Talk:List of cities with defensive walls

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carrickfergus[edit]

Does Carrickfergus have town walls? There's a castle but surely that doesn't count Alastairward 13:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this website it does indeed have town walls. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, wish they'd more detail in the tourist information article though Alastairward 14:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced tag removed[edit]

Removed this tag, because the article is a list and reference should be made to the articles themselves. Folks at 137 09:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defensive Earthworks[edit]

What about US Civil War defensive walls? Like Vicksburg, or Atlanta? 132.205.44.5 21:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Defense[edit]

Should "Defensive" also include walls to keep out mother nature? Technically, that is defensive. If so, New Orleans would go in, as would much of Holland, due to the storm levees and dikes. Benwedge (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, but i'd say no, as the article defensive wall only covers siege/military related structures. However, the type of structures you mention may be suitable for a seperate "List of..." article, assuming one doesn't already exist. Dbam Talk/Contributions 21:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities WITH defensive walls[edit]

If we want to include cities who no longer have walls, we will need to change the name of the article. The fact that it has been wrong since 2007 is no argument that we are getting it right. Hyper3 (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further research at WP:L informs me that the selection criteria for lists should be unambiguous, and each entry should be notable. The current selection criteria is ambiguous, as it is not clear what should be included. Also, including minor and non- notable remains that no longer represent a full city wall is a problem too. We need to sort this out. Please read above MOS and let me know your thoughts. Hyper3 (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that discerning notable from non-notable entries would be extremely difficult. For instance, how long must the stretch of defensive wall be before it can be included? And would, for instance, visible foundations of old city walls be enough to merit inclusion in the list, even though the part above ground has gone? Seeing how the sentence "or have had walls" has been in place since early 2007, many cities have been added to this list in the meantime whose walls have been dismantled at some point in history. Perhaps it is easier to change the name of the article and apply a coding system, something similar to what is used in the Netherlands section? Or perhaps even a simplified version of this system, where a colour would signify if any of the cities' walls are still visible? - Takeaway (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In a Wikipedia list, the way to discern notability is if it appears in the principal article that it links to. So a wall will be notable if it is referred to on the city page. I think the person who has given rise to this conversation is the only editor who is adding non-existent walls. Hyper3 (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You thought wrong. And Wikipedia is not a to be used as a basis for notability. Please come up with something else. - Takeaway (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CSC. Hyper3 (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSC states that an article could be written about the entry. It does not state that to be notable, it needs to be mentioned in Wikipedia as you suggested above. - Takeaway (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:LISTN. Hyper3 (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, what criteria would you use for this list? Would a 1 meter stretch of city wall be enough? - Takeaway (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with notable enough to be mentioned in the city page. Then we are getting a Wikipedia definition rather than something arbitrary. Quote the WP guideline for your assertion that this won't work. 22:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not really into this quoting game. It reminds me of people who smite each other with bible quotes to see who knows the most quotes to back up their own, very personal, beliefs. Using Wikipedia as a criterium is not reliable at all. The article about the Thai city of Nakhon Ratchasima does not mention its defensive walls at all but this photo shows that part of the walls are still standing. The list you propose should then actually be called "List of cities which have their city walls mentioned in their respective Wikipedia article". - Takeaway (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can we at least agree that walls should be extant. Then we can work on notability. Hyper3 (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I would really like, is that content is preserved. I again refer to the Netherlands section. The amount of work that has obviously been put into compiling that list, has resulted in content that, in my opinion, is too good to (partially) throw away. As I suggested before, a simple colour code could highlight those cities which still have notable (parts of their) defensive walls standing. - Takeaway (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your classification system, but as with List of town walls in England and Wales, the lowest category should be "vestiges." Hyper3 (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of the section about the Netherlands (I have no user account here), I have to admit I dislike that section now as it contains very little information beyond the classification. Furthermore, the attribution of multiple classifications makes the whole thing confusing now and then. Having read the discussions here, It would seem to me that the best solution would be to simply take over the format of the list used at the List of town walls in England and Wales, but use a more strict classification than the "condition" category they use there, and decide on a minimum level of preservation in order to be mentioned here. I'd say that 'vestiges' is as good as any, but it should constitute more than that the trace of the wall is visible in the current street pattern. Perhaps the classification system used for the Netherlands can be used as a base, but I'd suggest to just write it in one or two short sentences, rather than use my number system. A more extensive description can then be added under the 'notes' section. If I have time, I can try to implement this system on the Netherlands section this evening. If everyone likes the look, it can be expanded to the entire page. If not, then it's 2 seconds work to revert back to the current version. 12:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.253.57 (talk)
Sounds fantastic. Glad to have your input. I would love to note whether the walls are "walkable" (a hobby of mine) as this adds value to the information. Coud that be worked in? Hyper3 (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When rewriting the section on the Netherlands (having currently arrived at the letter R), I removed the date of construction category used on the List of town walls in England and Wales, as many city walls are the result of different building phases in different centuries. I could replace it with a category stating that the walls are accessible or inaccessible. 0:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.186.168 (talk)

Need to add Vatican City[edit]

Vatican? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.122.237.11 (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page should be erased[edit]

This page is basically pointless. Virtually every city in the world had city walls in the past. It will probably become too long.--2001:B07:AF5:78B1:A49A:440F:27A9:9F81 (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, it should be limited to cities where the walls are largely or partially intact, like Rothenburg ob der Tauber. Everything else should be removed. --Spucky123r (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that any accurate form of this list would get ridiculously wrong, I strongly disagree with the premise that "virtually every city in the world had city walls in the past". There are plenty of historically urban cultures that did not engage in wall-building. --HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem[edit]

Jerusalem Old City, where the walled part is, is not recognized as part of Israel by the UN. Unless you have a logical argument against that, other than its de facto status, I will remove it from Israel and added to Palestine. --Crazyketchupguy (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great Zimbabwe[edit]

Great Zimbabwe was not a walled city; it is a city that contained a walled enclosure in which was held houses. The walls are more like the walls of a palace enclosure than anything else. I'm therefore removing Great Zimbabwe.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_cities_with_defensive_walls&oldid=1208221255"