Talk:Murus Romuli

Classical Greece and Rome High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Roman & Byzantine C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force

Copied from public domain text

The article is copied directly from "The Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome" by Rodolfo Lanciani; Houghton Mifflin, 1897 - the only online source is http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=97545903

The book is clearly out of copyright so this isn't a copyvio. But there may be database rights issues. The Questia site carries the following notice: "You are not permitted to copy any portion of our site for distribution to others other than in the normal course of your personal or academic research." andy 08:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book "The Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome" by Rodolfo Lanciani is available in full as PDF from Google Books. Other sources there may also be relevant. I'm no Roman Scholar, but I'm not a bad editor. I'll take a look at what's here and see if I can't organize it to fit standards better. Narasinha (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the fact that the physical book itself exists, if the material is out of copyright, the database claims are entirely irrelevant to repetition of its contents. They would be within their rights to consider an 'infringer' a persona non grata and cut off further access to their system but there wouldn't be a claim against having the public domain material up elsewhere. — LlywelynII 00:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup done

I've done some copy-editing on the article, cleaned up the intro paragraph, added sources, and wikified. I believe this should take care of the clean-up notices for the time being, so I'm removing all four from the article (Copyedit, Wikify, Unreferenced, context). Narasinha (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More cleanup needed

The huge blockquote from Lanciani is interesting but highly misleading. There's more in Lanciani that should be added back into the article with citation, but his objections against Tacitus aren't well taken. Tacitus says the route included the Altar of Hercules and ran along the base of the Palatine to the Altar of Consus. That pointedly does not involve drawing a straight line between the two endpoints. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of that. Similarly, the route hugging the base of the Palatine means that it would've specifically avoided the conjectural marshes complained about. The cippi weren't set up at the time (a wall—theoretically—was) but at a much later date before being removed entirely before the time of Tacitus. We don't need to shoot all that down ourselves if no one has bothered to refute him about this in print yet, but we shouldn't just hang up his blockquote as if it's authoritative and complete. — LlywelynII 00:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]