Talk:Fort St. Angelo

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fort St. Angelo article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Malta High‑importance

	Malta portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malta, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malta on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaltaWikipedia:WikiProject MaltaTemplate:WikiProject MaltaMalta articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Fortifications / British / European / Medieval / Early Modern / World War II Start‑class

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	World War II task force

Comments

Looks like my edit got lost so the discussion is moot.--Shoka 22:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that when people decide to allow a modern building to be built next to a national monument of great beauty with no regard whatsoever to the site in any way, this can be mentioned and condemned. It is quite neutral to, from a historical appreciation and awareness point of view, to point such a blemish out. The unfinished Japanese hotel on the Marsamxett waterfront is another incredible example, widespread corruption allowed a large ugly building visible for miles around to be constructed right next to the site which is basically their national symbol, Valletta.

Including such information tells the reader something about the site being threatened by development, its present day situation, as is happening elsewhere on the island, and is relevant as such.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.39.215.9 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereignty of Order of Malta

Near the end of the article it says that part of the fort has been given to The Order of the Knights of Saint John i.e. the Order of Malta. It also says that as the order is sovereign already, this makes it a sovereign state. However, the fort, like all property of the order, is extraterritorial (see Sovereign Military Order of Malta) meaning that it has no sovereign territory. So I think that this should be removed. David815 (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the extraterritorial status of the fort mean that the fort falls under the laws of the order, rather than of Malta? I suppose this depends on whether this extraterritoriality has been granted by Malta, or by the Order. Not honestly sure. Random name (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Egmont

I read in the Lonely Planet guide that HMS Egmont was the naval name of Fort St Angelo in Malta from 1912 to 1933 when the fort became HMS St Angelo. I found strange that a land fortress would be labeled HMS so I looked for references and found that HMS Achilles was used as a depot ship at Malta, so maybe the official name for the Malta HQ was HMS Egmont but business was actually carried from the Fort. Or maybe the official name for the fort was HMS Egmont. Page 242 of Naval Review, 1962, includes a letter purporting to correct erroneous information about this but Google Books only offers fragments. Can you confirm or deny? --Error (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fort St Angelo → Fort Saint Angelo – full name – --Relisted. — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Xwejnusgozo (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Ebonelm (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Per WP:COMMONNAME, the use of the abbreviation "St" is clearly far more common than the full "Saint", this is demonstrated by the sources quoted in the article and this ngram. Ebonelm (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "full name" is rarely used. Greg Kaye 19:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The idea was to have a consensus among forts in Malta named after a saint. Other forts such as Fort Saint Elmo and Fort Saint Michael have the full name with "Saint" rather than "St". If the abbreviated form is preferred, then it would be best to rename the other articles with the abbreviation.--Xwejnusgozo (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment - as no further replies have been made following the points about consistency with other Malta fort names, I am relisting this for one more week. — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 12 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved (as to each). This is a single close of multiple related contemporaneous moves requests by one nominator – in no particular order, of:

The nomination text is near identical as to each ("To recover/relief/remove from/the abbrevation") and opaque to the extent that we can only infer that abbreviations in article titles are considered poor or improper for unspecified reasons and without a policy- or guideline-based rationale. Each has been opposed on the basis that there is no overarching prohibition or preference in our naming conventions against the use of abbreviations and that the common names policy does not support the move—that the use of St/St. as to each title is more common in a preponderance of reliable English language sources, than is Saint spelled out. Since that was only supported by assertion and by reference to a web search (as opposed to a search that tends to concentrate reliable sources, such as of books), I have done a spot check and it is borne out by quite a significant margin, e.g., this versus this. The chief ground for supports was to avoid contests/edit wars over whether or not to affix a period to the abbreviation, i.e, St versus St. We generally do not choose titles based on the possibility of edit wars but rather based on what title is proper, on the merits, under our naming conventions. If any user wishes to take on a requested move on that issue, that can be done separately – though they should probably read all subsections of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English first. Finally, I note that though one contributor was found to be a sockpuppet and his or her !vote was struck where it appeared, the sockpuppet charge as to the nominator was returned unsubstantiated, and does not figure in this close.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fort St. Angelo → Fort Saint Angelo – To recover from abbrevation. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support WP:COMMONALITY to avoid editwarring with the gramatical dot "St. / St" of differing English variants -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is the only Maltese fortification article which has the abbreviation "St." rather than the full name with "Saint", so the new name would be better for the sake of consistency. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Per WP:COMMONNAME, the use of the abbreviation "St" is clearly far more common than the full "Saint", check the sources quoted in the article and here ngram.Rockypedia (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support—the above comment is unsigned and I think without foundation. It may be true in a written sense but clearly not orally or in intent Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to sign it. I fixed that now. It's also worth pointing out that there's a sock puppet investigation involving two usernames and the anon IP in this discussion - the proposer, Peco Wikau, and 70.51.44.60 may all be the same person. Rockypedia (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support fully the replacement of abbreviations by clear informative full names. Peco Wikau (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC). BLOCKED SOCKPUPPET[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The result of this discussion may be impacted by the sockpuppet investigation of the proposer, and should await its outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per 70.51.44.60. Srnec (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Per WP:COMMONNAME Google says 184k vs 19k. Alsee (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fort St. Angelo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]