Talk:Roman Empire: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
←Replaced content with 'HI' Tag: talk page blanking |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
HI |
|||
{{skiptotoctalk}} |
|||
{{talk header|noarchive=yes}} |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|{{Classical Greece and Rome|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|||
{{WP City of Rome| class=B | importance=Top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject History|class=B|importance=high}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Former countries|class=B|B-Class-1=yes|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes}}}} |
|||
{{archives |
|||
|auto= short |
|||
|index= /Archive index |
|||
|search= yes |
|||
|bot= MiszaBot |
|||
|age= 30 |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|||
|target=Talk:Roman Empire/Archive index |
|||
|mask=Talk:Roman Empire/Archive <#> |
|||
|leading_zeros=0 |
|||
|indexhere=yes}} |
|||
<!-- Metadata: see [[User:MiszaBot I]] --> |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|||
|counter = 7 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 10 |
|||
|algo = old(30d) |
|||
|archive = Talk:Roman Empire/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
== A clearer map, please == |
|||
I had to stare at the map of the extent of the Roman Empire for some time before I realized what I was looking at. Perhaps it's evident to someone more intimately familiar with the geography (I'm from the US, not Europe / Africa) but in its current state it looks like one of those what-is-it [[Optical illusion#Explanation_of_cognitive_illusions|optical illusions]] or a [[Rorschach inkblot test]]. |
|||
How about something as simple as labeling the Mediterranean Sea |
|||
Thanks. |
|||
== Infobox == |
|||
Why does the successor in the infobox now link to the "[[Late Roman empire (after 312)]]" (a nonexistent article)? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Empire&oldid=313246128 Only recently], there were links to the [[Byzantine Empire]] and the [[Western Roman Empire]]. [[User:Hayden120|Hayden120]] ([[User talk:Hayden120|talk]]) 06:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
: Indeed rather, maybe the author wanted to write a new article, but that still seems misplaced i see no real significance in the date of 312, other than the (early) rise of constantin maybe (his 312 conquest of Rome), which may have somewhat changed the original 4 emperor model by diocletian, however i never saw that as an explicit distinction in literature. another oddity the infobox contains now is, that western empire starts in 284 (diocletian) but the eastern empire in 330 (building of constantinopel). But assigning it this way means there was an western empire without an eastern part, which makes no sense.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 08:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== SPQR? == |
|||
Apropos the Info box: I'm not perfectly knowledgeable in this, but isn't it always '''S.P.Q.R.''' with abbreviation dots? I believe abbreviation dots were obligatory for the Romans. ... said: [[User:Rursus|Rursus]] ([[User talk:Rursus|'''<span style="color: #CC0044; background: #CCFF88"><sup>m</sup><u>bork³</u></span>''']]) 15:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I think I'm going to answer it myself: images such as on [http://www.ancients.info/forums/showthread.php?t=2273] shows that it was customary to skip the dots on coins. ... said: [[User:Rursus|Rursus]] ([[User talk:Rursus|'''<span style="color: #CC0044; background: #CCFF88"><sup>m</sup><u>bork³</u></span>''']]) 15:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::The dots in ancient Roman inscriptions do not represent abbreviations (punctuation was largely inexistent in antiquity), but divide words from one another. If you take a look, for instance, at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pantheon_rome_2005may.jpg Pantheon] inscription, the dot appears even after complete words (Agrippa, tertium). These were by no means obligatory - you'll find a lot of inscriptions without them. Regards, [[User:Varana|Varana]] ([[User talk:Varana|talk]]) 18:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Capital == |
|||
Look ppl, we have to clarify the issue of the capital. I'm inclined to agree with the current: |
|||
*Rome was the sole political capital until AD 286 |
|||
*Under the Tetrarchy there were several political centres, while Rome continued to be the nominal, cultural, and ideological capital of the entire empire. |
|||
*Under the rule of Constantine the empire changed capital from Rome to Constantinople. |
|||
*After the division of the empire to its east and west part, the west part had Mediolanum then Ravenna as capital. |
|||
However the last two sentences can be further improved, perhaps: |
|||
*Constantine established the city of Constantinople as the new capital in (date - with the link). Milan was its western counterpart during the increasingly often divisions of the empire. |
|||
*After the death of Theodosius in 395 came the final division. The western imperial court was reallocated to Ravenna in 402. |
|||
This is just a proposal, and can be changed. [[User:Flamarande|Flamarande]] ([[User talk:Flamarande|talk]]) 12:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Mistranslation of SPQR == |
|||
SPQR, or Senatus Populusque Romanus has been mistranslated in this article as "The Senate and People of Rome". Romanus is a second declension adjective; the noun is Roma, a first declension noun. The correct translation would be "The Roman Senate and People", as Romanus is modifying Senatus and Populus. For it to translate as "The Senate and People of Rome", the Latin would have to read "Senatus Populusque Romae" with Roma in the genitive possessive. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.19.235.158|24.19.235.158]] ([[User talk:24.19.235.158|talk]]) 03:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:You should raise this point at the respective article: [[SPQR]]. [[User:Flamarande|Flamarande]] ([[User talk:Flamarande|talk]]) 11:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
The Latin adjective Romanus, Romana, Romanum means "Roman" which, in itself, means "of Rome", so the original translation should stand without emendation. [[User:MAKLatin|MAKLatin]] ([[User talk:MAKLatin|talk]]) 04:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Agreed; one has to realize that translations are by their very nature a tricky business. Sometimes the literal (word for word) translation gives a different result as the 'translation of the whole sentence'. The second kind tries to follow the original meaning (spirit). IMHO the second one is (most of the time) simply better. "The Senate and People of Rome" stays. [[User:Flamarande|Flamarande]] ([[User talk:Flamarande|talk]]) 14:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== We need a statue bust for Claudius II Gothicus! == |
|||
He was a good emperor despite his short reign, and I've seen busts of him out there. |
|||
We finally gave [[Galerius]] a statue bust recently. We're gradually improving the articles of emperors!--[[User:Tataryn77|Tataryn77]] ([[User talk:Tataryn77|talk]]) 23:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== han == |
|||
okay here you go with the old stuff we need new things that is about the old history and all of thAT good stuff <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.242.146.148|76.242.146.148]] ([[User talk:76.242.146.148|talk]]) 01:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== should we use bce or bc; ad or ce == |
|||
i was wondering in order to be politically sensitive to non Christians should we refer all bc as bce. historians are using bce[[User:Javiern|Javiern]] ([[User talk:Javiern|talk]]) 01:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:The overwhelming majority of the English-speaking world uses BC/AD. To be "politically sensitive" is twisting a language along political correct lines. [[User:Flamarande|Flamarande]] ([[User talk:Flamarande|talk]]) 04:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
However, the overwhelming majority of scientists, educators, scholars and non-Christian religious leaders have been using the BCE and CE designations for many years now, and in Jewish scholarship it has been used for over a century. It has nothing to do with politically correct and everything to do with being impartial and not favoring one religion over the other, as the use of BC and AD are exclusively Christian in nature and do not apply to most cultures on Earth.Saloli 21:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Saloli|Saloli]] ([[User talk:Saloli|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Saloli|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Sorry, but BCE/CE has '''everything''' to do with political correctness. The English language is a product with an undeniable Christian background and to twist it into "an impartial product" is playing politics. This is supposed to the the ''English language wiki'' and not the ''impartial/political correct wiki''. The overwhelming majority of English books, films, TV documentaries use BC/AD, and BCE/CE is largely unknown in many quarters. |
|||
:BC/AD is only the most common dating system, '''nothing more and nothing less'''. To argue that a non-Christian is automatically hurt by the use of BC/AD is laughable, and one can only wonder how/why such a person cared to learn such a "Christian language" at all. [[User:Flamarande|Flamarande]] ([[User talk:Flamarande|talk]]) 23:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Current vs Past Tense == |
|||
In the last sentence of the antepenultimate paragraph of the section "Crisis of the Third Century and the later emperors (235–395)," "choose" is used despite "chose" being the grammatically correct choice. I'd fix it myself, but the article is locked. [[User:Humicroav|Humicroav]] ([[User talk:Humicroav|talk]]) 00:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Page protection == |
|||
This article has been page protected since 17 March 2009.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Roman+Empire]<br> Abbot's (1901:312) characterization of [[Domitian]] is only his opinion,[http://www.archive.org/stream/historydescripti00abbouoft/historydescripti00abbouoft_djvu.txt] and should not be presented, as it is here, as fact.[[Special:Contributions/98.203.142.17|98.203.142.17]] ([[User talk:98.203.142.17|talk]]) 08:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:In theory, semi-protection means that IPs post to the talk page, where established editors then evaluate their proposed changes. |
|||
:In practice, semi-protection means that IPs' posts are ignored, since they can't change the article anyway.[[Special:Contributions/98.203.142.17|98.203.142.17]] ([[User talk:98.203.142.17|talk]]) 07:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
My name is Nakeisha Danielle Moore and i go to yorktown middle school <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/65.24.195.229|65.24.195.229]] ([[User talk:65.24.195.229|talk]]) 00:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Revision as of 15:08, 18 February 2010
HI