Talk:Rome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 27, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of May 7, 2006.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Rome as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German, Italian or Portuguese language Wikipedias.
To-do list for Rome: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Read comments from peer review (see link above)
  • Read comments on talk page and respond
  • Let's get Rome to featured status. (^'-')^ Covington 02:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please use a standard infobox than in ALL others Italian communes. --Attilios 17:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    Or make ALL others Italian communes adopt the standard infobox.--Panarjedde 17:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents


[edit] Reverted edit

Some fool replaced the page with the words "Hi my name is bob" so ive reversed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.114.146 (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EXTERNAL LINK

I would like to add a link to the following website: http://www.romanbookshelf.com. It is a collection (still growing since it is really recent) of views about Rome in the past centuries, books about the eternal city, recipes and soon a travel guide. I wish you could give me your opinion about it and share your thoughts about adding the link to this page. Thank you. Diego. Oct. 26th, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegom-08 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


I found that the page has some spam in the notes:

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome#_note-11

^ Italian in Florence - Links - Information on Rome. ^ Italian in Florence - Links - Information on Rome. ^ Italian in Florence - Links - Information on Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.97.35.72 (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North Dakota, USA.

I dont understand this, there is nothing on here about Roman Women....... I wish someone would have enough Info. to verify some jobs foor Roman Women Jobs.

[edit] Italic text

Is this really a twin of Rome? I can find no evidence of this. 62.189.15.226 12:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roma (goddess)

about redirecting Roma (empty): I saw it was linked by several articles, all pointing to the town, and vainly mentioned in the complete list.

Honestly I don't know about this god, but if it doesn't deserve a separate entry, we could perhaps redirect Rome to Roma.

hi
Gianfranco

Found what's about: it is an allegory rethorically representing the symbolic personification of the State, first appeared in 269 BC in ... money (nummus - is it coins in english?), just like in Locri (Calabria) in 204 BC. I am now reading that external peoples might have given Roma divine attributes, but in my text this is only an hypothesis. Emphasising this allegory, temples were erected in Smirne (195 BC) and some sort of cult is reported in Ephesus, Sardi and Delo.

A confusion might be caused by the divinity of emperor: being Augustus a sort of demi-god, what was dedicated to him was a kind of religious celebration, partially directed on town's personality.

So Roma is not a god, but only an allegory.

I'm aware I make a huge use of your patience... :-)

"Roma" was a god decreed to exist by Augustus Ceasar early in his career as "Princeps Civitatis" (1st among citizens -- i.e. Emperor) as part of a propoganda campaign. In this way he deified the concept of Rome. Brilliant idea actually. Augustus built many temples with his Res Gestae (resume telling his subjects all his deeds) along side of inscriptions that popularized the new god Roma. Gypsies also call themselfs the "people of Roma" which does not have a connection with the Roman god. We will have to wait until the bug is fixed to make an article about it. maveric149

[edit] Origin of the name Roma

The origin of the name "Rome" is unknown. The Greek origin, met with in some ancient writers, is not one of the favored ones currently. Among the theories, the root "Rum-" (as in "Ruminalis" for example), meaning "breast" and connected with the ROM-ulus/REMus story (and note, along with some ancient authors, that the word for wolf, "lupa", also meant "prostitute": the word survives, for example, in Lat. "lupanar", whorehouse).


It would be better either to ignore the name origin, or to lay them all out in detail. Bill 21:19, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Some criticisms

What a mess. This article seems to have an awful lot of overlap of history stuff, and rather little about the city today. Like for instance, nowhere in the article does it tell us important things like what the population is.

All of the history should be consilidated into one section, or possibly put into its own article, Im sure the history of Rome could easily fill its own article. G-Man 22:27, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Zotvo and Favoald

Who are these people? Chalk it up to my ignorance maybe, but I've never heard of either one, and no Zotvo or Favoald (Favoaldo, Favoaldus) is mentioned by Bury, Gibbon, or Cotterill; they make no independent appearance online, either.

I frankly suspect a copyright trap in the original article -- what was the source of that article, anyway? I hope we don't have a copyvio here.

Bill 13:45, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)


  • I've been looking, but been completely unable to find independent reference to them on or off the Web. I've removed them. The history of the High Middle Ages, to which Zot and Fav are said to belong, is so obscure, that I suspect copyvio even more; and some of the English is such that I suspect translation from some other language as well. The person I thought was the original poster says he knows nothing about the subject, but did not address the question "Where did the text come from?": which further disturbs me. — Bill 18:42, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Terrific detective work, Chardon, and some great side benefits. I didn't trust the details of that webpage since it's full of typos, but of course went to my copy of Paul Deacon (a Latin-Italian bilingual edition that I pounced on in Italy a few years ago, precisely because, as the website says, the English translation is indeed rare), and in III.13 found the full passage, and note that the webpage skips "Faroald" and indeed other words (it may have been scanned in such a way as to skip the last words of each line, I've seen this type of scanning error elsewhere), bringing up the name only in connection with Hartmann:
"In that time too Faroald, the first leader/dux of the Spoletans, invading Classis with an army of Lombards, left the wealthy city despoiled and bare of all its riches." (my translation)
Despite the scan errors, that page's quote of Hartman "Zotto" Googles as if correct, and matches names of the period, so we can consider this SOLVED.
Now here's where I get back to thanking you for the side benefits. (1) You've alerted me to a public domain English translation of Paul Deacon, which I will probably put online on the Roman Texts section of my own site. Dumb dumb dumb of me, though, not to have seen it on Camden's site that I routinely and constantly go to, and whom I've been helping for years; (2) I've been meaning to put Hodgkin online as well, now that I have Bury: this just about seals it.
In sum, win-win for everybody, and thanks again. The only remaining problem is that copyvio, or unattributed material, is now almost certain. It might be fun to find the original text — a candidate now is an English translation of Hartmann? — I've tried, and will probably keep on trying: will you do better? (Yes, probably!) Best, Bill 12:07, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • No luck I'm afraid. According to the library of congress hartmann hasn't been translated. Fav and Zot where added on april 17 this year by a non-member with a Greek ip adress. So it could be Greek spelling. German names are often mangled by Greeks (disclaimer: I don't speak Greek). There hasn't been a new post from him/her since may. Btw ζοτωο and φαωοαλδ don't show anything on Google :)

blah blah

[edit] Can anyone identify this site?

I took this photo two years ago and now I can't remember what it is. It's somewhere near the Pantheon, I think. Adam 07:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is the Largo di Torre Argentina, containing among other the remains of Pompey's Theater on the Campus Martius, the place where Julius Caesar was stabbed. It's a little south of the Pantheon, Rome. Check out Roma Online Guide for more information. In fact, this could use a bit more info in the Wikipedia. --Reiner Martin 22:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Grazie, signore. The photo is public domain so if there is an article it can be attached to, feel free. Adam 02:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peoples of Early Italy

I restored this section because it provides a context for much of the rest of the Early history section. It is impossible to write and informative and effective history of Rome without providing at least a small amount of the history of areas around Rome. Without this section the section on Etruscan Dominance is difficult to understand and later reference to the Gaul's sacking Rome and Rome gaining control over the Greek territory in Southern Italy come out of nowhere.--Heathcliff 21:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you. Reporting how the Etruscans called themselves, or the discussion around their origin, does not help understanding their relationship with Rome.--Panairjdde 12:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal of splitting

The article is currently (25 May 2005) too long. Maybe it would be nice to move the History part to a new page, afterall, if there's a History of Toulouse there could be a History of Rome as well!--Panairjdde 16:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I said that ages ago, but no-one took any notice. G-Man 00:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Its not really too long, 31kb is perfectly fine. However I think it would be nice to get rid of part of it then expand on the monuments and other sections. Right now it is just one big history article Falphin 03:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Well if nobody objects within the next few days then I will split the article. G-Man 20:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree.--Revas 13:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved

Why was this paged moved to Roma(city)? Falphin 22:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This move appears to contravene the naming policy, which states that cities should be given their English name. This should be put back asap. G-Man 23:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement Drive

The article Culture of Italy has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can add your vote there if you would like to support the article.--Fenice 14:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Credit for model photo

The credit under the photo of the model must remain there, otherwise the photo must be removed per the terms of the photo's owner (with whom I corresponded; please see the talk page for the image). He requires that this text appear on every page where the photo is visible. I've restored the credit; I apologize if it should go elsewhere on the page. Dppowell 15:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mention of Cats?

Should this article mention Rome's colonies of cats? They're an interesting feature of the city and could fit under a Trivia heading. Impaciente 19:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The mention about cats is prominently in Largo di Torre Argentina; futhermore, if you speak about cats, why not about pidgeons and rats?--Panairjdde 08:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Cats are more noteworthy than rats and pigeons because most large cities do not have such a large number of roving packs of cats that seem to have found acceptance and even a small level of fame. When have you seen a calendar devoted to "The Rats of New York?" Impaciente 16:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Golly, the number of wonderful ideas on Wikipedia! What a good idea in fact for a calendar; but surely someone has done The Rats of New York, wouldn't you say? Bill 17:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Roman pidgeons (storni) are quite noteworthy, since they used several new methods to get them away. Furthemore, how many cities have such an old colony of rats?--Panairjdde 08:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Cats are indeed important to Romans. In fact, the cats of Largo di Torre Argentina have a voluntary organisation that exists to ensure they are fed. And local legend has it that the Comune di Roma replaces scrawny or tubby tabbies with more photogenic ones for the tourists.--FJY 00:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Rome's cats have been declared a kind of "National monument" here in Rome (more specifcally: "biocultural legacy"). 151.32.28.38 18:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paring down the lists and links

The "Churches" section: another case of list-and-link creep. Everybody adds a link or an item to a list, and before you know it, we have a long silly-looking collection of mere names on the page. That's one of the good uses of the Category system; I therefore removed as many list items as I could, to replace them with a single link to Category:Churches of Rome — which has the further advantage of making the links automatically update. Those churches for which I still couldn't find Wiki articles, I left: but commented out, a request that as those articles get written, those links be removed as well.

Frankly, the Basilica list seems silly to me as well, but I didn't dare undertake further surgery; if someone else does it, it's fine by me. . . . Bill 12:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, as they say, I did. The pomposity and pedantry of repeating "Basilica" is gone, and "Saint" is now replaced thruout by "St." The Italian forms Santa, etc. I kept since they're non-obvious information for the English-speaking reader. I deleted the subgrouping "Paleochristian basilicas" because (a) it suggests some kind of parallelism with "Major basilicas", when there is none; (b) many of the "Major" and "Other" are in fact as paleochristian as those. Furthermore, S. Lorenzo should have been placed, as the Category system indeed did place it, among the patriarchal basilicas.
The list is still imperfect, mostly, again, thru pedantry: no one ever refers to S. Maria sopra Minerva, for example, as "St. Mary over Minerva". While "St. Peter's Basilica", "St. John Lateran", etc. are in common use, past a certain level the English-speaker sufficiently savvy to know of the lesser churches will refer to them by their Italian names. Bill 11:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Continued.... Now someone, seeing only a small list, has started pumping it up again, with empty links. If you want to add a church, why not add the article too! I removed S. Andrea, since it has its article; and S. Maria in Traspontina, because, although physically large, it really does not qualify as important; there are quite a few very large churches in the city that are not really noteworthy, except to the specialist: S. Carlo ai Catinari, for example. There are also a number of small, even tiny, churches that are much more significant: I'm not mentioning them, for fear someone pick up on them and pump that list up further with more empty links. Bill 10:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Starting over again with the equally long, barren, pointless list of "Monuments and sites" (sic); put a single link to the Category:Monuments and sights of Rome instead. Same benefits as for the churches. (I'm going to get to the basilicas soon, which after all are just another group of churches; and most people, both visitors and Romans, call them and think of them as just plain churches. . . .). Bill 17:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

List and categories are not interchangeable. A list can point to empty articles, prompting for additions. A list can have a short description to orient readers on what they'll find there. --Error 01:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is Rome a city or a town?

To me, and I believe to most rational people, Rome is a major world city. I bring up the question because there is a young resident of Rome who insists upon calling it a town. His reasoning is that the only "city" in the world is New York. He has, of course the right to any dilusion that pleases him, but he has been changing the word 'city' in the main Rome article here to 'town'. I believe this is wrong, but don't know what to do about it other than expose it here.

Nat —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.29.136.188 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Truly major cleanup needed

With the exception of the current "Transportation" section, the article Rome is currently a glorified (though disorganized and poorly-Wikified/formatted) stub, artificially bloated by numerous trivial lists. The whole concept of creating sub-articles relies on the ability of editors to effectively, concisely, and thoroughly summarize all of the important information from those sub-articles when they are moved off into new pages. That doesn't seem to have occurred here, so we're left with a husk of an article serving mainly as an unnecessary list of poorly-formatted links. Also, where in Wikipedia's required "Cite sources" policy does it say that it's acceptable for articles to remain totally unreferenced and just say "see our sub-pages for the references to this article"? Clearly not acceptable: Rome needs to be cited exactly like all other articles do. Furthermore, most of Rome's sub-articles have little to no citation either. Don't believe me? Let's count all of this article's sub-pages: Province of Rome, a stub with zero references; Administrative subdivision of Rome, a stub-list with zero references; Churches of Rome, a giant, 10-page list without a single reference; History of Rome, a bloated, un-user-friendly, twenty-five-page mammoth of an article that somehow manages to have only three references, all three completely ignoring Wikipedia citation style and devoid of all of the details that are required for people to check up on them.

If all of this article's issues continue to be ignored while editors make only superficial fixes, I'll have to submit this article to Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week, the place for important stubs to receive community attention, so it can get the broader focus it needs to resolve these deeply-rooted problems. Though a good job has been done of polishing up this article and making it pretty and with many of the basic facts required, the core of the article, its content, has become rotten and full of trivial lists in place of real, solid, prose-based content. Major work is needed. -Silence 19:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"[...]the article Rome is currently a glorified (though disorganized and poorly-Wikified/formatted) stub, artificially bloated by numerous trivial lists [...]" I completely disagree with you. I do not think it is disorganized, since it is clearly divided into sections. I do not think it is poorly wikified (could you make an example, please?). I do not understand what you mean with poorly formatted. I do not see trivial lists, apart, maybe, the basilica section. I removed (your?) stub-tag addition to history section, since we happily removed about 30kBytes of History of Rome, and the history section is fair enough.
As regards the references, note that the "see our sub-pages for the references to this article" is applied, among others to articles such as Italy and Austria. Furthermore, if the informations are taken from these sub pages and copied here, the sub pages should report the references, not this page.
You are, however, free to submit this article to Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week, if you feel.--Panairjdde 19:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, there's something to that, actually. Not very good, and at fault is Wikipedia's system itself, which over time tends to produce a patchwork of minute pieces. If someone invests the work and time needed to make something unified, within 6 months it'll be right back where we started.... Bill 20:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transportation: get a ticket!

i had to remove the following from the transport section: "and can also be used free as the Italian ticket inspectors have not been seen since the early 90's." i wonder who wrote this rubbish. inspections are frequent and even if there were none, metros are not free. --J0mb 20:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

And I confirm that: inspections are frequent; to say nothing of the irresponsibility of inciting stray readers to go out and cheat the system. Bill 20:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minorities

I mover this anonymous contribution here: "The largest foreign groups in the city are Romanians, Albanians, and Egyptians." It could be true. If it stands up to scrutiny or can be sourced, please return an edited version to the article. --Wetman 15:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The article should be updated with the data from http://demo.istat.it/str2005/index.html . It should moreover mention that these are the figures about regular resident people. There are also clandestine foreign people. Laurusnobilis 10:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population figure

I too have reverted to the 2,546,807 figure. I don't know where either that or the 2,800,000 figure comes from, but the official ISTAT site gives a 2003 figure of 2,540,829; an increase of 6,000 in a year is much more likely than an increase of nearly 300,000. Bill 10:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Have you realised that the metropolitan area says 4 million yet thet says 2,5 million ish?! I'M CONFUSED!
The city proper is 2+ million; the metropolitan area is the entire province of Rome, which includes heavily populated suburbs, exurbia, and lots of just plain non-Rome. Bill 12:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Population figure: Official Population 2005: 3.487.367 (ISTAT!!)
More Details soon! I live in Rome...
13:34 20.01.2006
You may live in Rome, but if the figures don't multiply, they have to be wrong. If you have a verifiable online source for the ISTAT figures you give, don't be coy — let us know. It is most unlikely, mind you, that Rome would have gained a third of its population in 2 years, leaping from 2.5 million to 3.5 million. Anyway, see next. Bill 12:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I restored the ISTAT population figure, and the area as found on the reliable DB Metropolis site, and adjusted the density to the figure I got by dividing one into the other. The figures that had been there before were completely out of whack, and didn't multiply: so it's clear they'd been vandalized. The latest person to do so has been warned. In future, those riding the article should check periodically that the area times the density equals the population figure.
I'm only going to do this once (actually I've done it once or twice before), because now I'm fed up; but for those of you with more time, here are the current official figures so you can fix future vandalism without having to redo the process: 2540829 inhabitants in 1,285 km2, make 1977 inhabitants/km2. Bill 12:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
"Secondo il nuovo censimento istat del 2005 Roma vanta 3.487.367 di cui 1.880.000 donne 1.607.000 uomini,nella provincia però si contano ben 4.347.000 che contengono paesi come Guidonia Velletri Ladispoli ecc ecc sempre nello stesso censimento si scopre che ci sono a Roma centro 1.850.000 abitanti e borgate 1.637.000 comprendono Ottavia e Prima Porta si scopre inoltre che....." http://www.istat.it/
OK, sappiamo dove si trova il sito ISTAT; invece, la pagina in quel sito quasi innavigabile? I dati del 2003 sono online a http://demo.istat.it/pop2003/index1.html. Ottavia e Prima Porta sono nei limiti della città? Forse vuol dire che, per le misure di Wikipeida, la popolazione sarebbe piuttosto caduta a "Roma centro 1.850.000"?? Bill 13:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
credo di no... se dicono centro forse voul dire "il centro-citta"... se lo trovo online lo metto dentro. Io lo letto sui giornali... scusa se scrivo strano, sto scrivendo dalla svizzera ed`o la tastiera svizzera.... :_)
Le cose che s' imparano sulla Wiki! Non sapevo nemmeno che ci fosse una tastiera svizzera... Bill 13:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 :-) http://www.language-keyboard.com/layouts-keyboard-1-language.htm#s
             Go to see the data the registry office of Rome can provide about its real population.
             Mention that Rome has many zones in which many people live being not registered. 
             Something like "bidon-villes" and this kind of stuff.

[edit] Streamlining, 21 Jan 06

Other than the curious misspelling "christian", the rest of those edits were fine. A link to Italy need not be repeated every time the word appears, and it's already linked in the first paragraph. The Romulus etc. bit doesn't belong here any more, now that there is a separate History article; and if it did, it would be in the History squib. Bill 02:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AID

Let's get some more votes for this article. We met the last deadline already. Let's keep them going. Sicilianmandolin 17:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is of low quality for a city such as Rome. I hope it is chosen as the AID eventually, because to be honest, it needs it. For now, I'm submitting Rome to peer review. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Eponymous cities" category

For some reason the Edit summary box refused to take what I entered, so here it is instead: rv I can't imagine what the editor was thinking; I hope it wasn't that Rome was named after the goddess Roma!!! The origin of the city name is unknown, of which the goddess is a personification (i.e., it's the other way round). Bill 22:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

I've got the first two paragraphs of a religion section started by translating (and paraphrasing) from the German article. Unfortunately, I do not, nor does my software quite understand the last two paragraphs. I would encourage anyone to expand on what I have or nonetheless improve upon it. I have also expanded the economy section by a few sentences. Sicilianmandolin 03:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] News

I have added section of Rome's news with link to google and msn news, I think that is important for info about Rome Mimmo46 16:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biggest in Europe?

I think this could be an error: both London and Paris are listed with larger areas. Lafarge 10:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY NOT London and Paris don't have a larger MUNICIPAL area (comune). They may have a larger province or regional area, but surely not a larger municipal one. So the former statement is totally valid. mos82.55.218.102

Plus, the former statement "Rome is one of the largest cities in Europe" is correct and i wonder why it's been removed. The satellite image of Rome is rather reductive. It represents the central part of the "Comune" (Hence the city) and it lacks the costal part. I would suggest to put in the page the one you can find in the italian article. Mos

[edit] Mosque

I have added a reference tio the Mosque of Rome, currently the biggest in Europe. It was designed by the Italian achitect Paolo Portoghesi and inaugurated on June 21st, 1995. Please, do NOT remove without reason.--Dejudicibus 15:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You added duplicated information, since it already is under "Other religious edifices". Please merge the two entries. And, in general, stay calm, and accept others edit your contributions.--Panairjdde 15:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I am absolutely calm. I simply think that before removing a contribute, unless it is vandalism or clearly false, it would be good policy to talk FIRST with the contributor. I any case, if we speak of religion, we should mention the fact that in Rome there are large non-Christian communities.--Dejudicibus 17:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
If you are calm, how comes that you are accusing me of deleting that info, even pointing to an edit of mine that is a simple vandalism revert? And if you are calm, how comes that you did not notice that the info about the mosque was already there? Furthermore, if you really want to write "that in Rome there are large non-Christian communities" (but how much is "large"?), why don't you write this, while you wrote about the building?--Panairjdde 19:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Would the Roman Empire have been the greatest empire Earth has ever seen? I mean, compared to empires established by Eygpt, Mesopotamia, China etc.. Oyo321 16:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure with China. I read somewhere that the greatest empire by geographical extension was the Mongolic empire, under Gengis Khan or one of his successors.--Panairjdde 18:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
You were off by my question by a little-I wondered if Rome was the greatest empire out of many other great ones.
I also disagree with the "empireness" (if you get what I mean) of Genghis Khan. He was just a brute barbarian who conquered vast strectches of land with violence and cruelty. The fact that the Mongolic "empire" lasted for a very short time, doesn't help either. Rome may have not compared with land mass, but in terms of culture, military, and length of existence is superiour to that of the MOngol "empire."
Just for fun-Panairjdde you're Italian right? Congradulations on their victory over Germany in the semifinals!!! Oyo321 21:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not know how to measure the greatness of an empire. Maybe it is the most influential: we are writing with the letters used by them, in a language that received many infuences from them. --Panairjdde 22:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC) thanks, Oyo. a great victory with a great example of "catenaccio": three forwards and totti behind.
Your reasoning makes sense. The influence of an empire is important to their greatness. Oyo321 17:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
No, the largest empire ever was the British Empire, which included India, Australia, and Canada as its largest land-masses. The Persian Empire was also larger than the Roman Empire in the time of King Darius, as it stretched from India through Egypt, and also up into the current Russia. The greatest conquest was by the Mongols, who conquered virtually everything through France, but that didn't last as an Empire. The Soviet Union was also larger than the Roman Empire (though largely made of unusable land. I'm not sure if the Third Reich or the Napoleonic Empires were as big, but I don't think so.
    NONE OF THEM INFLUENCED SO DEEPLY THOUGH  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.196.159 (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Industries in Rome

What type of industries are in Rome ?

[edit] Famous Roman people

Could you please tell me any Famous people that come from rome. And could you give me a bit of information about them please. Thanks --58.168.234.176 06:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Rigman

Enrico Fermi, Pius XII, Franco Modigliani, Claudio Baglioni, Alberto Sordi, Elsa Morante, Antonello Venditti, Paolo Portoghesi, Alberto Moravia, Francesco De Gregori, Julius Caesar, Enrico Toti, Ennio Morricone. --Fertuno 00:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Romulus, Augustus Caesar, Marcus Aurelius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.206.51 (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new external link ?

hi to all,

I would like to propose an external link for the rome article. it's a website showcasing various rome locations in interactive high quality fullscreen qtvr, which allows a visitor to explore locations watching in all directions, like being there. the homepage link is http://rome.arounder.com please check city tour or specials or click on the dots on the map to visit locations. for full disclosure, it's one of my websites, part of a much larger project http://www.arounder.com. sorry for this long post, my intention is beyond creating traffic to on of my websites since a wikipedia link would create only a small fraction of the actual traffic this site has. (I know that because others added links to my sites in other articles)

I strongly believe, photographic fullscreen virtual reality is the next best thing of being there, and am sure that visitors will apprecite this link, thus I'm concerned somebody might object because the arounder project has also a commercial aspect. the concept is create in cooperation with the official tourism authorities a city virtual tour, the business is then selling virtual tours to hotel, restaurants etc... nevertheless an arounder city site allows you to view a city better then any other virtual city tour on the net because of it's high quality. My aim is to break down barriers putting online places people might not be able to visit because of economical, geographical, political barriers, or physical barriers, to do this I need to create revenue to finance the core mission.

for example this other site I own is highly appreciated by people with severe physical disabilities because it allows them to live extreme experiences they never could: http://www.fullscreenqtvr.com/04extreme01_10.html

I would really appreciate your feedback and thoughts. especially in regards of the possible conflict of interests. I consider this a kind of pilot discussion to understand if I can contribute with links to various city or monument articles, or somehow else.

I was told once it's possible to contribute also content to wiki, also vr's ? is there a place I can get infos about this ?

thanks for taking the time to read my post

yours sincerely

Marcotrezzini 14:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Recently, the old Infobox City template has been changed into Infobox CityIT one. Would anyone oppose to the restoration of the old infobox?--Panarjedde 00:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox 2

Goodevening, here I'am! I'm the author of the recent changes in Rome's page. Before my intervention the page was higlhy incomplete. I've added all the cultural part, the historic census, and many pics. In my opinion the old infobox was technically not clear and comprehensive, aesthetically not much pleasant. For exaple I've also added much datas and converted meters into feet and square kilometers into square miles. So I took the "american model" for infoboxes. I apologize if you don't like my changes. However I'm confident that the new page is really better than the old one.

87.7.48.115 17:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign relations

I didn't find a place for this:

Rome is one of the cities with the highest number of diplomatic missions as the capital of the Italian Republic, the site of the Holy See, the Sovereign Order of Malta, the FAO and being near to San Marino.

Very true, and with two embassies for every foreign entity (one to Italy the other to the Holy See), there are corpo diplomatico vehicles illegally parked all over town! FJY 12:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)FJY
I've integrated it somehow. --Nehwyn 22:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bit of a facelift

Hello everyone. As you may have noticed, I've made quite a few edits in the last 24h, as I was actually thinking of giving this article a bit of a facelift. Hope you won't mind. I'm more or less following the model of featured city articles (such as Boston) and integrating material from the Italian version of the Rome article (itself a featured article on it.wikipedia.org), as well as adding bits of my own. This is a list of significant changes:

  • Shuffled sections a wee bit;
  • Reworked Religion;
  • Reworked Airports;
  • Reworked intro;
  • Reworked Sports, added Sports venues;
  • Added Media;
  • Added Government and politics.

Last but not least, I've tackled the history section. I know it had grown very long and for this reasons it was moved to its own article, but I felt the history section we had till yesterday went a tad too far in the other direction, i.e. it was too short. I've tried to cram up as much as possible in a resonable length, and this version looks quite good to me. Also, after much pondering, I've decided to merge the demographics section into history. Much of its content was relating numbers to events, so I just thought to put the numbers where the events are described, and save some kilobytes. Any comments? Questions? Suggestions? --Nehwyn 22:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I was very glad to see what you had done and I hope to see more to come. It certainly put a big smile on my face to finally see someone fix this article up. It's starting to shape up nicely. Sicilianmandolin 05:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. We still need many inline citations, though. Can anyone provide help with that? (See Boston for an example on what we're looking for.) --Nehwyn 09:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update 1

Okay, after a few days, this is what I've been able to do so far. The lead, history, geography, and government section I'm quite satisfied with (apart from the fact that it is difficult to insert inline citations in the history part... it's just so generic). The culture section probably still requires some fine-tuning; I was thinking of moving the "media" subsection to its own "List of" article, and maybe just mention the most important media in a dedicated subsection, although I'm not sure whether that should be under culture or economy (possibly the latter). Does anyone have comments on this first part of the article? There are also threecn tags I had placed (one in history, two in geography) that I cannot find a reliable source for... can anyone help? --Nehwyn 07:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Good work! --87.6.62.4 12:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, encouragement is much appreciated. Hey, while you're at it, consider registering a username... it's free, no strings attached, and it is much better if you plan on contributing to Wikipedia.  :)

[edit] Standard Italian communes infobox

As it looks that this page is the sole main Italian communes using this different infobox, please gain first consensus to use this different form, instead of reverting an attempt to standardization. Moreover, haven't you noticed that the infobox you are so fond of shows the image of the province of Rome, instead of the commune? Bye. --Attilios 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Beware of changing this article too boldly... The overwhelming rage of Lord Nehwyn (portayed) could strike against you!!!!.
Beware of changing this article too boldly... The overwhelming rage of Lord Nehwyn (portayed) could strike against you!!!!.
I have added the wikify markup until the matter is solved. --Attilios 22:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I still like the general City infobox better... sorry! As for the problem you mention with the image, you're right, but that does not depend on which infobox template is used, only on which picture is linked from it. I have corrected the general City infobox accordingly, so the problem is solved in the current version. --Nehwyn 23:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
As for the wikify tag you have attached to the article, please note that tag is used to stress style or layout problems as covered in WP:MOS, which is not the case here. (Both infoboxes respect the Manual of Style; which one is used is a matter of preference, not of Wikipedia style.) --Nehwyn 23:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
People! Come here! Adhore the omnipotent master of this article, lord Nehwyn! Every edit you add that he won't like, you'll be reverted until the 3RR rule will hang on your head!!! Be afraid of his whim, oh feeble subjects!!!! --Attilios 23:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, the "location of Rome" you have added to justify the existence of such a beutiful infobox is pathetic. --Attilios 23:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Attilio, please don't take offense if your edit is reversed. That's an ordinary occurrence on Wikipedia. Nobody has absolute power on articles, and we're all subject to the same rules. Disagreements happen. If you see one of your edits repeatedly reverted by other editors, try arguing your case on the talk page for that article, in order to try and convince those who oppose your position on that particular matter. As for the picture problem you mentioned, you were right in evidencing it, and it has been solved. --Nehwyn 23:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Attilios, are you able to accept opinions different from yours? You changed the infobox, so you should be sure to have consensus for your change.--Panarjedde 12:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I support the restoration of the old infobox.--Panarjedde 12:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About infoboxes

So, hopefully with a cooler head, let's try and compare infoboxes. The two options are the general City infobox, as featured in this article so far (you can see it in the present version of the article), and the CityIT infobox, a template specifically aimed at Italian cities (you can see in this older version implemented by Attilios). As I've stated already, I would rather keep the old infobox; these are my reasons why.

  • Map: Attilios pointed out the map in the City infobox, as feature in the article, did not show the city proper, but rather the Province of Rome (in red), i.e. its metropolitan area. Thanks to his comment, this has been fixed, and the current picture features the city of Rome (in yellow) within the Province of Rome (in red) within the Region of Lazio (in grey). The CityIT infobox, on the other hand, also has a dot for the city proper, and shows the borders of the Lazio region, but does not show the metropolitan area / Province of Rome, so it's slightly less informative. In terms of map used, my preference therefore goes to City.
  • Other pictures: the City infobox contains the flag of Rome, the official seal of Rome, and a photograph of the city's most famous landmark, the Colosseum. The CityIT infobox contains only the seal, so flag and landmark are moved to the article text. Again, this is less informative (and looks worse IMHO), so in this regard too my preference goes to the current City template.
  • Data: The current City infobox contains some figures that would be lost with the CityIT infobox, while the only datum that is not present in the current infobox and would appear in Attilios' version is the gentilic "Romani" (Romans), the term used to indicate citizens of Rome. Considering both aspects, even in this respect my preference goes to the current template.
  • Accuracy: Attilios' version of the infobox contains two inaccuracies. Attilios has replaced the latest ISTAT population count with an older one, and has removed the ''<ref>'' tag which linked to the relevant section of the ISTAT website. Moreover, the patron saints' day is listed as April 25, when it's actually June 29, as correctly stated in the article text. I'm not sure why these changes have been introduced, but since they could easily be corrected whichever infobox is used, they make no difference in choosing between the two.
I can agree with you on all the line. However, as you probably never check other articles about Italian cities, you are not aware of ack of standardization. I was simply pushing towards it, as every serious encyclopedia should have (for example, ALL popes, saints, Swiss communes, French communes, German communes articles have the same infobox). It's not a matter of likes or dislikes, simply reasoning and conforming. Your behaviour and sticking to personal tastes is devoiding the Italian communes of such a standardisation in Wikipedia. However, as long as you are not touched by this point, I can't do anything with you. You look unable to grasp the broader picture. But let me know. Good work. --Attilios 14:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Next time, try to discuss before pushing your POV, not after. Who decided what is to go in this template?--Panarjedde 15:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Standardisation cuts both ways. We could just as easily argue that converting the infobox in Italian city articles from CityIT to the more general City infobox is an act of even broader standardisation. And that conversion would cause no loss of data (anything from a CityIT template can be converted into a City template, but the reverse is not true, and converting from City to CityIT would mean discarding content). --Nehwyn 16:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
It is useless to debate with people again and again finding pretestuous arguments only in favour of their hypotesis. There's no harm to modify any infobox in order to contain all the infos you want. The truth is that YOU don't want to renounce to YOUR infobox. The fact is that YOU are currently hampering standardization, but it is clear that in the truth you don't care of it, as long as your beloved article will contain the infobox in the form you prefer. --Attilios 17:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
PS: Differently from you, I don't care of which infobox or another you use here. But if you are able to standardize in some form the infobox used in Italian communes, without losing any info showed there, you are welcome. A good way to contribute is maybe the WikiProject:Italy that I was asked to collaborate to (see my talk page; but, frankly, from your behaviour I doubt that you are interested in something different than this page). Otherwise, in my view you remain only disruptors. --Attilios 17:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
You are right in saying that there's little use in further arguing, as our respective positions are pretty much clear. My arguments for preferring the City infobox are those outlined in the list above; yours for preferring the CityIT infobox is that it's the one used for other Italian cities, even if you don't particularly like it. As for your other allegations, as far as I am concerned, I neither deem your motivation pretestuous (even if I do not concur with it), nor I think you are a disruptor for not agreeing with me; and I am sure you will be a valid contributor to the Italy wikiproject, as soon as it will be jumpstarted. --Nehwyn 17:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You are asking to collaborate, and showing disrespect at the same time. How do you write hypocrisy?--Panarjedde 17:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, sorry. What about the infobox? And why are you reverting the wide images without first debating it in the talk pages as insted you pretend for me here? Wanna speak of hypocrisy?--Attilios 17:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep the main as good overview of history

There is a minimum necessary to maintain the overview of Rome because of its 3000 year history. I hope you can respect that. The length is suitable and reasonable. Do not omit the Byzantine period. I have not included the RENAISSANCE, which on second thought should be given at least a phrase. These are perfectly reasonable and concise overview.

Rome was considered a cultural treasure of the world that the Chiefs-of-Staff of the US in World War II listed several sites that were off-limits to bombing. I will research this further but I have read it several times before. One city that comes to mind that was strategic but was never bombed was KYOTO. i'm not sure if it was Gen. Marshal or Eisenhower and FDR or MacArthur that pushed the decision. This decision however was opposed by the British and Churchill who wanted to obliterate the city of Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr mindbender (talk • contribs)

Hello there! Let's take this discussion one step at a time, starting with what we mostly agree about. The intro contains three paragraphs. I take you have no problem with the first one, as you've let it stay in its current form. As for the third paragraph, your statement that Rome has never been bombed during WWII is (unfortunately) not true. Have a look at this:

http://cronologia.leonardo.it/storia/a1943a.htm

You'll see the 1943 photographs. A simple Google search using "bombing rome world war" as keywords will confirm you that your recollection on this matter is incorrect (or, even better "bombardamenti roma mondiale" for results in Italian). Were you to visit the city, you would see a few of the bombed houses have been preserved in their damaged status, such as in Piazza Vittorio (although, if I remember correctly, they started rebuilding them just a few months ago), or near the corner between Viale Manzoni and Via Merulana (this one is probably still in place). If you're satisfied with these two paragraphs, we can proceed to discussing the middle one. =) --Nehwyn 19:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I have reworded the 3rd paragraph. I guess what I meant was that it was not systematically bombed from the air like London and Berlin.
On the whole, a reasonable length of the main should be at most one whole screen high. Anything in excess of that may be considered relatively long.
On the 2nd paragraph, your condensation is a little bit excessive. I am trying to include the most significant periods of history. I notice you omit the Byzantine period. On Rome, it is the center of the Catholic Church, not Roman Catholic; it is also the center of Eastern Catholicism - your usage has an obvious British bias - I don't blame you but let's not be too parochial. Tone down the use of decadent, let history speak for itself and let the reader draw his own conclusions.
I'm not sure what you mean by "systematically" bombed, but Rome was bombed multiple times during WWII. Not as heavily as Berlin or some other German cities, that's for granted, but it was bombed; it really wouldn't be fair to say that it survived the war largely unscathed, considering the bombing as well as Nazi occupation, the Fosse Ardeatine, and so on.
As for the second paragraph, your reason for reverting to the longer version is that it's a good overview of city history. That's, I believe, where our opinions diverge. I don't think the lead should be an overview of Roman history; that's what the history section is for. The lead should no more than a presentation of what the other article sections contain. I'll try and propose an intermediate version here; just give me a few minutes to write it.
Last but not least, why do you say I have an "obvious British bias"? --Nehwyn 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article protected

I can see Dr mindbender is not much into discussion... he violated the 3RR rule, and that I reported to get the article protected. Given that, and having examined the lead section of other European capitals (London and Paris for starters), I am even more convinced the intro should not become an overview of city history, but should be a shorter presentation of the city as it is, leaving the history overview to the History section. Dr mindbender, if you're still reading this, do you still hold to your view instead? Because if you do, there's only mediation left. --Nehwyn 15:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nehwyn, we should fashion that article on Rome like Paris, not only in introduction, but the whole format of the article. The article is all words. There are no pictures like the articles on Paris, Madrid and London. We need a sense of uniform in our articles. - Galati —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galati (talk • contribs)
Indeed. Rome has 14 illustrations, versus 20 in London and 28 in Paris. Well, maybe the latter is too many, but I'd say going to 20 is a reasonable choice. As for the structure of sections and subsections, my model in reorganising the article has been Boston, which I preferred over other city articles because it is a featured article. Stil, at the end of the day, what Rome needs most is the addition of more references; anyone who is able to solve some of the citation needed notices within the text... please do so! --Nehwyn 20:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Can we unprotect this page? Martinp23 22:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
No talk activity for a week, so yes. --Robdurbar 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The statue of the She-wolf is re-dated to the middle ages

According to the Discovery Channel article here: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/22/shewolf_arc.html the statue of the she-wolf was re-dated to the middle ages based on the techniques used to make it. The Wikipedia page still refers to it as "Etruscan".

Amos Shapira 04:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proper Italian spellings

I understand the temptation to insert foreign (i.e., English) spellings into an article about Italy, but I have learned from my studies in Wikipedia that this is not acceptable. For example, over on the Franz Josef Strauss article, the following editors—

Gryffindor
Haukur Þorgeirsson
C.Löser
Edinborgarstefan
Schubbay
Darkone
Sicherlich
Angr
Reinhard
Stern
Denniss
Carbidfischer

made it abundantly clear that using an incorrect spelling, simply because it is the "normal" English translation, is just wrong. We need to stick to correct spellings of proper names. These editors have been around a lot longer than me, and most of them are European, so we need to listen to them. They know better than English speakers. 65.80.244.202 19:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In the Italian-language version of the article, it is obviously fine to use the Italian spelling of the city throughout the article. However, in the English-language version of the article, it is only proper to use the English spelling of the city. Inserting in the English-language version of the article (perhaps near the beginning) a note as to the Italian spelling of the city would obviously be wise. LoyolaDude 06:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did you change BCE to BC? BCE is common throughout Wikipedia. Ratherhaveaheart 19:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no official WP rule as to BC or BCE. However, there was one that was proposed that suggested that BC should be used when discussing a subject related to religion. Since the areas of this article that I changed deal with the history of Rome, which is full of religious ties, I felt it was appropriate. Even though the proposal did not pass, I still try to follow it unless there is overwhelming objections. LoyolaDude 21:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

Deleted flags as per this diff, this article WP:FLAGS, this debate, and this admin. One down, umpteen thousand to go. Pedro |  Talk  21:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck Norris

I doubt the founder of Rome was Chuck Norris.

     You're wrong, he probably built it in half day with lego bricks!:)

[edit] Where is demography?

There is no section about this standard information. Lear 21 11:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Hi... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.148.186 (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colosseum

Why does the article refer to the Colosseum as being built "in the 70's" - it just doesnt seem very accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HBarca (talk • contribs) 22:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, construction on the Colosseum started in either 70 CE or 72 CE, and finished in 80 CE, so saying it was built in the 70s is pretty accurate. Gentgeen 08:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] number fiddling?

This just seemed like a small move, and i'm far from expert. any ideas? [1] --Kevin (TALK) 16:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Trevi Fountain

[edit] Photos

I have some photos that may be of interest to readers of the article, but unfortunately I cannot release them for use on Wikipedia itself. How would people feel about linking to them? The URL for the page is http://www.travel-pictures.biz/photos/europe/italy/rome/ . Astigmat 02:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

UNESCO's World Heritage Site: Historic Centre of Rome, the Properties of the Holy See in that City Enjoying Extraterritorial Rights and San Paolo Fuori le Mura Id. n. 91, 91bis 1980 e 1990 C (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) http://www.sitiunesco.it/index.phtml?id=558 http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/91

Unfortunately we can't use them on the page, and they are nothing exceptional, so they should not be introduced in the article. See WP:LINKS for more informations.--Francis Escort 12:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Quality

If we look at Paris, France's page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris It is so much more colourful and detailed, whereas Rome's is lagging behind other European capital pages

[edit] Just a mistake -- pls fix it

Rome is the second most populous metropolitan area, after Milan not the third one Instead Rome metropolitan area is the largest in Italy http://www.provincia.roma.it/UploadDocs/1815_20070222WP9web.pdf

[edit] Universities of Rome

Between the Universities of the city there's also the Link Campu University of Malta, but it's bad linked inside the wikicode. The link is limited to "Campus of Rome", while the full name is, actually, "Link Campus - University of Malta" or, simply, "Link Campus". Is it possible to make this little but important change? Thank you very much for any suggestion or instruction on how to do it by myself. UniLinkCampus 13:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The American University of Rome (www.aur.edu) is not listed on this page. It is the first American University in Rome!! HeathaMilla 09:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The claim that La Sapienza is the second largest university in the world is completely unfounded. UNAM in Mexico and UBA in Argentina are far larger by number of students, which appears to be the metric used, as well as by the number of faculty. I am sure that there are many others in Latin America that are larger by these criteria, and I would imagine that the same is true in other regions of the world.

[edit] Population in history

The chapter on population begins with this sentence: "At the time of Emperor Augustus, Rome was the largest city in the world (and probably the largest city ever built until the nineteenth century)." How can it be the "largest city in the world" until the nineteenth century, at the time of Emperor Augustus??? This is confusing. Does it mean that at the time of Augustus, the city was at it's maximum and after Augustus it got smaller? And does it mean that after this moment, there has never been a city in the world whose population reached this size until the nineteenth century? Maarten 11 12:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

>>Rome's population may have been less than 50,000, then was stagnant or shrinking until the Renaissance, when in XVII century reached 100,000. The day when Rome was annexed to Kingdom of Ialy, in 1870, had a population of about 200,000, that rapidly increased to 600,000 by the end of XIX century.

For clarity and consistency please change these century references to text or regular numbers ( 17th, 19th respectively ) ( or seventeenth, nineteenth )

[edit] Typos

"characterized by feast" - in Fascist Architecture, what on earth is intended? Danja 19:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lock this article

Requesting that this article be locked. Unusual volumes of vandalism, and not enough people keeping on top of it. About 4 edits went unreverted for hours. Sicilianmandolin 16:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

nice information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.0.191 (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Its past the no-editing period 69.22.71.123 15:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Guys, there are too many images near the bottom of the article. They disconnect the text and make article look messy. Use a gallery. athinaios (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Religion

There was virtually nothing about the Roman Religion from prior to Christianity on the page, so I added a bit from Livy. Please add more to expand upon when I added, as Rome's very long history before 380 AD was tied very closely to religious practices that weren't even mentioned on the page. --WingedEarth (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of not making this article too long, this section should concentrate on contemporary Rome and it should be short and sweet. The historical aspects that you and others have added are great, but better suited to the main article or, if necessary, a new article on Ancient Roman religion. Mariokempes (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The article on Rome should focus on Rome, not just one particular period of history (e.g. contemporary). It's impossible to understand Rome without knowing it's history, and if any article should be long, it's an article on a 2760 year old city that happens to be the basis for Western Civilization as we know it. Anyhow, I only added two short paragraphs to that section. Rome's most influential and most studied period is the ancient period. Therefore, if anything should be edited out, it's the information on later periods. --216.211.206.51 (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the religion section only... the history section itself is adequate. There is no point going into great detail on the religion of ancient Rome in this article specific to Rome the city, since this aspect generally pertains to the history of western civilization and is not unique to just the city. Info on ancient religion could be elaborated on in a separate article. That is only my opinion and I won't press the issue. Mariokempes (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gap in the middle of the page!

Why is there a gap in the middle of the page with over 13 pictures on the right side of the article? MicroX 04:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Coat of arms of Rome.png

Image:Coat of arms of Rome.png 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) 19:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rome

rome,is so awsome!isabella is so pretty! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.134.118 (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] official borders of municipi

The reference

http://www.comune.roma.it/was/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_21L?menuPage=/Area_di_navigazione/Sezioni_del_portale/Municipi/

is commented as

List of Municipi and definition of their territories on the official website of the Comune di Roma

Could someone help to find detailed definition of borders for each municipi (and possibly rioni)--which streets make up borders for each municipi/rioni? --DenisYurkin (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about their aqueducts?

Constructed by the first Roman emperors, the aqueducts still supply most of the fresh water used in the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.139.242 (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metro and Urban people number??

Where did you find these data?? 5milion ppl in metro area? Naples and Roma have about 3500000 ppl in metro area, Milan almost 4milion !!!!! —Preceding Flapane (Wiki Italia) comment added by 213.140.16.189 (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Satellite Photo

Don't forget the satellite photo of the whole city of Rome. The one it's shown represents only part of the city. You can find it in the italian link.

mos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.155.180 (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Villas of Rome

Among its beautiful villas, I suggest to remember also VILLA TIVOLI and VILLA D'ESTE, two very famous villas, UNESCO world heritage; let's add 'em! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.25.5.144 (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Tivoli (not "Villa Tivoli") is a town not far from Rome but distinct from it, and Villa d'Este is in Tivoli... Goochelaar (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganized incipit

I reorganized the incipit, added references, and improved the text.

Rome (Italian: Roma, Latin: Roma) is the capital city of Italy and of the Lazio region, as well as the country's largest and most populous city, with more than 2.7 million residents.[2] The metropolitan area has a population of about 4 million. It is located in the central-western portion of the Italian peninsula, where the river Aniene joins the Tiber.

Rome, Caput mundi (Capital of the world), la Città Eterna (The Eternal City), Limen Apostolorum (Threshold of the Apostles), la città dei sette colli (The city of the seven hills) or simply l'Urbe (The City),[3] has been for centuries the center of Western civilization, and is the seat of the Catholic Church.

The State of the Vatican City, the sovereign territory of the Holy See is an enclave of Rome.

Today is thoroughly modern and cosmopolitan, and the third most-visited tourist destination in the EU.[4]

As one of the few major European cities that escaped World War II relatively unscathed, central Rome remains essentially Renaissance and Baroque in character. The Historic Center of Rome is listed by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site.[5]

The Mayor of Rome is Giovanni Alemanno.

--Fertuno (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC) YO! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.242.132 (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)