Talk:Cramond Roman Fort

Merge with Cramond?

Someone added a Merge With Cramond template soon after I created this article.

I think after the archaeological center at the fort is established there could be substantial information on the fort itself and museum that will be too detailed for the general Cramond article.

Strong oppose Agreed, the fort is notable enough to warrant its own article, independent from Cramond. See Deva Victrix and Chester, or Mamucium and Manchester for precedents and what could be done with the article. Nev1 (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Let's make this into a redirect until and unless the amount of content warrants a split again. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 22:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose This is notable enough on its own. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 01:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cramond Roman Fort. 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/20110715201902/http://www.romanmap.com/htm/ravcosm/rc190%2C191-200.htm to http://www.romanmap.com/htm/ravcosm/rc190%2C191-200.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927025308/http://www.romanmap.com/htm/nomina/Carumabo.htm to http://www.romanmap.com/htm/nomina/Carumabo.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)