Talk:Castleshaw Roman Fort

Rigodunum

Although I totally agree with the page move, I still think "Rigodunum" deserves a mention in the lead as a "given" name to the castrum. I think this will help our readers. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I was originally very reluctant since there's no evidence to say this is Rigodunum, but on reflection you're probably right; there should be an explanation for people looking for "Rigodunum" why it redirects here. Nev1 (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Nev1 (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff, and a brilliant piece of expansion! There's just no stopping you these days! --Jza84 |  Talk  15:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah well there's no point in hanging around ;-) I was hoping to add more stuff, but I seem to have exhausted most of the published material. I had half an eye on FA if I could find out more on the vicus and early fort but no luck at the moment. Nev1 (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The idea that Castleshaw was Rigodunum is ridiculous. (1) A Vicus and a Polis are not the same thing (2) The numbers do not add up - as Rivet and Smith show in their tables (in a way they perhaps did not even realise themselves) (3) alighting upon this only occurred because Ribchester was shown to have its own name. There are alternative locations for Rigodunum.

I accept that it "has been suggested" - but the whole tone of the rest of it can really only be interpreted as it "has been demonstrated", which it has not.Freuchie (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Castleshaw Roman fort/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, happy to pass this article for GA, its very good. I only have one comment, which I am sure you can sort out, but it isn't going to hider the GA process. Congratulations.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• The article skips between "Mancunium" and "Mamucium". Pick one and stick with it.
  • Quite right, done. Nev1 (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Castleshaw Roman fort. 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/20090223141821/http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1369 to http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1369

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) 22:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)