Category talk:Roman towns and cities: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Bill Thayer (talk | contribs) Ancient vs. Modern Names |
GreatWhiteNortherner (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
[[User:Bill Thayer|Bill]] 19:19, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
[[User:Bill Thayer|Bill]] 19:19, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
||
:I think there should be a separate article for ancient name with cross-links with the modern city (if any). See [[Londinium]] / [[London]]. [[User:GreatWhiteNortherner|GreatWhiteNortherner]] 19:28, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:28, 23 September 2004
I notice fair disorder in naming, linking, referring to places with different names in Antiquity (as most of them had, of course). Is there a convention we should be adhering to?
Many towns are in the same place, yet there would be benefit in having separate articles. Ex.: Piacenza/Placentia.
Other towns, though even sharing the same name from Antiquity to our times, are not really the same place. To take one of the worst examples: ancient Capua = S. Maria di Capua Vetere; there is a modern Capua a few miles away, whose ancient name was Casilinum.
Yet others, the site is not known. Ex.: Volsinii (may have been Bolsena, may have been Orvieto: no one knows).
Help please?
Bill 19:19, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I think there should be a separate article for ancient name with cross-links with the modern city (if any). See Londinium / London. GreatWhiteNortherner 19:28, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)