Talk:List of Latin place names in Ireland

Merge proposal

Although this article and List of Roman place names in Britain are not precisely the same there is enough overlap that they could be combined into something like List of Latin placenames in the British Isles since no toponyms are listed in either article for Iceland or Faeroes. LuiKhuntek 20:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing.

• Had you checked the history, all the Roman place names were already merged here: 2005-11-28 13:51:12.
• Since these names cover both ancient and medieval Latin names, I suspect the strict Roman names folks would be a bit upset to have them merged together.
• The Iceland and Faeroes names were contemplated separately as long ago as 2003-11-05 02:50:48 (see old history on the massive Europe list before the split). We know there is a 9th century book, Liber de Mensura Orbis Terrae, by an Irish monk named Dicuil. All we need is somebody to add them!

William Allen Simpson 23:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I would vote to reject this proposal: I think it's very important to keep the distinction between Roman names (ie names attested from Roman times) and Latin names (ie Latin or pseudo-Latin names that have been applied to British places at some time or other). This was the rationale behind the very deliberate separation between List of Roman place names in Britain and List of British places with Latin names. I think it would be extremely confusing to merge these together. Moreover I would suggest that List of Latin place names in North Atlantic islands is a very poor subject for an article, since no-one is ever likely to search on this, and it is surely very debatable what are considered to be "North Atlantic Islands". More specifically, I think we should have two articles, one for the strictly Roman names, and one for the Latin names in general, both relating only to the British Isles. Neither should relate to "North Atlantic islands", since this is not a grouping that makes any sense, so the good stuff in the present article should be merged into one or other of the existing other two articles. --rossb 09:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ross Burgess. I have been trying to make this very same point in relation to all the several articles entitled "List of Latin place names in [fill in the blank]". (I am not sure how many there are now, because they keep multiplying.) Again, it doesn't matter if there is a certain overlap, but for the student of ancient Roman history and toponymy, modern Latin place names such as Amstelodamum, Berolinum, Bruxella, Hafnia, Varsovia, etc. are at best irrelevant, and at worst confusing and misleading. Pasquale 21:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of islands in the north atlantic that are not British. And while I agree that later names are "irrelevant" for the "student" of attested Roman placenames, far more history uses ecclesiastic Latin than Roman Latin. The serious "student" will not be confused. None of the words mentioned by Pasquale appear here.

The answer is thorough documentation. I've done as best I can here, but in many cases on the other pages, folks just keep adding names without references.

List of British places with Latin names is not germane, since that's British to Latin, and this is Latin to English.

Again, as I replied earlier, the more restrictive list of "Roman" place names in "Britain" seems to have support as a separate entity, and there's no good reason to delete that article. Just keep any improvements, and add them here. Not difficult.

Anyway, this merge proposal has been up for 2 months, and there's no support, so I'm deleting the tag.

--William Allen Simpson 06:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, W. A. S., but, with all due respect, I was stupefied by how you managed to misunderstand and/or twist what I was trying to say. Please let me clarify. (1) I was trying to broaden the discussion so as to include all articles entitled "List of Latin place names in [fill in the blank]", so that, whatever solution is adopted for the British Isles, it may also be implemented for those other articles; more specifically, I believe those other articles should also have matching articles with JUST the ancient Roman names. (2) I drew the examples from the other articles entitled "List of Latin place names in [fill in the blank]". Of course, those names do not appear here, since none of those places (Amsterdam, Berlin, Brussels, Copehagen, Warsaw) is to be found in the British Isles. (3) Don't get me wrong. I absolutely do believe the medieval and modern Latin names do have a place SOMEWHERE, however, I agree with Ross Burgess that they cause confusion when they are mixed together with the ancient names; (4) I was of course using the word "student" in its broad sense of amateur scholar or aficionado, i.e. the kind of encyclopedia user who might peruse these lists. (5) Your insistence on documentation is also misleading. Even with ample documentation, if you have five or six Latin names for, say, Winchester, the encyclopedia user or "student", no matter how serious, is bound to be confused, unless a clear distinction is made between the ancient Roman name(s) — which presumably closely reflect the original Celtic form(s) — and the medieval ones, based on later Anglo-Saxon or English names. This problem is pervasive and affects not only this article but all the other articles entitled "List of Latin place names in [fill in the blank]", in much the same way. This is why I am arguing for a split between EACH ONE of the articles entitled "List of Latin place names in [fill in the blank]" and matching articles (mostly yet to be created) entitled "List of Roman place names in [fill in the blank]". Thanks. Pasquale 23:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Iceland in the Roman Empire???

Quick Question - Its stated in the first sentance that Iceland was a part of the Roman Empire... I've never heard that assertion before. Is it correct?

Read the whole sentence: ... or that were given Latin place names in historical references. —Nightstallion (?) 10:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)