Contents

Talk:Fort George, Highland

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Fortifications / Technology / British / European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Fortifications task force Military science, technology, and theory task force British military history task force European military history task force Scotland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)toHighland CouncilorHighlands 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)[reply]

Not moved. —Nightstallion (?) 09:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]