Talk:Battle of Hastings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleBattle of Hastings is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 14, 2017.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 5, 2013Good article nomineeListed
August 15, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

References: talk page only[edit]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2019[edit]

It actually was one of the greatest battle of all time because it changed english history forever.If Edward the Confesser had an heir to the throne this would never happen 159.86.182.142 (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

No change to article requested. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2020[edit]

Capital "F" for William fitzOsbern in section "Dispositions of forces and tactics" Rtorichard (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Lowercase is also an acceptable method - there is not a set way to do this in the scholarly literature. --Ealdgyth (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Latin Translation Error[edit]

In the text below the Bayeux Tapestry description it says:

"Harold Rex Interfectus Est: "King Harold was killed". Scene from the Bayeux Tapestry depicting the Battle of Hastings and the death of Harold."

I believe the correct translation, if adhering to the Latin, is, "King Harold is Killed" rather then "King Harold was Killed". In this circumstance, the word in question is "est" which is present tense "to be" meaning 'he/she/it is'. If it was "was killed" as suggested it would have read "Harold Rex Interfectus Eram". Overall, I believe the correct translation is "King Harold is killed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioActive66 (talkcontribs) 01:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia must go by sources, not editor opinions. In this case, I find sources that translate it either as "is" or "was", so neither is incorrect. Most of the text of the tapestry uses the past tense, which makes sense since it's telling a story. I see no improvement in changing from "was" to "is". --A D Monroe III(talk) 03:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)