![]() | A fact from Roman Baths, Strand Lane appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 29 March 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,515 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following I have cut and pasted from my talkpage, as of general interest. Wetman ( talk) 20:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought about the use of this word, but it came from one of the sources. Roman Baths are often sourced from cold water, and then heated ... if you take the Roman away, then you will just be left with a Frigidarium. It appears, they were generically known as Thermae.
The sources talk of remains of Roman villas in the vicinity of the Strand, and the Holy Well is of a pre-Roman use. These would often be taken over for bath houses, or Roman religious use. Yes, the main centre of Roman London lay over by the Guildhall - essentially the reason the Guildhall ended up there. The Strand was then part of the hinterland - cheap, roomy properties with a nice view over the river.
As it makes clear in the article, the baths origin was historically thought to be Roman; what can be seen dates from the 17th century - and the origin is more likely to be as Tudor cisterns - but why place them at the property boundary? The reality can only be found by taking the remains apart - together with a substantial number of historic churches, a university and the like. When the area was redeveloped by the Victorians the majority of evidence under the more modern buildings would have been lost. Thanks for your interest. Kbthompson ( talk) 11:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it my internet browser or is this pictures absolutly disgusting? can we have better picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearaaw ( talk • contribs) 00:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I can't find any reliable sources on the web which refer to the site in the plural ('baths' and opposed to 'bath'). Numerous sources refer to it in the singular:
Can anyone provide sources saying otherwise? If not, I suggest the name and page be changed. Cheers Trillig ( talk) 23:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea how to deal with the "# ftnref" things, but they are clearly an aberration. Voltteri ( talk) 18:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore ( talk) 14:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Roman Baths, Strand Lane appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 29 March 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,515 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following I have cut and pasted from my talkpage, as of general interest. Wetman ( talk) 20:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought about the use of this word, but it came from one of the sources. Roman Baths are often sourced from cold water, and then heated ... if you take the Roman away, then you will just be left with a Frigidarium. It appears, they were generically known as Thermae.
The sources talk of remains of Roman villas in the vicinity of the Strand, and the Holy Well is of a pre-Roman use. These would often be taken over for bath houses, or Roman religious use. Yes, the main centre of Roman London lay over by the Guildhall - essentially the reason the Guildhall ended up there. The Strand was then part of the hinterland - cheap, roomy properties with a nice view over the river.
As it makes clear in the article, the baths origin was historically thought to be Roman; what can be seen dates from the 17th century - and the origin is more likely to be as Tudor cisterns - but why place them at the property boundary? The reality can only be found by taking the remains apart - together with a substantial number of historic churches, a university and the like. When the area was redeveloped by the Victorians the majority of evidence under the more modern buildings would have been lost. Thanks for your interest. Kbthompson ( talk) 11:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it my internet browser or is this pictures absolutly disgusting? can we have better picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearaaw ( talk • contribs) 00:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I can't find any reliable sources on the web which refer to the site in the plural ('baths' and opposed to 'bath'). Numerous sources refer to it in the singular:
Can anyone provide sources saying otherwise? If not, I suggest the name and page be changed. Cheers Trillig ( talk) 23:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea how to deal with the "# ftnref" things, but they are clearly an aberration. Voltteri ( talk) 18:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore ( talk) 14:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)