Talk:Citadel

Redirect
The IMAP article links to this page, but obviously meant one of the software entries for Citadel. I would guess Citadel/UX but that page is marked for deletion. So how should the IMAP page be corrected? --JamesStansell

Request to reader
Please, add more famous citadel on the list. vkvora 02:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Dumb picture
I don't think a lord of the rings picture is necessary, thanks --Gerrado 16:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

--The lord of the rings picture could be a very useful way to put the article in perspective for some readers. The is no reason why the picture should not be there, as a citadel is not limited to reality, and in fact many of the most well known citadels hold a fictional connotation. So please try to objective and think before you edit; and lets try not to call stuff 'dumb' it is very informal for wiki standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.35.227 (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

He does have a point there 71.238.209.196 (talk) 01:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Limited scope
The scope of the article is too limited. Someone inserted a link to this article in the article on King George V class battleships and I followed it here. A citadel on a battleship is obviously somewhat different from the citadels described in this article, although one can only guess at the exact meaning of the word in the context of battleships. It must refer to an especially well armoured location on the ship, but what was it precisely? The bridge? The operations control center below the waterline? Time for someone with some specialised knowledge to step in. --Recoloniser 14:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

--The answers to your questions are in the disambiguation, and I believe that the problem of the limited scope, has been solved by the disclamer at the top of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.35.227 (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure if the Latin derivative by way of French is attested here or rather if there is a proto-IE stem cognate as demonstrated with प्रासाद [prAsAda m. (castle)] of the Sanskrit, having the सद stem. त to द shifts are typically localized and प्रा may be an older prefix that vanished elsewhere. Or the ta in citadel is an altered reduplication of the त stem. Maybe someone more qualified in the field can provide further references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kallesen Other (talk • contribs) 21:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Dates for Acropolis Paragraph
The dates for this paragraph should be 800BC - 600AD and not 8000BC - 600AD. It talks about the Acropolis and the Acropolis article states "Not a lot is known about the architectural appearance of the Acropolis until the Archaic Era". And the Archaic Era is defined as starting 8th Century BC.

And while there may have been buildings on this hill a few centuries beforehand, nothing suggests a citadel. Certainly we cant go back to 8000BC.

This seemed obvious, and I would have changed it directly, but the incorrect date has remained in the article for 4 years through various edits, so I am putting the change to discussion first.

Athosfolk (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Bizarre Sentence
I'm curious as to what exactly is meant by this sentence in the article: "A citadel is also a term of the third part of a medieval castle, with higher walls than the rest. It was to be the last line of defense before the keep." What are the other two parts of a medieval castle? I can find no obvious reference to this, and have asked a few people who are more historically cognizent on this subject, but they are also unaware of what this is referring to. "...higher walls than the rest." must mean higher than the other "two parts"? It's "... the last line of defense before the keep.", so the keep must be shorter then, though I've only seen reference to walls getting higher as you move closer towards the interior of the castle. Would love if somebody could shed some light on this.

Jason-derp86 (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Greetings. I really don't agree with this revert. The word is not a common one, nor is it intuitive—it could be pronounced "situh-dell", "si-tay-dull" or any number of ways. What is the point of IPA if we're not going to use them for such ambiguous words? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. The transcription you inserted is supported by no dictionary I can find. The two pronunciations Lhimec gave are the only ones I can find in reliable sources, and by "situh-dell" I assume you mean one or both of them. And it sounds like you're saying it's not (or is not supposed to be) pronounced like that, in which case you'll need to provide a source. Nardog (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I've ended up confusing myself, actually. I've heard all three at some point—we're talking TV shows and YouTube channels for which I can't find a source—but nonetheless that makes it all the more pertinent to include an IPA(s) for this term. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this is an article about citadels, not about the word citadel. None of the pronunciations are particularly opaque from the spelling, so I think WP:LEADPRON is clear in being against including them. Nardog (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" – Granted. Therefore does that mean only name-based articles are allowed to have an IPA? I'm beginning to really dislike WP's case-by-case stance on their usage. This being an encyclopaedia, it should be all or none. Or at least a very clearcut list of what belongs on Wiktionary. "None of the pronunciations are particularly opaque from the spelling" – they very, very much are. It may look like an innocuous word, but I guarantee not even all native English speakers will know it. But if that's the purpose of Wiktionary, OK. I'd just like clarity on where exactly IPAs can be added—I gather it's names, medical terms and taxonomy, but not words themselves. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)