Disputatio:Leicestria
Latest comment: abhinc 14 annos by Andrew Dalby in topic Ratae Corieltauvi
Ratae Corieltauvi recensere
The Roman name of this city was Ratae Corieltauvorum; should this page not therefore redirect to Ratae Corieltauvorum, and that page begin with:
Ratae Corieltauvorum, seu Leicestria,....
vide en:Ratae Corieltauvorum Jpb1301 23:52, 23 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
- Where a medieval/modern Latin name of a city differs completely from the ancient one we often prefer the later version. I suppose we do it because it's likely that more articles and links will be relevant to to the later period. But there's no rule. Do you have a really "reliable source" for Ratae Corieltauvorum? The tribal name has only recently become known in that form. I don't know offhand what the source is and whether it supplies the full town name as well. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:16, 24 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
- Often this allows us to have two pages, one on the Roman colonial town, and one on the modern city. Fac ergo dupliciter! --Ioscius (disp) 10:25, 24 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
- Jpb sent me a source reference by email: [1]. I think maybe Ioscius's answer is the best: this is what en:wiki has done, after all. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:45, 24 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
- Often this allows us to have two pages, one on the Roman colonial town, and one on the modern city. Fac ergo dupliciter! --Ioscius (disp) 10:25, 24 Octobris 2009 (UTC)