Talk:Richborough Castle

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richborough Castle article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Fortifications / Technology / British / European / Roman & Byzantine / Classical C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

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 met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Archaeology Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kent Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kent, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of Kent in South East 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.KentWikipedia:WikiProject KentTemplate:WikiProject KentKent-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Kent tasks:

Here are some Kent related tasks you can do:

Clean up an article: Here are automatically generated lists of articles needing cleanup sorted alphabetically and by category.
Edit the Top and High importance articles.
Refine/polish: Ashford, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Canterbury
Expand:: List of churches in Kent, Maidstone Borough Council
NPOV: K College
Citation needed: Unreferenced Kent articles
Cleanup/Copyedit: Kingdom of Kent
Expert attention: Channel Tunnel, Bromley Civic Society
Stubs: see Kent geography stubs articles

Note: These articles may overlap with those on other related lists. If you would like to make a change, either do so yourself, or make a suggestion.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Name

Richborough Roman Fort

There are two items on this page I would like to discuss.

The title of Rutupiae. Shouldn't the main title be "Richborough Roman Fort", as this is in more common usage.
Is it known as Richborough Castle? Official sources, such as English Heritage, call it a Roman Fort. After all, castles are a 9th century invention.

--MortimerCat 15:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would inconsistant with other articles in Category:Roman towns and cities in England. Walgamanus 20:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. No idea who moved it to "Richborough Castle" but that was a bad idea. —

Llywelyn II

01:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richborough Castle

I'm from the area and i've always known it as Richborough Castle or as Richborough Roman Fort and i was always under the impression the the castle bit comes from its Saxon name.(Morcus (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Oh, it was you? Meh. —

Llywelyn II

01:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic

I think this is a fantastic article with little room for improvement. The only criticism I have is that I would like to see a little blurb about the debate going on over whether Rutupiae was the landing site for the invasion. While I see that you do have a link that goes in depth on the debate, I feel a sentence or two on the debate within this article would be helpful. -Jeff J (Roman Civ Class)

Great depth and breadth in the content for this article. I agree with Jeff that the debated section, although clearly linked to the page discussing it, is a little unclear. You could just add a few words about the debate and that would clear it up. Also, if there happens to be any information on the people who are associated with Rutupiae, that would be an interesting addition. Well written!-Jenny B (Roman Civ.)

Well, I think it's important to mention the traditional credit (done), the current debate (done), and a link to treatment of that debate (done) but going too much in depth would involve potential bias or mistakes as editors decided what to excerpt. When a consensus emerges as to what people think is likely, that should be reported and possibly their reasons for why. Until then, better to just sit tight. —

Llywelyn II

01:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

This is a very well written article. You provide a lot of great information (and pictures)! I really don't have many suggestions, although I would just re-read it for some awkward sentence structure during the debate section, which would clear up those problems mentioned above. -Taylor K (Roman Civ.)

Very well done. This is clear, precise, and uses sources and images excellently. You have truly contributed something worthwhile here. Anisekstrong 22:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Anisekstrong[reply]

Sources for article expansion

This source goes into some detail about why Rutupiae was so excellent for Roman purposes and how failure to find it on two separate expeditions affected the entirety of Caesar's operations in the country

— $Llywelyn II$ 02:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]