Talk:Roman Forum: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:39, 5 March 2009

Please add {{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

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add {{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

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add {{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

	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.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Revision as of 20:58, 17 February 2009 edit SineBot (talk \| contribs) Bots 2,549,537 edits m Signing comment by 69.62.180.178 - "→‎missing!!!: " ← Previous edit	Revision as of 20:39, 5 March 2009 edit undo Daerlun (talk \| contribs) 10 edits m (edit summary removed) Next edit →
(No difference)