Talk:De Redin towers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

De Redin towers is within the scope of WikiProject Malta, a collaborative effort to write and enhance articles related to Malta. You can participate by visiting the Project page, getting involved, and helping to get the project started.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

I am the author of the Hamrija Tower article. I have a mild preference for keeping the individual articles seperate, but with a link to the de Redin towers page, and a link from the page to each article about a tower. The reason is that this facilitates finding the info. One can look under the class, if one knows that the towers belong to it, or one can look under the name of the particular tower and dsicover that it is a member of a class of towers. Acad Ronin 21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

But I fear that such articles will remain stubs forever. It is more manageable to have one solid article (possibly about all Maltese Coastal Towers from the period of the Knights) and then use redirection ( #REDIRECT [[]] ) to make sure the information can be found. Should there ever be enough information on one of these towers to justify a separate article we can always re-split.

--Inkiwna 20:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am currently working on developing all the De Redin towers' articles, starting with new photos, I am also in the process of obtaining new material and details from the Maltese national bibliotech. I may also contribute to the Lascaris towers' articles, so basically I agree with keeping the individual articles split. --Joseph J. Zarb 19:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Wow that is great. So let us keep them separate for now, but leave the Merge Proposal in there too. We'll decide if to merge or not depending on the actual content we end up with. Also please consider uploading images to commons instead and place them in this commons:Category:Watch Towers in Malta category, and do watch out for copyright issues, particularly with regards to maps. Do not hesitate to leave a message in my talk page if you think I can help. --Inkiwna 20:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wignacourt Towers

BTW Are the Wignacourt towers in the same class? should there be included or at least referred to here, or in a separate article? --Inkiwna 20:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Although the Wignacourt towers are the purveyors to the Lascaris and De Redin Towers, structure design and obviously size are significantly different.

I believe we should start a seperate article on the Wignacourt towers, and simultaneously work on a complete restructuring of the existing hierarchy of all the towers.

Example:

Military Fortifications in Malta -

Period - Knights Of St.John -

Watch Towers-

De Redin Towers

--Joseph J. Zarb 14:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about hierarchy. The neat thing about linking is that one can get to places via a variety of routes. Think network not hierarchy. I also don't worry about articles being stub class. Some things should be stubs. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have an article, just that the article may justifiably never be long. What I am most concerned about is that articles be findable, for instance by a tourist in Malta who sees a sign and then looks the name up back at their hotel to see if they want to visit. Acad Ronin 13:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a category for fortifications of Malta that at one point (I think) contained the De Redin and Wignacourt towers as sub categories, but now contains only the later fortifications, the star forts of the later part of Knights era, and the polygonal forts built by the British. When I set these categories up I envisaged a fairly comprehensive set of articles, since in addition to being interesting in themselves they provide a superb overview of the development of fortification, and its evolution in the face of the development of gunnery.

Malta lacks only a martello tower to have pretty much a full set. By the way its very very gratifying to see the new material being added. thanks indeed. I am that visiting tourist, and started a lot of the articles on the forts of Malta precisely because I found so little about them on wikipedia. If you look at my talk page there are references to a couple of good external sites that I've found invaluable --Shoka 23:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have separated out the Lascaris towers into their own page, and linked it to the de Redin towers page, the Wigancourt towers page, and the St. Agatha's Tower page. In addition, I have linked a number of the individual towers' pages to each other, and to the appropriate towers' pages. Again, the key thing is to create links to network the pages together so that one can get from one to any of the others through a simple chain. Acad Ronin 16:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Just 3 points. I'm not sure how an article that will permanently remain a stub can meet notability criteria. If there is so little to say about something, how can it be more useful to say it on its own, than in the context of related items? But, that does not mean that we are in any hurry to have full articles on each and every tower. If research reveals that there simply is not much too say about 1 particular tower, I still believe it is better to merge that article, and redirect.
  • I am not a military structure expert. So the question: do "watch towers" classify as "fortifications"? BTW good point about networking rather then hierarchies. The chronological and structural pathways should be two alternate routes to finding these articles.
  • Note to self: we need to get Geo Co-ordinates for all these towers.
--Inkiwna 09:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orderin of towers

please re-arrange the order of the towers as it was when I uploaded the complete list. That was the towers' correct chronological order of built. joseph.j.zarb 12:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've re-ordered them in chronological order. This seems to me to be the most logical ordering, since we are dealing with the history of the towers. --Inkiwna 10:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

1) User:Inkwina: I am not worried about notability, which is in the eye of the beholder, as much as accessability. Short articles can act as gateways or links to longer articles. Again, I have tourists like me or User:Shoka in mind, who look up a name, and then find their way to a whole treasure chest of articles. I realize the redirect would work too, but with the towers having an article each, this makes it easier for people like User:Joseph.j.zarb to attach multiple photos, enriching the simple text.

2) User:joseph.j.zarb: Sorry about the re-ordering. However, it seemed logical to list the towers in the order they fall on the map you gave. That way one can readily walk around the coast. As we get pages for each tower, we can, of course link them in both chrono and geo order. We should make clear that the order on the towers page is in chrono order, and perhaps add the date of each behind the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acad Ronin (talk • contribs) 12:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)