Talk:Roman London
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article is on a subject of mid-importance within classical antiquity. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
I think this should be moved to Roman London. If we're going to periodise all of the History of London article. Then we would use Saxon London, Medieval London etc and it would be more consistant. Secondly, Londinium was re-named as Augusta at some point in the 3rd century. Any thoughts? G-Man * 19:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Roman London would not be consistant with the other articles in Category:Roman towns and cities in England. The renaming to Augusta is not very well known and rarely used, but there should be a note of it in the intro. I would agree that subsequent London history articles should be as you suggest, although it should be Anglo-Saxon London to line up with Category:Anglo-Saxon England and its sub-categories (and possibly Norman and Medieval London, although similar categories vary). London was essentially refounded in Anglo-Saxon times with an Old English version of the name which has been used since that time. Londinium is also archaeological, where as the others are historical. Walgamanus 08:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- But if we're going to have articles on Anglo-Saxon London to be consistant with Anglo-Saxon England, then this is inconsistant with Roman Britain. Also logically if we have this we should also have articles on Lundenwic and Lundenburgh and all of the other historical variants of the name London. G-Man * 21:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is a bit contradictory. However, Roman Britain is a very popular expression and should be kept on the grounds of common usage. I don't think Roman London, Roman Winchester or Roman anywhere is used in quite the same way. The trouble is that several Roman towns and many Roman forts do not have successive Saxon settlements, so you can't use these to call them Roman whatever, besides the fact that this is incorrect and misleading. When I created the Londinium article, there was a long list of relevant articles already pointing to it whose wikilinks I did not have to fix. There were two for Roman London. I think this shows well how the term Londinium is also in common usage. I wouldn't argue for a separate article for Lundenburgh because this is where modern London begins. However, you could argue that Lundenwic should have its own article because it was a separate development in what is now Westminster. It's is a fine line. Walgamanus 22:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- But if we're going to have articles on Anglo-Saxon London to be consistant with Anglo-Saxon England, then this is inconsistant with Roman Britain. Also logically if we have this we should also have articles on Lundenwic and Lundenburgh and all of the other historical variants of the name London. G-Man * 21:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Seem as this discussion wasn't really going anywhere I've decided to be bold and move it anyway. I've created an article on Anglo-Saxon London and intend to create further periodised articles. G-Man * 22:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Pre-Celtic Old European?
From the article:
- Another theory which does not have widespread acceptance, proposed by Richard Coates, suggests that the name derives from pre-Celtic Old European — Plowonida — from two roots, plew and nejd, meaning something like "the flowing river" or "the wide flowing river".
Can someone please explain this? What on earth is "pre-Celtic Old European"? Does this refer to a non-Indo-European European language (e.g. Old European hydronymy)? If so, how can he provide this etymology, given that we know next to nothing about these languages? --Saforrest 17:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I was just about to post the same question, when I saw I was beaten to it. To my best knowledge "Old European" is a hypothetical concept. The dictionary, unfortunately, got lost in the mail, and now we know nothing about it. The assertion in the article has to be wrong. Aviad2001 (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Constantius.jpg
Image:Constantius.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
