Talk:Cardo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Israel (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Urban studies and planning (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Heart[edit]

"Kardio-" is from Greek. Latin for "heart" is "cor". You have to go to Indoeuropean to relate them.

Cardus[edit]

Is the same word cardo and cardus?

Yes, maybe we should put this article under cardus? The Cardo in Jerusalem and in Petra is a type of cardus. --Frosty 10:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This should be merged with Cardus Maximus. Fishal 04:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apamea[edit]

Added paragraph about the Cardio Maximus of Apamea, Syria from an article I'm currently drafting about the ancient city. --Tregonsee 02:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Previous comments[edit]

1.someone asked if 'cardo' is the same as 'cardus'. since its a latin word, we should refer to latin for the answer. latin wiki calls it 'cardo' ('cardinis' in certain situations). 'cardus' is not used. all other wikis call the 2 streets 'cardo' and 'decumanus' (using the 2 original latin words). only romance language wikis call them differently (using modern variations in the respective languages). latin wiki even specifically states 'cardo maximus' and 'decumanus maximus'. so 'cardo' is not 'cardus' as stated by Frosty, and the article should not be moved to 'cardus'.

2. nor should it be merged with 'cardus maximus' (or 'cardo maximus' as stated in my point #1). all other wikis have articles for all generic north-south and east-west streets, 'cardo' or 'decumanus'. they dont have articles specifically for the 2 principal streets, 'maximus's. only english wiki does a mixture, with the generic 'cardo' and the specific 'decumanus maximus'. either have them both 'max' or both generic, but not mixed. the article should not dedicated entirely to the 'cardo maximus', as stated by Fishal, instead 'decumanus' should be changed to correspond with this article and match its other wiki counterparts.

3. 'cardo' and 'cardo maximus' is like saying 'street' and 'main street'. just because 60% of this article deals with the cardo in jerusalem doesnt mean that the entire article now pertains to WikiProject:Israel. other countries have 'main street's and 'cardo's. just like several countries have a 'central business district' not just Australia, and you wouldnt put that article under WikiProject:Australia. nor 'downtown' under WikiProject:United States.

4. the categories in both the article and this talk page should not reflect specific cities. only Jerusalem cats appear, none for Petra nor Apamea. to be fair, EVERY city around the world with a historic 'cardo' should be listed (which i dont recommend). instead categories for this article should reflect historic transportation/infrastructure/civil engineering practices.

5. the concept of a 'cardo' doesnt belong to just one specific city and its culture. if so, then Roman, not Israeli. the article is slowly gearing itself to be israeli-centric. there are tags for articles that become too specific to one region/culture. this article will soon deserve one also, unless more is mentioned about the over-all general idea of cardo/decumanus, its various uses, adaptations to different regions, and technological development.

6. surviving/famous examples can be mentioned throughout the article, but detailed analysis of each specific cardo should be in a section at the bottom of the article. refer to any article about other civil engineering structures. 'dam' and 'bridge' talk about their respective concepts. their 'Examples' sections list actual dams/bridges. and if an example becomes long and detailed, a separate article is created solely for that one example. which could also be done here. Ivansevil 01:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to add other categories and more information to round out the article. Instead of complaining about some "perceived" bias (which is definitely in your mind), research the topic and fix it.--Gilabrand 05:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
im not complaining, just pointing out an un-encyclopedic structure and ways to improve upon it. nor do i think there's a "bias", i said israel-centricity, which means the article is unbalanced in favor of 1 example. im not anti-semitic, if that's how it seemed. ur right, more info can be added about other cities/cardos to balance the article out. but what also needs to be done is the WP:Israel tag and israeli categories need to be removed (in favor of engineering/transportation tags and cats). as for the research/fix part, that's why i posted this comment, so someone who knows more about cardos can add more. Ivansevil 23:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem is your misunderstanding of what tags and categories are about. One category doesn't cancel out the other - you are welcome to add others. WP Israel tags mean that the article has relevance for Israel, but that doesn't mean it isn't relevant to other categories and Wikiprojects. The idea is not to delete what is there, but to add others.If you know of appropriate ones, please go ahead!--Gilabrand 16:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Ivansevil, for contacting me about a comment I made almost 3 years ago! IMO, both this article and the Decumanus Maximus article are awfully underdeveloped, even after all these years. I feel they should be merged into something called Roman city planning or something similar, which would discuss the general plan of Roman cities and the basic concepts of cardo and decumanus. Fishal 19:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)