This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Is Italic really necessary? How many other tribes of Latins have articles? Move to Latins (tribe)? Apteva (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm not persuaded "tribe" is the best socio-political or anthropological designation, either. I'd rather see the article moved to Latini, which is currently a redirect. The article title for other ancient peoples of Italy and Gaul (except Sabines, presumably on the basis of "most common") is the Latin ethnonym. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
"Italic tribe" is necessary in order to distinguish the inhabitants of ancient Latium from other uses of the term "Latins": this could refer to (a) the inhabitants of "Latin colonies" in later Republican Roman history; (b) the inhabitants of the Roman empire who held "Latin rights" (a kind of halfway house to full Roman citizenship) in the Roman Principate; (c) the Crusaders who conquered and ruled the Byzantine empire after the Fourth crusade (the so-called "Latin empire"); (d) generally, modern speakers of Romance languages in Europe and South America. In addition, there is an article Italic tribes, so the term refers readers to it.
Using the ethnonym is fine, unless there is commonly-used English equivalent. Thus the Germanic tribe Quadi is only known in English as such (not as the "Quads"!). But Latins is the normal term for Latini in English and readers will enter that if they want to consult the article, just as they will enter "Sarmatiansand not Sarmatae or Sauromatae EraNavigator (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Strong oppose. This is not how to fix an issue/link with a Wikidata entry (in fact, there is no issue/link problem): the purpose of a Wikidata entry is to group all articles together that refer to the same topic. In Wikidata, the fact that article "X" in the English Wikipedia talks about subject "A" & article "Y" in the Spanish Wikipedia talk about subject "A" as well ... is correct! One does not change the name of an article just to match the rest of the titles of the articles in the other Wikipedias. The reason why Wikidata might have different article names on it for the same topic on different Wikipedias ... is because it is supposed (and allowed) to be that way. Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose English Wikipedia should not be dictated to by WikiData, indeed, WikiData has many many things wrong with their lists, and we should not export their errors onto English Wikipedia, just for the sake of matching WikiData. It's not at all clear what each WikiData listing represents, since some of them are very confused. -- 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.