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)

Different editions of cited book
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:
 * 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.
 * Change the citation to  Original 1960 edition available online.
 * Revert to your version but add an snfref parameter: i.e. .  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)
 * I agree that option 2 works fine. Do you want to make the change? Thanks. Kognos (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for bringing this up and for the friendly and constructive discussion.  Best, Wham2001 (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)