Disputatio:Romani antiqui
Latest comment: abhinc 7 annos by Lesgles in topic From Andrew Dalby's user page
Pagina prima recensere
Quid significat "pagina prima" in hoc articulo? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:25, 18 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
- Fortasse "Commentatio principalis"? Vide en:Ancient Rome. --UV 22:28, 18 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
From Andrew Dalby's user page recensere
I've seen there is an article entitled "Historia Romae" which refers just to the history of ancient Rome. However, there is also an article about "Ancient Rome" with a section dealing with history. Wouldn't it be better to keep "Historia Romae" for the history of the city of Rome until today and talk about Roman ancient history on the section in "Ancient Rome"? In that way there wouldn't be a duplicate and both articles could be completed dealing with two different topics. What do you think about it? --Katxis (disputatio) 09:15, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
- Roma antiqua, being one of the 10,000 pages, wants to correspond to the article on the same subject in other wikis, though of course it doesn't have to correspond in every particular. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:29, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
- Good point. I have no connection with this topic, and I think remodelling this or other articles should be discussed on the article talk page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:35, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
- It's good that Katxis took up this misnomer. In antiquity, Roma referred to the city of Rome alone, not to the imperium Romanum. That's why I shyly and heedfully wrote the title Romani antiqui and directed it to Roma antiqua (Apr. 2015). I didn't change the title, because I hadn't the time to make the textual & stylistic changes required. Although it may sound natural to say Roma antiqua in the wake of Ancient Rome or Rome antique, this would be an anachronistic neologism, if it's supposed to refer to the Roman empire or civilisation. Neander (disputatio) 13:13, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, Andrew, I'm sorry. I didn't notice your wish to discuss this issue in due place! Neander (disputatio) 13:18, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
- It's quite OK of course -- and I am with you in my heart of hearts -- but I was feeling this might be a topic that didn't really need my opinion :-) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:28, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, Andrew, I'm sorry. I didn't notice your wish to discuss this issue in due place! Neander (disputatio) 13:18, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
- It's good that Katxis took up this misnomer. In antiquity, Roma referred to the city of Rome alone, not to the imperium Romanum. That's why I shyly and heedfully wrote the title Romani antiqui and directed it to Roma antiqua (Apr. 2015). I didn't change the title, because I hadn't the time to make the textual & stylistic changes required. Although it may sound natural to say Roma antiqua in the wake of Ancient Rome or Rome antique, this would be an anachronistic neologism, if it's supposed to refer to the Roman empire or civilisation. Neander (disputatio) 13:13, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
- Good point. I have no connection with this topic, and I think remodelling this or other articles should be discussed on the article talk page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:35, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
So, shall we leave it as follows?
- Historia Romae for he history of the city of Rome from the beginnings until today.
- Roma antiqua (as I cannot think of anything else) for a general article regarding history, geography, economy, etc. (with the same information as any other other country like Spain or Greece) with links to more specific articles. Regarding history, I would divide it in monarchy, Republic and Empire and in each of those specific articles, talk about its history. Even in ancient Romans didn't use the term, I believe is better for whom might read the article. --Katxis (disputatio) 14:18, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
- Katxis, you wrote: "Even in ancient Romans didn't use the term, I believe is better for whom might read the article." I beg to disagree. In Vicipaedia, we're supposed to write correct Latin (and that goes for semantics as well), not what a casual reader may expect. (One guy in advertisement business once told me that he would never use "opus magnum", because "opus magnus" looks way way better in the eyes of customers! :–)) My suggestion is to move the title "Roma antiqua" to Romani antiqui which already exists as a title, and to (correctively) redirect Roma antiqua to it. Neander (disputatio) 15:46, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
- If that's what other Wikipedians suggest, for me it is fine. Besides that, how about what should be written regarding the content? --Katxis (disputatio) 17:23, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
- I'm fine with Romani antiqui. Imperium Romanum might be possible, or imperium populi Romani as in Cicero and Caesar, but it's maybe best to reserve imperium for the monarchical empire, at least in the title. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:46, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
- If that's what other Wikipedians suggest, for me it is fine. Besides that, how about what should be written regarding the content? --Katxis (disputatio) 17:23, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
- Katxis, you wrote: "Even in ancient Romans didn't use the term, I believe is better for whom might read the article." I beg to disagree. In Vicipaedia, we're supposed to write correct Latin (and that goes for semantics as well), not what a casual reader may expect. (One guy in advertisement business once told me that he would never use "opus magnum", because "opus magnus" looks way way better in the eyes of customers! :–)) My suggestion is to move the title "Roma antiqua" to Romani antiqui which already exists as a title, and to (correctively) redirect Roma antiqua to it. Neander (disputatio) 15:46, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)