Talk:Itius Portus

Corrections 7 Oct 07

The Wikipedia article baldly states that IP = Boulogne, but the matter is not settled, and certainly not in the Encyclopedia Britannica article that forms the exclusive basis of it: on the contrary, the article (with due slavishness cribbed from the EB) does on to say that the identification is uncertain, as indeed it still is. If the Wiki editor wants to make the identification, they should provide grounds for it.

The Smith's Dictionary link was bad in two particulars: (1) it titles the article with my window title, rather than with the correct title of the article as it appears in Smith's, which is "Pharos"; (2) the link, bizarrely, is to a Google cache of the page (which, in passing, vitiates the Google Map embedded in the article). Maybe someone thought that by using the cached URL the reader's task is lightened, since the search terms they included are then highlighted on the page: but frankly if someone goes to the trouble of following up the subject, surely they can skim thru a very brief article and find Caligula's lighthouse at Boulogne without aids! (For a long article, the procedure might make better sense: but in that case, the attentive editor will notice that long articles on my site are peppered with local links for just such targeted citation — and if there is none, as I mention on my site many, many times, you can always write me and request a specific local link.)

Finally, if someone wanted to do a good job, the scholarly controversy on Itius Portus can be tracked later than the date of the EB. . . . Bill 09:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

remark 2 june 17

i have no idea where to post this, i did not make any changes, for i cannot find confirmations, i recently came across a 13th century dutch text (van den neghen besten, comburger handschrift) which mentions the port where ceasar sets sail to be "de havene van rutebri" so the 13th century dutch name for portus itius is rutebri Dries3135 (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]