Talk:Richborough Castle

message: ===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)
replies: text: This would inconsistant with other articles in :Category:Roman towns and cities in England. Walgamanus 20:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite so. No idea who moved it to "Richborough Castle" but that was a bad idea. — LlywelynII 01:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Oh, it was you? Meh. — LlywelynII 01:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: 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)
replies: text: This would inconsistant with other articles in :Category:Roman towns and cities in England. Walgamanus 20:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite so. No idea who moved it to "Richborough Castle" but that was a bad idea. — LlywelynII 01:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Richborough Roman Fort

message: 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)
replies: text: Oh, it was you? Meh. — LlywelynII 01:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Richborough Castle

message: 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. — LlywelynII 01:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Fantastic

message: 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)
thread_title: Well-written

message: * 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
 — LlywelynII 02:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for article expansion