Talk:Shoreham Redoubt

Military history: Fortifications / British / European / Early Modern

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 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
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Sussex Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex 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.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shoreham Redoubt. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530160149/http://www.terramedia.co.uk/brighton/films_made_in_shoreham.htm to http://www.terramedia.co.uk/brighton/films_made_in_shoreham.htm

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) 15:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redoubt or Fort?

There seems to be some difference of opinion as to whether Fort or Redoubt should be in the title of the article. I have no preference at present though I note a local group of volunteers, the Friends of Shoreham Fort use the term 'Fort'.SovalValtos (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SovalValtos, I would think that the answer must lie in the history of the locality rather than the valid opinion of the local friends group. I would assume that the most authoritative reference would hold sway. Was it built as a redoubt or as a fort.

While there is a certain interchangeability of terms a redoubt has a somewhat different planned end game than a fort. Fiddle Faddle 12:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SovalValtos, Timtrent – Thanks, good points. I don't have a dog in this fight – I only reverted (nicely I hope!) the IP editor because it's inconsistent to have the article title conflicting with the text. I've no view on which way round it should be, as long as the title makes sense with the text. One thing that occurs to me – and do shout at me if I am barking up the wrong tree here – is, is it not a listed building and if so would that not give some maybe-authorative name?? Might be good to look into as I don't think the article says it. Or I may have missed the memo. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered, My only involvement is, IIRC, the redoubt template. I care that it is named correctly whatever that outcome is. Like you, no dog in the fight. Fiddle Faddle 15:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Redoubt is already hugely outnumbered by Fort in the article text, and NHLE, where it is scheduled not listed, has it as Fort. Should we maybe just change it to Fort? I haven't yet seen the argument for Redoubt though I am sure it exists. Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And ... I've notified Charlesdrakew as he was involved with this, and indeed he set up the Fort > Redoubt redirect back whenever, so I thought he might know something about this specific issue. Oh, and I am going to stfu for a while now, as people so nicely say, as I am rabbiting on too much now ... Best to all DBaK (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shoreham Redoubt or Kingston Redoubt were it's original names and it was built as a redoubt as it is a place that soldiers would retreat to from the outer defences. Shoreham Fort is a relatively modern name that you can see appear on newer maps later in its life. Hope this helps 81.101.190.64 (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From some quick online searching the usage of the term redoubt seems to have shifted over time, from including this type of coastal fortified battery to being more temporary structures or outlying defences to bigger forts. There are many other pages titled "Redoubt" on Wikipedia, e.g. Harwich Redoubt, where there seems to be no problem, and others in Malta and around the world. I would like to go through newspaper reports from the past but do not have the time. I am not greatly bothered either way but I think it is less recentist to stick with the existing name, to reflect the historical naming.Charles (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]