Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:31, 31 January 2007 edit68.72.108.38 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 16:13, 28 December 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,332,926 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 9 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with invalid parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~talkheader~~}}		{{Skip to talk}}
			{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
	{{WPBiography\|living = yes\|class = Start\|priority = Low\|needs-infobox = yes\|needs-photo = yes}}
			{{British English}}
			{{Article history
			\| action1 = AFD
			\| action1date = 19 April 2005
			\| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kate Middleton 1
			\| action1result = Kept
			\| action1oldid = 12544896

			\| action2 = AFD
	__TOC__
			\| action2date = 26 October 2005
			\| action2link = Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Kate_Middleton
			\| action2result = Kept
			\| action2oldid = 26507913

			\| action3 = GAN
	==Archives==
			\| action3date = 27 April 2017
	''Some of this talk page has been archived:''
			\| action3link = Talk:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge/GA1
	*''']''':
			\| action3result = Failed
			\| action3oldid = 776396647

			\| action4 = WPR
	==VFD==
			\| action4date = 4 August 2018
	On ] ], this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See ] for a record of the discussion. – ]] 21:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
			\| action4result = Copyedited
			\| action4oldid = 853398265

			\| action5 = GAN
	{{oldafdfull\|date=October 18, 2005\|result=keep\|votepage=Kate Middleton}} ] \| ] 06:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
			\| action5date = 19:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
			\| action5link = Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales/GA2
			\| action5result = listed
			\| action5oldid = 1191026527

			\| dykdate= 9 January 2024
	Considering the length of their relationship (4 years) it would seem premature to continue to vote this article for deletion until such times as she is no longer seriously involved with the Prince. Of course people are interested in her. She may well be the next Princess of Wales. I had never heard of her until a netscape article on Wiliam's upcoming Military training mentioned her and linked me here. While I am only casually interested in such things, I suspect there will be many others clicking on the link who follow this stuff passionately. Perhaps the person who keeps voting for delete is hoping the prince will marry them? Lisa Pollison 1/17/06
			\| dykentry= ... that ''']''' ''(pictured)'', is a keen amateur photographer and the patron of the ], and has taken many official photographs of her children?
			\| dyknom= Template:Did you know nominations/Catherine, Princess of Wales
			\| itndate = 17 November 2010
			\|action6 = FAC
			\|action6date = 2024-06-08
			\|action6link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Catherine, Princess of Wales/archive1
			\|action6result = failed
			\|action6oldid = 1227915416
			\| currentstatus = FFAC/GA

			\| action7 = PR
	:Totally agree. --] 21:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
			\| action7date = 15:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
			\| action7link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Catherine, Princess of Wales/archive1
			\| action7result =
			\| action7oldid = 1236030491

	:Maybe it is Kate because she doesn't want any publicity? ANON, 8 June 2006

			\| topic = Royalty, nobility and heraldry
	Probably. Well, to be honest, unless there is a ring on her finger and a wedding planned, I am not sure why everyone is making such a big deal about this girl. She could be the next Queen consort and maybe not. I mean, when Prince Charles was dating, the media thought every women he dated was going to be his future wife. We all see how that turned out. I think that people somewhat question William and Kate's relationship because it has been so strange. It is not exactly the romance going on between Prince Harry and Chesly Davy or a young couple in love. Every relationship is different, however, she is his grilfriend, there should be something more going on between them and oddly it does not seem to be there. Which is why some people seem confused. ]
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=GA\|listas=Catherine, Princess of Wales\|blp=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Biography\|royalty-work-group=yes\|royalty-priority=top\|a&e-work-group=yes\|a&e-priority=high}}
			{{WikiProject British Royalty\| importance = high }}
			{{WikiProject Berkshire\|importance=mid }}
			{{WikiProject United Kingdom\|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject England\|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Women's History\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Women}}
			{{WikiProject Wales\|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Disability}}
			}}
			{{banner holder \|collapsed=yes \|1=
			{{annual readership\|scale=log}}
			{{section size}}
			{{Annual report\|]}}
			{{Top 25 Report\|Jul 21 2013\|Apr 22 2018\|May 13 2018\|May 20 2018\|Sep 11 2022\|Mar 17 2024}}
			{{Spoken Misplaced Pages request\|Catfurball\|Important}}
			{{Press
			\|subject = article
			\|author = Mariella Moon
			\|title = Getty flags another British royal family photo for being digitally altered
			\|date = 20 March 2024
			\|org = ]
			\|url = https://www.engadget.com/getty-flags-another-british-royal-family-photo-for-being-digitally-altered-121856385.html
			\|quote = 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 Misplaced Pages 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.
			\|accessdate = 21 March 2024
			}}
			{{Copied
			\|from1 = Catherine, Princess of Wales
			\|from_oldid1 = 1217211342
			\|to1 = WP:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination)
			\|to_diff1 = 1217422601
			\|date1 = 5 April 2024
			}}
			}}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
			}}<!-- The index template breaks if wrapped inside the banner holder -->
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 125K
			\|counter = 10
			\|minthreadsleft = 0
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|algo = old(30d)
			\|archive = Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales/Archive %(counter)d
			}}

			==Pinned Thread: Consensus on usage of "Catherine" vs. "Kate", "Kate Middleton"==
	Rose, please find some other place to post your personal opinions and musings about royal romances. They do not belong in a discussion of biographical, encyclopedic facts. There are many "royal website" forums in which you can do this and where you would be welcomed. Misplaced Pages is looking for firm, factual information.

			{{archive top\|'''Closed''' as an explanatory thread. ] (])}}
	Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/Help:Talk_page and http://en.wikipedia.org/Help:Talk_page#Basic_rules_for_all_talk_pages. Thank you. ]
			The Misplaced Pages 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:

			*]
	== This woman has her own article why?... ==
			*]
	This woman is unimportant. What importance does she have in any circle besides that of her immediate friends/family and such? Being the mere girlfriend of a Prince is hardly worthy of an article in an Encyclopedia. Not only are there no plans to marry, but until so, she is nothing but a woman who got lucky by landing a monarch, who (btw) has no political power anyway. <-- HAHAHAHA She has way more importance than YOU I am sure!

			There are numerous additional threads on this subject in the archives as well. ] (])
	: There's a very good chance this woman will be Queen one day. Oh, and wikipedia is not a soapbox. ] 14:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
			<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message\|}}<!-- ] 23:21, 28 April 2034 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2029879305}}<!-- END PIN -->
			{{archive bottom}}

			== Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2024 ==
	I agree, but it seems that many people on this site and Britian are hopeful that William and Kate will marry someday. I do not see much harm in having the article for the time she is with William. There is a very good chance they will marry and a very good chance that they will not. If not then they can delete this article or change it. There is no way to know if she will be the next Queen because they are so young now. ] 18:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

			{{edit semi-protected\|Catherine, Princess of Wales\|answered=yes}}
	Er, a very good chance implies, to me at least, greater than 50% probability. So according to you the total probablity of them getting married or not getting married is greater than 100%. ] 11:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
			I have found some minor punctuation errors and mistake ] (]) 08:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

			:] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 08:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
	It appears you missed my point. It simply means they will either marry or they will not. How people choose to percieve that is their own perspective. ] 13:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

	She's all over the news -- that's why she has her own article. I just turned off the television where BBC News 24 is running a piece about her. I log on on the internet and AOL UK's top stories include her. Companies are creating memorabilia about her. The first in line to the throne is issuing statements about her. I have republican tendencies, yet that doesn't prevent me from seeing her obvious notability for an encyclopaedia. What a silly discussion. ] 17:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

	I nominated this article for deletion in Oct 05 when it was a reasonable question but she has become much more notable since then and I would oppose deletion now, ] 18:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

	Yeah, the issue here isn't importance, it's notability. A lot of people would argue that many actors in Hollywood are simply unimportant but they still have national name-recognition. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 19:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	This person is notable because she is going out with William Windsor who is the grandson of the current UK monarch. Until such time as we get rid of the whole scrounging lot of them, the Windsor family, and the people they have relationships with will remain notable. Her achievements are about as great as her boyfriends, he's famous for no good reason, and so is she. Even if they split up, or he retires into private life like the good little republican he is, they will both still remain notable. She'll always be notable for having been his biatch. Sad but true. Notability has got nothing to do with fame or achievement, see ]. ] 13:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

	== How can I help? ==
	Is there some reason why people object to including purely straightforward, factual information in this article? I really do not believe that PEOPLE magazine has any "inside information" concerning the Queen's opinions of Ms. Middleton or her relationship with Prince William. Why has this silly, poorly-written paragraph been added?{{unsigned\|68.72.102.130}}
	:I don't know who wrote the above because it is unsigned. I want to offer my services to this page. If there is anything I can do to help, such as find citations, and verify anything, please let me know. I am one who freely admits to being captivated by the coverage of this possible future Princess of Wales, Queen, etc. It is silly, I know, but nevertheless, I would be lying if I didn't acknowledge it. I would love to assist with this article. What can I do?--] 16:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Your opinion about ''People'' magazine is irrelevant to this article. Material in articles must be sourced, as is the relevant section about ''People'' and the queen. If you have a verifiable source which contradicts this sourced information, feel free to include it. Otherwise, it's perfectly relevant for the article as it's verifiable sourced information. The article isn't saying that the queen believes something; the article is saying, according to People magazine, the queen believes something.] 21:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

	Thank you. ] 18:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


	::The article appears to say that a Palace spokesman said the queen believes it, which I don't believe for a second. A spokesman is someone authorised to speak on behalf of the person or organisation they represent - a "friend", "source" or "insider" is not a spokesman. Can anyone confirm that the People article even claims that a Palacespokesman said the Queen "would prefer to see Prince William take the relationship slowly and not rush into anything"? There is no direct quote in the Misplaced Pages article or citation. If People magazine was really told this by a Palace spokesman, it is a surprising there has not been more coverage as it would be a major story in the UK. Edit - forgot to sign ] 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	Yes, I can. I read the article to check to make sure the information was correct. I am sure if People Magazine instead said something like, "Spokemen for the palace said Kate and William are engaged to be married." Or something to that effect, you would never believe that either without hearing it from several other sources. I got you.

	Anyway, as someone said above, this is pointless. The point of any article is to put in every bit of detail whether it is agreeable or not. When you start putting in details that only you want to believe, then it defeats the purpose of the article and it mine as well be deleted. ] 12:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

	:: It's honestly not about what I want to believe. Please assume good faith:) The word spokesman is very important in this context. If a spokesman says something it is an official statement. If an "insider" says it, then it is a rumour. A Palace spokesman speaks on behalf of Buckingham Palace, which ultimately means the Queen. I have read quite a few stories about Kate Middleton and never once seen a paper or magazine claim to have a comment from a Palace spokesman about the Queen's personal feelings on the matter. I'm sure there's a lot of stuff I haven't read but would you mind awfully if I ask you to link to the story or, if it is not on the web, to reproduce the section with comments from a Palace spokesman here? I have found one story from People Magazine dealing with similar issues - this one, http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1564163,00.html - but it cites "friends" and "insiders" as its sources.
	Also, there's no need for an encyclopedia article to include every bit of detail if by bit of detail you mean every newspaper or magazine article on the topic. There have been dozens of stories every day in the UK alone for many weeks now! We don't need to mention them all. What makes most sense is sticking to what we know, eg that Miss Middleton and Prince William are in a relationship, that she has appeared alongside the Queen at at least once again, that neither of them have made any public comment on the prospect of marriage, that they are the subject of intense media speculation (there have been lots of news reports about them) - I think all those things are facts, and there's plenty to say even by just sticking to the things that are strictly factual. ] 20:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

	I understand. I do not care enough to get upset, it is fun to have a good debate. This site is full of them too.

	I still disagree. You say that you have read several articles about her. How do we know that the artciles you read are even reliable? If they do not suggest a palace spokemen said it, then where did they get their information from? Who did they get their information from? Unless these people have spent one on one time with Royal Family which is a tight circle of people, and the Royal Family is not exactly known for telling everyone their feelings, again where did these articles get their information? You could say Prince William's friends said it but how is that different from a palace spokemen? Furthermore, I doubt the couple would want their friends talking to the media. And, maybe that spokemen did not want to give out their name. In other words, no one knows how true any of these articles are, it is only opinions and guessing. The only ones who know the real story is Middleton, William and the Royal Family. Anything else is spectulation.

	Also, the spokemen probably is telling the truth. The Royal Family has not had the best track record for good relationships. Three of Queen Elizabeth's children divorced, and they were messy divorces. It would be smart on the family's part to make sure the future generation does not make the same mistakes. If William and Kate rush into this it could turn out very bad. Also, inorder for her to be a princess, Middleton will have to be groomed and advised. She came from a normal family background, she has not been raised to deal with that kind of spotlight. It can be very stressful to have everyone watch your every move. And, her life will never be private if she continues to date and someday marry Prince William. This is no fairly tale and it is '''real life''', she will have to be trained and groomed to handle it. When she said, "I did nothing to court publicity", that was telling. She can not expect to get William and somehow avoid the extreme baggage that comes with him, that is either native or extremely irrational thinking.

	If you do not put details from reliable magazines and articles into this section then there really is no reason for her to have an article. Since, she is still living, not married to William and no biography's have been written about her; what else is there to write? The article mine as well be deleted. As someone said above, she is not ''that'' important yet. ] 14:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

	:: You make a very good point about the difficulty in knowing whether articles are reliable, and whether they got their information from anyone who really knows what they are talking about. This is why the use of the word "spokesman" in the Misplaced Pages entry is important. A spokesman is a person authorised to speak on behalf of the person they claim to represent, and what they have to say can be considered more reliable than comments made to journalists by "friends" or "sources", who as you say could be anyone! A Palace spokesman is someone who works in the Buckingham Palace press office - these people: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4163.asp I asked if anyone could confirm that People Magazine had reported that a Palace spokesman said the Queen felt a certain way. You said you can. So please will you do that? I have tried to find the article myself, but it doesn't seem to exist on the People website. Please will you give us the exact wording of the article? ] 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

	Really? I am surprised. Usually on their website they have archives of past articles. Here is
	the link http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1564163,00.html. This is the issue it came out of, and you will have to get the magazine for the full story.

	Oh, and if you want, why not put up the information from the articles you have read? It certainly can only help the article. Like I said, until there is something like a biography written about her, articles are all we got. ] 16:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

	I'm very sorry, but I do not consider PEOPLE Magazine to be a "reliable" source on any subject.] 00:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

	The link you provided leads to an article with comments from "a palace insider", "family friend" and someone writing a book about the couple. The magazine doesn't even claim to have got the comment from a spokesman in that article. ] 03:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

	Oh, you did not like the link to the actual article? I guess you do know what PEOPLE Magazine is, oh well. So all you have is the Sun? That is exteremly more reliable then a magazine. Nice of you to add it in. I thought you would have more but please continue to add what you have it is most helpful. ] 19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

	I have reverted the article partly because you deleted my edits without any discussion but mainly because the source you cite does not (as I have pointed out many times!) actually say what the Misplaced Pages entry currently claims it does. I linked way above to the article you are citing - http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1564163,00.html - and pointed out that it does not claim a Palace spokesman said anything. However you then linked to the same article as evidence that People magazine claimed a Palace spokesman had made the comments:) It is not evidence of that - it does not say that. I am fairly new to Misplaced Pages and I am not certain how the arbitration system works, but rather than get into a revert war I am going to see if there is any way we can ask another experienced editor to take a look. ] 19:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

	I did not delete anything you wrote. I reverted it because the last person put in something strange. I did suggest you add in your own information so there was no reason to delete it. ''You, however, did delete my information.'' I understand you are new, but you can not go and delete people's information (especially if it sourced) simply because you disagree. Just because you can not get the magazine from which the article came from, to make sure the source is true, does not mean the information is not accurate. That will cause an edit war. Nor is it right to imply that the Sun tabloid or all magazines you have read are more reliable then every other magazine. I am sorry if you are so upset and if you need to read up on the rules this should help you. Please read:

	http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons, http://en.wikipedia.org/Weasel_word, and http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Check_your_facts

	If you would like to talk to someone else then please do. It might be a good idea to at some point protect this page, as well. I have been noticing a lot of non-registered users removing and deleting information.

	] 20:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

	== Deleted talk page content ==

	The debate above is not about a specific article, it is about the importance of accuracy and sources. It's important it stays in the talk page for a while and not just an archive. ] 20:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

	I re-added in the How can I help? section. Just trying to clean up a bit. I would leave in the third opinion section, however, unless Jossi is planning to comment there does not seem to be much need for it. But if you want it there then go for it. Oh and never worry about it. Archiving is not deleting, people always can continue to comment on the subject on the regular discussion page so it is not gone forever. ] 16:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


	Thank you for adding that back in. The article as it currently reads is correct, as far as I can see! It even cites the People article twice, one of them being a citation I put in on January 21, so hopefully we are both happy with the current wording:) The point I made about the distinction between a spokesman and an insider applies to any article, not just one in People. It could well come up again, as media reports about Kate Middleton are full of comments from friends, sources etc. This is why it is important for the debate to be visible for a while. ] 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	==Jewish?==

	Kate Middleton has been added in to the category "British Jews". This seems to follow an edit on January 22 by 84.148.1.115 which stated the Middleton family was of Jewsih origin. Another editor has changed this to read "British and Jewish origin". This may be correct for all I know, but is it something that needs verifying? I am wondering:
	1) Is there any verification that the Middleton family is of Jewish origin?
	2) Does it make sense to use a phrase such as "British and Jewish origin", as Britain is a country while Jewish refers to either ethnicity or religion or both. A person cannot be "half British and half Jewish" for example. Equally, a person would not be described as of "British and Anglo-Saxon origin".
	3) If her family does have some sort of "Jewish origin", does this make her an English Jew?
	] 17:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	I am going to rephrase it. British is a nationality and Jewish is a religion. Although, people seem to think their religion is a form of nationality as well. I never quite figured that one out but then again I am not a very religious person. Kate Middleton's nationality is British as I am assuming both her parents are from Britian as is her many of her family members going back some generations. As for being Jewish, on her mother's side, her mother's family is Jewish. Their last name is Goldsmith. That is a Jewish last name. ] 18:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	Yes, she is of Jewish origin, then she can be at English Jews category, because it's not a category only for Judaism people, but from the Jewish nation! When some famous film director or Nobel Prize winner has a Jewish great-granmother or father she is Jewish! Why not now? ] 19:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

	: A person with a single Jewish great-grandparent is not usually considered to be a Jew, especially if they do not define themselves as one, whoever they are. Possibly if there is un-interupted female descent they may be (if your mother's mother's mother was a Jew then you may be, even if you are the Pope, according to some definitions. See {{main\|Who is a Jew?}}, although of course Misplaced Pages is not a sufficient source on which to base Misplaced Pages entries). It seems unlikely in Miss Middleton's case, as the name Goldsmith presumably came from a male ancestor. By the way, having the surname Goldsmith does not mean someone is a Jew, even if it is a surname some Jews have. I don't know if anyone has found any source at all to verify that she has any Jewish ancestors, beyond her mother's maiden name. Perhaps she does, but it seems to me like quite a leap to say that therefore "she is an English Jew" as Misplaced Pages currently does. I think Rose has improved the article, but question 1) above still stands - is there any verification that the Middleton family is of Jewish origin (or partly of Jewish origin)? ] 19:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

	Rose, your historical ignorance and stereotyping are thoroughly appalling. "Goldsmith" is not automatically a "Jewish" surname, it is merely an occupation-derived surname, like many others in many countries. It means only that the bearer has a goldsmith somewhere in his or her ancestry. You surely do not believe that all goldsmiths in the history of the world were Jewish? Perhaps you are familiar with Oliver Goldsmith, son of an Anglican curate and author of "The Vicar of Wakefield"?] 03:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

	By the way, whoever wrote "Michael Middleton, who's family," and "Carole Goldsmith, who's family," has a serious lack of understanding of English grammar and punctuation. I have corrected those egregious errors and changed them to "whose".] 03:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

	== Hannah Pennell? ==

	Seems someone has changed the names around in this article, changing Kate Middleton to Catherine "Hannah" Pennell? ] 04:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Ben
	:That's called vandalism. And pretty childish at that. I have restored the earlier "Kate" version. - ], 30 January 2007, 9:30.

Latest revision as of 16:13, 28 December 2024

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 Misplaced Pages? 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, 10Auto-archiving period: 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 was archived. 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
July 26, 2024	Peer review	Reviewed
A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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.

This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 Misplaced Pages'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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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
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 Misplaced Pages. 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
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 Misplaced Pages. 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
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 Misplaced Pages. 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
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 Misplaced Pages. 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
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 Misplaced Pages. 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

Wales High‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Misplaced Pages. 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
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

Other talk page banners

Section sizes

Section size for Catherine, Princess of Wales (34 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	6,867	6,867
Early life and education	18,237	18,237
Personal life	18	36,783
Relationship with Prince William	13,258	13,258
Marriage and children	14,306	14,306
Health	9,201	9,201
Public life	16	31,825
Within the United Kingdom	14,424	14,424
Outside the United Kingdom	17,385	17,385
Charity work	46	76,804
Patronages	15,461	15,461
Sport	5,457	5,457
Military and armed forces	3,610	3,610
Health and medical initiatives	11,852	11,852
Photography	5,948	5,948
Community causes	4,800	4,800
Mental health advocacy	17,906	17,906
Early years and childhood development	11,724	11,724
Public image	496	17,133
Fashion	5,873	5,873
Public opinion and influence	10,764	10,764
Privacy and the media	26,593	26,593
Titles, styles, honours and arms	109	7,028
Titles and styles	4,949	4,949
Honours	1,970	1,970
Ancestry	7,652	7,652
Bibliography	17	4,273
Book contributions	1,019	1,019
Authored articles and letters	3,237	3,237
Notes	24	24
References	28	2,728
Sources	2,700	2,700
Further reading	436	436
External links	2,740	2,740
Total	239,123	239,123

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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages 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"

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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I have found some minor punctuation errors and mistake 124.195.196.236 (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DrKay (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: