Talk:Boden Fortress

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boden Fortress article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Boden Fortress has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 2, 2007	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
November 6, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
March 30, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 22, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Boden Fortress* not only served to protect northern Sweden from enemy attacks, but was also used to store some 280 tonnes of the Swedish gold reserve?*
Current status: Good article

Cold War Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War 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.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Fortifications / European / Nordic

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
	European military history task force
	Nordic military history task force

Sweden Mid‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA check

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I am working my way through the Good articles listed at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Geography_and_places#Places; having a quick look to see if they still meet the Good article criteria. I have reached this article. After I've had a quick look, I'll leave a note here.

In general, initially I look to see if there are obvious issues: maintenance tags, unsourced sections, excessive media, etc, and if so, if this can be resolved quickly by myself. If it looks like there may be several and/or significant issues, I'll open a GAR to see the extent of the problems. If it looks like there are sufficient concerns to put the GA listing in jeopardy, and that significant work is needed to resolve the concerns, I will notify the main contributors to the article, and put the GAR on hold. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is a well researched, well written and well presented article; it has many of the qualities of a Featured Article. Points of concern:

Given the depth and range of material, is the lead an adequate overview of the main body? See WP:Lead.
Would the Forts section be better presented as a WP:Def list rather than a series of sub-sections?
There are in places clusters of images which sandwich the text. Can some images be removed or better positioned? See WP:MOSIM
Occasionally there are very long captions where the main information would be better served being placed in the main body leaving just a helpful and concise caption. See WP:Caption

Given the overall high standard of the article it would be disproportionate to open a GAR on the article just for these issues, which are anyway somewhat debatable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the feedback, I am planning to take this to FAC some day and this will surely help! A few comments though:

I am not sure why or how the forts section would benefit from using WP:Def list. Could you elaborate on that?
I can't find any obvious examples of long captions that would be better off in the main text. As of now, the captions either duplicate some information from the main text, or are inherently connected to the image itself and can't really be removed from the image. WP:Caption says nothing about a need for short captions, rather the opposite.

Thank you again! – Elisson • T • C • 10:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK. Some explanations:

Wikipedia:Caption#Succinctness: "One of many concrete bunkers built all around Boden, this one is located on the west slope of Rödberget. Only a short part of the so-called "sausage" and some of its rifle loopholes can be seen here, this particular bunker is about 50 metres (160 ft) long in total" could be rendered as One of 44 concrete bunkers on the site which due to their long curved shapes were termed "sausages". There is little advantage to the reader of telling them what they can see, unless it is not obvious, or is particularly distinctive or important: "some of its rifle loopholes can be seen here" is redundant. "Many" is vague when we have "44" in the article which is precise and shorter. Where that particular bunker is located is not of primary interest to the general reader, as the bunker is merely an example, though that information could and should be stored on the image page, which people can click on for greater detail (when and where the picture was taken, and the size of the bunker, for example).

The Forts section. MOS:BODY has this advice: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." The subsections in the Forts section are part of a list: the five forts in Boden Fortress, and so can be formatted using ; instead of === to create softer headings, and ease flow when reading. I will put them into the article so you can see. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Regarding definition lists, the change you did doesn't really convert the sections to a definition list in its true sense, and neither does it unclutter the article or ease the flow of prose – it just makes the fort headings a little bit smaller (and remove them from the TOC which isn't terribly long). I'm not sure if it helps the user in any way. I'll leave it as it is for now but I'm leaning more towards re-adding the ===.

The only thing I agree with about the particular caption is replacing "many" with "44". I don't see the point in hiding information from the reader, assuming they click the image to read the additional information there. Succinctness does not mean having a short caption. Mentioning that the section seen in the image is only a short part of the full bunker is pretty important, and the loopholes are not immediately obvious from looking just at the thumb. – Elisson • T • C • 20:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

icon templates

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am developing a task for Monkbot (task 6) that looks for language icon templates where they occur adjacent to Citation Style 1 templates. When found, the {{xx icon}} template is deleted and |language=xx is added to the CS1 citation. Primarily, the purpose for this is to correctly categorize the citation. The {{xx icon}} templates place articles in subcategories of Category:Articles with non-English-language external links. Not all CS1 citations associated with language icon templates contain non-English-language links. In many cases, the icon template merely identifies the language of the source. Instead of adding articles to Category:Articles with non-English-language external links, CS1 now adds articles with CS1 templates that use |language=xx or |language=language to appropriate subcategories of Category:CS1 foreign language sources.

This article, though, inverts the normal use of language identification. That is a condition that the script is not able to handle because there isn't a standardized way to recognize the inversion. To prevent further edits by the test script or by Monkbot task 6 if approved, I have added {{bots|Monkbot 6}} to §References. I have manually replaced the various {{xx icon}} templates with |language=xx parameters in the CS1 citations.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Boden Fortress. 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:

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) 20:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic