B027:D1A3

September 2022
Hello, I'm Doniago. Your recent edit(s) to the page Stephen Fry appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Doniago, I'm Tom. The change from "Prince Charles" to "King Charles III" does not exactly require me to cite a source, I think; you can just watch the news (the BBC for instance) to notice the change in title. His Majesty has already been mentioned as such on the Twitter feed of the British Royal Family: https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1567936934290329608. 2A02:1810:280B:9300:FCEC:752B:B027:D1A3 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But he wasn't king at the time. DonIago (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * At the time of what, exactly? The sentence I changed was "he is friends with Prince Charles". That is present tense and includes the titular reference of the person legally known as Charles Philip Arthur George of Windsor. And presently, the person who used to be titled "Prince Charles" is now titled "King Charles III". I assume that titular change has no bearing on the truth and validity of his friendship with Fry; if it has, then the entire sentence needs to be omitted or severely rewritten. And, in reverence of them actually meeting through the Prince's Trust when the person currently titled "King Charles III" was still titled "Prince Charles", I rewrote another sentence to "He attended the _then_ Prince's [...]" (my underscores) to make this clear.
 * Undoing these changes now leaves those text-parts in a deprecated state. Because in my opinion, the linked word "Prince Charles" is a reference to the current persona behind it (especially since it includes "Prince") - and that persona is now "King Charles III", and should be referenced as such. Else we should keep WikiPedia full of so-called "deadnames" of individuals who decided to change their gender and their name accordingly, or refuse to acknowledge an artist's changed stage name, etc. But we do not do that; it is current naming that matters in current-time references. And to keep to the matters of nobility and heraldry; the same is true for titles like "Dauphin" and "Prince of Wales" (the title that immediately went from Charles to William the moment Charles became King) - when used in a context where a _specific_ person wearing that title is intended, it must be made abundantly clear what context and timeframe that is in order to be able to identify the actual historic person (for instance, during the Hundred Years War, or on September 5th 2022 versus September 9th 2022).
 * All this to say, that I believe it is convoluted and in requirement of additional information in order to keep it at "Prince Charles", rather than change it to what is expected. (Also, "Prince Charles" is considered a disambiguation; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Charles_(disambiguation) - which I think adds to that idea...)
 * Sincere greetings
 * Tom 2A02:1810:280B:9300:FCEC:752B:B027:D1A3 (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying your concern! As another editor made a similar revert, I've asked them how they feel we should best proceed because I don't want to make a unilateral change myself that will further escalate any confusion. DonIago (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I understand the will to get a more collective opinion. In fact, since we're having this dicussion, I'm assuming that there is at current not a guideline on how to proceed with changes to named (and/or titled) references to people in current-time when their current name (and/or title) changes - and if so, maybe there should be one? It can only aid in providing overall Wiki consistency and avoiding possible issues of confusion, misinformation or even hurting personal feelings regarding people being referenced through a name/title they themselves no longer consider relevant or fitting. I'm not saying this will be easy... There are very good reasons to still mention an erstwhile name or title for a particular individual, but I would assume most if not all of those reasons would be confined to either the page of that person themselves or of the particular name/title.
 * Regardless, this has been a very interesting discussion and I'm looking forward to the collectivised opinion.
 * Sincere greetings
 * Tom 2A02:1810:280B:9300:FCEC:752B:B027:D1A3 (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your patience. After speaking with the other reverting editor, I've attempted to achieve the best of both worlds here. Simply changing it from Prince Charles to King Charles would be a bad approach as it implies that Fry met Charles when he was already King. You're welcome to make additional edits if you feel they're necessary, but I hope you can appreciate the spirit of my change here and will endeavor to retain it.
 * I honestly don't know whether there are any guidelines about this type of scenario, but presumably the issue I highlighted up above would (or should!) figure into any guidelines, which is to say that one shouldn't just change an individual's titles without considering the potential for misunderstanding that it might create. I checked at Manual of Style/Biography but didn't see anything regarding this, so you might consider asking the question there if you're so inclined. DonIago (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel your solution is indeed the best approach; there's a clear reference to current-time, alongside a clear historic reference (in the sense that there is an implementation of chronology). For sure it acknowledges both our concerns in the best possible way. I could imagine nitpickery about "but now there's more words!", which is true, but there is also more clarity and explicitation where there was first room for misinterpretation or (assumption of) deprecation, and I believe that to be far more valuable. Thank you for your effort!
 * Sincere greetings
 * Tom 2A02:1810:280B:9300:FCEC:752B:B027:D1A3 (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Glad we were able to find a good resolution! DonIago (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)