This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Although this article and List of Roman place names in Britain are not precisely the same there is enough overlap that they could be combined into something like List of Latin placenames in the British Isles since no toponyms are listed in either article for Iceland or Faeroes. LuiKhuntek 20:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for noticing.
I would vote to reject this proposal: I think it's very important to keep the distinction between Roman names (ie names attested from Roman times) and Latin names (ie Latin or pseudo-Latin names that have been applied to British places at some time or other). This was the rationale behind the very deliberate separation between List of Roman place names in Britain and List of British places with Latin names. I think it would be extremely confusing to merge these together. Moreover I would suggest that List of Latin place names in North Atlantic islands is a very poor subject for an article, since no-one is ever likely to search on this, and it is surely very debatable what are considered to be "North Atlantic Islands". More specifically, I think we should have two articles, one for the strictly Roman names, and one for the Latin names in general, both relating only to the British Isles. Neither should relate to "North Atlantic islands", since this is not a grouping that makes any sense, so the good stuff in the present article should be merged into one or other of the existing other two articles. -- rossb 09:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of islands in the north atlantic that are not British. And while I agree that later names are "irrelevant" for the "student" of attested Roman placenames, far more history uses ecclesiastic Latin than Roman Latin. The serious "student" will not be confused. None of the words mentioned by Pasquale appear here.
The answer is thorough documentation. I've done as best I can here, but in many cases on the other pages, folks just keep adding names without references.
List of British places with Latin names is not germane, since that's British to Latin, and this is Latin to English.
Again, as I replied earlier, the more restrictive list of "Roman" place names in "Britain" seems to have support as a separate entity, and there's no good reason to delete that article. Just keep any improvements, and add them here. Not difficult.
Anyway, this merge proposal has been up for 2 months, and there's no support, so I'm deleting the tag.
Quick Question - Its stated in the first sentance that Iceland was a part of the Roman Empire... I've never heard that assertion before. Is it correct?
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Although this article and List of Roman place names in Britain are not precisely the same there is enough overlap that they could be combined into something like List of Latin placenames in the British Isles since no toponyms are listed in either article for Iceland or Faeroes. LuiKhuntek 20:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for noticing.
I would vote to reject this proposal: I think it's very important to keep the distinction between Roman names (ie names attested from Roman times) and Latin names (ie Latin or pseudo-Latin names that have been applied to British places at some time or other). This was the rationale behind the very deliberate separation between List of Roman place names in Britain and List of British places with Latin names. I think it would be extremely confusing to merge these together. Moreover I would suggest that List of Latin place names in North Atlantic islands is a very poor subject for an article, since no-one is ever likely to search on this, and it is surely very debatable what are considered to be "North Atlantic Islands". More specifically, I think we should have two articles, one for the strictly Roman names, and one for the Latin names in general, both relating only to the British Isles. Neither should relate to "North Atlantic islands", since this is not a grouping that makes any sense, so the good stuff in the present article should be merged into one or other of the existing other two articles. -- rossb 09:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of islands in the north atlantic that are not British. And while I agree that later names are "irrelevant" for the "student" of attested Roman placenames, far more history uses ecclesiastic Latin than Roman Latin. The serious "student" will not be confused. None of the words mentioned by Pasquale appear here.
The answer is thorough documentation. I've done as best I can here, but in many cases on the other pages, folks just keep adding names without references.
List of British places with Latin names is not germane, since that's British to Latin, and this is Latin to English.
Again, as I replied earlier, the more restrictive list of "Roman" place names in "Britain" seems to have support as a separate entity, and there's no good reason to delete that article. Just keep any improvements, and add them here. Not difficult.
Anyway, this merge proposal has been up for 2 months, and there's no support, so I'm deleting the tag.
Quick Question - Its stated in the first sentance that Iceland was a part of the Roman Empire... I've never heard that assertion before. Is it correct?