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 was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
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?
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 sourcedmust 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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:
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.
Isn't "Catherine, Princess of Wales" the title of a divorced Princess?
I have been 'advised' to raise this topic here, as, apparently, my edits do not constitute improvement.
I believe that, in the same way that 'amount' v 'number' and 'less' v 'fewer' should be used for non-count and count nouns, respectively, 'over' v 'more than' falls into the same category. Of course, this has proved somewhat contentious, as the most trivial matters usually are, resulting in reverts for reasons such as 'Fowler's Modern English Usage notes that in British English, over has long been accepted with numbers, making it perfectly correct and often preferred'; however, I take Fowler to be one in a very long line of English usage analysts, whose stipulations ought not to be adopted as Wikipedia policy on a whim. Moreover, I should add that I have been thanked for doing this same change on other articles, suggesting that I am not the only one to have this view about the grammatical aspect.
I should be interested in hearing others' views on this, because I get the marked feeling that the reverts are more about retaining perceived ownership of an article rather than any real objection to the phrasing. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to Cambridge,
Over means ‘more than’ a particular number, or limit. Example-There were over 100 people at the meeting.
I think that the 'is patron of multiple' change reads well. However, there remain three instances of 'over' followed by count nouns in the article, and I do not think that we are much farther down the line on deciding what to do about them. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from putting in the revision summary 'Fowler's Modern English Usage notes that in British English, over has long been accepted with numbers, making it perfectly correct and often preferred', you have not actually provided a link to this. In any case, who determined that Fowler is a reliable source, and why must his word be considered resolute? It is not as though every word/phrase in any Wikipedia article is followed by a reference to determine why it has been chosen. Again, I feel as if this overzealous gatekeeping that seems to overshadow both Catherine, Princess of Wales and William, Prince of Wales is the main driving force behind this, and it seems as though I am not the only one to have reservations about this. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ZeroAlpha87 I appreciate any suggestions to improve the article. Could you please explain how using "more than" in the concerned cases will be more preferable than "over" in the same place (the source)?
As for the use of Fowler, you got similar revisions reverted here as well. You did not approach that user regarding the same.
I explained my rationale for 'more than' being preferable to 'over' when I introduced this topic; therefore, I am not going to repeat it, as this has already shown signs of going in circles.
The same user that expressed a wish for you not to stalk him on Wikipedia, you mean? Besides, he is not the one that put 'Please take the discussion to talk'; if he had done, I would have done so on the talk page of that article instead.
I look forward to more responses from other users – that is, those that do not use the old 'vertical bar' trick to appear under different names. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ZeroAlpha87 I have made the necessary revisions to both the articles. But you are yet to provide a source which supports your claim (even though you have provided an explanation). Also, the explanation provided by me is the same as that made by the user who reverted your revision to the article John Gielgud that said that "over" is good British English. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is very gracious of you. Still, I am not going to provide a citation that supports my assertion, since, even if I were to, it would do nothing more than tell us what one person's/institution's recommendation is – which is what any usage guide really boils down, do you not think? If you feel as though you need to revert your own recent edits based on this, well, there is nothing stopping you, but, weighing it all up in the grand scheme of things, I suppose that you will have to determine what is to be gained from this. The other user, whom you seem determined to keep mentioning, also pointed to Fowler, but could/did not provide a ready copy of the source material; rather, I would have to source a physical book copy to check. Furthermore, I am yet to see 'It's Fowler's way or no way' in any manual of style. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(summoned by Talk page message) The phrase "more than 20" looks fine to me. No strong view. Perhaps we could have a week of each. But what's with "Catherine holds patronage with... "? Why not just "Catherine is a patron for... "? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(disclosure: I was invited to this discussion) I think it should be "patron of…". Regardless, if you think it provides for a better flow I suppose you can implement any necessary changes. I have no strong feelings about the other matter that's being discussed but overall I think people should be 'allowed' to edit the page without being grilled over every single minute detail; after all User:ZeroAlpha87's comments about supposed ownership could have merit (and I'm saying it as one of this page's top contributors). Keivan.fTalk04:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
