Talk:Caerleon Roman Fortress and Baths

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Roman & Byzantine

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force

scope of this article

I feel like this article needs improving and am trying to pin down whether it is really just about the museum or if it should be about the Roman remains and their archaeology. I am inclining towards the latter unless anyone has any thoughts otherwise. The Isca Augusta article can focus on the Military history and significance of the fortress, both in its role as a legionary headquarters and of the Romanisation (or not) of Wales. The Caerleon article is the place for the civic details of the Town, including it's post-Roman history (and, one could argue, its tourism). So this is the natural place to expand sections on the Amphitheatre, Barracks site, Roman walls and other archaeological developments as well as details about the Baths. Does that make sense? RobinLeicester (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Caerleon Roman Fortress and Baths" appears to be the name given to the entire site, including the amphitheatre etc. The Museum is currently known as the National Roman Legion Museum, so potentially may deserve its own article or, preferable in my view, be covered briefly in the current article as a separate paragraph/section. Sionk (talk) 11:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, silly me, National Roman Legion Museum already exists, partly because of its listed building status. So "Caerleon Roman Fortress and Baths" should be about the entire site. Maybe the site after the Romans left ...and any recent developments, because Isca Augusta covers the Roman settlement and fort comprehensively. Sionk (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sionk, I think that is broadly what I was thinking. Extra confusion is that Cadw calls the Baths museum, at least on their webpage, "Caerleon Roman Fortress and Baths". The Isca article is a great place for the more historical and military stuff, but most searches are more likely to be for 'Caerleon', and this page could reasonably expect to be the umbrella for the 'bricks and mortar' of the various bits of the fortress as well as the subsequent archaeological and 'exhibition' activity. I am not sure I have quite got my head around the division of information, so might need to try a few edits and see how it develops.RobinLeicester (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]