Talk:Rome

Edit request on 26 February 2012

There are errors in the caption of the 1st figure: "A view of Rome: the top left picture to the is the Colosseum, followed ...". It should be changed to "Views of Rome: the top left picture is the Colosseum, followed ..." 87.11.214.64 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Confusing translation of Italian "comune" as "commune"

From this article:

• "A new rising trend in population continued until the mid-1980s, when the commune had more than 2,800,000 residents; after that, population started to slowly decline as more residents moved to nearby suburbs."

And

• "Rome constitutes one of Italy's 8,101 communes, and is the largest both in terms of land area and population."

But Italy#Administrative divisions says:

• "Italy is subdivided into 20 regions (regioni, singular regione), five of these regions having a special autonomous status that enables them to enact legislation on some of their local matters. The country is further divided into 110 provinces (province) and 8,100 municipalities (comuni)."

Obviously the Italian word comuni is meant to indicate "municipalities" or "districts", or some such term, rather than the English word communes. The article on Communes does not mention Italy. In English the word "commune" more aptly applies to "an intentional community of people living together, sharing common interests, property, possessions, resources, and, in some communes, work and income." It is confusing to the reader in this context of Rome, and may bring to mind something more akin to the 1871 Paris Commune.

But the article then goes on to preempt the word "municipality", saying:

• "Since 1972 the city has been divided into 19 (originally 20) administrative areas, called municipi (until 2001 named circoscrizioni) or municipalities. They were created for administrative reasons to increase decentralisation in the city. Each municipality is governed by a president and a council of four members who are elected by the residents of the municipality every five years. The municipalities frequently cross the boundaries of the traditional, non-administrative divisions of the city."

At the least, I think wherever "commune" appears it should be replaced with the Italian word, italicized, comune (pl. comuni). I also question the capitalization of "commune" as given here:

• "The Commune of Rome covers an overall area of about 1,285 square kilometres (496 sq mi), including many green areas."

Beyond these two points, I believe this issue needs some discussion here. A major problem is that among English-speaking peoples, local terms for administrative divisions vary greatly from one place to another. Milkunderwood (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you and changed the article in accordance. There is only a small problem: Rome is not anymore a comune, but a comune speciale, named Roma Capitale. The article should reflect this change. Alex2006 (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Alessandro, your two edits entirely solve the problem - this is much better now. I had not previously noticed WP's separate article on "comune". I notice, though, that you retained a few instances of capitalized "Comune". Is this correct Italian usage? And you might as well go ahead and add the "comune speciale, named Roma Capitale" in an appropriate place in the article. Thanks very much for your help in cleaning up the article. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Milk,

you are welcome! about the capital "C": well, in the official use it is so (example: "Comune di Roma. Sito istituzionale") otherwise not. I will check in the article. Moreover, I slightly changed the first sentences in the introduction, I hope that it is ok. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Great edits, Alessandro; much clearer this way. I went back through after you to de-link the 2nd occurrence of comune in the same paragraph, and also italicized all other occurrences. I capitalized "Comune of Rome" to make it match "Comune of Fiumicino". And I added what I think is a useful explanation of "Lazio (Latin: Latium)", which had not occurred to me before I looked it up. Please check my diffs to see if you agree - thank you. Milkunderwood (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

...and I added a wikilink to Latium. :-) Perfetto! Alex2006 (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Perfetto indeed! Good link. We were editing at the same time, but my computer is taking 2-3 minutes to refresh each page. I think one of my caps was accidentally at a ref instead of in the text. I'll go back and fix it. Milkunderwood (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

(Now I don't know where it was - possibly ref #38? Probably doesn't matter.) No, another occurrence in the text - it's OK. Milkunderwood (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion: why you do not use the names in the original language and the English translation in brackets? I believe that this system would solve many misunderstandings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandro.spalvieri (talk • contribs) 14:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Some suggestions

I congratulate all who have written on this, but I am writing to request some changes.

AGE OF ROME. First, the expression that Rome has been inhabited for 2500 years is contradicted in the article itself, and also by one of the links given there. That link leads to a site which states that Rome has had "Continuous habitation since approximately 1000 BC" which would of course mean 3000 years. In any case the traditional founding date of 753BC would make it 2750 years old, in fact supported by what know of the seven Etruscan kings of Rome prior to 509 (not 510 as cited in the article) and their approximate periods of rule. In any case these are mythical, not in the sense of 'untrue' or unhistoric, but national stories, and if we give the age of Rome as an inhabited site it must be at least 3000 years. I have returned recently from the display in the Capitoline museums and it clear that the city was inhabited very far beyond this by Latin and other tribes. At the very least the contradiction between 2500 and 3000 should be resolved in favour of 3000.

FAO The UN's FAO is listed as a 'humanitarian' organisation. While it certainly does do work that would be classified as humanitarian its more accurate nature and what the page should call it is: "specialized agency of the UN". The UN has a series of these, UNESCO, WHO, UNICEF, etc and that is what FAO should be called. Rome also hosts the World Food Program, also a UN agency, separate from FAO but 'located there'.

CATHOLICS believe I think the distancing that is implied in the expression "Catholics believe" that St Peter's 'last resting place' is in Rome is weird. No ancient historian doubts it, nor does anyone seriously doubt that St Paul is also buried in Rome. Why this timidity?

"to this day" There is a tone of strangeness about some of the writing. For example the expression "to this day" thousands of pilgrims go to Rome. Err, I am living here and the numbers are immense and from all over the world. The expression 'to this day' makes it sound like a strange habit that would go out of fashion etc. Very POV in my view. Also, the expression that pilgrims have come to "Vatican city", this is nonsense. Until 1870 and the restoration of Rome, 1929 and the Lateran Treaties, reconfirmed in the 1970s, this distinction was not made. Pilgrims went to Rome, and that is what this expression should read.

GAW whatever I know that it is intended in WP to keep these world city rankings whatever they are, and that I won't get anywhere by mentioning them, but they seem to me really absurd for ancient and historically important cities like Rome. Thanks for your attention

PRC 07 (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have made additions and corrections to the 'language' section, 'pilgrimage' and a couple of other bits; including some of those mentioned above. Thanks, PRC 07 (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope I'm not kicking a hornets' nest, but I agree with the above discomfort with the line "Rome has been ranked by GaWC in 2010 as a beta+ world city" -- first off, I'd never heard of this GaWC before, and I strongly doubt that it's prominent enough to be known by its purported abbreviation. Secondly, I took a look at the list and think it's nothing more than an informed "fanboy" listing of international cities -- opinions can differ wildly on such lists. Finally, it leads the fourth paragraph of the entire article. It's fine as a factoid, but does it really warrant such prominence?

Terrific article, sorry if I'm being picky. IvyGold (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree, but this GaWC is spread all around Wikipedia, and actually there is a lot of people which seems to like it. He think it will be very difficult to remove it without a previous discussion. Alex2006 (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Just in case there will be one, I agree with you both in removing that reference. --Fertuno (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's bad enough to warrant full removal, but only less emphasis.

Here's my suggestion: if there's anyone who's taking the lead in editorial priorities, take the same exact GaWC line, verbatim, and move it to the very last line of the "Late modern and contemporary" section. It'd serve as a nice lead-out to the rest of the Rome categories, pinning down Rome's role and position in the modern world and economies, and then boom! onto discussions of Politics, Geography and so forth.

Is there anybody out there with enough of a dog in this fight to make the edit? IvyGold (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote above, the problem is that GaWC is spread all over. We should discuss a general removal/move of this stuff (maybe on the GaWC page?), not only here. Alex2006 (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Rome is the most populated Comune

Rome is not the most populated city, but the most populated "comune"... please.--Baiha87 (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion! In Italy, administratively speaking, there are no cities, only comuni. Alex2006 (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! --Baiha87 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are both wrong. In Italy there are indeed cities, which is a title bestowed to a comune generally by Presidential decree. Check the relative article of the Italian Wikipedia. There's absolutely nothing wrong in saying that Rome is the most populated city in Italy. --Fertuno (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This is correct, that is why I wrote administratively. It is impossible to make a statistics of the population of the città, since this is only an honorific title. Writing this here would be just confusing and misleading, since most of the people don't know what città in this context means.Alex2006 (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think to most people it is perfectly clear what città means in this context. But well, I do not wish to make a big deal about it. --Fertuno (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not a big deal for me too, feel free to put it back if you want, but I must contradict you. Most of the English speaking readers and editors here don't understand the context. City in english mean inhabited settlement, not an honorary title given to another entity because of historical, cultural, etc. reason. I am on wikipedia since six years, and I must often correct such edits here. For example, here is affirmed that Rome is one of the greenest cities in Europe. This is correct, if you consider the statistics of the comune, since it is huge and has (still) a lot of land devoted to agriculture, but the city of Rome (where as city we mean the inhabited settlement), is a vastness of concrete for the most part. The city of Rome lies much nearer to Istanbul or Athens than to Stockholm or Munich in this (and not only in this) context, but some people try to hide this playing with the comune data. Alex2006 (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I do not agree a single bit. In English "city" means inhabited settlement just like in Italian, plus it is an honorary title given to some towns, again just like in Italian. For instance, you might want to check this page. The wiki articles about London, Paris, New York, Berlin, Tokyo, Beijing, Sydney, Buenos Aires all refer to the entity as "city", I don't know why this wouldn't be correct in the case of Rome. As for the green statistics, they obviously consider only urban parks and other designated greenspace (including natural or regional parks), they do not consider rural or agricultural areas as 'public green'. Rome has at least three huge public parks in its urban fabric, a natural park and many smaller ones, something cities like Istanbul or Athens almost completely lacks. I really struggle to understand how can anyone say Rome lies nearer to Athens than to Munich in this respect. I mean, just take a look at Google Maps! --Fertuno (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Fertuno,

but I am Roman and - spending a lot of time in Central Europeof because of my my job - I know both situations well. About the huge three parks, I think that you refer to Villa Borghese, Villa Pamphili and Villa Ada. All together they amount to a very small part of the settlement and - above all - they are concentrated near the center, where as of today most of the inhabitants are either the happy few which live in the attici or the millions tourists which are vomited each days by the low cost flight, eat a microwave heated pizza, get drunk in Campo de Fiori in the night, go to sleep in a B&B (previously an apartment whose inhabitants have been kicked out in the outskirts) and flight (often still drunk) the next day. These parks are simply too far from the apartments of most Romans. About Google maps, unfortunately you cannot see what is really what you call green. They are just holes in the urban texture come into being because of the illegal developments (most of the E quadrant of the city has been built illegally) of the last sixty years: holes full of rubbish (like most of the street of the city), used shots, and the like. I can advise you to read Roma moderna, a book of Italo Insolera, the most important Italian city planner (an Oxymoron :-)) of the last fifty years, where it is clearly explained why Rome lies much nearer to Istanbul (city which I know well too) than to Munich. A fact that most of the Romans know all too well.

About the comune / city problem, since I am apparently not able to explain the concept, I asked one of the guys which wrote [[::it:Roma]] (they are very good, the article is great and is featured) why they write "È il comune più popoloso e più esteso d'Italia" and not "È la città ed il comune più popolosa e più estesa d'Italia". The answer is: "città è un titolo, il comune è l'ente che governa l'intero territorio. Figurati che anche Bivona è una città!" I hope that it is clear now. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an article about the city of Rome. That is, the aggregation of buildings, streets, squares, infrastructures, narratives, human connections, memories the world generally calls "Rome". Then, only then, it is also an article about the political entity called "Comune di Roma" (which now calls himself "Roma Capitale") that governs its territory. About how green Rome is, I've lived seven years in Istanbul and I'm currently living in Rome. As much as I love Istanbul, perhaps my no.1 favourite city in the world, trust me there's absolutely no comparision whatsoever between the two in this respect. Rome is one of the greenest cities I know. --Fertuno (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Then we are twins, since I spend also about two months per year on the Bosporus :-) Well, if you compare Rome with New York, maybe you are right...The comparison with Istanbul, was about the mechanism of the city growth and (absence of) planning. About greenery :-) in istanbul there is maybe one tree per square mile... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Summers in Rome lasting six months (?)

In the climate section, someone keeps writing summers in Rome last "six months". I believe no further comment is necessary. Since this isn't the first time over the last few weeks I revert such statement, I think it would be wise to keep an eye on the section to ensure it stays as it is. --Fertuno (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that they mean that the warm season lasts six months. Alex2006 (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not the same thing as saying that summers last six months. Pretty much everywhere half of the year is warmer than the other half. --Fertuno (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

On the Mediterranean Sea (with the exception of the Adriatic Sea) summer season lasts for 6 to 9 months (depending on where). Also, climatic data of Rome show average temperature of around 23 °C (73 °F) in May and 22 °C (72 °F) in October. For comparison, in the northern half of Europe - beginning of the summer season is in June, with average temperature of around 21 °C (70 °F). Thus, summer in Rome last about six months (from May to October). Subtropical-man (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for your statement or I will remove it. The beginning of summer in Rome is in June, just like in Northern Europe. The fact that Northern Europe has cooler temperatures in July than Rome has in May is not relevant. According to this logic, someone would be entitled to say that winters in Oslo last 10 months since springs and autumns in Rome or Madrid are warmer than summers in Oslo. --Fertuno (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

and vice versa. Please provide a reliable source for your statement. You have very little knowledge about climatology and meteorology. Your comparison to Oslo is nonsense. Oslo has a temperate climate, Rome has subtropical climate (Mediterranean climate). Please, you compare even the Macapá or Singapore, with tropical climate. So, you think in subtropical and tropical climate, summer lasts only four months? Very funny. Do not you know that typical four seasons apply in only a temperate climate? Even a major articles about this says, quote "In temperate and subpolar regions, generally four calendar-based seasons (with their adjectives) are recognized: spring (vernal), summer (estival), autumn (autumnal) and winter (hibernal)", in tropical and subtropical regions is otherwise. Subtropical-man (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking me to provide a source to demonstrate that Rome has four seasons? It is common knowledge, and it's you who are defying common knowledge, not me. Try to read this one, just as an example. Rome is in the middle of the temperate zone and its four seasons are precisely one of the defining factors of Rome's climate. There's no way an average high of 21 °C (70 °F) and an average low of 11 °C (52 °F) could be defined as "summer", especially in a city with a hot-summer climate. Even in most of the temperate zone these temperatures are spring-like. If you like, we can ask for a 3rd opinion. Otherwise, your assertions must go. --Fertuno (talk) 08:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Quotation: "Rome is in the middle of the temperate zone"? Nonsense. All the sources say - a 'Mediterranean climate' or simple 'subtropical' for Rome. And also "Four months - April, May, October and November - are transitional, with daily temperatures hovering between 15 and 20 °C (59 and 68 °F), night-time temperatures between 6 to 12 °C (43 to 54 °F)" - in May and October daily temperatures between 15 and 20 °C (59 and 68 °F)??? Knock, knock, knock??? Do not you know that - in May and October daily temperatures between 20 and 24 °C (68 and 75 °F) and night-time temperatures between 10 to 15 °C (50 to 59 °F) (larger fluctuations in temperature are rare). We can wait for the opinion of third parties, for now I remove the disputed portion. How will the consensus, then we insert this content to article. Subtropical-man (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll gladly wait for a 3rd opinion, but let me say you seem to like personal feelings more than hard data, which I've already provided. First of all, check the definition of temperate zone, you'll discover that Rome is in the very middle of it. Secondly, you still should provide a reliable source proving that Mediterranean summers last six months. Thirdly, average high in October at Rome airport is 21.4 °C (70.5 °F) while average low is 11.3 °C (52.3 °F). There could be days with temperatures over 24 °C (75 °F) just like there could be days with temperatures below 5 °C (41 °F). Check for instance the archive for October 2009, a pretty average October. Absolute high for the month was 21 °C (70 °F), absolute low was 3 °C (37 °F). Seventeen days had a low below or equal to 10 °C (50 °F). On seven the low was below or equal to 5 °C (41 °F). Seventeen days didn't get above 15 °C (59 °F). And you call this summer? Knock, knock, knock? --Fertuno (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What??? "Seventeen days didn't get above 15 °C (59 °F)"? Nonsense. Only two days has a temperature below 15 °C (59 °F) and 3 nights has a temperature below 5 °C (41 °F). This is the margin and in the coldest October in recent years. What??? "average high in October at Rome airport is 21.4 °C (70.5 °F) while average low is 11.3 °C (52.3 °F). There could be days with temperatures over 24 °C (75 °F)"? Nonsense. October in Rome each year has the temperatures =>25 °C (77 °F). You write nonsense. The next case: are warmer and cooler October, depending on the year. You have entered a cooler version (6 days with temperatures below 17 degrees). But, please see - last data (2011) - 9 days above 25 °C (77 °F), 16 days between 20 °C (68 °F) and 25 °C (77 °F) and only 6 days between 18 °C (64 °F) and 20 °C (68 °F) or 2008 (season before your example): 6 days =>25 °C (77 °F), 23 days between 20 °C (68 °F) and 25 °C (77 °F) and only 2 days between 18 °C (64 °F) and 20 °C (68 °F) = 29 days with below 20 °C (68 °F). Second: June - first month of the summer - in the northern part of Europe, also has temperatures below 17 degrees. So according to you in June in the northern half of Europe is not summer? Ok ;) Explanation for you: this is because, that this bordering months (bordered by the spring), similarly October and May in the Rome - have the right to be spring and autumn temperatures. Knock, knock, knock? To sum up: June, first month of the summer in the northern half of Europe (eg London, Berlin, Brussels etc.) is equivalent to the May and October in Rome (first and last month of the summer), with very similar average temperatures during the days and at nights. In both cases, there may be a typical spring or autumn temperatures. Subtropical-man (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Gosh. What have the temperatures in Northern Europe got to do with anything!? Why should temperatures in Brussels or London be used as the basis for defining summer in Rome, and not for instance temperatures in Rome be used as the basis for defining summers in London and Brussels? Even in October 2011, which stood above average, there were 11 nights out of 31 with temperatures lower or equal to 10 °C (50 °F), and an absolute low of 6 °C (43 °F). How can you call 6 °C (43 °F) summer, especially in a place where summer temperatures routinely go over 32 °C (90 °F)? What's wrong with defining October a transitional month, as I did? --Fertuno (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Gosh. "Even in October 2011, which stood above average, there were 11 nights out of 31 with temperatures lower or equal to 10 °C (50 °F), and an absolute low of 6 °C (43 °F)" Even in June 2011 in London, which stood above average, there were 13 nights out of 31 with temperatures lower or equal to 10 °C (50 °F), and an absolute low of 6 °C (43 °F). And what? Please see: Bogota in Colombia, year-round in the night has temperatures lower than 10 °C (50 °F). And what? do not have the summers? Bogota has summers, with average temperatures of around 20 °C (68 °F) during the day. Third case: transitional months in Rome are April and November, because both - the April and November has warm 20 °C (68 °F)(summer) and cool 10 °C (50 °F) (winter) temperatures, with the average temperatures in this months of 16–18 °C (61–64 °F). Subtropical-man (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

For the upteenth time: what has the climate in London or Bogota got to do with anything?. London has an oceanic climate and Bogota has a highland climate. What has this to do with Rome's mediterranean climate? Rome has warmer springs and autumns than London: granted. This doesn't turn them into summer. In Reykjavik summer temperatures are 12 °C (54 °F), does this make summer in London lasting from April to November, because April in London is warmer than July in Reykjavik? Mean temperature in Rome is 25 °C (77 °F) in August, 16 °C (61 °F) in October and 12 °C (54 °F) in November. October is a mere 4 °C (39 °F) warmer than November but 9 °C (48 °F) cooler than August. According to you, that doesn't matter, and October is an unquestionably "summer" month despite being much cooler than the actual summer, and having low temperatures of 6–8 °C (43–46 °F) occurring on many nights each year. --Fertuno (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

First: I gave other examples (London, Bogota etc) in order that you understand. You still write the temperatures at night, because I gave an example - Bogota. Why do you think 22 °C (72 °F) in Rome is autumn, while, in London is summer? Already there is something wrong. This is the same temperatures!! Second: Reykjavik is absurd example because there are no such temperatures (>20 °C (68 °F)), better give Antarctica ;) Third: July and August is middle summer, not "typical" summer. Summer takes May-June-July-August-September-October (23-26-30-30-26-22 degrees). Fourth: quotation "having low temperatures of 6–8 °C (43–46 °F) occurring on many nights each year" - a few days a year and not each year. Similarly, in June (the beginning of summer) in London, Berlin etc. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

22 °C (72 °F) in Rome is spring and 22 °C (72 °F) in London is summer because those cities have different climates. It would be a meaningful comparision if they had the same climate. They don't, so it's useless to use London's climate as the standard for defining Rome's seasons. And why not using Rome's climate as the standard for defining London's seasons while we're at it? Rome has a daytime high of 30 °C (86 °F) in July, that is why 22 °C (72 °F) is spring. Btw, teperatures lower than 6 °C (43 °F) A FEW days a year? Now you are just talking nonsense. Rome has night lows below 6 °C (43 °F) on average from mid-November to the end of March. I'm sorry but you didn't manage to provide any reliable source for your assertions and you arguments don't make any sense. --Fertuno (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Quotation: "22 °C (72 °F) in Rome is spring and 22 °C (72 °F) in London is summer because those cities have different climates" - it does not matter. This is only empty words. The facts are that this is the same summer's temperature. Quotation: "Rome has a daytime high of 30 °C (86 °F) in July, that is why 22 °C (72 °F) is spring" - nonsense and just a funny text.... and not better "Rome has a daytime high of 30 °C in August, that is why 22 °C (72 °F) is spring in Mars and Greenland"? Hehehe. Sorry. Now, seriously. Summer takes May-June-July-August-September-October (23-26-30-30-26-22 degrees). Quotation: "teperatures lower than 6 °C (43 °F) A FEW days a year? Now you are just talking nonsense. Rome has night lows below 6 °C (43 °F) on average from mid-November to the end of March" - I wrote not in this sense, Rome has only a few days in October and not each year temperatures below 6 °C (43 °F) at night. It was a reply to your text "October is an unquestionably "summer" month despite being much cooler than the actual summer, and having low temperatures of 6–8 °C (43–46 °F) occurring on many nights each year". PS: previously you written "Rome is in the middle of the temperate zone", London has temperate climate. Later then you write: "those cities have different climates". Are you sane? Subtropical-man (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The temperate zone is not a climate type. Check the relative article. I won't waste more time in this debate. --Fertuno (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Rome is the capital of Italy,and holds around 3 million residents — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.90.199 (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Flag colors are wrong

The flag used in the document has wrong colors; I have forwarded a request to update flag in wikimedia commons