Talk:Municipium Iasorum

Croatia Low‑importance

	Croatia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia 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.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Republic"

This article should be a bit clearer about the fact that this res publica was in all likelihood neither more independent nor more autonomous than any other post-tribal civitas outside the more urbanised and hellenised Mediterranean regions. I would be very surprised to find that this city was more of a city state than any other regional centre. Virtually all Roman cities were largely autonomous in their internal affairs and were solely responsible for levying the munera and tributa they owed the central authorities for their canton. All of them could be defined as a civitas and were, by definition, res publicae. Trigaranus (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've independently noticed this and moved the title away, simply based on the sources. Few even mention res publica, let alone "Republic" in English. The short Latin name found in all sources is quite sufficiently distinct, even if it might be a bit clumsy - it looks like it's in an adjectival form. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly anything is better than "Jasorou Republic", but I think now we've actually landed on a Genitive plural form. Did you find it like that in the sources? I really haven't found any recent sources on the thing whatsoever. Trigaranus (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I originally used an outdated source that described this territory as republic, but due to data from other sources, perhaps we should use title "Municipium Iasorum" (instead just "Iasorum"?). PANONIAN 05:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. Trigaranus (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources linked from the article use it pretty consistently. (I've now cleaned up the references a bit, but it's all there.) It's always in the context, after declension. Maybe we should just roll it back to nominative ourselves? :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although, some sources are using term "Iasorum" as a name of the city itself, this article primarily speaks about administrative unit "that extended from Sava to Drava". Therefore, it should be named either "Municipium Iasorum" or "Res Publica Iasorum". PANONIAN 06:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomory book

I can't find any real record of this publisher, it doesn't look like a reliable source (see the rant), so I'm preventively moving it to talk:

Susan V. Tomory (Tomory, Zsuzsa). "Sarmatians in Hungary". A new view of the Arthurian legends: Part I.
Susan V. Tomory (Tomory, Zsuzsa) (2000). Kezdeteink. Miskolc: Miskolc Society of Humanities - King Louis the Great Private University. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

It doesn't seem critical to the article anyway. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]