# Talk:Kenilworth Castle

Article text said

The castle was inherited by Edward II and the Henry, Earl of Lancaster, received the castle, which then passed through his son to John of Gaunt.
This can't be completely correct: John of Gaunt was the son-in-law of Henry, 4th Earl of Lancaster. Also, Henry was the grandson of Edmund Crouchback, so it's likely he inherited Kenilworth directly. It's possible it reverted to the crown on Henry's death and then Edward II gave it to John of Gaunt, but I'm correcting the text on the assumption John inherited it (in right of his wife). Loren Rosen 18:47 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There's a collection of my pictures of the castle here, on FotoPic; all of them are of course available as GFDL (actually, they're dual-licensed as PD/GFDL, if you want to use the for something else) - anyone think we can use more of them?

James F. (talk) 21:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

1. The article says "The siege of Kenilworth Castle in 1266 is the longest in English history at almost a year." 
However according to the distinguished historian Sir Maurice Powicke (Oxford History of England, The Thirteenth Century pages 208-213) the siege lasted just over 6 months. This statement is supported by Kenilworth History and Archaeology Society’s publication on the “Great Siege”.
Wikipedia’s entry on Donnington Castle contradicts the claim that the siege of Kenilworth Castle was the longest in English history. The following sentence is taken from the section on Donnington Castle in the Civil War "Finally, after an eighteen month siege, the garrison surrendered".  
For claims of an even longer siege during the English civil wars of the 1640s see The History of the Siege of Basing House, Old Basing, Hampshire by David Nash Ford  "BASING  BESIEGED Civil War Stronghold holds out for Three Years"
http://www.britannia.com/history/hants/siegebsg.html
2. Wikipedia article says “The siege was ended on easy terms for the defenders with the Dictum of Kenilworth”  The Dictum of Kenilworth was proclaimed on 31st October 1266. The rebels at Kenilworth Castle were not satisfied and held out for another 40 days, hoping for help from Simon de Montfort the younger. When this help failed to arrive, they surrendered on 14th December 1266 and accepted the terms of the Dictum. See Powicke “The Thirteenth Century” page 213.
3. The article states "The castle returned to the Crown on Dudley's death." This is incorrect.
Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, left Kenilworth Castle to his brother Ambrose Dudley, Earl of Warwick, for the latter's lifetime. On Ambrose's death in 1690 it passed to Sir Robert Dudley, the illegitimate son of Lord Leicester. In 1607 Sir Robert deserted his wife and fled to Italy with his cousin Elizabeth Southwell. When he disobeyed an order to return under the Statute of Fugitives, the Crown seized his estates, including Kenilworth Castle. In 1611 Sir Robert agreed to sell the Castle to Prince Henry, elder son of James I. Henry died in 1612 and the property passed to his younger brother, Charles. In 1626 King Charles I granted the Castle to his bride Henrietta Maria as part of her marriage settlement. From 1625 until 1649 the Carey family (Earls of Monmouth) were the stewards of Kenilworth Castle, i.e. leased it from the Crown. (See “A Kenilworth Chronology” by Harry Sunley) 
4. With regard to the Restoration the article says “In 1660 Charles II gave the castle to Sir Edward Hyde, whom he created Baron Hyde of Hindon and Earl of Clarendon.” 
The first part of this sentence is incorrect. In 1660 Charles II’s mother (Queen Henrietta Maria) successfully claimed back Kenilworth Castle and Lord Monmouth resumed his stewardship. When Lord Monmouth died in 1661 the lease passed to his daughters. In 1665 the Castle was granted to Lawrence Hyde (later made Earl of Rochester), the second son of Edward Hyde, Lord Clarendon. (See “A Kenilworth Chronology” by Harry Sunley). Lawrence’s son Henry inherited the Clarendon earldom in 1724 when the elder branch of the Hyde family died out. Jillingworth (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The article seems to say that Humphrey of Gloucester was Henry V's brother and that John of Lancaster was his son.  In fact the latter was also Henry's brother.  Rogersansom (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I've uploaded this panorama taken from the East side of the castle to Wikimedia at "Kenilworth castle.jpeg".  Would it make a good illustration for this article?  It's had some retouching to remove tourists and add a bit of sky that was missed from the original component shots.
PaulJohnson (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The article isn't really long enough for another image to fit in comfortably, but it's obviously a good picture so I've crowbarred it in anyway. Nev1 (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through and expanded the article out a bit and scrubbed over the references. I've removed two small bits from the original article in the process. The first of these was the account of Shakespeare attending the 1575 festivities; I could only find references that noted "he might have been there", mainly on the basis of Victorian speculation. The second was the reference to Little Virginia and the potato, where again I couldn't find anything firmer than a statement that there was a local story to this effect. I've also added a few more pictures and the Hollar map. It will probably need a copy-editing of some sort. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"only two of its buildings remain usable today": I'd change this to "only two of the buildings remain habitable" as arguably the ruined buildings are still in use as tourist attractions.
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
"tourist location" is an odd turn of phrase, would "tourist destination" be better?
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
"narrow walled causeway": it's unclear if the walls were narrow or the causeway, I think a hyphen in the right place could fix that.
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
"Moving clockwise around the outer bailey": moving clockwise from which position? Immediately before that, the north wall of the outer bailey is mentioned, but immediately clockwise of that is Lunn's Tower, so the starting point needs to be clarified.
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
When the watergate is mentioned I think it should be clarified which face of the outer bailey it was a part of (west?).
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
"the King's gate, a late 17th century agricultural addition": that's the only time the King's gate is mentioned
Mention added later. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Didn't Hollar's drawing include a similar view of the castle after it was slighted? (Assuming I'm not misremembering) these are often shown together to show the impact of the Civil War; while there are obviously other images of the castle's ruinous state it might be worth including those two together to really contrast them. Just a thought though, it's not a necessity.
I'm not sure I've seen that one. I've seen the classic three-panel one that Hollar did, but all three of those are pre-slighting. I've done a quick Google search, but I'm not finding a post-slighting. Will have another look tomorrow! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's any use to you, but the following is a quote from Cathcart King's 1998 book (page 71): "But there is one other large keep to be considered, whose extraordinary and in many ways anomalous character has prevented it from being mentioned earlier, for nothing else resembles it. This is the great tower of Kenilworth, called in early times Caesar's Tower. It is remarkable for its huge passive strength, for the very advanced features of its defences – which suggest a date later than that of Dover – and finally for the fact that its recorded history appears to indicate a time for its building much earlier than this."
"Gaunt's architectural style emphasised rectangular design, the separation of ground floor service areas from the upper stories and a contrast of austere exteriors with lavish interiors, especially on the 1st floor": is this talking about the northern part of the inner ward in general, or a particular building?
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
When referring to Robert Dudley's activities (eg: "Leicester's building was four floors high") shouldn't they be described as Dudley's as Earl of Leicester was his title (ie: "Dudley's building was four floors high")?
I wasn't sure. I was trying to find some clever way to easily distinguish between the two Dudleys (Robert and his dad) in the text, but not sure if this device worked or not... I'm happy to change it! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
"The Pleasance was eventually dismantled by Henry VIII and partially moved into the left-hand court inside the castle itself, possibly to add to the anachronistic appearance": that leaves the ultimate fate of the Pleasance hanging. I think its ultimate fate needs to be explained, even just with half a sentence.
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
When talking about the revolt of 1173 to 1174, I'm not keen on the phrase "The conflict spread across the region". It makes it sound as if it was concentrated in Warwickshire or the Midlands, when the entire country was affected as well as Aquitaine.
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
There's a bit of a gap in the chronology between John ceding the castle to guarantee the Magna Carta and Henry III giving Kenilworth to de Montfort.
Agreed. I've been struggling to find out what happened next myself! 18th/19th century writers noted that one of the Clinton's took it back for a while, but they seem to be repeating each other and I'm not sure of the provenance of the original story. I've clarified it a little, as everyone seems to agree it went back into royal control pretty quickly, and I'll keep an eye out for any reliable details I can find here. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
"Henry granted Kenilworth to his brother, Edmund Crouchback": is there a year to go with this?
1267, added in. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
"Kenilworth remained a popular location for both James and Charles and accordingly was well maintained": that's the first time a James is mentioned, so James who (I assume James I)?
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I had planned on expanding the article myself as the castle really needed better than this, and am very glad to see this beautiful building done justice. I thought about the structure a bit, and think that the current layout (architecture first) is the best approach; when I tried to put the history first I found it difficult as the Morris book didn't and had important bits of history in the architecture section which I initially skipped over to focus on history. In any case, I've found that in places with such a complex architectural history as Kenilworth's (eg: the Tower of London) dealing with it first is a good approach. I don't have the 2010 version of Morris' book, but if the earlier version is anything to go by it should be excellent; my copy is hiding somewhere, otherwise I'd join in with some of the points I made above. The photographs are excellent, and this was a particularly good find. I think I have a photo of the model on display in the castle's visitor centre showing how it may have appeared when the Great Mere was flooded if you think it would be useful? I might also have a photo of the stables if it's useful; I visited earlier this year and took a few photos but must a pretty poor quality.
The latest Morris book is rather good, particularly in his own expert area of the Elizabethan period. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
To summarise, this is another fine effort Hchc2009, and again I think this would pass GAC without too much trouble. The list above may look long, but individually they're generally small points and this is clearly a high quality article. Nev1 (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Cheers! Will work through these later - as ever, really appreciate them. I like the idea of a photo model; I began a bit of work on getting the references etc. sorted for York Castle, and came across a similar picture for that which I've cleaned up a bit and stuck into my draft page - they can look really good I think. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm still finishing off the GA work on the Economy of England in the Middle Ages article, but once that's squared away I'll look to submit this one to review as well. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
When you can find a model reconstruction it's invaluable to an article. The model of Kenilworth is here. It needs to be cropped, but my internet connection is very hit and miss at the moment, so I uploaded it straight away. Nev1 (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I've cropped it a bit, but feel free to play around with the image yourself. Nev1 (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Done - trimmed a little bit more, turned the background black - looks really good! Hchc2009 (talk)

Great to see this article in such excellent shape! Since Sir Robert Dudley undoubtedly inherited and owned the castle, I took the liberty to correct the episode about the aftermath of Leicester's death. Another point: I'd strongly think that 100,000 pounds cannot be true regarding the 1575 costs. Even the 1,000 pounds per day (just a fifth) are thought to be legendary. Leicester died with about 50,000 pounds in debt, practically bankrupt, after financing one of Elizabeth's wars. He would never have had the 100,000 to spend. Would it be o.k. to put in the story of 1,000 per day again, if I can find a suitable source? Or let's simply say that the costs for the festival were believed to have almost bankrupted the Earl? Buchraeumer (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I've decided to go ahead with this. If he had spent such fantastic amounts there would be traces in his accounts, or debts. The Netherlands in the 1580s were Leicester's financial ruin, not this party. Buchraeumer (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems sensible. I could find sources saying 1,000/day, and sources saying the 100,000, but neither were giving away where they'd got the information from! :) Hchc2009 (talk)
Quick question on the "Dudley went to Italy in 1605, and in 1611/1612 arranged to sell Kenilworth Castle to Henry, the Prince of Wales" - in terms of the 1611/12 bit, does this mean that he made the arrangements between 1611 and 1612, or is there uncertainty as to when he did it? (NB: not disputing the facts, just checking how we should present the date!). Hchc2009 (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The sale "was concluded in November 1611". I guess I put it 1611/12 because Henry died before the payment was fully done, please change as you see fit! I'd think this is too much detail for the article but perhaps interesting to you: "The sale was concluded in November 1611. Kenilworth had been valued in 1609 at £38,000 clear, but Dudley apparently accepted £15,000 (£14,500 according to Charles I in 1644), although Henry's agent later stated that he had agreed to only £7000. In mid-1612 James assigned Henry £7000 towards the purchase, but Henry had received only half this sum before he died in November and how much had been remitted to Dudley by then is unknown." (ODNB Sir Robert Dudley article by Simon Adams) Buchraeumer (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
'Ta! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kenilworth Castle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Can you explain or link this: collar and truss-brace design? Since the length of the siege in 1266 is the longest in English history, it would be nice to know exactly how long that was without going to the link. How did Henry, Earl of Lancaster get the castle? Did Isabella or Mortimer give it to him?
Not sure if I can help with the braces (not at the moment anyway), but as far as the siege is concerned I've clarified in the lead and main body of the article how long it was. It's an unusual situation as I'm using an older version of the Morris book, but the basic facts such as the length of the siege won't have changed. Hchc2009 could probably update the reference for consistency, but since I'd found my copy of the book I thought I'd lend a hand.On the issue of Henry, Earl of Lancaster, I thought this was addressed by the passage "His estates, including Kenilworth, were confiscated by the crown.[68] Edward and his wife, Isabella of France spent Christmas 1323 at Kenilworth, amidst major celebrations.[70] In 1326, however, Edward was deposed by an alliance of Isabella and her lover, Roger Mortimer. Edward was eventually captured by Isabella's forces and the custody of the king was assigned to Henry, Earl of Lancaster, who had backed Isabella's invasion.[71] Henry, regaining most of the Lancaster lands, was made constable of Kenilworth and Edward was transported there in late 1326". Taken in the context of the paragraph it's clear IMO that he regained possession as a result of royal favour. As the Crown owned his property, including Kenilworth, it could only have been the Crown that gave it back. Nev1 (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifiying the siege. The fact that he became constable implies that he did not regain ownership.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I've given some links to the collar and truss-brace design, and added a note giving a link to a picture of a possible equivalent structure. See if that paints a better picture; if not, I could probably pull together a stub architectural term page. As you've suggested, I've fished out the Morris 2010 equivalents to keep the editions consistent. Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Still would like to know when the Crown regranted the castle back to Henry. Appointing him constable implies that they retained still it then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Just about to update; the estates were "formally restored" in 1327. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I figured as much, but I can't square that with his appointment by the Crown as Constable of the castle. Unless I'm misunderstanding something they could appoint a man Constable of his own castle.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I've had another go at clarifying the text in the article. But the sequence I'm trying to convey is: first the castle belonged to the Lancaster earls, but they were confiscated, being owned by the Crown instead - back to being a "royal castle". 1326, Edward is overthrown; like other major nobles who sided with Isabella, there is much reoccupying of former lands - Henry of Lancaster grabs his family's estates back, but hasn't got legal title yet. Isabella appoints him constable of Kenilworth so he can officially guard Edward on her behalf. 1327, Henry formally gets the ownership of Kenilworth back in law. You've got a similar sequence with Goodrich and some others in 1326, where the "proper" owner takes occupancy before the legal titles are confirmed. So when Henry is being appointed constable, the castle is still legally the Crown's, but everyone would have known that Henry was about to get it back fully as a close supporter of Isabella. Isabella carries on using the castle as a "royal castle" anyway until her own fall from power in 1330, but I haven't seen anything suggesting she had any particular right to do so, except for the fact that Henry owned his lands and title on her grace and favour as the ruling regent of the Crown.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, good enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Sturmvogel, I'm travelling this week and only able to edit slowly from my mobile device - I'll make the necessary edits you've highlighted on 2nd Nov when I get back. Many thabks in advance for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
That's fine; I'm not really in a hurry.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Back in an area with a broad-band connection again! Changes made as per above. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations on this beautiful article! Really amazing stuff! Buchraeumer (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Very many thanks to everyone who worked on it! It is a lovely castle to cover in an article. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Currently, the caption for the above images reads "Kenilworth Castle viewed from Gibbet Hill." I've had an email from Mike00046 (talk · contribs) that Gibbet Hill is a few miles from where the photograph was taken. The link to Google maps isn't necessary in this edit. How about a compromise, changing the caption to "Kenilworth Castle viewed from the south west, where the great mere used to be." To most readers, Gibbet Hill won't mean much, and Kenilworth Castle Car Park Footpath even less, but I think the proposed wording would be more meaningful to someone who's read the article. Nev1 (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
From Mike00046:
I agree with the new wording to some degree, but would add at the point of where the photo was taken is a kissing gate and display notice board for http://www.kenilworthfootpaths.org.uk/ is located see  http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/KOwGxd9GFJ8492MyHZ6_TQ which does tell the reader that walks are available on public footpaths from the Kenilworth Castle main car park i.e. The Millenium Walks (This on is called The Brays) I have also emailed the owner of the photo as well - how did it get labelled incorrectly initially?  
--86.137.223.89 (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm very happy with Nev1's proposed wording. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC) (NB: I know where the castle and the footpath is, but not Gibbet Hill, so very happy to accept Mike00046's recommendation on the geography!) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The geotagging (available on the original Flickr page where this photo is hosted) on that photo is pretty accurate (ie nowhere near Gibbet Hill). It's taken just South of the castle, from a footpath accessible from Castle Road. The new wording sounds pretty good. ChrisSinjo (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

With regards to this revert. There is nothing wrong with the information added. Hchc2009, if you do not like the citation style then change it, but that is no excuse for reverting all of the edit. What exactly is your justification for reverting the additions to the article?  -- PBS (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As I noted when making the revert, see the equivalent conversation between yourself and other editors here; you'll probably recall, since you edited the section about ten days ago, that this was another example when you edited an article, changed the citation style, and were unhappy when others reverted. In that case, Nev1 commented that "If a newbie editor had edited using a different citation style I would have happily stepped in and made the necessary changes myself, but by now you should be able to match an article's format in your sleep." Johnbod noted that "you are clearly breaching WP:Citation with these undiscussed changes". Parrot said that "once again PBS, you appear to be trying to impose your view of what citation styles are appropriate for an article". If you're not aware of how different citation styles operate in Wikipedia, feel free to ask for help (indeed, I'd be very happy to help anyone who doesn't understand how they work). But I don't think its reasonable to repeatedly ignore this policy, and expect other editors to follow around cleaning up. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
You are not justifying the revert to the alternations I have made to the text. Also what is it that I am changing in the style? I have used the same style as is already there (short citations) and modified one long citation to a short citation. So explain 1) why you have made a general revert, and 2) what is the citation style that you are defending? -- PBS (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I would have thought you know exactly the style that is being talked about because you changed one of the citations from <ref>Adams, p.326.</ref> to {{sfn|Adams|2002|p=326}}. You can see the result for yourself. And it's not as if you plunged straight into the article without checking how the references were set up, you saw how it was done and then ignored it it which goes explicitly against WP:CITEVAR "Editors may choose any option they want; one article need not match what is done in other articles. However, citations within a given article should follow a consistent style." (original emphasis). Nev1 (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
There are two references to Adams. If the style is to be consistent and both are to be short citations then a year is needed for clarity and disambiguation. -- PBS (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Here we go again! Changed citation style is an "excuse for reverting all of the edit", which Hchc2009 seems to have no problems with otherwise (he might confirm/clarify this).  Why should he have to follow an experienced editor round cleaning up after him? Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Because it is not a clean up. If Hchc2009 does not like it then s/he is free to change it to that which s/he likes and then we can discuss whether that change ought to be made but "I don't like it" is not an excuse for reverting edits. -- PBS (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Basically, yes. I'd have gone for a mild ce of the text, but I think the additional material is interesting and I'm perfectly relaxed about where the 16th and 17th century bits finish and start (a matter of taste!). The date of the one of the new sources (late Victorian) is relatively old, but is typically going to be accurate for supporting this particular kind of material on this particular castle. The introduction of different citations styles for the printed books and articles, and changing the citation format and style of on-line web sources, were the issues for me; I probably sounded unduly grouchy above, but we'd only all recently finished the same debate on the Tower of London changes... Hchc2009 (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Rather than using the Dictionary of National Biography from 1887, it would probably be a better idea to use the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography from 2004. If you've not got access to it, I can send you the relevant article. Nev1 (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Sounds even better - I don't have access to the 2004 version. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The text should be sitting in your inbox. Nev1 (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The ODNB sates "John Westby-Gibson, ‘Chaloner, Sir Thomas, the younger (1563/4–1615)’, rev. Kenneth L. Campbell," Ie the text is a review of the DNB. As the DNB is public domain and we have a copy on Wikisource, it is a preferable source to the ODNB unless there is a discrepancy between them in which case the newer source is preferable. In this case the two wordings are DNB "In 1605 he was entrusted with the repairs of Kenilworth Castle, the planting of gardens, restoration of fish-ponds, game preserves, &c."  ODNB [the dates in the paragraph proceeding the sentence are 1603 and about 1605] "He was put in charge of the repair of Kenilworth Castle and the development of its grounds".  -- PBS (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Preferable according to what policy? Nev1 (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Not a matter of policy but opinion see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 89#DNB vs. ODNB as source? and Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive 5#How about DNB as a source instead of ODNB? in this case there is a more detailed sentence in the DNB than in the ONDB. -- PBS (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
This was a destructive edit, it replaces an inter wiki link with an external link, it removes, location, publisher, volume, and page number information from the citation. This {{cite DNB}} template is also potentially useful for furtherance of the  Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography. -- PBS (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You've lost me there PBS. Doesn't "Stephen, Leslie. (ed) 1887 The Dictionary of National Biography : From the Earliest Times to 1900: Volume 9, Canute - Chaloner. London, UK: Smith, Elder and Co. OCLC 163195750." include that information? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Some of it but not all of it. Why split the citation? Where is the internal link, where is the wikisource icon? What is your objection to using the standard template for displaying links to DNB on Wikisource?-- PBS (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
PBS, I don't want to raise tensions, but could we discuss the latest change? The other online sources used in the article keep to a consistent style; I believe you don't like this style, because I think it's come up before on other talk page discussions, and was part of the issues discussed above in January. If you want to alter the citation style, could you raise it as a change proposal here, and we can discuss as per WP:CITEVAR? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This page is set up with long and short citations. This edit breaks that citation style and it removed additional information such as the doi: and access information. No only does it place the long citation in the wrong place, it also formats the citation in a way that is different from all the other long citations.  -- PBS (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
All the on-line citations in the article (websites, on-line sources etc.) are in the long form. I'm not trying to be difficult, but it looks as though the retrieval/access date is already there. If you think it would benefit from the doi, then why don't we just add it to the long citation? (NB: you've just done this anyway while I've been typing!) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
The access date is not "January 2008" that is the last edit date (when the article it was put online). The entry does not require a access date as it has a doi and edit updates.
The ODNB is no more online than the DNB. It seems very bizarre to me to say that if a source contains a URL link to it then it should be placed in a footnote but if it does not than it should be split into a general reference and a short citations. This distinction is not a style difference recognised at WP:CITE. -- PBS (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you really saying that you support this
 although the only difference is that one includes a URL and the other not?

Notes

References
 Westby-Gibson, John (1887). "Chaloner, Thomas (1561-1615)". In Stephen, Leslie (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 9. London: Smith, Elder & Co. pp. 458, 459. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
-- PBS (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
If there is nothing further to say on the issue then I think that the ONDB long citation should be placed in the general references section where the rest of the long citations and leave a short inline citation as is the format for other sources in this article. -- PBS (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to propose a change to the citation style, as per the above, feel free to do so. In the meantime, please follow WP:CITEVAR. Alternatively, you could always request a third opinion at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not proposing a change in the citation style, I am proposing that books should be cited consistently. At the moment some long citations to books appear in the general references section with short inline citation, while others appear as long citations within inline citations. -- PBS (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
An alternative, if you wished, would be to seek a third opinion as to whether the on-line version of the ONDB should be classed as a hardcopy book or an on-line source at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
What is your position on the example I gave of the DNB above? -- PBS (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
There is no established citation style here, there is a mishmash of short and long styles. There is no reason not to use the citation templates {{ODNB}} and {{DNB}} which include hidden categories to aid various Wikipedia projects. It is my intention to reinstate them unless someone can present a valid argument was to why short citations should not be used with them. -- PBS (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

As per the above, I don't think you have consensus on this talk page for the change, PBS. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
(1) the current citations are a mishmash of short and long citation styles, so there is not style. (2) These templates {{ODNB}} and {{DNB}} were introduced when the citations were added to the article and aid the DNB project. So it is not I who changed them "merely on the grounds of personal preference", as the templates add value for the relevant project, what is your substantive objections to using these templates? -- PBS (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean further to the discussion above from last year? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not aware that you produced any substantive objections last year. So please state what your substantive objections to using these templates are.  -- PBS (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
If we're going to start a fresh discussion about a change in citation style, I think we should probably start a new section. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
By all means if you want to, but I do not think we are discussing changing style and I would like to know what your substantive objections are to using the templates {{Cite DNB}} and {{cite ODNB}}. -- PBS (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
If we're not discussing a change in style, then, as per last year's conversation, the key issue is CITEVAR - an article's style shouldn't be changed without discussion first. If the question is the relative value of different templates against the background of this article, then let's start a new threat on the proposed style change. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
If we're not discussing a change in a consistent style and did I useI did not use the templates or propose their use "on the grounds of personal preference", so I do see the need to start a new section. If you want to "start a fresh discussion about a change in citation style" then you can do so. However repeating that suggestion does not answer my question about these two templates. What are your substantive objections to using the templates to display information about the DNB and ODNB citations? -- PBS (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I quite understood your first sentence, PBS. Did you mean that you don't want to start a new section? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Fixed the problem with a strike and added "I did not use". It should make sense to you now. However that does not affect the second sentence:  What are your substantive objections to using the templates to display information about the DNB and ODNB citations? -- PBS (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Generically, I don't have a strong opinion in favour of, or against templates. I've used a wide range in the past when editing different articles. If an editor proposes adding them to an article that doesn't use them, however , it does require consensus, as per CITEVAR (mentioned last year). Having a single citation in as different format to all the rest, due to a particular template, doesn't make much sense to me though. If you're suggesting a change in style, please start a new action so that it's clear. If you're not proposing a change, then generic questions about the advantages of particular templates might live better elsewhere. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It does not involve CITEVAR because there is no change to any style as there is no consistent style in place. The reason for using the {{DNB}} templates is because it adds hidden categories to the article that aids maintenance. At the moment you are the only one objecting to its introduction and you say "Having a single citation in as different format to all the rest, due to a particular template, doesn't make much sense to me though" In what way would the format of the citation vary for a reader? Given that the template aids the project by introducing hidden categories and an icon to advertise the Wikipsource domain do you have any substantive reasons for it not being there as "doesn't make much sense to me though" does not appear to be a substantive reason to outweigh the benefits of using the template? -- PBS (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Given that the debate has perhaps got a little stale/circular since January 2012, :), I've left a message over at WikiProject Military History to perhaps draw some more comment in... Hchc2009 (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

May be worth a mention in the Today section that the Leicester's Building has been reopened to the public after viewing platforms have been installed. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-29053731 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-21056150 Keith D (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds sensible - I've added something in. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The image on the right shows the Mere partially flooded in 2012. I'm bringing it to people's attention in case it would be useful in the article. Nev1 (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

One of the article's image captions uses "Pleasurance."  Is this a typo, or a legitimate alternate spelling of "Pleasance"? 174.24.42.44 (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Good question: my guess is a typo for Pleasaunce, an archaic spelling of pleasance—which at any rate I agree must be the intended meaning—having one more letter in common. The OED has an entry for pleasurance, but the only sense given is as a synonym for pleasure, so here it would have to be interpreted as a proper name.—Odysseus1479 05:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Yep, it's a typo - good spot. I've corrected. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)