![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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. mos 82.55.218.102
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
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)
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)
NONE OF THEM INFLUENCED SO DEEPLY THOUGH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.196.159 ( talk) 03:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
What type of industries are in Rome ?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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.
You are asking to collaborate, and showing disrespect at the same time. How do you write hypocrisy?-- Panarjedde 17:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
http://cronologia.leonardo.it/storia/a1943a.htm
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)
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)
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)
Is this really a twin of Rome? I can find no evidence of this. 62.189.15.226 12:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
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.
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)
There is no section about this standard information. Lear 21 11:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
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).
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
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
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.
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 )
"characterized by feast" - in Fascist Architecture, what on earth is intended? Danja 19:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
"From the its foundation," should be "From its foundation,"
Firespun (
talk)
15:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Edit first and ask questions later: I've put in a paragraph on religion under demography. We could do with some statistics on this. There's also Jewish and Hindu communities in Rome. Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
The reference
is commented as
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)
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)
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)
How could be Milan Metropolitan area largest then Rome's if the entire "Provincia di Milano" is smaller of the "Comune di Rome"?
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)
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)
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)
Why does this article say nothing about pollution in Rome (or the rest of Italy's cities for that matter)? I don't know enough to make any definitive statements, but I have heard that pollution in Rome is actually quite terrible, and I know for a fact that some other major cities in Italy (Florence, for example) appear to have a problem with getting rid of solid trash. Considering that many other articles concerning major cities approach the subject of pollution, I believe this one should as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.24.252 ( talk) 20:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there senate in present-day Rome?-- Dojarca ( talk) 22:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Could someone update the caption for the Capitoline Wolf image to reflect the new information about its date of creation? Even just removing the parenthesized text would do it. 24.79.155.247 ( talk) 20:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Why was the mention of Aniene river removed? No real sources are needed: any map is enough. See for instance http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=41.937275,12.502098&spn=0.033137,0.109863&z=14 in Google Maps. The narrower river is Aniene (scrolling rightwards enough, "Fiume [i.e. river] Aniene" will show up). Happy editing, Goochelaar ( talk) 21:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is good in parts but still a bit of a mess. I'm working on a new version based partly on this article, on the it:Rome article from Italian Wikipedia, using the structure from the London. If anyone wants to have a look it here: User:Blue-Haired Lawyer/sandbox2. Blue-Haired Lawyer 08:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to start shifting around the sections for article to reflect standard city article structure. (I'm taking London as a base). Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
(apologies for the horrible pun!)
Here's my suggested to do list (please feel free to add any ideas of your own):
1. I'd like to replace the second paragraph of the lead with one giving more info about roman history and delete the list of epithets. We could put these elsewhere if anyone's interested.
2. The section of the local administration needs improvement. There's not much information on this one to be found. Anyone know how many councillors there are for instance?
3. The economy section is a bit week. Saying that Rome "has a dynamic and diverse economy with thriving technologies" sounds a bit propagandistic.
4. Most cities have a decent section of the etymology of the city's name.
5. IMHO the language section should concentrate more on the modern dialect. Isn't is called "Romano" anyway?
6. Two separate parts of the article place a series of images on the right side of the page, which messes up the edit tags. Anyone mind if I change this?
Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know what this means? Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm very doubtful about the Sovereign Military Order of Malta's claim to sovereignty. Even if it is "[a]n independent subject of international law", as it describes itself to be this doesn't necessarily mean it's sovereign.
Anyway, as far as this article is concerned, since the Order of Malta don't actually claim any territory in Rome, Rome can't contain it. At least not in the same way that it contains the Vatican. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta isn't anywhere. It just happens to have offices in Rome, as do lots of other international bodies. They aren't in Rome anymore than they might be anywhere else that they have offices. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Noone really cares if your boutful...it still has its sovereign status and is housed by Rome. Gavin ( talk) 11:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I think we should add here all about Rome as much as we can including the Gods and Godesses which should be included in the Religion part of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homogeneous ( talk • contribs) 10:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Under Transportation/Rail: the word "principle" is used. This is the wrong usage. It should be "principal".
every one talks itanian and people who dont leave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.129.226 ( talk) 18:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
There are 160 hectares, was once a land, for forty years is a landfill. Indeed, one of the most explosive landfill d'Italia, the largest in Europe. The black jersey of Italy had defined the Eurispes in a report last year, the increasingly fine mesh that covers the waste of capital and prevents it from becoming the next Naples. But how long will succeed this black mesh to protect Rome and the surrounding area? A meeting between the mayor Gianni Alemanno and the chairman of the Region Piero Marrazzo should decide the fate of the capital and its roads. But —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.182.86.10 ( talk) 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
This page has several spelling errors, now I am not an expert in History or Rome, but pretty sure that things like civilisation, or the corrected form; civilization, are things that need to be fixed in order for this page to be taken seriously. I do know that this civilisation might be a UK version of this word, but however, I do believe that it has been removed from normal use and is no longer a prevalent way of writing civilization. In addition, the link corresponding with this spelling error has now been written as Western Society under its article page.
In addition, I am not attacking the author or authors, but I do believe that the grammar needs a lot of work, which is very hard when writing a technical document such as this. Please, be aware of flaws and spelling errors that would create a false facade of bad information as when I am reading through these pages, I do not tend to lean towards believing something that has this many errors within its body of text.
Thank you,
WolfMan4200 (
talk)
22:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)The First WolfMan
can i ahve more information abuot rome because is not a nough —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.210.110 ( talk) 22:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The metropolitan area of Rome is big 3.089, 24 km², absolutely not 5.352!!! 5.352 is the number about the province of Rome, another subeject!! can see also you in italian page ( here) the truth! i think who this page is neglected and imaginative! -- Focak ( talk) 00:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for honesty: i believe that for an encyclopaedia it's very important to be honesty and correct! however, if you can however to put the dates of metropolitan area of Rome, the best thing is to report to the sources eurostat, onu, etc.. (sources much less "local"!!!). All the cities use the sources about their metropolitan area, it's first an factor of urbanism, so i believe that it's not very imporant if it's not yet recognizet from institutions!!! so, however for Rome it's important to remember that her metropolitan area: 1 not include all the province, 2 it's the bigger metropolitan area of italy (only for extension) but the third for population and it has a density very low if compareted to the metropolitan area of Milan and especially to Naples. it's important to be correct, this is an encyclopaedia. thank you, bye! -- Focak ( talk) 04:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't delete this period but someone must cancel this: " and more than three times the size of the greater metropolitan area of London".... must be cancelled for the reasons who I've expressed before, please! so the metropolita area of rome not corrisponds with whole the province and it can't be compared to greater London, please, i repeat, be careful of fanaticism, the metropolitan area of Rome isn't comparable to London or Paris.-- Focak ( talk) 15:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The sentence that reads, in part, "Rome constitutes one of Italy's 8,101 commune's [sic]" should read, "Rome constitutes one of Italy's 8,101 communes." If someone could fix this, that'd be just dandy. 98.226.184.153 ( talk) 22:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The position of Rome is wrong in the map. Rome Position —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.3.223.4 ( talk) 13:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
According to the article Rome is
Italy's largest and most populous city, with 2,726,539[1] residents in an urban area of some 1,285.3 km2 (496.3 sq mi).
This is TOTALLY INCORRECT. Those figures refer just to the municipality. According to Urban Audit the population of Rome urban area is 3,457,690. -- 93.45.231.130 ( talk) 08:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed -- Conte di Cavour ( talk) 11:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Where can you get record temperatures like the Sochi article? Is there some general source for these statistics? Mallerd ( talk) 10:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I have just stumbled on this site and, with great respect to all who have contributed so far, I must say I find this a disappointing and rather bland site. Rome is unquestionably one of the most influential cities in history and while I acknowledge there should be information about more mundane and daily matters as well the historic importance of Rome is rather underplayed. Over time I shall try to make some some improvements along these lines, always using reliable sources. Many thanks, PRC 07 ( talk) 11:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Rome is no doubt one of Europe's most beautiful, cosmopolitan, influential and important cities for culture, law, music, food, art, education, economy and architecture, yet its descriptions are very bland. Unlike most major European capital cities, such as London, Paris, Vienna, Madrid, Berlin and Athens, it has too little interesting information and facts. At the start, nothing is mentioned about it being an Alpha- city, a European center for food, culture, music, art and one of the world's leading cities in fashion. But, I cannot edit it because it is locked. Can someone please improve the article's quality and colour!-- 89.240.42.70 ( talk) 15:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
In Rome or anywhere else? Were there flint mines or other alterations of stone that has to be attributed to humans? If so, that would be archaeological evidence of human tool-making - not geological evidence. There is no citation, and I can't find anything (so far) in any archaeological journal or monograph that has human habitation in Rome at 14,000BP or even 10,000BP. There is some evidence of trans-alpine settlement in Northern Italy by around 8,500BP and coastal fishing settlements (particularly in Eastern Italy) at around the same time. It would be conjectural, but plausible, that such occasionally-inhabited fishing spots were in the region now known as Rome by around the same time, but Wikipedia isn't the place for that sort of conjecture. I'll keep looking into the Roman Paleolithic (and, more likely, Neolithic) to see what sort of citation might be added.LeValley 16:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
"Also, Rome is widely regarded as one of the world's most beautiful ancient cities. [1]"
I judge this to be essay-type material and webecoist not to be an encyclopedic site. It is more like a magazine article from the tourist industry - "the ten most beautiful cities" type of thing. An ironic circumstance is that a previous source calls itself a tour guide but is non-profit and encyclopedic, but this one goes under the guise of ecology and has nothing to do with ecology. I'm going by the emotional content. Lot's of people like and have liked Rome - even the Goths, having emptied it out, invited everyone back and restarted it. I suppose we have to put up with "eternal city" as a traditional epithet, but we are not basically interested in everyone's emotional reaction to Rome, except possibly in an artcle about emotional reactions to Rome. Is it beautiful? No question. Am I moved also? No doubt. Do we care here? Certainly not. Dave ( talk) 12:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
"making it one of the oldest settlements in the world. [2] [3]"
This is something similar, chamber-of-commerce type claims. For one thing, the sources given do not say a word about the age of the city. Please do not do that. One of them also is a child's encyclopedia, so I presume the author is a child. Thank you for your interest in WP, son or daughter, but perhaps you should leave ths one to the adults. From a factual point of view, Rome is actually NOT a very old city. Some currently inhabited regions of Egypt go back several thousand years (never mind 2500) and ditto for Iraq and the Mediterranean coast. Why, how old do you think Jerusalem is? Much older than the Bible, certainly. Most of the cities of Greece have Bronze Age settlements dating to a thousand years before Rome. No, Rome is not old; we even have legends of its foundation. I'm certainly very awed by its antiquity as are most people - but - it isn't that old as old cities go. Dave ( talk) 19:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
"was the centre of the Roman Empire, which dominated Europe, North Africa and the Middle East for over four hundred years from the 1st Century BC until the 4th Century AD, and during the Ancient Roman era, the city was the most powerful in Europe"
Here we go again with the generalizations, which are not supported by the source. I'm not deleting this but I am going to alter a bit. The Roman Empire did not dominate Europe. It did dominate the Mediterranean lands as far north as the Rhine and the Danube, but those border lands were always under contest. Isn't northern Europe Europe? They didn't have much influence there I fear; that is, the Germanics, the Balts and the Slavs were pretty much out of their domain. As far as dominating the Middle East in concerned, forget it. From time to time they held a few choice spots near the coast. But, most of the time they were fighting it out with the Persian Empire, which was actually the dominate power in the Middle East. And Africa, well, they held the coast, rather tenuously. For the "powerful", well, the first time I saw that overworked word in this article, I thought, it is only one time and it does make sense there. Then I saw it again, and again, and again. This is an overworked word and that is an overworked concept. As to whether it was the most powerful city, that is debatable. What about Massilia? Carthage took Italy but it was quick to make and keep an alliance with that city. How about Constantinople? Alexandria? Athens? What is happening here is that you are generalizing from your source rather than using it to support what you say. The source does not say those things. Well we are not supposed to use this discussion as a forum on the topic. My excuse for making alterations is that the generalizations are not supported by the source. Arrivederci. Dave ( talk) 03:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Have you ever noticed that when you want to look something up on the Internet you have to wade through a dozen or more phony encyclopedias that all say exactly the same thing? It's waste of Internet resources, really, to have these people all plagiarizing the same source and wasting our time trying to sort through. One of these parrots is info please. Sometimes it parrots Wikipedia, as we are fair game to plagiarists. These are not encyclopedic sources; they are parrots or mimeograph machines of some other source. In the case of this article we are lucky: they've gone and parroted an identifiable substantial sourse, the Columbia Encyclopedia. There fore I am replacing Infoplease with the original, CE. Dave ( talk) 04:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I see some new references were added in the initial sections, which I checked. First of all, let me say that you really need to learn how to do a ref; it will save people like me a lot of time. I profer to you this help page, which I have found useful: Wikipedia:Citation templates. I believe WP wherever possible want us to use these citation templates, and I'm enthusiastically in favor of it. They give the notes a standard look, give the reader some pre-knowledge of what he is going to see, and remove the incomprehensibity of an unfluffed link. Appearance is important. If it looks like garbage then we don't get no respect. Second, although I spprove of the material in at least the first reference; nevertheless, it seems to me those references are really unnecessary. What's the reference on, whether Rome is important? Give me a break, that was never in doubt by anyone at all. For the material, rather than trying to squeeze it in where it does not fit, why don't you place it in "External links"? For now I am going to check and fix the notes but I hope you at least consider my proposal. One can have too many notes on unnoteworthy material. Dave ( talk) 20:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
It reads that the top right picture is of the Colosseum, when it is not. Needs to be relabelled. 220.239.179.73 ( talk) 04:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Please check out Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms.
I bring this up because the article is full of these terms. I share the general enthusiasm for Rome but this is an encyclopedia not a travelogue. Consequently I am going to remove some material that is clearly peacock. Someone's opinion that Rome is great is not encyclopedic material even though substantiated by someone else's opinion that Rome was great. We do not care in the slightest whether anyone thinks or ever thought Rome was great. These are all sentiments and opinions. An encyclopedia is not about sentiments. I am sorry, I tried to express this policy in a gentle way but my hints have not been taken. We cannot praise Rome to the skies here, no matter how many people have done so. That is not an objective encyclopedia article. We can't use derogatory terms of history's greatest villains and we can't use peacock terms of places everyone admires. This is not an opinion poll past or present. I will insert peacock sentiments here after I take them from there. Thanks. Dave ( talk) 02:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
"It has been one of history's greatest, most powerful and important cities, [4] "
"Rome has had an immense historic influence to the world and modern society over the ages,"
"Modern Rome is a bustling and cosmopolitan metropolis,"
"Its rich artistic heritage and vast amount of ancient, "
"Rome is also an important worldwide hub of the cinematic and filming industry, home to the important and large"
Of the five instances cited above 2) is hardly a peacock term (a pretty ambiguous term in any case), since it is a mere statement of fact that Rome has indeed had an immense historic influence ON (not "to) the world....; who could possibly doubt such an claim? It isn't praise, it is a demonstrable fact. Gibbon's "Decline..." proves this as does the innumerable naming of Rome after Rome's fall (Holy Roman Empire, Sultan Memhet after conquering Byzantium calls himself emperor of the Romans, the Russian Czars etc, and this is just at the political level, what about: music forms, jurisprudence, government, architecture, engineering, literature, the Latin script, the Romance languages, organised religion, the role of Roman achievement and events in Western European art, artistic style, connections with and impact on other regions, western Europe, the middle east, north Africa, etc. It seems utterly absurd to have to enumerate even this fraction of obvious things because one individual thinks they constitute 'praise'. How else are we to express the impact that Rome has had through the ages?
The 3rd instance is a cliche, I do agree on this point, but it is hardly controversial to say that Rome is 'bustling and cosmopolitan'. In contemporary English these are banal descriptors rather than 'peacock terms'. How could you object to the terms bustling or cosmopolitan? Remove them if you wish but not because they are 'praising' Rome, they might evoke a travelogue so get rid of them for that reason, but again this reduces the piece to enumerating facts.
The 4th one is like the 2nd , who could possibly doubt that Rome has a rich artistic heritage and a vast amount of ancient material remains? For goodness sake, are you trying to produce the most uninteresting prose known to humanity? The final so called 'peacock term' is equally unobjectionable. What is wrong with referring to Cinecitta` and its undisputed contribution to cinematic arts? And why would you include it if it hadn't been influential or interesting in some way that is recognised internationally? Many PhD dissertations have been written on this and surely you don't really dispute the claim.
This leads me to the first one, where the adjectives "greatest"; "most powerful" and "important" are used to qualify the noun "cities", specifically "ONE OF HISTORY'S....". Remove these if you will, but in common parlance and in academic discourse I cannot imagine it being seriously suggested that Rome was not these things: ONE of the greatest, ONE of the most powerful and ONE of the most important cities. Why would you not include this description when it is palpably true? I have read 4 books of western civilisation, and more generally on civilisation, in the past few months all written by serious academic scholars in Britain, Germany and the US and these descriptions are rendered both by admirers and detractors of Rome not peacock so much as obvious.
I feel the same way about the rather surprising earlier discussion regarding the antiquity of Rome. What possible relevance could it have to claim that other cities are older than Rome? This is both true and irrelevant. The greater antiquity of some places doesn't deny Rome this designation. Among large cities, and among large capital cities in particular, Rome is indisputably ancient and to quibble about whether it can be given this designation raises concern about the motives of those arguing this line.
I do appreciate the effort people make to contribute to Wikipedia and the need to avoid emotive, excessive, nationalistic or exaggerated and proud commentary, but none of the ones I have cited above comes remotely close to such concerns. Removing claims to the influence and impact of Rome tends to produce a face value falseness to the article and gives the article a banal, narrowly descriptive and uninteresting tone. It should be the complete opposite. An encyclopedia isn't precluded from making comparative statements (this is what the terms 'one of the greatest, most powerful and important' cities ultimately is, a COMPARISON, and a comparison which is palpably correct), in fact if Rome wasn't these things then it should be given a one paragraph entry of bald facts.
PRC 07 ( talk) 09:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I removed this statement- now that I am here I see there have been objections to the peacock affair I will look at that and reply. But first this. "global importance [5] and powerful city-status, [6]" The "sources" you reference are not encyclopedic, they are grade-school teaching aids. The fact that you would choose them indicates to me you are a child. I hardly know what to say, my boy. We are trying to do an encyclopedia here. I thought the article was blocked to inexperienced users. Whatever the case is, let me go ahead. The global importance - Rome is not currently globally important. The majority of the earth's population hardly know the name. It has little or no influence in the Far East, for example. Italy does not have have a large army. How many divisions does the Pope have? Its main influence is cultural, and we have already said that. In any case your grade-school web site says only that Rome was globally important. It does not defend that thesis in any way. You are mistaking the meaning. The site refers to Rome's past global importance, and in ancient times it certainly was important to the world as the west knew it. We already said that. There is no need to keep repeating it over and over. The second point is that "powerful city-status" is not comprehensible in English. You are saying, there is some sort of city-status and they are of different kinds and Rome's is a powerful one. What status would that be, and who assigns it, and what is a city-status anyway? Perhaps you meant to say powerful-city status. As I said, as great cities go, Rome is not very powerful, but who cares? This is not encyclopedic material. The people want to know facts about Rome, not whether someone thinks it was powerful. Dave ( talk) 01:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I am delighted to see this outbreak of peace! There is no need to call people 'boy' or 'zealots' or other such demeaning terms. Those of us who have responded to the empirically questionable claims about Rome lacking antiquity and the refusal to use perfectly acceptable descriptors of Rome's many ages of significance and world impact are neither zealots nor 'boys' nor any other demeaning category. So I am pleased that it has been decided to be more civil. I made comments about how so-called peacock terms are not so obvious as some people here claim. None of my comments was responded to by the person to whom they were directed. It is too late now as I have no intention and no time to make changes to this article since it is clear that person feels no compunction about removing other people's remarks if they defy his sense of what constitutes needless praise (peacockery).
As I also said I do admire the effort that people put into WP, and Dave appears to be most diligent and good on him for that, but please allow that people can legitimately have different perspectives even on what constitutes neutral description or necessary adjectival marking. (PS Two small points of fact. I travel in Asia a great deal and work in education and I can assure you that very few people there are under illusions about Rome's historic significance, nor are they as dismissive about its current status as some people on this talk page seem to be. In many developing countries Rome is a centre of major importance because it hosts the Food and Agriculture Organisation and other World Food Programs; also the International Center for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, among many such bodies and a large number of pontifical institutes and libraries it is of relevance to many fields of endeavour. Also Jubilee 2000 showed that Rome, not just the Vatican or the Holy See, remains a centre of pilgrimage. Cheers, PRC 07 ( talk) 07:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I found an egregious error which I shall now change. The reference to the Greek Dark Ages is hopelessly wrong. It implies that this term, which few scholars use any more, is co-terminous with the fall of Greece under Roman rule after the Battle of Corinth. Nothing could be further from the truth. The term when it was used referred instead to the invasion by Iron Age Dorians variously dated as either 1200 or 1100 BC, ie well before Rome's legendary foundation, and is seen usually to last until around 800BC. This is a totally different period of history. In fact some, several, Roman rulers favoured Greece and lavished building projects on Athens and life there continued patterns of the past until Greece came under the Eastern Roman Empire, which was already bilingual and sometimes only Greek speaking and by then already Christian. PRC 07 ( talk) 03:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I have had to go through about 20 blocked IP addresses just to be able to leave a talk comment for this article. These are rotating IP's used by millions of people in Northern California. And they seem to be blocked until like Sept 2010.
This is completely deranged and pointless. If someone's doing something abusive on a rotating IP, block if for like 3 or 4 days!
Guh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.197.129 ( talk) 00:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't have editing permission. Please replace the entire "Earlest History" section with this text
(Click EDIT for this talk section to copy and paste the original code).
Thank you
QUOTE
There is archaeological evidence of human occupation of the Rome area from at least 14000 years, but the dense layer of much younger debris obscures Palaeolithic and Neolithic sites. [7] Evidence of stone tools, pottery and stone weapons attest to at least 10000 years of human presence.
The identity of earlier inhabitants of the area is unclear, but by about 1500 B.C. most of central and southern Italy had been settled by tribes of the Italic branch of the Indo-Europeans. These Italic peoples possessed the classic Indo-European culture of horse and chariot, and the social class of the mounted aristocracy, the Eques, endured through the imperial period.
By about the beginning of the First Millennium B.C., the Italic tribes had differentiated into distinct ethno-linguistic groups, with Latin tribes inhabiting the region of Latium including the territory that was to become Rome. The site of Rome was near the border with the territory of the Etruscans (a non-Indo-European people) to the north, and the territory of the Sabines (another Italic people) to the east. In legend the earliest city of Rome was comprised of settlements of these three peoples, likely reflecting some degree of historical fact.
END QUOTE
Note that I have removed the statement: "The power of the well known tale of Rome's legendary foundation tends also to deflect attention from its actual, and much more ancient, origins." The city of Rome does not have much more ancient origins as far as we know, only that there was (of course) rural settlement in the area as in the rest of Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.197.129 ( talk) 00:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Please include a newpaper:
Il Fatto Quotidiano
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il_Fatto_Quotidiano
Lcnbst ( talk) 15:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Done
Favonian (
talk)
15:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It's wrongly stated that all Rioni are in Municipio I. Actually, Prati and Borgo are in Municipio XVII. I am not sure about the others. You can check it also in the pages of Prati and Borgo, or in the Italian version.
151.65.219.105 ( talk) 10:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Emanuele
In the intro section is this non-normal capitalization:
"Rome's influence on western Civilisation can hardly be overestimated"
Please correct that to: "
Western civilisation"
(I don't have editing permission)
Thank you —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.199.197.129 (
talk)
00:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
who was the ruler of italy between 1750-1800 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.128.68 ( talk) 17:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Between 1750-1800 there were many people ruling italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.183.138 ( talk) 20:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.
Please update the page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC).
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
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
Campidoglio is the common name in italian, not a dialectal form. You can see in the italian version. Plese correct.
It is submitted hereby that the word comes from Ra the Egyptian Sun God.Many place names of this word exist, eg Ramallah. The reson being that a high/exalted/sacred place was sought always, and had to be near the sun heightwise perhaps..just as the animal ram (rahm in german?) was named so because it went up highest to the Sun. This was read on the internet by myself about Ra and ram and Ramallah. I deduce that Rome was pronounced just a little differrently as regards the o in it(could be au became o) and the rest of the word maah is the way the local still seems to be pronouncing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preetlarhi ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Why is there nothing about Christianity in the lead? Rome is considered the most holy saite in Christianity by cathlics (the largest branch) as well as other denominations. It was the capital of the largest empire in the world at the time Christianity appeared and Christianity spred mostly from Rome. Rome is historically a significant site in Christianity as Jesus was born in the provincial extent of the Roman Empire. Rome was the platform for Christian ministry from the first Christian emporor Constantine I, and the site for pioneering of a number of martyred apostles such as Paul of Tarsus and Saint Peter [8] Someone65 ( talk) 18:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Favonian !
Please, take a look to Rome - tourist attractions and help me understand why you think is SPAM.
If you don't have time, I will tell you here more about this website and why I think is useful for Wikipedia users.
The main idea is to help users understand from a single place what to visit when in Rome. The first page will list only 4 main categories. In Rome case this 4 main categories are: main attractions, Ancient Rome, churches in Rome and Rome fountains
Inside the website the user will find a second sidebar that will contain another categories (this are level two categories).
All this categories help the user to better plan his time.
A level one category contain a list of only tourist attractions. A level two category has the objective to list all attractions & hotels in the same neighborhood with the given category title, for example Colosseum
The web site has on top a Search hotels box and at the bottom a Google AdSense link's box. Their inclusion is fair to the user and completely separated by the site content. No SCAM, no TRICKS to miss lead the user.
More, the level two category pages has a like Google layout. This will help the user to better understand the separation between the list of attractions in the same neighborhood and hotels in the same neighborhood.
Hope this will help you better understand why I choose to include the link in Wikipedia Rome page, this, after I read two times the Terms of Use of Wikipedia. Valahus ( talk) 11:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering why British spelling was being used here considering Italy isn't an English speaking country. Doc Quintana ( talk) 03:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, but it is a European country, just like UK, and apparently this is often taken in account when choosing which spelling is preferred, here in WP. Goochelaar ( talk) 12:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
There are multiple problems with this source and the above representation of it:
1. The report actually refers to residents in Rome on 31 December 2007 (not a big issue admittedly).
2. The figures given are from ISTAT. It would be better to source them directly.
3. According to the source more immigrants came from the Philippines than from Africa, yet they are listed the other way around.
4. In any event the Philippines are not part of East Asia, at least not according to the Wikipedia article.
5. Neither Algeria nor Argentina is listed in the figures for the Comune of Rome.
6. Worse still the figures given for the Commune don't add up. The given total of foreigners is 218,426 but when all the figures are added up the actual total is 237,674.
— Blue-Haired Lawyer t 18:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Move the petty details down into the article. Tell why city is important to Italy and the world. Why should anybody want to read this article anyway? GeorgeLouis ( talk) 01:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
On June 19, 1943 Rome was bombed by Anglo-American forces, being one of the hardest hit areas the San Lorenzo district. Causing about 3,000 deaths and 11,000 wounded.-- 79.43.220.9 ( talk) 20:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The actual number of permanent residents has been calculated in 3.106.318 by the city administration office, although the number of "official" residents is 2.864.519 (those who declare Rome to be their comune of residence): http://www.ilmessaggero.it/articolo.php?id=117489&sez=HOME_ROMA
Rome has also a special administrative statute as a comune, mining it is a special territorial division. The administrative name of the comune of Roma is Roma Capitale. The new administrative status become law very recently, on october 3 2010. http://www.comune.roma.it/
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Karig79 ( talk • contribs) 19:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, as editorial staff ot the tourism website of Regione Lazio, we would like to add our link to the section regarding Rome http://www.ilmiolazio.it/wps/en/Destinations/Rome/ we also noticed that the link to APT of the city of Rome (official tourist office) doesn't work anymore. -- Il mio lazio ( talk) 08:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
there is a fourth public university to add, called "Università degli studi di Roma Foro Italico", and also simply called "Università Roma quattro". Someone that can edit this section add this new information. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepowerofnothing ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
another one is Caput Mundi; the city of the seven hills — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.130.241 ( talk) 01:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i would like to add some important information.
Ric5575 ( talk) 05:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i would like to add some valuable info and sources
Ric5575 ( talk) 23:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Ric5575 added a section on the Vatican. I've reverted this for the following reasons: While a section on the Vatican in this article may be a good idea, the type of information Ric is adding doesn't seem to me to be appropriate in its current form. It is exclusively about the Vatican and doesn't explain the Vatican's relationship to Rome. A separate section on the Vatican would need to: a) take into account the information about the Vatican already in the article (so as not to repeat what is there), and b) relate directly to Rome (this being an article about Rome). A section on the Vatican should also be brief, as there are already many WP articles about the Vatican. It should thus be written in summary style. Sunray ( talk) 04:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
i just made an editing on this article, if there is anything wrong with it, feel free to change, correct or even delete. let me know what went wrong and I'll do my best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ric5575 ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are errors in the caption of the 1st figure: "A view of Rome: the top left picture to the is the Colosseum, followed ...". It should be changed to "Views of Rome: the top left picture is the Colosseum, followed ..." 87.11.214.64 ( talk) 23:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I congratulate all who have written on this, but I am writing to request some changes.
AGE OF ROME. First, the expression that Rome has been inhabited for 2500 years is contradicted in the article itself, and also by one of the links given there. That link leads to a site which states that Rome has had "Continuous habitation since approximately 1000 BC" which would of course mean 3000 years. In any case the traditional founding date of 753BC would make it 2750 years old, in fact supported by what know of the seven Etruscan kings of Rome prior to 509 (not 510 as cited in the article) and their approximate periods of rule. In any case these are mythical, not in the sense of 'untrue' or unhistoric, but national stories, and if we give the age of Rome as an inhabited site it must be at least 3000 years. I have returned recently from the display in the Capitoline museums and it clear that the city was inhabited very far beyond this by Latin and other tribes. At the very least the contradiction between 2500 and 3000 should be resolved in favour of 3000.
FAO The UN's FAO is listed as a 'humanitarian' organisation. While it certainly does do work that would be classified as humanitarian its more accurate nature and what the page should call it is: "specialized agency of the UN". The UN has a series of these, UNESCO, WHO, UNICEF, etc and that is what FAO should be called. Rome also hosts the World Food Program, also a UN agency, separate from FAO but 'located there'.
CATHOLICS believe I think the distancing that is implied in the expression "Catholics believe" that St Peter's 'last resting place' is in Rome is weird. No ancient historian doubts it, nor does anyone seriously doubt that St Paul is also buried in Rome. Why this timidity?
"to this day" There is a tone of strangeness about some of the writing. For example the expression "to this day" thousands of pilgrims go to Rome. Err, I am living here and the numbers are immense and from all over the world. The expression 'to this day' makes it sound like a strange habit that would go out of fashion etc. Very POV in my view. Also, the expression that pilgrims have come to "Vatican city", this is nonsense. Until 1870 and the restoration of Rome, 1929 and the Lateran Treaties, reconfirmed in the 1970s, this distinction was not made. Pilgrims went to Rome, and that is what this expression should read.
GAW whatever I know that it is intended in WP to keep these world city rankings whatever they are, and that I won't get anywhere by mentioning them, but they seem to me really absurd for ancient and historically important cities like Rome. Thanks for your attention
PRC 07 ( talk) 11:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I have made additions and corrections to the 'language' section, 'pilgrimage' and a couple of other bits; including some of those mentioned above. Thanks, PRC 07 ( talk) 12:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
From this article:
And
But Italy#Administrative divisions says:
Obviously the Italian word comuni is meant to indicate "municipalities" or "districts", or some such term, rather than the English word communes. The article on Communes does not mention Italy. In English the word "commune" more aptly applies to "an intentional community of people living together, sharing common interests, property, possessions, resources, and, in some communes, work and income." It is confusing to the reader in this context of Rome, and may bring to mind something more akin to the 1871 Paris Commune.
But the article then goes on to preempt the word "municipality", saying:
At the least, I think wherever "commune" appears it should be replaced with the Italian word, italicized, comune (pl. comuni). I also question the capitalization of "commune" as given here:
Beyond these two points, I believe this issue needs some discussion here. A major problem is that among English-speaking peoples, local terms for administrative divisions vary greatly from one place to another. Milkunderwood ( talk) 12:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
A suggestion: why you do not use the names in the original language and the English translation in brackets? I believe that this system would solve many misunderstandings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandro.spalvieri ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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. mos 82.55.218.102
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
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)
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)
NONE OF THEM INFLUENCED SO DEEPLY THOUGH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.196.159 ( talk) 03:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
What type of industries are in Rome ?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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.
You are asking to collaborate, and showing disrespect at the same time. How do you write hypocrisy?-- Panarjedde 17:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
http://cronologia.leonardo.it/storia/a1943a.htm
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)
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)
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)
Is this really a twin of Rome? I can find no evidence of this. 62.189.15.226 12:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
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.
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)
There is no section about this standard information. Lear 21 11:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
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).
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
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
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.
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 )
"characterized by feast" - in Fascist Architecture, what on earth is intended? Danja 19:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
"From the its foundation," should be "From its foundation,"
Firespun (
talk)
15:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Edit first and ask questions later: I've put in a paragraph on religion under demography. We could do with some statistics on this. There's also Jewish and Hindu communities in Rome. Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
The reference
is commented as
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)
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)
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)
How could be Milan Metropolitan area largest then Rome's if the entire "Provincia di Milano" is smaller of the "Comune di Rome"?
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)
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)
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)
Why does this article say nothing about pollution in Rome (or the rest of Italy's cities for that matter)? I don't know enough to make any definitive statements, but I have heard that pollution in Rome is actually quite terrible, and I know for a fact that some other major cities in Italy (Florence, for example) appear to have a problem with getting rid of solid trash. Considering that many other articles concerning major cities approach the subject of pollution, I believe this one should as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.24.252 ( talk) 20:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there senate in present-day Rome?-- Dojarca ( talk) 22:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Could someone update the caption for the Capitoline Wolf image to reflect the new information about its date of creation? Even just removing the parenthesized text would do it. 24.79.155.247 ( talk) 20:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Why was the mention of Aniene river removed? No real sources are needed: any map is enough. See for instance http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=41.937275,12.502098&spn=0.033137,0.109863&z=14 in Google Maps. The narrower river is Aniene (scrolling rightwards enough, "Fiume [i.e. river] Aniene" will show up). Happy editing, Goochelaar ( talk) 21:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is good in parts but still a bit of a mess. I'm working on a new version based partly on this article, on the it:Rome article from Italian Wikipedia, using the structure from the London. If anyone wants to have a look it here: User:Blue-Haired Lawyer/sandbox2. Blue-Haired Lawyer 08:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to start shifting around the sections for article to reflect standard city article structure. (I'm taking London as a base). Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
(apologies for the horrible pun!)
Here's my suggested to do list (please feel free to add any ideas of your own):
1. I'd like to replace the second paragraph of the lead with one giving more info about roman history and delete the list of epithets. We could put these elsewhere if anyone's interested.
2. The section of the local administration needs improvement. There's not much information on this one to be found. Anyone know how many councillors there are for instance?
3. The economy section is a bit week. Saying that Rome "has a dynamic and diverse economy with thriving technologies" sounds a bit propagandistic.
4. Most cities have a decent section of the etymology of the city's name.
5. IMHO the language section should concentrate more on the modern dialect. Isn't is called "Romano" anyway?
6. Two separate parts of the article place a series of images on the right side of the page, which messes up the edit tags. Anyone mind if I change this?
Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know what this means? Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm very doubtful about the Sovereign Military Order of Malta's claim to sovereignty. Even if it is "[a]n independent subject of international law", as it describes itself to be this doesn't necessarily mean it's sovereign.
Anyway, as far as this article is concerned, since the Order of Malta don't actually claim any territory in Rome, Rome can't contain it. At least not in the same way that it contains the Vatican. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta isn't anywhere. It just happens to have offices in Rome, as do lots of other international bodies. They aren't in Rome anymore than they might be anywhere else that they have offices. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Noone really cares if your boutful...it still has its sovereign status and is housed by Rome. Gavin ( talk) 11:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I think we should add here all about Rome as much as we can including the Gods and Godesses which should be included in the Religion part of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homogeneous ( talk • contribs) 10:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Under Transportation/Rail: the word "principle" is used. This is the wrong usage. It should be "principal".
every one talks itanian and people who dont leave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.129.226 ( talk) 18:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
There are 160 hectares, was once a land, for forty years is a landfill. Indeed, one of the most explosive landfill d'Italia, the largest in Europe. The black jersey of Italy had defined the Eurispes in a report last year, the increasingly fine mesh that covers the waste of capital and prevents it from becoming the next Naples. But how long will succeed this black mesh to protect Rome and the surrounding area? A meeting between the mayor Gianni Alemanno and the chairman of the Region Piero Marrazzo should decide the fate of the capital and its roads. But —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.182.86.10 ( talk) 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
This page has several spelling errors, now I am not an expert in History or Rome, but pretty sure that things like civilisation, or the corrected form; civilization, are things that need to be fixed in order for this page to be taken seriously. I do know that this civilisation might be a UK version of this word, but however, I do believe that it has been removed from normal use and is no longer a prevalent way of writing civilization. In addition, the link corresponding with this spelling error has now been written as Western Society under its article page.
In addition, I am not attacking the author or authors, but I do believe that the grammar needs a lot of work, which is very hard when writing a technical document such as this. Please, be aware of flaws and spelling errors that would create a false facade of bad information as when I am reading through these pages, I do not tend to lean towards believing something that has this many errors within its body of text.
Thank you,
WolfMan4200 (
talk)
22:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)The First WolfMan
can i ahve more information abuot rome because is not a nough —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.210.110 ( talk) 22:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The metropolitan area of Rome is big 3.089, 24 km², absolutely not 5.352!!! 5.352 is the number about the province of Rome, another subeject!! can see also you in italian page ( here) the truth! i think who this page is neglected and imaginative! -- Focak ( talk) 00:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for honesty: i believe that for an encyclopaedia it's very important to be honesty and correct! however, if you can however to put the dates of metropolitan area of Rome, the best thing is to report to the sources eurostat, onu, etc.. (sources much less "local"!!!). All the cities use the sources about their metropolitan area, it's first an factor of urbanism, so i believe that it's not very imporant if it's not yet recognizet from institutions!!! so, however for Rome it's important to remember that her metropolitan area: 1 not include all the province, 2 it's the bigger metropolitan area of italy (only for extension) but the third for population and it has a density very low if compareted to the metropolitan area of Milan and especially to Naples. it's important to be correct, this is an encyclopaedia. thank you, bye! -- Focak ( talk) 04:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't delete this period but someone must cancel this: " and more than three times the size of the greater metropolitan area of London".... must be cancelled for the reasons who I've expressed before, please! so the metropolita area of rome not corrisponds with whole the province and it can't be compared to greater London, please, i repeat, be careful of fanaticism, the metropolitan area of Rome isn't comparable to London or Paris.-- Focak ( talk) 15:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The sentence that reads, in part, "Rome constitutes one of Italy's 8,101 commune's [sic]" should read, "Rome constitutes one of Italy's 8,101 communes." If someone could fix this, that'd be just dandy. 98.226.184.153 ( talk) 22:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The position of Rome is wrong in the map. Rome Position —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.3.223.4 ( talk) 13:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
According to the article Rome is
Italy's largest and most populous city, with 2,726,539[1] residents in an urban area of some 1,285.3 km2 (496.3 sq mi).
This is TOTALLY INCORRECT. Those figures refer just to the municipality. According to Urban Audit the population of Rome urban area is 3,457,690. -- 93.45.231.130 ( talk) 08:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed -- Conte di Cavour ( talk) 11:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Where can you get record temperatures like the Sochi article? Is there some general source for these statistics? Mallerd ( talk) 10:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I have just stumbled on this site and, with great respect to all who have contributed so far, I must say I find this a disappointing and rather bland site. Rome is unquestionably one of the most influential cities in history and while I acknowledge there should be information about more mundane and daily matters as well the historic importance of Rome is rather underplayed. Over time I shall try to make some some improvements along these lines, always using reliable sources. Many thanks, PRC 07 ( talk) 11:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Rome is no doubt one of Europe's most beautiful, cosmopolitan, influential and important cities for culture, law, music, food, art, education, economy and architecture, yet its descriptions are very bland. Unlike most major European capital cities, such as London, Paris, Vienna, Madrid, Berlin and Athens, it has too little interesting information and facts. At the start, nothing is mentioned about it being an Alpha- city, a European center for food, culture, music, art and one of the world's leading cities in fashion. But, I cannot edit it because it is locked. Can someone please improve the article's quality and colour!-- 89.240.42.70 ( talk) 15:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
In Rome or anywhere else? Were there flint mines or other alterations of stone that has to be attributed to humans? If so, that would be archaeological evidence of human tool-making - not geological evidence. There is no citation, and I can't find anything (so far) in any archaeological journal or monograph that has human habitation in Rome at 14,000BP or even 10,000BP. There is some evidence of trans-alpine settlement in Northern Italy by around 8,500BP and coastal fishing settlements (particularly in Eastern Italy) at around the same time. It would be conjectural, but plausible, that such occasionally-inhabited fishing spots were in the region now known as Rome by around the same time, but Wikipedia isn't the place for that sort of conjecture. I'll keep looking into the Roman Paleolithic (and, more likely, Neolithic) to see what sort of citation might be added.LeValley 16:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
"Also, Rome is widely regarded as one of the world's most beautiful ancient cities. [1]"
I judge this to be essay-type material and webecoist not to be an encyclopedic site. It is more like a magazine article from the tourist industry - "the ten most beautiful cities" type of thing. An ironic circumstance is that a previous source calls itself a tour guide but is non-profit and encyclopedic, but this one goes under the guise of ecology and has nothing to do with ecology. I'm going by the emotional content. Lot's of people like and have liked Rome - even the Goths, having emptied it out, invited everyone back and restarted it. I suppose we have to put up with "eternal city" as a traditional epithet, but we are not basically interested in everyone's emotional reaction to Rome, except possibly in an artcle about emotional reactions to Rome. Is it beautiful? No question. Am I moved also? No doubt. Do we care here? Certainly not. Dave ( talk) 12:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
"making it one of the oldest settlements in the world. [2] [3]"
This is something similar, chamber-of-commerce type claims. For one thing, the sources given do not say a word about the age of the city. Please do not do that. One of them also is a child's encyclopedia, so I presume the author is a child. Thank you for your interest in WP, son or daughter, but perhaps you should leave ths one to the adults. From a factual point of view, Rome is actually NOT a very old city. Some currently inhabited regions of Egypt go back several thousand years (never mind 2500) and ditto for Iraq and the Mediterranean coast. Why, how old do you think Jerusalem is? Much older than the Bible, certainly. Most of the cities of Greece have Bronze Age settlements dating to a thousand years before Rome. No, Rome is not old; we even have legends of its foundation. I'm certainly very awed by its antiquity as are most people - but - it isn't that old as old cities go. Dave ( talk) 19:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
"was the centre of the Roman Empire, which dominated Europe, North Africa and the Middle East for over four hundred years from the 1st Century BC until the 4th Century AD, and during the Ancient Roman era, the city was the most powerful in Europe"
Here we go again with the generalizations, which are not supported by the source. I'm not deleting this but I am going to alter a bit. The Roman Empire did not dominate Europe. It did dominate the Mediterranean lands as far north as the Rhine and the Danube, but those border lands were always under contest. Isn't northern Europe Europe? They didn't have much influence there I fear; that is, the Germanics, the Balts and the Slavs were pretty much out of their domain. As far as dominating the Middle East in concerned, forget it. From time to time they held a few choice spots near the coast. But, most of the time they were fighting it out with the Persian Empire, which was actually the dominate power in the Middle East. And Africa, well, they held the coast, rather tenuously. For the "powerful", well, the first time I saw that overworked word in this article, I thought, it is only one time and it does make sense there. Then I saw it again, and again, and again. This is an overworked word and that is an overworked concept. As to whether it was the most powerful city, that is debatable. What about Massilia? Carthage took Italy but it was quick to make and keep an alliance with that city. How about Constantinople? Alexandria? Athens? What is happening here is that you are generalizing from your source rather than using it to support what you say. The source does not say those things. Well we are not supposed to use this discussion as a forum on the topic. My excuse for making alterations is that the generalizations are not supported by the source. Arrivederci. Dave ( talk) 03:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Have you ever noticed that when you want to look something up on the Internet you have to wade through a dozen or more phony encyclopedias that all say exactly the same thing? It's waste of Internet resources, really, to have these people all plagiarizing the same source and wasting our time trying to sort through. One of these parrots is info please. Sometimes it parrots Wikipedia, as we are fair game to plagiarists. These are not encyclopedic sources; they are parrots or mimeograph machines of some other source. In the case of this article we are lucky: they've gone and parroted an identifiable substantial sourse, the Columbia Encyclopedia. There fore I am replacing Infoplease with the original, CE. Dave ( talk) 04:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I see some new references were added in the initial sections, which I checked. First of all, let me say that you really need to learn how to do a ref; it will save people like me a lot of time. I profer to you this help page, which I have found useful: Wikipedia:Citation templates. I believe WP wherever possible want us to use these citation templates, and I'm enthusiastically in favor of it. They give the notes a standard look, give the reader some pre-knowledge of what he is going to see, and remove the incomprehensibity of an unfluffed link. Appearance is important. If it looks like garbage then we don't get no respect. Second, although I spprove of the material in at least the first reference; nevertheless, it seems to me those references are really unnecessary. What's the reference on, whether Rome is important? Give me a break, that was never in doubt by anyone at all. For the material, rather than trying to squeeze it in where it does not fit, why don't you place it in "External links"? For now I am going to check and fix the notes but I hope you at least consider my proposal. One can have too many notes on unnoteworthy material. Dave ( talk) 20:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
It reads that the top right picture is of the Colosseum, when it is not. Needs to be relabelled. 220.239.179.73 ( talk) 04:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Please check out Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms.
I bring this up because the article is full of these terms. I share the general enthusiasm for Rome but this is an encyclopedia not a travelogue. Consequently I am going to remove some material that is clearly peacock. Someone's opinion that Rome is great is not encyclopedic material even though substantiated by someone else's opinion that Rome was great. We do not care in the slightest whether anyone thinks or ever thought Rome was great. These are all sentiments and opinions. An encyclopedia is not about sentiments. I am sorry, I tried to express this policy in a gentle way but my hints have not been taken. We cannot praise Rome to the skies here, no matter how many people have done so. That is not an objective encyclopedia article. We can't use derogatory terms of history's greatest villains and we can't use peacock terms of places everyone admires. This is not an opinion poll past or present. I will insert peacock sentiments here after I take them from there. Thanks. Dave ( talk) 02:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
"It has been one of history's greatest, most powerful and important cities, [4] "
"Rome has had an immense historic influence to the world and modern society over the ages,"
"Modern Rome is a bustling and cosmopolitan metropolis,"
"Its rich artistic heritage and vast amount of ancient, "
"Rome is also an important worldwide hub of the cinematic and filming industry, home to the important and large"
Of the five instances cited above 2) is hardly a peacock term (a pretty ambiguous term in any case), since it is a mere statement of fact that Rome has indeed had an immense historic influence ON (not "to) the world....; who could possibly doubt such an claim? It isn't praise, it is a demonstrable fact. Gibbon's "Decline..." proves this as does the innumerable naming of Rome after Rome's fall (Holy Roman Empire, Sultan Memhet after conquering Byzantium calls himself emperor of the Romans, the Russian Czars etc, and this is just at the political level, what about: music forms, jurisprudence, government, architecture, engineering, literature, the Latin script, the Romance languages, organised religion, the role of Roman achievement and events in Western European art, artistic style, connections with and impact on other regions, western Europe, the middle east, north Africa, etc. It seems utterly absurd to have to enumerate even this fraction of obvious things because one individual thinks they constitute 'praise'. How else are we to express the impact that Rome has had through the ages?
The 3rd instance is a cliche, I do agree on this point, but it is hardly controversial to say that Rome is 'bustling and cosmopolitan'. In contemporary English these are banal descriptors rather than 'peacock terms'. How could you object to the terms bustling or cosmopolitan? Remove them if you wish but not because they are 'praising' Rome, they might evoke a travelogue so get rid of them for that reason, but again this reduces the piece to enumerating facts.
The 4th one is like the 2nd , who could possibly doubt that Rome has a rich artistic heritage and a vast amount of ancient material remains? For goodness sake, are you trying to produce the most uninteresting prose known to humanity? The final so called 'peacock term' is equally unobjectionable. What is wrong with referring to Cinecitta` and its undisputed contribution to cinematic arts? And why would you include it if it hadn't been influential or interesting in some way that is recognised internationally? Many PhD dissertations have been written on this and surely you don't really dispute the claim.
This leads me to the first one, where the adjectives "greatest"; "most powerful" and "important" are used to qualify the noun "cities", specifically "ONE OF HISTORY'S....". Remove these if you will, but in common parlance and in academic discourse I cannot imagine it being seriously suggested that Rome was not these things: ONE of the greatest, ONE of the most powerful and ONE of the most important cities. Why would you not include this description when it is palpably true? I have read 4 books of western civilisation, and more generally on civilisation, in the past few months all written by serious academic scholars in Britain, Germany and the US and these descriptions are rendered both by admirers and detractors of Rome not peacock so much as obvious.
I feel the same way about the rather surprising earlier discussion regarding the antiquity of Rome. What possible relevance could it have to claim that other cities are older than Rome? This is both true and irrelevant. The greater antiquity of some places doesn't deny Rome this designation. Among large cities, and among large capital cities in particular, Rome is indisputably ancient and to quibble about whether it can be given this designation raises concern about the motives of those arguing this line.
I do appreciate the effort people make to contribute to Wikipedia and the need to avoid emotive, excessive, nationalistic or exaggerated and proud commentary, but none of the ones I have cited above comes remotely close to such concerns. Removing claims to the influence and impact of Rome tends to produce a face value falseness to the article and gives the article a banal, narrowly descriptive and uninteresting tone. It should be the complete opposite. An encyclopedia isn't precluded from making comparative statements (this is what the terms 'one of the greatest, most powerful and important' cities ultimately is, a COMPARISON, and a comparison which is palpably correct), in fact if Rome wasn't these things then it should be given a one paragraph entry of bald facts.
PRC 07 ( talk) 09:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I removed this statement- now that I am here I see there have been objections to the peacock affair I will look at that and reply. But first this. "global importance [5] and powerful city-status, [6]" The "sources" you reference are not encyclopedic, they are grade-school teaching aids. The fact that you would choose them indicates to me you are a child. I hardly know what to say, my boy. We are trying to do an encyclopedia here. I thought the article was blocked to inexperienced users. Whatever the case is, let me go ahead. The global importance - Rome is not currently globally important. The majority of the earth's population hardly know the name. It has little or no influence in the Far East, for example. Italy does not have have a large army. How many divisions does the Pope have? Its main influence is cultural, and we have already said that. In any case your grade-school web site says only that Rome was globally important. It does not defend that thesis in any way. You are mistaking the meaning. The site refers to Rome's past global importance, and in ancient times it certainly was important to the world as the west knew it. We already said that. There is no need to keep repeating it over and over. The second point is that "powerful city-status" is not comprehensible in English. You are saying, there is some sort of city-status and they are of different kinds and Rome's is a powerful one. What status would that be, and who assigns it, and what is a city-status anyway? Perhaps you meant to say powerful-city status. As I said, as great cities go, Rome is not very powerful, but who cares? This is not encyclopedic material. The people want to know facts about Rome, not whether someone thinks it was powerful. Dave ( talk) 01:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I am delighted to see this outbreak of peace! There is no need to call people 'boy' or 'zealots' or other such demeaning terms. Those of us who have responded to the empirically questionable claims about Rome lacking antiquity and the refusal to use perfectly acceptable descriptors of Rome's many ages of significance and world impact are neither zealots nor 'boys' nor any other demeaning category. So I am pleased that it has been decided to be more civil. I made comments about how so-called peacock terms are not so obvious as some people here claim. None of my comments was responded to by the person to whom they were directed. It is too late now as I have no intention and no time to make changes to this article since it is clear that person feels no compunction about removing other people's remarks if they defy his sense of what constitutes needless praise (peacockery).
As I also said I do admire the effort that people put into WP, and Dave appears to be most diligent and good on him for that, but please allow that people can legitimately have different perspectives even on what constitutes neutral description or necessary adjectival marking. (PS Two small points of fact. I travel in Asia a great deal and work in education and I can assure you that very few people there are under illusions about Rome's historic significance, nor are they as dismissive about its current status as some people on this talk page seem to be. In many developing countries Rome is a centre of major importance because it hosts the Food and Agriculture Organisation and other World Food Programs; also the International Center for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, among many such bodies and a large number of pontifical institutes and libraries it is of relevance to many fields of endeavour. Also Jubilee 2000 showed that Rome, not just the Vatican or the Holy See, remains a centre of pilgrimage. Cheers, PRC 07 ( talk) 07:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I found an egregious error which I shall now change. The reference to the Greek Dark Ages is hopelessly wrong. It implies that this term, which few scholars use any more, is co-terminous with the fall of Greece under Roman rule after the Battle of Corinth. Nothing could be further from the truth. The term when it was used referred instead to the invasion by Iron Age Dorians variously dated as either 1200 or 1100 BC, ie well before Rome's legendary foundation, and is seen usually to last until around 800BC. This is a totally different period of history. In fact some, several, Roman rulers favoured Greece and lavished building projects on Athens and life there continued patterns of the past until Greece came under the Eastern Roman Empire, which was already bilingual and sometimes only Greek speaking and by then already Christian. PRC 07 ( talk) 03:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I have had to go through about 20 blocked IP addresses just to be able to leave a talk comment for this article. These are rotating IP's used by millions of people in Northern California. And they seem to be blocked until like Sept 2010.
This is completely deranged and pointless. If someone's doing something abusive on a rotating IP, block if for like 3 or 4 days!
Guh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.197.129 ( talk) 00:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't have editing permission. Please replace the entire "Earlest History" section with this text
(Click EDIT for this talk section to copy and paste the original code).
Thank you
QUOTE
There is archaeological evidence of human occupation of the Rome area from at least 14000 years, but the dense layer of much younger debris obscures Palaeolithic and Neolithic sites. [7] Evidence of stone tools, pottery and stone weapons attest to at least 10000 years of human presence.
The identity of earlier inhabitants of the area is unclear, but by about 1500 B.C. most of central and southern Italy had been settled by tribes of the Italic branch of the Indo-Europeans. These Italic peoples possessed the classic Indo-European culture of horse and chariot, and the social class of the mounted aristocracy, the Eques, endured through the imperial period.
By about the beginning of the First Millennium B.C., the Italic tribes had differentiated into distinct ethno-linguistic groups, with Latin tribes inhabiting the region of Latium including the territory that was to become Rome. The site of Rome was near the border with the territory of the Etruscans (a non-Indo-European people) to the north, and the territory of the Sabines (another Italic people) to the east. In legend the earliest city of Rome was comprised of settlements of these three peoples, likely reflecting some degree of historical fact.
END QUOTE
Note that I have removed the statement: "The power of the well known tale of Rome's legendary foundation tends also to deflect attention from its actual, and much more ancient, origins." The city of Rome does not have much more ancient origins as far as we know, only that there was (of course) rural settlement in the area as in the rest of Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.197.129 ( talk) 00:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Please include a newpaper:
Il Fatto Quotidiano
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il_Fatto_Quotidiano
Lcnbst ( talk) 15:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Done
Favonian (
talk)
15:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It's wrongly stated that all Rioni are in Municipio I. Actually, Prati and Borgo are in Municipio XVII. I am not sure about the others. You can check it also in the pages of Prati and Borgo, or in the Italian version.
151.65.219.105 ( talk) 10:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Emanuele
In the intro section is this non-normal capitalization:
"Rome's influence on western Civilisation can hardly be overestimated"
Please correct that to: "
Western civilisation"
(I don't have editing permission)
Thank you —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.199.197.129 (
talk)
00:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
who was the ruler of italy between 1750-1800 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.128.68 ( talk) 17:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Between 1750-1800 there were many people ruling italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.183.138 ( talk) 20:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.
Please update the page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC).
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
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
Campidoglio is the common name in italian, not a dialectal form. You can see in the italian version. Plese correct.
It is submitted hereby that the word comes from Ra the Egyptian Sun God.Many place names of this word exist, eg Ramallah. The reson being that a high/exalted/sacred place was sought always, and had to be near the sun heightwise perhaps..just as the animal ram (rahm in german?) was named so because it went up highest to the Sun. This was read on the internet by myself about Ra and ram and Ramallah. I deduce that Rome was pronounced just a little differrently as regards the o in it(could be au became o) and the rest of the word maah is the way the local still seems to be pronouncing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preetlarhi ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Why is there nothing about Christianity in the lead? Rome is considered the most holy saite in Christianity by cathlics (the largest branch) as well as other denominations. It was the capital of the largest empire in the world at the time Christianity appeared and Christianity spred mostly from Rome. Rome is historically a significant site in Christianity as Jesus was born in the provincial extent of the Roman Empire. Rome was the platform for Christian ministry from the first Christian emporor Constantine I, and the site for pioneering of a number of martyred apostles such as Paul of Tarsus and Saint Peter [8] Someone65 ( talk) 18:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Favonian !
Please, take a look to Rome - tourist attractions and help me understand why you think is SPAM.
If you don't have time, I will tell you here more about this website and why I think is useful for Wikipedia users.
The main idea is to help users understand from a single place what to visit when in Rome. The first page will list only 4 main categories. In Rome case this 4 main categories are: main attractions, Ancient Rome, churches in Rome and Rome fountains
Inside the website the user will find a second sidebar that will contain another categories (this are level two categories).
All this categories help the user to better plan his time.
A level one category contain a list of only tourist attractions. A level two category has the objective to list all attractions & hotels in the same neighborhood with the given category title, for example Colosseum
The web site has on top a Search hotels box and at the bottom a Google AdSense link's box. Their inclusion is fair to the user and completely separated by the site content. No SCAM, no TRICKS to miss lead the user.
More, the level two category pages has a like Google layout. This will help the user to better understand the separation between the list of attractions in the same neighborhood and hotels in the same neighborhood.
Hope this will help you better understand why I choose to include the link in Wikipedia Rome page, this, after I read two times the Terms of Use of Wikipedia. Valahus ( talk) 11:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering why British spelling was being used here considering Italy isn't an English speaking country. Doc Quintana ( talk) 03:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, but it is a European country, just like UK, and apparently this is often taken in account when choosing which spelling is preferred, here in WP. Goochelaar ( talk) 12:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
There are multiple problems with this source and the above representation of it:
1. The report actually refers to residents in Rome on 31 December 2007 (not a big issue admittedly).
2. The figures given are from ISTAT. It would be better to source them directly.
3. According to the source more immigrants came from the Philippines than from Africa, yet they are listed the other way around.
4. In any event the Philippines are not part of East Asia, at least not according to the Wikipedia article.
5. Neither Algeria nor Argentina is listed in the figures for the Comune of Rome.
6. Worse still the figures given for the Commune don't add up. The given total of foreigners is 218,426 but when all the figures are added up the actual total is 237,674.
— Blue-Haired Lawyer t 18:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Move the petty details down into the article. Tell why city is important to Italy and the world. Why should anybody want to read this article anyway? GeorgeLouis ( talk) 01:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
On June 19, 1943 Rome was bombed by Anglo-American forces, being one of the hardest hit areas the San Lorenzo district. Causing about 3,000 deaths and 11,000 wounded.-- 79.43.220.9 ( talk) 20:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The actual number of permanent residents has been calculated in 3.106.318 by the city administration office, although the number of "official" residents is 2.864.519 (those who declare Rome to be their comune of residence): http://www.ilmessaggero.it/articolo.php?id=117489&sez=HOME_ROMA
Rome has also a special administrative statute as a comune, mining it is a special territorial division. The administrative name of the comune of Roma is Roma Capitale. The new administrative status become law very recently, on october 3 2010. http://www.comune.roma.it/
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Karig79 ( talk • contribs) 19:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, as editorial staff ot the tourism website of Regione Lazio, we would like to add our link to the section regarding Rome http://www.ilmiolazio.it/wps/en/Destinations/Rome/ we also noticed that the link to APT of the city of Rome (official tourist office) doesn't work anymore. -- Il mio lazio ( talk) 08:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
there is a fourth public university to add, called "Università degli studi di Roma Foro Italico", and also simply called "Università Roma quattro". Someone that can edit this section add this new information. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepowerofnothing ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
another one is Caput Mundi; the city of the seven hills — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.130.241 ( talk) 01:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i would like to add some important information.
Ric5575 ( talk) 05:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i would like to add some valuable info and sources
Ric5575 ( talk) 23:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Ric5575 added a section on the Vatican. I've reverted this for the following reasons: While a section on the Vatican in this article may be a good idea, the type of information Ric is adding doesn't seem to me to be appropriate in its current form. It is exclusively about the Vatican and doesn't explain the Vatican's relationship to Rome. A separate section on the Vatican would need to: a) take into account the information about the Vatican already in the article (so as not to repeat what is there), and b) relate directly to Rome (this being an article about Rome). A section on the Vatican should also be brief, as there are already many WP articles about the Vatican. It should thus be written in summary style. Sunray ( talk) 04:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
i just made an editing on this article, if there is anything wrong with it, feel free to change, correct or even delete. let me know what went wrong and I'll do my best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ric5575 ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are errors in the caption of the 1st figure: "A view of Rome: the top left picture to the is the Colosseum, followed ...". It should be changed to "Views of Rome: the top left picture is the Colosseum, followed ..." 87.11.214.64 ( talk) 23:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I congratulate all who have written on this, but I am writing to request some changes.
AGE OF ROME. First, the expression that Rome has been inhabited for 2500 years is contradicted in the article itself, and also by one of the links given there. That link leads to a site which states that Rome has had "Continuous habitation since approximately 1000 BC" which would of course mean 3000 years. In any case the traditional founding date of 753BC would make it 2750 years old, in fact supported by what know of the seven Etruscan kings of Rome prior to 509 (not 510 as cited in the article) and their approximate periods of rule. In any case these are mythical, not in the sense of 'untrue' or unhistoric, but national stories, and if we give the age of Rome as an inhabited site it must be at least 3000 years. I have returned recently from the display in the Capitoline museums and it clear that the city was inhabited very far beyond this by Latin and other tribes. At the very least the contradiction between 2500 and 3000 should be resolved in favour of 3000.
FAO The UN's FAO is listed as a 'humanitarian' organisation. While it certainly does do work that would be classified as humanitarian its more accurate nature and what the page should call it is: "specialized agency of the UN". The UN has a series of these, UNESCO, WHO, UNICEF, etc and that is what FAO should be called. Rome also hosts the World Food Program, also a UN agency, separate from FAO but 'located there'.
CATHOLICS believe I think the distancing that is implied in the expression "Catholics believe" that St Peter's 'last resting place' is in Rome is weird. No ancient historian doubts it, nor does anyone seriously doubt that St Paul is also buried in Rome. Why this timidity?
"to this day" There is a tone of strangeness about some of the writing. For example the expression "to this day" thousands of pilgrims go to Rome. Err, I am living here and the numbers are immense and from all over the world. The expression 'to this day' makes it sound like a strange habit that would go out of fashion etc. Very POV in my view. Also, the expression that pilgrims have come to "Vatican city", this is nonsense. Until 1870 and the restoration of Rome, 1929 and the Lateran Treaties, reconfirmed in the 1970s, this distinction was not made. Pilgrims went to Rome, and that is what this expression should read.
GAW whatever I know that it is intended in WP to keep these world city rankings whatever they are, and that I won't get anywhere by mentioning them, but they seem to me really absurd for ancient and historically important cities like Rome. Thanks for your attention
PRC 07 ( talk) 11:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I have made additions and corrections to the 'language' section, 'pilgrimage' and a couple of other bits; including some of those mentioned above. Thanks, PRC 07 ( talk) 12:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
From this article:
And
But Italy#Administrative divisions says:
Obviously the Italian word comuni is meant to indicate "municipalities" or "districts", or some such term, rather than the English word communes. The article on Communes does not mention Italy. In English the word "commune" more aptly applies to "an intentional community of people living together, sharing common interests, property, possessions, resources, and, in some communes, work and income." It is confusing to the reader in this context of Rome, and may bring to mind something more akin to the 1871 Paris Commune.
But the article then goes on to preempt the word "municipality", saying:
At the least, I think wherever "commune" appears it should be replaced with the Italian word, italicized, comune (pl. comuni). I also question the capitalization of "commune" as given here:
Beyond these two points, I believe this issue needs some discussion here. A major problem is that among English-speaking peoples, local terms for administrative divisions vary greatly from one place to another. Milkunderwood ( talk) 12:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
A suggestion: why you do not use the names in the original language and the English translation in brackets? I believe that this system would solve many misunderstandings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandro.spalvieri ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link)