Talk:Fort George, Highland

message: Fort George, Highland → Fort George, Scotland – There's no such place as 'Highland', only 'The Highlands'
This page was originally called 'Fort George, Scotland', but was moved by User:Mais oui! on 13 November 2005 as a 'standard qualification by local authority'.  I'm not familiar with this standard, but even if it is considered binding usually, it doesn't make sense here.  There's no such place as 'Highland', only the 'Highlands'.  I think the standard makes sense when the name of the local authority is identical with the name of a place, but that doesn't apply here. It's worth pointing out that no consensus exists even as to what the local authority is called - see Talk:Highland (council area).  We could call it 'Fort George, The Highlands', but that doesn't really satisfy the standard.  I propose this article be re-named back to 'Fort George, Scotland' which is unambigous and geographically correct. Crosbiesmith 18:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Oppose as per comments below. sjorford (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments
There clearly is a place called Highland - a council area is a place. The only dispute we have around the authority's name is exactly how the article should be disambiguated from other "Highland"s. See also Wick, Highland. sjorford (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, this is more complex than I'd realised.  'Highland' does exist, according to the current Wikipedia.  I think this is wrong, but it's a more general issue than just its usage here.  I've posted a comment at Talk:Highland (council area)#page name to state my disagreement, but I haven't made a formal move request.  I'll wait to see if anybody comments.  There doesn't seem much point in arguing about it here though.  I will probably raise a move request from Highland (council area) to Highland Council or Highlands Council at some point in the future.  Until that is resolved, your point stands, and I'm happy to withdraw this move request.  Of course, if and when 'Highland' no longer exists in Wikipedia, I'll reinstate it.  As I say, I didn't realise that this was  a larger issue.   -   Crosbiesmith 22:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Oppose as per comments below. sjorford (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: :Add any additional comments
There clearly is a place called Highland - a council area is a place. The only dispute we have around the authority's name is exactly how the article should be disambiguated from other "Highland"s. See also Wick, Highland. sjorford (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, this is more complex than I'd realised.  'Highland' does exist, according to the current Wikipedia.  I think this is wrong, but it's a more general issue than just its usage here.  I've posted a comment at Talk:Highland (council area)#page name to state my disagreement, but I haven't made a formal move request.  I'll wait to see if anybody comments.  There doesn't seem much point in arguing about it here though.  I will probably raise a move request from Highland (council area) to Highland Council or Highlands Council at some point in the future.  Until that is resolved, your point stands, and I'm happy to withdraw this move request.  Of course, if and when 'Highland' no longer exists in Wikipedia, I'll reinstate it.  As I say, I didn't realise that this was  a larger issue.   -   Crosbiesmith 22:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This article focuses on the rationale for construction and the methods of construction. Is there a wider history, e.g. WWII? Mark83 23:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The fortress has never been attacked, and has remained in continuous use as a garrison." So presumably its role in WW2 was providing barracks. The biggest thing that happened was that it became an ancient monument open to the public – don't see a date for that. .. dave souza, talk 23:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greater history 

message: There's an image of a bartizan, with a caption saying that it is for "defence in depth". 
Defence in depth refers to having a multi-layered defence, so that front-line defenders can fall back to prepared positions, and then counter-attack. It doesn't refer to a wall fortified with turrets.
There's another picture of a bartizan, from the inside, with a caption stating that  it has a firing step. No firing step is visible in the image. 
I intend to change both captions.
MrDemeanour (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bartizan