Talk:Londinium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Lingua Gallica / Gaulish?[edit]

Gaulish was the Celtic language spoken by the Gauls of what is now France, Belgium, etc.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe it was a commonly spoken language in Roman London. The local Celtic language was British or Brythonic: the ancestor of Welsh, Breton and Cornish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.29.215 (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone seems to have already removed whatever you were talking about, but Londinium would have been a hodgepodge of official Latin, provincial Brittonic, and Gaulish. Whatever the Belgae's version of Celtic was (and it either was Gaulish or some close kin of it), it may have been the primary language initially spoken by the inhabitants, given the success of the Belgic Catuvellauni in the area in the century between the Roman invasions. Beyond that, there would have been plenty of Gallic merchants from Gesoriacum and further afield. — LlywelynII 15:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Name[edit]

Shouldn't the title of this article be returned to the name Roman London?[edit]

Also in the section for Populated places established in the 1st century it now lists Londinium and London both despite the fact that it is both the same place. Londinium is after all just the Roman language translation of London.70.178.153.27 (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Roman London would be a more logical title however many (see below) seem to disagree. But Londinium is not the translation of anything. The Romans founded the city and Londinium was its name for centuries (except when they tried to call it Augusta for a while). TheMathemagician (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Londinium is certainly a translation of something. It's not Latin for anything but [Celtic placename] and some Celtic placename was intermediate between the Latin and Old English names. That said, whatever that name was, it's much less common in English-language sources than the attested Latin one. — LlywelynII 15:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. -- tariqabjotu 01:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


Roman LondonLondinium – No consensus on talk while back, one individual seemed to think that because there are articles named Anglo-Saxon London and Roman Britain, Londinium is not consistent. So he moved it. But Londinium is well known, and the WP:COMMONNAME for this topic. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 06:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Abductive (reasoning) 04:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. I haven't formed an opinion about this, but (and I hope no one starts shouting about "other stuff") would offer Lugdunum and Mediolanum for comparison. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment It is not an easy question. I prefer using the Roman name, but I can think of some cases where that would be difficult (though this isn't one of them). As long as a redirect is in place (which it obviously is), is this a burning issue? Nev1 (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is a burning issue. It is very disconcerting for the reader to be redirected, and signals to them that there is something wrong with "Londinium". Abductive (reasoning) 05:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Let me throw this out: there's a slight difference between Londinium and Roman London that has to do with scope. In some articles where Roman is used to modify a place name, it means "Roman-era", referring specifically to the history and culture of the place under Roman rule/influence. The Latin or Latinized name alone (as with Mediolanum) usually encompasses the full period under which the place was known by this name, which might range from the time when it entered history under its Latin/Latinized name (pre-Roman rule) through some time in the Middle Ages, when Latin names were still commonly used in official documents. The scope of this article seems to be just the Roman period. I'm not sure I agree that having Londinium as a redirect signals that something is wrong with the name, though since it's used a lot in the article it should probably be in bold in the first sentence as an alternate title, and not just a parenthetical. That still isn't an opinion either way. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is part of a series of periods in London's history. If we moved this to Londinium, then logically we would also have to have articles for Lundenwic and Lundenburgh and all of the other previous incarnations of the name. G-13114 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    You could equally argue it's part of a series of articles on Roman settlements, such as Mamucium, Deva Victrix, Camulodunum, and Viroconium Cornoviorum. I don't think the question should be "what pattern does this best fit into" but "is there a strong argument for one name over the other". Nev1 (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    I doubt that Lundenwic and Lundenburgh are commonly known names. That is the metric Wikipedia follows. Abductive (reasoning) 05:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support In general I prefer the Roman/Latin names for all articles of Roman places; not only for Roman London. BTW: most non-English articles on Wikipedia are called Londinium. -- Udimu (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree that Londinium is a commonly-used and appropriate title for this subject. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Another reason for not moving it to Londinium, is that it was renamed Augusta some time in the 4th century [1][2]. I think it used to mention that in the article, but that seems to have been removed. G-13114 (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. We should use a name rather than a description, provided that there is a reasonably well-known name for the subject. See this ngram. Kauffner (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. A proper name should be always preferable. Reiftyr (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is about a period of history rather than a historical city name. Gem (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: WP:COMMONNAME per nominator. Precedent for having other Roman-era settlements at their Roman names. The example Anglo-Saxon names above are not Common Names and thus wouldn't generally be searched for, but if you wish those articles to be changed too then maybe make a Move Request accordingly, though be careful of WP:POINT. - Cheers, JCJ of Burwell (Talk) 09:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nothing about its other ancient name?[edit]

After the defeat of Allectus, Londinium was said to have been renamed "Augusta", in honor of Constantius Chlorus. (Source: Shepperd Frere, Britannica.) The name stuck for some time, for Ammianus Marcellinus, writing in the 3rd quarter of the 4th C., refers to Roman London as "Augusta". I'm citing all this from memory, so confirm my sources before adding this to the article. -- llywrch (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This is already briefly mentioned in the article. However, the reasons for the change of name are unknown. All explanations are pure speculation. With the name Augusta the city appears in several sources. best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Better treatment and bolding. It almost certainly wasn't Augusta tout suite (too damned many of them), but we need a source for Augusta Britanniarum, Augusta Londiniensis, or whathaveyou. — LlywelynII 16:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

There was a cite and always loathe to remove those, but WP:NOTDICTIONARY. There is nothing abnormal or difficult about pronouncing Londinium as LUN-DIN-EE-UM and we should just port that to the Wiktionary entry. The Classical Latin pronunciation would have been unusual (LON-DEEN-EE-OOM) but it's not particularly noteworthy in any sense: modern English speakers wouldn't say it that way, modern Latin speakers may not, and period Latin speakers probably had some Brittonic lilt. Leave it at Wiktionary or include a passage on Latin, British Latin, and English pronunciations in the #Name section. — LlywelynII 16:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"Important Buildings"[edit]

It's rather nonsensical to lump all of them from various eras together as if they formed one atemporal city, particularly when only minimal information about dating and excavation is being addressed. We could use a section on currently extant remains (particularly those open to the public) and the old section could be redone with more information here or at a page like "buildings of Roman London". Really, though, I think it's better to address their creation when they were created; their excavation when they were excavated; extensive details at their dedicated pages; and their location by adding more to an already well-done map. — LlywelynII 00:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Art[edit]

Some other art discovered in London include these guys, if anyone takes a liking: — LlywelynII 15:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Londinium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dudley Miles (talk · contribs) 16:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I will take this one. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid this article is a long way from GA standard.

  • There is no source for the lead image and the note for it is unreferenced.
  • The next map of Roman Britain has text so small that (on my screen) some of the text is illegible.
  • According to Wikipedia rules, images of coins are copyright if taken from websites or copyright books.
  • There are a number of "citation needed" markers. These should be dealt with before GAN.
  • Some of the sources cited - e.g. refs 2, 3, and 16 - are original sources. This is original research.
  • Notes should give the information needed, not refer to another note, particularly where no page numbers are given, as with note 8.
  • Citation styles are erratic and inconsistent and erratic. Merrifield's London, City of the Romans is frequently cited, yet it is not in the list of references. It is cited in note 29 but details of the book are not given until note 40.
  • The arrangement of books in the references section is erratic. They should be in alphabetical order of surname of author, which should be shown before the forename.
  • The discussion of the origin of the name London is unsatisfactory. "Instead, the Latin name was probably based on a native Brittonic placename reconstructed as *Londinion." This is referenced to an 1889 work as endorsed by a 1911 work. This is far too dated. It is unclear how the 9th century History of the Britons is relevant to the origin over 800 years earlier. Modern discussions are by Schrijver and Coates (referred to in the notes and discussed in more detail in Etymology of London article). I have a copy of Coates' article which I can email to you if you wish.
  • The section on location is unreferenced.
  • The section on status has 2 "citation needed".
  • The founding section has "citation needed" and the last paragraph is unreferenced.
  • Roads section. The last part of the first paragraph is unreferenced and another "citation needed".
  • Boudicca. The quote from Tacitus is WP:OR and the last comment that "no supporting archaeological evidence has been discovered" is cited to an 1878 source, which is far too old for such a statement.
  • 1st century - another "citation needed".
  • 2nd century - the 2st paragraph and most of the 3rd are unreferenced.
  • London Wall - 2 more "citation needed" and the end of all 3 paragaraphs are unreferenced.
  • Carausian Revolt - the last 2 sentences are unreferenced.
  • 4th century - the last sentences in the 1st and 3rd paragraphs are unreferenced.
  • 5th century - another "citation needed" and most of the first paragraph is unreferenced.
  • There is the basis of a good article here, but it needs far more work, so I regret I have to fail it. Do nominate it again once the issues have been dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Population figures[edit]

There is currently an edit war going on about whether the population of Londinium was 30,000 or 60,000 in AD100. Neither involved editor has bothered to discuss things on the talk page. I believe 60,000 is excessive. I don't have sources to hand, but a quick search found this: a "possible suggestion of a population in AD60/61, therefore, would be about 10,000; a population of about 25,000 – 30,000 in AD100/120 and, although the area in AD200 is calculated as being larger, property density was falling so a slightly smaller population of about 25,000 might be suggested for AD200". [3]. This has a source: "Londinium and Beyond: Essays on Roman London and Its Hinterland" from 2008, the chapter titled "The Population of Roman London" - locating it would stop the ongoing warring. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarification needed[edit]

The phrase sentence: Although Londinium remained important for the rest of the Roman period, it appears never to have recovered fully from this slump, as archaeologists have found that much of the city after this date was covered in dark earth has been tagged as unclear. Can anyone please succinctly describe what is unclear? -- Paleorthid (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

A question for @Dinkytown:. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks @Paleorthid:, Thanks @Nev1: - The issue was the term "dark earth", which assumes has a specific meaning and subject. The page of dark earth also is not well written and unclear. Of course, earth is "dark", does that mean that the soil was not tilled? Was tilled? Waist debris? Runoff? Manure? etc. If an archaeologists says this, what does that mean and why is that important? The rest of the sentence was okay IMHO. Dinkytown talk 01:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I think I understand the intended meaning. Note that the context prior is all about extensive permanent structures: forum and basilica were the largest north of the Alps. Construction stopped in the the second half of the 2nd century, after which (the layer of dark earth tells us that) Londinium had a stable settled population that failed to put up anything to write about fortification-or-big-structure-wise, but it had a population dense enough to cause dark earth formation. A more succinct rewrite should be workable. -- Paleorthid (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I think I also understand the meaning, but I was hoping it could be more specific, such as the meaning of 'dark earth'; I assume as common household debris from settlement occupation, i.e. household waste, manure, non-farm byproduct of settlement occupation, etc. But why would 'dark earth' be important in this case? If Londinium was founded in 43AD, did the city have this dark earth continuously throughout the Roman and Medieval Period? Is it proof of continuous occupation because of the presence of this dark earth? Why was it proof that Londinium was a smaller city because of this dark earth (per the article)? The problem also is that the 'dark earth' page is not very clear, too much technical jargon, and - even though I am a History Major, I was confused by the description. Sorry for the trouble... Dinkytown talk 01:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I made some additional clarifications to dark earth. Let see what happens... Dinkytown talk 01:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Londinium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

David Sankey[edit]

The link is to a 19th US senator rather than the Museum of London chap it should be. Can a suitable redirect be added (and additions to the 'Sankey' disambiguation page). Jackiespeel (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted the link as there is no article on this David Sankey. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
'Usual creative mis-assignment/linking process' There is a 'person page' on the web for the relevant DS which might be more appropriate. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I am not clear what you are suggesting. Links to external sources are forbidden in main text. They are only allowed in references. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I was highlighting that material can be found on 'this' DS.

Can my accidental change be reverted - the Londonwiki and WP pages reversed on the screen. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Possibly Chinese skeletons found in Roman cemetery[edit]

See[4] and [5] - which emphasises the 'possible'. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not have access to the first source, but the second seems to say that the results are far too tentative for a change to the Wiki article. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, see Talk:Sino-Roman relations#Some evidence for people of 'East Asian' ancestry living in Roman London. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Londinium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Londinium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Use of the term "Seem" or "Seems to have".[edit]

This is poor writing style and indicates ambiguity or opinion. When I read this word or term in an WP article, I generally discount the whole thing. By my count, the word "seem" occurs 13 times in this article. That is Not Good. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to improve. PepperBeast (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)