text:
Talk:Stuart Restoration

Much-loathed sfn
From the history of the aricle:
 * 18:11, 26 April 2012 Philip Baird Shearer (reverted most of the last edit, standardised citations removed )
 * 18:49, 26 April 2012 Johnbod (revert undiscussed change of citation style to the much-loathed sfn)
 * 10:24, 27 April 2012 Philip Baird Shearer (There is no need to discuss it; naked urls and inconsistency in citation style is contrary to the advise in the guideline. But to make you feel better about it use replaced with ) (undo)

What does "much-loathed sfn" mean? -- PBS (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Much-loathed sfn" is a good example of a formation in passive voice, begging the question, loathed much by whom? (Also, no idea what it is.) Ftjrwrites (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Introductione
The usage of the word "restored"..
 * "The Restoration of the English monarchy took place in the Stuart period. It began in 1660 when the English, Scottish and Irish monarchies were all restored under King Charles II. This followed the Interregnum, also called the Protectorate, that followed the Wars of the Three Kingdoms."

..is circular, because the word "restore" is already in the title. (Italics mine).-Inowen (nlfte) 23:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't circular due to the political nature of the Britain at the time; it's two different things. The Protectorate (the political state that Cromwell ruled) centralised and unified the British isles under one government (Cromwell). When the monarchy was restored, not only were the Stuarts restored to the throne(s) but the separate kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland were restored as political institutions. Alssa1 (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * They (England, Scotland, and Ireland) weren't "restored as political institutions." They weren't the things being "restored." The thing being restored was aristocratic government/monarchy and the name "Restoration" is the monarchy's own name for its own reclamation of power. -Inowen (nlfte) 02:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland were abolished when The Protectorate was created. Are you denying this? Alssa1 (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The nations of England, Scotland, and Ireland were not abolished, only the governments; "kingdoms" as you for some reason are calling them. Are you denying this? -Inowen (nlfte) 21:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am denying what you say. The concept of nation did not really exist until long after the events of the civil war. The separate Kingdoms (although ruled by the same monarch) were the only manifestation of any independence between each at this time. This notional independence disappeared with the creation of Cromwell's Protectorate which, as I have said earlier "centralised and unified the British isles under one government". It is for this reason why the term "Restoration" has two meanings; the restoration of the Stuart dynasty to power and the restoration of the separate Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland the nominal independence they enjoyed. Alssa1 (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Its impossible to talk to someone like you, as you name nations and eras by the monarch of the time (we in democratic countries use nation names and universal dates), and you say that they "enjoyed" some "nominal independence" under some old autocratic monarch or other. The question I have is are you of "nominal independence" enough to criticize monarchy as a form of government, and the British monarchy specifically? If you can't criticize negatively, then all your edits about Britain and monarchy will be positive and therefore biased. -Inowen (nlfte) 22:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The Restoration (and merge)
From the history of the article:
 * 23:28, 13 March 2019 user:Srnec moved page Restoration (England) to The Restoration: has always redirected here anyway
 * [snip]
 * 16:17, 18 July 2019 user:PBS moved page The Restoration to Restoration (England) over redirect: revert recent move. Also see WP:AT the is not usually capitalised in sentence case involving "the Restoration"

I have also undone the merge that user:Srnec made between Restoration (1660) and this article (Restoration (England))

I see the article Restoration (1660) as a Summary style article with three more detailed articles about each of the politically separate kingdoms (and the English colonies):
 * Restoration (1660) ~10k
 * Restoration (England) ~23k
 * Restoration in the English colonies ~5k
 * Restoration (Ireland) ~13k
 * Restoration (Scotland) ~50k

user:Srnec if you think merging is still a good idea then lets discuss it and see if there is a consensus to do so. -- PBS (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "I have also undone the merge that user:Srnec made between Restoration (1660) and this article (Restoration (England))". Why on earth did you do that??? A clear fork. Then you raise it for discussion! Certainly they should be remerged. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The article Restoration (1660) is a summary article about the restoration in four distinct jurisdictions. What sort of content fork do you think it is? And if it is, then why not include Restoration (Scotland) as well -- as Scotland was to be the first kingdom to be amalgamated with England in 1707? -- PBS (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It was more a restoration of four jurisdictions than in them. It's a content fork because it's a singular event. You cannot write of the things that took place without simply duplicating and it is indicative that nobody has tried, leaving Restoration (1660) just a glorified dab page. Of course, I support reverting both the page move and the de-merger. Srnec (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I would also support merging Restoration in the English colonies back to the main article. The title should perhaps be English Restoration. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @User:Johnbod The English were not subject to restoration the English monarchy was the subject of the restoration: hence the name Restoration (England) it could be "Restoration of the English monarchy" but that is usually shortened to "Restoration". -- PBS (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually "English Restoration" is an entirely normal term and the one normally used by historians writing for international audiences, where "The Restoration" is used for domestic ones. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Srnec I think that you miss the point. There were three separate realms which happen to be in a personal union. For example each realm had to deal with different problems in their own way, eg all three Parliaments had to acknowledge the restoration in their realm, and they each had to pass acts of general pardon. Each differed in substance, eg only the English had to deal with regicides, and the after affects of the Civil Wars differed substancially in each realm. The largest article is the Restoration (Scotland) why would you want to place all of that text into an article along with the events that took place in England? It seems to me that you mindset is one of the English Civil War with periphery events in the other two realms, rather than the more modern Wars of the Three Kingdoms approach. A summary article in the form of Restoration (1660) is in concept similar to the article Wars of the Three Kingdoms with the details for each of the three realms separate (as is done with the war articles). -- PBS (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * PBS, I think you are the one missing the point. The three kingdoms deserve their own articles. What we don't need is the "glorified dab page". The short paras on Scotland & Ireland should go here instead. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Major-General Thomas Harrison (General) in Cromwell's Army.jpg

Requested move 8 February 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved  (t · c)  buidhe  18:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The Restoration → Stuart Restoration – We need to distinguish from other restorations mentioned in Restoration. Stuart Restoration is just a suggestion, I'd be happy to support other title that is more precise than the current one. Vpab15 (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Having recently had a couple of articles promoted in which the Restoration featured I am unaware of any reliable sources using "Stuart Restoration", could you give them. "Restoration" seems to be the consensus in the sources, in which case we should continue to emulate them. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are quite a lot of sources that use it (see ). Another alternative could be Restoration of the Stuart monarchy. Vpab15 (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If it is going to be changed, then Restoration of the Stuart monarchy seems to me to be clearer, flow better, and fit better with the way other restorations are handled. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I oppose that format based on WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT since the other monarch restoration articles use the format of "House Restoration" (Bourbon Restoration, Meiji Restoration, Manchu Restoration, Kenmu Restoration). Rreagan007 (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I oppose the proposed addition of "Stuart" to the title. This event is commonly referenced by historians writing in English simply as "The Restoration." I would not object to a parenthetical clarification such as "The Restoration (1660)." A related consideration is that "The Restoration" references both this political event and the following cultural period from 1660 to 1689 in England. It seems to me that the cultural period deserves a separate article, perhaps titled "The Restoration (era)." The connection between these could be handled in a disambiguation note. Ftjrwrites (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NATURALDISAMBIG. There are a number of other "restoration" articles, and this is a good way to disambiguate, seeing as it is an alternative term that is used in reliable sources. It's also generally discouraged to start an article title with "The" (see WP:THE), so this move will solve both problems with the current title. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Restoration (1660) is less recognizable than using Stuart in the title. The Restoration (era) has the same lack of precision as the current title. Vpab15 (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Disambiguating this title by date is a terrible idea. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Move (per nominator) to Restoration of the Stuart Monarchy or [The] English Restoration, provided that the lead clarifies that the more vague, but more common, terms "The Restoration" and "The Restoration of the Monarchy" are more common in actual usage. I would prefer one of the suggested titles as the phrase 'Stuart Monarchy' is clearer than 'Stuart restoration', but if we want a short name English does fine instead. WT79 (speak to me | [//xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia/WT79 editing patterns] | [//xtools.wmflabs.org/globalcontribs/WT79 what I been doing]) 18:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Current setup is fine. Srnec (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The French refer to Both their restorations as 'The restoration', with a numeral; the Spanish refer their restoratation as 'the restoration', etc. Yes, the current title is fine for England and probably is the most common name for the topic; it's sort of the point of disambiguation that multiple subjects share a common title. WT79 (speak to me | [//xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia/WT79 editing patterns] | [//xtools.wmflabs.org/globalcontribs/WT79 what I been doing]) 14:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Support doesn't seem to be the primary topic or the most common name outside of contexts where English history is the implied topic. On Google Scholar search, I see English Restoration, Stuart Restoration, and Restoration of Charles II all in use.  Based on n-grams  my first vote is Restoration of Charles II, but all three are an improvement. 75.162.124.147 (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. The current title is far too vague. At the very least, a parenthetical should be added to help disambiguate the article.--Woko Sapien (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Rreagan007. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Stuart Restoration


text:
Talk:Acura RL

RL=Really lame
I enjoy the speculation on the page about what "RL" really means. I saw one of these the other day and I thought I was looking at a Accord or a new TL. Wow, what a boring car the RL is. Where does my $50K go? This car is outrageously priced for what it is given what the competition is offering, above all a V8 powerplant, and imposing looks, which is what moves cars in this segment. CJ DUB 19:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

To: RL=Really lame. You are really lame!
Why would you buy a car that's more like a "sleeper" type of vehicle if you were looking for more exciting car, “flashy” car. If you are looking to flash and make a statement you should of went with Lexus or BMW. This is a great car for people who want extremely comfortable luxury ride and benefits of NOT being noticed everywhere they drive. I love this car! Its build great, and reliability is amazing comparing to any car luxury brand out there. I would never again buy a flashy car, it is so shallow and all you do is showing off that “hey, look, I can afford to drive this car”. It is just a name game. Overall Review of RL: A good car for smart people who know how to get value for their money.

Hmm.. Here is some food for thought:

- an electromagnetic all-wheel drive system that can bias the torque left and right - active noise cancellation - DVD surround sound with XM - 290 hp V-6 (double what some V-8's made not too long ago!) - high quality leather and real wood - Best in the industry navigation system with traffic alerts

Thats just to name a few. I smell troll.

 * This is not a place to discuss your thoughts about the car. For that, start a blog, or discuss it on an internet forum.  Hondasar   e  GOOD  21:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Full Size?
I am pretty sure that this is a mid-size sedan ... especially since the other cars in its class (Lexus GS)is considered mid-sized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.2.175.113 (talk • contribs).

 * WP's own full-size car article states that to be fullsize, a car has to have a wheelbase of more than 110 in (Imperial measures here for you American guys). The RL has 110.5, so it's one of the smallest, but still a fullsize car. Bravada, talk - 00:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge request
The rationale for the merge request is that the standards adopted by WikiProject Automobiles specify that an article on a given model should be named the way the model is named in the home market. Acura Legend and Acura RL are American-market-only nameplates applied to the same car (made it the same factory) known elsewhere, including its "home" Japanese market, as Honda Legend. Therefore, it is only logical to have all the models and generations described as Honda Legend, with redirects and explanation of North American marketing.

Please also note that Honda Legend has already been marked as Category:Executive cars. Acura RL has not been sold in Europe as such, so it generally cannot be labelled as an executive car, while the category would add it to the list of executive cars, creating the impression that both Legend and RL were sold in the markets where the "executive car" classification functions.

Regards, Bravada, talk - 09:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the Acura Legend will be merged with the Honda Legend, I agree that the RL should be merged with it. If the Acura Legend should not be merged with the namesake Honda, then the RL should be merged with the Acura Legend article, since the RL was a replacement for the Legend. ← T•h•e   R.S.J. → 18:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Don't worry, they will all be merged into the Honda, so you can remove the other tag, which is confusing. I just needed to leave some "grace period" for eventual protests or such, and I have to find time to reconcile everything :D Just a bit patience please - or do execute the merge yourself! Bravada, talk - 18:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Similar to RL
I'd say a midsize FWD/AWD luxury car is more similar to an FWD and AWD midsize luxury car than a RWD vehicle. A 9-5 or S80 would thus be closer than a GS or M, especially for the 1st generation. IFCAR 21:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically, the old Legend (I mean 1st/2nd-gen RL) is rather more similar to RWD cars than to transverse engine FWD cars, just like the Audi A6. It is also much bigger than the Saab and significantly than the Volvo. In 2001, the Acura RL was priced much higher in the US than base S80's or 9-5's, actually even higher than the GS 300. I guess it was more aimed against the Japanese rivals than European executive cars, especially given the size. Bravada, talk - 23:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It definitely competes with the others more, but I had been under the impression that the "similar" category focused more on design than direct competition. And for what it's worth, the RL has had trouble selling within $5,000 of its sticker price, typically retailing in the low $40ks, which is closer to the 9-5 and S80. IFCAR 01:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, technically it is the closest to the A6, and closer to RWD cars than transversely-engined FWD executives. I of course agree that this field should not boil down to "competition", and I'd be happy to see only the A6 in this field actually ("less is more"), but I see more reason to direct the users to Infirniti and Lewxus as "similar" vehicles (in general concept, i.e. luxury Japanese cars, sold in North America under their own brand) than random FWD European executives. BTW, according to cars.msn.com, currently the RL retails for approx. $44-47K, which is about $5K below MSRPs, but still more than base GS's, M's, or even BMW 5ers! The 9-5 sets you back 1/4 to 1/3 less, and the outgoing S80 does not even near $40K in the most expensive version.
 * In the more balanced European market, or more precisely - UK market ("Target Price" from WhatCar.com), the more loaded versions of the new S80 manage to outdo the Legend, but certainly not the 9-5, which does not even come with a petroleum V6. The Legend's pricing is also comparable to mid-range A6's and loaded versions of GS 300. Again, I'd say that if you believe Lexus and Infiniti shouldn't be there, only the A6 is really entitled to occupy that field, for the AWD and longitudinally mounted engine. Bravada, talk - 01:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A TL would be close to a GS (BTW, TL competes with ES too, while TSX competes with IS, C-Class and 3 Series). I'd say an RL being similar to that of a Lexus LS!!! -- Take Me Higher 00:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Collision Mitigation Braking System
I thought the 'Safety' part of the article was a little short, so I added in the RL's Collision mitigation Braking system in that section. And I am out!

The safety part still seems a bit short, though =)

Dnlkk94 00:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

2009 RL as Third Generation
I do not believe the 2009 RL to be a third generation car but rather a mid model change (freshening) of the existing RL, as extensive as the freshening may be. The upcoming 2011 model, scheduled to be introduced in late calendar 2010 is what I would use the third generation nomenclature for.

Chas2rl (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree; I think an image of the 2009 RL needs to be seen to confirm and then the new section can be removed.(Regushee (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

Since you guys think that the 2009 RL is a mid model change, shouldn't the productions info say from 2005-2011 instead of 2005-2009? 71.193.162.77 (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The production end date should remain as unknown because 2011 is absolute speculation. No one knows when the production end date is until Honda stops making the RL in its current form. No date should be displayed at all. (Regushee (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

But most other car articles have a production end date. I think it should say 2005-present or 2005-2011, but I don't think it should have a question mark at the end. I don't think any car articles have that. 71.193.162.77 (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

removed content
I removed two large sections recently added by Chas2rl. These section were unencyclopedic and largely original research. These section amount to user guides which are covered under WP:NOT. Please discuss before reverting. --Leivick (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Excessive detail
The lists of color choices and options should be shortened or deleted altogether. Wikipedia is not a sales brochure, and year-to-year color changes are not really of general reader interest. --Vossanova o< 21:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Mid-size luxury is NOT THE REAL CLASS!
The Acura RL/RLX compares with the Lexus LS, not the GS. The TL goes with GS, the TSX with ES (the IS, too), and the ILX with HS. --166.137.208.30 (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reference from a reliable source and it can be changed to mid-size. Bahooka (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not a mid-size, dude! Motor Trend is stupid. :-) --166.137.208.30 (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

ACURA RL DRIVERS
What they think it compares with: Lexus GS What their friends and family think it compares with: Lexus ES What the cops think it compares with: Ford Mustang What Mr. Bean thinks it compares with: His Mini Cooper What Will Smith thinks it compares with: Chevrolet Bel Air What it really compares with: Lexus LS See, that's right! Comparing an expensive flagship with a mid-size luxury car is like comparing apples with oranges. --2602:306:CDB2:4130:6CF3:9FE5:A395:E7AA (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Mid-size luxury car or full-size?
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1002_luxury_sport_sedan_comparison/ --2602:306:CDB2:4130:6CF3:9FE5:A395:E7AA (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please identify where Motor Trend states the RL is mid-size, keeping in mind that "mid-level" is about pricing, not size. Bahooka (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet, when it comes to a premium mid-level sport sedan from a luxury automaker, whether with six- or eight-cylinder power, $50,000 is pretty much the price of entry. --2602:306:CDB2:4130:A1D8:9515:8895:66D (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Like I said, mid-level is about the price, not the size. This Motor Trend quote does not support the change you keep trying to make. Bahooka (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

 * However, this reference from the U.S. Department of Energy states it is a mid-size for EPA purposes. This is a much better source.  Before making a change to a long-standing version of an article, it would be interesting to see if there are any references to support its classification as a full-size auto and then compare the references. Bahooka (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Acura RL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150402120505/http://www.acuranews.com/channels/acura-automobiles-rl/releases/2012-acura-rl-overview to http://www.acuranews.com/channels/acura-automobiles-rl/releases/2012-acura-rl-overview

 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110209054506/http://www.sfmslaw.com/pages/cases.php?id=343 to http://www.sfmslaw.com/pages/cases.php?id=343
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120328083758/http://owners.acura.com/Maintenance/RecallsShow.aspx?campaignMasterNo=Q65_EN&url=/Documentum/Campaigns/Q65.htm to http://owners.acura.com/Maintenance/RecallsShow.aspx?campaignMasterNo=Q65_EN&url=/Documentum/Campaigns/Q65.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Acura RL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100808073315/http://www.iihs.org/ratings/roof/detailsbyclass.aspx?10 to http://www.iihs.org/ratings/roof/detailsbyclass.aspx?10
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130217140036/http://life.nationalpost.com:80/2013/02/15/preview-reborn-rlx-leads-in-refinement-and-innovation/ to http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/02/15/preview-reborn-rlx-leads-in-refinement-and-innovation/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Acura RL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090729062824/http://hondanews.com/categories/755/releases/4413 to http://www.hondanews.com/categories/755/releases/4413
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206103621/http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId%3D116299 to http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId%3D116299
 * Added tag to http://www.hondanews.com/categories/757/releases/2079
 * Added tag to http://www.hondanews.com/categories/757/releases/2720
 * Added tag to http://www.hondanews.com/categories/757/releases/2077
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100213033636/http://hondanews.com/categories/761/releases/3056?archive=2006 to http://www.hondanews.com/categories/761/releases/3056?archive=2006
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100213032455/http://hondanews.com/categories/761/releases/3793?archive=2007 to http://www.hondanews.com/categories/761/releases/3793?archive=2007
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071110003105/http://www.hondanews.com/categories/757/releases/3771 to http://www.hondanews.com/categories/757/releases/3771
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100213030956/http://hondanews.com/categories/761/releases/4046?archive=2008 to http://www.hondanews.com/categories/761/releases/4046?archive=2008
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071110003135/http://www.hondanews.com/categories/757/releases/4204 to http://www.hondanews.com/categories/757/releases/4204
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720042343/http://www.hondanews.com/categories/757/releases/4410 to http://www.hondanews.com/categories/757/releases/4410
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704052658/http://www.hondanews.com/categories/759/releases/4414 to http://www.hondanews.com/categories/759/releases/4414
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100213033822/http://hondanews.com/categories/759/releases/2715?archive=2006 to http://www.hondanews.com/categories/759/releases/2715?archive=2006
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906203808/http://www.hondanews.com/categories/757/releases/4409 to http://www.hondanews.com/categories/757/releases/4409
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100709212433/http://www.hondanews.com/categories/757/releases/2075 to http://www.hondanews.com/categories/757/releases/2075
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302112538/http://www.hondanews.com/categories/755/releases/4409 to http://www.hondanews.com/categories/755/releases/4409
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100213033822/http://hondanews.com/categories/759/releases/2715?archive=2006 to http://www.hondanews.com/categories/759/releases/2715?archive=2006
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905081245/http://www.hondanews.com/categories/757/releases/4411 to http://www.hondanews.com/categories/757/releases/4411
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090905000017/http://hondanews.com/categories/755/releases/5158 to http://www.hondanews.com/categories/755/releases/5158
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723021204/http://hondanews.com/channels/acura-automobiles-rl/releases/2011-acura-rl-delivers-more-refinement-and-improved-performance to http://hondanews.com/channels/acura-automobiles-rl/releases/2011-acura-rl-delivers-more-refinement-and-improved-performance
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081230073956/http://www.informedforlife.org/demos/FCKeditor/UserFiles/File/1MasterSCOREr.pdf to http://www.informedforlife.org/demos/FCKeditor/UserFiles/File/1MasterSCOREr.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125095219/http://world.honda.com/news/2004/4041007.html to http://world.honda.com/news/2004/4041007.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081016103539/http://world.honda.com/news/2006/4060228Geneva2006/ to http://world.honda.com/news/2006/4060228Geneva2006/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://owners.acura.com/Maintenance/RecallsShow.aspx?campaignMasterNo=Q65_EN&url=%2FDocumentum%2FCampaigns%2FQ65.htm
 * Added tag to http://news.honda.com/newsandviews/local_news_content/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130411113358/http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/02/15/preview-reborn-rlx-leads-in-refinement-and-innovation/ to http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/02/15/preview-reborn-rlx-leads-in-refinement-and-innovation/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Acura RL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090605075531/http://www.hondanews.com/categories/757/releases/2722 to http://www.hondanews.com/categories/757/releases/2722
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090406014148/http://www.hondanews.com/categories/793/releases/4976 to http://www.hondanews.com/categories/793/releases/4976
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090409203832/http://world.honda.com/HDTV/IntelligentNightVision/200408/ to http://world.honda.com/HDTV/IntelligentNightVision/200408/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Acura RL


text:
Lincoln Logs

Lincoln Logs are an American children's construction toy consisting of square-notched miniature lightweight logs used to build small forts and buildings. They were invented around 1916 by John Lloyd Wright, second son of well-known architect Frank Lloyd Wright. Lincoln Logs were inducted into the National Toy Hall of Fame in 1999. They are named after U.S. president Abraham Lincoln, who once lived in a log cabin.

Starting in 2014, Lincoln Logs were manufactured by K'NEX Industries Inc. In late 2017, K'NEX was bought out by Basic Fun, Inc., of Florida. Pride Manufacturing, of Burnham, Maine, manufactures Lincoln Logs for Basic Fun, and the rights to the IP are owned by Hasbro. In 2024, Basic Fun filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The company will use bankruptcy proceedings to repay its creditors while remaining in operation.

Design
The logs measure three quarters of an inch (roughly two centimetres) in diameter. Like real logs used in a log cabin, Lincoln Logs are notched so that logs may be laid at right angles to each other to form rectangles resembling buildings. Additional parts of the toy set include roofs, chimneys, windows and doors, which bring a realistic appearance to the final creation. Later sets included animals and human figures the same scale as the buildings.

The toy sets were originally made of redwood, with varying colors of roof pieces. In the 1970s the company introduced sets made entirely of plastic, but soon reverted to real wood.

History

Lincoln Logs were invented sometime around 1916–1917 when John Lloyd Wright was working in Japan with his father. The mold for the toy was based on the architecture of the Imperial Hotel in Tokyo, designed by the inventor's father. The foundation of the hotel was designed with interlocking log beams, which made the structure "earthquake-proof" and one of the few buildings to remain standing after the 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake that crumbled Tokyo.

When he returned to the U.S., John organized The Red Square Toy Company (named after his father's famous symbol), and marketed the toy in 1918. Wright was issued U.S. patent 1,351,086 on August 31, 1920, for a "Toy-Cabin Construction". Soon after, he changed the name to J. L. Wright Manufacturing. The original Lincoln Log set came with instructions on how to build Uncle Tom's Cabin as well as Abraham Lincoln's cabin. Subsequent sets were larger and more elaborate. The toy was a hit, following as it did Meccano, Tinkertoys and Erector Set introduced a few years before. Lincoln Logs are believed to be the first toy to be marketed to both boys and girls and appeal to a "simple" type of creativity.

In 1999, Lincoln Logs and John Lloyd Wright were entered into the National Toy Hall of Fame. In September 2014, the manufacturer announced the return of production from China to the U.S. Lincoln Log sets with the Basic Fun logo and a copyright date of 2021 or later are now entirely manufactured in China again.

title: Lincoln Logs


text:
The Left Banke

The Left Banke was an American baroque pop band, formed in New York City in 1965. They are best remembered for their two U.S. hit singles, "Walk Away Renée" and "Pretty Ballerina". The band often used what the music press referred to as "baroque" string arrangements, which led to their music being variously termed as "Bach-rock", "baroque rock" or "baroque pop". The band's vocal harmonies borrowed from contemporaries such as the Beatles, the Zombies and other British Invasion groups.

In 2004, Rolling Stone placed "Walk Away Renée" at number 220 in its list of "The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time".

1965–69: early years and disbandment
The Left Banke was formed in 1965 and consisted of keyboard player/songwriter Michael Brown, drummer/singer George Cameron, bass guitarist/singer Tom Finn, singer Steve Martin (later known as Steve Martin Caro), and drummer Lisa (then known as Warren) David-Schierhorst.

The band formed among the world of session musicians in midtown Manhattan. Brown's father, Harry Lookofsky, was a well-known session violinist, and he owned and operated a recording studio on 48th Street called World United. In 1965 George Cameron's band the Morticans was recording there, and they were looking for new members. This attracted Tom Finn of the band the Magic Plants, who had previously worked at World United. Finn brought along a new acquaintance, Steve Martin (Caro), a musician he had met by chance in front of the City Squire Hotel after a Rolling Stones concert. Cameron and Martin both had songs they wanted to record, but these did not take shape until Lookofsky's son Michael Brown, 16 at the time, worked out arrangements for them on the studio's piano.

According to Finn:

"We never had a plan to be a group, but Michael had the keys to his father's studio. I'd bring my girlfriend Renee along, and Michael fell for her, getting his heart broken, but writing these amazing melodies. Once Michael's father caught us in the studio and heard us, he wanted to get in on the action. That started things rolling but it was also the kiss of death."

Lookofsky realized that their music had commercial potential, and getting behind his son's songwriting talent he acted as producer, manager and publisher for the newly formed band. After some initial recording sessions, David-Schierhorst was ousted, with Cameron switching to drums and Jeff Winfield on guitar.

One of the main reasons David-Schierhorst was kicked out of the Left Banke was because she was a closeted transgender woman and also bisexual, and Harry Loofofsky didn't approve:

"Well, Warren was bi-sexual, & Mike's father found out about that, & that was frowned upon. One thing that you couldn't be in those days was black or bisexual. Warren is now a transsexual, I understand. He's now named Lisa. I don't think Mike felt comfortable about Warren being a girl or thinking he was a girl. But at that same time Michael & Warren ran off to California together & sold Michael's coin collection, & Mike's father, being that Mike was a minor, had them stopped at the airport. We mentioned to Mike's father that Mike left for California, & he got right on the phone, found out what airplane they were getting on, what names they went under & he had them arrested when they reached California, thrown in prison, & then returned to New York."

- Tom Finn

Their first live show was at a church, Our Lady Of Solace in the Bronx, to an audience of about 1000 people.

The first recording Lookofsky sent to record labels was a proposed single consisting of "I've Got Something On My Mind" backed with "I Haven't Got The Nerve". He found no takers, but tried again with "Walk Away Renée". Out of about ten labels he sent it to, only one showed interest: Smash Records, a subsidiary of Mercury Records. The single was released by Smash in late 1966, and became a big hit immediately. The band's second single, "Pretty Ballerina", also written by Brown, charted in early 1967, and The Left Banke released an album entitled Walk Away Renée/Pretty Ballerina, by which time Rick Brand had replaced Winfield on guitar.

Tension between Brown and the rest of the band soon began to surface. As Finn recalled,

"Mike left the group before 'Walk Away Renée' broke. He refused to tour – not that I can blame him. We'd go do gigs and get our asses kicked by local bands with better equipment. There were always disagreements with Michael's father. They tried to throw Steve, George, and me out of the band but rehired us two weeks later when they realized the chemistry was gone."

Thus, by the time "Walk Away Renée" became a hit, the original band had become inactive. However, Lookofsky tried to capitalize on the single's success by assembling a new version of the Left Banke for touring purposes, with Bert Sommer on lead vocals, original drummer Lisa David-Schierhorst, and (future member of Spinal Tap) Michael McKean on guitar. Brown also recorded a single, "Ivy, Ivy" b/w "And Suddenly" as the Left Banke, with Sommer and a group of session musicians. The remaining members of the band hired attorneys to issue a cease and desist order and urged their fan club to boycott the record, which led to confusion among radio stations over which "Left Banke" to support. Radio and Smash Records ultimately removed their support from the single, which subsequently failed to make the Billboard Hot 100. The "New" Left Banke never performed live. "And Suddenly" was eventually recorded by a group called The Cherry People and became a minor hit. McKean would later find fame as an actor (Laverne & Shirley, This Is Spinal Tap, Better Call Saul).

In late 1967, the original group reunited and recorded more material, including the single "Desirée". Brown left the group permanently shortly thereafter and was replaced for touring purposes by Emmett Lake. Cameron, Finn and Martin continued to record and tour, with Tom Feher replacing Lake on keyboards and writing half of the band's new material. The songs recorded by various incarnations of the group in 1967 and 1968 were assembled into a second LP, The Left Banke Too, which was released in November 1968. This album featured backing vocals by a young Steven Tyler (who later became the lead singer of Aerosmith) on "My Friend Today" and "Dark is the Bark". The band continued playing live in 1969, without Martin, but soon disbanded due to lack of success and financial problems. Later that same year, Brown and Martin reunited in the studio to record another single as the Left Banke, "Myrah" b/w "Pedestal", which was their final single for Smash Records.

1971–present: various reunions
In 1971, Brown, Cameron, Finn and Martin reunited briefly to record two songs for the movie Hot Parts. The songs, "Love Songs in the Night" and "Two by Two", were released as a Steve Martin solo single on Buddah Records, despite featuring contributions from four founding members of the Left Banke. In 1972, producer Les Fradkin offered to produce the group for a project on Bell Records. Although these sessions were not released at the time, one of the songs, "I Could Make It Last Forever", composed by Fradkin and Diane Ellis, was released on Fradkin's Goin' Back solo CD in 2006. It was a rare recording since it featured Caro, Finn, Cameron and Brown, along with Brown's father, violinist Harry Lookofsky. Fradkin sang and played 12-string guitar on the sessions. In 1978, Martin, Cameron and Finn reunited as The Left Banke to record an album's worth of material which was not released at the time. However, a single from these 1978 sessions, "Queen of Paradise" (b/w "And One Day"), was released in late 1978 with modest success. The album was eventually issued by Relix Records in 1986 under the title Strangers on a Train (Voices Calling in Europe). However, the album did little to restore the popularity of the group.

After leaving the Left Banke in 1967, Michael Brown helped form the band Montage. Although Brown was never an official member of Montage, his presence is unmistakable in its music. The band released one self-titled album in 1969, which included a re-recording of The Left Banke song "Desiree", before Brown left. Brown's next project was the band Stories, featuring singer Ian Lloyd. The band had a hit in 1973 with "Brother Louie", which reached No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 charts. However, Brown had left the group after their 2nd album "About Us", but before the success of "Brother Louie". Brown's next project was with The Beckies, which released one group-titled album.

In 1992, Mercury Records released a Left Banke compilation titled There's Gonna Be a Storm: The Complete Recordings 1966–1969. It was intended to bring together the band's entire recorded output from the years 1966 to 1969, although a 1969 outtake titled "Foggy Waterfall", which had previously appeared on two earlier compilations, was not included.

In 1994, Michael Brown and his wife Yvonne Vitale produced and released an album titled On This Moment. Between 2001 and 2006, Brown hosted a series of recording sessions at his home studio with Ian Lloyd (vocals), Tom Finn (bass guitar/vocals), Jim McAllister (guitar), and Jon Ihle (drums).

Swedish musician Jens Lekman sampled "I've Got Something on My Mind" in his 2003 song "Black Cab." In 2005, Alice Cooper included a cover version of "Pretty Ballerina" on his album Dirty Diamonds. In 2006, ex-member of The Bangles Susanna Hoffs and Matthew Sweet, as Sid 'n' Susie, covered "She May Call You Up Tonight" for their first album Under the Covers, Vol. 1. In addition, Stuart Murdoch of the band Belle and Sebastian has cited The Left Banke as one of the early influences on the sound of the band.

Former guitarist Jeff Winfield died of complications from pneumonia on June 13, 2009, at age 60.

2011–13
The previous touring version of The Left Banke featured one original member, George Cameron. Initially, Tom Finn and George Cameron reformed The Left Banke in March 2011, tapping New York City's Mike Fornatale (already a veteran of numerous other 60s band reunions, including The Monks and Moby Grape) to sing lead vocals in Steve Martin Caro's stead. The reunited group also featured new players: Paul Alves (lead guitar, backing vocals), Charly Cazalet (bass), Mickey Finn (keyboards), Rick Reil (drums, percussion, backing vocals) and second keyboardist/synth player Joe McGinty (replaced by John Spurney in 2012). They appeared live at Joe's Pub in New York City on March 5, 2011, and March 6, 2011, to sold-out audiences. In April 2011, Tom Finn revealed in a Facebook posting that he had reformed the group, with two shows planned for July in New York City. Tom Finn performed with the re-formed group through 2013, after which he left due to disagreements with Cameron and due to back trouble.

In early 2011, Sundazed released reissues of the two Smash vinyl albums on CD and LP, utilizing the original running order and artwork.

In February 2012, Tom Finn notified the YouTube community that the Left Banke was in the process of creating a new record featuring contributions from co-founder Michael Brown. On April 29, 2012, Brown joined the reunited Left Banke on stage at B.B. King's in New York City for a version of his "Pretty Ballerina." His performance was greeted with a standing ovation. Rick Brand, guitarist with the band in 1966-67 was also in attendance. Tom Finn sang a newly written song called "City Life" which showed a heavier rock version of the Left Banke with baroque string section intact. No new recordings begun in 2012 were ever released, and Brown died in 2015.

At the beginning of their reunion dates, the group was joined onstage by a two or three-piece string section and even a guest oboe player for one or two shows. Both Michael Brown and George Cameron were in touch with Steve Martin Caro, who wanted to rejoin the group, but was unable to tour in 2012 due to previous commitments.

On June 6, 2013, Brown joined the reunited Left Banke on stage at Joe's Pub in NYC for his last live performance of Walk Away Renee.

Unrealized reunions
On March 18, 2015, the day before Mike Brown's death, it was announced that original vocalist Steve Martin Caro officially rejoined the current touring version of The Left Banke. Photos on The Left Banke official Facebook and Twitter pages displayed Steve signing a contract. Two 2015 shows featured co-headliner Ian Lloyd of Stories and Sam Kogon as vocalist. The re-formed Cameron band played in NYC, Bearsville, NY, Sellersville, PA and Natick, MA.

In January, 2018, it was announced on the official Facebook page operated by Steve Martin Caro and George Cameron that they were planning a tour. Several photos of Steve Martin Caro rehearsing with George Cameron and singer/guitarist Sam Kogon were posted with a message which stated "it was Steve's first time behind the microphone in over 15 years. We went through and workshopped much of the Left Banke catalog." However, Cameron died five months later, before any performances could take place under this collaboration.

Deaths
Michael Brown died from heart disease on March 19, 2015, at age 65. Brown had been writing new material and planned to participate in the 2015 reunion of the Left Banke with Steve Martin Caro and George Cameron. Brown's funeral and memorial service was held on March 25, 2015, at Fort Lee Gospel Church in Fort Lee, New Jersey.

Justo George Cameron (born October 16, 1947, in New York City) died of cancer at Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan on June 24, 2018, at age 70. Thomas Leo Feher died from heart failure on August 5, 2018. Steve Martin Caro died from heart disease on January 14, 2020. He was 71 years old. The last surviving member from the original lineup, Tom Finn, died on June 27, 2020, after years of declining health.

Band members
1960s Left Banke members (1965–1969)
 * George Cameron – drums, percussion, backing vocals; lead vocals, guitar (1965–1969; 1971; 1978; 2011; died 2018)
 * Michael Brown – piano, harpsichord, Clavinet, organ, lead vocals (1965–1967; 1969, 1971, 1978; died 2015)
 * Steve Martin Caro – lead vocals, guitar, drums, tambourine, bass (1965–1969; 1971; 1978; died 2020)
 * Tom Finn – bass, guitar, backing vocals, lead vocals (1965–1969; 1971; 1978; 2011; died 2020)
 * Warren David-Schierhorst – drums (1965)
 * Jeff Winfield – guitar (1966; died 2009)
 * Rick Brand – guitar, banjo (1966–1967)
 * Tom Feher – piano, guitar (1968–1969; died 2018)

The "New" Left Banke members
 * Bert Sommer – lead vocals, guitar (1967, died 1990)
 * Michael McKean – guitar (1967)
 * Warren David-Schierhorst – drums (1967)

Discography
NOTE: Sources for this section are as follows:

Compilations

 * 1982 – And Suddenly It's...The Left Banke (Bam-Caruso KIRI 021)
 * 1985 – History of The Left Banke (Rhino RNLP 123)
 * 1986 – Walk Away Renée [mini-album] (Bam-Caruso PABL036)
 * 1988 – And Finally It's...The Left Banke (Bam-Caruso KIRI 021 CD) – Features a different track listing to the 1982 compilation.
 * 1992 – There's Gonna Be a Storm: The Complete Recordings 1966–1969 (Mercury 848095)

Extended plays

 * 1983 – Walk Away Renee (Bam-Caruso NRIC022)
 * 2022 – High Flyer (Omnivore Records OV-470)

title: The Left Banke


text:
Talk:The Last DJ

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Last DJ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.villagevoice.com/2003-04-22/music/not-hop-stomp/full/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091027070401/http://www.undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=1463 to http://www.undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=1463

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Last DJ


text: Talk:Peter Minuit

title: Talk:Peter Minuit


text:
Talk:John Wesley

Personality and Activites
The last sentence of the second to the last paragraph in the section "Personality and Activities" quotes John Wesley as saying "I did not forsake her, I did not dismiss her, I will not recall her" and cites this -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wesley#CITEREFWesley2000a -- as the source for this statement. This link does not actually contain the quote in any obvious way. If any searching must be done, I feel that it ought to be noted. Not sure if this is my error in not being able to find it or an error in the quotation itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.118.208 (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Christian Ethics
— Assignment last updated by Brian (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:John Wesley


text:
Talk:HMS Hood

Infobox
Can someone tidy up the displacement? What are "long tons": have never heard of them? Surely this should be sth like: "xxxxx tons (xxxxx metric tons)". Thanks, bigpad (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

While I have no objection whatsoever to changing the article to refer to tons instead of long tons, displacement (ship) is typically measured in long tons. For a long time I wondered why the displacement in metric tons is a larger number than its displacement in tons, as I assumed short tons were being used. WeeWillieWiki (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Royal Navy ships aren't measured in "long tons", they are measured in tons. Americans may think that they are the same thing, but what on earth were you thinking? This is like saying Jane Sixsmith plays field hockey. Sheesh! --Pete (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and what kind of tons are your "tons"? Long, short and metric are the three types that I'm familiar with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The same tons that have been used to describe warship displacements for centuries. If you can find an English-language contemporary reference that describes HMS Hood's displacement in anything other than tons, let me know, will you? --Pete (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not real interested in what was used contemporaneously, I need to describe them for the current audience. Beside I can't convert these tons to the other types without knowing how many pounds are in these tons of yours.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My tons? LOL! As I said, the same tons that have always been used. Do have any reference that shows anything else being used? Surely you aren't just making stuff up? --Pete (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This cropped up in a very annoying thread on the convert template talk page, so let me sum things up for everyone. Now Pete seems to think the use of the world "ton" is important, but I tend to believe that the real issue is accuracy and clarity. Hence, if you want to use the imperial ton, you should call it either "imperial ton" or "long ton", or Americans will confuse it with the short ton they are familiar with. Alternatively you can use "tonne" for everything and be done with it.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unbeknowst to many people, there are a number of different types of "ton" in use in the world.
 * The 2240 pound ton was standard in the U.K and is known as the "imperial ton", or "long ton".
 * The 2000 pound ton is standard in the U.S. and is commonly known as the "short ton".
 * The 1000 kilogram ton is standard in the rest of the world, and is known as the "tonne" in the Commonwealth and the "metric ton" in the U.S.
 * While the short ton is the most common one used in the U.S., Americans also commonly use the long ton in shipping and for measuring some commodities,
 * Historically the Royal Navy used the "imperial ton" or "long ton" to measure the displacement of its ships, it called them "tons" because that is the size most commonly used in the U.K.
 * The U.K. is at least nominally converted to metric after joining the EU, so the Royal Navy now measures the displacement of its ships in "tonnes".
 * The difference is somewhat academic because the tonne is only 1.6% smaller than the long ton.
 * The Hood increased substantially in displacement during its lifetime, so the difference is even less consequential.

It's quite a trivial point, but looked up the Washington Naval Treaty article for a totally unrelated bit of research. it appears that 41,200 tons is the displacement listed in the treaty. http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pre-war/1922/nav_lim.html Why is that do you suppose?Terry Thorgaard (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Treaty introduced standard displacement, which was measured without most of the fuel and ammo aboard. There's an appendix somewhere in the treaty to specifies exactly how it's measured. It's been a long time since I wrote this, but since the ship was completed before the Treaty went into effect, the RN may not have been too fussed about computing standard displacement for her.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If I recall "standard displacement" also excluded boiler feed water, under the same logic as fuel in that the RN should not be penalised unfairly with the long distances their ships operated over for defence of the Empire and shipping. Describing the water in the torpedo protection system on British ships as boiler water was neither here nor there obviously.... GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Cronological error, summer 1940
It says that Hood participated in the destructione of the french fleet in july 1940n only a week after the french surrender to germany, but France surrendered (at Foch's old railway wagon ´from november 1918, at the exact same place, the Compiegne-wood) on june 14th. So eighter the french fleet was destructed 4-5 weeks after the surrender or, the sinking of the french fleet happended in june. I'm no sure wich, but both "sinking of the french fleet" happened in june or it happened more like a month after the surrender. /Malinka70 forgot my password   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.32.226 (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no error: France surrendered officially on 25 June (armistice was signed on 22nd at Compiegne and came into effect three days later). bigpad (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Image
There is a photograph available of HMS Hood taken when she arrived in Fremantle in 1924, it would be a PD image as it was taken and published in 1924. Gnangarra 13:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Modern theories on the sinking
Smoke and fire from the explosion of a battleship's magazine may be vented somewhere else than the origin of the explosion as the magazines ended to be heavily armored. Photographs of the explosion of the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor show a huge cloud of black smoke from the smoke stack when the explosion was actually in the forward magazine. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

hi im zoe My grandads brother and cousin was on that ship when it was hit and sunk by the bismark and both died —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.199.80 (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

When Bismarck was sunk a few days later even more sailors died. But those lives where of course german... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.35.216 (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Facts Bismarck was brand new, Hoods basic construction from 1916. Although heavier and larger artillery Hood was a)less protected b)Bismarck had better targeting  c)Holland underestimated their enemy or overestimated Hood. It took only 22 seconds to reload the artillery of Bismarck, and it would not explode by a single hit from Hood.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.35.216 (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Sigh* this isn't the place for that kind of discussion. As to the point of this: I've added an edit to the modern theroies section. I don't know how to add a referance however, if somone could oblige me by adding it i;d much appreciate it.. My source is the book: Hood and BIsmark, P206. It was written by David Mearns and Rob White who where both involved in the discovery of the wreak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.48.48 (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Section badly needs rewrite
The Modern theories section is enormously confusing because it lists theories that have been discounted by the evidence gained from looking at the wreck. It means that the reader has to spend effort working out which ones are valid and which not, which is crazy. Not going to get in a reversion war (see page history), but the whole section needs revising and the stuff that is years out of date removed or at least clearly distinguished. 212.159.44.170 (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hood was almost certainly penetrated through the belt armour; probably the upper 7-inch or 5-inch belts rather than the main 12-inch belt. By comparison, it's of any interest, a shot from HMS Rodney's main 16-inch armament -- a one-ton missile arriving at near Mach 2 with a force of 30,000 foot tons -- could penetrate Bismarck's belt armour at any range from point blank to 23km. (Bismarck would only stop the shot if she were sufficiently bow- or stern-on and presenting a glancing angle.) And a distant plunging shot from Rodney would penetrate Bismarck's deck armour at any range from 26km out to 30km-plus. Bismarck's immunity zone against Rodney was only 3km wide, and not at any likely battle range. Hood's internal design may have been at fault -- the magazine should have been better shielded against a Bismarck 15-inch shell going at half speed after penetrating the belt -- but her external armour really wasn't that bad, even compared to a super-modern battleship like Bismarck. Hood's problem in the Battle of the Denmark Strait was mostly her gunnery. She targeted the wrong ship, apparently even after Adm Holland called for a switch from the Prinz to Bismarck, and she didn't land one salvo on target. A single good hit from Hood's guns could have turned the battle, just as Rodney's historic 09.02 hit on Bismarck disabled Anton and Bruno turrets and killed Lutjens and Lindemann and most if not all of the bridge crew. If Hood had had a proper refit in 1938-9, with more modern gunnery direction, things might have been different. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Loch Eriboll
Just wondered if there should be a mention of the memorial on the side of Loch Eriboll? --jmb (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Armor belt angled outward?
I have always been confused by this section of the article.

Outward like the walls of a pyramid, or outward like the sides of a shot glass?

Please see my detailed diagrams below.

[Bullet! Yay :) ]> \ <- armor ("shot glass" armor)

[Bullet! Yay :) ]> / <- armor ("pyramid" armor)

I ask because the latter would seem to present the armor at a better angle for penetration as range increases, while the former would seem to leave stuff below it exposed since the bottom is farther from the enemy. Which way was Hood's belt designed?

J.M. Archer (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC) (aka ignorant battleship buff)

>>>The belt was angled so that the top was further outboard then the bottom (shot glass). Which is the opposite of tank design. Bottom of the belt is below the waterline. The deck armour has a slope from deck level which is level to the top of the belt to the bottom. Cross section at http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/no21987-Midship.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.101.80 (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC) The risk of shells skimming the angle of the belt when striking at long range and ending up inside the torpedo defence lead to a return to vertical armour in the KGV, Lion and Vanguard designs

Sunset
The article claims that "Hood would have met the German squadron just after sunset (roughly 02:00 so far north in May)". I don't care how far North you go, you won't get sunset after Midnight. Indeed, running it through a spectral calculator for that date gives a sunset hours earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.171.211 (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Good question - that also arises on the Battle of Denmark Strait page; here is my comment copied from there. Kennedy, 1974, states in Chapter 6 that - for the British fleet - 'ship's clocks were four hours ahead of local time' at the point when Victorious was preparing to launch the first Swordfish attack on Bismark. As these events take place in the longitude range 30-37 degrees West (corresponding to 2 hours behind Greenwich), the implication is that the British fleet was indeed operating on Double Summer Time. Clearly operational coherence requires all units in a given command work to the same clock; immense confusion would result if each ship adjusted to its own longitude! Later in this chapter Kennedy remarks that the USCG cutter Modoc had its clock set one hour behind local time, therefore 5 hours behind the British fleet. I have added Kennedy's statement to the article, but not my OR about double summer time. Changes of course brought the engagement later than first envisaged, to dawn, in fact; early in Chapter 4 Kennedy states: '..in that cold, pale dawn, with the eastern sky pink and violet on the low cirrus and a hazy blue above..'  John M Brear (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To add a little...time zones at high latitude are always problematic. Far enough north and ships 100 miles east-west of each other might theoretically be several hours apart in time. With a dispersed fleet, the answer to "What time is it?" is basically "It is whatever time the fleet commander says it is." Rumiton (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Britain operated on permanent Double British Summer Time throughout the Second World War, that is, 2 hours ahead of GMT. The latter (GMT) however would be used for navigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.13 (talk)

Copyediting

 * Most Americans don't know that the British "purpose-built" is roughly "special-purpose" in American, so I'd prefer we reword it. Which battlecruisers were completed after Hood? - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * She was the last one completed so I've deleted the phrase. Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like the "For this reason" sentence, but I don't have a quick fix. I'll come back to it after the article passes GAN. - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Also the "At this point in her service" sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh. It's an important article, but I'm going to put this one aside for a couple of months and come back later; there are a lot of judgment calls to make and I'd really like to bring in more editors and copyeditors on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In the first section, does "as completed" mean as opposed to the design specs or as opposed to later, after refits? - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Mostly the former, but some of the latter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Outbreak of war
Currently, the article states:

"When war with Germany was declared in September 1939, Hood was operating in the area around Iceland, protecting convoys from German attack."

Does this mean Hood was operating around Iceland when war was declared and then started defending convoys in that area? Or was war declared and Hood sent out to patrol?

Presumably she wasn't defending convoys at the declaration of war. JJJJS (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hood was already at sea when war was declared, but I've reworded things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Cheers, it makes more sense now. I wasn't familiar enough with the history to feel comfortable changing it. JJJJS (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Photo of explosion
It appears that the photo of Hood exploding was taken from the Bismark. If this is true, it might be helpful to say so in the photo caption. Also, in the photo, is that the Prince of Wales in the background? Cla68 (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the origin of that picture, yet it seems very improbable that any pictures taken from Bismark survived her sinking and that one of the handful of survivors would think to take a roll of film with him. Even if that had happened, the British would have surely taken the film from the man and it would have gone into a British archive.

It's more likely the picture was taken from the Prince Euigen and handed over to the German naval authorities on her return for use in intelligence, propaganda or documentation. This would account for a copy being in the Bundesarchiv. Catsmeat (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Cla68 (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The "last photo" probably shows A turret, not X turret of Prince of Wales
The photo image showing three guns on the POW has been “corrected” to say that it was taken near X turret. Previously the caption implied that it showed a forward turret trained as far aft as possible. I didn’t make the original statement or the correction, but I do think this is the A turret. I think everyone will agree that it can’t be B turret, because that one would only have two guns. Untrimmed versions of this same photo show the fourth gun, elevated to a position out of view in this cropped image, so we can be sure that this shows either A turret or X turret. The editor who changed the caption (stating in his edit summary that if this were A turret then the ship must be steaming away from the Hood) is wrong. While I agree that we can rule out the possibility that POW would be steaming away from Hood, the statement overlooks the possibility that the A turret is simply turned to point as far aft as possible, which it would be in heavy seas prior to actually engaging the enemy. Under such circumstances the X turret would probably be trained dead aft, and these guns seem to be pointing somewhat to port. Also, the very same untrimmed versions of the photo that reveal the fourth gun also reveal a major superstructure object (possibly the base of B turret) that would be in the way of these guns if they were to try to point dead aft. I hope that someone else will look at the untrimmed photo, it is easily available on sites about HMS Hood, and carefully consider the possibility that this is A turret with guns trained as far aft as possible on the port side of the ship. 207.30.62.198 (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It could be A turret, but only comparing a detailed photo or drawing of the area around either turret to match the ventilators(?) visible beneath the barrels will decide the question.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's A turret. Check the discussion at Battle of the Denmark Strait. Rumiton (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Alternatively, in the absence of sources declaring where the picture was taken from, just edit the caption to remove reference as to which turret. Average reader is probably satisifed with knowing from which ship it was taken. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't need sources to tell us the sun rises in the east, and this situation is just as clear. We can and should be precise. Did you read the discussion at Battle of the Denmark Strait? Rumiton (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * the discussion you refer to makes no mention of sources. Policy says anything " likely to be challenged " should be supported by referencing and that the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" the purpose being to "improv[e] the credibility of Wikipedia and show[] that the material is not original research." An assertion that it is A turret based on personal observation is OR. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If describing something as obvious when it is obvious is called original research, what shall we call demanding a source to tell us that the obvious is obvious? How about obstructionism and pedantry? Rumiton (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a featured article for which "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". If this picture has been used in a book (or other work) then presumably it's been discussed or captioned and therefore can be sourced. I'm not suggesting it's not Hood or not the last picture or not from any specific part of PoW - I'm asking that editors don't make their own interpretations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

One reason why there should be at least some explanation for the objects seen in the foreground is that even a casual viewer is likely wonder why he is seeing what appear to be guns from a triple turret when POW had only quads and a twin. That point, at least, needs to be addressed. I am also wondering why there was no demand for citation during all of the very long time that the caption stated that the view was from “X” turret. 207.30.62.198 (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a site about Loss of HMS Hood that has the same photo, untrimmed, and it has as the caption these words: "Probably one of the last photographs ever taken of H.M.S. Hood. A photogrammetric analysis of this photo shows Hood is bearing about 341 degrees from Prince of Wales, range 975 meters (1,070 yards).  "A" turret guns of the Prince of Wales are trained on the port quarter."

I hope this can count as a citation 207.30.62.198 (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And, by the way, the aft most quad turret on PoW was the "Y" turret, not the "X" turret 207.30.62.198 (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It may just be the technical author in me
But the article really could use a reference diagram. The wreck section would be so much easier to read with a simple schematic included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.174.189 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Recovery of bell
Something to note: there is going to be a recovery operation to try and retrieve the bell soon. Should probably keep an eye out to see if it needs inclusion in here at some point. Telegraph article. Regards, Woody (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Took them a few years, but they recovered the bell. Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Wreck-final salvo vs flame
Many have heard the "final salvo" story, but it doesn't appear in the article prior to Wreck para 4 "Other researchers have...time." Without some setup, this doesn't make much sense, does it? Should the final salvo be mentioned in Denmark Strait, or be explained more in Wreck?Sammy D III (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it gets as much coverage as it deserves. Its unprovable either way and thus a non-issue, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? No references here now, but wasn’t the “last salvo” story reported at the time? It became part of the Hood myth, didn’t it? And an explosion makes far more sense than the almost certainly emotional last salvo story, doesn’t it?
 * Modern theories and Wreck both speculate on unprovable theories, as do articles on Bismarck, Yamato, Titanic, and other sunken ships. Sort of a cottage industry. And this one uses reason to possibly explain what has often seemed like a fantastic fabrication to many of us. They were not making it up, they just were wrong.Sammy D III (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it's worth mentioning, but feel free to add it yourself. Just be sure to cite it properly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * From HMS Hood association "According to the Germans, as the bow rose into the air, Hood’s forward turrets were seen to fire one last salvo. If this is true, it is likely due to a short or a mechanical failure."

 * I have read elsewhere that mercury switches triggered by the list -could cause the turret to fire. JRPG (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

File:HMS Hood (51) - March 17, 1924.jpg
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:HMS Hood (51) - March 17, 1924.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 24, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-05-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary armament
I know that there's been some tension between this article and Admiral-class battlecruiser, but it is far from being resolved. There's redundant and conflicting information out the wazoo. In particular, the Admiral article lists the main secondary battery as 16 5/50 single mounts. Yet apparently no ship of the class (ahem!) ever mounted more than 12. And over time the entire complement was removed. Neither fact is mentioned in the Admiral, and the first surely should be. I would be quite happy to gut the Admiral article, removing everything except the justification for the class, the execution of the class (i.e. single ship needing modification), and a reference to this article. Also, there really should be some description here of the refits. Dmforcier (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

 * The 16 5.5" guns were the planned secondary batteries but armour mods saw 4 be removed due to weight 146.200.194.6 (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Hood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708214655/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20062616.htm to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20062616.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on HMS Hood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515050708/http://www.memorials.inportsmouth.co.uk/southsea/naval.htm to http://www.memorials.inportsmouth.co.uk/southsea/naval.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041204195722/http://www.warship.org/no21987.htm to http://www.warship.org/no21987.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20131018060342/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/sitecore/content/home/about-the-royal-navy/organisation/life-in-the-royal-navy/history/historic-ships/hms-hood-1920 to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/sitecore/content/home/about-the-royal-navy/organisation/life-in-the-royal-navy/history/historic-ships/hms-hood-1920

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Invincibility
Where is the evidence that the Hood was perceived to be invincible? I've heard this idea passed about before, but it seems off to me: it contradicts what I know about inter-war RN thinking, and it sounds a bit too close to the similar myth about the RMS Titanic. 94.4.116.24 (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

 * A Google search for ""invincible hms hood"" produces only low quality hits on this phrase, i.e. none from reputable military histories. It strikes me as likeliest to originate in propaganda, either British before she was sunk ("we've got an invincible warship") or German after ("we've sunk their 'invincible' warship"). In a similar way the term "pocket battleship" was propaganda that I suspect was most useful in helping Britain spin the destruction of a heavy cruiser as a more material loss to Germany than it really was. Tirailleur (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"Most powerful"
I question whether, as the article asserts, Hood "remained the largest and most powerful warship in the world for 20 years after her commissioning". She wasn't the most powerful warship in the world beyond 1920, when Nagato / Mutsu of the IJN, with their 8 x 16" guns, came along, closely followed by the US Colorados in 1921. Hood wasn't even the most powerful warship in the RN after 1923, when Nelson and Rodney rocked up with 9 x 16" guns. Who actually made this claim? Meanwhile I have edited the text as this claim would appear at best to be unsubstantiated OR or a non-noteworthy opinion. Tirailleur (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You're arguing facts, but I was talking public perceptions, ignorant of the fine details.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Then please produce a cite for the claim that the public thought she was invincible. I don't mean a cite that she was, but a cite to a source that authoritatively states that the public thought she was. Tirailleur (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Taylor has a extensive quote from a Portuguese newspaper that begins "The great Hood, the most powerful warship in the world".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 * So what? That's a clearly non-noteworthy opinion. I can produce newspaper quotes that describe HMS Belfast as a battleship, and any tracked vehicle as a "tank". Is that the one and only citation? Tirailleur (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It speaks to the public perception and nothing in the quote is factually incorrect, unlike most popular media today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Nothing...is factually incorrect"? You mean apart from the central claim that Hood, with 8 x 15-inch guns and 15,360lbs broadside weight, was somehow more powerful than Nagato (1920) with 8 x 16-inch guns and 18,000lbs broadside weight, or Colorado (1921) with 8 x 16-inch guns, or Nelson (1923) with 9 x 16-inch guns and 21,375lbs broadside weight - 40% more than Hood? It's bizarre and wholly false FGS.86.155.93.46 (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the reality, not the public perception. Don't forget that Hood was 5,000 tons bigger, which plays a part in that perception.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by 'powerful'. Hood displaced considerably more than Nagato but went considerably faster. So... more powerful, one would think. She displaced about 30% more than a Colorado but went about 50% faster. So... more powerful again. And a big-gun warship's fighting power was partly determined by its speed, because the faster ship could open and close the range at will. Hood also looked a damn sight more impressive than a Nagato or a Colorado, which counted for something when half the point of these great white elephants was prestige, and showing the flag, and deterring potential enemies. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

change in format
Somewhere since this article reached featured status, the presentation in the infobox of the armament changed. Instead of the more specific type of gun "BL 15 inch Mark 1" - we just now have the link piped down to just its calibre. Is this a case of changing views on how the infobox should be structured, or minor edits along the way changing the format? GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's me realizing that the precise mark of gun isn't really necessary in the infobox as it supposed to be a summary of the ship's characteristics, not a full and complete listing of them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There still seems to be some inconsistency - whether it's "15 inch" or "15-inch". GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Image of Hood’s bell
I found a free use Geograph image of Hood’s bell: https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6641531 Implacable18 (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone know ?
I have been told about a man called Dennis Edward Collins that was a radio man on the ship, my friends grandad, can anyone confirm? Been looking and researching for him for hours now 🙄, hope someone can help please 🙂 2A02:C7D:F829:1200:5543:337C:CA7E:493A (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Start of construction
There is an inconsistency between the lead which states "Already under construction when the Battle of Jutland occurred in mid-1916," and the Construction section which has "Construction of Hood began at the John Brown & Company shipyard in Clydebank, Scotland, as yard number 460 on 1 September 1916." It looks like one of these needs to be changed - which one should it be? Bcp67 (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain that those bits that had been laid down before Jutland were removed after the battle and that she was re-laid down in September, but I'm on the road and can't confirm that right now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Report, 27 July 1916 – On 14 June, we received a letter from the Admiralty advising that the Treasury agreed that one ship of the new battle cruisers is to be proceeded with. It is to be ours, ship No 460. Editor's Note: Hood's keel was officially laid on 1 September 1916. Based on some anecdotal mentions in an Admiralty file, some authors have noted 31 May 1916 as the "first keel laying date." The records of John Brown Shipyards do not support this. The official date for the ship that became Hood as we know it, was 1 September of that year. This date is reportedly also backed-up by the "Ship's Books" (ADM 136/13) held at The National Archives.
 * From http://www.hmshood.org.uk/history/construct/construction.htm 78.150.86.84 (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hood Commission date
There is an inconsistency in the date the Hood was commissioned into the Royal Navy as the 15th of May when official British admiralty documents, list of commission, dockings in the Hood's ship log book which put her 1st recorded commission as the 29th of March 1920

The list of Hood commissions can be found in The Battlecruiser H.M.S HOOD" by Bruce Taylor 150.143.193.154 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hood sunk by Prince Eugen, not the Bismark
I dont have a reference here, but I have read that Ballard's observsation of the wreck of the Hood suggest that it is more likely that it was sunk by the Prince Eugen, not the Bismark. I have further read that both the initial reports and ongoing fiction to the contrary are nothing but propaganda - it would not look good to have a battleship like the Hood sunk by a "mere" cruiser. 2001:8003:E40F:9601:9D79:A255:911C:8514 (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's an extraordinary claim. It will require extraordinary sources. BusterD (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hood was sunk by Bismarck thanks to a Golden BB shot below her armour belt which happen to cook off 3 magazines all at the same time 195.213.66.52 (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:HMS Hood


text:
Talk:Alfonso VI of León and Castile

article title
should this not be Alfonso VI of Leon, particilarly if his father is kept at Ferdinand I of Leon???? 62.78.104.129 15:53, 21 June 2005 (UTC)

the emperator totius hispanae) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.180.206 (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sagrajas??
Why doesnt this article mention anything about his defeat at Sagrajas (arabic: al-zalaqa)??! Could anyone with some good sources write something up please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.189.93.13 (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Agnes of Aquitaine
This page claims she was divorced from Alfonso due to consanguinity. In all my readings about Alfonso they state she died in 1078, while still married to the king. Both Cowdrey (Pope Gregory VII, chapter entitled Christian Spain, page 477) and Pidal (The Cid and his Spain, 147) hold this position.

I may make the correction unless someone has any concerns.Avid Historiographer 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a papal letter, imprecisely dated but about 1080, which accuses Alfonso of being in an incestuous marriage (a marriage to someone related within a degree prohibited by the church). Chronicler Orderic Vitalis writes that Helias, Count of Maine, decades later, married Agnes, formerly wife of Alfonso VI. These have been interpreted as indicating that Alfonso divorced Agnes as a result of the papal opinion and she later remarried. However, there are alternative interpretations of both items. Orderic might have been confused, either in terms of which of the numerous Agnes of Aquitaines Helias married, or with regard to which former wife of Alfonso he married (e.g. Beatrice, Alfonso's widow - it would certainly be unusual for Agnes to disappear for decades, and only then remarry, although an unreported marriage in between is not out of the question). Likewise, the letter from the pope could refer to his imprecisely dated marriage to Constance of Burgundy (she being a second cousin of first wife Agnes, and hence within the prohibited degree of affinity).

There is a death record for a Queen Agnes, dated 1087 1097, in a late source. This has been taken by some to be an erroneous reversal of 1078 1079, her "true" death date by authors prefering a death hypothesis, or accurate by those prefering the divorce scenario (although this is before she could have married Helias). However, both interpretations appear to be wrong, as this is certainly Agnes of Aquitaine, Queen of Aragon, rather than her sister of the same name. It should probably be ambiguated, but with care to appropriately represent the uncertainty: an uncertainly that applies to the entire issue of Alfonso's spouses, virtually every source giving a different account (see, for example, Reilly's "The Kingdom of Leon-Castile Under Alfonso VI"; Canal Sanchez-Pagin in "Anuario de Estudios Medievales", 21:11-40; Palencia in "Estudios Sobre Alfonso VI y la Reconquista de Toledo".)Agricolae 16:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Making this even more confusing, both of these Agnes's are daughters of Guillaume VIII, Duke of Aquitaine, though by two different wives. The Agnes that was Queen of Aragon died in 1097. 69.42.36.230 (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, typo on my part, now fixed with strikethroughs. Agricolae (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

 * While we're on the subject of Alfonso's marriages, can anyone cite a reference for the story that he was betrothed to Agatha of Normandy (William the Conqueror's daughter), but that Agatha died before the marriage took place? Weir's British Royal Family genealogy shows Agatha and Alfonso's marriage taking place before 1074 at Abbey of the Holy Trinity, Caen, Normandy, France.  I can find nothing to confirm this, but I can find no confirmation that Agatha died either.  Agatha has also been known as Elgiva of Normandie.  69.42.36.230 (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

 * I think this is originally from Orderic, and if I recall correctly, he is explicit in calling it a betrothal, not a marriage, and states that Agatha was to be taken to Iberia for the marriage. For an overview of what is available, do a Google Books search for Orderic and "Amfurcius" (i.e. Alfonso). Agricolae (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Error in bottom table
In the table it states that he was preced as king of leon by his brother Sancho II wich is incorrect as the beginning of this biography clearly states that he inherited Leon in 1065 straight from his father Ferdinand I. Could someone please correct this? I'm not so good with those tables 81.165.123.84 07:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It is correct as it stands. Note that Leon appears twice. Alfonso's first reign was in succession to his father, but came to an end when he was ejected by his brother Sancho. He then regained the crown following Sancho's assassination. I will clarify. Agricolae 05:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Really bad article
Let's have some information about his conquest or liberation of Toledo, his attempt to negotiate with the Muslim Taifas, his self-proclaimed title of "Protector of All Religions" -- and the bloody murder of his Jewish ambassador. What happened? This article is all about legend and poetry. Scott Adler (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please fix
FIX THIS ARTICLE PLEASE..it is an embarrassment..

The article is just awful, mixing mythology with bad translation errors. There is an excellent biography by Bernard Reilly that will tell you everything, in more detail than you ever dreams possible.

Ferdinand I divided his united realm among his sons. Alfonso, who received Leon, tried to defeat his brother Sancho, king of Castile. Alfonso was sent into exile, to the city of al Ma'mun of Toledo, his feudal client. From there he might have plotted his brother's murder (it is not known). He likely financed the beginning of the construction of the cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, Under pressure form Abbot Hugh of Cluny and Pope Gregory VII, he worked to reform the indigenous "Mozarabic" church of the Iberian peninsula, compelling them to accept the Roman liturgy. This caused considerable consternation in the Spanish church. As king of Leon and Castile, he maneuvered the takeover of Toledo in 1085 (it was a diplomatic..not really a military action), and ushered in an era in which Castilians interacted intimately with Muslims and Jews in former Taifa cities.

His only son was born to a Muslim concubine, Zaida, who was the daughter-in-law of a king. It is thought that Alfonso married her and that she became his wife Elizabeth. The son, Sancho, was killed in battle against the Almoravids, and his daughter, Urracca, was made queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urraccarules (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
See the rationale, and related moves, at Talk:Ferdinand I of León. Srnec (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cinematic portrayal
His portrayal by John Fraser in the 1966 epic "El Cid" needs mention in the "In Popular Culture" section.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.169.0 (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Any Citations
The article is a really bad one with only one citation on some information in the introduction. It needs to be completely revamped with verified, reliable material.

For example, the "Strong Fighter" section does not cite any resources and makes very strong claims about Alfonso protecting Muslims within his kingdom that need to be proven before being put up here.

Khateeb88 (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree, the article is in need of much work. Thank you for volunteering. Agricolae (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Alfonso VI of León, not Castille
Contrary to what many people think and say, Urraca, Alfonso VI and Alfonso VII never consider themselves kings of Castille. There are no historical records of that afirmation. The first king of Castille was Sancho I, brother of Alfonso VI. When he died Alfonso never considered Castille an independent kingdom. The next king of Castille was Sancho II, son of Alfonso VII who separate Leon and Castille as two different kingdoms. This wrong information should be revised and corrected. 154.28.188.237 (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not follow titulature found in contemporary records, but how the subject is treated by modern scholars, who take historical events, which are by definition unique, into historical patterns by making generalizations.  What do they call him? Reilly calls Alfonso 'king of Leon-Castile' and elsewhere 'Alfonso de Leon y Castilla', and the same style is used by Montenegro and by García de Cortázar, while similarly Mackey calls him 'Alfonso VI of Leon and Castile', and Estepa and Mozo call him 'Alfonso VI, rey de Leon y Castilla'.  Espinar, Santamaria and Salazar call him simply 'Alfonso VI de Castilla'. To Castro and Gonzalez he is 'Alfonso VI de Castilla y Leon'. That all from a quick survey of Dialnet, so it does not appear that there is a scholarly consensus along the lines you are arguing. Agricolae (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason for such confusion is that in the Middle Ages, titulature was often not standardized, and the sources of the time could sometimes commit mistakes when recording them, which many modern authors repeat, resulting in a mess. As in most of Europe at this time however, the same person could come to rule several kingdoms by legally succeeding in each of their thrones separately, that's what matters. There's a similar confusion in the Wikipedia pages of many medieval European monarchs because of this. Alfonso was VI of Leon, I of Galicia AND II of Castille, all of which were their own kingdoms. Wareno (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Alfonso VI of León and Castile