Talk:List of castra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of castra article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Fortifications task force
Associated task forces (periods and conflicts):
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC–c. 500 AD)

[edit] Split article

This section was split away from Castra as the latter was getting a message that it was too long. This is a logical move of the kind resorted to by other articles, such as List of Germanic peoples. I gave notice of the split under Castra with apparently tacit approval of the public.Dave 01:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other castra of known ancient name

What's with this? If the ancient name is known it goes in the list above it! But now, that list has no title. I note the ancient provinces have been added. That seems a good idea. For udating I recommend the following:

Three subsections: Introduction, Castra of known ancient name, castra of unknown ancient name. In addition we might start to acquire the usual paraphernalia: Notes, see also, external links, references. This will give us a TOC.
Tabularize the big list: 3-col, Province, camp, modern location.

For myself, I'll put it on my list, but right now it isn't very high up on that list.Dave 14:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revisit

Well I see these Roman articles are developing nicely and are going to be a VERY useful resource for education and research, which I for one was hoping for. In this article, though the vandalism has pretty well stopped, I notice some creep from the original plan. We don't need a section on other Roman camps of known name. Why wouldn't it go under Roman camps of known name? But unfortunately someone has taken out that title! Because they have, now we can't tell what goes in there. So, I see Raedykes and Normandykes. Excuse me but those are not Roman names and could not have been the Roman names of the camps. So, those two go under camps of unknown name. It is really very simple. You have a camp. Either you know what the Romans called it or not. They were careful to name all their camps and put them on itineraries. If you know it goes under Roman camps of known name. If you don't, then it reperesents unnamed Roman ruins and goes under camps of name unknown. We'd LIKE to know because then history would make better sense! But alas we don't and it is not right to plug in the modern Scottish or English name. Proven Latin names only if you please. So I am going to change this and put the section title back in. Thanks.Dave (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

PS - while placing these names I thought of one more case - we know the name but do not know where it was. If we get any of those then we need a third section - Castra of known ancient name but unknown location.Dave (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)