# Talk:Castles in Great Britain and Ireland

I've given the article a thorough overhaul and expansion. A few points....

I suspect the name should really be "Castles in the United Kingdom and Ireland", as making a distinction between Northern Ireland and the Republic isn't very meaningful for most of the period concerned.
Where possible, I've tried to give examples of the trends, to help the typical wiki reader; that said, this isn't a list article, so not every castle will have got a mention.
I suspect I've probably got an unconscious bias towards castles in England, and in particular the south-west (!). I've very deliberately tried to get a good balance of material, particularly where pictures are concerned, but may not have got this quite right. Any specialists in Scottish or Irish castles will no doubt find there's plenty to edit or add.
If anyone can find a better picture of a motte and bailey earthwork, or a ringwork, let's use them. I'll admit I was struggling to find a picture with both a motte and a bailey earthwork clearly in it, or a really good ringwork shot!
No doubt lots of tidying up etc. will be necessary. I think I've got the references sorted for most of the points - shout if I've missed a reference for something important.
Cheers, Hchc2009 (talk) 08:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any really good photos on Wikipedia of ringworks or motte and baileys unfortunately. It's not easy to take a good photo of an earthwork from the ground; if only someone had a helicopter or light aircraft. I know more about English and Welsh castles than Scottish ones, so probably can't help much in any unconscious bias, but Jonathan Oldenbuck is one of the most prolific members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Castles and I think it would be worth asking his opinion in that regard. And as a northerner if I think there's too much about southern castles I'll let you know once I've had a proper look ;-) Nev1 (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about adding something along the lines of the following to the article:

Of the 108 masonry castles in Wales [[Cadw]], the government body responsible for preserving historic monuments in the country, has 42 directly under its care and has provided funding for 17 more. Most of the rest are privately owned.<ref>{{citation |url=http://www.castlewales.com/cadw_rsk.html |title=Cadw and Castle Conservation |last=Avent |first=Richard |publisher=castlewales.com |accessdate=2011-04-18}}</ref>
My line of thinking was that it might be useful to give some figures for sites under state care. Preferably figures for England, Ireland, and Scotland would have to be added to give balance to the Welsh figures (assuming you think this kind of material is worth including in the first place). castlewales.com has essays by reliable sources and this particular one is by a representative of Cadw. Nev1 (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds a good plan to me - these sorts of figures I think are particularly useful for non-Brits, as it gives a sense of scale that we sometimes take for granted as residents! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This article has been recently renamed from "Castles in the United Kingdom and Ireland" to "Castles in Great Britain and Ireland" without discussion. That seems slightly odd, as some people could interpret it as excluding Northern Ireland (which isn't the intention). The old name seems better to me, or even "Castles in the British Isles", but I know that terminology relating to Ireland is a sensitive issue, so what do others think? -- Dr Greg  talk  18:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The related discussion is here. I don't think there is a perfect article title, each suggestion has its pros and cons, but this one seems to do the job. Nev1 (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Think that the previous title was better, as per Dr Greg, though would go with the "Castles in the British Isles" title. If you think that there was no such thing as Ireland/Republic of Ireland then there was no Great Britain in the timeframe we are talking about. Keith D (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Great Britain is a geographic term - it does not go into and out of existence as a frame of reference in the same way states do. It would be absurd to create an article like Foreign policy of England if it was intended to go beyond 1707, but titles like Great Britain in the Ice Age are perfectly fine. And using 'British Isles' is a non-starter, it would just be the beginning of a long round of screaming and edit warring (if not right now then definitely once one of them notices it on their systematic searches for the term), so on a topic like this where their preferred alternative of 'GB&I' actually makes sense, it's just not worth the hassle. Per WP:TITLE, it's frankly beyond obvious to me that an article like this, which goes all the way back to 1066, should not have a title which suggests it is tied to an era which only refers to 1707 and beyond. The 'other islands' issue aside, I'm frankly amazed people even have an issue with it. I find the idea that readers are going to think it excludes NI as completely unbelievable frankly, on all levels of logic and sense. MickMacNee (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I prefer the current name to UK and I, though personally I would favour "Britain and Ireland". I tend to see "Britain" as the geographic name for an island while "Great Britain" is a more political term. I may be wrong. Anyway, we have Tower houses in Britain and Ireland. The two should match whichever name is chosen. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you are wrong. I can only think of the Olympics as a wide usage of GB non-geographicaly, whereas Britain is pretty much a synonym of the UK, and in cases where it's not, the intended meaning is often....the island called Great Britain. MickMacNee (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Should be moved to Castles in the British Isles, if it's gonna include both islands. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Which of the alternatives covers all of the five countries and associated islands? (specifically: as the article ranges from 1066 to the present day it may be inappropriate to separate Ireland into NI and Eire when discussing those time periods prior to NI's existence?)Chaosdruid (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just started a copyedit on the article and the first thing I noticed is that it contains 15,000 words of readable prose. The Wikipedia policy guideline suggests that 10,000 is the top word count before readability/browser performance become issues. I'd therefore suggest a split in to "Castles of England, Scotland & Wales" and "Castles of Ireland" or something similar, with relevant redirects. Best ► Philg88 ◄ talk 07:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

What do others feel about the length? It did grow a bit when I wrote it, but if we're looking at a split, I'd like to get full consensus before commencing on the work! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Yep, a split is due. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I am not keen on a split because this forms a coherent group with interlinked histories and developments. The article stands at 14,000 words which while long is not unmanageable. Nev1 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
If we can keep it together, it makes for an easier narrative in the article. Splitting by geography, whilst not impossible, is a pain, because it requires explaining what happens in adjacent regions all the time. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
5 pages of bibliography, notes and references??? and 2.5 of those are just the bibliography, this seems a rather large amount.

I have looked at the article and it is (under the 400kb limit), has 11 pages of readable prose (less than half the "must split" 30 limit) and has many sections with links to "Main" articles.
It is apparent that the article does need to be of significant length and it does not necessarily need splitting off - Suggestions:

Try and reduce the wording of those sections which are summaries of "main articles"
Reduce the bibliography or consider a "show / hide" bar
Chaosdruid (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi all
During the copyedit some things came to light which may need attention:

Lead
"At the end of the war many castles were slighted to prevent future use." - the wikilink for slight does not explain what this term means, and I cannot find one that would. Done
Invasion
"Some groups of castles were located so as to be mutually reinforcing – for example the castles of Littledean Camp, Glasshouse Woods and Howle Hill Camp were intended to act as an integrated defence for the area around Gloucester and Gloucester Castle for Gloucester city itself, whilst Windsor was one of a ring of castles built around London, each approximately a day's march apart." - I tried to better explain the relationship between the three defending the area and Gloucester castle itself.
Reads well to me - thanks.Hchc2009 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
"shortage of unfree labour." - not sure if this is a historical term, or if it needs a little more explanation as to what exactly unfree labour means.
Have clarified and linked.Hchc2009 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Last paragraph. I understand what is being said, that some castles were left unoccupied during various times and that at no time were they all occupied - the problem is that there is no mention of how many castles existed, it may be better to say in the last sentence "out of 700" or whatever the number may be.
Have tried out an alternative here.Hchc2009 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Architecture
"such as the south-west and south Wales." - is this south-west England or south-west Wales? "the south-west" implies, at least to my mind, that it would be of England. Dropping the "the" would imply to me that it was Wales. (as it is used in a later section "In the south-west, where")
It was England, clarified.
I removed a couple of "for example" as it seemed overused.
That would sound typical of me! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Developments in castle design
"build them; unlike unfree labour," (para2) - the unfree labour term again.
Clarified. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The Anarchy
"broke out in England and raged between 1139 and 1153" - without the qualifier the war broke out sometime between the dates, rather than lasting between those dates.
"The Anarchy" - capitalised "The" as it is the proper name for the period?
Um no - changed! Hchc2009 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The spread of castles in Scotland, Wales and Ireland
"The king encouraged Norman and French" - which king? I assume this is David I although it could equally be Henry I.
Clarified in the text. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Economy and society
"although it continued in the Welsh Marshes" - should this be "Marches"?
Soggy though they often are, yes! Changed.Hchc2009 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
"14th century an artificial was enclosed by a park" (para4) - an artificial what?
Clarified in the text. Hchc2009 (talk)
Welsh principalities and Edwardian castles
"characterised by powerful mural towers" - what is a mural tower?
A tower on a wall. Clarified in the text. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
1945–21st century
"The conversation preference was" - unsure of what conversation this referred to, I supposed this meant conservation?
Yes, although I'm sure it fuelled a few after-dinner debates as well! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
General notes
A large number of repetitive "however", "for example" and "such as" were removed. Many were unnecessary (although I did not remove them) and some "however"s did not have a preceding statement to qualify their use.
Chaosdruid (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the slighting links. Nev1 (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Very many thanks - particularly for dealing with my "however"s, which tend to multiply... :) I'll work through the above later on tonight, but this is really appreciated. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Have gone through and cleaned up as you suggested above. Reads much better - thanks for all the hard work, Hchc2009 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and haven't had much luck finding a mentor so sorry if I'm going about this in the wrong way.
I'm wondering if there is scope for an index page that list British castles perhaps in chronological order of their construction. (I've looked for one but can't see it anywhere.) If there is a page for individual castles we could then link from the index. I realise this would be a big job (and that's why I havn't just gone ehead and started it) but I feel it would be a really useful resource. The other issue is that my coding knowledge is a bit weak so setting the page up in some sort of table format would be a bit beyond me. We could then start to populate the page as we go.
Any thoughts?
Kotch5 (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a List of Castles in England (and equivalent Scottish, Welsh and Irish ones). My cautionary note would be that even these partial lists are very long: worth having a look at the discussion on the English list about this. If you want any help with individual castle articles, give me a shout here on or my talk page - happy to mentor. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec) The closest there is are various lists by current country. So list of castles in England, list of castles in Wales, list of castles in Scotland, List of castles in the Republic of Ireland, and list of castles in Northern Ireland. I just turned list of castles in Ireland into a disabiguation page as it was essentially a copy of the NI list but with an empty section for RoI.
But those lists are organised by county rather than date, although the individual counties can be sorted by date. The problem with organising by date is that the foundation of many castles is unknown or uncertain, and a castle that was founded in the 11th century may have been altered if it continued in use. To paraphrase Professor Matthew Johnson in Behind the Castle Gate, an 11th century castle that remained in use was also a 12th century castle, and a 13th cetury castle, and so on.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Castles in Great Britain and Ireland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 16:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll review this article, but it may take me a few days to fit it into a rather full schedule. Please bear with me. More soonest. Afterthought: in the interim, please click on disambiguation link on the right of the page and follow up the anomalies. Tim riley (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Backlog nearly cleared. I hope to get to this in the next two days. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Comments, before getting to the real quibbles. Whether the quadruple image at the top works depends on one's computer. On my wide-screen laptop it looks excellent, but on my elderly desktop 14-inch screen the text is squeezed over to the left at about seven or eight words to the line. I don't think this affects the article's promotion to GA, but I bet you'll get sniper fire if you continue to FAC.
WP:OVERLINK: I think you should lose the links to Great Britain, Ireland, Second World War, and tourist attractions. I may add to this list as I go through the article.

First batch of comments
Invasion
"The first of these were the establishment" – was, surely?
"communication: including" – very odd place to find a colon; a comma would be better here
"both in order to" – some users get very aerated about the unnecessary words "in order", and I mildly agree with them
"ports; Pevensey" – the semi-colon has to be a comma here or the "absolute" construction won't work
"Some groups of castles were located" – It's a very long way from the start to the finish of this sentence. You might consider splitting it up.
"whilst Windsor" – "whilst" is a fustian and unnecessary word; "while" is always better, here and in the twenty-one other occurrences in the article.
Hehe 22 actually!
"Recent estimates suggest that out of all of those constructed, there were only between 500 and 600 castles occupied" – unless you give us some idea here how many were built the figure of 500/600 doesn't mean much.
Will try to find you a figure. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Architecture
"Stone built" – I'd hyphenate this
"built – a single season, made them" – I like the parenthetic dash, but you need a closing one too
"required an exponentially greater quantity of manpower" – I don't say "exponentially" is wrong, because I'm never quite sure what it means;  but I question whether it is necessary here.
Compare "exponentially" to "linear"; a motte involves volume, which rises exponentially with size, thus the labour inputs. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Phew! That's me put in my place. I withdraw. Tim riley (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
As an example (NB: not perfectly accurate, but for demonstration purposes!), imagine you're building a circular stone shell keep, like at Restormel Castle. If the king tells you he wants the castle 20 m wide and the walls 3 m high, you'll need roughly 188 blocks of stone. The king decides he wants the walls twice as high - 6 m - you'll have to go back and report you need roughly 377 blocks of stone, twice as much. If he wants those walls three times as high - 8 m - you'll need 564 blocks. Each time, the requirement is increasing in a linear way (NB: you might need to increase the width of the walls slightly in reality, but not hugely so).
Now imagine the king's after a cone-shaped motte, like Thetford Castle. First he wants it 3 m high, and with the sloping sides it will be roughly 30 m wide at the base and 20 m on top. Let's say you'll need to move roughly 310 loads of earth. Now the king decides he wants the motte twice as tall, which will mean making it wider as well; it is now 6 m high, 60 m on the base and 40 m on top. You now need 2486 loads of earth, around 8 times as much. If the king wants that motte 3 times as tall, 8 m by 90m by 60 m, then you'll need 7460 loads, around 24 times as much. The requirement is rising exponentially with the increase in height the king is asking for.
In practice, what did this mean? A little motte needed only around 1,000 man days to build in the late 11th century, but Thetford is estimated by historians at around 24,000 man days - and to build anything larger would have seen labour requirements rocket up still further. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
"Despite motte-and-bailey and ringworks being common designs" – you either need a gerund here or (preferably) recast as "Although motte-and-bailey and ringworks were common designs".
Developments in castle design
"more crude nature" – cruder nature?
"a keep's walls could usually only be raised by a maximum of 12 feet (3.6 metres) a year" – you don't say why, and it would be good to know
Don't know, but I don't think its essential to say so. I can remove the sentence if you like.
It's actually rather important; the reason why is because lime mortar was used, which sets slowly; you can't increase the height of stone walls with lime mortar too quickly as a result. A secondary factor is the winter; lime mortar doesn't set at all when cold, so unless you have a mild winter (thus the "usually"), building work had to stop altogether. I'll find a reference and footnote it. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Economy and society
"royal castles owned by the king" – as opposed to royal castles owned by whom?
not sure what you mean..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Royal castles can mean "belonging to the royal family" (e.g. royal dukes etc.) or to the king. In this context, it means the king. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
That's all for now. I may say at this stage that unless I run across something unexpectedly dreadful later in the article, this seems to me a very safe bet for GA at the end of this review. More anon. – Tim riley (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, all should have been addressed to date. Thank heavens for the find and replace tool though!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Second batch of comments
WP:OVERLINK – you need to go through carefully, eliminating duplicate blue links, e.g. the multiple (I counted six, but there may be more) links to Beaumaris, also Dover, Tower of London etc.  The Manual of Style is clear on this point: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead."
Later: on rereading the details of the GA criteria I find that compliance with this part of the Manual of Style is not a specified requirement. So I can't insist that you address this point – but I hope you will, anyway. Tim riley (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The Anarchy
First para: "focusing on … centred on … focusing on" – suggest altering the first to e.g. "consisting of" and the last to "trying to defeat…"
Reworded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
"each about six to nine miles apart" – should this be "all about…"?
Fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The spread of castles in Scotland, Wales and Ireland
"Henry II of England" – second blue link for him here; is it needed?
Fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
"their cavalry enabled … and castles enabled"
Rephrased.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Military developments
Third sentence: two "popular"s
Changed one to common.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
"less or no dead zones" – fewer or no
Fixed
"quarrels" – perhaps either bluelink or explain in the text
"crossbows were primarily built" – unexpected verb: are bows built rather than made?
Well spotted, changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
"prevented mining the castle" – a comma after mining would help the reader
Reworded so no longer needed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
another construction where grammar calls for a gerund construction (the prince's mining) or rephrasing such as "although the prince mined...etc"
Welsh principalities and Edwardian castles
"castle building program" – programme, unless it was by Microsoft
Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Introduction of gunpowder
"French siege in 1377; the Crown reacting" – comma, not semi colon needed here
Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Tower Houses
"It was originally argued" – when?
another "in order to"
Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
"linked to period of instability" – "a period" or "periods"?
Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Further development of gunpowder artillery
"England had lagged behind Europe" – As England is part of Europe I suggest you say "the rest of Europe"
mainland Europe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
can one lag behind a cutting edge?
As my writing style shows, I'll usually give it a go! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
"Nonetheless, improved gunpowder artillery played" – there are three "relatively"s in this para, which I think is two too many
The Restoration
"cost efficient" – I think perhaps this should be "cost-effective" ("cost efficient" is unknown to the OED)
(Outsider) Done. ⇒TAP 11:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
More to come. – Tim riley (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Last lot of quibbles
Social and cultural use
"partially because contemporary tourists" – I suggest a plain "partly" is preferable
"…William Gilpin. Gilpin published…" – perhaps  "…William Gilpin. He published…"?
"architects such as Wyatt." – he could do with a blue link
Military and governmental use
"…gunports in order to provide…" – another "in order to"
"In Ireland Dublin Castle played an increasing role in Ireland" – too many "in Ireland"s
Social and cultural use
"being charged six-pence" – I imagine that's from a quotation in your source, but in modern(ish) usage it's "sixpence" (i.e. 2½p)
"tourist tours" – not happy phrasing
"A similar trend can be seen at Rothesay" – note to Dr B: I just knew Bloody Burges would crop up sooner or later! (Hchc2009, please ignore this irrelevant aside.)
"prehistoric structures and medieval buildings" – it's easy to misread this: I suggest replacing the "and" with a semi colon
1900–1945
"used to briefly detain" – some readers (of whom I am not one) cling to the superstition that splitting an infinitive is wrong. I try to avoid upsetting them, and I'd write "used briefly to detain". There's another split infinitive later in the article, but I recommend you leave that one as it is: it reads much better that way, and you could get into a right old tangle trying to unsplit it.
"used as basis for defences" – missing a definite article, I think; and in the two following examples you have "was used" rather than just "used". Do you mean "were used" for Dover's foundations?
"produced significant official concern. Some of the more significant cases" – too much significance
"Partially as a result" – another place where the plain word would be better, I think
"acts of parliament … An act of Parliament in 1913" – capitalise both or neither
"state funded" – probably needs a hyphen, I think
1945–21st century
"Several major bodies now own most castles" – This reads very oddly. I'd go for something like "Most castles are now owned by x major bodies."
"international film industry" – a bit late to blue link it here, having already mentioned it in the previous section
"very practical decisions … the practical challenges" – too practical
Historiography
"arguing convincingly" – says who?
"next twenty years was characterised" – were characterised.
Right, that's my lot. Nothing there to delay us. Stand well back and give me room to swing the champagne bottle.

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
Prose is readable and adequate
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
Well referenced.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Most impressive range of citations.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Impressively comprehensive
B. Focused: 
The article is long, but could not IMO be profitably broken into smaller sub-articles
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: 
I greatly enjoyed this article, which wears its considerable learning very lightly. In terms of content it seems to me to be of FA quality, but the prose – fine at GA level – would need a wash-and-brush-up before going on to FAC. I'd be happy to undertake that if wanted. And do please consider culling the overlinks and be sure to fix the dab links. Meanwhile, my warmest congratulations on a fine piece of work. – Tim riley (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The Bibliography is full of links to Google Books. These are unnecessary as the ISBNs link to a non-partisan page with a wide choice of book listing providers, including Google Books. Are there any objections to having these all removed? --Fæ (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Many reviewers at GA and ACR seem to prefer to see them in. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I added the term "castles" and boldfacing to "adulterine" in section #The Anarchy to comply with the convention of boldfacing terms associated with a redirect. 
Here's a link to the relevant redirect page: Adulterine_castle. 
I came by it via Slighting#Middle_Ages from whence it is the destination of a wikilink. I was initially unsure whether I'd been directed to the correct/relevant section as the resultant section heading differed from the wikilinked term and no alternate terms were boldfaced below. Hence, I was inspired to incorporate boldfacing of the redirected term "adulterine castles" as an aid to future users. 
It seems to me that doing so has had no affect on the meaning of the passage but merely serves to help redirected users to orient themselves. The use of boldface seems to be, if not necessary, most certainly useful in this instance as it serves to make linked information more readily accessible to readers. --Kevjonesin (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If someone could find a smooth way to incorporate the term "adulterine castles" closer to the beginning of the "#The_Anarchy" section (and then boldface it instead) that would be even better as multiple articles link via that term. --Kevjonesin (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted, as the WP:MOS states that there are only a few special cases when bold text should be used outside the lead: table headers and captions; description lists; mathematical objects traditionally written in boldface such as vectors and the rational numbers; and volume numbers of journal articles, in some bibliographic formats. This isn't one of those. One of the reasons for this is that it would look extremely odd to have words scattered across articles in bold text as a result of wiki-anchors; most readers wouldn't be able to work out why stray words were in bold. You might consider turning the Adulterine castle redirect into a stub article, perhaps? Hchc2009 (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
This seems like a good place to insert a reminder to folks that Wikipedia is not (meant to be) a bureaucracy. I'll personally add to that my own observation that the WP:MOS and other such guidelines are in fact dynamically edited wiki pages in their own right and should be taken with the requisite 'grain of salt' as they may well contain human errors and oversights or simply change without notice. Case in point, the MOS:BOLDFACE section currently (15:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)) addresses the existing WP:Redirect guideline, WP:R#PLA, which had been, unfortunately, previously overlooked therein less than 24 hrs ago. Be careful as failure to consider the above may risk waking the {{Colonel}}. :  } --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
There is no "wiki-anchor" in this case. It's a matter of eight existing wikilinks to a section of an article. Such linked sections frequently have linked terms boldfaced in their lead paragraph. The style guideline gets applied to the article section as it would to the overall article, de facto, throughout much of Wikipedia.
It would, however, be better if the bold text appeared closer to the beginning of the paragraph. As I'm not particularly specialized in the castles topic and in deference to editors who've made previous contributions to the page I thought I'd start by simply boldfacing the first use of the term. I suppose I could attempt to rephrase the whole paragraph to move the bold term farther up but I'd rather leave such to someone more involved in the topic. I do, however, strongly feel that having the term "adulterine castles" in boldface included somewhere is both warranted and useful to receive folks following the linked term. So, unless someone else chooses to do it first, I guess at some point soon I'll be rephrasing the paragraph to work the boldfaced term in towards the top.
I'd like to remind frequent contributors to this page to not lose sight of the WP:OWNERSHIP guidelines nor to forget the WP:3RR policy either. Perhaps a way can be found to address my concerns about receiving redirected readers that doesn't involve WP:PETTIFOGing? I certainly hope so. :  } I think it might help to recall that this article doesn't exist in isolation but as part of a larger encyclopedia. And that an encyclopedia exists to make information readily available to readers. --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
p.s. — Regarding  "You might consider turning the Adulterine castle redirect into a stub article, perhaps?"
Hchc2009, I don't have much interest in writing a castles stub article. I've been focusing on image editing lately. However, I notice that you do seem to have a strong interest in the topic of castles. Perhaps you'd like to take on the task? As it would include the term boldfaced in the lead it would certainly satisfy my initial concerns for linked readers and likely exceed them. The more I think about it the better the idea of simply giving it it's own page grows on me as there seem to be many such castles — well, ruins thereof anyway — and surely not all of them relate to "The Anarchy". I'd be happy to help by contributing image editing if needed. hmm, I did notice you'd mentioned images previously on this talk page...
"If anyone can find a better picture of a motte and bailey earthwork, or a ringwork, let's use them. I'll admit I was struggling to find a picture with both a motte and a bailey earthwork clearly in it, or a really good ringwork shot!"
Feel free to bring any image files you'd like help with to my attention. I may be able to improve color settings, combine images, trim out distracting modern bits, etc. :  } --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I was pretty sure that I hadn't simply pulled the boldfacing of redirects convention outta' my ass but I didn't have an actual official guideline at hand and thought common experience might suffice. But for all the [insert frustrated expletives here] WP:WIKILAWYERs out there the directly relevant link is WP:R#PLA. Which states:
What needs to be done on pages that are targets of redirects?
We follow the "principle of least astonishment"—after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?". Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place.
Normally, we try to make sure that all "inbound redirects" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes. It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term.
Funny enough, it seems to directly address not only the edit which I made but my reasons for doing so as well.
I'll be reverting the removal of my good faith and guideline compliant edit immediately after posting this. I'll leave it in place until such a time as someone actually manifests a separate "Adulterine castle" article and transfers the existing wikilinks to it.  --Kevjonesin (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I stumbled crossing a bridge one day and thought to fill in the gap on which I'd tripped so as to make the way easier for those yet to come this way. Little did I know that lurking below was one who seemed to lay claim to the King's highway merely for having labored in it's construction. As if that which was offered freely as service to the realm was now to serve as title to a common path. Ah, alas alack, the many ways in which a kindly gesture can become arduous tedium when the well intentioned are forced to stop and pay the troll. :  }

p.s. — "Wo-oah, what I want to know..."
p.p.s. This also covers it.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
It occurs to me at this point that perhaps the gentler path would be to offer User:Hchc2009 the opportunity to restore bold text of the linked term to the article section rather than immediately doing so myself. Less likely to get a knee-jerk edit war response. It would be a shame to see such a generally well intentioned and prolific editor as User:Hchc2009 get himself suspended for WP:3RR WP:WARing over a relatively small formatting issue. And surely he must have what's best for the Wiki in mind at heart. I'll drop a note on his talk page. And give him some time to respond.--Kevjonesin (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
As proposed above, I've expanded the article itself. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. The new "Adulterine castle" article looks to be off to a good start. Once again, let me know if you come across any castle related images in want of assistance. I'd be happy to lend a hand. --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think a brief section on earlier castles might enhance the article's coverage:

Maiden Castle and the like (along the lines of just because its is called a castle doesn't make it one
The Saxon Shore Forts and how some of them were converted to Norman castles -- just because it is not called a castle does not mean in isn't one.
As there is a section on fashion, it is probably worth mentioning folly castles such as such as Castle in Hagley Park built as a ruin in the picturesque style in because the Lytteltons did not own a real ruined castle to find sublime.
-- PBS (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea to me. If others agree, I've got some time over the next days, so happy to help out with some drafting and ref's. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Would this reconstruction of Holt Castle be useful? Holt isn't mentioned by name in the article but it might fit in the 'economy and society' section of the part on the 13th and 14th centuries as an example of baronial architecture. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Would there be any objection to me making the edit? As far as the caption is concerned how about "A reconstruction of Holt Castle c1495. The castle was built in the late 13th century by John de Warenne, 6th Earl of Surrey."? Richard Nevell (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay - no, certainly no objection from me. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Brilliant, I've gone ahead and done it. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Near the top of the lead we have this sentence: During the 12th century the Normans began to build more castles in stone, with characteristic square keeps that played both military and political roles. At first glance it's unclear (well, it is to me at least ...) whether we are saying it's the castles themselves that played the military and political roles, or the square keeps specifically. I'm inclined to guess it's the former but I'd rather someone who knows the intent better than I could pitch in here so I get less egg on my face. So, what do you think? Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

You're right - the intent was the former (castles)! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I have tried to fix it – with the use of dashes to separate out the keeps bit – but I found it surprisingly tricky to do it elegantly. I'm not absolutely sure that I like the dashes but the meaning is at least clearer. There was a risk of fragmenting it up into annoying little bitty bits to clarify the roles vs. the keep shape ... tsk, I dunno. Do please undo and sort what I did if you've got a better fix! Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not even sure that the squareness of the keeps need to be given that degree of prominence in the opening paragraph.  It was a design feature, which was later superseded.  Is it critical that we mention it in the first paragraph, in that way?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair point. It feels well beyond my competence to reply to that, so I will now ceremonially shut up! :) Best to all DBaK (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I have a certain fascination with the square keeps, but I think Ghmyrtle's right... Hchc2009 (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)