Talk:Old Sarum

Copy and paste

The lion's share of this "article" is nothing better than a cut-and-paste of a portion of The Mirror of Literature, Amusement, and Instruction, No. 290.

I have added a little more today (not a cut and paste job), but the article could still be improved. MrsPlum 08:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Isengard

Forgot my password, sorry. I believe the tower shares lots of similtude with the one of Saruman in The lord of the rings. Haven't checked yet if it's only the movies or also in the books, but one can assume the cinematic trilogy is pretty accurate. And one shall remember that Tolkien got the inspiration for the Shire from not very far to Salisbury. p2501 10:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? — LlywelynII 13:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem with dates

According to the article the Old Sarum bishop first contemplated moving the cathedral in AD 1219 and the cathedral relocated in AD 1220. So far so good. Then New Sarum started to grow around the new cathedral in... AD 1217.

Have they used a time machine while relocating the city? Friendly Neighbour (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. — LlywelynII 13:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Saxon city

The University of Salisbury chaps certainly seem to think that the Saxon development of the site was minimal. Could someone please replace the primary sources being used now with secondary ones and verify that the Saxons actually built the place up (or at least occupied it). — LlywelynII 13:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

In particular, [[Cotton library]] ([[British Library]]) ''Faustina,'' b. 3. could use explicit details, citation, links, etc. to explain what the original editor was talking about when claiming that Salisbury received 'early ecclesiastical foundations'. — LlywelynII 13:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources for article expansion

• Fairly thorough bibliography here from English Heritage.
• A Description of that Admirable Structure, the Cathedral Church of Salisbury. With the Chapels, Monuments, Grave-Stones, and their Inscriptions. To which is prefixed, An Account of Old Sarum. R. Baldwin (London), 1774.

 — LlywelynII 03:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Pepys

Probably doesn't meet notability but a little amusing that Samuel Pepys's diary notes that, when he passed Old Sarum at night, it frightened him. — LlywelynII 09:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Images

The model of the old city displayed at Salisbury Cathedral is from the 1920s and isn't based on the recently discovered street plans (i.e., it's almost completely wrong except for the most major features) but is probably pretty and helpful enough to keep. All of the photos of details in the current ruins, though, are pretty much worthless: they're modern reconstructions and not actual surviving work... but at the same time so partial as to not be helpful at visualizing anything as it would have originally been. My opinion is they shouldn't be included at all; certainly, we shouldn't clutter the page with them.

We could really use some aerial shots or street plans based on the newest findings rather than imaginary works like this but I'm not sure if any are out of copyright. — LlywelynII 12:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely right. Fair use rationales might be worth considering, bit with a reconstruction model it might be a borderline case. Nev1 (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Privileges of Latin Law

elsewhere (pigot's directory of 1830) this is written as Latian Law which some have requoted without bothering to note that there is no such thing as 'Latian Law'. On the other hand - what exactly are the 'privileges of Latin Law to which 10 British towns were admitted???? The phrase is quoted or re-quoted in several places and I cannot find out what it means. 86.159.84.62 (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorbiodoni/Sorvioduni

The only source for the Sorbiodoni interpretation being incorrect is a website of unannotated personal research by an otherwise unknown author (romaneranames.co.uk) that purports to "fix" Rivet and Smith. Unless there's another, more reliable source, I suggest removing that passage, as all other available sources adhere to the Sorviodunum interpretation. 88.98.241.149 (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

"Corruption" is not an objective word.

"Corruption," "deformation," and the like are not used in the serious study of language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S. Valkemirer (talk • contribs) 21:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)