User talk:Mcbishop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Mcbishop, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Francs2000 12:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Hello! Is there anything in your seperate Milecastle articles that makes each of them unique? Apart from the grid reference and the date of excavation they seem to be identical. The Milecastle article is just a stub at the moment. Could the information on the individual milecastles go in to this article instead in order to bring it above the level of stub?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

They are all unique in the same way that there were four Beatles. Some are still standing, some gone, some excavated, some not, their dimensions, distances apart, manner of construction etc all differ. However, in the end, if you don't like this level of detail, I'll take them down. It is only a 'proof of concept' using five milecastles, and tying them in with the Getmapping aerial photo coverage on Windows Live Local, pictures of each site on Flickr (all of which I am going to publish under a CC license once I have finished uploading them, and one each of which would be tied to the Wikipedia page). Each medium gives something to the others, effectively. Mcbishop 14:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is enough detail to differentiate each milecastle then individual articles are no problem. I was thinking that if the articles couldn't be expanded beyond the initial stubs then fifty-plus stubs wouldn't be of the same research value as one milecastle article with the significant features of all seperate milecastles written in to it. It's great that this is a part of an ongoing project. I look forward to reading more details!  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be doing good stuff about the Wall but please:
  • add to existing articles rather than creating new, eg. Narrow Wall should be added to the Hadrian's Wall article. We certainly do not need milecastle gateways when we already have milecastle and should not milecastle be merged into Hadrian's Wall. Remember that you can create lots of #redirects for alternative titles.
  • possibly give more specific titles to the individual milecastle articles (if they are to be kept), eg. Milecastle 52, Hadrian's Wall. Surely they built milecastles in other parts of the Empire?
I hope you realise that although I turned Narrow Wall into a redirect, your text is still available here for you to copy and paste. -- RHaworth 20:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Also for your todo list (and if you are not afraid to venture into such wild territory): should not Graham's Dyke be merged into Antonine Wall? -- RHaworth 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nomination of Macula (archaeology) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Macula (archaeology) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macula (archaeology) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Trovatore (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)