Talk:Bastion fort

message: This site has a great deal of information on the terminology of fortifications.
http://www.angelfire.com/wy/svenskildbiter/madict.html#Introduction
from that site some somewhat convoluted definitions.
Hope they can be  reduced to something less impenetrable, without losing too much accuracy.
:Star fort: A field work constructed in the shape of a star, by using four or more salients and no curtains.
:Saliant, Salient: The forward projecting point of a bastion or other projecting work.
:Salient angle: The angle facing away from the centre of the place.
:Salient work: A work incorporating salient angles. See bastion trace, redoubt, sconce. 
:Bastion: A work projecting from the curtain wall of a fortification which commanded the foreground and the outworks. Designed to provide flanking fire to adjacent curtains and bastion. Bastion has been used to refer to the flanking towers of a castle as well as the arrow headed bastions of the Italian bastion trace. See arrow headed bastion, curtain tower, mural tower. (L. bastia, build).
:Bastioned flank: The salient angle of a bastion and the opposite flank.
--Shoka 23:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: seems to be a lot of overlap between this and trace italienne; should they be combined? 67.68.235.106 19:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  redundancy? 

message: The result was merge into Star Fort. —Michael Z. 2007-10-16 23:04 Z 23:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds very sensible; the other titles remain as redirects. Star fort being so familiar might have its own subsection. --Wetman 20:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That would be much more managable. As it is, the articles could stand to be improved (particularly sourcing and layout). The two merged into bastion fortress could both have their own sections, in fact, with trace italienne reflecting its origins in the Renaissance period.  --Grimhelm 21:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Concur that the three articles overlap. Not clear that collecting the text from all three articles into sections in a single article is the best way of merging them. Have some concerns with the accuracy of some of the statements in bastion fortress, particularly the statement that the increasing range of siege weaponry lead to their obsolecence. --Shoka 22:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is something that didn't truly start to happen until the second half of the 19th century, and even then, commanders were reluctant to move away from Star forts. In some cases, star forts have still showed use in the mid-20th century. However, I feel we can work better on accuracy and references one page, eventually using Bastion fortress as the parent article for the other two.  --Grimhelm 23:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Does Jülich fit into such a page? It seems like the typical example for me. Picture of Zitadelle  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.94.168.231 (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you go ahead, Invmog? Nick Michael (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: I took the liberty of adding "bastion fort" to the lead paragraph, as it is very widely used, more so than "star fort" I would suggest. A reference is An Introduction to Artillery Fortification by Simon Barrass of the Fortress Study Group. I can find more if references if required. Alansplodge (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bastion fort 

message: Osijek was not largest Habsburg fortress on Ottoman empire border. 
It was Petrovaradin fortress.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.30.44 (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osijek 

message: :For argument's sake, all forts referenced in this argument are five-bastion fortifications, unless stated otherwise. This is not strong argument, but more of a fallback. Please be more critical of Reason #3.
:A fort such as Fort Independence (Massachusetts) is considered a five-point star fort because of the five bastions, which seems correct. However, the argument is inconsistent with the shape. The Pentagon, the headquarters of the US Department of Defense, is considered a pentagonal structure. Why? The only difference is the presence of bastions. Another example is the previously stated Palmanova, which is a nine-pointed star fort. However, take away the bastions and you simply have a nonagonal structure... I think that's the correct term. It doesnt make sense.
:This is a weak argument that probably won't impact anything but it came into my head so I included it anyway.
:UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 20:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to that, fortifications that do not describe a complete circuit, such as the Chatham Lines, bear no resemblance to a star, but are certainly bastion forts. Alansplodge (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 4)The shape of the fort is inconsistent with the amount of bastions

message: These are the names under discussion, lets at least see if we can decide on which which one we will try and get "star fort" moved to. So vote for which one we are going  to nominate.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: *Support - It's pretty self explanatory: A fort with bastions. It's also in English and is a widely used term. Trace Italienne is a more formal term, but it's not in English, which may cause a problem when trying to explain it and define it's meaning. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Bastion Fort

message: *Support - seems to be the name favored in reliable sources. See for instance GB hits (3,760 for "trace italienne" vs 2,540 for "bastion fort"), or the fact that experts on the subject prefer the term (ex: Parker, Black, Wilson, Showalter, Lynn, and many more). Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Trace italienne

message: To respond to a couple of points made in the voting section above, the term "trace italienne" has been used to describe later fortifications such as those built by Vauban and Coehoorn. See for instance 
*Vauban Under Seige, pp. 25-26 
*Wars of the Age of Louis XIV, 1650-1715, p. 491 
*Giant of the Grand Siècle: The French Army, 1610-1715, p. 554 
*The Oxford History of Modern War, pp. 28-29  
*War and Society in Early Modern Europe: 1495-1715, p. 35 
Second, to Peter's comment about the obscurity of "trace italienne", that's not a very good reason to prefer "bastion fortress". If that were part of the naming conventions, we'd have Fly agaric, not Amanita muscaria, for example. We use the term preferred by reliable sources, and no one has made the argument that "bastion fortress" is more prevalent than "trace italienne". Parsecboy (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I was editing Ninety Six, South Carolina, which described the fortification there as a "star fort" (unlinked).  I gather from the discussion here that editors versed in the matter concluded that "star fort" and "bastion fort" are two different things.  Lacking a separate Star fort article to link to, I did a piped link to Bastion fort.  Is there a better approach? JamesMLane t c 00:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should article references to "star fort" wikilink to here?