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 within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Basque, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Basque people, Basque Country, Basque language, history and culture 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.BasqueWikipedia:WikiProject BasqueTemplate:WikiProject BasqueBasque articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
A fact from Charles III of Navarre appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 April 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that King Charles III's wife left him after she found four mistresses living in his palace?
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.
... that King Charles III's wife left him when she found four mistresses living in his palace? Source: Woodacre 2013, p. 79.
ALT0a ... that King Charles III's wife left him after she found four mistresses living in his palace? Source: Woodacre 2013, p. 79.
ALT1: ... that when King Charles III's sister became the queen of England, he sent her a manual about English royal coronations? Source: García Arancón 2014, p. 339
Overall: @Surtsicna: Good article. Though i do wonder if you can think of any other hooks considering these feel pretty basic. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite surprised by that remark, Onegreatjoke. I suppose much of the appeal of the hooks is reliant on being able to associate the king's name with his modern namesake, Charles III of the United Kingdom, who might be best known for a mistress-wrecked marriage and who (rather than his sister) is about to be crowned king in England in May. It is why I have even considered suggesting 1 April for the original hook or early May for ALT1. Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The proposed hooks, especially the first one, are extremely attention-grabbing. One could say they are a little too attention-grabbing... Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following Unlimitedlead's comment, I would like to request another review of the proposed hooks. Surtsicna (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: Hook review: ALT0 could be great: interesting and seemingly not neutral but that's the point of it. However, the source does not state it as a fact, more as a hypothesis. Could you reword the hook (and article) to still be grabby but reflect this? Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is very observant, Hameltion. That the discovery of the mistresses led to the royal rupture is indeed a hypothesis (promoted by three authors), but the source states their presence itself as a fact, i.e. the queen arrived, found a concubine-compromised court, and left. I think saying "when she found" instead of "because she found" addresses this; "after she found" might be even better. Surtsicna (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On rereading, you're right that not much change is needed, though I think "after" works better than "when" which implies an element of simultaneity. Struck other hooks. Might be fun to run this on May 6, but kind of bad taste. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
- maybe try thinking of more.
@Surtsicna: Good article. Though i do wonder if you can think of any other hooks considering these feel pretty basic. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Following Unlimitedlead's comment, I would like to request another review of the proposed hooks. Surtsicna (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
ALT0 could be great: interesting and seemingly not neutral but that's the point of it. However, the source does not state it as a fact, more as a hypothesis. Could you reword the hook (and article) to still be grabby but reflect this? Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
