Talk:Barbegal aqueduct and mills

Further reading

Has somebody by chance some of the articles I posted under 'Further reading' at home? Gun Powder Ma 21:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Heyaa

Great photo... copyright status?

Here's a great photo that would add a lot to the article: http://www.mmdtkw.org/03-04BarbegalMill.jpg
Unfortunately i can't find any contact info for the owner on the main page. Anyone have any idea where this pic is from? User-created? From a book? -Monolith2 (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I believe this drawing came from the Scientific American, Nov. 1990 pp 106-111, where you will find the black and white drawing[1]. It would therefore be protected. Your source simply added the yellow background.Tvbanfield (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • • While this specific picture may or may not be protected, I doubt that a visual model/representation of a historical object itself could be copyrighted. Probably the best solution would be for someone to make a rough sketch representing the basic structure of this object by following what is represented in this above picture. This way the information provided by this picture would become available here and any potential copyright issues would be avoided. Abvgd (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
      • BTW, a quick Google image search will provide a multitude of depictions of the mill based around the same basic model. Here are just a few additional pictures: [1] ; [2] ; [3] ; [4] ; [5]. So, take your pick :) A talented artist would be abe to create a quick sketch quicker than it took me to post these images here ;P Abvgd (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have some photos taken in April 2007 of the ruins, can be used if required. http://www.flickr.com/photos/30261128@N04/ Geoportail satellite photo of the site: Geoportail satellite photo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Licornenoire (talk • contribs) 06:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Totally implausible numbers in the article

4.5 tonnes ? per day? for 10 thousand or 40 thousand people? Does not compute. 100-400 kilos flour per day per person? Even if they fed all their livestock on bread? No way. Please quote reliable source or maybe refigure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EideticGeezer (talk • contribs) 14:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Barbegal aqueduct and mill. 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/20071022114359/http://pubs.asce.org:80/magazines/CEMag/2007/Issue_06-07/article4.htm to http://www.pubs.asce.org/magazines/CEMag/2007/Issue_06-07/article4.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718121536/http://wrightpaleo.com/documents/Barbegal2005.pdf to http://wrightpaleo.com/documents/Barbegal2005.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070308122638/http://traianus.rediris.es:80/textos/barbegal.pdf to http://traianus.rediris.es/textos/barbegal.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Disputed Claims

I've located a seemingly reputable source that disputes several of the claims the article currently has in regards to production figures.

The source claims that, instead of the currently sourced 4.5 tons of flour per day, "The mills had an estimated production capacity of 25 metric tons of flour per day, enough to feed a population of at least 27,000 people..."

Given that the current claim is sourced via a book that I am unable to access and a permanently dead link (in a language I do not speak), I am suggesting replacing the current claim with the citation I located.

Does anyone have access to the book, and if someone does, is it a more reputable source than the one I located? LonelyProgrammer (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

References