Talk:Rome/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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)

Snowfalls

It is said in the article that major snowfalls occur in the city once every 20-25 years. That's definitely not true if we consider the whole XX century, or at least the second half of it: major events (>10 cm) occur actually once every 10-15 years. In fact, major events from the end of WWII have occurred in 1956, 1965, 1971, 1985, 1986, 2012, with minor events (5-10 cm) occurring much more frequently. http://www.meteo-net.it/articoli/storiconeve.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.35.238.67 (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Economy outdated?

Under the econ section, most of the information seems to date circa 2005 and 2003; not sure of relevance, or perhaps even misleading, pending to the 2008 crash and etc events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.22.186.149 (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

City limits - GRA is not the city limit

I'm a modern roman. The GRA is not the city limit. I live in the outer part and when somebody writes me he's got to write "Rome" in the "city" space. Actually about one third of the entire population of Rome lives outside the GRA. Including Lido di Ostia. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.225.7 (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There should really be an article for the GRA, separate from this one. The article seems to imply there is one (province?), but inserts information anyway. This article should confine itself to Rome "city limits," that area served by Rome police (unless national!), taxed by the city of Rome, sewage and water from the city, etc. In some cities, this lucid definition is not possible because the state runs everything. Student7 (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced material

I am going to remove this sentence unless someone can back it up, or change it so it doesn't cite a broken link, and instead is verifiable.


"Monuments and museums such as the Vatican Museums and the Colosseum are among the world's 50 most visited tourist destinations (the Vatican Museums receiving 4.2 million tourists and the Colosseum receiving 4 million tourists every year)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taintedstreetlight (talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Birds

I'm kind of a big bird fan and I was just wondering if you could insert a section on what type of birds live in Rome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentacledstraw3 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Principle, not Principal

At the beginning of the section "Economy" you have the phrase: "Rome hosts all the principal institutions of the nation". It should have "principle" and not "principal".

George Benton Grempczynski (Pulpshmoo) 12 PM Oct. 12, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.108.172 (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Coordinates are off

Pointing almost at Ostia. 46.186.34.99 (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2014

31.50.194.224 (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC) llanarth is not in monmothshire its in Ceredigion sa47 post code!!

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 23:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

New archaeology finds push Rome back

See [1] "evidence of infrastructure building had been found, dating from more than 100 years earlier. The daily Il Messagero quoted Patrizia Fortini, the archaeologist responsible for the Forum, as saying that a wall constructed well before the city's traditional founding date had been unearthed.

The wall, made from blocks of volcanic tuff, appeared to have been built to channel water from an aquifer under the Capitoline hill that flows into the river Spino, a tributary of the Tiber. Around the wall, archaeologists found pieces of ceramic pottery and remains of food.

"The examination of the ceramic material was crucial, allowing us today to fix the wall chronologically between the 9th century and the beginning of the 8th century," said Fortini." Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2014

The last sentence of the first paragraph states "The Vatican City is an independent country within the city boundaries of Rome, the only example of a country within a city existing." I believe 'The' should be omitted, as such "Vatican City is an independent country within the city boundaries of Rome, the only example of a country within a city existing."

You wouldn't say, for example (if such a thing were true) "The Germany is located within Rome" nor would you say "The Paris is located within Rome". So why is 'the' used before the country/city that is properly named Vatican City?? 99.68.209.9 (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Done I think someone merged "the Vatican" and "Vatican City", both correct usages, into "the Vatican City", an incorrect usage. Side note: There are countries that are properly referred to with "the", e.g., the Philippines, the Central African Republic. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2014

hallo! Iwould like to add this image of piazza dlla repubblica in 'neoclassicism' https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piazza_della_repubblica.JPG

thank you!

Valentina Valentina.pier (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

For me no problem, but first this picture should be added to Commons. Alex2006 (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 Not done as it stands. the picture is nominated for deletion. - Arjayay (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I council changing image of the city of Rome on Facebook with: Anfiteatro_Flavio.png
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2015

Hallo! I council changing image of the city of Rome on Facebook. I live in Rome and on Facebook I see the faded flag in my informations. I didn't understand what Technical13 told me because I don't understand very well and English Wikipedia. Try to meet my request taking it in your heart. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anfiteatro_Flavio.png

Thank you!

AureaVis.--AureaVis (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: To talk about: https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussioni_utente:AureaVis&action=edit&section=new

Recent additions

Hallo
I removed a sentence in the lead about the political power of the Popes during the middle ages. The reason is clear: this is an article about Rome as city, not about the history of Rome. In the lead, which should be kept as compact as possible, should be summarised the most important points about the city: the political power of the popes for sure is not one of these. This sentence belongs to the history (middle Ages) section, and there it plays an important role, since the political power of the papacy during the middle ages until now has not been enough underlined. Good examples of lead are for example those in the Paris or London articles. Alex2006 (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2015

In the third paragraph, please change "After the Fall of the Empire, which marked the begin of the Middle Ages," to "After the Fall of the Empire, which marked the beginning of the Middle Ages," 63.139.127.4 (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! Favonian (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Rome in antiquity

The sections on ancient Rome should be about the city of Rome; they aren't. There doesn't seem to be a separate article about the city of Rome in antiquity, either. Rp (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "they aren't"? Explain it better, please. Alex2006 (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Specifically the section "Monarchy, republic, empire" tells us nothing about the city of Rome, while there is a lot to be said. I expect to find information about its number of inhabitants, the different regions of the city and how they were used, the insulae, the important buildings and what they were used for; important events and celebrations; public services and rules; how daily life was organized, etc. I'm reading a book (written in 1938) about this subject; I'll try to add some elementary information. Rp (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Now I understand. :-) You are right. The problem is that Rome was a city state which had an incredible development, and became an empire. But city and Empire coincided ("Romanae spatium est Urbis et Orbis idem"). What we have until now in the article is the political history of the city. What is missing is a chapter with some (three?) paragraphs devoted to its urbanistic history from the ancient Roman era until today. I was thinking to write it, but if you have some good sourced infos, go ahead. Alex2006 (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Please do not hesitate, I have no idea when I will have the time. Rp (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Right now I am moving...When I'll find my books again, I'll do it :-) Alex2006 (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The roman legacy

Those who regretted such changes could hardly deny that the empire was an astonishing achievement and one in which Romans could take pride. to provide regular, lawful government over a wider area than ever before,to black, white, brown Romans equally, and to provide them also with the blessings of peace and prosperity-all this was without precedent and remains the best ground for saying that the Romans did great things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.176.70 (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Rome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

rome

why is rome in lazio region? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.248.72.46 (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure I understand the question. Should it be in another region or in no region at all? My Gussie (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Other first metropolises

Articles says Rome "is regarded as one of the birthplaces of Western civilization and as the first ever metropolis." It cites http://www.historytoday.com/mary-harlow/old-age-ancient-rome which says, "Its capital, Rome, was the first ever metropolis, containing one million people and an urban culture that included architectural achievements unsurpassed until the modern period."

Our metropolis page defines a metropolis as being, "a large city or urban area which is a significant economic, political, and cultural center for a country or region, and an important hub for regional or international connections, commerce, and communications." Many earlier cities clearly satisfy this definition, and some sources assert them as the first metropolis:

Uruk - http://www.academia.edu/5146998/The_visualisation_of_Uruk_First_impressions_of_the_first_metropolis_in_the_world Babylon - http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hammint.asp Catalhoyuk - http://www.historytoday.com/story/10115

So, I'm editing the article to say that Rome "is regarded as one of the birthplaces of Western civilization and by some as the first ever metropolis."

John_Abbe (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, and actually I would remove the definition altogether. Alex2006 (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Christ

Reference to Jesus Christ is not historical. Is this an article about Rome's history or theology? 108.171.130.163 (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Found no reference to theology in the article. Jeppiz (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that the ip refers to the preaching of Jesus in the history section. Sorry, but consensus among scholars is that Christus existed, so the sentence, which is referenced, stays where it is: the place to discuss this issue is the article about Jesus. Alex2006 (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

New collage

I invite who wants to add a new collage to discuss it first here, thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Subtropical-man, if you want to change the collage you have to find a consensus here. Alex2006 started this discussion at 07:05 and at that moment the collage was not the older one you are proposing, which was changed some time ago. The current collage was not contested and stayed for some time. The article was not edited further, so we had a new consensus. See the image. Cheers.

alt=Image of a process flowchart. The start symbol is labeled "Previous consensus" with an arrow pointing to "Make an edit", then to "Wait", then to a decision symbol labeled "Was the article edited further?". From this first decision, "No" points to an end symbol labeled "New Consensus". "Yes" points to another decision symbol labeled "Do you agree with the change?". From this second decision, "Agree" points to the "New Consensus" end symbol. "Disagree" points to "Seek a compromise", then "Implement", then back to the previously mentioned "Make an edit", thus making a loop. |thumb|right|300px| Barjimoa (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

according to the Wikipedia:CYCLE, if there is revert, to new change - first discuss and consensus. Pushing new version after revert by other users is vandalism. First discussion and consensus. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 11:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No see the chart. I am not pushing a new version. I just reverted to the previous versionBarjimoa (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The version you are trying to impose is an older one. At 7.05, your version was not the collageBarjimoa (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No, your version also is new. You enter new collage, later other user also, tommorow other user also enter new collage etc, etc. No! I reverted new changes to stable version, if somebody want new version - first discuss and consensus. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 11:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

see the chart.Alex2006 reverted to the version I am trying to re-introduce, not to the one you are proposing. Barjimoa (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No, your version also is new. You enter new collage, later other user also, tommorow other user also enter new collage etc, etc. No! I reverted all new changes to stable version, if somebody want new version - first discuss and consensus - according to the Wikipedia:CYCLE. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 11:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I know how the cycle works. "Was the article edited further?" " No" "New Consensus". After some time (some weeks i guess) someone tries to change that version and to impose a new one. After that Alex2006 reverted the edit and opened a discussion at the talk page. Than you reintroduced an older version. Barjimoa (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I understand, however, that your version is also new. If it will help you understand I revert your changes in collage independently since the edit-war, according to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, (as name says) - your bold change, my revert = discuss cycle, with consensus before changes. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 11:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Subtropical-man Is the fact that you planned to revert the version relevant? I mean.. the version remained for some time (some weeks maybe). When the version was changed, various users reverted the change (Alex2006 and others after him) and a discussion started. You had to revert the versiom weeks ago to say this now...Now this image you have introduced does not have a consensus. The one I am supporting is the "right" one. Barjimoa (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that there is a misunderstanding, in fact you did not revert my version yesterday or today...I reverted you in order to reintroduce the version that was there for some time and that someone tried to change without finding a consensus.Barjimoa (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Your changes is still new, your changes not have a discuss and consensus. Also your changes initiated edit-war and will initiate edit-wars in the future because you defend own version - other users will not be able to introduce changes without discussing with you. In many articles (for example London) before changes in collage, must to be discuss and consensus. This is a good way. So, I reverted all new changes to stable version, if somebody want new version of collage - first discuss and consensus. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 12:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It was not my change that started an edit war.. I reverted you in order to introduce a version that was here before. Every version is new because our collage is recent compared to the one of Paris etc.. The stable version is actually the one i am supporting. Some users tried to change it without seeking a consensus. This is why the whole discussion started. Barjimoa (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Barjimoa (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at the history of the talk page...your version is the one with an old consensus..my version is the one with the new consensus. This is the firs discussion about the collage and it was about my version not yours! Do you understand my point? Barjimoa (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No, your changes is still new, your changes not have consensus, your version was still in the process of adoption. Everyone can revert your new changes in collage to previous version. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 12:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Folks -- would be good to see some actual discussion of the possible photo collage options, rather than an endless cycle about who reverted who, and the policy for doing so. At the start of the year, the infobox looked like this (using File:Collage Rome.jpg) and from what I can tell the photo collage stayed like that until August when it was changed to this by Subtropical-man, to be replaced with this by Barjimoa in October, and this by M.starnberg in November. So, that gives 4 possible options... the original, and the proposals by each of Subtropical-man, Barjimoa and M.starnberg. What does everyone like or dislike about those options? From my perspective, I actually like the simplicity of M.starnberg's proposal. My concern with Subtropical-man's proposal which is currently showing is that it's really hard to make out what the beach photo is at the tiny thumbnail size, and the whitespace under the Colosseum photo is visually distracting. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 13:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Accoring to wikipedia rules you can change me but you have to reach a consensus if I revert you. My version has de facto consensus because of the wikipedia cycle..."Was the article further edited?" > "No" > "New Consensus" > After some weeks someone changes my version and it was reverted > Discussion started with my image being the one used. >Subtropical changes the version >I revert him >You have to find a consensus.

Anyway I support my own proposal but I am open to change and compromise. For example, I would like to see the Trevi fountain in the collage but I do not know where we can put it. Three key element of my proposal are the following.

1)I prefer my image of the colosseum, because the classic image of the colosseum is everywhere and I think that it is better to have an image of the Colosseum that shows Rome as a metropolis. 2)Panorama: That panoramic view from St Peter is just a perfect panorama. Isnt it? 3)No beach. Rome is not famous for its beach, maybe the Tiber. Not the beach. It makes sense for other cities, not for Rome. Plus that image is so standard. It looks like a beach that you can find everywhere. Barjimoa (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I support image of beach. In collage there no images of western part of Rome. Why? Rome is also sea and beaches. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     21:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hallo guys :-) sorry for my disappearance, but I was in Rome, without connection. :-) Actually I opened a thread for another guy, who changed the collage of Barjimoa with a stack of three pictures, but this guy has been blocked...About your dispute, the problem is that the collage has been changed without discussing, I think in both cases. About the single collages, I would say that that of Barjimoa is more classic, but I like also the other one (partly because I was born and raised in EUR, and go always swimming to the "Cancelli" :-)) Indecent proposal: why don't we rotate the two collages, for example once per week or per month? In this way could also see different sides of the city. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, it is ok to me. Barjimoa (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, the present collage is not impressive at all (no offence). Here are some of the reasons why: EUR district shouldn't be on the top, it's not that important; Colosseum's photo is widespread; the view from St Peter's dome is over-edited and shows unnatural colours; Pantheon by night is too small to be seen without clicking on it; as someone said above, Rome is not famous for its beach. Ostia and the coast are part of Roma Capitale (Metropolitan City) and shouldn't be in the collage. Alistair Wettin (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Look at Milan's collage, it looks great. We should choose three good photos and make a collage of them. Alistair Wettin (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that we could insert the 3-picture collage appeared on the last week in the rotation too. Alex2006 (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Shall we change it then? Subtropical-man Barjimoa M.starnberg Alex2006 Alistair Wettin (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I would say that we could introduce a 1-month rotation period, and each collage creator should be responsible to change it at the first of each month. Agree? Alex2006 (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to replace the present collage with M.starnberg's. Please let me know if you don't agree. Subtropical-man Barjimoa Alex2006 Alistair Wettin (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead! We can implement what I wrote above (around 1st of January we will change it with the third). Alex2006 (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The current one is fine. We can add something more.--115ash→(☏) 14:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2015

Jxvhua (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,ojkhujok;

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Roma and Lazio in the lead

I removed the mention in the lead of A.S. Roma and S.S. Lazio. In fact, because of WP:LEAD, "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject", and for a city like Rome, the relative importance of these two football teams is of course very, very low. Alex2006 (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Rome/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==WikiProject Cities== Rated Start: Due to the lack of referenced sources for facts. Alan.ca 13:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 22:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Rome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rome. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 April 2016

abstrat = abstract

Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly what was done and corrected from that instruction.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Birth of the city

Hallo, I reverted two additions to the article. About the first, when we write about the "history of Rome" and its lifespan, we refer to the city, not to the villages or dwellings that predate it. Between the end of the bronze age the begin of the Iron age, each hill between the sea and the Capitol was topped by a village (on the Capitol, a village is attested since the end of the 14th century BC). However, according to the archeologists none of them had yet an urban quality. Nowadays we think that the city was born through the aggregation ("synecism") of several villages around the biggest, that on the Palatine. This, together with the raise of agricultural productivity, the begin of secondary and tertiary activities and the development of trade with the Greek colonies of southern Italy, is considered as the birth of the city, and happened more or less around the mid of the 8th century BC. About that you can usefully read, among others, Filippo Coarelli "Guida archeologica di Roma", R. A. Staccioli "Roma entro le mura"; Mario Attilio Levi "La città antica"; Massimo Pallottino "Origine e storia primitiva di Roma"; and, last but not least, Andrea Carandini "La nascita di Roma". The last two sources are entirely devoted to the birth of the city. Coarelli and Carandini have been translated in english.

About Rome having 16% of the world art treasures, in order to write it we need a RS that explain us the criteria adopted to estimate this number. Without that, the number is only "fried air" (as we say in Rome ;-)). Alex2006 (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If "more than two and a half thousand years" seems short to some, maybe we can just come up with different wording? "2.8 thousand", "28 centuries", or simply "since the 8th century BC"? Even "near 3 thousand" would be all right with me, even if a bit of a stretch; it's a general, not a scientific statement. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Personally I have no problem about the first three variants that you propose, but the fact that the original wording "seems short" to someone, is not a valid reason to change it. The problem is not to find consensus about the dating of the first archeological findings on the site which would have become Rome, but the understanding about what a "city" is. A couple of years ago took place a long similar discussion about Istanbul, which some user pretended having been "founded" around 9,000 B.C., but this interpretation has been rejected. The reason, as I wrote above, is that most of historians and archeologist don't consider a couple of huts above a hill inhabited by dwellers who practiced a subsistence agriculture (and fishing, as was the case of the villages on Istanbul's site) as a city. Each ancient city which has not been founded by colonist a pre-urban, a proto-urban and an urban age, and in the case of Rome archeological evidence set the transition to the last one around the 8th century B.C.. The debate right now is between academicians who, like Carandini, think that the myths about Rome have a historical significance, and those who think that they are just legends, but the archeological evidence is not controversial. Alex2006 (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Earliest History

Some content from this section was copied to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_of_Rome to improve the page referrred to, which should be the main reference on this topic Rjdeadly (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rome. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rome. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

MORE than just Italy's Capital

Shouldn't this article's lead begin a bit different from other city-articles ? I mean it's known as "the Eternal City" and has a history which very few other cities have. Perhaps

Rome, the Western World's most imperative city through the times. Usually labeled as "the Eternal City", since 18?? Italy's Capital City but with a history which goes thousands of years beyond Italy's own one.
Or something in line with that ? A brief but "strong" beginning of the lead. Italy was founded (or united) around 1870, but initially was some other city it's Capital, I think. Boeing720 (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. Rome is usually called "Rome"; romantic epithets aren't among the first things to be known about a city. City articles all start by describing the present, then mention the city's historical role in the first paragraphs when it's warranted; see, for instance, Xi'an, Beijing, Istanbul, Athens, Beirut, Jerusalem. This article should follow the pattern. I strongly agree that the historical role of Rome as capital of the Roman empire deserves far more space, either in this article or in a separate one (there is a separate Constantinople article). Rp (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
OK fair enough. But within the Western World is Rome is it doubtlessly so, only Athens, Jerusalem and Alexandria can compete. But the Roman Empire eventually ruled entire south Europe, the Holy Land and beyond, North Africa - including Carthago , which they destoyed. It's sooner a few of the other cities that also could do with (for them)

proper beginnings of the lead. History (for many centuries the centre of the Roman Empire, followed by Capital of Western Rome - when London and Paris still was unheard of/non existing. Again followed by more centuries as the Capital of the Papal States etc. That is far more than the historically rather brief time that it has been the Capital of Italy. I have no connections to either Rome nor Italy, by the way. I've spend an hour at Ciampino airport once, and that's all. Boeing720 (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with user Boeing! Be free to update but with reliable sources! cheers.AlfaRocket (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rome. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

History section

As this is the article about Rome, the city, rather than the Roman Empire or anything like that, I think the history section should focus far more on history within the city itself. I came here looking for details of what Rome was actually like in the republic and imperial eras, but found no information on that. The "Monarchy, republic, empire" section is almost entirely related to the history of the wider entity, including details on the conquest of Gaul, power struggles, revolts in far flung regions and so on. Obviously as the capital, the city is somewhat affected by all this, but the material is extensively covered elsewhere and I think it would be useful for this article to be more focused on events directly relating to the city.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

City divided by two countries

Since Vatican city has always been part of Rome before Italian unification and technically part of Rome yet its own country, I think Rome should be mentioned in the lead and infobox as Nicosia and Jerusalem, a city that belongs to two sovereign nations. I think this is a good approach, what do you guys think? (N0n3up (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC))

I think it is covered well enough as is, with "Vatican City is an independent country inside the city boundaries..." As a fairly small enclave it differs somewhat from Nicosia and Jerusalem - more like some huge embassy for the Holy See, whatever that it... Batternut (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The lead already discusses this, and there is a section that discusses it further; anyway, "city that belongs to two sovereign nations" is the sort of description that belongs in Jeopardy or trivia contests. Anyway, for the trivia hounds, Rome also contains the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, so that would make it three sovereign entities. (Neither the Vatican nor the SMOM is a "nation", though the Vatican is a "state"; the SMOM is sovereign but not a state). --Macrakis (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Macrakis, Batternut; Those are some good points though I was referring to the infobox. Although it is mentioned in the article, the infobox only mentions Italy in the country section of the infobox. The Vatican does fit along with Jerusalem and Nicosia because the Vatican, although a fairly small enclave, is an sovereign country whose territory physically consists part of Rome. Due to the Vatican having always been part of the city of Rome and the city politically divided after Italian unification and Lateran Treaty, the Vatican is not part of Italy, yet it is part of the city of Rome. In the case of the SMOM, their holdings in Rome would fit along something of an embassy and not an actual territorial holding like Italy or the Vatican. Thus it would be wise to include the Vatican in the infobox alongside Italy. (N0n3up (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC))

Vatican City is surrounded by Rome, does that make it part of Rome? As an independent state, how can it be? I doubt that the population and economic figures of Rome include Vatican City. I see this article as being about that big patch of turf administered by the comune di Roma, ie the city proper. The idea of Rome as the capital of two states is just some rhetorical suggested by Yasser Arafat in 1994 when arguing for Jerusalem to be capital of Palestine as well as Israel.[1] Compare with Chandigarh which is a capital of two states. Batternut (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Batternut, You're right that the population and economic figures of the Italian part probably don't include Vatican City as a single demographic, but that's because the figures are from the Italian commune, meaning the Italian part of Rome, which consists most of Rome, but the Vatican, despite being an sovereign entity, consists part of the City of Rome, not Italy, which is why the figures between the Italian and Papal part of Rome are separated, yet both part of the same City. Not to mention, the article also does includes the Vatican and the contents from its article page due to it being technically part of the city, just not in the infobox. And examples of this already existed apart from Yasser Arafat regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, such as again Nicosia, and Chandigarh as you mentioned being capital of two states of India are examples make it clear that this concept is a universal one. Rome truly is just more than Italy's capital as someone else mentioned on the first discussion section, even though talks of a different topic the knowledge of Rome's uniqueness is undisputed. Even if the Vatican is a sovereign country not part of Italy, it's still part of Rome, and I can do the arrangements myself to fit it in a way that mentions both precisely and that satisfies everyone's consensus, if everyone agrees of course. (N0n3up (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC))
Thus far I am not convinced. Consensus need not be unanimous of course. What exactly does "technically part of the city" mean anyway? (NB mind the TEXTWALL) Batternut (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Batternut, It means that both the Vatican and the Italian part of the city which most people call "Rome" belong in the same city of Rome, and not referring to just the Italian part. After all, the head of the Vatican is the Pope, also known as the "Bishop of Rome", Diocese of Rome, which if you look in the article, it lists the countries with Italy and Vatican, yet the territory and diocese of the city of Rome. Basically it's Rome, two countries, one city. (N0n3up (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC))
... the city which most most people call "Rome" ... is does not amount to "technically part of the city", however, both being covered by the Diocese of Rome is more concrete. The central question is perhaps, what is the scope of this article? It seems to me that city articles often mention, for example, urban sprawl into suburbs outside the limits of the city's administration, but the main focus generally stays on that which is within the city limits.
A city can be defined and delimited in many ways - administratively, geographically, functionally and more. Sometimes on wikipedia the various definitions have their own articles, eg London (administrative), Greater London Built-up Area (geographic), London commuter belt (functional), Diocese of London (religious). Other city articles mash the lot together. The more articles there are, the greater the risk of WP:Content forking. So, what do we want for Rome? Batternut (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Batternut, The solution to do this problem would be to do this edit with what we have so far, and to be honest, much of the work is already done for us. We have the Diocese of Rome article which unites the city religiously, geographically the Vatican is part of Rome and the Vatican's and the rest of Rome's transportation intertwines as one city. And we already have the article Vatican City which concentrates on the independent political realm ruled by the Holy See, and we can simply add two parts in the infobox, one for Vatican City and the other one for the Italian part of Rome, such as adding the population for the Vatican on the bottom with the existing Italian sector. This way the article of Rome will cater to all factors of the whole city, including administratively, geographically, functionally, and religiously.
The tricky part will come for the rest of the article, but I already counted 13 sections of the article and 28 subsections that would need adjustments, which simply consists of minor grammatical adjustments to point out the Vatican and the rest of Rome in Italy as one city... You can leave that part to me where I will do this separately by editing the article in my sandbox. Like that, we reached our objective and at the same time avoided WP:Content forking.
If we accept that the article is about a geographically defined Rome, ie including the Vatican, it wouldn't be necessary to append " and Vatican city" to every mention of Rome, and having that would make annoying reading. Batternut (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Another option would be to create one more article solely for the Italian sector of Rome named "Italian Rome or Rome (Italian section)" where we paste everything in the Rome article but with some exceptions, and keep this Rome article for both Italian and Vatican Rome. For example, instead of adding all the history of antiquity in the history section, we would just paste up to the point of the Lateran treaty which divided the city. And regarding WP:Content forking, adding one more article would still make Rome have less content forking than London or more or less to other cities, which doesn't pose much of a problem. (N0n3up (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC))
It would seem odd to split the history across two articles. I could probably stomach moving the local government section to an article for the "Roma Capitale" comune. Batternut (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you. Vatican is nothing more than a quarter (exactly like Monteverde, EUR or Balduina) of the city (to be precise, it is a part of a Rione, Borgo) , which in 1929 became an independent state. However, it continues to be part of the city, in each respect (geographic, artistic and cultural), except the political one. The most important Italian guide about the city, the red guide of TCI, is named "Rome", and the Vatican city is just a section of the guide. History, culture, artistic profile are treated for rome and Vatican together. I think that here we should follow the same path. The scope of this article should be geographical, not political, and Vatican should be mentioned (as it is already) in the article as part of the city. If we write about the history of Rome we cannot exclude what happened inside the Vatican, and if we describe Rome's artistic heritage we should mention what is inside the Vatican. However, a description in depth of what is Vatican should stay in the Vatican city article. Alex2006 (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see a need to change this. The article is principally about the city, and that does not include the Vatican (at least administratively, and the map in the infobox makes this clear). As mentioned above, the lede mentioned Vatican clearly and gives its status clearly. In fact, Rome and the Vatican are usually mentioned as the world's closest pair of capitals as well.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Article sections where Vatican City and the rest of Rome will be wildly different are:

  • Demographics: some statistical outliers in VC - 5.6% female, mother tongue, ethnic diversity...
  • Religion: 100% RC, 100% church attendance, no minorities all (some may dream of this in Italy of course)
  • Cityscape: not many parks, office blocks, bland suburbs, fascist edifices in VC,
  • Economy: some overlap with tourism, but mostly different ways of earning their crust,
  • Education: a library or two, but any schools in VC?
  • Culture: no cinema, fashion pretty quirky...
  • Sports: anything at all?
  • Transport: no metro, trams, urban rail, airport, harbour; a bus perhaps? Otherwise it's shanks' pony...

I think an article covering both Vatican City and the rest of Rome is likely to be packed with (except in Vatican City) caveats. I fear N0n3up may have trouble producing a satisfying result, but I wish them luck! Batternut (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2018

Source number 108, with a link "the original (PDF)" linking to Gfkamerica.com should no longer be there. Gfkamerica.com has changed hands and is now owned by a spamming group. 83.58.171.78 (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Rome became less stable as it grew. the gap between rich and poor widened. the empire was run by a series of warlords. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1524:BB8:E93F:88E3:7D95:8A0C (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerCCCPro (talk • contribs) 09:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Deleted claim that the papacy existed in 1st Century AD, no reliable source for that

I deleted the historical error claiming that the papacy existed in 1st century AD. Those who believe the Roman Catholic Church and the pope are an infallible source of truth, may claim this error on that basis; but the rest of us will not accept the RCC itself as a reliable source on this. There are no reliable secondary sources for the claim of a papacy in 1st Century AD. To be reliable on such a claim, the secondary source would have to reference at least two near contemporary primary sources, but that is impossible. The New Testament, our most reliable source in this matter, has no reference whatsoever to any pope. Matthew 16 certainly refers to no pope or office of pope, whatever interpretation you make of the petros and petra in the passage, and of Peter's role in the Church. The passage makes good sense as Christ being the petra, not petros Peter. (Moreover, in Galatians 2 and Acts 15, Peter looks like no chief of the Church.) And even if petra did refer to Peter, there is no hint of an office of pope or a papacy or a succession of "peters" there. (PeacePeace (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC))

City divided by two countries (part 2)

This is a link to the previous talk section regarding this topic. I would also like to add that consensus had agreed that this article should mention Rome as a capital city of two countries, especially the fact that throughout the article, the Vatican is mentioned as part of the city and its information included, as mentioning both the Italian and the Vatican aspects of the city. And the Vatican is inside the city of Rome, essentially making it part of the city and not separated.

I could proceed with changing details in this article in which will mention Rome belonging to both Italy and the Vatican, but with such an article with so many details, there is a possibility that I could miss some details that would require change, thus would need help in parts like review and edits I wouldn't know how to edit. (N0n3up (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC))

  • Having read the previous discussion, I strongly disagree with "...consensus had agreed that this article should mention Rome as a capital city of two countries" - I see no such consensus.

    And I oppose the proposition as it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, unless you can provide reliable sources which describe Rome as the capital of the Vatican (or even part of the Vatican). That the Vatican is physically contained within Rome does not in itself make Rome the capital of the Vatican or "belonging to" the Vatican, nor is it "essentially making it [the Vatican] part of the city and not separated". If you want to make these changes, I say find reliable sources to support them, as your own reasoning is not sufficient. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee The Lateran Treaty of 1929 defined the political sovereignty of a section within Rome that granted the Holy See the territory of the Vatican. And it mentions the link of infrastructure within the two political entities including railway, water supply, telegraph, telephone, wireless, broadcasting, and postal services forming part of the city. It's also worth mentioning that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, all part of the Diocese of Rome. Historically wise, the Vatican was always in Rome, the Lateran treaty divided the political administration but not the physical territory. And a city is defined as a large physical human settlement no matter the political entity, and what is now Holy See territory within Rome forms part of the Vatican. The same case can be made for Jerusalem which is currently under both Israeli and Palestinian administration in parts of the city. (N0n3up (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC))
Nothing you say there makes Rome part of the Vatican (the Vatican part of Rome by some standards, maybe, but not vice versa) or the capital of the Vatican. A wheel might be part of a car, but the car is not part of the wheel. You need reliable secondary sources, not your own reasoning from primary sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Boing! said Zebedee I just brought up the Lateran treaty in the start of my post. Also, I never said that Rome belongs t the Vatican, I'm saying (not me, the Treaty) the Vatican forms part of Rome. Basically the Vatican is part of Rome, and Italy owns much of Rome but not completely. (N0n3up (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC))
Yes you did, you said you "will mention Rome belonging to both Italy and the Vatican". And if you want to claim that Rome is the capital of the Vatican (which you also did say), then find some reliable secondary sources saying that. Until you respond to the need for such sources and while you continue with your own synthesis, I see no need to respond to you further. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
PS: There is no need to ping me here, I have this page on my watchlist. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
That was my mistake. And I did bring up the Lateran Treaty, that's basically an original source. (N0n3up (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC))
Yes, the Lateran Treaty is an original (ie primary) source. You need secondary sources. And does the Lateran Treaty define Rome as the capital of the Vatican anyway? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
No, it defines it as part of the city of Rome. The main point here is that Rome encompasses both Italy and the Vatican "Holy See" owned part of the city. (N0n3up (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC))
So you don't want to add that Rome is the capital of the Vatican as you originally suggested then? What do you actually want to do? Also, your claim that "Rome encompasses both Italy and the Vatican "Holy See" owned part of the city" is still your own personal reasoning, and you still have not provided a secondary source to support it - you need something that actually says, for example, "Rome encompasses both Italy and the Vatican "Holy See" owned part of the city". Please identify a specific change you wish to make to the article, and provide the secondary source you will use to support it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
That last sentence you mentioned works wonderful. (N0n3up (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC))
Here them secondary sources, this from CIA which reiterates what I just mentioned and this one from the Vatican going more into the geographic part of it. (N0n3up (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC))
All those two sources essentially do is define where the Vatican is (ie physically within Rome) and that it is a sovereign state. Those facts are already well covered in the article, and I see nothing added by and no need for "Rome encompasses both Italy and the Vatican "Holy See" owned part of the city" - it's already there using different words. Anyway, I have to go and do a day's work now, so maybe it's best to leave it and see what others say, because I now haven't the faintest idea of what your proposal actually is since you have backed down from your original claims that Rome partially belongs to and is the capital of the Vatican. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm usually better at explaining with my own words rather than typing them in, which is why I made myself misunderstood. And my proposal is along the lines of what you see in my sandbox. (N0n3up (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC))
So under "Country" in the infobox, you want to add a second entry saying "Vatican City"? Is that the full extent of your proposed change? If that's it, then no. That entry states the country that the settlement (in this case the city of Rome) is within. Rome is neither within nor part of Vatican City, neither physically nor politically (cf. the car and the wheel). Anyway, that's my take, and I suggest we leave it and see what others say. Off to work, bye. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see you have added the Vatican web site too. I'm undecided on that right now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and "Location within Italy and Vatican City". No, Rome is not within Vatican City. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Not within, just politically divided between two sovereign nations. (N0n3up (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC))
The caption says "Location within Italy and Vatican City" (my emphasis) and you already admit it is not located within Vatican City. And the map most certainly does not show Rome within Vatican City, it shows where it is within Italy. Also, Rome and Vatican City are two separate political entities. And the Vatican City part is not within Vatican City, it is Vatican City. Anyway, we'll see if there's a consensus for your proposal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You're right that Rome is not within Vatican City, that's not the point I'm trying to make, I'm stating that two sovereign nations are present within the physical city of Rome regardless of political division (Jerusalem: Israel and Paelstine) thus need to be put forward into the infobox as shown. (N0n3up (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC))

I think that this could be a good starting point: a citation of a speech of Carlo Azeglio Ciampi (2nd paragraph) for the election of Pope Benedict, stating that Rome is "capital of two states". One can find the speech on the Quirinal web site. Alex2006 (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I know what you're saying, N0n3up, but what I'm saying is that including "Location within Italy and Vatican City" would be simply wrong - you can't use a caption that indicates that Rome is within Vatican City to mean Vatican City is within Rome. Anyway, let's see what others say. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Alex just hit the right nail in the head, precisely emphasizing the point. And no, the infobox doesn't state in which country the city "is in", it states which country its located, meaning it can encompass more than one, its just that most cities are located in one country. (N0n3up (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC))
No, it is not a matter of containing or being contained: since 1929 the city is divided in two parts: Rome (Italy) and Rome (Vatican city): it is the same as for Nicosia/Lefkosa. The difference is that the Vatican geographically speaking is only a part of a rione, and so it is negligible in comparison with the Italian part (although it should be mentioned that during the talks to establish the Vatican the pope initially asked much more than the Vatican city itself, and that in 1929 the Vatican bordered the countryside on its west side, so geographically speaking it was not yet set in the city as it is now). I have been trying to introduce this concept in the lead, but I have been always reverted, so I gave up. now, the real question is: is this article about Rome (city) or about Rome (Italy)? The most important Italian guide about the city, the red guide of TCI, describes the whole city, not just the "Italian" part. Personally I think that we should follow the same philosophy. Alex2006 (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Alex2006 100% agreed. I think Rome is more than just a city within a political boundary. In that case, it's about Rome as a city itself. (N0n3up (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC))
So I'm thinking of a version along the lines of this edit with this version. What y'all think. (N0n3up (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC))
  • N0n3up, your point of view and your new changes are absurd. There were no problems for many years and now you come and make problems. Rome is not Vatican, Vatican is not Rome. Vatican has a relationship with Rome, so - there are mention about Vatican in the article about Rome. Simple. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 19:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
That's not what the Lateran treaty states. (N0n3up (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC))
Sorry, but by most of the reliable sources in the world, Vatican is independent state, separated from Rome and Italy, geographically as an enclave . If you do not like it - please change data in most of the sources in the world, later we can negotiate on Wikipedia. For now, your suggestions and changes are ridiculous. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
No. The Vatican is politically an enclave, not geographically. Geographically, culturally and historically and for general consensus it is and remains a part of Rome, more precisely the western part of the rione of Borgo, administratively detached from the city in 1929. Politically since that year it is a sovereign state, and there is consensus also here. As I wrote above, one should decide whether this article deals with Rome (Italian republic) or Rome (city). In the first case of course there is no room for the Vatican, in the second yes. Alex2006 (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
No, not exactly. Let's skip the issue of history, it's important but the article is about the current city (not before 1929). Rome in 1928 or 1305 etc... is only history. No, the Vatican is independent state, separated from Rome and Italy. The Vatican is politically an enclave - ok. Issue of culturally - it does not matter here. Every large city in the world culturally exceed administrative city limits. Consensus? Yes, there are clear consensus for "Vatican is independent state" and colloquial consensus for Vatican lies in Rome (in meaning enclave, international airport of Rome support Vatican, tourists in Rome also are visiting the Vatican etc). This does not change the fact that the Vatican is not a part of Rome in a political or administrative sense. This article is about Rome, current city in it's administrative limits. It does not include other administrative units like Vatican and communes of the Metropolitan City of Rome Capital. We can add informations about the city's surroundings, it does not change the fact that, article is about official current city and Vatican and communes of Metropolitan City of Rome Capital is not part of Rome (Comune di Roma Capitale). Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
PS. If you want to change the article, from official Rome (Comune di Roma Capitale) with own administrative city limits to metropolis (in a similar sense as London or Sydney - small cities with article about urban region) - it's ok. In this case, the article could describe one large metropolis with Vatican and communes of the Metropolitan City of Rome Capital. But, now - article is standard, about Rome (Comune di Roma Capitale) and Rome (Comune di Roma Capitale) does not include Vatican and Metropolitan City of Rome Capital within its administrative borders, Vatican and Metropolitan City of Rome Capital are only the immediate surroundings. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Good. If there is consensus that this article is about the capital of Italy, then it is ok as it is now. Alex2006 (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
There is also the question to change the article to the geographic sense, describing Rome as the city itself rather than the political administrative division in which a case can be made as Alex mentioned. (N0n3up (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC))

Rome as the "Diocese of Rome" (better known as the Holy See), includes Vatican city. This fact should be noted, but it still officially grouped among the Italian episcopal sees. So i too think that this "capital of two states" makes the whole thing problematic. I propose to simply say that its episcopal see includes Vatican city. Barjimoa (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Template introduction

I introduced Template:Western culture in the closed footer section. It was removed, though. Don't you think this could be a relevant template to be kept there per WP:BIDI? Being hidden, it doesn't take that much space, but would arguably be helpful as a context navigation there, isn't it? PPEMES (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps makes sense in the Ancient Rome article were the topic is mentioned. But in most main articles not related to pop culture we don't follow WP:BIDI because we simply can't add the hundreds of somewhat related templates just because someone added it to a template without following WP:SIDEBAR. That said the concept of the Western World should be mentioned here in a sentence or two.--Moxy 🍁 01:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

City divided by two countries (part 3)

As an Italian, I can confirm the existence of an Italian saying which states that "Rome is the capital of two countries" ("Roma è la capitale di due Stati"). This is not to be taken literally but rather metaphorically as we know that Rome is not (and cannot be) the actual capital of the State of Vatican City. Yet, the uniqueness of such configuration has led Italians to formulate that expression in order to emphasize the peculiarity of Rome's role as well as the political and bureaucratic stereotype that the city incarnates. Also, the Vatican State is entirely immersed into the city of Rome and therefore into the Italian state. The Vatican is not "the immediate surroundings" of Rome because it is not "outside of it". The Vatican, in fact, does not border with Italy along one line beyond which Italy ends. Rome instead surrounds the Vatican entirely, causing the later to indeed be called "an enclave" state which, in this case, is wholly found within the urban fabric of Rome (and consequently within the administrative boundaries of the municipality of the Italian capital). Therefore I would approve of that expression. InfoSearcher999 (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The information I had inserted (and that was later canceled) is directly taken from the official website of the Department of Tourism of the City of Rome

The following information that I previously inserted but which was deleted [..."With over 16% of the world’s cultural treasures, Rome is the city with the highest concentration of historical and architectural riches in the world. This means that Rome hosts more than one-sixth of all the historic, artistic, archeological, cultural and monumental treasures found on earth and counted with a total of over 25,000 points of interest] was taken directly from a section of the City of Rome Administration Official Website. This is not some tourist website but the Tourism Department Training and Work website of the Council of the City of Rome and, as such, it's among the most trustworthy sources there can be in regards to the city's data. Therefore to dismiss such source as "touristy" is to completely ignore the official site of the Department of Tourism of the city that is the very subject of this Wikipedia article: Rome. Here is the main page of the website of the Department of Tourism of the City of Rome from which I took the official information: https://www.turismoroma.it/ Therefore such information must be included in the page. Thank you. InfoSearcher999 (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

We would need a reliable independent source for "best of" or "most of"....not a tourist website with no editorial control or fact-checking process. Pls review WP:QUESTIONED,--Moxy 🍁 03:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Again, that is not a "tourist" website. On the Legal Notices page of the site we read: This website is the exclusive property of Roma Capitale and the assignment of the internet domain name (www.comune.roma.it) has been formally obtained, according to the procedures in force at the time of the assignment request. In 2009, the Administration endorsed the "Regulation for the organization and publication of contents on the institutional portal of the Municipality of Rome", the so-called Portal Regulation (resolution of the Giunta Capitolina n.450 / 2009) to regulate the organizational profiles and contents of the online publication activities prepared by the local Web editors present at each Capitoline structure, to guarantee an image of the Administration as unambiguous as possible and fully recognizable even in the digital environment. The City of Rome, through this site, constantly releases the updated official data, statistics and reports regarding all sectors of Rome and directly produced by ISTAT: from the population to the employment/unemployment rates, from the economy to public transportation to tourism, etc (https://www.comune.roma.it/web/it/dipartimento-turismo-formazione-professionale-e-lavoro.page). Both on the Italian Rome page of Wikipedia and on the English Rome page of Wikipedia users have made large use of this website and of ISTAT as they know of their reliability (ISTAT is the number one source of Italy's national, regional, provincial and comunes statistics). Again this is not a "tourist site" but a governmental organ that presents data and statistics produced by/with ISTAT. To call it a "tourist site" is no different than to call UN Agency UNESCO a tourist site. Please refer to the page on Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Disputing_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources InfoSearcher999 (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
So do you mean that that number (16%) is a product of an ISTAT statistics? Can you produce it then, please? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Alex2006 and Moxy. We always need very strong proofs to claim something is superlative. No site linked to a city can be used to claim that the same city is "the best" or has " the most" of something. Jeppiz (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    • The site doesn't say "the best" or "the most" for some self-promotion. The site relies on data, on the amount of points of interests (counted as 25,000 in total) present within the territory and on in depth studies. It's not that the city of Rome is "bragging" about anything; they simply state their facts (which no other city has had any issues with and/or has ever tried to claim as its own). The fact that the site belongs to the city is not a valid enough reason to claim that the city is automatically lying. That is an unfair assumption based on personal preconceived judgment and mere guessing. InfoSearcher999 (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Where is the source of this statistics? Alex2006 (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
        • They (The City of Rome) do not say the source on their website. There are many other places stating the same (even a book on Google) but at this point I would like to ask you the source you expect. For example, if the source was to be the Italian Ministry of Beni Culturali (MIBACT) you would still deem it as "invalid" because still Italian, meaning as partial as the Rome City Administration is "partial". And if I give you the book source I found, how would you evaluate if it is reliable or not? What would be the requirements? Would that book have to show yet another source from which it took the information or would it stand on its own? What makes it credible? Especially if it's written in Italian and, let's say, you can't read in that language? Or know who the author is? In a few words, since you refute my source with confidence and in full conviction, then you surely must know the name of the entity that has your trust (as well as the universal legitimacy and the 100% accuracy) when it comes to this specific information; otherwise if you just ask "Where is the source of this statistics?" I can go around and around but never get to the point as the source doesn't meet your standards (always in regards to this specific information/subject). Since you told me that the source I provided (meaning a public/governmental organ) does not qualify as a legitimate source, then you must know which institution/s would be trustworthy when it comes to this specific information. InfoSearcher999 (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Also I would like to ask where I can find on Wikipedia the rule you mentioned: that No site linked to a city can be used to claim that the same city is "the best" or has " the most" of something. Can you direct me to the Wikipedia page from which you quoted that rule? Or is that something you came up with? InfoSearcher999 (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
          • Here we are talking about statistic, and statistic is a science: because of that, ISTAT, which you mentioned above, would be surely a legitimate source for that number. In that case it would be possible to trace back the meaning of this "16%" and - above all - understand the criteria on which this statistic is based. Unfortunately, the site of the comune di Roma is not a reliable source in that field. Alex2006 (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
            • You still need to provide where Wikipedia states that No site linked to a city can be used to claim that the same city is "the best" or has " the most" of something. I never read that anywhere and you need to provide the information is legitimate otherwise what you say is automatically questionable. Away from this, ISTAT collaborates with the City of Rome on statistics that regard population, employment, etc. They do not make censuses specifically about the artistic/historic/monumental heritage of cities and/or of nations. Yet, if the City of Rome produced such information without the MIBACT contesting its credibility (and it definitely would do so in the case of false statements), then it is likely to be legitimate. On the other hand, one needs a real proof of invalidity in order to block this from a Wikipedia article. InfoSearcher999 (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Emperor Nero and the fire

Why nothing about Nero's rule? What about the major event of fire?--Nerocesareaugusto (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't know. Why don't you take a couple of verified facts from Great Fire of Rome and place them in here? Drmies (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

"BCE" or "BC" dates

There may be some Wikipedia policy (either one that is [only] "recommended", or one that is even more formally endorsed) about whether dates more than "{{CURRENTYEAR}}" years ago (that is, more than 2024 years ago) should have the suffix "BCE" or the suffix "BC". "See also" (e.g.) the Wikipedia article [about] "Common Era".

I would just like to suggest that either (a) the topic should be discussed (maybe here?); or -- if that (a) is not necessary, e.g. because it has already happened -- then, (b) perhaps the resulting (Wikipedia:Consensus) decision should be clearly stated somewhere.

Actually, something like "(b)" has already been done -- (in regard to the use of "dmy dates") -- in this article: The wikitext of this article -- [visible when editing the article] -- already contains an entry that says:
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2018}}
but I don't think it has (yet) a similar entry, stating whether "BCE" or "BC" dates should be used in this article.

I am not sure where that would go (maybe near the
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2018}}
notation?) in this article; but, if it does not belong in the article, then ... maybe we could find (or create) an appropriate place to say something about that... e.g. on this "Talk:" page.

Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, this "Talk:" page does already have a
{{British English}}
template [instance]. However, I do not know whether that implies or suggests a certain answer (for this particular article) about the question that is the "topic" of this section. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2021

there is some spelling wrong in spots Endmegood123 (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Photo collage

Hello, I recently tried to put a new collage of photos with the main landmarks in the city. However, I was reversed by the editor Subtropical-man for not reaching consensus before making such changes. That said, I come here to formally make this proposal. Thanks in advance. Cordial greetings. Chronus (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for that revert. The only comment supplied is consensus first. That is just rude and contrary to Wikipedia telling us to be bold. Meanwhile, your collage replaces the existing one. I like yours better, but the existing one seems fine. Why is yours an improvement? Rp (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

General knowledge

Good 2402:3A80:1CF5:7DAB:ED0A:C673:309:F103 (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Duplicated paragraph

The paragraph starting "Rome's cuisine has evolved through centuries and periods of social, cultural, and political changes" appears twice.

I'd edit this but the article is locked, is somebody able to fix please? 51.186.3.160 (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Romulus in infobox

The infobox lists Romulus as a founder of Rome. Given that historians debate the existence of Romulus, is it appropriate to list him in this capacity? 2603:7000:6400:F165:388E:AF21:7297:7EEB (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I've changed this per there being no debate on this matter. It is completely misleading as the article itself shows that the scholarship is against Romulus existing or founding Rome deliberately; it grew organically from smaller settlements. Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2023

Isidecat (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

In the airports section, I request that you add this additional information:

The airport system of the city of Rome (composed of Fiumicino airport and Ciampino airport), with 32.8 million passengers transported in 2022, is the second airport system in Italy after that of Milan with 42.2 million. <ref>https://assaeroporti.com/statistiche/Isidecat (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Will do! - {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 14:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Population between Augustus and 400 CE

The article gives no population figures for the time between Augustus and 400 CE, although people keep saying that it peaked c. 150-300 CE. Also, the article as it stands seems to suggest that official censusses only counted freeborn adult males. If that is the case, it should be directly stated in the article. --2003:DA:CF39:B893:BD57:F95D:C0C8:F144 (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Article on "Rome"

The contained two statements in this article, "The Metropolitan City of Rome, with a population of 4,355,725 residents, is the most populous metropolitan city in Italy. Its metropolitan area is the third-most populous within Italy." Appear to conflict with each other. 2601:285:4100:3720:CDC7:A952:3FE5:250D (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2023

Please change "each hill between the sea and the Capitol was topped by a village (on the Capitol Hill" to "each hill between the sea and the Capitol was topped by a village (on Capitol Hill" Dominic872 (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Those names may be familiar to many readers as those used in Washington DC, but in Rome it's the Capitoline Hill or simply the Capitoline, as correctly used often in this article. Edited accordingly. NebY (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ Daily Report: Near East & South Asia. US Foreign Broadcast Information Service. 1994. p. 10.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rome/Archive_3&oldid=1198265172"