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 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
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
In what way is Hurst Castle spit not a spit but a ria? A ria is a river valley flooded by rising sea-levels. It has all the appearance of a positive coastal feature formed at least in part by processes of longshore drift. cheers Geopersona (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph was added by User:94.1.42.74 on the 12 October 2010. It is probably in some sense correct, it doesn't say it is ria, but rather it formed as "part of a ria," but I think claiming that it isn't a spit is probably going to far. The paragraph should just be deleted -- it's unreferenced and I can't find a textbook on Google Book search which will verify this. Pasicles (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Over the next week or so, I'd like to take this article forward to GA status. As part of that work, I'd like to propose using the harnvb template short citation system throughout, backed up by the "cite web" template, with the bibliography using the "cite book" templates, and "cite web" templates as necessary. I think that short citations for articles with a large number of citations are easier to read and to edit. This would represent a change to the current "long citation" style, and would therefore require prior consensus, as per MOS:CITE.
I didn't know consensus was needed for that. Anyway, you have my support: the short citation system is always better for long pages. I look forward to seeing your changes. :) Pasicles (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review Sainsf! Artillery is now linked; I wasn't so convinced about smuggler. Quarter-sling is correctly a duplink, as quarter-sling doesn't have its own page. Enddashes are also fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]