Talk:Castles in Great Britain and Ireland

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Expansion... 

message: I was thinking about adding something along the lines of the following to the article:
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Conservation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Should be moved to Castles in the British Isles, if it's gonna include both islands. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Yep, a split is due. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Article size

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes. Many reviewers at GA and ACR seem to prefer to see them in. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove unnecessary Google Books links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hill forts, Saxon shore forts and folly castles 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sounds like a good plan. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sorry for the delay - no, certainly no objection from me. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant, I've gone ahead and done it. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconstruction of a 13th-century castle in north Wales 

message: Hello. Near the top of the lead we have this sentence:  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)
replies: text: You're right - the intent was the former (castles)! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Slightly awkward sentence in lead?