Ancient Rome was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
AD/BC is best used on many articles that might have a christian or biblical connotation, tens, if not hundreds of thousands of other articles use the CE/BCE dating system to indicate Common Era and Before Common Era instead of Anno Domini (In the Year of Our Lord) and Before Christ. Given that the Romans themselves used neither system, but did in fact oppress and condemn Christianity until Constantine at the end, I think your general reader would benefit from the use of the CE/BCE system instead. I am familiar with WP:RETAIN as well as WP:ERA though, so I intend to gain consensus before making this change across this article. TY. —Moops⋠T⋡18:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add my oppose here, for the record. As I've stated elsewhere, the Christian religion arose out of the instincts of the ancient Roman world, and toward the end of it, was adopted by it. So, AD/BC is appropriate. Another point to consider is the accuracy of the Babylonian–Egyptian solar calendar with regard to starting at the same time each year, especially with the improvements under Caesar. Alternative calendars are often not quite so accurate. I don't really understand the need to relabel when you are retaining the arbitrary nature of the calendar with regard to its denoting a certain epoch. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose suggestion by confirmed sockpuppet account. The use of BCE vs. BC should have nothing to do with whether the subject of an article had an affinity or lack thereof for Christianity. That's tantamount to saying we'd best not use "Thursday" on articles that don't accept Thor as a real deity.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 00:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto with the opposition, pending some evidence that a revival of Roman paganism makes the use potentially offensive with regard to this specific article, as opposed to atheists and scholars who'd prefer to end use of the BC/AD nomenclature entirely. — LlywelynII13:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Modern reconstruction of the marshy conditions of early Rome, along with a conjectural placement of the early settlement and its fortifications
I understand different editors might have different preferences about phrasing, notability, and specific images but the article very much needs some image showing how marshy the original area was. Even if the specific image to the right needs to be removed for whatever reason, kindly substitute some other better image that captures the same major points about the former rivers and lakes long since entirely vanished from the area. Ditto, Roma Quadrata and Murus Romuli might need expansion and improvement but the topics should be linked from this article in some fashion even if we don't go into details here about the various confusions, scholarly arguments, source contradictions, etc. — LlywelynII13:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move excessive links here for any possible discussion:
Some things just grow by incremental edits. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, had grown to 9 entries. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four links.
The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
East Rome survived for another 1000 years afterwards. There is a large lack of consistency. Constantine moved the capital in the 320s AD to Constantinople, so why didn't it end here according to this logic? Because the logic is broken and East Rome was Rome and the date should reflect that. 89.134.7.107 (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient Rome is the classical era of Roman civilization so it will never extend to 1453. But it's a valid question why do we stop at 476 AD. To make this a productive discussion, please refer to reliable sources.
One I am aware of is Mary Beard'sSQPR where her core thesis is Ancient Rome ends in 212 when citizenship was extended, which is a challenge to Gibbon's traditional view. Other sources I've come across mention how the death of Ulpian soon after is the end of the classical era. If you want to argue about after these dates, that's more the issue of the use of Byzantine Empire vs Roman Empire and is not related to this article. Biz (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
_crowned.svg)
