Talk:Fortified gateway

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

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

Translated from German => only deals with medieval Germany: poor!

From the Ancient Near East and the Mediterranean Bronze Age cultures onwards there have been fortified gateways all the way to today's times. The article doesn't cover any of it. The distinction from city gate is also very dubious: there were no obligatory differences between fortified gates of castles, forts, fortified military camps/monasteries/..., and towns/cities all across the world and throughout history. These two articles must either be merged, or fine-tuned to offer distinct sets of information. Arminden (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, so why don't you expand the article as you're clearly an expert. Bermicourt (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The term "gate castle" doesn't exist in English

This article is translated literally from the German article on de:Torburg. The term "gate castle" simply doesn't exist in English. Wikipedia shouldn't try to redefine terms or introduce them from one language into another via literal translation. Our colleague, editor Bermicourt is in the habit of creating enWiki articles in this manner, which I consider to be misleading and the opposite of helpful. English has castellology, German hat Burgenkunde, and the two have their own, distinct and quite different sets of terms, which often have no mutual correspondent. Professional translators know that and know how to avoid mistakes and confusion. Please consider if the section on "German Torburg" can be left as is or must be removed. Arminden (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your remarks are WP:UNCIVIL and unjustified. The article as a whole isn't literally translated and translating certain terms literally isn't necessarily wrong. In hindsight, I should perhaps have put the German term first and the English afterwards by way of explanation instead of the other way round, but you've done that anyway, so well done.

As I have explained elsewhere, I'm very familiar with German Burgenkunde and visited many German castles myself. You're right that that often there is no equivalent of a term; that's why we have bergfried, palas and angstloch, the last two of which I created. But translation is an art not a science and there is no rule against translating a term if it conveys the sense.

In my experience professional translators frequently make mistakes in specialist areas and I've seen some real howlers. Meanwhile I'm very happy to have a civil discussion about how to improve the article if you want make some concrete suggestions. In this case I wonder if Torburg is better covered under gatehouse? Bermicourt (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]