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 is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
The article on Peveril Castle is supported by the Derbyshire WikiProject, which is a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of Derbyshire-related articles on Wikipedia.DerbyshireWikipedia:WikiProject DerbyshireTemplate:WikiProject DerbyshireDerbyshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
It looks to me that the coordinates given are incorrect. I believe that it should be SK14948260, but TF66572455 is given, which I think is Castle Rising. Could someone knowledgeable about the
locations and coordinate system make the change?
Tedclaymore (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the plan bears little resemblance to the castle. It's a triangular enclosure rather than square as this plan shows, as this model of the castle shows (and backed up by the plan produced by English Heritage in its guidebook). Usually a plan is a very important piece of an article on a building, however in this case the reproduction does the job well enough. Though if a reliable free-use plan could be found it would certainly be a useful addition. I'd recommend great caution when adding plans from Penny Cyclopedia, as when looking at some old antiquarian plans I sometimes wonder whether the draughtsman ever saw the castle. Nev1 (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on another great castle article! An enjoyable read!
I f I were you, I would scrap the pin map. They are virtually useless, as the mark disappears when you click. On the other hand, if you click the co-ordinates, you get any number of really good maps, hat will show the building, and facilitate going there.
I'm ambivalent about it. It's a useful guide and means the reader doesn't have to leave the article to get an idea of where the castle is, and when Rochester Castle was on the main page a little over a month ago one of the comments was that a map of some sort might have been useful. The reason I'm not entirely fussed either way is because, as you say,the co-ordinates link to a number of much more useful maps, but I wander how many of our readers know that. Nev1 (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the casual reader, I find them quite helpful (I can see at a glance where a location is, rather than having to click or read a coord). Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Downsize43, morning! I know its under construction, so I'm jumping the gun a little, but I have two comment about the emerging timelines section. I'm a little concerned that it may be rather duplicative of the main text above it; you may also find that producing succinct but accurate text labels for some of the events may be challenging. If its going to take a lot of work to produce, I'd suggest it might be worth discussing it further here first. Either way, good to see folks responding to the reader feedback commentary! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I believe that a timeline such as this must of necessity be duplicative of the text. I agree that completion of the table will be challenging, and welcome discussion thereon. Downsize43 (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your expectation that this will somehow promote discussion and/or assistance, or is there some other reason that you might care to share with us? Downsize43 (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd moved it over because it had been under construction for several weeks and work appeared to have paused. I think it is heavily duplicative of the text preceding it and from what I've seen so far would advise its removal, but since it's not finished it makes comment difficult. I'd moved it over this way because it makes it easy for it to be moved back over and completed. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We could debate forever whether or not this table is a good thing to have, but I am certain of one aspect:- A table such as this must contain a summary of the associated text, which makes your repeated comment that it is duplicative rather puzzling. Until some input from other interested editors is available I suggest we leave it as is. Downsize43 (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm a tad confused, here. Would anybody knowledgeable on this topic care to shed any light?
There seem to be 3 similar spellings for castle and owners, as in Peveril Castle, William Peverel and apparently, according to the latter article, that gentleman's name has an alternative spelling with a double L ending.
.svg)
_V6_page_354.jpg)
