This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Historic sites This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites Classical Greece and Rome This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome Italy This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly Cities This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

I've restored the article on Arpinum as a standalone page distinct from Arpino. I believe this is consistent with Wikipedia's content and style guidelines, and I’d like to open a discussion here for consensus.

• The ancient city of Arpinum (Roman municipium, birthplace of Cicero and Marius, with extensive archaeological history) is not the same topic as the modern comune of Arpino.
• The historical and archaeological content about Arpinum is substantial and merits its own treatment. Merging everything into Arpino creates a disjointed article and limits coverage of either topic.
• Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, it is appropriate to split content when the subtopic can stand alone and the main article becomes too long or too general.

Wikipedia routinely separates ancient settlements from their modern counterparts when both are notable in their own right. For example:

• Ancient Capua and Capua
• Pompeii (ancient city) and Pompei (modern town)
• Casinum (Volscian city) and Cassino (modern)
• Falerii (ancient) and Civita Castellana (modern)
• Cosa (ancient Roman city) and Ansedonia (modern locality)

These separations help readers navigate between archaeological/historical and modern civic content without confusion.

The revert cited WP:FORK, but this doesn’t apply here. WP:FORK is about splitting articles to promote a biased POV or redundant duplication. That’s not the case here — the Arpinum article is:

• Historically distinct
• Not duplicative
• Based on solid scholarship
• Complementary to Arpino, not redundant

• Keep Arpinum as the article for the ancient city, focused on its Roman, Samnite, and archaeological history.
• Keep Arpino for the modern municipality: civic life, demographics, tourism, local governance.
• Use clear hatnotes to direct readers accordingly.

Let’s discuss! I’m open to feedback and sources. If there's consensus for merging, I’ll help structure the resulting article cleanly — but I believe separate coverage is more encyclopedic and in line with community norms. Vineviz (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any books on Arpinum and the archaeological work done in the area? Showing the existence of the ancient town as a separate topic – eg how there is a mountain of literature on Pompeii – would be most convincing. Ifly6 (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Arpinum has had much less archeological work than Pompeii, so references that distinguish "Arpinum" from "Arpino" are more likely to be chapter headings or article titles than book titles (e.g. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203725795-14/arpinum-marshall-fishwick or https://www.torrossa.com/en/resources/an/2997966 or https://www.torrossa.com/en/resources/an/5146601 or https://www.persee.fr/doc/efr_0223-5099_1996_act_215_1_5989) but see also https://www.google.com/books/edition/Arpinum/Ol9OqcYPbfgC?hl=en&gbpv=0 and https://www.google.com/books/edition/Cicero_of_Arpinum/KskSAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 Vineviz (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know Cicero and Marius come from Arpinum. (He even had his son don the toga virilis in its forum in 49; there's a certain letter to Atticus, though I don't know the citation off my head.) The mere mention of the fact they come from the town or that people lived there isn't enough to justify a separate mention, especially from an obsolete source from 1914. The archaeological reports are the most convincing portion: they indicate that there is general notability of the ancient town qua ancient town and that there is enough material to have a real article on it. Ifly6 (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ifly6. Archaeological evidence is certainly important but represents just one dimension of notability. Literary sources, historical documentation of Arpinum's political status, and its cultural significance equally contribute to its independent notability.

Scholars like Pietrobono (2016), de Acutis (2012), and Soldovieri (2021) deliberately distinguish between "Arpinum" and "Arpino" based on historical context, indicating these are treated as distinct subjects in academic literature. This approach also maintains consistency with Wikipedia's organization of other Volscian, Samnite, and Latin settlements where ancient and modern incarnations have separate articles. Vineviz (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]