Talk:Circus Maximus

Rome Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history 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.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Start‑class High‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome C‑class Top‑importance

	This article 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 articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 31 May 2007. Further details are available here.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Roman Republic#From the Gracchi to Caesar (133–49 BC)|late Republic]] The anchor (#From the Gracchi to Caesar (133–49 BC)) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Location

I would like to know where the circus maximus is located. Does anybody know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.13.153 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live 8

There is a pic but the page is crowded enough.

--Error 00:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi 209.68.91.86 (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, is a Roman Circus a subset of the term Hippodrome, or are they considered separate. Because the Circus Maximus is definitely a circus of Roman origin, not Greek. --SkiDragon 20:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historic image?

This article would probably benefit from a picture or rendering, showing what the Circus Maximus looked like during its heydays. What I'm not sure about if there are any out there that can be used without infringing on copyright. -- MiG (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I was going to post about (using almost the same exact wording). I didn't quite get the concept of a circus until I saw this model of the original Maximus, so I think if there is a usable image of it, it would be a very helpful thing. TheHYPO (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drome?

To revisit a comment from 2 years ago, is a circus considered a Hippodrome? The Hippodrome article suggests that they are separate concepts, but this article leads with The Maxiumus being a hippodrome... Someone with better credentials than I got a comment? TheHYPO (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please hope

This page is currently a disaster. Someone smarter than me please fix. 75.72.193.194 (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request Protection

I herby request semiprotection of this page, because of persistent vandalism, currently I have no chance of succsessfully cleaning this page for the massive amounts of bad-faith edits. Gsmgm (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support for this request!--Narayan (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also support this I just pulled of a "you can change anything" from the Related Topics 15 June 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.95.242 (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improving

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/circusmaximus/circusmaximus.html Here's a website that might help with the article. Mhera (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tarquinius Priscus

Certainly, the first games of the Ludi Romani (Roman Games) were staged at the location by Tarquinius Priscus, the fifth king of Rome

Nope. Any sentence that begins with Certainly and is about Tarquinius Priscus is an overstatement; it's not certain that there was such a man. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What is the source of this?

In 140AD a collapse of the upper tier caused the death of 1,112 spectators. It remains the deadliest sports-related disaster to date[2].

I can't find it in guinness records web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.158.214.37 (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I can find no scholarly reference at all for this event. Even if one were found, the death toll following the well-attested collapse of Fidenae's gimcrack stands was far higher (see Tacitus [1]); so I'll remove the "deadliest sports disaster" claim, tag the 140 collapse and its unusually precise mortality figure, and await citation. Haploidavey (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

image to text ratio

The article has long suffered from a disproportion of images to text. I'm going to move the map here for now. For me, the model shows the Circus better; it's too small on the map to read well. Others may disagree, or the article may expand to a length that would accommodate more images. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vallis Murcia

Just wondering whether any kindly passers by know of scholarship that ever-so-tentatively identifies the stream (noted in the Porter ref on Renascence Rome) as Murcia's own, formerly paved over or led in a conduit beneath the track, and subsequently re-exposed. That would make sense, but a cite's a cite. (Taking a breather here, because it's easier than other stuff. I intend adding a little material on the Circus M's shrines to Murcia and Consus, plus a chopped-down version of the strange foxy Cerean Circus ritual). Haploidavey (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the course of the modern stream dates to the 12th century. Shame. Haploidavey (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're working on this. Odd that this article's been relatively undeveloped over the years. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval tower

Wasn't some of the buildings (on the spina?) recycled as a fortress by some medieval family? --Error (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse

Part of the stands collapsed in 150 AD (?) and killed an enormous amount of people...around ~13,000 I believe. This information should appear somewhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.24.110.248 (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The stands' partial collapse during Diocletian's reign (and the claim of 13000 killed in consequence) are covered in footnote 37. I'll move it into the main text - not sure why I consigned this to a footnote in the first place. Haploidavey (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Capacity

The creation of a digital model by the Ausonius Institute has led to yet another downward revision of the number of spectators, in the range 60,000-100,000. See Robert Vergnieux, “Origine de l’usage de la Réalité Virtuelle à l’Institut Ausonius et les premiers travaux sur le Circus Maximus,” in Le cirque romain et son image, p. 240. See also p. 433 n. 26 in the same volume.

Life is too short for me to attempt a revision, but someone may like to add this. Skookumpete (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concerts at Circo Massimo

The problem of the recent edits is not a problem of sources. At wikipedia editors should follows WP:RECENTand [[]], which is part of a standard. The former prohibits giving an article an unbalanced focus on recent events. For several decades the area has been used as a concert arena, and several singers perform there every year. The concert which took place few weeks ago is not strikingly different from those that have happened before, so there is no reason to describe it in the article. Here we should keep the focus of the article on a landmark which is 2,000 years old. Alex2006 (talk) 05:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just here to support Alessandro's reversion and reasoning. On the matter of sources, I doubt if we'd find any relevant support from sources of any quality (rather than those based on journal and magazine publicity hand-outs) until this perennial "debate" results in protection of Circus remains, many years from now, if ever. The second "source" provided was a sustained advertisment for Scott, with the Circus mentioned in passing. Haploidavey (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Regarding the debate on whether to use the site as a venue, I'm not sure if it also falls under WP:RECENT, but in any case if one wanted to mention it in the article one should do so generically, without mentioning a particular artist. Alex2006 (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now wondering what the critera might be for inclusion of events in the final paragraph. It reads like free publicity for videos, dvds and what have you. And it's entirely unsourced. Do we need such a paragraph at all? Perhaps, as you say, we should merely outline the problems attendant on use of a vulnerable site for mass-meetings and entertainment. I've stripped the relevant para back to unsourced basics - no names, dates, whatever, and almost none of it has impacted on the Circus remains in any way. Unfortunately, I can only find references in online news sources to the "earthquake" caused by fans at the Travis Scott concert, and the consequent "risk" of damage; no actual damage is reported, and as we already know, this complete lack of damage is very, very recent. Here's a typical effort from CNN [2] Haploidavey (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a primary source, which needs review and secondary comments to be used here:

Effects of Anthropic and Ambient Vibrations on Archaeological Sites: The Case of the Circus Maximus in Rome (Geosciences 2021, 11(11), 463; https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11110463)

Thanks for finding this interesting paper, which I will read as soon as possible. I think we should follow Italian wikipedia, where it only mentions the fact that for several years the site has been the venue for concerts of events, and perhaps close the sentence by saying that recently it has been questioned whether mass events should be held at the site because of possible damage to the monuments. Regarding the lack of damage after the last concert, I think they are doing some checking these days, and not so much to the site, which is basically a lawn, but to the Roman structures on the Palatine and the numerous churches with their frescoes in the immediate vicinity. At the moment there is a tug-of-war between the superintendence, which is against concerts, and the municipality of Rome, which is in favour (panem et circensem still works after 2000 years), and proving damage would close the matter. Alex2006 (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Well, you and Italian Wikipedia - and the Geosciences article - and even Juvenal - seem to have the best approach by far. The Geosciences article also very carefully avoids names and dates and accusations. As was often said in Britain's days of compulsory National Service, "No names, no pack drill". Do you want to do the necessary service at the article? The tug-of-war does not bode at all well. Haploidavey (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]