Talk:Limes (Roman Empire)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Limes (defense))

Etymology and sentiment[edit]

I fail to see the point in this discussion: applying a modern term to a Roman building and then speculating how the Romans might have felt about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nafiris (talk • contribs) 17:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John's spelling corrections[edit]

Hello John, thanks very much for fixing my spelling errors. Nice catch. As a sort of aside, you also fixed the Latin as though it were English, which is not a correction. The plural of limes is limites. The stem is limit- in Latin rather than in English. The Romans would have used the plural there. In English we never translate limes as limit but always as frontier or boundary, unless it meant path. The Romans did not have any LIM and certainly no boundary theory. It is a matter of usage. We use it one way, they used it another. Same word. I realize I should have put the Latin in Italics so you could be clear on it. I've gone through there and fixed some of your fixes. Thanks for the spelling check.Dave 17:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Borders article[edit]

I just discovered both articles today, but this seems like a logical move. The Borders article needs some cleanup, and it would be vastly improved by the inclusion of the content here. Dppowell 20:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I think that both articles (limes and borders) deal with different topics. Limes is related to a "line of defense" used by the Romans to protect their empire from outsiders (in a similar way to the famous China Wall), while borders is related to the "areas" at the limits of the Roman Empire. So "borders" deals with the regions (with related people, history, geography, etc..)near the "limes" (that is related to fortifications,terrain defenses, "fossatum", etc..): two totally different arguments, even if connected. --Brunodam 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with merge[edit]

The Limes were a system of border defense, and weren't implemented along the entire length of te borders. It is a separate concept. The articles should mutually link, but not be merged - PocklingtonDan 21:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also disgree with the merge. The concepts are different. The connotations and flavour are also different. --Boson 23:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree. Limes were an element of the Roman border, and should be mentioned and linked, but they were not the only one nor were they universally used. In addition, this article covers rich etymological detail of the word itself that would be out of place in the Roman borders article. Plynn9 16:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as there are 4 disagrees, as I'd be the fifth disagree, would there be any dispute to removing the merge tag? If people change their minds or new supporters are found, it can always be put back. SnowFire 20:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limes vs Limen[edit]

If you are going to distinguish limes from limen, then you should not claim that eliminate is derived of limes. The form clearly comes from the genitive stem of limen: limin(is). 66.75.246.15 23:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC) (T. Gnaevus Faber @ la.wiki)[reply]

Delete this article?[edit]

This article has many problems:

(1) From the lede section: "The word limes was utilized by Latin writers to denote a marked or fortified frontier." Also from the lede section: " It is now more common to accept that limes was not a term used by the Romans for the imperial frontier, fortified or not. This is a modern, anachronistic interpretation." So, limes means "frontier (of the Roman Empire)" but does not mean "frontier (of the Roman Empire)". This article is useless — until someone decides what limes means (to modern peoples) or meant (to the ancient Romans).

(2) The section titled "Etymology and sentiment": "Sentiment"?! What the Hell does "sentiment" mean? That the Romans were sentimental about their limes?

(3) From the "Etymology and sentiment" section: "The limes was a cross-path or a cross-wall, which the Romans meant to throw across the path of invaders to hinder them. It is a defensive strategy. The Romans never built limites where they considered themselves free to attack. As the emperor had ordered the army to stay within the limites except for punitive expeditions, they were as much a mental barrier as material. The groups of Germanic warriors harrying the limes during summer used the concept to full advantage, knowing that they could concentrate and supply themselves outside the limes without fear of preemptive strikes."

There are no citations to substantiate a single sentence of this.

  • Which ancient author in which text stated that "a limes was a wall intended to obstruct the paths of potential invaders"?
  • Which ancient author in which text stated that "the Romans never built limites where they considered themselves free to attack"?
  • Which ancient author in which text stated that "the emperor had ordered the army to stay within the limites except for punitive expeditions"?
  • Which modern scholar in which text stated that the limites "were as much a mental barrier as material"?

(4) Again, from the "Etymology and sentiment" section: "In a few cases, they were wrong. The limit concept engendered a sentiment among the soldiers that they were being provoked by the Germanic raiders and were held back from just retaliation by a weak and incompetent administration: they were being sold out. So they mutinied. The best remedy for a mutiny was an expedition across the limes. Toward the later empire, the soldiers assassinated emperors who preferred diplomacy and put their own most popular officers into the vacant office."

Again, not a single source is cited to substantiate one word of this.

  • Which ancient author in which text stated that the Roman soldiers who were stationed on the empire's frontiers were eager to attack the Germanic barbarians who were provoking them on the other side of the border?
  • What evidence is there that the Roman soldiers' frustration with being restrained from attacking the barbarians led them to mutiny and overthrow the emperor? Which emperor? And overthrown by whom?

(5) Again, from the "Etymology and sentiment" section: "Roman writers and subsequent authors who depended on them presented the limes as some sort of sacred border beyond which human beings did not transgress, and if they did, it was evidence that they had passed the bounds of reason and civilization. To cross the border was the mark of a savage. They wrote of the Alemanni disrespecting it as though they had passed the final limitation of character and had committed themselves to perdition. The Alemanni, on the other hand, never regarded the border as legitimate in the first place. The Romans were foreigners changing native place names and intruding on native homes and families (see under Alemanni), only to be tolerated at all because they were willing to pay cash for the privilege and offered the blandishments of civilized life."

Again, not a single source is cited to substantiate one word of this.

  • Which ancient author in which text stated that the limites were regarded by the Romans as "some sort of sacred border beyond which human beings did not transgress, and if they did, it was evidence that they had passed the bounds of reason and civilization. To cross the border was the mark of a savage."? In the preceding paragraph, the author wrote that Roman soldiers were eager to cross the border in order to fight the barbarians on the other side. Were the Roman soldiers therefore insane and uncivilized — as this paragraph states?
  • Who is "they" in the following sentence: "They wrote of the Alemanni disrespecting it as though they had passed the final limitation of character and had committed themselves to perdition." ?
  • "The Alemanni, on the other hand, never regarded the border as legitimate in the first place. The Romans were foreigners changing native place names and intruding on native homes and families (see under Alemanni), only to be tolerated at all because they were willing to pay cash for the privilege and offered the blandishments of civilized life." Says who? Did someone interview the ancient Alemanni chieftains? If so, which ancient author recorded the interview in which ancient text?

Conclusion: This article is terrible. It's a mix of "original research" and contradiction — it can't even decide whether its subject, limes, was a legitimate ancient Roman term for the empire's frontiers or just a modern construction. At best, this article will mislead any reader who's unfamiliar with the concept of a limes. This article should be deleted. If you don't want to do that, at least delete the original research. VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply with restructuring suggestions & list (navbox) of inline tag templates[edit]

To editor VexorAbVikipædia: Hello! I went to the national competitions for JCL (America's Junior Classical League) a long time ago in high school, but mostly for derivations (top 10, but not top 3!), and I have not studied Latin since, although non-fiction writing was my career. I do see that the problems you point out are likely largely correct from the viewpoint of 2nd-century usage and more specific than I could point out. (It's a great compliment to your work above that I'm commenting at all, because the pain part of my chronic illness is acting up. Fortunately, I'm not passing out!)
The root of the problem is, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the term was appropriated, in the decline of the Western Empire and/or by later historians to mean something different than it would have in the 2nd century. If that is true, we need to draw a line between contemporary 2nd century usage, later (when?) usage, and cover both in separate sections.
What you call original research might actually be from older, publicly available sources and thus apply towards a decent Later Usage section, if it is verifiable and can be looked at from the viewpoint of temporally focused historians. There's got to be a better way to phrase that, but hopefully you see what I mean.
I suggest using the box Template:Multiple issues with Template:Original research and some others at the top, and then Template:OR (the inline tag for original research) and others (see navbox right above my signature) throughout. With that guidance, I suggest working out a general restructuring on this page, then placing the current info within that structure in a a Wikipedia sandbox or on the article page, and then carefully seeing what can or cannot be supported, being careful of older, publicly available sources as being likely out of date with modern scholarship.
Deleting or gutting the article is tempting and would be easier, but would only leave little behind to work on or to prompt others to work on. That's why tagging with templates came about, although we should still delete instead of tag using templates if it's warranted. I have gradually gathered a lot of tagging & info navboxes (navigational boxes) towards the end of my user page, User:Geekdiva.
By the way, I couldn't check that all images had alt text for accessibility for the vision-impaired. See Wikipedia:Alternative text for images.
This is an important article for understanding Roman history (Portal:Roman Empire might be able to help; oops, I meant WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, which you probably are already a part of), but unfortunately all I can do is ask or suggest this. My real-life limitations are getting in the way of doing this myself. If someone works on this, would you use the notification system to please let me know when it's done or you want my opinion on something? I'm very interested, although I truly can't be relied upon, as I explain on my user page.
This took me a while and I got distracted a lot, but hopefully there's something useful here. Thanks in advance! — Geekdiva (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sorry to have dragged you out of your sick bed, but this article has not improved since September 2015, when I posted my objections about it. Definition of the subject of an article is the most basic requirement; however, this article still doesn't state what the ancient Romans called the border fortifications which moderns call "limes". None of the undocumented ("original") research has been either documented or deleted. So, it is apparent that I will have to clean up this article myself. I'll put it on my (very long) "to-do" list. But when I start deleting undocumented statements, I don't want some administrator complaining that I'm vandalizing the article. Wikipedia incessantly demands that content be verifiable. This article clearly violates that criterion. Presently the article consists mostly of a lot of tedious and largely irrelevant material about the etymology of the word limes. People who access this article expect to learn: when the first limites were built, by whom, for what purpose, how they were built, how extensive did they become, how effective were they, etc. I'll start researching the subject, with the aim of revising this article extensively.VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Limes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IPA[edit]

The IPA phonetic representation for the word "limes" is representing the pronunciation of the plural of lime (i.e. limes) in English, instead of Latin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velteau (talk • contribs) 01:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Limes. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walls vs Limes[edit]

I'm struggling to see a difference between walls and limes. In particular, for categorisation purposes, is there sufficient distinction (or indeed volume of articles) to justify the continued existence of separate tree structures for Roman Walls and Roman Limes? Some are common to both (e.g. Hadrian's Wall); some are walls but not limes (e.g. Aurelian Walls); some are limes but not walls (e.g. Limes Tripolitanus). Could they be merged into something called Category:Roman walls and limes ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Limes as a topic is kind of a disaster. Per this article and this one, it means "military road", "border" or "frontier district" and not the fortifications that were constructed there. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc regarding Limes[edit]

There is no consensus for a specific action at this point, though renaming the categories may be discussed in the appropriate venue (WP:CFD). Of course the article may also be improved along the general outlines expressed in the discussion. Huon (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi and thanks to everyone for contributing :-) The word limes meant the boundary between two fields. It came to be used to refer to paths, a typical feature of such a boundary and other passages, like roads. It would appear that it's sometimes been erroneously defined as "fortifications" such as were common on the frontiers of the empire (See "Conclusions" section (pg.146), and this article in support of Isaac's position).

The Limes article leads with the false definition. The Etymology and sentiment (?) section is a disaster. There are also various categories that likewise make the same mistake.

Suggestions?

Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 04:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the English word "lime" has several meanings already, it would surely be better for the category term to be "Roman frontier in ...". As things are, a reader with no knowledge of Latin has no hope of knowing what the categories are about.
Is there an Rfc discussion elsewhere? Andrew Dalby 09:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is also that strange beast Category:Roman fortified roads with its sole occupant Strata Diocletiana. Is "fortified road" even a real thing? Is it not just another kind of limes? I would be prepared to go along with @Andrew Dalby: for a new category to subsume all these. What about:
  1. Category:Roman frontiers in Country Foo and Category:Roman frontiers in Province Foo
  2. Category:Roman frontier defences in Country Foo and Category:Roman frontier defences in Province Foo
  3. Category:Roman walls or frontier defences in Country Foo and Category:Roman walls or frontier defences in Province Foo
Getting wordier as it goes on. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, having just read Isaac, I'm no longer confident about the above options. It says, "The word limes here does not mean 'boundary' or 'fortified line' and the context is one of conquest, not defence.". So the words "defense" and "boundary" may have to come out of the titles. That would leave us with something like:
4. Category:Roman military roads and land boundaries in Country Foo and Category:Roman military roads and land boundaries in Province Foo.
In this case, walls around cities and towns that were not part of a greater system, could remain as a separate category after all. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If to be renamed, here is another suggestion (5): Category:Roman frontier fortifications. Fortifications may refer to both defense and conquest. However, it is not completely clear to me that a rename is necessary at all, and if it is, it may be better to seek consensus about a rewritten version of the article first. In addition, I am well prepared to believe that we use the word "limes" different than the Romans did, but nevertheless we use it as we do. It sounds like this is a WP:COMMONNAME issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, Laurel Lodged, and Andrew Dalby: Any comments regarding the article itself? Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts, in no particular order of importance:

  • When the word limes appears as part of a name, is that because of ancient Roman usage, or modern usage? (A surprising percentage of names that appear to be Classical were actually coined in the last few hundred years.)
  • Likewise with "Wall" vs. limes: sometimes the choice of which word to apply to the archeological site is entirely arbitrary. Do we have any idea if there has been a discussion amongst the experts over which word best fits a given site/object? (This article has cites to two works by Benjamin Issac; I've browsed through his The Limits of Empire: the Roman Army in the East several times, & think some of the information InformationvsInjustice is looking for can be found there.

The rest of my comments pertain to the article:

  • The section "Etymology and sentiment" is very much an exercise in navel-gazing. Yes, something on the etymology of the word is useful, but the rest of the section of the article is irrelevant. Benjamin Issac argues that the ancient Romans didn't think of borders as something to defend; instead they were simply where the last Roman general stopped in his campaign of conquest. (The other viewpoint would be Luttwak's Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire who does argue that viewpoint.) In any case, one could simply say "limes can be translated into English as 'March (territorial entity)' or 'frontier' -- a neutral zone that lay between the Romans & any rival power" & move on from that section.
  • I like the structure of the discussions on each stretch of the Roman limes, from Britain to Pannonia; unfortunately it does not completely cover Europe -- what about the Moesian provinces along the lower Danube? -- or the frontiers in Asia and Africa? In the latter two, the problem of a defensible frontier is much more apparent. Especially in the African provinces, where a strip of fertile coastland had to be defended from predatory nomads drifting in from the Sahara: no one band of nomads was a threat in itself, yet the challenge of deploying the garrisons in the correct strength & in the right strategic locations to respond to each band was a perennial challenge.

Hope some of these thoughts help you to improve this article. -- llywrch (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have limited thoughts on this subject. pun! basically the Romans called their borders 'limits', for some obscure reason this has translated to 'limes'. calling a lime a wall is not a good idea, walls and fortifications were not used universally, in the way same as borders today, some bits are fortified, some bits are just a line on a map. the current pun! categories sound rather fruity,pun! a rename to a suitable English name would seem in order. Dysklyver 10:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above has convinced me that the scope of the Category:Roman walls should be re-defined as being limited (pun alert) to walls designed for the defence of cities / towns. That is, stand alone defences, not integral to a wider system of fortifications (e.g. Roman walls of Córdoba or Servian Wall). This would have the effect of excluding Category:Hadrian's Wall and Category:Antonine Wall and probably Category:Roman walls in Romania as well. That would leave us free to ponder the fate of the remaining limes / defensive boundaries / fortified roads categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it appears that the term limes and limites never referred to the defensive structures/fortifications--at least that seems to be the gist of the Isaac article. This article not only doesn't discuss the erroneous use of the words but just uses them... erroneously(!). Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noting @Dysklyver:'s comment just above: in Latin the singular is limes, the plural is limites. It's an unusual detail of Latin grammar, and I guess not so many readers of the English Wikipedia would know it. That's one of my reasons for proposing "... frontier ..." instead of "... Limes ..." in the relevant category names, because "frontier" is a commonly known English word. For the categories, it then doesn't matter so much exactly how "limes" was defined by different authors. A road protected by a series of outposts, maybe fronted by a wall and maybe not, a militarized zone, a no-man's-land: any or all of these things might constitute Roman limites and certainly they might constitute modern frontiers, so they could be included in the relevant categories without argument.
Noting @Laurel Lodged:'s comment, Hadrian's Wall surely is a real wall and I think it would be odd to exclude it from a category of Roman walls. It's also, of course, a part of the Roman limes or frontier in Britannia. Andrew Dalby 14:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Limes is in the Oxford Classical Dictionary as both boundaries and boundary roads. (e.g. Hadrians wall, Raetia). The meaning and Latin derivation might be more clear to readers with use of 'limites' or later 'limitanei' to avoid confusion of 'limes' with a small green fruit or the white power used in construction and agriculture. In modern english, "frontier" seems to have been the early usage, roads leading outward -- but the later usage seems more "boundary" as the end area roads and defensive works. Markbassett (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The word "lime(s)" will be confusing to English speakers in any case. It is also the word Brits use to refer to the tree we Americans call a "Linden". And makes for puzzling reading in the lead paragraph of this article. -- llywrch (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer "frontier" over "limes". Yes I know they aren't quite the same thing, but the aim of Wikipedia is to help readers. The multiple possible confusion in British English with Lime (fruit) and Lime tree settles the issue for me (not to mention Birdlime, Lime (material), Quicklime and Slaked lime, all often just called "lime"). Yes, you and I know that limes is pronounced differently in Latin. But, a non-specialist who has just come across "limes" probably does not – and he or she is Wikipedia's target audience. Not us. Narky Blert (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pronunciation[edit]

Is there a serious reason we're giving only the yokelish "lymeez" pronunciation? Every time I hear someone do something like that to Latin, I cringe. I would think a lot of people would be apt to approximate something closer to an actual Latin pronunciation, as "leemess" (or perhaps a variant like "lihmess", or "leemehz", etc.), the more so the more they are exposed to languages like Spanish (the most common second language among native English speakers) and Italian.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Lymeez" is, I think, the standard pronunciation in the English legal profession. See you in court! Narky Blert (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Limes. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wiki "Limes" material to incorporate: New images of the Limes in the Netherlands on Wikimedia Commons; German Wiki article; etc.[edit]

Dear all, The Erfgoedhuis Zuid-Holland, a Dutch heritage organisation, made some 200 images on the Dutch part of the Limes available on Wikimedia Commons. The images depict Roman re-enactment scenes, artifacts, and some digital reconstructions of Roman buildings. A subset of this collection comes from the image library of the Dutch National Antiquities Museum, which recently made its images available under a CC-BY license. The entire collection on Wikimedia Commons can be accessed here, the sub-collection from the antiquities museum can be found here. Regards, AWossink (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia version of this article is more complete, so some material from that could be copied into this article (by someone more knowledgeable than I). See https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes_(Grenzwall) . Acwilson9 (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 March 2020[edit]

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Limes (Roman Empire), and redirect Limes to Lime. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Limes → Limes (frontier) – WP:ASTONISH, DAB from Lime (fruit), Limes (magazine) and Lime tree. By PT#2 the fruit/tree would likely be primary. See similar cases like Bones, Bookends, Cars, Cats, Parachutes and Pixies which no only does the specific meanings not take precedence, the general meanings do. I propose that like Dockers, Cuts and Threads we redirect "Limes" to Lime per WP:DABCOMBINE since there are quite a few meanings that would be on both DAB pages if split. While its true that per WP:PLURALPT users can be expected to use the singular more often they are still full matches and anyway it gives the examples of Cars and Bookends redirecting to the singular named article. When I Google limes most of the results are for the fruit other than "Limes Hotel" in Needham Market and "The Limes" near Ipswich but that's probably because of my location. An Images search returns all results for the fruit until quite a way down of which is an images from this article. A Books search does return more results for the Roman meaning but oddly the material is also there. On Commons, Commons:Category:Limes is about the fruit with the Roman meaning at Commons:Category:Limes (frontier). By views[[1]] the Roman meaning has 3,173 but the fruit has 14,926 and the tree has 12,880 and the magazine has 160. Also the material has 20,784 and the colour has 2,648 but per PLURALPT and the Oranges example these aren't strong candidates for "Limes" since these are mass nouns but the fact that the material comes up in a Books search does provide counter evidence. I would not however redirect "Limes" to the fruit since it might send readers coming onto the page from external sites per User:Andrewa/Incoming links so having no primary topic makes sense in addition to the other uses such as the tree and the magazine. The lead of the DAB page could be changed to "Lime" or "Limes" may refer to. This was moved in 2013 but this was reverted, see also discussion with the user that moved it. The fruit is also a level 5 vital article and is known by virtually everyone and although the Roman meaning might have been important in the past, its likely that even then the fruit would still be more so. A site:wikipedia.org Limes returns the fruit, then the Roman article, then the DAB page, then different fruit articles such as Persian lime. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer a move to "Roman frontier", since that is a clear English phrase saying exactly what the article is about. It's fine to use the Latin term limes in the body of the article, once it has been explained, but it is odd to use it in this sense as a pagename in an English encyclopedia.
If for some reason "Roman frontier" is not acceptable, certainly "Limes (frontier)" would be better than what we have now, so I would support it. Andrew Dalby 19:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or Limes (defense) or Limes (Roman)? which already exist as redirects, It doesn't matter that much what the disambiguator is, just that this isn't primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see what is gained with this move so long as the fruit isn't at the base name. Srnec (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Because there isn't a primary topic for the plural either so the base name should lead to the DAB per WP:NOPRIMARY but as noted there are several other uses other than this and the fruit anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's where I disagree. The primary meaning of "limes" is clearly the fruit. Pointing it to the dab page is not an improvement, since the searcher is the exact same number of steps away from the fruit. Srnec (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But as I noted there are more meanings of "Limes" than the fruit and the Roman meaning. Also per User:Andrewa/Incoming links (also in response to Netoholic) since people who follow links made from external sites that point to the Roman meaning will be sent to the wrong page. If you think the fruit is clearly primary then keeping it as is doesn't make sense per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but prefer Limes (Roman Empire) or similar - I am also confused why the fruit isn't primary, and think we should put that move request in also... but this move request is not dependent on the result of that one. The primary meaning of "limes" is the plural of the fruit. -- Netoholic @ 11:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Limes (Roman Empire) . Primary use is confused here by the fact we have two words of completely separate meaning with the same spelling, so neither can be primary use for the other. Limes as a technical term for a Roman frontier defensive system is commonly used among military historians, so something which points more clearly to Roman usage is required here to help readers. Monstrelet (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If this article is moved, a very short new disambiguation page should be made (rather than redirect to Lime) - 90% of the meanings on "Lime" are inapplicable to someone searching for "Limes", as you either don't pluralize the material / color / people / organization / etc. that way, or it's nonsensical to do so. Just the Roman frontier, fruit/tree, and magazine are remotely sensible. (Also, per pageviews, it's not really clear that the Roman meaning is not the primary topic (are 1/4 of the views to Lime-the-fruit really using Limes?), but it's borderline I'll admit.) SnowFire (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SnowFire: the debate about separate DAB pages for plural forms has been debated, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 1#Freaks where I was in favour of a separate DAB page but that wasn't done and Talk:Hearts where we kept a separate DAB page. I'm neutral/leaning support on creating a separate DAB page but the main issue here is that there isn't a primary topic for the plural (I'm fairly sure the Roman meaning isn't primary and skeptical the fruit is) in any case WP:PLURALPT gives the textbook example of Cars redirecting to Car despite the film getting similar views (IMO the plural doesn't have a primary topic). If we do create a separate DAB page we can remove the magazine from the singular DAB page and link to the plural DAB in the see also. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Limes (Roman Empire). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Limes (Roman Empire) seems the best option, but Limes (frontier) would also be fine. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Video of Limes[edit]

Hi there, someone may want to add this rather excellent clip:

Hadrianswall und Limes

Alternatively or in addition, the German voice could be changed for English audio, if preferred. English subtitles are included (and Latin). Jim Killock (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to and merge with Borders of the Roman Empire[edit]

I suggest that this Limes article is deleted and made a redirect to Borders of the Roman Empire which covers the same subject and where the texts should be merged. The title would make more sense and clarity in English.

I know this was discussed in 2007 but I think it is still important and should be reconsidered. It would also resolve a lot of the confusion over the word "Limes" discussed above as "Borders" has the same meaning as "Limes" and has a clear English meaning. Rjdeadly (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Limes_(Roman_Empire)&oldid=1208033860"