Talk:Dubris

Lighthouses High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lighthouses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lighthouses and other water navigational aids 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.LighthousesWikipedia:WikiProject LighthousesTemplate:WikiProject LighthousesLighthouses articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Fortifications / Classical C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Kent Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kent, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of Kent in South East England 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.KentWikipedia:WikiProject KentTemplate:WikiProject KentKent-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Kent tasks:

Here are some Kent related tasks you can do:

Clean up an article: Here are automatically generated lists of articles needing cleanup sorted alphabetically and by category.
Edit the Top and High importance articles.
Refine/polish: Ashford, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Canterbury
Expand:: List of churches in Kent, Maidstone Borough Council
NPOV: K College
Citation needed: Unreferenced Kent articles
Cleanup/Copyedit: Kingdom of Kent
Expert attention: Channel Tunnel, Bromley Civic Society
Stubs: see Kent geography stubs articles

Note: These articles may overlap with those on other related lists. If you would like to make a change, either do so yourself, or make a suggestion.

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dubris - River Stour

The section below implies that Dover was situated on the estuary of the River Stour. However, the estuary of the River Stour is several miles north at Pegwell Bay. Should this be changed to the River Dour which flows through Dover?

"As the river estuary of the River Stour, Kent (now silted up) and the closest point to France, in Roman times the town became an important harbour of the Classis Britannica, an important fortified trading and cross-channel port and a starting point of Watling Street."

--Spagus 16:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with History of Dover

I am proposing this since there is great deal of duplication of facts. History of Dover has been lifted from the Dover article, and a resumé of that substituted in the parent article. Even so, much can be done to bring the history into some reasonable condition Peter Shearan (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would contest that. The topic can be dealt with in far more detail here, with a resumé on history of Dover. Merged onto history of Dover, it would overwhelm the rest of Dover's history. Other cities have separate pages for their Roman phase eg Durovernum Cantiacorum and Rutupiae. As for the duplication of facts, I'm editing it for that at the moment.Neddyseagoon - talk 10:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Neddyseagoon. The article is fine as a daughter article to the main history. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep separate. There is a lot of information here, and this allows for a separate listing just for the Roman history. Jllm06 (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

There is a mistake about Roman Painted House and Dubris it is said in article that in 270 AD Dubris mansio was demolished and new Saxon Shore Fort was build. It is not correct. Mansio - Roman Painted House was build outside Classis Britannica in 200 AD and in 270 AD it was demolished during building of the new Shore Fort by Romans not Saxons. Take care Edyta 86.164.204.141 (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can actually correct this yourself if you wish. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dubris. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]