Talk:Roman Forum: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by 69.62.180.178 - "→missing!!!: " |
m (edit summary removed) |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 20:39, 5 March 2009
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Architecture B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Classical Greece and Rome B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Rome B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
|
The Temple of Jupiter is on the hill of Campidoglio and not on Roman Forum 84.253.136.132 12:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC) (MM on italian wiki)
Perhaps it's interesting to add a paragraph about the mysterious Lapis Niger, which was an important place for the ancient Romans on the forum. Check this site for some information.
- FB
Deleted an add for Viagra.
needs references!
Or at least a further reading section. Something as famous as the Forum that has had as much ink spilled about it should have an excellent bibliography section. -- phoebe/(talk) 05:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Forum Pussy
Actually, the child who inserted that bit of vandalism wasn't off the mark at all; just for general information, we know (thanks to one of the satirical poets) where the meat market for male sex was. Not in a Forum, else I'd put it back in the article.... Bill (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
missing!!!
Remarkably poor article: its scope is entirely pre-Christian. A great deal of information on mediaeval structures, removed and extant, could be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.14.67 (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with the above....just that saying what the article needs and then walking away from it.... says a lot. People should put up or shut up on Wiki....I am tired of watching these articles get stamped with an Oberon College student tag then read them like they were written by a copy editor at the National Enquirer.
- If you have input....edit the article. Otherwise keep those comments to yourself. We know it....we just don't care about people that ONLY comment on Wiki. Research and make the changes.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'll second that, which may sound to the inexperienced like an intemperate outburst. Worse to me are those self-possessed passers-by who disfigure articles with tags demanding citations— often enough cited further along in the same article.--Wetman (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I now know why there are so many suggestions by people who do not make edits.....but they could eventualy come back and do so after waiting and not seeing the work done.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
What's the deal with all the vandalism here?
Good to see that there are editors keeping an eye out for this crap. Thanks. I have lett Wiki know about the problem but they feel it is not enough to lock the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.180.178 (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)