text:
Talk:Maud of Wales

Old discussion
The heading is incorrect. She was queen consort, thus there should not be "princess" in her heading - there should be no title. 217.140.193.123 13:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

What the puck. This has earlier been under Maud of Wales BUT WAS MOVED BY CUT-AND-PASTE!!!! Here, a noisy scream is in order. Edit history is under earlier heading !!!! 217.140.193.123 13:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Name of article
Why is this under "Princess Maud of Wales"? That implies that her father only ever was the Prince of Wales, but he wasn't, he was king. Therefore, shouldn't it be "Princess Maud of the United Kingdom"?

 * Probably because Princess Maud her title was never Princess Maud of the United Kingdom. She was married before the death of her grandmother, Queen Victoria, and therefore she was known as Princess Maud of Wales. I suppose you could argue that she was still a Princess of the United Kingdom, but her title from birth until her marriage to Prince Carl of Denmark (Haakon VII) was Maud of Wales. Morhange 17:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that we should move the page back to Maud of Wales. She was, technically, a Princess of the United Kingdom, but was never titled as such, as Morhange stated above, she was married to Prince Carl of Denmark (future Haakon VII), before her father assumed the throne.Prsgoddess187 17:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This Should be under Maud of Wales. Princess of Wales was her titular designation prior to her Marriage --Mpokane 11:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Move
Moved WhiteNight T 08:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be under Maud of Wales, as she was married to Carl of Denmark prior to her father's accession. Prsgoddess187 02:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Support Having looked over the issue and how other daughters of people who later become monarch are described, I notice how we use as their maiden title the title they had when they marry, not a title they would have had if they had remained unmarried until their parent became monarch. So I think this is a logical move. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 16:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Prsgoddess187 has done a very good job at giving me the facts. Support the reversal to its original name, unless someone else can come up with better arguments :-) Gryffindor  17:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support She was Maud of Wales when she married, that is her pre-consort name and where she should be located. Prsgoddess187 19:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support For pretty much the same reasons as above (she was never styled of the UK, as she would've been Queen of N by then). Andreala 03:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Name of article
Why is she just "Maud of Wales"? Her sisters are "Princess Victoria" and "Princess Louise" - why does Maud not get the Princess in the title?

She is Maud of Wales because she married prior to 1901, BEFORE her father became King Edward VII. Her sister Victoria is listed as "of the United Kingdom" because she never married, and upon her father assuming the throne, she became HRH The Princess Victoria. Louise also married prior to 1901, and is listed at her style as Duchess of Fife and Princess Royal. Maud was never known as a Princess of the UK. Prsgoddess187 16:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected
OK. Let's just take a few minutes and calm down. I've protected this page because there seems to be a conflict of interests in adding Queen Maud's genetic info. Can the users involved please discuss this below and come to a compromise (nicely :-) ? Craigy (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I reference specific articles on Haplogroup T (mtDNA) and Haplogroup H (mtDNA) which use the well known book The Seven Daughters of Eve by Bryan Sykes. The same Sykes who contacted research on the remains of the Romanovs in 1991. Tasc does not state any sources on his rejection of the addittion.

I incorporate text in the articles which was created by User:Saforrest back in February and has since been inserted to any number of articles on matrilinear relatives of both Nicholas II of Russia and Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse but was glaringly missing on the articles on the two main individuals.

I have tried to adress the matter in User talk:Tasc five days ago but other than some vague comment on it being "poorly written" he has really not made clear why he/she reacts so to the mere mention of a Genetics section in the article.

Examples of articles which do include the section and Tasc has never complained about include among others:
 * Anne de Foix.
 * Bertha von Putelendorf.
 * Elisabeth of Tirol.
 * Eleanor of Navarre.
 * Catherine de Foix.
 * Blanche I of Navarre.
 * Juana Manuel of Castile.
 * Blanca de La Cerda y Lara.
 * Eleanor of Castile (d. 1416).
 * Anna Sophie of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg.
 * Elisabeth of Austria (d. 1505).
 * Elisabeth II of Bohemia.
 * Barbara of Celje.
 * Anne, Duchess of Luxembourg.
 * Anne of Austria.
 * Margaret of Thuringia.
 * Anna of Brandenburg.
 * Ursula of Brandenburg.
 * Sophie of Pomerania.
 * Sofie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin (d. 1631).
 * Anna of Saxony.
 * Elisabeth of Hesse.
 * Christina of Holstein-Gottorp.
 * Christine of Hesse-Kassel.
 * Anne of Denmark.
 * Elizabeth of Bohemia.
 * Sophia of Hanover.
 * Louise of Hesse-Kassel.
 * Princess Louise Charlotte of Denmark.
 * Princess Margarita of Baden.
 * Anna of Holstein-Gottorp.
 * Anna Maria of Ostfriesland.
 * Anna Maria of Mecklenburg-Schwerin.
 * Anna Sophie of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg.
 * Magdalena Sibylle of Saxe-Weissenfels.
 * Charlotte Sophie of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld.
 * Anna Sophie, Princess of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt.
 * Sophia Frederica of Mecklenburg-Schwerin.
 * Christine of Saxony.
 * etc.

As far as I can see it has not diminished the worth of these articles but has made them better linked to one another. I could care less if I am personally banned but I would like to see these articles stay in good shape and not suffer in quality due to the likes of Tasc. User:Dimadick

Unprotected
Unprotecting the page since there hasn't been discussion in a bit. I have WLed the page though. Any 3RR vios will lead to blockings. --Woohookitty(meow) 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The first post protection edit was a revert. I don't want to see any more reverts or else the page will be protected immediately. I strongly dislike when people stop discussing, wait until the page is unprotected and then go right back at it. --Woohookitty(meow) 12:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Being interested in history I usually embrace any info on the subject, but I don't feel the genetic information merits a place in the article. May I suggest creating a separate article on the subject including a list of these people? Then if you insist you can alway include a link to that article under the See also heading. Inge 12:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * hi wooho. I just edited the item which seems to be in contention. I'm afraid that I did not know what the hell the link meant, and got absolutely no further clicking either mitochondrial or haplogroup. I gave up before clicking T and googled instead. So I changed the three separate links so thay all point to the correct article, which properly explains what is meant.
 * On the question of whether this information should be included or not, I am a little nonplussed. As it stands it is pretty meaningless and needs rephrasing to explain that it means she is one (I presume) of millions of humans who happen to have this genotype, so the fact is unremarkable except that most people don't know if they belong to the group. Logically, including it would imply that all wiki biography articles whould include a section on the genetic makeup of the individuals concerned. This seems absurd, unless there is is some significant consequence of belonging to the group. Sandpiper 08:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Queen maud
Without wishing to stir up a fuss, why should she me Maud of Wales rather than Queen Maud of Norway? It seems to me a Queen would trump a princess in terms of importance, so would be the obvious main title. But I'm not hung up about that, I presume it is taken care of by redirects. My gripe is that the page includes the UK family link table, but not the Norwegian one, which actually lists her descendants. Admittedly the article is rather crowded by tables, but this same logic that her greater importance is as Queen would imply that if we are forced to a choice, the wrong one has been included. Sandpiper 09:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Wrong on all counts.

 * Royal consorts lack ordinals (numbers). As a result it is standard here and elsewhere to refer to deceased consorts by their maiden name or maiden title, never their consort name. That is why history refers to Catherine of Aragon, Mary of Modena, etc, not Queen Catherine, Queen Mary. Maud's premarital title was Maud of Wales. That is why she is correctly named that here. She cannot be placed as Queen Maud of Norway. That would imply she was a queen regnant, not a queen consort.

 * Wikipedia also correctly puts her birth family template in, not the template of the family she married into. She was a British princess and so naturally the British template is used, to show her ancestry. A page about someone born a Norwegian princess would of course include a Norwegian template to show her ancestry. The marital family template is only used when someone is alive, e.g., the current British Royal Family template is used on the Duke of Edinburgh page, and the page of Queen Sophia of Spain uses the Spanish royal one. When they die, the Greek royal one will be used instead to show their ancestry. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 20:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * well I take your first point, that's fine if it is convention, but I see it is plainly not without controversy. However, i do not take your second point. Tables we include are for the benefit of readers, and have little to do with geneaological conventions. As a reader I have been looking at some of these pages and it is an obvious lack that a page about someone who has important descendants does not have a table listing those descendants, so I can click on them or see them tabulated for easy reference. I do not like having to call up her husbands page, then find on that the link I need, bad page design. This is not the only page I have noticed where there is this lack of information on spouse pages. Either the table needs to be redesigned to show her in the middle with her english ancestors and norwegian descendants, or we need two tables (which presumably is simpler if essentially they already exist?) so anyone can see them here. Sandpiper 17:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As the mother of a line of Norweigan monarchs, Maud's page should show her connections to her decendants. (ZIGBRYWG 17:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. —Centrx→talk • 05:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Maud of Wales → Princess Maud of Wales – naming conventions for British royalty includes the title Princess before the name if there is no greater title - DBD 16:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose There is no convention that warrants the inclusion of the title of "Princess" for British princesses as said in your requested move. WP practice is to omit the title for all royal consorts. Moves are made to conform to that. Charles 00:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per WP:NC. Prsgodd e ss187 11:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I read there "are referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title". Princess Maud's title was "Princess Maud of Wales", not "Maud of Wales", so surely it would be against policy to leave this page here? -- DBD 10:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Is Maud of Wales not a premarital name? Judging from your quote of WP:NC, it applies. Charles 12:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply That is a premarital name, but, as with all other British Princess articles, Princess should be applied before it (prenominal Princess is absent in exceptional cases, like a postnominal Princess (eg Princess Royal) being applicable) -- DBD 13:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no such convention for British princesses. There is distinction in that Maud was actually a queen. Charles 18:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
The Naming conventions (names and titles) currently read as follows:
 * Deceased Royal Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title, not by their consort name, as without an ordinal (which they lack) it is difficult to distinguish various consorts; eg, as there have been many queen consorts called Catherine, use Catherine of Aragon not Queen Catherine.

In spite of the fact that the convention does not say not to use the title "princess" (in fact it even mentions "pre-marital title"), many people have interpreted the example "Catherine of Aragon" (i.e. without the title "princess") to be prescriptive for all consorts. In my opinion, the current convention doesn't work well, and this lady's article should be found under "the most common form of the name used in English" (i.e. Queen Maud of Norway) - but there isn't any hope of that change for the forseeable future. Noel S McFerran 21:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The accepted convention that we use is that past consorts have no title in the article title; hence, Mary of Teck, not Princess Mary of Teck, consort of King George V of the United Kingdom; Sophie of Prussia not Princess Sophie of Prussia, consort of Constantine I of Greece; and Astrid of Sweden not Princess Astrid of Sweden, consort of Leopold III of Belgium. Prsgodd e ss187 11:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By "the accepted convention that we use" you must mean practice. The convention does not say to do that - although, admittedly, the practice is all but universal. Noel S McFerran 12:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Prsgodd e ss187 12:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

From Naming conventions (names and titles): Use "Prince(ss) {first name} of ..." where a prince/ss has a territorial suffix by virtue of their parent's title, eg, Prince William of Wales, Princess Beatrice of York, Prince Arthur of Connaught, etc. -- DBD 13:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes that is true, "unless" they had a higher title, which Maud did as Queen Consort of Norway. In that case, the practice we use is outlined above, at Deceased Royal Consorts. Prsgodd e ss187 17:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Princess Maud of Denmark?
Surely after her marriage she would have become Princess Carl (or Charles) of Denmark? I have changed the article to say this. Penrithguy 21:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 * That is British usage. In Denmark we have a Princess Alexandra, a princess formerly by marriage, but who was also known as such during her marriage. It's a UK thing. Charles 23:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, but she was styled HRH Princess Carl of Denmark in English. Since this is not Danish language Wikipedia, it is irrelevant how she was styled in Danish. Surtsicna (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

 * But this isn't the British Wikipedia either. How is for instance the usage in the world's largest English-speaking country? And how do you know she was styled HRH Princess Carl of Denmark? Do you got any English-language correspondence from the Danish court that uses this form? Frankly, to me Princess Carl sounds like a transvestite :-)

 * When I compare the Wikipedias in different languages, I find that several different choices about what to call this article have been made. Of those in the Latin alphabet less than half use Maud of Wales. The Swedish has Maud of Great Britain. the German Maud of Great Britain and Ireland, the Catalan Maud of United Kingdom, the Italian Maud of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the Norwegian and Danish Maud of Norway, and the rest Maud (Norwegian queen). There is no article in Welsh about this Princess of Wales. I would guess she is best know, and most notable, as Queen Maud of Norway. Both the title and the introduction should be changed to reflect this.
 * --213.236.196.39 (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Should be Princess Maud of the United Kingdom
This title should be changed to Princess Maud of the United Kingdom, as her sister's article is at Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bit late but I agree! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Princess Carl?
Why are we using British terminology in titling her Princess Carl as a Danish princess, when such titling is unknown in Danish usage? The title she was given by Denmark was Princess Maud not Princess Carl, regardless of what Brits have used. Another user and I have both reverted this, but a third user puts it right back. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And yet another user reverted to my version - as long as we are counting users. She was referred to in English as "Princess Carl of Denmark". If need be, add how she was styled in Danish. It is really that simple. Surtsicna (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I look at it, it appears that "Princess Charles of Denmark" is what she was most commonly called. There is even a Begonia cultivar named "Princess Charles of Denmark". Surtsicna (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 20 December 2015

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus against this proposed title. Jenks24 (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Maud of Wales → Princess Maud of Wales – Bring into line with other articles such as Princess Beatrice of York and Princess Charlotte of Cambridge> 83.54.180.237 (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: such a move would take this article out of line with all the others in Category:Norwegian royal consorts (including Caroline Matilda of Great Britain and Louise of Great Britain) which do not use the title. Opera hat (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Opera hat. Surtsicna (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Maud of Wales" is stupid, but calling a queen a princess makes it worse. I'd support a move to something like Maud of the United Kingdom or Maud of Great Britain. john k (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - WP:CONSORTS indicates living consorts are treated differently than deceased, and that deceased consorts article titles should not include a royal title. 1bandsaw (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose well-meaning idea. Deb (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support but preferably move to Maud of Norway. "Princess Maud of Wales" is the standard format for her maiden name, as the nominator says. According to WP:CONSORTS, "Deceased consorts are referred to by a name by which they are commonly known": the articles on the Norwegian Wikipedia (both of them) are titled "Maud of Norway" and she is probably better known as Queen of Norway in the UK as well. In addition, WP:CONSORTS specifically mentions that "Many other queens and empresses, particularly English princesses who marry abroad, are traditionally known by the name of their husband's country, as with Elizabeth of Bohemia". This is surely a parallel case. "Maud of Wales" satisfies neither convention. Opera hat (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose by a prevalently adhered-to (though not unanimous or official) convention, most deceased European queens consort are eventually located at "Firstname of Paternalseat" e.g. Eleanor of Aquitaine (Queen of England), Margaret of Valois (Queen of France), Mary of Guise (Queen of Scotland), Catherine of Braganza (Queen of England), Anne of Austria (Queen of France), Louise of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (Queen of Prussia), Josephine of Leuchtenberg (Queen of Sweden), Elisabeth of Wied (Queen of Romania), Emma of Waldeck and Pyrmont (Queen of the Netherlands), Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg (Queen of Spain), Zita of Bourbon-Parma (Empress of Austria), Astrid of Sweden (Queen of Belgium), Giovanna of Italy (Queen of Bulgaria), Marie-José of Belgium (Queen of Italy), etc. FactStraight (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The header says "Please base arguments on article title policy". The relevant policy is WP:CONSORTS which reiterates WP:COMMONNAME. The current title is not the name by which this queen consort is commonly known. Opera hat (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The article title policy to which the header links explicitly includes as a criterion "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles"; a consistency which the examples I cite illustrate, and which explains the !vote I cast. If you wish to cast your own !vote based on some other criterion, feel free to do so. FactStraight (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Current Consort Styling

 * Said earlier in discussion: * Royal consorts lack ordinals (numbers). As a result it is standard here and elsewhere to refer to deceased consorts by their maiden name or maiden title, never their consort name. That is why history refers to Catherine of Aragon, Mary of Modena, etc, not Queen Catherine, Queen Mary. Maud's premarital title was Maud of Wales. That is why she is correctly named that here. She cannot be placed as Queen Maud of Norway. That would imply she was a queen regnant, not a queen consort. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh, have the Wikiroolz got fuzzy with the influx of the commoner consorts? Why do we now have pages on Queen Maxima of the Netherlands rather than Maxima Zorreguieta, Queen Mathilde of Belgium (shouldn't that be of the Belgians?) rather than Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz, Queen Letizia of Spain rather than Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano? Plus not-yet-consorts like Crown Princess Mary of Denmark rather than Mary Donaldson, Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway rather than Mette-Marit Hoiby, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall rather than Camilla Shand or even Camilla Parker-Bowles, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge rather than Catherine Middleton? Because the rule cited above fits none of those female consorts/consorts in waiting. Have things now changed? On the Talk pg for Queen Maxima, they're saying there that the rule is Queen goes before the consort's given name. Wholly confused about it now. ScarletRibbons (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because they are not dead? All of this very confusing mess we've ended up with, as described here, could be fixed very easily with this, but sadly there seems to be little or no interest. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Queens
We should be making a distinction between Queen regnant & Queen consort concerning Margaret I, so as to to confuse readers. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Margaret was both, so no distinction is necessary. No distinction would be necessary either way because a queen consort and a queen regnant are both queens. Complicating simple matter is what confuses readers.
 * Maud being the first queen of a fully independent Norway, for the first time in over half a milennium, is also very signficant and should certainly not be removed. Surtsicna (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A distinction is necessary, as Maud never reigned in Norway. I'm trying to draw the difference between them, but so far you've kept reverting me at every attempt. According to your argument, we would have to change the intro to Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But Margaret was also a queen consort. I pointed that out already but you keep ignoring it. Why are you inventing problems where there are none?
 * "She was the first queen for more than 500 years that our people could call queen of Norway alone." Apparently the people who wrote her obituary saw no need for any distinction. Surtsicna (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * They don't make a distinction between a reigning Queen & a Queen consort, that's true. But we should, so as not to confuse readers. Anyways, I've reverted back to what it was earlier today & leaving it alone. Margaret I's multiple positions are a headache. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

"Matilda of Wales" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matilda_of_Wales&redirect=no Matilda of Wales] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Maud of Wales


text:
Nature Reviews Rheumatology

Nature Reviews Rheumatology is a monthly peer-reviewed medical journal published by the Nature Portfolio. It was established in 2005 as Nature Clinical Practice Rheumatology and obtained its current title in 2009. The journal covers all aspects of rheumatology. The editor-in-chief is Sarah Onuora.

According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2021 impact factor of 32.286, ranking it 2nd out of 34 journals in the category "Rheumatology".

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

title: Nature Reviews Rheumatology


text:
J. E. B. Seely, 1st Baron Mottistone

John Edward Bernard Seely, 1st Baron Mottistone, (31 May 1868 – 7 November 1947), also known as Jack Seely, was a British Army general and politician. He was a Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) from 1900 to 1904 and a Liberal MP from 1904 to 1922 and from 1923 to 1924. He was Secretary of State for War for the two years prior to the First World War, before being forced to resign as a result of the Curragh Incident. He led one of the last great cavalry charges in history at the Battle of Moreuil Wood on his war horse Warrior in March 1918. Seely was a great friend of Winston Churchill and the only former cabinet minister to go to the front in 1914 and still be there four years later.

Background
Seely was born at Brookhill Hall in the village of Pinxton in Derbyshire on 31 May 1868. He was the seventh child, and fourth son, of Sir Charles Seely, 1st Baronet (1833–1915).

Seely was a member of a family of politicians, industrialists and significant landowners. His grandfather Charles Seely (1803–1887) was a noted Radical Member of Parliament and philanthropist and was famous for hosting Giuseppe Garibaldi, the Italian revolutionary hero, in London and the Isle of Wight in 1864. Seely's father as well as his brother Sir Charles Seely, 2nd Baronet, were also MPs, as would later be his nephew Sir Hugh Seely, 3rd Baronet and 1st Baron Sherwood, who became Under-Secretary of State for Air during the Second World War.

The family had homes in Nottinghamshire and the Isle of Wight as well as extensive property in London. He is still associated with the Isle of Wight, where he spent his holidays whilst growing up. His aunt's husband, Colonel Henry Gore-Browne, won the Victoria Cross during the Indian Mutiny. Gore-Browne was manager of the extensive Seely estates on the Isle of Wight. Queen Victoria lived nearby at her favourite residence, Osborne House.

Early life
He was educated at Harrow School, where he fagged for Stanley Baldwin. He also met Winston Churchill, who became a lifelong friend. He then studied at Trinity College, Cambridge, 1887–90.

Seely served in the Hampshire Yeomanry, in which he was commissioned as a second lieutenant, while still an undergraduate, on 7 December 1889. He was promoted to lieutenant on 23 December 1891 and to captain on 31 May 1892.

He joined the Inner Temple and was called to the Bar in 1897.

Second Boer War
Following the outbreak of the Second Boer War he was commissioned as a captain in the Imperial Yeomanry on 7 February 1900, having succeeded in arranging transport to South Africa for his squadron the same week, with the assistance of his uncle Sir Francis Evans, 1st Baronet, chairman of the Union Castle Line. He is remembered in South Africa as the commander that placed the 14-year-old Japie Greyling (1890-1954) against a wall in front of a firing squad, threatening to have him executed if he did not provide information about the Boer forces in the area. The boy refused to cooperate, and was freed. Several memorials still exist in South Africa today, attesting to the remarkable story.

He served bravely, if a little insubordinately. He was mentioned in despatches and awarded a medal with four clasps, as well as the Distinguished Service Order (DSO) in November 1900.

Early political career
Whilst still on active service in South Africa during the Boer War, Seely was elected Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight as a Conservative at a by-election in May 1900 and re-elected at the "Khaki" General Election that autumn.

On 10 August 1901, he was promoted to the rank of major in the yeomanry, with the honorary rank of captain in the Army from 10 July. Seely was appointed a deputy lieutenant of the Isle of Wight in 1902.

Along with Winston Churchill and Lord Hugh Cecil he attacked the Balfour government's neglect of the Army. He was a strong believer in free trade and was unhappy with the Unionist (Conservative) Party's increasing support for Tariff Reform (protectionism). He also opposed the Balfour government's support for the use of Chinese Slavery in South Africa. He left the Conservative Party in March 1904 mainly over these two issues and challenged the Conservative Party to oppose him running as an Independent Conservative at the 1904 Isle of Wight by-election. They declined and he was returned unopposed.

He was narrowly elected Liberal MP for Liverpool Abercromby at the 1906 general election.

Seely was promoted to the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the Hampshire Yeomanry on 20 June 1907, and to colonel on 31 March 1908; he was therefore known as "Colonel Seely" during his time as a politician before the First World War.

Under-Secretary of State
In 1908, the new Prime Minister H. H. Asquith appointed him Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, in place of Winston Churchill who had been promoted to the Cabinet. According to the Dictionary of National Biography, "Since his chief, Lord Crewe, was in the Lords, important work fell to the under-secretary, in particular the South Africa Act 1909, which brought about the Union of South Africa." He became a member of the Privy Council in 1909. Seely was also amongst those Liberals who strongly supported Lloyd George's budgets of 1909 and 1910.

Seely was defeated for Abercromby at the January 1910 general election and returned to Parliament for Ilkeston in Derbyshire at a by-election in March 1910, holding that seat until 1922. In October 1910, he was awarded the Territorial Decoration.

Appointment and policies
Seely then served as Under-Secretary of State for War from 1911 to 1912. As a yeomanry colonel, he did not support conscription, which General Henry Wilson favoured. "Ye Gods" was how Wilson greeted his appointment in his diary.

Seely was already a member of the Committee of Imperial Defence. In June 1912, apparently on Churchill's suggestion, Seely was promoted to the Cabinet as Secretary of State for War, in succession to Haldane. He held the post until 1914. With Sir John French he was responsible for the invitation to General Foch to attend the Army Manoeuvres of 1912 and was active in preparing the army for war with Germany. Seely supported General Wilson when he gave evidence to the Committee of Imperial Defence (CID) in November 1912 that the presence of the British Expeditionary Force on the continent would have a decisive effect in any future war. The mobility of the proposed Expeditionary Force, and in particular the development of a Flying Corps (the origin of the modern Royal Air Force) were his special interests. According to The Times, these developments played a significant role in the victory during World War I.

In April 1913 Seely told the House of Commons that the Territorial Force could see off an invasion by 70,000 men and that the General Staff opposed conscription. Sir John French (Chief of the Imperial General Staff) obtained a partial retraction after Wilson had threatened that he and his two fellow Directors at the War Office would resign in protest at the "lie", but Wilson felt that French's recent promotion to Field Marshal had made him reluctant to clash with Liberal Ministers. During the CID "Invasion Inquiry" (debates of 1913–14 as to whether some British regular divisions should be retained at home to defeat a potential invasion), Seely lobbied in vain for all six divisions to be sent to France in the event of war. French became very friendly with Seely when his first wife died in childbirth in August 1913.

Curragh incident
With Irish Home Rule due to become law in 1914, and the Cabinet contemplating some kind of military action against the Ulster Volunteers who wanted no part of it, French and Seely summoned Paget (Commander-in-Chief, Ireland) to the War Office for talks, whilst Seely wrote to the Prime Minister (24 October 1913) about the potential use of General Macready, who had experience of peacekeeping in the South Wales coalfields in 1910, and had been consulted by Birrell (Chief Secretary for Ireland) about the use of troops in the 1912 Belfast riots. In October 1913 Seely sent him to report on the police in Belfast and Dublin.

There was more discussion about the Army's stance over Home Rule outside the Army than within it. Seely spoke to the assembled Commanders-in-Chief of the Army's six Regional Commands, to remind them of their responsibility to uphold the civil power. They met at the War Office on 16 December 1913 with French and the Adjutant-General Spencer Ewart present. He assured them that the Army would not be called upon for "some outrageous action, for instance, to massacre a demonstration of Orangemen", but nonetheless officers could not "pick and choose" which lawful orders they would obey, and that any officer who attempted to resign on the issue should instead be dismissed. This did not stop tensions about the Army's role from growing.

By March 1914 intelligence reported that the Ulster Volunteers, now 100,000 strong, might be about to seize the ammunition at Carrickfergus Castle, and political negotiations were deadlocked as the Ulster Protestant leader Edward Carson was demanding that Ulster have a complete, not just temporary, opt-out from Home Rule. Seely was on the five-man Cabinet Committee on Ireland (along with Crewe, Simon, Birrell and Churchill (First Lord of the Admiralty)). General Paget, who was reluctant to move in case it exacerbated the crisis, was summoned to London. On 14 March 1914 the Committee warned Paget of the perceived need to occupy the arms depots to prevent the Ulster Volunteers from doing so. Seely repeatedly assured French of the accuracy of intelligence that Ulster Volunteers might march on Dublin. No trace of Seely's intelligence survives. It has been suggested, e.g. by Sir James Fergusson, that the move to deploy troops may have been a "plot" by Churchill and Seely to goad Ulster into a rebellion which could then be put down, although this view is not universally held. Carson departed London for Ulster on 19 March, amidst talk that he was to form a provisional government.

No written orders had been issued to Paget. It had been agreed that officers domiciled in Ulster would be allowed to "disappear" for the duration of the crisis, with no blot on their career records, but that other officers who objected were to be dismissed rather than being permitted to resign. Although the ODNB concurs that Seely was foolish in effectively giving any officers discretion over which orders to obey, he was keen to keep Paget on the government's side and maintain the unity of the Army. The move to deploy troops resulted in the Curragh incident of 20 March, in which Hubert Gough and many other officers threatened to resign. The elderly Field-Marshal Roberts, whom Seely had told the King was "at the bottom" of the matter, thought Seely "drunk with power".

The peccant paragraphs
On the morning of Monday 23 March, Seely had a meeting with Gough, with Paget, French and Spencer Ewart in attendance. Seely, who – by Gough's account – attempted unsuccessfully to browbeat him by staring at him, accepted French's suggestion that a written document from the Army Council might help to convince Gough's officers. Seely took over a draft document to a Cabinet meeting for approval. Seely had to leave the meeting for an audience with the King, and in his absence the Cabinet agreed a text, stating that the Army Council were satisfied that the incident had been a misunderstanding, and that it was "the duty of all soldiers to obey lawful commands".

Seely, assisted by Viscount Morley, later added two paragraphs, stating that the Crown had the right to use force in Ireland or elsewhere, but had no intention of doing so "to crush political opposition to the policy or principles of the Home Rule Bill". This was initialled by Seely, French and Ewart and then given to Gough. It is unclear whether this – amending a Cabinet document without Cabinet approval – was an honest blunder on Seely's part or whether he was encouraged to do so and then made a scapegoat.

Gough, on the advice of Maj-Gen Wilson, then insisted on adding another paragraph clarifying that the Army would not be used to enforce Home Rule on Ulster, with which French concurred in writing. Seely had not been consulted about this second assurance.

Asquith publicly repudiated the "peccant paragraphs" (25 March). Talk of a government "plot" was now widespread amongst the Opposition. Seely accepted the blame in the House of Commons on 25 March and offered to resign to protect French and Ewart; Asquith initially refused to accept his resignation, despite writing to Venetia Stanley that he blamed the crisis on "Paget's tactless blundering" and "Seely’s clumsy phrases". The Conservative MP WAS Hewins wrote in his diary that “Winston is a criminal lunatic and Seely a fool” (26 March 1914). By 30 March it was clear that Asquith, to his regret, would now have to insist that Seely resign, along with French and Ewart. Seely remained a member of the CID, and it is unclear whether or when he might have been restored to the Cabinet had war not soon broken out.

First World War
Following the outbreak of war in August 1914, Seely was recalled to active duty as a special-service officer. Seely served for near the entirety of the First World War, with few breaks, leaving London on 11 August 1914 to take up a post on Sir John French's staff. On a liaison mission between the French Fifth Army and Haig's I Corps (31 August 1914 – during the period when Sir John French's retreat had opened up a gap in the Allied line), he claimed to have been almost captured in the fog, but to have bluffed his way past a German cavalry patrol by calling out (in German) that he was a member of the Great General Staff.

In October 1914, Seely was dispatched to Belgium to participate in the Siege of Antwerp. Initially acting as an observer, Seely temporarily joined the staff of Archibald Paris, the commander of the British Royal Naval Division, which had been deployed to the city under orders from First Lord Winston Churchill. Seely's Orderly Officer in the Siege of Antwerp was Archibald Alexander Gordon, alias Major Gordon, who with him surveyed the British and Belgian frontlines. When the situation became critical, Seely contacted Lord Kitchener by phone and later received orders for a massive evacuation of the British forces to Ostend. Once it became clear Antwerp was going to capitulate to the Germans, Seely assisted with the evacuation of the Royal Naval Division.

On 28 January 1915, Seely was given command of the Canadian Cavalry Brigade, with the temporary rank of brigadier-general and the substantive rank of colonel. He was mentioned in despatches five times, further enhancing his reputation for bravery. He was known as "the Luckiest Man in the Army" and was the subject of many apocryphal stories, such as that he recommended his soldier servant for a Victoria Cross for having stood never less than twenty yards behind him during an engagement.

On 1 January 1916, he was appointed a Companion of the Order of the Bath (CB). During the advance to the Hindenburg Line in spring 1917, Seely, whose brigade was attached to Fourth Army, commandeered infantry from XV Corps to form an ad hoc combat group to capture Équancourt. General du Cane's anger was assuaged – Seely later claimed – by the arrival of congratulations from Field Marshal Haig. He was appointed a Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George (CMG) on 1 January 1918.

During the German Spring Offensive Seely, back from London, called on Percy Beddington, a senior staff officer of the Fifth Army, at around 2am on 24 March 1918, to inform him of the gossip in London that Fifth Army had been routed. Beddington, who had only managed to get to sleep an hour previously, for the first time since the morning of 21 March, on a camp bed in his office, recorded that he "lost (his) temper, cursed him up hill and down dale for daring to wake (him) with such drivel." Seely himself later admitted that it suddenly seemed unimportant a few days later when he was commanding the CCB in action, but it mattered a great deal in the next few days when Gough was sacked from command of the Army as a scapegoat.

After being gassed in 1918, he returned to England, and was relieved of command of the brigade on 20 May 1918. He was angry about the move.

Seely had remained an MP throughout his military service in the First World War, and as a member of the Liberal faction which supported Lloyd George's coalition government, he was appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions on 10 July 1918, serving under Churchill (then Minister of Munitions).

He was the only member of the government, besides Churchill, to see active service in the war, and was promoted to the temporary rank of major general on 13 July. Belgium appointed him a Commander of the Order of the Crown, and France both appointed Seely a Commander of the Légion d'honneur and awarded him the Croix de guerre.

Later career
Seely relinquished his temporary rank of major-general on 14 January 1919. He was appointed Under-Secretary of State for Air and President of the Air Council in 1919, again under Winston Churchill (Secretary of State for War). However, he resigned both posts at the end of 1919 after the Government refused to create a Secretary of State for Air (as it later did). In June 1920, he was one of three candidates for the post of Governor-General of Australia presented to the Australian prime minister Billy Hughes, along with Lord Forster and Lord Donoughmore.

Like many Lloyd George Liberals, Seely lost his seat at Ilkeston at the November 1922 general election. He retired from the army on 25 August 1923, with the honorary rank of major-general. Seely was also a Colonel of the Territorial Army, an Honorary Colonel of 72nd (Hampshire), an Honorary Air Commander Auxiliary Air Force.

Seely returned to Parliament as a member of the reunited Liberal Party for the Isle of Wight at the December 1923 general election, which saw a hung parliament in which the Liberals supported the first Labour Government under Ramsay MacDonald. In May 1924, however, Churchill (then out of Parliament, and who had recently left the Liberal Party to become an independent "Constitutionalist", prior to rejoining the Conservatives after his return to the Commons in 1924) listed Seely in a letter to Conservative leader Stanley Baldwin as one of his group of Liberal MPs who would vote against the Labour government, and a month later mentioned Seely as a likely Liberal Conservative. Indeed, according to historian Chris Wrigley, Seely's political trajectory was similar to that of Churchill's (i.e. a Conservative in 1900, joining the Liberals a few years later, then becoming a Conservative again in the 1920s). Seely lost his seat again at the 1924 general election, at which the Liberals suffered heavy losses. Seely vehemently opposed the general strike of 1926.

He was made Chairman of the National Savings Committee in 1926, a post he served in until 1943, the same year he became vice-president until his death. During this time he was asked by the Government to conduct the publicity in regard to the conversion of the 5% war loan. According to The Times, "in the Second World War the activities of the National Savings Committee were largely extended and became a vital part of the national war effort." He continued to have an influential role in domestic politics.

Seely was granted the Freedom of the City of Portsmouth in 1927.

Appeasement
On 21 June 1933, Seely was raised to the peerage as Baron Mottistone, of Mottistone in the County of Southampton.

In 1933, Lord Mottistone visited Berlin in his capacity as Chairman of the Air League, as a guest of Joachim von Ribbentrop. In 1935, he visited Nazi Germany again in his boat "Mayflower". In May 1935, Adolf Hitler made a well publicised speech in which he proclaimed that German rearmament offered no threat to world peace. That month, Lord Mottistone told the House of Lords that "we ought to assume that it is genuine and sincere...I have had many interviews with Herr Hitler. I think the noble Lord and all the people who have really met this remarkable man will agree with me on one thing, however much we may disagree about other things—that he is absolutely truthful, sincere, and unselfish".

His book, "Mayflower seeks the Truth", which according to the ODNB was "full of Nazi propaganda", was published in Germany in 1937. Plans for a British edition were shelved in 1938 as tensions mounted over Czechoslovakia. As late as June 1939 (after Hitler had broken the Munich Agreement and occupied Prague), Lord Mottistone proclaimed in the House of Lords: "I am an unrepentant believer in...the policy of appeasement". However, in 1941, he wrote an article in The Sunday Times and the Evening Standard denouncing the brutality of "Hitlerism".

Other posts
Seely was also vice-president of the RNLI. He was a keen sailor and for much of his life was coxswain of the Brook Lifeboat.

Seely served as Lord Lieutenant of Hampshire from 1918 to 1947.

He was also a Justice of the Peace (JP) for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, the first Chairman of Wembley Stadium, and a director of Thomas Cook.

Lord Mottistone died in Westminster aged 79. His will was valued for probate at £9,212 12s 4d (not including settled land - land tied up in family trusts so that no individual has full control over it - worth £5,500). These equate respectively to around £300,000 and £200,000 at 2016 prices.

Legacy
Seely was a popular figure in the House of Commons. In later life, in a play on his title, his self-promotion earned him the nickname "Lord Modest One". He was described as a brave man, but it was also said unkindly of him that if he had had more brains he would have been half-witted.

The Times called him a "Gallant Figure in War and Politics" and Lord Birkenhead wrote, "In fields of great and critical danger he has constantly over a long period of years displayed a cool valour which everybody in the world who knows the facts freely recognizes." Marshal Ferdinand Foch, Supreme Commander of the Allied Armies in the final year of the First World War, gave him a cigarette case inscribed, Au Ministre de 1912: au Vaillant de la Grande Guerre.

A screen was erected in St. Peter and St. Paul's Church in Mottistone in his memory.

Marriages and descendants
Seely married Emily Florence, daughter of Colonel Sir Henry George Louis Crichton, on 9 July 1895. They had three sons and four daughters. She died in August 1913.

His eldest son and heir, 2Lt Frank Reginald Seely, was killed in action with the Royal Hampshire Regiment at the Battle of Arras on 13 April 1917.

He married for the second time, to Evelyn Izmé Murray, JP (born 1886, died 11 August 1976) on 31 July 1917. She was the widow of his friend George Crosfield Norris Nicholson and daughter of Montolieu Oliphant-Murray, 1st Viscount Elibank. They had one son (she already had a son from her previous marriage).

Seely's heir John Seely (1899–1963) was an architect whose work, with Paul Edward Paget in the partnership of Seely & Paget, included the interior of Eltham Palace in the Art Deco style, and the post-World War II restoration of a number of bomb-damaged buildings, such as the London Charterhouse and the church of St John Clerkenwell.

Seely's son from his second marriage, David Seely, 4th Baron Mottistone (1920–2011), was the last Governor of the Isle of Wight; he was baptised with Winston Churchill and the then Prince of Wales (subsequently Edward VIII and then later the Duke of Windsor) as his godparents

Seely's grandson Brough Scott, who presented horseracing television programmes, wrote a biography of Seely, Galloper Jack (2003).

Seely was a maternal great-great-grandfather of theatre director Sophie Hunter.

The present Conservative MP for the Isle of Wight, Bob Seely, is his great-great nephew.

In popular culture
According to the Sir Alfred Munnings Art Museum (Alfred Munnings was a former president of the Royal Academy of Arts and famous horse painter) "Without doubt his most important painting was that of General J. E. B. Seely (later Lord Mottistone) on his charger Warrior which led to his commission to paint the Earl of Athlone, brother of Queen Mary."

Jack Seely was featured in the HBO film Into the Storm in 2009. At the end of the film Churchill reads a sympathetic post-election note from his old friend Jack Seely: "I feel our world slipping away." Churchill thinks back: "I met him in South Africa, riding across the veldt. He was Col. Seely then. I saw him at the head of a column of British cavalry, riding twenty yards in front, on a black horse. I thought of him as the very symbol of British Imperial power." The Testimony Films 2012 documentary War Horse: The Real Story contained extensive discussion of the First World War service of Seely and his widely revered horse, Warrior. Warrior was adopted as his formation's mascot and had a reputation for bravery under fire. Warrior survived the war, dying in 1941 at the age of 33. In September 2014, the horse was posthumously awarded an honorary PDSA Dickin Medal for bravery.

Writings

 * Adventure (1930) - featuring an introduction by Lord Birkenhead, praising his skill as a raconteur.
 * Fear and Be Slain: Adventures by land, sea and air (1931)
 * Launch! A Life-Boat Book (1932)
 * For Ever England (1932)
 * My Horse Warrior (1934) – a biography of his charger
 * The Paths of Happiness (1938)

Seely's books shed light on his personality but are not always factually reliable.

title: J. E. B. Seely, 1st Baron Mottistone


text:
Danube–Oder Canal

The Danube–Oder Canal (Donau-Oder-Kanal; Kanał Odra-Dunaj; Kanál Odra-Dunaj) is a planned and partially constructed artificial waterway in the Lobau floodplain of the Danube at Vienna, that was supposed to stretch along the Morava River to the Oder at the city of Kędzierzyn-Koźle in Poland.

Overview
The Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV had envisioned a waterway capable of taking ships from the Oder to the Danube in the 14th century. Records of further plans of such a waterway stem from the 19th century. During the Nazi era, the idea was reborn and the project was put into motion. The project would connect the Oder to the Danube through the Moravian region of the Czech Republic, stretching 320 kilometers and spanning an elevation of 124 meters.

On December 8, 1939 Rudolf Hess inaugurated the then-named Adolf Hitler Canal, today Gliwice Canal (Polish: Kanał Gliwicki) from Kędzierzyn-Koźle at the Oder River to the city of Gliwice, that replaced the historic Kłodnica Canal finished in 1812. At the same time, Hess also performed the groundbreaking ceremony for the further Donau-Oder-Kanal. The work on the Upper Silesian side already discontinued in 1940. Only a few kilometres of the planned 40-km long channel from Vienna to Angern at the Morava River were actually dug in the years up to 1943, mainly in the areas around the Lobau floodplain in the Donaustadt district of Vienna and the adjacent town of Groß-Enzersdorf. The branch-off at the Danube, just under 100 meters long, is still clearly recognizable today, connecting the Ölhafen Lobau of the OMV oil company. Two further sections are today used for swimming and fishing.

Between 1964 and 1970, a part of the original plans gained attention from Poland again and an offshoot of the Gliwice Canal was constructed. The short, finished arm east of Kędzierzyn-Koźle is known as Kanal Kędzierzynski and serves to connect the nitrogen factory Azoty Kędzierzyn AG to the Oder.

The waterway today is again part of plans for a European Danube–Oder–Elbe Canal project that would also connect the Elbe river.

title: Danube–Oder Canal


text:
Fantastic Four (2005 video game)

Fantastic 4 is an action-adventure beat 'em up video game based on the 2005 film of the same name, developed by 7 Studios and published by Activision. Players play as the characters of the Marvel Comics superhero team Fantastic Four using combos and special attacks to fight their way through hordes of enemies and bosses. Ioan Gruffudd, Jessica Alba, Michael Chiklis, Chris Evans and Julian McMahon reprise their roles for the game. It was followed by Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, itself based on the film of the same name, released in 2007, with 2K taking over Activision from publishing the game.

Gameplay
The game is primarily a third-person action beat 'em up game, with minor platforming and puzzle elements, which can be played either solo or in co-op. Players move through the levels as one or two members of the Fantastic Four, defeating various enemies, such as robots, street punks, underground creatures, and cosmic aliens, and destroying objects. Each of the four have their special abilities:

As the players defeat enemies and accomplish tasks, they earn points that can be cashed in for upgrades to the characters' attacks, as well as bonus artwork, interviews with the film's cast, and biographies. By performing different button combinations, the players build up an orange bar, which when full, grants them a super move, which varies depending on the character (The Thing stomps around with a powerful spinning attack, Mr. Fantastic turns into a wheel that damages anything he comes into contact with, and both Invisible Woman and Human Torch have a radial clearing attack). One team member can also "buff" another member, ex. Invisible Woman encases Mr. Fantastic in a protective bubble for a short time.
 * Mister Fantastic has the ability to shift his body (or portions of the same) into a super-malleable state, enabling him to stretch, contract, deform, expand, elongate, compress or otherwise reshape his physical form at his will. He can also hack terminals by aligning rings in a puzzle.
 * Invisible Woman possesses the ability to bend light and ultimately become invisible (wholly or partially) at will. She also has telekinetic powers and the ability to project force energy from her body. She can also use her invisibility to avoid security cameras and sneak up on unsuspecting enemies and instantly kill them.
 * The Human Torch can manipulate fire. He usually allows his entire body to be engulfed in flames considering his body can sustain the highest levels of heat.  Another ability of his is flight, which players can use in the game. He can also create holes in locked doors and throw fireballs as a ranged attack.
 * The Thing is incredibly strong and has an exterior stronger than diamonds. Ben Grimm can carry heavy objects with ease and deal heavy damage to enemies, as players will find out while playing as this character.

The game includes a number of villains and characters not featured in the film, many of whom are based on their Ultimate Universe versions like the Yancy Street Gang, Mole Man, Puppet Master, and Nick Fury. Horus, Diablo, Dragon Man, Blastaar, and Annihilus appear as bosses, during which players have control of the entire team. Players also can find hidden "F4 Tokens" in each level, which unlock arenas for the game's combat arena mode, as well as bonus interviews with Stan Lee and the game's developers. Completing the game on certain difficulties unlocks two bonus levels in Latveria, set in the continuity of the comics. With a cheat code, an extra level set in Hell can also be unlocked.

Plot
The game begins with Reed, Sue, and Johnny on a roof lying helpless after being knocked unconscious by a blast from Doctor Doom. Sue is the first to recover, so when she sits up and turns around, Dr. Doom is preparing to fire an electric blast at them. Sue holds it off with her force field and calls Ben Grimm for help. Then it cuts away to Ben, who is recovering in the transformation chamber after having his rocklike exterior genetically removed from him. As he contemplates why the circumstances have led to this, he remembers the period when all of this happens.

This is when it reverts to the beginning of the movie: Reed signs the pact, they go into space, and Ben gets the samples ready. In space, they are hit by a cosmic storm which alters their DNA and gives them superpowers. If it hadn't been for Victor, they might never have arrived back to Earth and into his medical compound, where they recovered. When Ben discovers that he has become a monster-like figure, he deserts the other three and heads home.

Ben runs on a rampage to try to calm himself. This brings the army to New York under the control of a deep, dark, sinister figure who is yet to be revealed and they try to get Ben under control. However, after Ben and the other three rescue a fire truck from falling off the Brooklyn Bridge, the forces lay off and watch the Fantastic Four to see if they become hostile.

Reed attempts to find another power source, but is interrupted by a call for help. It seems that strange creatures have invaded Grand Central Station and the police seem to have no effect against them. The Fantastic Four stop the creatures from invading the city and face their leader, the Mole Man and his mighty pet. Because of the utter destruction caused by their fight with this giant monster, the city is in a mess and Victor blames Reed for all this mess.

With Ben in hand, Reed sets out to identify their mutation and possibly cure them of it. He constructs a machine with Victor's help which will use cosmic rays to reverse the signal being sent through their bodies by the mutation. He then turns to sources to power this machine and identifies a cosmic meteor that landed in the jungle of southern Mexico. They travel to Tikal to retrieve this meteor when they encounter Diablo, who desires to have this meteor so he can harness its power to conquer the world. The Fantastic Four defeat him and bring the meteor back, but its power is insufficient to power the machine. Later, Victor invites Sue to the opening of his Egyptian wing in the museum that night.

While they are there, Alicia Masters is kidnapped by the mummy creatures who have come to life by the Puppet Master, which throws Ben into an outrage. Reed intends to disable the security system to free her, but they have to deal with animated mummies and dinosaurs. They free Alicia but end up destroying half the museum while repelling the reanimated creatures, which infuriates Victor to no end.

In his last attempt to alleviate his anger towards them, he has a conversation with Sue in which he attempts to find out why she continues to stay with Reed. She says she can't abandon them because they're her family now, which prompts Victor to send Doombots after them to destroy them after they finish their meeting. The four have a massive battle in Times Square, which they nearly demolish with the help of the VDI Mechs, prompting Nick Fury, to take them to the Vault prison for their safe keeping.

They arrive there and are quarantined until Dragon Man decides to break out and cause utter chaos. The Fantastic Four's security systems are deactivated and they try to restore order. They are successful in their mission so when they reach the entrance at the top of the prison, they encounter Fury who agrees to release them on one condition: that they find out what happened to his laboratory. When they arrive, they discover it has been taken over by mutated plants and insectoid creatures and they must destroy the station after obtaining the power source they need to finish powering Reed's transformation chamber. This proves to be successful and the machine is powered up to its maximum.

With this knowledge, Victor travels to the Baxter Building with the intent to defeat the Fantastic Four. He sets Reed's security systems against them and lures Ben to the transformation chamber where he steals his power. The remaining three fight against an enhanced Dr. Doom but his power is too great and they are defeated. Ben, however, feels terrible for leaving his friends just because he wanted to look normal again, so he decides to re-enter the transformation chamber and turn back into the Thing. Dr. Doom is about to destroy them when Ben busts out onto the roof and savagely attacks him, allowing his teammates to recover. They fall to the street and the other three join them there to finish Doom once and for all.

Development
Zak Penn and Martin Signore co-wrote the story for the game. Penn also wrote a draft of the film, which served as the basis of the game. The game was released in North America on June 27, Australia on July 1, and Europe on July 15, 2005.

Reception
Reviews of the game were mixed. GameRankings gave it a score of 62.18% for the PlayStation 2 version, 61.50% for the Xbox version, 65.02% for the GameCube version, 64.35% for the PC version, and 55.50% for the Game Boy Advance version. Likewise, Metacritic gave it a score of 64 out of 100 for the PS2 version, 62 out of 100 for the Xbox version, 61 out of 100 for the GameCube version, 63 out of 100 for the PC version, and 57 out of 100 for the GBA version.

IGN rated the game a 6.5 of 10 stating that "Fantastic 4 is a passable action game with some interesting ideas. In short, rent this one first".

The game got some retrospective praise for paving the way of Marvel: Ultimate Alliance.

Music
The game is notable for having four bands record brand new songs to be used as the themes for the characters. It also used John Ottman's main theme from the film as the main menu theme. The bands who contributed songs and who their song was for are:
 * Taking Back Sunday — "Error Operator" (Mr. Fantastic)
 * Go Betty Go — "Everywhere" (Invisible Woman)
 * The Explosion — "I'm On Fire" (Human Torch)
 * Jurassic 5 — "Clobberin' Time" (The Thing)
 * John Ottman — "Theme From Fantastic 4" (Main Menu Theme)

Sales
The game sold 320,000 units and generated more than $16 million in revenue.

title: Fantastic Four (2005 video game)


text:
Talk:J. E. B. Seely, 1st Baron Mottistone

Untitled
What copyright did this infringe? I wrote much of it and did not copy it from any other source. Polycarp

I have removed the entire section mentioned as infringing copyright, despite the fact that it was on this site for 6 months+ previously

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edward_Bernard_Seely%2C_1st_Baron_Mottistone/Temp&action=edit

Father of the National Government
I have just deleted the following unsourced entry; in fact, due to his influence in the formation of the all-party Government of Co-operation in 1931, Lloyd George called him the "Father of National Government." This is because I can find no original record either of this statement or of Seely's role in the formation of the National Government. I have checked the following sources and have found no mention whatsoever of Seely in connection with the National Government; Berkeley's book is the only published book which deals exclusively with the formation of the National Government, and Seely is not mentioned in any of its 137 pages. Owen's tomb of Lloyd George, written by one of his closest aids at the time does not place Seely anywhere near these events. Samuel - who is accurately described my many historians as being the man more than any other, responsible for the formation of the National Government - only mentions Seely in relation to events 25 years earlier, not connected to National Governments.
 * Memoirs by Viscount Samuel
 * Tempestuous Journey (The life and times of Lloyd George) by Frank Owen
 * The Myth That Will Not Die by Humphrey Berkeley

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on J. E. B. Seely, 1st Baron Mottistone. 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/20050831154333/http://www.siralfredmunnings.co.uk/index.html to http://www.siralfredmunnings.co.uk/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050329211049/http://www.nra.nationalarchives.gov.uk/nra/searches/pidocs.asp?P=P25686 to http://www.nra.nationalarchives.gov.uk/nra/searches/pidocs.asp?P=P25686

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) 15:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


text:
Module talk:Sidebar

Support for plainlist TemplateStyles and mobile disappearing styles
I've made some changes to the module sandbox here that reflect changes made to Module:Navbox/sandbox and which I've started a discussion at Template talk:Navbox. These changes are describe in parts 1 and 2 there. If you have questions, please feel free to discuss there. Izno (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Hi, Izno. Thank you for your work on the CSS/TemplateStyles refactoring. Are edits such as Special:Diff/1157915259 useful with regards of this effort?
 * I see that Module:Sidebar has support for adding the TemplateStyles based on parameters (contentclass in the case of Atomic radius). Will function  be eventually removed from Module:Sidebar (assuming all relevant places are replaced with explicit calls to plainlist et al.)? Or is   and related code for adding TemplateStyles expected to be left in the module "forever"? —andrybak (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Andrybak, it's probably not much of a win, if a win at all, today, to make swaps like that. I did do that for a few sidebars several years ago, but having to deal with the hundreds of thousands of navigation templates (Module:Sidebar and Module:Navbox, and Module:Infobox too) made it not a winning strategy to me when there are other much larger gains to be had. Right now, if there is a loss, it's that the addition of plainlist/hlist styles to a page would become slightly less deterministic. Izno (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. I think I don't understand the layout/formatting of the page MediaWiki talk:Common.css/to do. For example, Infobox Cyrillic letter was still listed for plainlist. However, Special:Diff/1157920338 seems very similar to the aforementioned Special:Diff/1157915259. What am I missing? —andrybak (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My link to the to do page was to indicate there is higher-value work to be done on other things than the pretty-mechanical/low-value change that adds plainlist/hlist templates and eventually removes the checking code from the module.
 * Your infobox cyrillic letter change looks fine (though now-reverted and a full page protection on top of that unrelated to your efforts). There are more painful conversions for infoboxes which is why I added the checking code in Module:Infobox as well (think: it is trivial to make an infobox where the row disappears with a basic parameter and a class in the row class rather than putting an if block in with a template).
 * The parts of the to do list that should be worked are the ones not under the "done" section. :) Izno (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Sidebar missing in mobile view
Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Template:Sidebar says: "This template does not display in the mobile view of Wikipedia; it is desktop only. Read the documentation for an explanation."
 * and "Templates using the classes class=navbox or class=nomobile  are not displayed on the mobile web site of English Wikipedia. Mobile page views account for approximately 65% of all page views (90-day average as of May 2023)." Johnjbarton (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your speedy reply and explanation. I copied the Sidebar from another similar site and didn’t see any documentation there. Where can I read this documentation? Given that most viewers are using mobile view, and therefore won’t see the Template unless they switch to Desktop view, is there either a way to edit this to display in all situations, or is there another Sidebar template that already will? Chrisdevelop (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * IDK, I came here to try to figure out what the deal is. AFAICT, the sidebar is not implemented correctly on mobile plus some think that dropping the sidebar content altogether is good because it reduces page weight and thus load time. I suppose these folks grew up in the 2000s. I could not find any more info. I tried asking on Village_pump_(technical) but got crickets. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your trouble. I’ll keep an eye on the Village Pump and check back here every so often. I like this particular LGBT project sidebar because if saves a lot of time to not have to enter its directory manually. Is there a place where the Sidebar itself can be edited? That was how I ended up here in the first place. Chrisdevelop (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * By "the Sidebar" do you mean "The page GaLTaS has a sidebar and I want to change its content?
 * If yes edit the intro and see
 * This template contains the config for the sidebar. Navigate to the config file by putting "Template:" in Wikipedia search bar followed by the name of the template: Template:LGBT_sidebar. Edit that page to change the template.
 * BEWARE any change you make affects all pages using that sidebar. You should discuss any changes on the Template_talk:LGBT page, or better ask someone else to do the edits the first time. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, thank you - exactly what I needed to know; and yes, I will take your advice re editing this. Chrisdevelop (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, thank you - exactly what I needed to know; and yes, I will take your advice re editing this. Chrisdevelop (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Hide image
Hi. I'd like to hide the image in, when it's invoked in IPCC, which already has the same image in. I've tried  but it didn't work. Does anybody know if that's possible? Otherwise, it might be better to remove the sidebar from that article. Thanks! fgnievinski (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed Longitude invokes Template:Geodesy with parameter "notshowfig=1" which seems to be ignored. fgnievinski (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's another example where the sidebar image duplicates the lead image: Light cone. fgnievinski (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Add support for V T E
Can you add support for V T E  in the bottom right corner of this template like many other templates have? Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's called a navbar, and it's already present. Why do you think that it isn't? -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant to add to the sidebar template the ability display VTE i.e. the . Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Same answer, same question. It's already present in Template:Sidebar, so, why do you think that it isn't? If something isn't working as expected. you need to provide examples. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see VTE in Tennis tournaments. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You need a name parameter, . It is documented, at Template:Sidebar, particularly in the paragraph before the table. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Module talk:Sidebar


text:
What Goes On

What Goes On may refer to:

 * What Goes On (album), a 1993 box set by The Velvet Underground
 * "What Goes On" (Beatles song), 1965
 * "What Goes On" (Velvet Underground song), 1969
 * "What Goes On", a single by Mai Tai (band) E. van Tijn, J. Fluitsma 1984
 * "What Goes On", a song by Mobb Deep from The Safe Is Cracked

title: What Goes On


text:
User:Neil lefevre

Neil LeFevre is a onetime wikipedian, and full-time member of the cabal.

title: User:Neil lefevre


text:
User talk:Zzedar

Warhammer 40,000 edits
Hi. Just a quick note to say a big "thank you" for all your recent edits to Warhammer 40,000 articles, cleaning up the mess of spelling and grammar found in many of them (some by it by me :-. Just in case you're not aware of it already, a link to WikiProject Warhammer 40,000, where we are trying to coordinate the development of all Warhammer 40,000 related articles – feel very free to add yourself as a member. Thanks again! --Pak21 09:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Proper Grammar
In the English language, when a noun (especially a proper noun) that ends in an s becomes possessive (by use of an apostraphe) the apostraphe is simply added to the end of the word. For example, the possessive form of John Edwards is John Edwards' . In no case is it proper to have John Edwards's (or any form of "s's"). Hope this helps. /Blaxthos 18:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You have the rule wrong. When forming the possessive of a plural, you simply add an apostrophe; however, when forming the possessive of a singular word that happens to end in an s, you add an apostrophe before the s. The only exception to this is if the person you're talking about is both dead and famous, e.g. Jesus or Socrates. See Strunk & White.

"Talisman of Vaul" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Talisman of Vaul. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 11 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zzedar


text:
Talk:Sticky bomb

2,500,000 or 250,000
Article says 2.5 million were made then later says 250,000 were made... 72.79.212.31 (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Other Sticky Bombs
Similar bombs were also used by American and Russian armies during the war, a la Saving Private Ryan and Call of Duty 2. Why does it direct to this British weapon but nothing else? Captain Jackson 05:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Because this is the famous one? GraemeLeggett 12:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And its not an improvised one. It was actually issued to soldiers by the government. All others that you refer to are basically made in the field, and we can't exactly say how they were made, as the explosives or bonding element of the bomb are different among them. AllStarZ 15:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Truth can be stranger . ..
. . . Than fiction!

I mean, who would dare to suggest that the Brits (infamous for the safety of their weapons during WW2, often to the point where they would compromise the effectiveness of the weapon!) would not only sanction such an idiotic weapon, but actually PUT THE THING IN PRODUCTION!

It actually makes sense when you discover that this was actually an unusual case - the inventor of this bomb was given the opportunity to bypass the normal review by the Ordnance board.Johno 05:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

 * The design does seem a little mad and many resisted its introduction. Churchill himself made sure it went through. The great advantage of the sticky bomb was that it made use of materials that did not affect the production of regular weapons: glass, wool, resin, bakerlite etc and the cheap nitoglycerin. And it could, just about, be effective against German tanks of 1940. Gaius Cornelius 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You sure about that? My source is "German and Allied Secret Weapons of WW2", by Hogg, King and Batchelor, and they say that it was brought to MD1 "By means not entirely clear to this day". Now, 30-year rule documents could have changed that, but I'd be interested to know if you can verify that. Thanks! :)

 * My source is the National Archive "WO 185/1 Anti-tank measures Sticky Bomb adoption and production" and "CAB 120/372 - sticky bomb etc". I cannot post any of this material on the web, but I can share some material by private e-mail for research purposes only. Gaius Cornelius 19:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I can't be sure I have a feeling that the grenades were actually intended for use by the Auxiliary Units in case of invasion and hence the normal safety standards were considered less important. Ian Dunster 21:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The original order for the sticky bomb was for one million (though rather fewer were actually produced) far more than the auxiliary units needed. Anyway, in general, the Auxiliary units got the best of everything. It is not really clear just how dangerous it really was to the user, the main problem would be staying alive long enough to get sufficiently close to an armoured vehicle. Gaius Cornelius 22:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Rather them than me - I seem to remember that the adhesive used was based on bird lime and was very powerful, i.e., sticky. Ian Dunster 12:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The adhesive was resin based. It certainly seems to have enjoyed a reputation for sticking to clothes and I have read a couple of stories like that quoted in the main article. The bomb only weighed 1-2 kg and if required a man can easily provide 100 kg of force and probably much more: just how sticky could it really have been? I do wonder if the stories are apocryphal; or that the stated events occured because those involved had an exagerated sense of just how sticky the adhesive was and simply did not try to pull it off; or that, given the overall fragility of the weapon, men were told that applying sufficient force to remove it from clothing would be very dangerous. Government reports reveal that it was poor at sticking to vertical surfaces of a vehicle. Gaius Cornelius 21:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone formally confirm that these things used nitroglycerine ?? This seems extremely unlikely, and is certainly not referenced in Stuart McCrae's book - which has to be a prime source of material Steveastrouk 15:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I can confirm that from the abovementioned Hogg, King and Batchelor. They comment that this was one of the reasons for the initial rejection of the weapon by the Ordnance board - "When all is said and done, nitroglycerine is not the sort of liquid to be carried around freely."  They also comment that the Ordnance board was not at all impressed to discover that MD1 had authorised the weapon's production!

 * So Gaius Cornelius, I'd say that the stickyness would be the least of this bomb's problems with safety - have you ever seen someone detonating a drop of Nitroglycerine with a sledgehammer? [shudder] Johno 14:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Most, possibly all, secondary sources give the filling as nitroglycerine as do many primary sources such as the training manual. (See here for Home Guard pocket manual page 47.) Actually, it would be more accurate to say that the filling was nitroglycerine-based as is clear when looking into National Archive records. Are Hogg, King and Batchelor actually quoting the Ordnance board? If I remember rightly, Stuart MacRae does mention concerns over nitroglycerine, but that the formulation proved to be very safe. Gaius Cornelius 13:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty smart to me, though magnets are smarter. What's dumb is that apparently Tom Hanks' character in a movie thought -grease- would make a good adhesive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

 * A magnetic version was described as "Reliable, efficient and useless." It was effective in that it stuck to the tank and detonated correctly, but it simply didn't have the moxie to damage a tank. :)  Incidentally, all the information I have read says otherwise but I'd guess that the filling would have to be based on nitroglycerin rather than nitroglycerin itself; it just seems to sound more likely.  That said, stupider things have been done!Johno 14:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fiction
Is there any proof whatsoever that the completely fictional things in Saving Private Ryan ever existed in reality? If there is no evidence of that, why are they mentioned here in this encyclopedia entry? 139.48.25.60 (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The following text was deleted from the main article. I am conserving it here in case it proves useful in the future.

 * The novel The Otterbury Incident by Cecil Day-Lewis features schoolboys playing a war game in which one objective is to disable a wooden "tank" by means of sticky bombs. The bombs, produced by one of the boys using his "chemical set", are as ferociously adhesive as the real thing, but do not actually explode.

Rewrite
I have conducted a complete rewrite of this article, which can be viewed at this sandbox. Would anyone oppose me replacing the current article with the version in the sandbox? I welcome any comments on the matter. Skinny87 (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Your version is good. Do you have required permissions for the photograph? I't like to keep the quoted story: it is funny and typical of the "mythology" that surrounded the sticky bomb. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you mean the current photo, then no - it's copyrighted and fair-use, and must be replaced by a public domian one - the one in the sandbox is public domain. I'll try and find a way to incorporate that story into the 'operational history' section. Skinny87 (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it be awful if the story isn't retained? I can't figure out how to add it into the article, as it's quite long and its description of the bomb doesn't really conform to what the other sources describe the bomb as being like. Perhaps it could be put in as a link in the 'External Links' section? Skinny87 (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, take a look now; I had to abbreviate it some more, but I think I managed to retain the humour of it in the quotation box. I'll give it a bit more work later, but how does that look? Skinny87 (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that version works rather well. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, I'd like more than one editor looking the sandbox version over, but this isn't a high-traffic article. And it can be reverted if anyone strongly disagrees, which I hope they won't. Unless you have any objections, I'll transfer the sandbox article to here. Skinny87 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave the sanbox a look and it looks fine to me. Maybe keep some of the external links that are in the article now?--Sus scrofa (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, of course, I always like to keep external links if I can. I'm watching The Apprentice now, but I'll move the article in a little while. Skinny87 (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Development section
This section gives undue and perhaps confusing prominence to Blacker. Whereas, I think the author merely intended that the Blacker Bombard as an example of the kind of weapons being produced. Blacker joined MD1 late - when the sticky bomb design was essentialy complete and he did not have anything to do with it. The man who should be prominently mentioned is Stuart Macrae - his article contains some useful links. I am not sure that Blacker and Jefferis were ever friends exactly and if I remember rightly Macrae hints at some tension between the two and they had a major squabble over credit for the PIAT which was, briefly and quite unfairly, known as the Jefferis Gun. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but none of my sources have mentioned Macrae. Do you have any sources you could suggest I look at? Skinny87 (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh joy. Yes, I can see there are sources on Macrae's page. I'll take a look at them after I've finished my dissertation, and try and rewrite the development section. I only ever meant Blacker as a way of introducing the weapons being produced. Skinny87 (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe Blacker was only mentioned as a "here is another example of the bonkers stopgap weapons they produced", not to give undue weight to his role in the development. Indeed, the articles makes no link between Blacker and the SB development, except to note he worked for the same department as Jefferis. Ironholds (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Righto, I've added one of the newspaper citations (properly formatted) to this article from Macrae's article, and also hopefully clarified that Blacker's appearance is only to show that (A stopgap weapons were being made, and B) as a lead into MD1, Jeffris and Macrae. I don't think it would warrant anymore details than that, although if I can find a copy of Churchill's Toyshop I'll certainly see if there's anything else to add. Skinny87 (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You do need Churchill's Toyshop to get a better flavour of the activities of MIR(c)/MD1 and the development of the Sticky bomb. As it happened my local library service had a copy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No 74 ST grenade
Just added a new article for No 74 ST grenade redirecting here, as I could not find any with the proper heading. For the future recommend that No 74 ST grenade gets its own article, and is then referenced in the main article on sticky bombs. (Of which there are several other than the 74 ST.) Vola31 (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you mind clarifying? I thought this was the article for the No. 74, as it says at the beginning of the article. I only ever used 'Sticky bomb' as a title as that's what it generally seems to have been known as, rather than its official title. Skinny87 (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, wonderful article BTW. I believe the article should be titled No 74 ST, since there are other sticky bombs, including a number of improvised once. Certainly the HL-Handgranate, and arguably the Hafthohlladung, could be considered sticky bombs. Today, "sticky bombs" or "sticky IEDs" are use in Iraq by insurgents. The most important thing however, is that No 74 ST Grenade is searchable and possible to reference under it's technical name, the redirect takes care of this. (I think the best solution would be to retitle the current article to No 74, and let "Sticky Bomb" nick name redirect here in stead. This would be similar to other articles.  For instance, "Ma Duece" correctly redirects to M2 Browning. This is absolutely no criticism of the content in the article, which holds a very high standard.

Vola31 (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for the praise! I hadn't thought about it like that, and of course you're right. I'll change the title immediately to the bomb's specific name. The only problem is - what should it be? In the literature I've had to use fragments of to put this together, it seems to have had about half a dozen 'official' names, from No. 74 ST grenade, to Grenade, Hand, Anti-Tank No. 74, AT Grenade No. 74 and so forth. Any ideas on what it should be put under? Skinny87 (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I would oppose a move, the article is at a reasonable name given it meets naming conventions for common name. (think also Mills bomb, Gammon grenade and Jam Tin Grenade, Boyes antitank rifle etc)) It's official name is rather less well known. Hafthohlladung has its own article, the SS-HL-Handgranate doesn't so far as I can see - but in each case sticky bomb is as much a description rather than a nickname. Sticky IEDs are a variant of IED and not production items so a proper article would not be forthcoming. Bottom line, if sticky bomb was to redirect to here than why change it. The No. 74 grenade redirect works. What might be needed to give direction towards these other weapons is a sticky bomb (disambiguation) article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The disambiguation hatnote and the page itself looks like a good compromise. Can't see any problems with it myself. Any thoughts? Skinny87 (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! I just wanted to ensure that the 74 could be referenced and linked from other articles. Since "Sticky Bomb" covers both improvised and several production items, in addition to being a widely used name on the 74, the disambiguation article is a perfect solution. Vola31 (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sticky bomb


text:
Talk:Asado

Parrilla
Should we make parrilla a redirection to grill or would that be a sacrilege ? -Mariano 13:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * That would be sacrilege, really :). In my opinion, I think *this* article should focus on the way the meat is roasted on the Pampa region, which is the main influence on the Argentinean and Uruguayan asados, and their way of doing them. As for the parilla, it differst amongst different regions. For example in Uruguay they use embers of wood (not charcoal) and they poke the burning wood so the embers would fall, then they would move the embers under a special grill where the meat is placed hellooooo

. Check this image: http://www.tribalcog.com/postcard/uruguay/uruguay_5668_m.jpg

In Argentina and Brazil they have different ways of doing it depending on the region. Fogo de Chão is a very peculiar way of roasting the meat, and is quite traditional from the Gauchos. In my opinion, to put all this together with some Black and Decker tex-BBQ thing could be quite weird, really :-p

mising: Asado a la cruz -Mariano 13:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Smoke
I must disagree with the bit about grease being discouraged to fall on the coals. This really depends of the people doing the assado. I've seen loads of people in Brazil and Uruguay that appreciates the smoke flavour that it gives to the meat. --Pinnecco 16:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

One of the points of grilling meat with charcoals is indeed to get smokey flavours on the meat...Poiuy998 (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just reading this article makes me hungry. Unfotunately, I don't have any meat on hand... :( Stale Fries 21:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Brazilian spices
The normal churrasco in Brazil does not include "Brazilian spices" as the article states, but just coarse salt. What are "brazilian spices" anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poiuy998 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There are many Brazilian meat rub spices: or
 * 2 tablespoons Olive Oil.
 * 1 tablespoon Dried Oregano.
 * 1 1⁄2 teaspoons Dried Basil.
 * 1 1⁄2 teaspoons Paprika.
 * 1⁄4 teaspoon Crushed Red Pepper Flakes.
 * 1 teaspoon Salt.
 * 1⁄2 teaspoon Black Pepper.
 * 3 cloves Garlic, minced.
 * 1 Teaspoon Ground Cumin
 * ½ Teaspoon Salt
 * ½ Teaspoon Freshly Ground Black Pepper
 * 4 Garlic Cloves (grated or finely minced)
 * ½ Small Red Onion (finely chopped)
 * Handful of Cilantro (leaves finely chopped)
 * 1 Serrano Chile (finely minced)
 * ⅓ Cup Lime Juice
 * ½ Cup Olive Oil

Merge/Carne asada
Carne asada should be merged here. Even the "alternative name" at the infobox of that article is "Asado". If they are alternative names, that means they are the same thing, ultimately. --176.239.147.183 (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Carne asada is typically beef and specifies any type of grilling in Mexico and Central America. Asado as it is used here refers to the tradition in Argentina and Uruguay especially, and it is particular in its practice which involves many types of meat, including sausages, slow roasted over embers of wood or coal. In short, please do not merge Carne asada here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryCS (talk • contribs) 02:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Similar, but not the same, so no to merge. Telecine Guy (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Chorizo
One thing that I remember from my travels is that "chorizo" in Argentina usually meant what we would call Italian sausage in the US, where "chorizo" elsewhere is a salami-like sausage. The chorizo article talks about this, but it might make sense to put a deeper link so that it goes to the South America section of the chorizo article. 166.176.184.37 (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

No sense phrase
I deleted this: "It is considered traditional to give a 16-year-old boy a cutting board" which is a wrong affirmation, I don't know who invented that no sense, and has no citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.55.177.97 (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Asado


text:
Muskegon Area Intermediate School District

The Muskegon Area Intermediate School District serves the educational needs of school districts in Muskegon County, Michigan.

School districts

 * Fruitport Community Schools
 * Holton Public Schools
 * Mona Shores Public Schools
 * Montague Area Public Schools
 * Muskegon Heights Public Schools
 * Muskegon Public Schools
 * North Muskegon Public Schools
 * Oakridge Public Schools
 * Orchard View Schools
 * Ravenna District Schools
 * Reeths-Puffer Public Schools
 * Whitehall District Schools

Charter schools

 * Three Oaks Academy
 * Timberland Academy
 * WayPoint Academy

Non-Public schools

 * Calvary Christian School
 * Catholic Schools of Greater Muskegon
 * Grace Christian Academy
 * Michigan Dunes Montessori
 * Muskegon Christian School
 * St. Catherine's School
 * Seventh Day Adventist School
 * Western Michigan Christian High School
 * West Shore Lutheran