Talk:Fortifications of Portsmouth

Hampshire Mid‑importance

	Hampshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire 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.HampshireWikipedia:WikiProject HampshireTemplate:WikiProject HampshireHampshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Fortifications / British / European

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

Merge proposal

I can't see there being enough here to warrant a seperate article, this could easily be a section in the main Portsmouth article. Grunners 11:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this article needs expanding but merging with Portsmouth, IMO, would be wrong. The majority of the fortifications built to defend Portsmouth and the harbour, from the Roman castle at Portchester to the Palmerston Forts are not actually in Portsmouth. Nuttah68 13:24, 25 October 2006(UTC)
I agree with Nuttah68 --Taz&dev 17:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, the title though should be changed, wikipedia naming conventions suggest Fortifications of Portsmouth or Portsmouth Harbour Fortifications, probably the latter. Grunners 23:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name change is fine although the first is more appropriate. The fortifications were put in place to defend the establishments set up in Portsmouth rather than the harbour. Nuttah68 09:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with points above, the general Portsmouth article is already long and fortifications merit a sub-article, maybe entitled "Fortifications of the Portsmouth area" - sorry, a bit of a mouthful, but this would include Portsown Hill, Portchester, Gosport and Spithead forts. Hyperman 42 23:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, we're all agreed the article should remain, I therefore propose a move to Fortifications of Portsmouth, as this fits the naming conventions laid down by corresponding articles on other cities, such as Metz and London. Grunners 14:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note to self

Portsea lines can mean either hilsea lines or portsmouth lines .©Geni 20:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clashing dates

Hilsea Lines and Portsbridge gives 1757 for first hilsea lines Fortifications in Old Portsmouth-a guide gives 1747.©Geni 04:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

one off mentions

Godwin, G.N (1973) [First published 1904]. The Civil War in Hampshire (1642-45) and the Story of Basing House. Laurence Oxley. p. 17. ISBN 0950134724.

mentions a Windmill Fortress near Portsmouth and a bulwark called "sportsmaking" although less clear where that actually is.©Geni 03:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

possible pics 19th century stuff

http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/11146797853/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/11296177903/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/11296703036/

©Geni (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]