This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Was this:
But seems useless now. Roger Pearse 15:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Leptis Magna → Lepcis Magna — "Lepcis Magna" is generally recognised as the original and correct name of the city. Although most guidebooks, signs, etc, still refer to it by the corruption "Leptis Magna", I think it's time we moved it to its accepted title now. Deb ( talk) 19:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
My argument is that the generally received "correct" name of the city is Lepcis Magna. Archaeologists now almost all use this name. However, tourism and promotional material still tends to use the discredited "Leptis". A google search would certainly give more hits for Leptis Magna than for Lepcis Magna, but that doesn't make it the best title. I will look further for sources. Deb ( talk) 11:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC) So far, the best ones I can find are the site hosted by the latest team of archaeologists to work there and Current Archaeology magazine, which always uses "Lepcis". I believe that the Society for Libyan Studies would also support this, but have yet to find evidence, as their main website is rather out of date. Deb ( talk) 11:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a tough call, and pretty much an even debate. However, this move request has been backlogged and it's time for someone to to either deny or implement it. We have a common name vs. correct name situation here. It's my judgment that 1) Lepcis Magna is indeed the correct name, and 2) Lepcis Magna is not uncommon, and it is becoming more common and will presumably continue to do so. Thefore I'm moving it to Lepcis Magna. Herostratus ( talk) 16:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Lepcis Magna → Leptis Magna — The name on the UNESCO list is "Leptis Magna". I have also never heard of this "Lepcis Magna", only "Leptis Magna". Propose to restore the original name of the article back. Gryffindor ( talk) 16:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with the current title, but just for the record, UNESCO is an exceptionally crappy replacement for scholarly sources.
The OCD has "Lepcis (in some inscriptions Leptis) Magna (neo-Punic Lpqy)". [1]. Leptis is clearly just the Greek adaptation of the native LPQ, which leaked into Latin usage to some extent. -- dab (𒁳) 12:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
It's fine that the Semetic meaning is sourced here, but it's worth noting (maybe correcting?) Leptis Parva, which offers a completely different (sourced) meaning of the name. Meanwhile Livius thinks they're both wrong and finds it to be a local name that the Phoenicians must've carried over when they colonized the area. — LlywelynII 13:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why this article has the standard Wikipedia references, "Bibliography", "Further Reading" and "External Links"? That's four different ways of providing supporting information, and it's the first time I have seen anything like that on here. At the very least, "Bibliography" would have to be folded into the reference list where needed (and simply cut where unnecessary), and the other two sections can most likely do with a lot of trimming as well. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 04:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Was this:
But seems useless now. Roger Pearse 15:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Leptis Magna → Lepcis Magna — "Lepcis Magna" is generally recognised as the original and correct name of the city. Although most guidebooks, signs, etc, still refer to it by the corruption "Leptis Magna", I think it's time we moved it to its accepted title now. Deb ( talk) 19:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
My argument is that the generally received "correct" name of the city is Lepcis Magna. Archaeologists now almost all use this name. However, tourism and promotional material still tends to use the discredited "Leptis". A google search would certainly give more hits for Leptis Magna than for Lepcis Magna, but that doesn't make it the best title. I will look further for sources. Deb ( talk) 11:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC) So far, the best ones I can find are the site hosted by the latest team of archaeologists to work there and Current Archaeology magazine, which always uses "Lepcis". I believe that the Society for Libyan Studies would also support this, but have yet to find evidence, as their main website is rather out of date. Deb ( talk) 11:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a tough call, and pretty much an even debate. However, this move request has been backlogged and it's time for someone to to either deny or implement it. We have a common name vs. correct name situation here. It's my judgment that 1) Lepcis Magna is indeed the correct name, and 2) Lepcis Magna is not uncommon, and it is becoming more common and will presumably continue to do so. Thefore I'm moving it to Lepcis Magna. Herostratus ( talk) 16:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Lepcis Magna → Leptis Magna — The name on the UNESCO list is "Leptis Magna". I have also never heard of this "Lepcis Magna", only "Leptis Magna". Propose to restore the original name of the article back. Gryffindor ( talk) 16:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with the current title, but just for the record, UNESCO is an exceptionally crappy replacement for scholarly sources.
The OCD has "Lepcis (in some inscriptions Leptis) Magna (neo-Punic Lpqy)". [1]. Leptis is clearly just the Greek adaptation of the native LPQ, which leaked into Latin usage to some extent. -- dab (𒁳) 12:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
It's fine that the Semetic meaning is sourced here, but it's worth noting (maybe correcting?) Leptis Parva, which offers a completely different (sourced) meaning of the name. Meanwhile Livius thinks they're both wrong and finds it to be a local name that the Phoenicians must've carried over when they colonized the area. — LlywelynII 13:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why this article has the standard Wikipedia references, "Bibliography", "Further Reading" and "External Links"? That's four different ways of providing supporting information, and it's the first time I have seen anything like that on here. At the very least, "Bibliography" would have to be folded into the reference list where needed (and simply cut where unnecessary), and the other two sections can most likely do with a lot of trimming as well. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 04:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)