Talk:Strutt's Park Roman Fort

Strutts, Strutt's or Strutts' ?

Please establish which is the correct spelling and then make the article title and usage in text match each other! Would be as well to make redirects from the other two versions, perhaps, as there seems to be doubt, and it will prevent someone in future accidentally creating a duplicate article by not finding this one, as well as helping readers find this article. PamD (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

My impression from Google is that published and official sources tend to say "Strutt's" while estate agents tend to say "Strutts". "Strutts'" (apostrophe after the s) is rare and probably just a mistake. The park was given to Derby by Joseph Strutt, so "Strutt's" has the advantage of being logical. I'll change to that form pending further evidence. Andrew Dalby 19:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with change. There were varied spellings in the main references.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

All Roman articles

And it was not just the apostrophe. Having contributed to all four Derby related Roman articles late into the night. I think a few words need to be said about the whole lot as the sources are contradictory and even two published by English Heritage doń't agree. Icknield Street appears to have entered Derby from the South East, then itś course seems to be undefined until well after it left Derby. Even the assumed fort at Chesterfield has not been located. The Strutt's Park Roman fort(first fort) was to the east of the Derwent- no proof that the Icknield Street was on that side of the river, but some writers assume that the position of the fort was the proof that it was. In AD 80, a new fort was built on Derventio (Little Chester)(Old Chester Road)- but sources then diverge as to its nature and when it was occupied and how it related to Ickneild Street. There were various other remains in Little Chester- some being Scheduled Ancient Monuments- a hypercaust becomes at one stage a town house/a villa/public wash house and baths---. One source suggests that the Derventio closed after 40 years and a new fort was built on the Derby Racecourse Roman settlement(Racecourse) to replace it. There are no photos available for Stutt's Park area on Commons either. I have dragged together some of the online data and patched together these stubs but I think that we need to take the whole lot back to the Museum, show them what we have done and ask if they would like approve or correct it all. Please don't do an edit because a idea is mentioned in one source without establishing its veracity. But could someone now take over? --ClemRutter (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You've certainly made a good start. I had a look at the non-academic web sources and I agree with you that they are frustratingly inconsistent and imprecise. Really we need the archaeological reports ... I agree, too, that photographs of sites and/or finds are highly desirable. We can't make bricks without clay. Andrew Dalby 18:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of those archaeological reports are listed at the end of the "desk-based report" mentioned in your footnote. But can we get copies of them?

I suspect we need a general article on Roman Derby, as well as articles on the three sites. I am beginning a general article in Latin at la:Derventio (Derby). The bibliographies from this could be copied to the articles on en:wiki if anyone wants to do that. Andrew Dalby 16:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a Ladybird Guide to translating out of Latin, and Ablatives made Fun :-)

OK, I see what you mean :) And that link I gave didn't work, sorry. Anyway I'll do it myself later today. Andrew Dalby 13:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)