Talk:Cramond

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Edinburgh High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Edinburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Edinburgh 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.EdinburghWikipedia:WikiProject EdinburghTemplate:WikiProject EdinburghEdinburgh articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cramond article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Alaterva as name of fort

From the description it doesn't seem clear that Alaterva is the name of the fort, rather than the name of a divinity worshiped at the fort. References needed.

Merge Cramond Roman Fort with Cramond?

I created a Cramond Roman Fort stub, and soon after someone added a Merge With Cramond template.

I think after the archaeological center at the fort is established[1] there could be substantial information on the fort itself and museum that will be too detailed for the general Cramond article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BindingArbitration (talk • contribs) 22:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a lot of information about Cramond Roman Fort, but at the moment there isn't. Usual policy is to merge articles until subsections become too large, then split to new articles. As it is, there is far more information about the fort within the main Cramond article, and its not overbalancing thee page, so the two should be merged, for now. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a separate article so that fort details and listings as a Roman fort can be kept separate from the actual modern town information. Jllm06 (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cramond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103205935/http://www.ronaldrae.co.uk/pages/selectedartwork.php?artworkid=46&slideshowcode=UNAVAIL to http://www.ronaldrae.co.uk/pages/selectedartwork.php?artworkid=46&slideshowcode=UNAVAIL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cramond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091007160505/http://www.cramondassociation.org.uk/pics.htm to http://www.cramondassociation.org.uk/pics.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]