This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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 Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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 England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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 United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.
I agree that Roman London would be a more logical title however many (see below) seem to disagree. But Londinium is not the translation of anything. The Romans founded the city and Londinium was its name for centuries (except when they tried to call it Augusta for a while). TheMathemagician (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Gaulish was the Celtic language spoken by the Gauls of what is now France, Belgium, etc.
There is no reason whatsoever to believe it was a commonly spoken language in Roman London. The local Celtic language was British or Brythonic: the ancestor of Welsh, Breton and Cornish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2012 (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.
The result of the move request was: move. -- tariqabjotu 01:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment. I haven't formed an opinion about this, but (and I hope no one starts shouting about "other stuff") would offer Lugdunum and Mediolanum for comparison. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment It is not an easy question. I prefer using the Roman name, but I can think of some cases where that would be difficult (though this isn't one of them). As long as a redirect is in place (which it obviously is), is this a burning issue? Nev1 (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is a burning issue. It is very disconcerting for the reader to be redirected, and signals to them that there is something wrong with "Londinium". Abductive (reasoning) 05:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Let me throw this out: there's a slight difference between Londinium and Roman London that has to do with scope. In some articles where Roman is used to modify a place name, it means "Roman-era", referring specifically to the history and culture of the place under Roman rule/influence. The Latin or Latinized name alone (as with Mediolanum) usually encompasses the full period under which the place was known by this name, which might range from the time when it entered history under its Latin/Latinized name (pre-Roman rule) through some time in the Middle Ages, when Latin names were still commonly used in official documents. The scope of this article seems to be just the Roman period. I'm not sure I agree that having Londinium as a redirect signals that something is wrong with the name, though since it's used a lot in the article it should probably be in bold in the first sentence as an alternate title, and not just a parenthetical. That still isn't an opinion either way. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose this is part of a series of periods in London's history. If we moved this to Londinium, then logically we would also have to have articles for Lundenwic and Lundenburgh and all of the other previous incarnations of the name. G-13114 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
You could equally argue it's part of a series of articles on Roman settlements, such as Mamucium, Deva Victrix, Camulodunum, and Viroconium Cornoviorum. I don't think the question should be "what pattern does this best fit into" but "is there a strong argument for one name over the other". Nev1 (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Support In general I prefer the Roman/Latin names for all articles of Roman places; not only for Roman London. BTW: most non-English articles on Wikipedia are called Londinium. -- Udimu (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Support. I agree that Londinium is a commonly-used and appropriate title for this subject. ╠╣uw[talk] 09:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment Another reason for not moving it to Londinium, is that it was renamed Augusta some time in the 4th century . I think it used to mention that in the article, but that seems to have been removed. G-13114 (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Support. We should use a name rather than a description, provided that there is a reasonably well-known name for the subject. See this ngram. Kauffner (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Support. A proper name should be always preferable. Reiftyr (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Article is about a period of history rather than a historical city name. Gem (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Support: WP:COMMONNAME per nominator. Precedent for having other Roman-era settlements at their Roman names. The example Anglo-Saxon names above are not Common Names and thus wouldn't generally be searched for, but if you wish those articles to be changed too then maybe make a Move Request accordingly, though be careful of WP:POINT. - Cheers, JCJof Burwell (Talk) 09:21, 7 July 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.
After the defeat of Allectus, Londinium was said to have been renamed "Augusta", in honor of Constantius Chlorus. (Source: Shepperd Frere, Britannica.) The name stuck for some time, for Ammianus Marcellinus, writing in the 3rd quarter of the 4th C., refers to Roman London as "Augusta". I'm citing all this from memory, so confirm my sources before adding this to the article. -- llywrch (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
this is already briefly mentioned in the article. However, the reasons for the change of name are unknown. All explanations are pure speculation. With the name Augusta the city appears in several sources. best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)