Talk:Pons Aelius

Untitled
Images

The images attached to this article have been produced by the artist of ancientvine.com

I have comissioned him to produce them specifically for this article, and I now have the rights to these images. I have forwarded the permission letter to the appropriate wiki comittee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geronimo57 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Full size replica?

Just where is this? I have excavated in Newcastle many times but was not aware of a replica.

Taff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.2.28.134 (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

What Replica? There is no mention here or in the article of any replica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.199.103 (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

To whoever keeps deleting my pictures
OK, just to make something clear, this isn't just "fan art". I specifically liaised with both Durham and Newcastle Archaeology departments about the fort's likely appearance in the mid/late 2nd century, based on information such as surviving stonework and geophysical surveys. Additionally, I have used academic publications and research on Pons Aelius specifically to help me in guiding the artist. Publications such as "Archaeologia Aeliana" have been immensely helpful and we do know the location of the vicus, the bridge and the fort, so the image(s) are based on that information. It is not simply random, and certainly not simply "fan art" and most definitely NOT "not historically accurate."

Secondly, I bring to your attention Wikipedia's own policies on guidelines, seeing as you keep quoting "no place for fan art". Here it is:

"Fan art on Commons

Does Commons want fan art? Isn't it original research? Commons is not Wikipedia, and files uploaded here do not need to comply with the no original research requirements imposed by many of the WMF Wikipedia sites. It is true that original art may not be usable on some Wikipedia sites, but the aims of Commons are broader than merely hosting content for such sites.

However, our project scope requires that files uploaded to Commons must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”.

Here's the link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Fan_art

The aim of these pictures is clearly to illustrate to the user what this fort MAY HAVE LOOKED LIKE (It's in the title) much as dioramas or displays in museums do. It is EDUCATIONAL and certainly conforms to Wikipedia's policies. Again, Wikipedia's Image Use Policy states:

User-created images: Wikipedia encourages users to upload their own images. All user-created images must be licensed under a free license, such as the GFDL and/or an acceptable Creative Commons license, or released into the public domain, which removes all copyright and licensing restrictions.

And again, under "Rules of Thumb", point #7:

Images are included in articles to increase the reader's understanding of the subject. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and explicit or even shocking pictures may serve an encyclopedic purpose, but editors should take care not to use such images simply to bring attention to an article.

Again, the aim of the images is exactly that - to increase the reader's understanding of the subject.

Lastly, in reference to your "last image is simply a copy of Arbeia" - yes and no. The vast majority of Roman forts conformed to one standard, that is to say, they pretty much all looked the same so it would not matter if you entered one in Britain or Syria they would have the same basic layout. The gates are a classic piece of their architecture that is the same everywhere in most cases, with a few exceptions. So yes, it looks like the reconstructed one in Arbeia, because that's what most Roman Gates looked like.

In conclusion, please refrain from deleting these images. They are here for a reason, and they are within Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.141.48 (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was mostly concerned because your website says very little about the historical accuracy of the images; for all I know, they could easily have been entirely from your imagination. I am glad that you've done research into the subjects, and therefore the images should be fine, except I'll note on each one that they're a historically-based artist's impression, and not any computerized image of historical images or of currently-existing structures.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  19:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant, I'm glad we could sort it out. A lot of work went into those images (the research about their accuracy especially) so I'm sorry if I've come across a little defensively about them. It also cost me a little too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.141.48 (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for contributing, consider making an account and helping out further.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  19:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pons Aelius. 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/20041223161932/http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/keep/keeptimeline/keep_timeline_roman2.htm to http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/keep/keeptimeline/keep_timeline_roman2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060912045839/http://www.arcg57.dsl.pipex.com/HadriansWall/PonsAelius/BriefHistory/BriefHistory.htm to http://www.arcg57.dsl.pipex.com/HadriansWall/PonsAelius/BriefHistory/BriefHistory.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041222065845/http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/keep/keeptimeline/keep_timeline_norman.htm to http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/keep/keeptimeline/keep_timeline_norman.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)