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 Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Greater Manchester 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.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester 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 Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our
project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our
talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Comment
The article skips between "Mancunium" and "Mamucium". Pick one and stick with it.
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:
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.