Talk:Tilbury Fort

Proposed to change to citation style

I'm hoping to further develop this article over the coming weeks and then submit it it to GA review. As part of that, I'd like to alter the citation system. This requires prior discussion on the talk page under the WP:CITEVAR policy.

Currently the article uses long citations, e.g. "AD Saunders Tilbury Fort and the Development of Artillery Fortifications in the Thames Estuary (The Antiquaries Journal, 1960)" With a greater density of citations, this can be less easy to use or read. I'm proposing the harvb template and bibliography approach, supported by cite web in cs2 mode. This produces short citations, such as "Saunders 1960, pp. 18-19", with the full book details automatically linked in a bibliography below. For an example of how this looks and works in practice, have a look at Henry I of England, which I was also involved in.

I'd welcome your thoughts. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tilbury Fort/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Great, I would love to review one of your masterpieces. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Fairly well-written as always, so these are mere nitpicks :) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Most changes made, comments left on the others. Thanks for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

16th century

• his wife, Catherine of Aragon Comma after "Aragon"

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• You may consider converting tons, though it is not mandatory.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• James Nedeham and Christopher Morice Better add their professions to introduce them

• I struggled to think of a good profession to ascribe to them... Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Rampart" is linked twice

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

17th century

• sixty-six men in 1651 "66" would appear less wordy and better per WP:MOSNUM

• There's a comparison with the "three" earlier in the line though, so I think this is the preferred MOSNUM format. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

18th–19th centuries

• I wonder if links are needed for "rainwater" and "cricket"

• Cricket removed. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

20th–21st centuries

• I don't think a hyphen is needed in "down-stream"

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Architecture

• under the direction of Sir Bernard de Gomme You can call him "de Gnomme" everywhere once you have introduced him

• This is a new section, though, so he needs to be reintroduced. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

That should be it. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hchc2009: Please respond. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. I am happy to promote this. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Different editions of cited book

@Wham2001: I think the change you have made to the Saunders citation could be confusing. The url link to IA is to the full-text of the 1960 edition, which does not have an ISBN. The ISBN applies to the amended 1977 edition, which is not available on IA. The way I cited the book makes this clear, and unless there is a strong direction in WP guidelines I suggest changing it back.Kognos (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I see the problem and agree that the current version is suboptimal. The issue with your version is that it broke the short footnotes, in that there were two sources generating anchor tags for Saunders (1960) [this book and the article above in the bibliography] and none for Saunders (1977). The sfns are (or claim to be!) to the 1977 edition, not the original 1960 edition. I can see a few ways round this:

1. Change the sfns so that they refer to the 1960 version as available at the IA, and remove all mention to the 1977 edition from the article. This may of course not be possible if the sfns refer to content that has been amended, and will need somebody to go through each reference and find its location in the 1960 version.
2. Change the citation to Saunders, Andrew D. (1977). Tilbury Fort: Essex (Amended ed.). London, UK: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. ISBN 0-1167-0311-3. Original 1960 edition available online.
3. Revert to your version but add an |snfref= parameter: i.e. * {{cite book | last1= Saunders | first1 = Andrew D. | author-link=Andrew Saunders | title = Tilbury Fort: Essex | year= 1960 | publisher = Her Majesty's Stationery Office | location = London, UK | url=https://archive.org/details/tilbury-fort-official-guidebook | ref={{sfnref|Saunders|1977}}}} Amended edition (1977) {{ISBN|0-1167-0311-3}}. As I see it this is a fudge, since the anchor tag is connected to the wrong source.

My preferred option would be number 2, since that has correct and self-consistent information for the edition that is being cited, but also provides a link to the Internet Archive full-text version. What do you think? Best, Wham2001 (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wham2001: I agree that option 2 works fine. Do you want to make the change? Thanks. Kognos (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for bringing this up and for the friendly and constructive discussion. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)