This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wansdyke article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Richard Fletcher, in his "Who's Who in Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxon England", says that it's possible that Ceawlin was responsible for some or all of the Wansdyke. This seems quite implausible given which side the ditch is on, so I'm not going to add it, just note it here. If I find support for this claim in other secondary sources I will add a note. Mike Christie (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Ordnance Survey maps mark it as a Roman road. Is Ordnance Survey a reliable source worth mentioning in the article, and am I reading the map correctly? -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 17:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Here, grid square ST8266, at least on the 1:25 000 and 1:50 000 maps (just south of Box, Wiltshire.) The map doesn't name it as the Wansdyke (so perhaps it isn't) but does mark at as "ROMAN ROAD (course of)". -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 19:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm in the U.S. and we seem to use a different coordinate system here. Is there any way you could include the old method (degrees, minutes, seconds) in the table? I realize I should be able to click on the new coordinates, and see a page with all the conversions, but this relies upon an outside server which is often clogged or inaccessible. All these different coordinate systems are really annoying to the average Joe. 97.125.31.128 ( talk) 00:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Could we clear up the apparent misdirection over its construction? The opening has its construction attributed to the Saxons yet later in the article under "Nomenclature" it states they gave it a name when they 'came across it'. The reference to Wansdyke in the "Bath" article on Wiki attributes its construction to the native Britons following defeat at the Battle of Deorham! Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.89.134.201 ( talk) 14:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I've been bold and removed the following line which was dropped into the lede of this article on 3 October 2010:
Its construction is attributed to the pagan Saxons, probably in the late sixth century.<ref>Cyril and Aileen Fox, "Wandyke reconsidered", Archaeological Journal (1958)</ref>
The purpose of the lead section is to summarise the content of the article, not to assert things without discussion. There is no evidence provided in this article, as it currently stands, to explain why "its construction is attributed to the pagan Saxons", and this cryptic 50-year-old reference is of no help whatsoever. As the previous person said, the rest of this article seems to attribute its construction to the native Britons. I should add I have no personal stake in the matter, but I would like to see the article discuss the question of Saxon construction before it gets asserted as fact in the lede. Pasicles ( talk) 23:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wansdyke article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Richard Fletcher, in his "Who's Who in Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxon England", says that it's possible that Ceawlin was responsible for some or all of the Wansdyke. This seems quite implausible given which side the ditch is on, so I'm not going to add it, just note it here. If I find support for this claim in other secondary sources I will add a note. Mike Christie (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Ordnance Survey maps mark it as a Roman road. Is Ordnance Survey a reliable source worth mentioning in the article, and am I reading the map correctly? -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 17:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Here, grid square ST8266, at least on the 1:25 000 and 1:50 000 maps (just south of Box, Wiltshire.) The map doesn't name it as the Wansdyke (so perhaps it isn't) but does mark at as "ROMAN ROAD (course of)". -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 19:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm in the U.S. and we seem to use a different coordinate system here. Is there any way you could include the old method (degrees, minutes, seconds) in the table? I realize I should be able to click on the new coordinates, and see a page with all the conversions, but this relies upon an outside server which is often clogged or inaccessible. All these different coordinate systems are really annoying to the average Joe. 97.125.31.128 ( talk) 00:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Could we clear up the apparent misdirection over its construction? The opening has its construction attributed to the Saxons yet later in the article under "Nomenclature" it states they gave it a name when they 'came across it'. The reference to Wansdyke in the "Bath" article on Wiki attributes its construction to the native Britons following defeat at the Battle of Deorham! Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.89.134.201 ( talk) 14:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I've been bold and removed the following line which was dropped into the lede of this article on 3 October 2010:
Its construction is attributed to the pagan Saxons, probably in the late sixth century.<ref>Cyril and Aileen Fox, "Wandyke reconsidered", Archaeological Journal (1958)</ref>
The purpose of the lead section is to summarise the content of the article, not to assert things without discussion. There is no evidence provided in this article, as it currently stands, to explain why "its construction is attributed to the pagan Saxons", and this cryptic 50-year-old reference is of no help whatsoever. As the previous person said, the rest of this article seems to attribute its construction to the native Britons. I should add I have no personal stake in the matter, but I would like to see the article discuss the question of Saxon construction before it gets asserted as fact in the lede. Pasicles ( talk) 23:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)