Talk:Sally port

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Fortifications

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 not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force

Main Entrance is a sally port?![edit]

As the historical section notes, a sally port is a small "side entrance" to a castle or fortress used by the defenders for the egress and ingress of raiding parties (usually at night). The main entrance would NOT be used for this purpose because (a) it would be under continuous observation by the attackers, making it impossible to enter to leave undetected, (b) it is far too large for the intended purpose, and (c) opening it would be far too risky, since it would entail the risk (even the probability) that the attackers would "rush" it in an effort to take the place by storm without the hard work of going over or through a wall.

Having said all that, does anyone know why the MAIN ENTRANCE of Fort McHenry is being used as an example of a sally port here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexington50 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably as an example of this so-called "modern usage". Personally I've never come across this anachronistic and frankly reversed perversion of the term "sally port", it would be lovely to know what who revived it and mutilated it in this way, I suspect this is another example of American Only usage- To be clear, a "sally port" is an EXIT, in this "modern usage" the term has now become a synonym for "protected entrance"; a very different thing.OzoneO (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gate lodge?[edit]

Is there really no entry on gate lodge or gatelodge (redirect here), in the UK sense of a gatekeeper's lodge at the gates of a country house or park? This is largely distinct from the sense in this article (and as a UK English speaker, I've never heard "sally port" used for such structures), and it was disconcerting to be redirected here. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of sally ports to turnstiles, exits from airport secure areas, etc.[edit]

I reinserted and fleshed out a comparison of sally ports to these one-way devices, which allow free movement of persons in one direction but restrict or prevent it in the other.CharlesHBennett (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CharlesHBennett: I removed your original edit because it was unsourced, and Wikipedia does not accept original research. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reinserted my revised edit, creating a section comparing sally ports to one-way traffic control mechanisms, and giving links to reliable secondary sources for both turnstiles and airport security mechanisms. That these devices are intended to control traffic in one direction is acceptable under Wikipedia's explanatory Supplement on "What SYNTH is not", under the category unpublishably unoriginal. Please do not delete again without further discussion or justification. I am an inclusionist, but even by exclusionist standards it is generally better to improve the sourcing for insufficiently-sourced, but relevant and uncontroversial improvements, than to simply delete them. On the other hand Magnolia677 may think that a section on unidirectional access control is not an improvement and does not belong in the Sally port article. If so we should have a discussion about that.CharlesHBennett (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:CharlesHBennett wishes to expand the definition of "Sally port" to include traffic-control mechanisms at airports and on public transit. I have asked CharlesHBennett to support their claim, and they provided two sources, [1] and [2], which never once use the word "sally port". This edit is unsourced original research, and should be deleted unless it can be supported by a reliable source. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Magnolia677 mistook the intention of the new section "Comparison to unidirectional traffic-control mechanisms" which I added. I did not intend to claim that they were sally ports, or that anyone had ever called them sally ports, but only that they were a sufficiently interesting and related concept as to deserve mention in an encyclopedic article on sally ports. Though at the time I didn't enjoy Magnolia677's summary reverts of my earlier, too-brief mentions of these mechanisms, they proved to be constructive, motivating me to go the effort of fleshing out the idea into a section and finding interesting sources. This is how Wikipedia is supposed to work, with editors' criticisms of each others' changes stimulating them to work harder, overcome their inertia, and iron out their differences, with the ultimate result of an improved article.CharlesHBennett (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request :

The entire Modern usage section is unsourced. If that section were cleaned up, this dispute would likely resolve naturally. If that cannot be done, perhaps the entire "modern" section (the second half of the article) should be removed. Brad v 02:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Cultural References" section[edit]

Accidentally pressed enter while editing my edit description.... It was supposed to say this: Removed "Cultural References" section per MOS:TRIVIA - the only item in the section wasn't very relevant to the article, and the page for the Coat of arms of Malta mentions the sally port and links to this article, so if someone really wants that info they can look in "What links here" -- Doomhope (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]