Talk:Burgh Castle

message: There is a lot more to say about the Roman castle, particularly since its a very large and magnificent survival from the Roman age, probably one of the biggest in terms of volume in the UK apart from Hadrians Wall. I have included half a dozen new links which provide much more information and many photographs, plus one royalty free etching. The existing link didnt work. 
I wish someone with more free time than me would go through these links and compile the information into a detailed article. 
Minor points to add to the article:
The Roman name was Gariannonum or Gariannun. 
On the western side of the Castle is a clump of rare pink-flowered Hawthorns, which produce a spectacular display of blossoms around May.
:This article is on the village of Burgh Castle, not the Roman fort within in. The roman fort has a separate article linked to from this one. Any notable building has its own article on wikipedia, this is standard practice. Details on the castle should be added to the Garriannonum article linked to from this one, not to this article covering the village - PocklingtonDan 09:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New article Burgh Castle Roman Site now created to describe the castle itself. Since the Gariannonum article itself is ambiguous as to whether this was the site at Burgh Castle or Caister-on-Sea, I have not added it to Gariannonum. However that is the opinion of one at present - Please feel free to discuss merging/re-naming of the article(s) as appropriate? Pahazzard (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More content please 

message: The village and fort are known by locals as Burgh Castle not as Gariannonum.  Together with the church (and pub!) the Roman fort is very much the main feature of a 'one street' Norfolk village and likely to be what prospective visitors want to find under that name here.  I would suggest the fort be the main article and references to the rest of the village, charming as it is, as 'secondary'.
Regarding the Norman motte, there was one on the southwest area of the site.  Traces are visible from aerial photographs (http://www.norfarchtrust.org.uk/burghcastle) and it is reported in the NAA's account of Green's excavations:  Darling, M.J., & Gurney, D., 1993*	 "Caister-on-Sea, excavations by Charles Green 1951- 55" East Anglian Archaeology 60 (for further information on the EAA series, see www.eaareports.org.uk ).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsur (talk • contribs) 14:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go to the site and look at its southern end, you can see that ruins of what I understand were a Norman 'modernisation' still exist. 80.0.107.56 (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't see why the etching of Burgh Castle that used to be here cannot be restored. There is no reason why there cannot be two or more pictures. To my mind the Castle is by far the most outstanding thing in Burgh Castle - its enormous - yet it is barely mentioned here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.48.47 (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The etching of the castle was removed because it is not a picture of the village. This article covers the village. the Roman fort has a separate article, since it is notable in and of itself. Pictures of the fort should be included int he article of the fort, not in the article of the village. - PocklingtonDan 09:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Names

message: I can confirm there is no Norman castle within the fort. Plus I will be extending the Roman aspect of the article very soon.  MortimerCat 21:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go to the site and look at its southern end, you can see that ruins of what I understand were a Norman 'modernisation' still exist. 80.0.107.56 (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't see why the etching of Burgh Castle that used to be here cannot be restored. There is no reason why there cannot be two or more pictures. To my mind the Castle is by far the most outstanding thing in Burgh Castle - its enormous - yet it is barely mentioned here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.48.47 (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The etching of the castle was removed because it is not a picture of the village. This article covers the village. the Roman fort has a separate article, since it is notable in and of itself. Pictures of the fort should be included int he article of the fort, not in the article of the village. - PocklingtonDan 09:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on the way. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Burgh Castle. 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/20070105030013/http://www.romanmap.com/htm/names/Burgh%20Castle.htm to http://www.romanmap.com/htm/names/Burgh%20Castle.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified