Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Castles

Scope
Hi, noticed your new WikiProject and assessment. I've been putting lots of the most important castles into the architecture wikiproject. But with this new sub-project, maybe there needs to be some reconsideration. Do you consider Chateau and Palace to be castles too? Do you want every castle to include the template? Encourage you to look into using the Bot people to help tag articles. All the best, --Dogears (talk • contribs) 20:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was mainly looking at English castles / medieval castles, or castles in the strict sense of fortifications, rather than ornamental / solely residential ones. Though it is up for discussion, certainly.Neddyseagoon - talk 13:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good subdivision and development of both military history and architecture projects. I'd suggest a pretty broad scope - Japanese, chinese, asian and european castles, american forts etc.etc. Maybe someone will do a Wikiproject palaces one day where all the stately homes, schlosses, chataeux etc. can live.
 * Sounds good to me, though we could still take chateaux if they were defensive eg Chinon rather than ornamental/palatial/etc. Neddyseagoon - talk 14:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On another note - perhaps the advice for peer review should include twin-tracking candidates in both military history PR and WP:ARCHPR so both aspects are covered? --Mcginnly | Natter 14:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, they could take the lion's share of that for now as we haven't quite got peer-reviewing structures fully set up for this new project. Neddyseagoon - talk 14:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've put a redlink to "Wikiproject palaces" with a brief scope description to encourage the distinction on the Architecture project page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcginnly (talk • contribs) 15:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Infoboxes
By the way, if editors here would like to save themselves the trouble of developing an infobox from scratch, we'd be happy to add any needed fields to Infobox Military Structure to fully support using it for castles. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 14:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Doh, created Infobox Castle just as you wrote this! :) Neddyseagoon - talk 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Meh, that might be a mess. Any thoughts on combining the two?  There don't seem to be all that many added fields, and some of them could be useful for non-castle structures anyways.Kirill Lokshin 16:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, merging seems the best way round. Neddyseagoon - talk 13:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's see, going through the parameters of Infobox Castle
 * "phase" - I would suggest working this into the "type" field as type = phase + "castle" (e.g. type=Norman castle)
 * "name" - already available
 * "image" - already available
 * "caption" - already available
 * "location" - already available
 * "foundation" - can we use the "built" field for this? Or is something else intended here?
 * "rebuilt" - can we roll this into the "built" field (e.g. built=1102; rebuilt 1407)?
 * "events" - need to add a field for this
 * "battles" - already available
 * "demolition" - need to add a field for this
 * "fate" - need to add a field for this; can it be combined with the one for "demolition", though (e.g. fate=Demolished 1703; ruins turned into a museum)?
 * I'll work on adding the needed fields once somebody answers the questions above. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 19:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (Actually, if this project is going to take a purely military tack, it could even be transformed into something like a Fortification task force within MILHIST; but that's up to you. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Still not quite sure what direction it is going to take, and even if it was mainly military, 'fortification might be too wide (eg pillboxes, redans, etc too) - this Project could be under the aegis / a related group of that taskforce, but to metamorphose this Project into that taskforce might overreach ourselves. (Plus the architect Project seems to want to keep a finger in this pie, and doesn't the military technology taskforce already have the Fortification angle covered?) Neddyseagoon - talk 13:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Vaguely; but there's certainly room for a more specific task force (c.f. Weaponry) as needed. In any case, I'll leave deciding how to actually proceed in the long run to you. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Going back to the info box. I think the name only should be at the top - many castles have several phases, which could all be on one box. There needs to be a 'type' field for eg. tower house, enceinte, shiro etc. Agree that 'built' is better than 'foundation'. Can I also suggest 'Condition' or possibly 'Present Function' instead of 'Fate'. What about a field for current ownership? Then we could put in which ones were open to the public etc. eg Condition = Ruined, Ownership = English Heritage. Gules 12:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a great start, but I continue to have some issues with the template; I apologize to be so critical of the result of someone else's hard work - but that's pretty much what we have to in order to make this work out best in the end, right?

I contemplated putting all of this on the Infobox's talk page, but as conversation is already started here... I thank people for considering my thoughts and input. I hope we can expand and improve and finetune this template so that it will best serve its purpose. LordAmeth 16:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The primary problem is the phrasing of the "phase" and "name" elements at the top - it's just awkward, period. I would much rather have the castle's name given straight out, and the phase or type listed under it. (I'd be happy to elaborate on my reasoning for this; thought I'd leave it out for now, to save space and time.)
 * From looking at ja:Template:日本の城郭概要表 (the Japanese Castle Infobox), I've gotten a few ideas for other things which should probably be added:
 * Castle type as a regular field - this offers far greater opportunity to expound upon the details of the castle's type.
 * Keep type/style - this is something we can play with. I think it might be helpful to have elements like this - keep height, style... we don't want too many frivolous or gratuitous fields, but a few extra elements beyond the absolute basics would help us flesh out the infobox more. There's nothing uglier or more useless than a short, stubby infobox that only has three or so elements because the other ones are irrelevant or unknown for that case.
 * Who was it built for?
 * Who was it repaired/expanded for?
 * Which clan or post or lineage lived there or governed from there?
 * Important, famous, or significant individual occupants or governors (castellans)
 * When did it cease to be used as a castle? - as a separate element from destruction. Many castles were not destroyed, but ceased to serve their formal medieval purpose as a noble residence and/or military base.
 * What remains? <-- this is how it's phrased in the Japanese. Essentially, I think we need fields that allow as much leeway and freedom as we can to explain the different kinds of "fates" a castle can have. As Gules suggested, separate fields for Current Ownership, Present Function, and Condition would be a nice spread.
 * Lat/Long Location.


 * Somewhat out of the loop here... is the merger with Infobox Military Structure still something to be worked on, or did you guys decide to maintain a completely separate infobox? Kirill Lokshin 17:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what others in the Project want to do... the conversation seemed to have stalled, so i was trying to get it moving again. LordAmeth 10:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ameth and Gules both make good points above. I also wanted to draw attention to User:Billreid's stand-alone infoboxes, as on Spynie Palace and Duffus Castle. These include ownership, similar to what Gules suggests, and also look nice, but I think could still be added to. Not sure if I like the way separate phases are separated - I'd maybe be inclined to just have one foundation date, but thats a minor detail. It would be great if someone could have a tinker with the current template to move discussion forward - I would have a go but my editing skills dont run to all those { – }! :Supergolden:: 13:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

First draft
Okay, first (very rough) stab at an upgrade of Infobox Military Structure at right; the following fields are available: Please feel free to play around with it; comments would be very appreciated!
 * name
 * location
 * image
 * type
 * built - dates
 * builder - people/groups/etc.
 * materials
 * used - dates
 * demolished
 * condition
 * controlledby
 * garrison
 * commanders
 * occupants
 * battles
 * events

(As far as data for keeps, etc.: I wonder if this might not be better done as an auxiliary template similar in form to command structure? Some castles may contain a number of fortifications—keeps, towers, etc.—for which such data might be useful; having a separate template would allow an arbitrary number to be "infoboxed".) Kirill Lokshin 03:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, this looks good, plenty of useful fields there. Some comments: 1) still not sure about "fate", see comments above on "condition" "ownership", etc. 2) What about a field for "rebuilt"? Is there scope for then having additional fields under this for the materials, builder etc of the rebuild? Or is this way to complex. I mean, something like:


 * Built: 1235
 * Builder: John de Smith of Auchtermuchty
 * Type: Motte and Bailey
 * Rebuilt: 1399
 * Builder: John Smith, 1st Lord Auchtermuchty
 * Type: Tower house
 * Materials: Stone


 * Sub-templates for structures would be OK, as long as articles on complex castles don't end up swamped by loads of infoboxes. :Supergolden:: 10:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I agree with SuperGolden about adding another field or two for "fate" - current condition of the site (gone entirely, ruins, largely extant - would it be helpful to establish standard terminologies on these different classifications, or should we leave it open?), and current status of the site (privately owned and closed to public, open site, open to public with fee, part of X institution eg university or museum). But, thank you very much for your help, Kirill. There's at least enough now that I can feel confident adding this to articles. LordAmeth 10:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed that "Fate" reads misleadingly. I'd support "Current condition" or possibly "Condition". "Controlled by" will be tricky for castles that have changed hands, some of which changed hands repeatedly. Would "Battles" be better than "Sieges"? Both? PS Votes at WP:ACID for Castle would be much appreciated. --Dweller 12:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's see:
 * Changed "fate" to "current condition".
 * It would be possible to have fully redundant fields for successive rebuildings of the castle. From an implementation standpoint, though, it's easier to have just one field (e.g. "|built= 1504; rebuilt 1688"); are separate fields going to be useful enough to be worth the trouble of implementing them? ;-)
 * It was the intent of the "controlledby" field that multiple owners be listed with dates (e.g. "|controlledby=France (540-1499), Spain (1499-1808), Italy (1809-present)"); is this a poblem?
 * The field is, indeed, "Battles" rather than "Sieges", to account for not-quite-"siege" battles at a site; is this a problem?
 * I'll try to put together a draft for the auxiliary box in the next day or two. Kirill Lokshin 13:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

(<- coming back here) Seems sensible. --Dweller 13:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your hard work on the templates; I'm really all thumbs when it comes to such things. (1) I *think* it should be alright to go with the simpler, fewer fields option for rebuildings, provided there's enough leeway in the field syntax that it'll take multiple owners etc. Ultimately, I'm abstaining on stating an opinion on this one - I leave it up to those who have more knowledge of template coding, and those who have more complex castle history situations to deal with.

(2)I think "battles" is good, as the term incorporates sieges and is open enough to allow for other events such as battles fought by the castle garrison, or fought over control of the castle, but not as sieges of the castle. (3) I'm fine with the idea of multiple owners with dates. I suppose the "commanders" and "occupants" fields cover the individual castellans, so the "controlledby" field would remain the country. Obviously, this gets into questions of national unity and identity, and whether the Crown (i.e. the State) technically owns the land or whether it can be said to be "controlled", if not owned, by the castellan. Anyway, no big deal, I'm sure. We can leave that one up to the individual editors' best judgement, or we can simply address it later if/when it becomes an issue. LordAmeth 14:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Auxiliary template
Okay, first draft of an auxiliary template for parts of castles; at the moment, it supports the following parameters: It can be nested right under the main infobox, or placed further down in the article. Comments? Kirill Lokshin 03:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * name
 * partof - just in case the part has a separate article and needs to be linked back to the main one
 * image
 * caption
 * type
 * built - date
 * builder - person/group
 * materials
 * demolished - date
 * condition
 * height


 * Anybody? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 04:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (In particular: is it worth having a separate template for this, or would people just prefer that the main infobox handle both entire castles and subsidiary structures gracefully?) Kirill Lokshin 04:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I mind terribly either way... It could be helpful to stick with the auxiliary template as, once it's established, it can be adopted by other purposes and adapted to suit, for example, individual buildings within a religious complex. LordAmeth 10:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Trying things out
Okay, I've updated Infobox Military Structure to include a bunch of the new parameters. (For simplicity, I've just added the partof and height parameters directly to it, rather than creating an auxiliary template; mutliple instances of the infobox can be stacked, if desired.) The documentation for the new parameters is on the template page.

Feedback from using this thing in articles would be highly appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 03:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hooray! Now we can start using it! Thanks for all the hard work! LordAmeth 09:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good effort. I added in an ownership field also - seemingly without screwing everything up! Thanks Kirill. I should also mention that Infobox Scottish castle has also been set up. I dont know if there's a feeling that these should be merged? The only extra fields appear to be "open to the public" and "entry fee" which may be useful. The appearance is also somewhat different. Any thoughts? :Supergolden:: 09:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Would be nice to merge it in, in the long run. The "open to the public" bit can be easily worked into the "Current condition" field, I think; as for the entry fee, that seems like trivia moreso than something we'd want to note so prominently in the infobox. Kirill Lokshin 13:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So, any news on how we want to proceed? Should Infobox Castle be converted to the new infobox and deprecated? Kirill Lokshin 21:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Can Infobox Castle be redirected to Infobox Military Structure to avoid confusion? :Supergolden:: 16:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, will do. Kirill Lokshin 04:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that Castle will fail at WP:ACID today. --Dweller 21:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In topic
--Mcginnly | Natter 13:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This WikiProject
Glad to see it! Please see my "castles project" on my user page. --Dweller 14:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Castles in Japan
I am hoping to significantly expand upon Japanese castle in the very near future (possibly tonight). In the meantime, however, I am wondering if anyone here has any experience with this subject. As far as I can tell, there does not seem to be a standard set of terms to describe the evolution of castles in Japan. Shiro (城) is used throughout, to refer both to the wooden structures built largely out of the land, using natural obstacles and topography far more than constructed defenses and to the later (Azuchi-Momoyama period, roughly 1575-1615) castles as we stereotypically know them today, with large stone bases, soaring keeps, etc. For the infobox' "phase" element, I am for now simply using "early Japanese" and "Azuchi-Momoyama" as my classifiers. If anyone strongly disagrees and/or has significant insights and sources, I would be happy to hear about it. (And maybe I'll take out a few books on castles from the library tomorrow and get on this.) LordAmeth 19:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to elaborate a tiny bit further, there is the possibility of using the term ishigaki (石垣), literally "stone wall", which I believe may refer to the stone bases of the Azuchi-Momoyama castles, and which may also be able to be used to refer to the castles themselves. But I'm not sure. LordAmeth 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, is "foundation" the year it was completed, or the year construction was begun? LordAmeth 19:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:ACID
I've nominated Castle for collaboration improvement. Please could the article be urgently assessed. --Dweller 15:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the main article really needs some improvement, and have left comments on the talk page and voted for improvement.


 * I would also like to widen the scope of the article/project, as a number of castle-like structures were also built in New France. Because there artillery was not as developed as on the battle-fields of Europe, some of Montréal's outlying forts were like the fortified manor houses of France. Fort Longueuil (built from 1695-1698) features a manor house and stables within a fortified bailey, with a tall round turret in each corner, and has been described as "the most medieval looking fort built in Canada". The "most substantial castle-like fort" near Montréal was Fort Senneville, built in 1692 with square towers connected by thick stone walls, as well as a fortified windmill with machicolation. Stone forts such as these served as defensive residences, as well as imposing structures to prevent Iroquois incursions. --Grimhelm 18:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The article will fail the nomination today if we don't get another two votes. I'll be logging off shortly, so please contribute! --Grimhelm 22:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it failed, it has been nominated at WikiProject Architecture/Improvement drive nominations. I have reiterated my points from the original discussion, so feel free to drop in! --Grimhelm 17:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Japanese castle architectural elements
At some point in the not-too-distant future, I'll likely be looking to create articles on elements or types of Japanese roofing, particularly those pertaining to castles, including karahafu, chidorihafu, and irimoya, assuming these things are not already covered somewhere else. (I haven't really looked all that hard yet.) Are there any standards for this sort of thing, or does anyone have any suggestions how to phrase or group these things? Any help would be most appreciated. Thank you. LordAmeth 11:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I could simply add sections pertaining to Japan to articles such as hipped roof, gable, etc.
 * 2) I could create an article called Japanese roofing styles, Japanese roof, Japanese roofing architecture or the like, and try to cover them all. (If anyone has suggestions for a good standard-style name, this might be the best option.)
 * 3) I could create separate articles for each individual thing, by the Japanese name, e.g. karahafu (Chinese-style gable element), chidorihafu, etc.

Peer review request for Japanese castle
Thanks all for your help with my previous questions about Japanese architecture. I've reworked the Japanese castle article considerably, and am now putting it up for peer review; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! LordAmeth 11:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sausenburg
Greetings, I am trying to get an article written about a castle ruin in the Black Forest. There is a German Wikipedia article on Sausenburg, but my translation skills are very sub-par. If anyone in this project knows German and is willing to help, I have a sandbox version in my userspace? Thanks a lot.-- Eva  b  d  16:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind. See Sausenburg Castle.-- Eva  b  d  05:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the castle infobox used in this project. Good luck with the DYK nomination! --Grimhelm 16:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks...for both the infobox and the wish of luck! I've got one other question for the project. When last I was at Sausenburg, I took a picture of the artist's rendition at the bottom of the wall. It is a pretty awful picture because of the reflection off the plexiglass, but it could probably be cleaned up to show what the castle look like before it was destroyed. I've uploaded the image to the commons if anyone wants to take a crack at cleaning up.-- Eva  b  d  13:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Try this. I made the contrast more notable with MS Paint, by converting it to monochrome. I accidentally uploaded it to the wrong name though, but if you like it we can change it. --Grimhelm 16:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Grimhelm's version has now been uploaded and added to the article. I think it looks quite nice.-- Eva  b  d  18:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSB
Coverage of Japanese castles is good, and getting better. Middle Eastern and North African castles and fortresses, particularly those with a strong European influence, is strong as well. I imagine that Chinese fortresses likewise get their share of attention. But as of this writing, there is no reference to the equivalent in the Korean architecture article, nor any separate articles as far as I am aware on Korean castles in general, or in particular. The same almost assuredly goes for the Indian subcontinent, Southeast Asia, and whatever roughly equivalent structures that may be found in South America, Central America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and elsewhere which may fit into the scope of this Project.

I write all this not as an accusation to anyone, nor even as an obnoxious plea that we get moving on it, but just as a calm, btw, notification of what is currently not yet done. Just to elaborate and explain my meaning in adding to the "To do" list on the front page. Thank you. LordAmeth 12:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Castles in France
I have been working through articles on French castles, including improvements to the List of castles in France page, with a few other editors. This has involved identifying, linking to and eventually translating suitable articles from the French wiki; removing from the list those châteaux that are actually palaces, stately homes or vineyards; where possible, creating new pages.

I have recently come across an article on the Château de Morimont, spelled Château du Morimont, which I wanted to move to the correct spelling as given by the French Ministry of Culture and to expand. Now, the Min of Culture website (a fantastic resource by the way) lists TWO castles with similar names in the correct location, Oberlag :
 * a) Château fort de Morimont
 * b) Ruines du château de Morimont

So, can anyone help with this? I am happy to write the article using the Min of Culture as the main reference, but I am worried as to whether there are in fact two distinct castles, or is one built within the other or what? If anyone has any definite information it would be much appreciated. (Also posted on WikiProject France talk page.) Emeraude 11:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Afraid I cant help you with that, but since you evidently have more knowledge of French castles, can I draw your attention to the horribly misnamed Chateau of Chillon article - see my comment on the talk page. Thanks, :Supergolden:: 09:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's actually Swiss of course. I agree with your comment about the article name. My preference is to use actual names, not English translations, if only because when you look on a map it will be in the local language (in this case French). There may be a case for making a redirect page to each of the articles beginning Château de.. (e.g. Dieppe Castle redirecting to Château de Dieppe), but that would be a big job! In the meantime, I will move Chateau of Chillon to a new page Château de Chillon. Emeraude 11:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Harlech Castle
Just to let the WikiProject know, User:The Rambling Man and I have chosen Harlech Castle as our latest FA project.

There's a great deal of of work to do on this article. On our previous projects, we've had tremendous support from relevant WikiProjects (football and cricket) and it'd be great if you could help too.

Our usual modus operandi for taking articles to FA is fully outlined here.

Cheers--Dweller 13:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture Peer Review
The imposing Castillo de la Mota in Medina del Campo is up for peer review, hopefully going on to be the featured picture to illustrate this project's main article:

Picture peer review/Castle

I feel it illustrates the major features of a castle well for a core topic (especially appropriate as a castle of the Kingdom of Castile, whose very name means "castle"), with the striking image of snow on a Spanish castle. --Grimhelm 19:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Becoming a MILHIST task force?
Seeing as this project seems to have become largely inactive, we of WP:MILHIST would like to propose the possibility of converting it to a task force, either with the same scope (i.e. a "Castles task force") or with a broader one (i.e. a "Fortification task force"). Comments on this idea, as well as any other suggestions, would be very welcome! Kirill 22:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Or merged/ linked to WikiProject Military history/Military technology and engineering task force. Certainly invites duplication as an isolated project. Folks at 137 07:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, somewhat more specifically: we now have a Fortifications task force running. Given the seemingly total lack of activity here, would there be any objections to merging the project into this new task force? Kirill 16:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Will castles task force pages and article tags be converted to fortifications equivalents? Else there may be some housekeeping. Not a task force member, but what the hell? Folks at 137 17:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There probably will be some housekeeping, but we can try to minimize that. Kirill 18:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No opposition thus far. Any schedule for this? Not chivvying (wouldn't be so rude), just curious. Folks at 137 21:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT the MilHist TF proposal to MERGE! Thanks for the proactive proposal.  This project is, as noted, very inactive.  I came here today to look for a place to comment to someone more in the know on creating/formating new castle articles, or finding someone interested in further fleshing out some of the smaller and less-noticed Irish castles (I have pictures) and don't even know who or where to write about it. N2e 02:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've completed the merger. Some notes regarding the resultant housekeeping can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Fortifications task force. Kirill 18:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)