This article was nominated for deletion on null. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 Associated task forces: /  Fortifications task force

I don't understand how anybody could mistake Conwy for a concentric castle. Is it really "often cited" as such? Lordjim13 16:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are quite a few linear Crusader castles that are better examples than Krak (which is an almost perfect concentric castle). Margat, for example. Lordjim13 16:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should have said Saone. Really only has one approach and they cut that huge ditch there to defend it. The Crusaders really used geographical features well... Lordjim13 10:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Krak began life as a linear. --Dweller 16:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that point, but I don't think it's a particularly good example. And really, Caernarfon is an even worse example, because even though it's an elongated shape, there is no concentration of defenses along one front, and attackers would actually be able to assault a long stretch of the landward side (after they take the town defenses). True linear castles (of which I can't think of that many) should really need to defend one approach. I think Chateau Gaillard is a good example of this, with all its defenses pointed in one direction... Lordjim13 01:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What more needs to be said? The definition is completely wrong and has little utility therefore, as a encyclopedic article. As a bonus there are no citations in the article. CJ DUB 13:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the definition is wrong? I am not familiar with the English terms, but from reading the article, the linear castle seems to be what is called Abschnittsburg in German: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abschnittsburg --83.236.209.216 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not rework it, cite it and get it accurate and factual?? Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor, CJ DUB, is a troll who does nothing but denigrate the works of others, while never contributing anything of note themselves. They are deletist in manner and thought. I have found this out attempting to improve the various castle articles in an honest and open manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.218.238 (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no references, so the term "linear castle" looks dubious. Perhaps a better article would be "spur castle", as that is a widely used term with many examples.

The only author who uses the term "linear castle is Alan Titchmarsh in some tourism book. Perspicaris (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more, so I've started a discussion concerning the deletion of this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linear castle. Nev1 (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well. Once the WP:OR is removed, the article is no more than a WP:DICDEF of a poorly attested usage. But it got "rescued". Perspicaris (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Linear castle. 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/20120307231326/http://www.engineering-timelines.com/scripts/engineeringItem.asp?id=948 to http://www.engineering-timelines.com/scripts/engineeringItem.asp?id=948

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) 10:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]