Talk:Rome/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Religion

I've got the first two paragraphs of a religion section started by translating (and paraphrasing) from the German article. Unfortunately, I do not, nor does my software quite understand the last two paragraphs. I would encourage anyone to expand on what I have or nonetheless improve upon it. I have also expanded the economy section by a few sentences. Sicilianmandolin 03:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

News

I have added section of Rome's news with link to google and msn news, I think that is important for info about Rome Mimmo46 16:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Biggest in Europe?

I think this could be an error: both London and Paris are listed with larger areas. Lafarge 10:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

---

ABSOLUTELY NOT London and Paris don't have a larger MUNICIPAL area (comune). They may have a larger province or regional area, but surely not a larger municipal one. So the former statement is totally valid. mos82.55.218.102

---

Plus, the former statement "Rome is one of the largest cities in Europe" is correct and i wonder why it's been removed. The satellite image of Rome is rather reductive. It represents the central part of the "Comune" (Hence the city) and it lacks the costal part. I would suggest to put in the page the one you can find in the italian article. Mos

Mosque

I have added a reference tio the Mosque of Rome, currently the biggest in Europe. It was designed by the Italian achitect Paolo Portoghesi and inaugurated on June 21st, 1995. Please, do NOT remove without reason.--Dejudicibus 15:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You added duplicated information, since it already is under "Other religious edifices". Please merge the two entries. And, in general, stay calm, and accept others edit your contributions.--Panairjdde 15:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I am absolutely calm. I simply think that before removing a contribute, unless it is vandalism or clearly false, it would be good policy to talk FIRST with the contributor. I any case, if we speak of religion, we should mention the fact that in Rome there are large non-Christian communities.--Dejudicibus 17:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are calm, how comes that you are accusing me of deleting that info, even pointing to an edit of mine that is a simple vandalism revert? And if you are calm, how comes that you did not notice that the info about the mosque was already there? Furthermore, if you really want to write "that in Rome there are large non-Christian communities" (but how much is "large"?), why don't you write this, while you wrote about the building?--Panairjdde 19:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Question

Would the Roman Empire have been the greatest empire Earth has ever seen? I mean, compared to empires established by Eygpt, Mesopotamia, China etc.. Oyo321 16:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure with China. I read somewhere that the greatest empire by geographical extension was the Mongolic empire, under Gengis Khan or one of his successors.--Panairjdde 18:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You were off by my question by a little-I wondered if Rome was the greatest empire out of many other great ones.

I also disagree with the "empireness" (if you get what I mean) of Genghis Khan. He was just a brute barbarian who conquered vast strectches of land with violence and cruelty. The fact that the Mongolic "empire" lasted for a very short time, doesn't help either. Rome may have not compared with land mass, but in terms of culture, military, and length of existence is superiour to that of the MOngol "empire."

Just for fun-Panairjdde you're Italian right? Congradulations on their victory over Germany in the semifinals!!! Oyo321 21:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not know how to measure the greatness of an empire. Maybe it is the most influential: we are writing with the letters used by them, in a language that received many infuences from them. --Panairjdde 22:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC) thanks, Oyo. a great victory with a great example of "catenaccio": three forwards and totti behind.

Your reasoning makes sense. The influence of an empire is important to their greatness. Oyo321 17:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the largest empire ever was the British Empire, which included India, Australia, and Canada as its largest land-masses. The Persian Empire was also larger than the Roman Empire in the time of King Darius, as it stretched from India through Egypt, and also up into the current Russia. The greatest conquest was by the Mongols, who conquered virtually everything through France, but that didn't last as an Empire. The Soviet Union was also larger than the Roman Empire (though largely made of unusable land. I'm not sure if the Third Reich or the Napoleonic Empires were as big, but I don't think so.

    NONE OF THEM INFLUENCED SO DEEPLY THOUGH  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.196.159 (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC) 

Industries in Rome

What type of industries are in Rome ?

Famous Roman people

Could you please tell me any Famous people that come from rome. And could you give me a bit of information about them please. Thanks --58.168.234.176 06:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Rigman

Enrico Fermi, Pius XII, Franco Modigliani, Claudio Baglioni, Alberto Sordi, Elsa Morante, Antonello Venditti, Paolo Portoghesi, Alberto Moravia, Francesco De Gregori, Julius Caesar, Enrico Toti, Ennio Morricone. --Fertuno 00:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Romulus, Augustus Caesar, Marcus Aurelius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.206.51 (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

new external link ?

hi to all,

I would like to propose an external link for the rome article. it's a website showcasing various rome locations in interactive high quality fullscreen qtvr, which allows a visitor to explore locations watching in all directions, like being there. the homepage link is http://rome.arounder.com please check city tour or specials or click on the dots on the map to visit locations. for full disclosure, it's one of my websites, part of a much larger project http://www.arounder.com. sorry for this long post, my intention is beyond creating traffic to on of my websites since a wikipedia link would create only a small fraction of the actual traffic this site has. (I know that because others added links to my sites in other articles)

I strongly believe, photographic fullscreen virtual reality is the next best thing of being there, and am sure that visitors will apprecite this link, thus I'm concerned somebody might object because the arounder project has also a commercial aspect. the concept is create in cooperation with the official tourism authorities a city virtual tour, the business is then selling virtual tours to hotel, restaurants etc... nevertheless an arounder city site allows you to view a city better then any other virtual city tour on the net because of it's high quality. My aim is to break down barriers putting online places people might not be able to visit because of economical, geographical, political barriers, or physical barriers, to do this I need to create revenue to finance the core mission.

for example this other site I own is highly appreciated by people with severe physical disabilities because it allows them to live extreme experiences they never could: http://www.fullscreenqtvr.com/04extreme01_10.html

I would really appreciate your feedback and thoughts. especially in regards of the possible conflict of interests. I consider this a kind of pilot discussion to understand if I can contribute with links to various city or monument articles, or somehow else.

I was told once it's possible to contribute also content to wiki, also vr's ? is there a place I can get infos about this ?

thanks for taking the time to read my post

yours sincerely

Marcotrezzini 14:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Recently, the old Infobox City template has been changed into Infobox CityIT one. Would anyone oppose to the restoration of the old infobox?--Panarjedde 00:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox 2

Goodevening, here I'am! I'm the author of the recent changes in Rome's page. Before my intervention the page was higlhy incomplete. I've added all the cultural part, the historic census, and many pics. In my opinion the old infobox was technically not clear and comprehensive, aesthetically not much pleasant. For exaple I've also added much datas and converted meters into feet and square kilometers into square miles. So I took the "american model" for infoboxes. I apologize if you don't like my changes. However I'm confident that the new page is really better than the old one.

87.7.48.115 17:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Foreign relations

I didn't find a place for this:

Rome is one of the cities with the highest number of diplomatic missions as the capital of the Italian Republic, the site of the Holy See, the Sovereign Order of Malta, the FAO and being near to San Marino.

Very true, and with two embassies for every foreign entity (one to Italy the other to the Holy See), there are corpo diplomatico vehicles illegally parked all over town! FJY 12:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)FJY

I've integrated it somehow. --Nehwyn 22:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Bit of a facelift

Hello everyone. As you may have noticed, I've made quite a few edits in the last 24h, as I was actually thinking of giving this article a bit of a facelift. Hope you won't mind. I'm more or less following the model of featured city articles (such as Boston) and integrating material from the Italian version of the Rome article (itself a featured article on it.wikipedia.org), as well as adding bits of my own. This is a list of significant changes:

• Shuffled sections a wee bit;
• Reworked Religion;
• Reworked Airports;
• Reworked intro;
• Reworked Sports, added Sports venues;
• Added Media;
• Added Government and politics.

Last but not least, I've tackled the history section. I know it had grown very long and for this reasons it was moved to its own article, but I felt the history section we had till yesterday went a tad too far in the other direction, i.e. it was too short. I've tried to cram up as much as possible in a resonable length, and this version looks quite good to me. Also, after much pondering, I've decided to merge the demographics section into history. Much of its content was relating numbers to events, so I just thought to put the numbers where the events are described, and save some kilobytes. Any comments? Questions? Suggestions? --Nehwyn 22:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I was very glad to see what you had done and I hope to see more to come. It certainly put a big smile on my face to finally see someone fix this article up. It's starting to shape up nicely. Sicilianmandolin 05:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. We still need many inline citations, though. Can anyone provide help with that? (See Boston for an example on what we're looking for.) --Nehwyn 09:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Update 1

Okay, after a few days, this is what I've been able to do so far. The lead, history, geography, and government section I'm quite satisfied with (apart from the fact that it is difficult to insert inline citations in the history part... it's just so generic). The culture section probably still requires some fine-tuning; I was thinking of moving the "media" subsection to its own "List of" article, and maybe just mention the most important media in a dedicated subsection, although I'm not sure whether that should be under culture or economy (possibly the latter). Does anyone have comments on this first part of the article? There are also threecn tags I had placed (one in history, two in geography) that I cannot find a reliable source for... can anyone help? --Nehwyn 07:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Good work! --87.6.62.4 12:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, encouragement is much appreciated. Hey, while you're at it, consider registering a username... it's free, no strings attached, and it is much better if you plan on contributing to Wikipedia.  :)

Standard Italian communes infobox

As it looks that this page is the sole main Italian communes using this different infobox, please gain first consensus to use this different form, instead of reverting an attempt to standardization. Moreover, haven't you noticed that the infobox you are so fond of shows the image of the province of Rome, instead of the commune? Bye. --Attilios 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Beware of changing this article too boldly... The overwhelming rage of Lord Nehwyn (portayed) could strike against you!!!!.

I have added the wikify markup until the matter is solved. --Attilios 22:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I still like the general City infobox better... sorry! As for the problem you mention with the image, you're right, but that does not depend on which infobox template is used, only on which picture is linked from it. I have corrected the general City infobox accordingly, so the problem is solved in the current version. --Nehwyn 23:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As for the wikify tag you have attached to the article, please note that tag is used to stress style or layout problems as covered in WP:MOS, which is not the case here. (Both infoboxes respect the Manual of Style; which one is used is a matter of preference, not of Wikipedia style.) --Nehwyn 23:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

People! Come here! Adhore the omnipotent master of this article, lord Nehwyn! Every edit you add that he won't like, you'll be reverted until the 3RR rule will hang on your head!!! Be afraid of his whim, oh feeble subjects!!!! --Attilios 23:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the "location of Rome" you have added to justify the existence of such a beutiful infobox is pathetic. --Attilios 23:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Attilio, please don't take offense if your edit is reversed. That's an ordinary occurrence on Wikipedia. Nobody has absolute power on articles, and we're all subject to the same rules. Disagreements happen. If you see one of your edits repeatedly reverted by other editors, try arguing your case on the talk page for that article, in order to try and convince those who oppose your position on that particular matter. As for the picture problem you mentioned, you were right in evidencing it, and it has been solved. --Nehwyn 23:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Attilios, are you able to accept opinions different from yours? You changed the infobox, so you should be sure to have consensus for your change.--Panarjedde 12:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I support the restoration of the old infobox.--Panarjedde 12:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

About infoboxes

So, hopefully with a cooler head, let's try and compare infoboxes. The two options are the general City infobox, as featured in this article so far (you can see it in the present version of the article), and the CityIT infobox, a template specifically aimed at Italian cities (you can see in this older version implemented by Attilios). As I've stated already, I would rather keep the old infobox; these are my reasons why.

• Map: Attilios pointed out the map in the City infobox, as feature in the article, did not show the city proper, but rather the Province of Rome (in red), i.e. its metropolitan area. Thanks to his comment, this has been fixed, and the current picture features the city of Rome (in yellow) within the Province of Rome (in red) within the Region of Lazio (in grey). The CityIT infobox, on the other hand, also has a dot for the city proper, and shows the borders of the Lazio region, but does not show the metropolitan area / Province of Rome, so it's slightly less informative. In terms of map used, my preference therefore goes to City.
• Other pictures: the City infobox contains the flag of Rome, the official seal of Rome, and a photograph of the city's most famous landmark, the Colosseum. The CityIT infobox contains only the seal, so flag and landmark are moved to the article text. Again, this is less informative (and looks worse IMHO), so in this regard too my preference goes to the current City template.
• Data: The current City infobox contains some figures that would be lost with the CityIT infobox, while the only datum that is not present in the current infobox and would appear in Attilios' version is the gentilic "Romani" (Romans), the term used to indicate citizens of Rome. Considering both aspects, even in this respect my preference goes to the current template.
• Accuracy: Attilios' version of the infobox contains two inaccuracies. Attilios has replaced the latest ISTAT population count with an older one, and has removed the ''<ref>'' tag which linked to the relevant section of the ISTAT website. Moreover, the patron saints' day is listed as April 25, when it's actually June 29, as correctly stated in the article text. I'm not sure why these changes have been introduced, but since they could easily be corrected whichever infobox is used, they make no difference in choosing between the two.

I can agree with you on all the line. However, as you probably never check other articles about Italian cities, you are not aware of ack of standardization. I was simply pushing towards it, as every serious encyclopedia should have (for example, ALL popes, saints, Swiss communes, French communes, German communes articles have the same infobox). It's not a matter of likes or dislikes, simply reasoning and conforming. Your behaviour and sticking to personal tastes is devoiding the Italian communes of such a standardisation in Wikipedia. However, as long as you are not touched by this point, I can't do anything with you. You look unable to grasp the broader picture. But let me know. Good work. --Attilios 14:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Next time, try to discuss before pushing your POV, not after. Who decided what is to go in this template?--Panarjedde 15:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Standardisation cuts both ways. We could just as easily argue that converting the infobox in Italian city articles from CityIT to the more general City infobox is an act of even broader standardisation. And that conversion would cause no loss of data (anything from a CityIT template can be converted into a City template, but the reverse is not true, and converting from City to CityIT would mean discarding content). --Nehwyn 16:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It is useless to debate with people again and again finding pretestuous arguments only in favour of their hypotesis. There's no harm to modify any infobox in order to contain all the infos you want. The truth is that YOU don't want to renounce to YOUR infobox. The fact is that YOU are currently hampering standardization, but it is clear that in the truth you don't care of it, as long as your beloved article will contain the infobox in the form you prefer. --Attilios 17:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: Differently from you, I don't care of which infobox or another you use here. But if you are able to standardize in some form the infobox used in Italian communes, without losing any info showed there, you are welcome. A good way to contribute is maybe the WikiProject:Italy that I was asked to collaborate to (see my talk page; but, frankly, from your behaviour I doubt that you are interested in something different than this page). Otherwise, in my view you remain only disruptors. --Attilios 17:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right in saying that there's little use in further arguing, as our respective positions are pretty much clear. My arguments for preferring the City infobox are those outlined in the list above; yours for preferring the CityIT infobox is that it's the one used for other Italian cities, even if you don't particularly like it. As for your other allegations, as far as I am concerned, I neither deem your motivation pretestuous (even if I do not concur with it), nor I think you are a disruptor for not agreeing with me; and I am sure you will be a valid contributor to the Italy wikiproject, as soon as it will be jumpstarted. --Nehwyn 17:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You are asking to collaborate, and showing disrespect at the same time. How do you write hypocrisy?--Panarjedde 17:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, sorry. What about the infobox? And why are you reverting the wide images without first debating it in the talk pages as insted you pretend for me here? Wanna speak of hypocrisy?--Attilios 17:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep the main as good overview of history

There is a minimum necessary to maintain the overview of Rome because of its 3000 year history. I hope you can respect that. The length is suitable and reasonable. Do not omit the Byzantine period. I have not included the RENAISSANCE, which on second thought should be given at least a phrase. These are perfectly reasonable and concise overview.

Rome was considered a cultural treasure of the world that the Chiefs-of-Staff of the US in World War II listed several sites that were off-limits to bombing. I will research this further but I have read it several times before. One city that comes to mind that was strategic but was never bombed was KYOTO. i'm not sure if it was Gen. Marshal or Eisenhower and FDR or MacArthur that pushed the decision. This decision however was opposed by the British and Churchill who wanted to obliterate the city of Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr mindbender (talk • contribs)

Hello there! Let's take this discussion one step at a time, starting with what we mostly agree about. The intro contains three paragraphs. I take you have no problem with the first one, as you've let it stay in its current form. As for the third paragraph, your statement that Rome has never been bombed during WWII is (unfortunately) not true. Have a look at this:

http://cronologia.leonardo.it/storia/a1943a.htm

You'll see the 1943 photographs. A simple Google search using "bombing rome world war" as keywords will confirm you that your recollection on this matter is incorrect (or, even better "bombardamenti roma mondiale" for results in Italian). Were you to visit the city, you would see a few of the bombed houses have been preserved in their damaged status, such as in Piazza Vittorio (although, if I remember correctly, they started rebuilding them just a few months ago), or near the corner between Viale Manzoni and Via Merulana (this one is probably still in place). If you're satisfied with these two paragraphs, we can proceed to discussing the middle one. =) --Nehwyn 19:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reworded the 3rd paragraph. I guess what I meant was that it was not systematically bombed from the air like London and Berlin.

On the whole, a reasonable length of the main should be at most one whole screen high. Anything in excess of that may be considered relatively long.

On the 2nd paragraph, your condensation is a little bit excessive. I am trying to include the most significant periods of history. I notice you omit the Byzantine period. On Rome, it is the center of the Catholic Church, not Roman Catholic; it is also the center of Eastern Catholicism - your usage has an obvious British bias - I don't blame you but let's not be too parochial. Tone down the use of decadent, let history speak for itself and let the reader draw his own conclusions.

I'm not sure what you mean by "systematically" bombed, but Rome was bombed multiple times during WWII. Not as heavily as Berlin or some other German cities, that's for granted, but it was bombed; it really wouldn't be fair to say that it survived the war largely unscathed, considering the bombing as well as Nazi occupation, the Fosse Ardeatine, and so on.

As for the second paragraph, your reason for reverting to the longer version is that it's a good overview of city history. That's, I believe, where our opinions diverge. I don't think the lead should be an overview of Roman history; that's what the history section is for. The lead should no more than a presentation of what the other article sections contain. I'll try and propose an intermediate version here; just give me a few minutes to write it.

Last but not least, why do you say I have an "obvious British bias"? --Nehwyn 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Article protected

I can see Dr mindbender is not much into discussion... he violated the 3RR rule, and that I reported to get the article protected. Given that, and having examined the lead section of other European capitals (London and Paris for starters), I am even more convinced the intro should not become an overview of city history, but should be a shorter presentation of the city as it is, leaving the history overview to the History section. Dr mindbender, if you're still reading this, do you still hold to your view instead? Because if you do, there's only mediation left. --Nehwyn 15:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nehwyn, we should fashion that article on Rome like Paris, not only in introduction, but the whole format of the article. The article is all words. There are no pictures like the articles on Paris, Madrid and London. We need a sense of uniform in our articles. - Galati —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galati (talk • contribs)

Indeed. Rome has 14 illustrations, versus 20 in London and 28 in Paris. Well, maybe the latter is too many, but I'd say going to 20 is a reasonable choice. As for the structure of sections and subsections, my model in reorganising the article has been Boston, which I preferred over other city articles because it is a featured article. Stil, at the end of the day, what Rome needs most is the addition of more references; anyone who is able to solve some of the citation needed notices within the text... please do so! --Nehwyn 20:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we unprotect this page? Martinp23 22:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No talk activity for a week, so yes. --Robdurbar 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The statue of the She-wolf is re-dated to the middle ages

According to the Discovery Channel article here: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/22/shewolf_arc.html the statue of the she-wolf was re-dated to the middle ages based on the techniques used to make it. The Wikipedia page still refers to it as "Etruscan".

Amos Shapira 04:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Proper Italian spellings

I understand the temptation to insert foreign (i.e., English) spellings into an article about Italy, but I have learned from my studies in Wikipedia that this is not acceptable. For example, over on the Franz Josef Strauss article, the following editors—

Gryffindor
Haukur Þorgeirsson
C.Löser
Edinborgarstefan
Schubbay
Darkone
Sicherlich
Angr
Reinhard
Stern
Denniss
Carbidfischer

made it abundantly clear that using an incorrect spelling, simply because it is the "normal" English translation, is just wrong. We need to stick to correct spellings of proper names. These editors have been around a lot longer than me, and most of them are European, so we need to listen to them. They know better than English speakers. 65.80.244.202 19:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In the Italian-language version of the article, it is obviously fine to use the Italian spelling of the city throughout the article. However, in the English-language version of the article, it is only proper to use the English spelling of the city. Inserting in the English-language version of the article (perhaps near the beginning) a note as to the Italian spelling of the city would obviously be wise. LoyolaDude 06:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did you change BCE to BC? BCE is common throughout Wikipedia. Ratherhaveaheart 19:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no official WP rule as to BC or BCE. However, there was one that was proposed that suggested that BC should be used when discussing a subject related to religion. Since the areas of this article that I changed deal with the history of Rome, which is full of religious ties, I felt it was appropriate. Even though the proposal did not pass, I still try to follow it unless there is overwhelming objections. LoyolaDude 21:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Italic text

Is this really a twin of Rome? I can find no evidence of this. 62.189.15.226 12:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

North Dakota, USA.

I dont understand this, there is nothing on here about Roman Women....... I wish someone would have enough Info. to verify some jobs foor Roman Women Jobs.

Flags

Deleted flags as per this diff, this article WP:FLAGS, this debate, and this admin. One down, umpteen thousand to go. Pedro |  Talk  21:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is demography?

There is no section about this standard information. Lear 21 11:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Colosseum

Why does the article refer to the Colosseum as being built "in the 70's" - it just doesnt seem very accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HBarca (talk • contribs) 22:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, construction on the Colosseum started in either 70 CE or 72 CE, and finished in 80 CE, so saying it was built in the 70s is pretty accurate. Gentgeen 08:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

number fiddling?

This just seemed like a small move, and i'm far from expert. any ideas? [1] --Kevin ^(TALK) 16:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Trevi Fountain

Photos

I have some photos that may be of interest to readers of the article, but unfortunately I cannot release them for use on Wikipedia itself. How would people feel about linking to them? The URL for the page is http://www.travel-pictures.biz/photos/europe/italy/rome/ . Astigmat 02:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

UNESCO's World Heritage Site: Historic Centre of Rome, the Properties of the Holy See in that City Enjoying Extraterritorial Rights and San Paolo Fuori le Mura Id. n. 91, 91bis 1980 e 1990 C (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) http://www.sitiunesco.it/index.phtml?id=558 http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/91

Unfortunately we can't use them on the page, and they are nothing exceptional, so they should not be introduced in the article. See WP:LINKS for more informations.--Francis Escort 12:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Universities of Rome

Between the Universities of the city there's also the Link Campu University of Malta, but it's bad linked inside the wikicode. The link is limited to "Campus of Rome", while the full name is, actually, "Link Campus - University of Malta" or, simply, "Link Campus". Is it possible to make this little but important change? Thank you very much for any suggestion or instruction on how to do it by myself. UniLinkCampus 13:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The American University of Rome (www.aur.edu) is not listed on this page. It is the first American University in Rome!! HeathaMilla 09:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The claim that La Sapienza is the second largest university in the world is completely unfounded. UNAM in Mexico and UBA in Argentina are far larger by number of students, which appears to be the metric used, as well as by the number of faculty. I am sure that there are many others in Latin America that are larger by these criteria, and I would imagine that the same is true in other regions of the world.

Population in history

The chapter on population begins with this sentence: "At the time of Emperor Augustus, Rome was the largest city in the world (and probably the largest city ever built until the nineteenth century)." How can it be the "largest city in the world" until the nineteenth century, at the time of Emperor Augustus??? This is confusing. Does it mean that at the time of Augustus, the city was at it's maximum and after Augustus it got smaller? And does it mean that after this moment, there has never been a city in the world whose population reached this size until the nineteenth century? Maarten 11 12:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

>>Rome's population may have been less than 50,000, then was stagnant or shrinking until the Renaissance, when in XVII century reached 100,000. The day when Rome was annexed to Kingdom of Ialy, in 1870, had a population of about 200,000, that rapidly increased to 600,000 by the end of XIX century.

For clarity and consistency please change these century references to text or regular numbers ( 17th, 19th respectively ) ( or seventeenth, nineteenth )

Typos

"characterized by feast" - in Fascist Architecture, what on earth is intended? Danja 19:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"From the its foundation," should be "From its foundation," Firespun (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. For typos like this you should be able to edit the page yourself. --Salix alba (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

EXTERNAL LINK

I would like to add a link to the following website: http://www.romanbookshelf.com. It is a collection (still growing since it is really recent) of views about Rome in the past centuries, books about the eternal city, recipes and soon a travel guide. I wish you could give me your opinion about it and share your thoughts about adding the link to this page. Thank you. Diego. Oct. 26th, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegom-08 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I found that the page has some spam in the notes:

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome#_note-11

^ Italian in Florence - Links - Information on Rome. ^ Italian in Florence - Links - Information on Rome. ^ Italian in Florence - Links - Information on Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.97.35.72 (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Lock this article

Requesting that this article be locked. Unusual volumes of vandalism, and not enough people keeping on top of it. About 4 edits went unreverted for hours. Sicilianmandolin 16:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

nice information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.0.191 (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Its past the no-editing period 69.22.71.123 15:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Images

Guys, there are too many images near the bottom of the article. They disconnect the text and make article look messy. Use a gallery. athinaios (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Religion

There was virtually nothing about the Roman Religion from prior to Christianity on the page, so I added a bit from Livy. Please add more to expand upon when I added, as Rome's very long history before 380 AD was tied very closely to religious practices that weren't even mentioned on the page. --WingedEarth (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of not making this article too long, this section should concentrate on contemporary Rome and it should be short and sweet. The historical aspects that you and others have added are great, but better suited to the main article or, if necessary, a new article on Ancient Roman religion. Mariokempes (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The article on Rome should focus on Rome, not just one particular period of history (e.g. contemporary). It's impossible to understand Rome without knowing it's history, and if any article should be long, it's an article on a 2760 year old city that happens to be the basis for Western Civilization as we know it. Anyhow, I only added two short paragraphs to that section. Rome's most influential and most studied period is the ancient period. Therefore, if anything should be edited out, it's the information on later periods. --216.211.206.51 (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the religion section only... the history section itself is adequate. There is no point going into great detail on the religion of ancient Rome in this article specific to Rome the city, since this aspect generally pertains to the history of western civilization and is not unique to just the city. Info on ancient religion could be elaborated on in a separate article. That is only my opinion and I won't press the issue. Mariokempes (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mariokempes on this. This is an article predominately about modern Rome. There is a different article on Ancient Rome. Ancient religious beliefs pass as a footnote here. Blue-Haired Lawyer 09:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

BHL, sorry to keep criticizing your edits. It is just because, at what appears, both you and me are interested in this article and desire to see it as good as possible. Aren't you a bit too hasty in deleting the whole "Religions" section? It assuredly was overbloated in what regards ancient religion, but it also touched christian Rome and modern contemporary minorities; perhaps the whole subject might deserve a trimmer section. Don't you agree? Thanks, Goochelaar (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with you. A short section about Religion, focused above all on the contemporary period, is necessary. Regards, Alex2006 (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit first and ask questions later: I've put in a paragraph on religion under demography. We could do with some statistics on this. There's also Jewish and Hindu communities in Rome. Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish community of Rome is the oldest existing outside Palestine. The presence of the Jews in Rome is documented already in the 2nd century BC. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Gap in the middle of the page!

Why is there a gap in the middle of the page with over 13 pictures on the right side of the article? MicroX 04:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Coat of arms of Rome.png

Image:Coat of arms of Rome.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

official borders of municipi

The reference

http://www.comune.roma.it/was/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_21L?menuPage=/Area_di_navigazione/Sezioni_del_portale/Municipi/

is commented as

List of Municipi and definition of their territories on the official website of the Comune di Roma

Could someone help to find detailed definition of borders for each municipi (and possibly rioni)--which streets make up borders for each municipi/rioni? --DenisYurkin (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What about their aqueducts?

Constructed by the first Roman emperors, the aqueducts still supply most of the fresh water used in the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.139.242 (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Metro and Urban people number??

Where did you find these data?? 5milion ppl in metro area? Naples and Roma have about 3500000 ppl in metro area, Milan almost 4milion !!!!! —Preceding Flapane (Wiki Italia) comment added by 213.140.16.189 (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

How could be Milan Metropolitan area largest then Rome's if the entire "Provincia di Milano" is smaller of the "Comune di Rome"?

The Satellite Photo

Don't forget the satellite photo of the whole city of Rome. The one it's shown represents only part of the city. You can find it in the italian link.

mos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.155.180 (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Villas of Rome

Among its beautiful villas, I suggest to remember also VILLA TIVOLI and VILLA D'ESTE, two very famous villas, UNESCO world heritage; let's add 'em! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.25.5.144 (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Tivoli (not "Villa Tivoli") is a town not far from Rome but distinct from it, and Villa d'Este is in Tivoli... Goochelaar (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Reorganized incipit

I reorganized the incipit, added references, and improved the text.

Rome (Italian: Roma, Latin: Roma) is the capital city of Italy and of the Lazio region, as well as the country's largest and most populous city, with more than 2.7 million residents.[2] The metropolitan area has a population of about 4 million. It is located in the central-western portion of the Italian peninsula, where the river Aniene joins the Tiber.

Rome, Caput mundi (Capital of the world), la Città Eterna (The Eternal City), Limen Apostolorum (Threshold of the Apostles), la città dei sette colli (The city of the seven hills) or simply l'Urbe (The City),[3] has been for centuries the center of Western civilization, and is the seat of the Catholic Church.

The State of the Vatican City, the sovereign territory of the Holy See is an enclave of Rome.

Today is thoroughly modern and cosmopolitan, and the third most-visited tourist destination in the EU.[4]

As one of the few major European cities that escaped World War II relatively unscathed, central Rome remains essentially Renaissance and Baroque in character. The Historic Center of Rome is listed by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site.[5]

The Mayor of Rome is Giovanni Alemanno.

--Fertuno (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Pollution

Why does this article say nothing about pollution in Rome (or the rest of Italy's cities for that matter)? I don't know enough to make any definitive statements, but I have heard that pollution in Rome is actually quite terrible, and I know for a fact that some other major cities in Italy (Florence, for example) appear to have a problem with getting rid of solid trash. Considering that many other articles concerning major cities approach the subject of pollution, I believe this one should as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.24.252 (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman Senate

Is there senate in present-day Rome?--Dojarca (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. If you are talking about the Italian Republic the answer is yes: the Senate is the upper house, and lies in Palazzo Madama, near Piazza Navona. If you are talking about the Senate of the ancient Rome, the answer is yes again. The building has been restored under Mussolini and lies at the northeast end of the Roman Forum. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about the city of Rome. Is it govened by a senate or some other body? Does it have municipal council?--Dojarca (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion page about Rome but about the article, ask at the Reference Desk - WP:RD Doug Weller (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but he might have a point: the answer should be clear from this article. Actually, the section Rome#Government tends to mix up the national government bodies located in Rome, and the actual local government. In a word, yes, Rome has a mayor, who presides a city council. In fact, we might want to spend a word about the political composition of the council. Goochelaar (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Also I wonder when the medieval Roman senate disapeared? I know it still existed in 1590 as it gave titles of "roman patrician" to 6 people in this year, but when it ceased to exist? Probably after Napoleonic wars?--Dojarca (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

wrong info about Capitoline Wolf image

Could someone update the caption for the Capitoline Wolf image to reflect the new information about its date of creation? Even just removing the parenthesized text would do it. 24.79.155.247 (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What new information? Why can't you do it yourself? Blue-Haired Lawyer 08:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The datation of the Wolf is still contended. Official results will not be published until the end of the year. Please see my addition to the article. Alex2006 (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Confluence of Aniene and Tiber

Why was the mention of Aniene river removed? No real sources are needed: any map is enough. See for instance http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=41.937275,12.502098&spn=0.033137,0.109863&z=14 in Google Maps. The narrower river is Aniene (scrolling rightwards enough, "Fiume [i.e. river] Aniene" will show up). Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

While the Aniene and the Tiber do confluence within the modern city limits, it all happens above stream of the historic centre. Most maps of the historic centre don't even show the Aniene, because it's too far out of the centre. If you want to specifically say that Rome was founded at the confluence of these rivers you'll need to prove it! Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. However the article does not say that the city was founded at the confluence (it wasn't, indeed: it was founded at a ford somewhere in the area of the seven hills). It just describes very roughly, in the "Geography" section, the hydrography of (modern) Rome, just like it gives its highest point (and Monte Mario is not in the historical centre either) and so on. Bye, Goochelaar (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Without saying founded the article implies/implied this was the case. Rome is also near lots of other stuff. Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I am following you. How can the "Geography" section imply anything about the foundation, when the "History" section tells all about it? You are right, there is much more to be said about Rome's geography, for instance about its geological structures, but deleting the little we have now does not improve things. I am modifying your deletion rephrasing the "confluence" thing. Goochelaar (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

When I saw the Aniene river referred to in the lead, this is what i felt was implied. I said nearby in the edit summary because the Aniene doesn't flow through the historic centre. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of modern Rome, including the Vatican, the main parks and about 90% of its population, is not in the historic centre, which is generally identified with the part within Aurelian Walls and which makes up part of one (and one of the smallest) of 19 municipi of Rome. Anyhow, I am happy with the present formulation. I had not seen that originally there was a mention of Aniene in the lead: I agree that it is not important enough to warrant this. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

New version

This article is good in parts but still a bit of a mess. I'm working on a new version based partly on this article, on the it:Rome article from Italian Wikipedia, using the structure from the London. If anyone wants to have a look it here: User:Blue-Haired Lawyer/sandbox2. Blue-Haired Lawyer 08:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Structure

I'm going to start shifting around the sections for article to reflect standard city article structure. (I'm taking London as a base). Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Rome for improvement

(apologies for the horrible pun!)

Here's my suggested to do list (please feel free to add any ideas of your own):

1. I'd like to replace the second paragraph of the lead with one giving more info about roman history and delete the list of epithets. We could put these elsewhere if anyone's interested.

2. The section of the local administration needs improvement. There's not much information on this one to be found. Anyone know how many councillors there are for instance?

3. The economy section is a bit week. Saying that Rome "has a dynamic and diverse economy with thriving technologies" sounds a bit propagandistic.

4. Most cities have a decent section of the etymology of the city's name.

5. IMHO the language section should concentrate more on the modern dialect. Isn't is called "Romano" anyway?

6. Two separate parts of the article place a series of images on the right side of the page, which messes up the edit tags. Anyone mind if I change this?

Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I support anything that improves the layout of images here. The first three images in History mess up the edit tags (the mess gets worse when TOC is collapsed). Demography has large areas of blank whitespace in displays narrower than 1128 pixels (is a float property needed there?). Right-aligned images in Architecture also mess up edit tags. One would benefit from an "upright" attribute, and Villa Borghese could be moved down to Villas and gardens. There are more layout problems further down (Transportation and International relations).-84user (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

BHL, thanks for your edits, which are really improving the article. I may help about items 2 and 5. In particular, I am reading at present a book about "Storia linguistica di Roma" (Linguistic history of Rome). The language/dialect is actually called "romanesco" ("romanaccio" in romanesco itself). We have an article about it, but it is very meagre. Goochelaar (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

About the etymology: it is unknown. There are hypotheses relating the name "Roma" to Etruscan roots (for instance from "Rumon", Etruscan for "river") and other (e.g., from "Ruma", that is, "hill" or "(feminine) breast" in Oscan language), but nothing definite. I shall look for good sources about this. Goochelaar (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I fixed the TOC issue. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 20:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

17th Century

"but Rome ultimately lagged behind the rest of European capital cities over the subsequent centuries, being largely busy in the Counter-Reformation process."

Anyone know what this means? Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not much. What the author means here is simply that the energy of the papacy were used to fight the Reformation, instead of making the city bigger and wealthier. It is clear that Rome, capital of a small state, could not compete in wealth and size with capitals of large european states like Paris and London, but nevertheless the City reached its cultural apogee in the 17th century (the century of Baroque), and its artistic supremacy could be mantained up to the beginning of the 19th century. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sovereign Military Order of Malta

I'm very doubtful about the Sovereign Military Order of Malta's claim to sovereignty. Even if it is "[a]n independent subject of international law", as it describes itself to be this doesn't necessarily mean it's sovereign.

Anyway, as far as this article is concerned, since the Order of Malta don't actually claim any territory in Rome, Rome can't contain it. At least not in the same way that it contains the Vatican. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta isn't anywhere. It just happens to have offices in Rome, as do lots of other international bodies. They aren't in Rome anymore than they might be anywhere else that they have offices. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Noone really cares if your boutful...it still has its sovereign status and is housed by Rome. Gavin (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

who are the Gods and Godesses in Rome

I think we should add here all about Rome as much as we can including the Gods and Godesses which should be included in the Religion part of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homogeneous (talk • contribs) 10:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is about modern Rome. You might want to have a look at Religion in ancient Rome and at Roman mythology and the articles cited there. Goochelaar (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Typo

Under Transportation/Rail: the word "principle" is used. This is the wrong usage. It should be "principal".

Fixed Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

every one talks italian

every one talks itanian and people who dont leave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.129.226 (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. That is just as stupid as saying "Everybody in Spain speaks Spanish.". Reliable Forever^talk 18:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

rom

There are 160 hectares, was once a land, for forty years is a landfill. Indeed, one of the most explosive landfill d'Italia, the largest in Europe. The black jersey of Italy had defined the Eurispes in a report last year, the increasingly fine mesh that covers the waste of capital and prevents it from becoming the next Naples. But how long will succeed this black mesh to protect Rome and the surrounding area? A meeting between the mayor Gianni Alemanno and the chairman of the Region Piero Marrazzo should decide the fate of the capital and its roads. But —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.182.86.10 (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Spelling....

This page has several spelling errors, now I am not an expert in History or Rome, but pretty sure that things like civilisation, or the corrected form; civilization, are things that need to be fixed in order for this page to be taken seriously. I do know that this civilisation might be a UK version of this word, but however, I do believe that it has been removed from normal use and is no longer a prevalent way of writing civilization. In addition, the link corresponding with this spelling error has now been written as Western Society under its article page.

In addition, I am not attacking the author or authors, but I do believe that the grammar needs a lot of work, which is very hard when writing a technical document such as this. Please, be aware of flaws and spelling errors that would create a false facade of bad information as when I am reading through these pages, I do not tend to lean towards believing something that has this many errors within its body of text.

Thank you, WolfMan4200 (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)The First WolfMan

I must disagree with you... As far as most Wikipedia articles go, this one is in pretty good shape and the "spelling and grammar errors" you point to are most likely attributable to your unfamiliarity with UK spelling (civilisation, centre, harbour, theatre, etc.). As this article pertains to a European topic, the WP convention is to use British English. Dionix (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

can i ahve more information abuot rome because is not a nough —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.210.110 (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Neglected

The metropolitan area of Rome is big 3.089, 24 km², absolutely not 5.352!!! 5.352 is the number about the province of Rome, another subeject!! can see also you in italian page (here) the truth! i think who this page is neglected and imaginative! --Focak (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the footnote. The source checks out. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Source wrong

Yes, I've seen, but, the metropolitan area of Rome not corresponds with the km² of the province of Rome, absolutely! that source in the end, it's wrong and parochial!! multiple (many many many) sources indicate that metrapolitan area of Rome is smaller of the km² of province, repeat: the km² of metropolitan area of Rome not include all the province di Rome!! please, i believe that this page must be controlled, all the page.... not fanaticism please!!!

• Milan (second municipality for population and first metropolitan area in italy, her metropolitan area include all the province and also other: her density is very hight...)
• Naples (third municipally for population and second metropolitan area of italy, her metropolitan area include all the province and also other: her density is very very hight, first density (in absolutely) in Italy and one of the most densely populated in europe)
• Rome (first municipally of italy for population and third metropolitan area, her metropolitan area not include all the province, absolutely not;for extension is the bigger (3.089, 24 km²) but her density is very very low! summarizing, the metropolitan area of Rome is not very important if comparated with Milan e Naples. Please. --Focak (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Find one. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me put in some background. The whole of Italy is divided into 20 regions, each of which is divided into one or more provinces, each of which is divided into several communes. While each region has its own name (for instance, the region including Rome is Lazio), provinces and communes take the name of their capital. One problem of this article is that it sometimes does not make clear whether something it is saying regards the province of Rome, the commune of Rome or the city itself.

Moreover, it has been proposed (but not yet fully implemented) to establish a metropolitan area for Rome, mostly to address public transportation issues and the like: while the metropolitan area exists in theory, the communes it will include - other than Rome - have not yet be decided; see http://www.areeurbane.apat.it/site/_files/INU/Roma.pdf , the paper cited above, which says "Pur essendo individuata Roma come area metropolitana non sono presenti strumenti che indichino un’effettiva considerazione dei temi di interesse sovracomunale, né una definizione dei comuni che la compongono" (something like, "While Rome has been singled out as a metropolitan area, there are not yet instruments to describe how actually tackle the issues pertaining to more than one commune, nor the designation of the communes composing it", my emphasis), as well as http://www.comune.roma.it/was/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_21L?menuPage=/Area_di_navigazione/Sezioni_del_portale/Il_comune_per_argomenti/Citt-13-,_Decentramento,_Municipalit-13-,_Orari/Il_Decentramento_Amministrativo/Delimitazione_dell%27Area_Metropolitana_di_Roma/&flagSub= , a page from the Comune di Roma website, where the "costituenda area metropolitana" (= "metropolitan area to be constituted") is mentioned. So there is no such thing as an official "metropolitan area", and the document cited just describes an unofficial "area urbana vasta" (something like a "greater Rome"), but this actually just coincides with the province of Rome.

So, as we already have a Province of Rome article, I'd say we should just cover the city and the commune here, and perhaps distinguish better between the two. As the commune has an area of 1285 square kilometers, this is the only meaningful data we can give about Rome's area. Accordingly, I shall shortly remove the mentions of such a thing as a "metropolitan area", if no good reasons are shown and until it comes into actual existence. Goochelaar (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for honesty: i believe that for an encyclopaedia it's very important to be honesty and correct! however, if you can however to put the dates of metropolitan area of Rome, the best thing is to report to the sources eurostat, onu, etc.. (sources much less "local"!!!). All the cities use the sources about their metropolitan area, it's first an factor of urbanism, so i believe that it's not very imporant if it's not yet recognizet from institutions!!! so, however for Rome it's important to remember that her metropolitan area: 1 not include all the province, 2 it's the bigger metropolitan area of italy (only for extension) but the third for population and it has a density very low if compareted to the metropolitan area of Milan and especially to Naples. it's important to be correct, this is an encyclopaedia. thank you, bye! --Focak (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't

I can't delete this period but someone must cancel this: " and more than three times the size of the greater metropolitan area of London".... must be cancelled for the reasons who I've expressed before, please! so the metropolita area of rome not corrisponds with whole the province and it can't be compared to greater London, please, i repeat, be careful of fanaticism, the metropolitan area of Rome isn't comparable to London or Paris.--Focak (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect pluralization in Administration --> City Government

The sentence that reads, in part, "Rome constitutes one of Italy's 8,101 commune's [sic]" should read, "Rome constitutes one of Italy's 8,101 communes." If someone could fix this, that'd be just dandy. 98.226.184.153 (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Rome position in the map with the point

The position of Rome is wrong in the map. Rome Position —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.3.223.4 (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Urban area

According to the article Rome is

Italy's largest and most populous city, with 2,726,539[1] residents in an urban area of some 1,285.3 km2 (496.3 sq mi).

This is TOTALLY INCORRECT. Those figures refer just to the municipality. According to Urban Audit the population of Rome urban area is 3,457,690. --93.45.231.130 (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed --Conte di Cavour (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Rome - climate

Where can you get record temperatures like the Sochi article? Is there some general source for these statistics? Mallerd (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Raise the Standard

I have just stumbled on this site and, with great respect to all who have contributed so far, I must say I find this a disappointing and rather bland site. Rome is unquestionably one of the most influential cities in history and while I acknowledge there should be information about more mundane and daily matters as well the historic importance of Rome is rather underplayed. Over time I shall try to make some some improvements along these lines, always using reliable sources. Many thanks, PRC 07 (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Caput Mundi is Europe's less detailed capital city!

Rome is no doubt one of Europe's most beautiful, cosmopolitan, influential and important cities for culture, law, music, food, art, education, economy and architecture, yet its descriptions are very bland. Unlike most major European capital cities, such as London, Paris, Vienna, Madrid, Berlin and Athens, it has too little interesting information and facts. At the start, nothing is mentioned about it being an Alpha- city, a European center for food, culture, music, art and one of the world's leading cities in fashion. But, I cannot edit it because it is locked. Can someone please improve the article's quality and colour!--89.240.42.70 (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

How can there be geologic evidence for human habitation?

In Rome or anywhere else? Were there flint mines or other alterations of stone that has to be attributed to humans? If so, that would be archaeological evidence of human tool-making - not geological evidence. There is no citation, and I can't find anything (so far) in any archaeological journal or monograph that has human habitation in Rome at 14,000BP or even 10,000BP. There is some evidence of trans-alpine settlement in Northern Italy by around 8,500BP and coastal fishing settlements (particularly in Eastern Italy) at around the same time. It would be conjectural, but plausible, that such occasionally-inhabited fishing spots were in the region now known as Rome by around the same time, but Wikipedia isn't the place for that sort of conjecture. I'll keep looking into the Roman Paleolithic (and, more likely, Neolithic) to see what sort of citation might be added.LeValley 16:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're a man after my own heart. I do not know what has been found in the city of Rome. I do know evidence of Homo goes back a half-mil years in the Pontine marshes. Still, we can't use statements like this without refs, so let's try to find them. Only experienced users are working on this now. If you want something in and can't get it in, send me message. No promises but I'll look.Dave (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic statement and source

"Also, Rome is widely regarded as one of the world's most beautiful ancient cities."

I judge this to be essay-type material and webecoist not to be an encyclopedic site. It is more like a magazine article from the tourist industry - "the ten most beautiful cities" type of thing. An ironic circumstance is that a previous source calls itself a tour guide but is non-profit and encyclopedic, but this one goes under the guise of ecology and has nothing to do with ecology. I'm going by the emotional content. Lot's of people like and have liked Rome - even the Goths, having emptied it out, invited everyone back and restarted it. I suppose we have to put up with "eternal city" as a traditional epithet, but we are not basically interested in everyone's emotional reaction to Rome, except possibly in an artcle about emotional reactions to Rome. Is it beautiful? No question. Am I moved also? No doubt. Do we care here? Certainly not.Dave (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This is true, that it is a matter of opinion, but for example, go on Budapest, and you'll see a similar sort of thing, or some other cities. Rome is regarded as a very beautiful city, and I know that may sound like opinion, but it is such an established one that it seems odd to not include it. Goethe, and many other philosophers said so, so I think its worthy to be included. Maybe the source is not optimal, but I could find others.--Theologiae (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you want to create a topic on the poetic and literary view of Rome, citing particular poets and philosophers - the topic not being what you think but how it was regarded in history - that seems like an encyclopedic topic. That isn't how it was presented. If you want to write something on that topic, since it is a massive topic, I would suggest a separate article, say, "Rome in western culture", or "Appreciation of Rome in western culture." It might be a section of this article but this one already is very long and I would not be surprised to see someone suggest it be broken up. To present Rome objectively as a beautiful city the same way you would say it has x miles of sewers is non-encyclopedic; such opinions and feelings, though shared by most of us, are NOT objective. Most of us feel we ought not to have to get sick or die but those are not objective sentiments even though held by all.Dave (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

i've found a reliable times online source--Theologiae (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I am Roman, I love Rome, but I know many people which don't like the city at all. "Beautiful" is really a matter of opinion, and does not belong to an encyclopedia. Alex2006 (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but, how come in Budapest it mentions it?--Theologiae (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

One has to distinguish types of source and types of writing. All I'm saying is, the discussion on beauty is essay-type material and the sources are tourist-type sources. That isn't what we are hoping to achieve; plenty of people are doing that.

The oldest city, etc.

"making it one of the oldest settlements in the world."

This is something similar, chamber-of-commerce type claims. For one thing, the sources given do not say a word about the age of the city. Please do not do that. One of them also is a child's encyclopedia, so I presume the author is a child. Thank you for your interest in WP, son or daughter, but perhaps you should leave ths one to the adults. From a factual point of view, Rome is actually NOT a very old city. Some currently inhabited regions of Egypt go back several thousand years (never mind 2500) and ditto for Iraq and the Mediterranean coast. Why, how old do you think Jerusalem is? Much older than the Bible, certainly. Most of the cities of Greece have Bronze Age settlements dating to a thousand years before Rome. No, Rome is not old; we even have legends of its foundation. I'm certainly very awed by its antiquity as are most people - but - it isn't that old as old cities go.Dave (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that it's not soooo old, but it is very old compared to many cities. In the US, most cities are dated only to about the 1600s, and in the UK at most to the 1000s. 753 BC, (which is not the precise date, and it was probably founded a few centuries before) is very old for an average city; of course there are many older cities, but it still doesn't make Rome a recent city; by world standards, it stands out as an ancient city, even so that it is mentioned in the list of oldest cities page. I see your point, but I think it can be classified as old enough to be put into as "one of the world's oldest cities". I presume that only a few hundred (if not less) cities still existing are older than Rome, and a few million or hundred thousand were built later.--Theologiae (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think that it is a good argument that just because in the US the oldest cities can only be dated to about the 1600s, Rome is eligible to be termed "one of the world's oldest cities". There are several cities that beats Rome with a couple of millenia in age, even more that beats it by several centuries, more than enough to disqualify Rome for such a title. (And just for the record there are several English towns that can be traced back to the Roman period). --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think that Saddhiyima's and Dave's arguments are very strong. I do not doubt that there are several cities which are older than Rome, but you have to look at it in the broad picture. Compared to a few hundred older cities, and a few million newer settlements, Rome, yes, is younger than Jerusalem or Athens, but compared to the average capital city, it probably classifies as amongst the oldest ones. Looking at the charts, it's the world's 27th oldest city, and the world's 5th oldest capital, so in comparison to about a few million cities, I'd say that it's definitely old enough to be classified as "one of the oldest cities in the world". As a matter of fact, Belgrade, a much newer city than Rome by a few centuries is classified "as one of the oldest cities", so I don't see why Rome cannot.--Theologiae (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Belgrade ? Hardly. It's a baby. Much like it's older sister, Rome. The oldest cities in the world are much older than any European city. Saddhiyama and Dave know exactly what they are talking about. Derek Ross | Talk 21:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, go on the page and you'll see "one of the oldest cities", and that's shocking if you think like Dave, 'cause Belgrade is only 2,400 years old. What I advise is to say that Rome is "one of Europe's oldest cities" or that it's just an ancient city in general. And anyway, when you say a "baby", you mean in terms of the oldest cities in the world, 'cause I mean, Sydney was founded in what 1788 (I think, but I know it was founded around then) and it's the oldest city in Australia. Compared to Jerusalem or Lisbon, Rome is a fairly new city, but compared to Paris, Belgrade, London, Madrid or Sydney (just a very few), it's very old. So, any suggestions?--Theologiae (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'd say, we can put it in as someone's substantial's opinion - not our own, and not someone on a blog site or a travel site. WP frowns on personal opinions and it insists on encyclopedic sources. So what you and I think doesn't really matter. If you can find a scholarly comparison of the cities - some xpert or official opinion - and your source is unquestionably encyclopedic - a study or an article or a section of a learned book - then no one could really question your putting it back. One of the problems I have with some of these sources is that they are travel or blog sites. WP does not want that, it borders on commercialism. We aren't selling tours or anything else here, that's the point. I can't really think of anything more than that to say. Is it old or not old? It's a relative standard but what WE think does not count. If you were famous writer it still would not count, because then it would be original research. You see where we are headed here? So, you need to come up with an acceptable ref or forget it. Ciao.Dave (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The domination, the power

"was the centre of the Roman Empire, which dominated Europe, North Africa and the Middle East for over four hundred years from the 1st Century BC until the 4th Century AD, and during the Ancient Roman era, the city was the most powerful in Europe"

Here we go again with the generalizations, which are not supported by the source. I'm not deleting this but I am going to alter a bit. The Roman Empire did not dominate Europe. It did dominate the Mediterranean lands as far north as the Rhine and the Danube, but those border lands were always under contest. Isn't northern Europe Europe? They didn't have much influence there I fear; that is, the Germanics, the Balts and the Slavs were pretty much out of their domain. As far as dominating the Middle East in concerned, forget it. From time to time they held a few choice spots near the coast. But, most of the time they were fighting it out with the Persian Empire, which was actually the dominate power in the Middle East. And Africa, well, they held the coast, rather tenuously. For the "powerful", well, the first time I saw that overworked word in this article, I thought, it is only one time and it does make sense there. Then I saw it again, and again, and again. This is an overworked word and that is an overworked concept. As to whether it was the most powerful city, that is debatable. What about Massilia? Carthage took Italy but it was quick to make and keep an alliance with that city. How about Constantinople? Alexandria? Athens? What is happening here is that you are generalizing from your source rather than using it to support what you say. The source does not say those things. Well we are not supposed to use this discussion as a forum on the topic. My excuse for making alterations is that the generalizations are not supported by the source. Arrivederci.Dave (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. Well, I read the site more carefully. I regret to say it is not an encyclopedic site, but is a personal presentation. Example: "I built this Ancient Civilization arena for people - for students, faculty, and ordinary folks who think it is fascinating and can be just plain fun. Just like our lives, in this Arena there is much seriousness but also much joy and animation. Fine, if he says so, but we are not interested in joy and animation, we want the facts, and this site falls a long way short. I also think he underestimates the public but that is my opinion. It is not a scholarly presentation, never was intended to be, has no sources. So, I'm taking it out. What is left does not need a ref - it is common knowledge at an elementary level. The editor is only making the point that Rome was a central city. I don't think we have to keep repeating that point, it is nothing you would go to an encyclopedia to find out.Dave (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Infoplease and Columbia Encyclopedia

Have you ever noticed that when you want to look something up on the Internet you have to wade through a dozen or more phony encyclopedias that all say exactly the same thing? It's waste of Internet resources, really, to have these people all plagiarizing the same source and wasting our time trying to sort through. One of these parrots is info please. Sometimes it parrots Wikipedia, as we are fair game to plagiarists. These are not encyclopedic sources; they are parrots or mimeograph machines of some other source. In the case of this article we are lucky: they've gone and parroted an identifiable substantial sourse, the Columbia Encyclopedia. There fore I am replacing Infoplease with the original, CE.Dave (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

New references

I see some new references were added in the initial sections, which I checked. First of all, let me say that you really need to learn how to do a ref; it will save people like me a lot of time. I profer to you this help page, which I have found useful: Wikipedia:Citation templates. I believe WP wherever possible want us to use these citation templates, and I'm enthusiastically in favor of it. They give the notes a standard look, give the reader some pre-knowledge of what he is going to see, and remove the incomprehensibity of an unfluffed link. Appearance is important. If it looks like garbage then we don't get no respect. Second, although I spprove of the material in at least the first reference; nevertheless, it seems to me those references are really unnecessary. What's the reference on, whether Rome is important? Give me a break, that was never in doubt by anyone at all. For the material, rather than trying to squeeze it in where it does not fit, why don't you place it in "External links"? For now I am going to check and fix the notes but I hope you at least consider my proposal. One can have too many notes on unnoteworthy material.Dave (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. It seems that I erred in thinking that these are new notes. I hadn't got to them yet. When I got to the 3rd note I could see the user was not experienced. I looked at the history and sure enough they are not recent notes. So here is what I did. Theosopiae, the first note is yours and it is recent. It gives us the photo archive, which is its chief value, but also uses the word powerful. As I said above, the first use of powerful I think is fine. Rome was powerful. The second two notes, no way. I thought I took that second note out, but evidently it was in there twice. We cannot use this blurb type material, which brags the power of Rome to the skies and is unacceptably short on history. We don't want to portray Rome as history's big bully! That sounds too much like Mussolini's dagger salute. I doubt if the Romans care to be portrayed as the powerful and glorious bullies of the world. The third note is about a novel. Sorry, we cannot use novels about Rome as encyclopedic references on Rome. If the novel had an article, that would be different. Please do not put these two unencyclopedic references back! We have one, which is valuable because of the photos. You should not be able to put them back as the article is locked to inexperienced users. If your approach had been correct, the article would not be locked. I am more or less of a trouble-shooter. If I see these again I will have to treat it as vandalism.Dave (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture at the Top

It reads that the top right picture is of the Colosseum, when it is not. Needs to be relabelled. 220.239.179.73 (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've changed it to top left, as it should have been labelled. Thanks -- Marek.69 ^talk 04:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Peacock terms

Please check out Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms.

I bring this up because the article is full of these terms. I share the general enthusiasm for Rome but this is an encyclopedia not a travelogue. Consequently I am going to remove some material that is clearly peacock. Someone's opinion that Rome is great is not encyclopedic material even though substantiated by someone else's opinion that Rome was great. We do not care in the slightest whether anyone thinks or ever thought Rome was great. These are all sentiments and opinions. An encyclopedia is not about sentiments. I am sorry, I tried to express this policy in a gentle way but my hints have not been taken. We cannot praise Rome to the skies here, no matter how many people have done so. That is not an objective encyclopedia article. We can't use derogatory terms of history's greatest villains and we can't use peacock terms of places everyone admires. This is not an opinion poll past or present. I will insert peacock sentiments here after I take them from there. Thanks.Dave (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"It has been one of history's greatest, most powerful and important cities, "

"Rome has had an immense historic influence to the world and modern society over the ages,"

"Modern Rome is a bustling and cosmopolitan metropolis,"

"Its rich artistic heritage and vast amount of ancient, "

"Rome is also an important worldwide hub of the cinematic and filming industry, home to the important and large"

Thanks for that, but I personally think you should just retain the term "powerful". As you had said Rome was powerful, and has always been. Saying it isn't is like saying "Great Britain wasn't powerful" or "French culture is influential". It is such an ingrained opinion that it seems to me odd to not include it. I know wikipedia objects peacock terms, and I agree with your removal of the cosmopolitan part and etc., but that Rome was powerful is not an opinion. It just was.--Theologiae (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of these are NOT peacock terms

Of the five instances cited above 2) is hardly a peacock term (a pretty ambiguous term in any case), since it is a mere statement of fact that Rome has indeed had an immense historic influence ON (not "to) the world....; who could possibly doubt such an claim? It isn't praise, it is a demonstrable fact. Gibbon's "Decline..." proves this as does the innumerable naming of Rome after Rome's fall (Holy Roman Empire, Sultan Memhet after conquering Byzantium calls himself emperor of the Romans, the Russian Czars etc, and this is just at the political level, what about: music forms, jurisprudence, government, architecture, engineering, literature, the Latin script, the Romance languages, organised religion, the role of Roman achievement and events in Western European art, artistic style, connections with and impact on other regions, western Europe, the middle east, north Africa, etc. It seems utterly absurd to have to enumerate even this fraction of obvious things because one individual thinks they constitute 'praise'. How else are we to express the impact that Rome has had through the ages?

The 3rd instance is a cliche, I do agree on this point, but it is hardly controversial to say that Rome is 'bustling and cosmopolitan'. In contemporary English these are banal descriptors rather than 'peacock terms'. How could you object to the terms bustling or cosmopolitan? Remove them if you wish but not because they are 'praising' Rome, they might evoke a travelogue so get rid of them for that reason, but again this reduces the piece to enumerating facts.

The 4th one is like the 2nd , who could possibly doubt that Rome has a rich artistic heritage and a vast amount of ancient material remains? For goodness sake, are you trying to produce the most uninteresting prose known to humanity? The final so called 'peacock term' is equally unobjectionable. What is wrong with referring to Cinecitta` and its undisputed contribution to cinematic arts? And why would you include it if it hadn't been influential or interesting in some way that is recognised internationally? Many PhD dissertations have been written on this and surely you don't really dispute the claim.

This leads me to the first one, where the adjectives "greatest"; "most powerful" and "important" are used to qualify the noun "cities", specifically "ONE OF HISTORY'S....". Remove these if you will, but in common parlance and in academic discourse I cannot imagine it being seriously suggested that Rome was not these things: ONE of the greatest, ONE of the most powerful and ONE of the most important cities. Why would you not include this description when it is palpably true? I have read 4 books of western civilisation, and more generally on civilisation, in the past few months all written by serious academic scholars in Britain, Germany and the US and these descriptions are rendered both by admirers and detractors of Rome not peacock so much as obvious.

I feel the same way about the rather surprising earlier discussion regarding the antiquity of Rome. What possible relevance could it have to claim that other cities are older than Rome? This is both true and irrelevant. The greater antiquity of some places doesn't deny Rome this designation. Among large cities, and among large capital cities in particular, Rome is indisputably ancient and to quibble about whether it can be given this designation raises concern about the motives of those arguing this line.

I do appreciate the effort people make to contribute to Wikipedia and the need to avoid emotive, excessive, nationalistic or exaggerated and proud commentary, but none of the ones I have cited above comes remotely close to such concerns. Removing claims to the influence and impact of Rome tends to produce a face value falseness to the article and gives the article a banal, narrowly descriptive and uninteresting tone. It should be the complete opposite. An encyclopedia isn't precluded from making comparative statements (this is what the terms 'one of the greatest, most powerful and important' cities ultimately is, a COMPARISON, and a comparison which is palpably correct), in fact if Rome wasn't these things then it should be given a one paragraph entry of bald facts.

PRC 07 (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on this. I completely agree. Rome is special and therefore it merits the use of language which would be inappropriate for the vast majority of cities. Sometimes a bird with a large tail really is a peacock and should be described as such. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What I hear you saying is that you LIKE peacocks! What's wrong with that, you want to know. I like peacocks also. There is nothing wrong with that. The question really is one of tone and style. Objective English prose does not get emotional, it does not pad itself with superlatives or make extravagent claims. Travel writing, essays, blogs, propaganda, all make very good use of these devices. Technical prose does not. It tries to present the facts in clear and simple narrative style. While appreciating and sharing your feelings about Rome I really must reaffrim that the peacock style is not appropriate to articles such as this. The article does not seek to prove or support that Rome fits all the superlatives: greatest, most powerful, most ancient, most influential. That is not a goal. The people want to know facts about Rome and sentiments are not facts. What I find also less credible is your support of the superlatives. We've alreadt given the facts about Rome's special cultural position and they speak for themselves. Why do you insist on superlatives and sentiments? Do they enhance Rome's reputation any better? Do they add anything to the articles? What do they rell us? What are you trying to do with them? I think they detract from the credibility of the article. We can open any one of numberless web sites selling us trips to scenic places in similar language. Rome does not need to be sold. Thanks.Dave (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. Just to give you an example, the statement about St. Peter's following seems appropriate. We just finished saying that St. Peter's is a center for pilgrimage. Fine, now the reason is that some consider it the greatest of all Christian churces. The superlative there makes better sense; people go there because they consider it the greatest, etc. If we were to present it as the greatest on our own: it is the greatest .... that would not be NPOV and would be a peacock approach. Do you see what I mean there? The style has to be appropriate.Dave (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Powerful city-status

I removed this statement- now that I am here I see there have been objections to the peacock affair I will look at that and reply. But first this. "global importance and powerful city-status," The "sources" you reference are not encyclopedic, they are grade-school teaching aids. The fact that you would choose them indicates to me you are a child. I hardly know what to say, my boy. We are trying to do an encyclopedia here. I thought the article was blocked to inexperienced users. Whatever the case is, let me go ahead. The global importance - Rome is not currently globally important. The majority of the earth's population hardly know the name. It has little or no influence in the Far East, for example. Italy does not have have a large army. How many divisions does the Pope have? Its main influence is cultural, and we have already said that. In any case your grade-school web site says only that Rome was globally important. It does not defend that thesis in any way. You are mistaking the meaning. The site refers to Rome's past global importance, and in ancient times it certainly was important to the world as the west knew it. We already said that. There is no need to keep repeating it over and over. The second point is that "powerful city-status" is not comprehensible in English. You are saying, there is some sort of city-status and they are of different kinds and Rome's is a powerful one. What status would that be, and who assigns it, and what is a city-status anyway? Perhaps you meant to say powerful-city status. As I said, as great cities go, Rome is not very powerful, but who cares? This is not encyclopedic material. The people want to know facts about Rome, not whether someone thinks it was powerful.Dave (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, this is getting frustrating. Would it be stupid to say the USA is not a powerful country? We're not here to build the most boring encyclopedia in the world where there is no description. Which great historian would deny that Rome was great? If you want me to, I can find hundreds of sources and bomb the statement with references, if it's so hard to keep. There's a difference between a peacock term and truthful description:

A peacock term would be this: "Rome is the most powerful and beautiful city in the world [citation needed]".

A truthful and descriptive piece of writing which is not peacock would be this: "Over the centuries, Rome has had a position of power and influence, controlling the Roman Empire and being the seat of the pope and Italy's president [reference]". Seems perfectly encylopedic to me.--Theologiae (talk) 06:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Plus, Rome may not be New York City or Tokyo today in terms of influence, but you are wrong about how nobody knows it. Rome is still home to the leader of one of the world's biggest faiths. Modern Rome may not have a position of, let's say, hard power, but definitely symbolically it is still one of the most well-known cities in the world. It's not true that Far Eastern children don't know the city. I mean at least if they've studied a little geography or history. I mean we're talking about Rome here, not some random small city.--Theologiae (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Theologiae, you are an insistent person. The city's influence has already been over-presented. I just saw your insertion this morning. I don't have time for a fair evaluation at the moment, but I will be back on it. I intend to plug all the way through this article until the more skilled among us might evaluate it as a good article. I don't see why you should not agree with that goal. It is only a question of deciding excellence. Let me check your sources again. The insertion does not seem as blatent as the others; however, it is in bad English. While you are waiting, how about trying to fix it? Perhaps you can get a native English-speaker to help a bit, or seek their advice? I'm not interested in confrontation, only in excellence. The partial blocking indicates there probably is problem. Emotional prose generally attracts attention and evokes more and less controlled emotion; i.e., invites instability. Oh by the way, a caution if you will. If you go too far in trying to sell Christianity the article will get tagged as not being NPOV. Everyone already understands Rome is the center of a religion. We don't want to be over-zealous, do we? Over-zealousness turns people off rather quickly. I really have to go now. Thanks. Later.Dave (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Botteville, it seems that your opinions are the only ones which you think are correct. I do not want to make personal comments, but your goals are not going to reach "excellence", as I see them. It seems that you want to transform this article into a bland, non-descriptive evaluation of Rome. Anyway, I almost find it offensive that you call me a zealot. I, by no means, want to promote zealously that Rome is a great centre of religion. I am not trying to "sell christianity"; I just want to convey Rome's influence as an important centre of religion. This is not over-zealousness. Oh, and by the way, can you please refer to the reference, since I've got no idea which one you're talking about. Just like a writer above me said, many of the things that you claim are "peacock" or "zealous" are not in reality. Wikipedia says that you can't insert non-referenced, personal opinions, not that you can't write about cited descriptions. Oh, and I am insistent, because I want this article to be good, and currently, I think that, despite good intentions, some of your brash removals are not improving the article at all. Thank you--Theologiae (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

May I intrude to remind everybody that, apart from any other consideration, Rome is not anymore in itself the centre of catholicism, and St. Peter's basilica is not in Rome? They are in Vatican City, which is an independent nation that happens to lie within the boundary of Rome, but mixing them up would be a bit like saying that Monaco's prince is a Frenchman, and so on. In the past Rome (and part of Italy) was ruled by the popes, but at present Rome and the Vatican are geographically and politically distinct. So we cannot number St. Peter's and the Vatican among Rome's features. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Last time I was there, the Vatican was definitely geographically within Rome. Every guidebook on Rome mentions St. Peter's and the Vatican. Every book on the history of Rome since those existed mentions them. So, we should mention include them, pointing out that they are not a legal or political part of the city or even of Italy. Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. What I meant was, whatever titles Rome has or has not to present-day importance or power or whatever, "centre of christianity" or the like should not be considered among them. As to history of Rome and "since those existed": yes, but the present status of Vatican is relatively recent, dating from 1929 Lateran Treaty. Goochelaar (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that the Vatican city is not part of Rome, but it is in Rome. This article is describing the city of Rome, and since the Vatican falls within it, it does not matter that it is not legally a part of Rome. Anyway, Rome, aside from the Vatican, is an important centre of pilgrimage nontheless; most of the early Christian martyrs died in the city, like st peter and paul; the 4 basilicas of Rome are amongst the most important in the Catholic church; several of the early christians' remains are still found in the city. And anyway, most pilgrims have to go through Rome before they reach the Vatican anyway. So, Vatican or not, Rome is still an important centre in the Christian church nonetheless.--Theologiae (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you one and all for your comments. And Mr. Goochelaar you are quite correct to remind us that the Vatican is an independant state (there are only two on the Italian Peninsula) and that the center of religion is the Vatican. Italy was founded as a secular state and many of its heros were socialist and atheist. So, we don't want to portray Rome as some sort of religious city. If anywhere the article does not recognize Vatican as the center and does not give credit to secular Rome we should change it. Now, Mr. Theologiae, I received your message repeating what you said here. Thank you for your inputs. You brought up many topics. I feel I only have a license to reply to those that concern WP policy and this article. Have you ever read the Gettysburg Address or the Declaration of Independence, Mr. Theologiae? I have never seen such powerful, emotional, non-bland prose, my good man. Those documents were original contributions to western literature. However, we are not at liberty to write as we please here. We do not own WP. We've been asked to contribute - everyone has - but the contributions must follow certain guidelines. We may NOT make original contributions of powerful, emotional, essay-type oratorical English prose, which you would like to do if you knew English better (keep on working on it, however). And, although you and I love those emotional peacock terms they are explicitly advised against by the policy, I must insist. Read it yourself. As for the bland, bland is what they want, my dear boy. Bland is the word. It describes the NPOV (neutral point of view) policy right on the mark. We MUST take a neutral point of view. If we did not this encyclopedia would soon collapse into a billion irascible personal arguments. Most of the other encyclopedias in fact are deliberately bland. Don't you think I would like to publish my best essays or my poetry here or give my views and politics to the temporal scene? So I really must insist on pointing out to you that the policy requires NPOV and blandness, if you will. What we want are objective facts. It is a fact that Rome is called the Eternal City. It is not a fact that it is one. That is an opinion. But, I notice that I do have your de facto cooperation. Thank you. And I hope it is of some consolation to you that I think your last insertion of "powerful" was done correctly, so I'm going to leave it. In your sources, however, you did not use proper citation format! Don't you want to use a "cite encyclopedia" there? Well, I only allow a certain window for working on troubled articles and this current window is up. I'm not naturally a critic, I have to force myself to do it. But, I will be back at my next allowance for the article and I will pick up exactly at the sentence where I left off. I must say, the rest of the intro does not look bad. It will be mainly a question of formatting the sources. Why don't you school yourself in how to do a proper citation and practice by fixing these notes? Start with your own Britannica reference. You did the note, I should give you a chance to fix it. Thank you all of you for following this article. I think it has a way to go before I at least would call it "good." PS. I have your point of view, Mr. Theologiae. No need to keep sending me the same type of message. I'm sure it can wait until my next window for this article.Dave (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Dave, at least for being co-operative. Look, I care a lot for this article, so I might get a bit passionate at times when people make such changes, but overall I mainly share your opinion. All I am just saying is we should not deny the facts that Rome is (or was) influential and powerful; don't think of me as a guy who just wants to add promotional puffery to make this article an advertisement. For example, it is a fact that Rome has had power over the years. I am trying to be neutral as possible, but we must remember that some things cannot just be "left out". Regarding the Vatican, I made my point clear above, but I'll sum it up again. Mention it, since the Vatican may not legally be part of Rome, but it is in Rome, and virtually every book on Rome includes it, but make it clear (as already said) that it is independant and not politically a part of the city. Yet, Rome, as I said, is nonetheless an important centre of religion; the early saints; the 4 basilicas; the pontifical and theological academies; the early churches. Anyway, thanks Dave for being helpful :-)--Theologiae (talk) 07:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I am delighted to see this outbreak of peace! There is no need to call people 'boy' or 'zealots' or other such demeaning terms. Those of us who have responded to the empirically questionable claims about Rome lacking antiquity and the refusal to use perfectly acceptable descriptors of Rome's many ages of significance and world impact are neither zealots nor 'boys' nor any other demeaning category. So I am pleased that it has been decided to be more civil. I made comments about how so-called peacock terms are not so obvious as some people here claim. None of my comments was responded to by the person to whom they were directed. It is too late now as I have no intention and no time to make changes to this article since it is clear that person feels no compunction about removing other people's remarks if they defy his sense of what constitutes needless praise (peacockery).

As I also said I do admire the effort that people put into WP, and Dave appears to be most diligent and good on him for that, but please allow that people can legitimately have different perspectives even on what constitutes neutral description or necessary adjectival marking. (PS Two small points of fact. I travel in Asia a great deal and work in education and I can assure you that very few people there are under illusions about Rome's historic significance, nor are they as dismissive about its current status as some people on this talk page seem to be. In many developing countries Rome is a centre of major importance because it hosts the Food and Agriculture Organisation and other World Food Programs; also the International Center for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, among many such bodies and a large number of pontifical institutes and libraries it is of relevance to many fields of endeavour. Also Jubilee 2000 showed that Rome, not just the Vatican or the Holy See, remains a centre of pilgrimage. Cheers, PRC 07 (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr PRC! I'm going to do more work here but it looks as though that will be mainly on references. People are perceiving the concept of objectivity. Well, if you really want, I will reply! Sorry. What seems obvious to me may not be to others Bear with me for a moment. We go to an encyclopedia for facts. If we look up anisotropy we want to see facts about it. If we look up the Himalayas we want to know altitude, snowfall, trails, etc. Exactly what fact is degree of greatness or ranking by antiquity or degree of power? Does that tell us anything at all? I suppose you could do a sociological study on Boston, define what is meant by its power, find some basis for ranking it, rank all the cities by power, and come up with a quasi-scientific statement about the power of Boston. Is that anything at all of interest to anyone at all? Why do that? Power has not been defined in this article, no studies were cited. The word has no clear meaning. What are we trying to grasp here? Nothing it seems. Excuse me if I seem a bit patronizing. You can't really expect me to take an argument on the importance of the power, majesty, antiquity, etc. of Rome very seriously, nor do I see how you could. These things are not any sort of fact. I could speculate concerning your age, your maturity, whether you had a private interest in advertising, etc, but WP policy is not to do that. I take you at face value. You are someone who unbelievably to me thinks the power of Rome is a serious fact and is worth repeating several times in several different ways at the expense of factual facts. I can't give you a whole course in English writing here so this will have to be it. I do suggest you take one. For the time being I recommend the WP help section on peacock terms. Why do you and your friend just ignore it? It was intended to HELP editors talk the encyclopedic talk and taken seriously it does! Best wishes, and do enjoy your travel. I wish I had taken more trips with my parents when I was child. Those are the things you remember. Ciao. I think this covers it now.Dave (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Greek Dark Age???

I found an egregious error which I shall now change. The reference to the Greek Dark Ages is hopelessly wrong. It implies that this term, which few scholars use any more, is co-terminous with the fall of Greece under Roman rule after the Battle of Corinth. Nothing could be further from the truth. The term when it was used referred instead to the invasion by Iron Age Dorians variously dated as either 1200 or 1100 BC, ie well before Rome's legendary foundation, and is seen usually to last until around 800BC. This is a totally different period of history. In fact some, several, Roman rulers favoured Greece and lavished building projects on Athens and life there continued patterns of the past until Greece came under the Eastern Roman Empire, which was already bilingual and sometimes only Greek speaking and by then already Christian. PRC 07 (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

IP Address Blocking Gone Wild

I have had to go through about 20 blocked IP addresses just to be able to leave a talk comment for this article. These are rotating IP's used by millions of people in Northern California. And they seem to be blocked until like Sept 2010.

This is completely deranged and pointless. If someone's doing something abusive on a rotating IP, block if for like 3 or 4 days!

Guh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.197.129 (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Please Expand Earliest History Section (I Don't Have Editing Permission)

I don't have editing permission. Please replace the entire "Earlest History" section with this text

(Click EDIT for this talk section to copy and paste the original code).

Thank you

QUOTE

There is archaeological evidence of human occupation of the Rome area from at least 14000 years, but the dense layer of much younger debris obscures Palaeolithic and Neolithic sites. Evidence of stone tools, pottery and stone weapons attest to at least 10000 years of human presence.

The identity of earlier inhabitants of the area is unclear, but by about 1500 B.C. most of central and southern Italy had been settled by tribes of the Italic branch of the Indo-Europeans. These Italic peoples possessed the classic Indo-European culture of horse and chariot, and the social class of the mounted aristocracy, the Eques, endured through the imperial period.

By about the beginning of the First Millennium B.C., the Italic tribes had differentiated into distinct ethno-linguistic groups, with Latin tribes inhabiting the region of Latium including the territory that was to become Rome. The site of Rome was near the border with the territory of the Etruscans (a non-Indo-European people) to the north, and the territory of the Sabines (another Italic people) to the east. In legend the earliest city of Rome was comprised of settlements of these three peoples, likely reflecting some degree of historical fact.

END QUOTE

Note that I have removed the statement: "The power of the well known tale of Rome's legendary foundation tends also to deflect attention from its actual, and much more ancient, origins." The city of Rome does not have much more ancient origins as far as we know, only that there was (of course) rural settlement in the area as in the rest of Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.197.129 (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Lcnbst, 2 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please include a newpaper: Il Fatto Quotidiano http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il_Fatto_Quotidiano

Lcnbst (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Favonian (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Rioni

It's wrongly stated that all Rioni are in Municipio I. Actually, Prati and Borgo are in Municipio XVII. I am not sure about the others. You can check it also in the pages of Prati and Borgo, or in the Italian version.

151.65.219.105 (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Emanuele

That's totally correct. All the others are in first Municipio. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct Strange Capitalization in Intro Section "western Civilisation"

In the intro section is this non-normal capitalization:

"Rome's influence on western Civilisation can hardly be overestimated"

Please correct that to: "Western civilisation"

(I don't have editing permission)

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.197.129 (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

who was the ruler of italy between 1750-1800 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.128.68 (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Between 1750-1800 there were many people ruling italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.183.138 (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Page Quality

If we look at Paris, France's page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris It is so much more colourful and detailed, whereas Rome's is lagging behind other European capital pages

Just a mistake -- pls fix it

Rome is the second most populous metropolitan area, after Milan not the third one Instead Rome metropolitan area is the largest in Italy http://www.provincia.roma.it/UploadDocs/1815_20070222WP9web.pdf

Campidoglio

Campidoglio is the common name in italian, not a dialectal form. You can see in the italian version. Plese correct.

Etymology of Rome

It is submitted hereby that the word comes from Ra the Egyptian Sun God.Many place names of this word exist, eg Ramallah. The reson being that a high/exalted/sacred place was sought always, and had to be near the sun heightwise perhaps..just as the animal ram (rahm in german?) was named so because it went up highest to the Sun. This was read on the internet by myself about Ra and ram and Ramallah. I deduce that Rome was pronounced just a little differrently as regards the o in it(could be au became o) and the rest of the word maah is the way the local still seems to be pronouncing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preetlarhi (talk • contribs) 18:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Rome n Christianity?

Why is there nothing about Christianity in the lead? Rome is considered the most holy saite in Christianity by cathlics (the largest branch) as well as other denominations. It was the capital of the largest empire in the world at the time Christianity appeared and Christianity spred mostly from Rome. Rome is historically a significant site in Christianity as Jesus was born in the provincial extent of the Roman Empire. Rome was the platform for Christian ministry from the first Christian emporor Constantine I, and the site for pioneering of a number of martyred apostles such as Paul of Tarsus and Saint Peter Someone65 (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem mentions Abrahamic sites. Mecca mentions Islam. Varanasi mentions Hinduism so shouldn't Rome mention Christianity? In my opinion there should be a complete heading with several paragraphs on this. Someone65 (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Since the 2nd Century AD Rome has been the seat of the Papacy and, after the end of Byzantine domination, in the eighth century it became the capital of the Papal States, which lasted until 1870. In 1871 Rome became the capital of the Kingdom of Italy, and in 1946 that of the Italian Republic. Since 1929 it is also the site of the Vatican City, an independent city-state presided over by the Pope.[4]

After the Middle-Ages, Rome was ruled by popes such as Alexander VI and Leo X, who transformed the city into one of the major centres of the Italian Renaissance, along with Florence.[5] The current-day version of St Peter's Basilica was built and the Sistine Chapel was painted by Michelangelo. Famous artists and architects, such as Bramante, Bernini and Raphael resided for some time in Rome, contributing to its Renaissance and Baroque architecture." Seems sufficient enough for the lead to me, especially considering the wealth of historic information that needs to be related concisely there. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

External link

Hello Favonian !

Please, take a look to Rome - tourist attractions and help me understand why you think is SPAM.

If you don't have time, I will tell you here more about this website and why I think is useful for Wikipedia users.

The main idea is to help users understand from a single place what to visit when in Rome. The first page will list only 4 main categories. In Rome case this 4 main categories are: main attractions, Ancient Rome, churches in Rome and Rome fountains

Inside the website the user will find a second sidebar that will contain another categories (this are level two categories).

All this categories help the user to better plan his time.

A level one category contain a list of only tourist attractions. A level two category has the objective to list all attractions & hotels in the same neighborhood with the given category title, for example Colosseum

The web site has on top a Search hotels box and at the bottom a Google AdSense link's box. Their inclusion is fair to the user and completely separated by the site content. No SCAM, no TRICKS to miss lead the user.

More, the level two category pages has a like Google layout. This will help the user to better understand the separation between the list of attractions in the same neighborhood and hotels in the same neighborhood.

Hope this will help you better understand why I choose to include the link in Wikipedia Rome page, this, after I read two times the Terms of Use of Wikipedia. Valahus (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As another editor pointed out to you on your talk page, this is a purely commercial link. Please re-read WP:ELNO. Favonian (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

After posting here I saw the comment made on my talk page . Thanks for your help. Valahus (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have another question. Why the external link Lignano.it on the page Lignano Sabbiadoro was admited? Why a content driven website like Rome - tourist attractions is considered commercial and why a website like Lignano.it not? Thanks for your help. This will help me better understand the situation and why my actions from today where a violation of Wikipedia Terms of Use Valahus (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Now only the official website of Lignano Sabbiadoro municipality remains. Thanks, Goochelaar (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Please, take a look at Grado and Bibione. There is the same miss leading situation. Some of the external link are to commercial websites. I didn't make a list of all Wikipedia pages where I looked before posting the Rome - tourist attractions and Paris - tourist attractions but, with a little search I will find them all and after I will post them here, in this way other users like me will be helped not to do the same mistake I did today. I thank you all for your time and help. Valahus (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't do so, but simply be bold and fix those articles yourself. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank's you all. 82.52.178.138 (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

British Spelling

I was wondering why British spelling was being used here considering Italy isn't an English speaking country. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

lol — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

me too! (lol) Mariokempes (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but it is a European country, just like UK, and apparently this is often taken in account when choosing which spelling is preferred, here in WP. Goochelaar (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking articles which have used a particular form of spelling for a long time stick with it. And it's not just the British standard; it's the international standard, as used in India, Australia, Ireland, the European Union, etc. so it's perfectly appropriate for an article on Rome. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic minority figures

"According to the latest Caritas annual report, on the 1st January 2008, roughly 10% of the population of Rome was not Italian. The largest ethnic minority groups come from other European countries (mostly from Romania) from North Africa, (mostly Morocco, Algeria, and Egypt), which counts not less than 100,000 residents in Rome), East Asia (mostly Filipino) and the Americas (mostly from Argentina): 1.09%."

There are multiple problems with this source and the above representation of it:

1. The report actually refers to residents in Rome on 31 December 2007 (not a big issue admittedly).

2. The figures given are from ISTAT. It would be better to source them directly.

3. According to the source more immigrants came from the Philippines than from Africa, yet they are listed the other way around.

4. In any event the Philippines are not part of East Asia, at least not according to the Wikipedia article.

5. Neither Algeria nor Argentina is listed in the figures for the Comune of Rome.

6. Worse still the figures given for the Commune don't add up. The given total of foreigners is 218,426 but when all the figures are added up the actual total is 237,674.

— Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Leed is too long

Move the petty details down into the article. Tell why city is important to Italy and the world. Why should anybody want to read this article anyway? GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Add text about WW II

On June 19, 1943 Rome was bombed by Anglo-American forces, being one of the hardest hit areas the San Lorenzo district. Causing about 3,000 deaths and 11,000 wounded.--79.43.220.9 (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's possible to add this text?, look at this. --GiovBag (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The text has now been added to the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Roma Capitale: Rome as administrative unit and residents

The actual number of permanent residents has been calculated in 3.106.318 by the city administration office, although the number of "official" residents is 2.864.519 (those who declare Rome to be their comune of residence): http://www.ilmessaggero.it/articolo.php?id=117489&sez=HOME_ROMA

Rome has also a special administrative statute as a comune, mining it is a special territorial division. The administrative name of the comune of Roma is Roma Capitale. The new administrative status become law very recently, on october 3 2010. http://www.comune.roma.it/

Population of Rome

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Karig79 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

External link

Hello, as editorial staff ot the tourism website of Regione Lazio, we would like to add our link to the section regarding Rome http://www.ilmiolazio.it/wps/en/Destinations/Rome/ we also noticed that the link to APT of the city of Rome (official tourist office) doesn't work anymore. --Il mio lazio (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hallo, imho this link does not belong here, but rather the "Rome" voice by wikitravel. Please read the wikipedia policy about links. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

there is a fourth public university to add, called "Università degli studi di Roma Foro Italico", and also simply called "Università Roma quattro".

there is a fourth public university to add, called "Università degli studi di Roma Foro Italico", and also simply called "Università Roma quattro". Someone that can edit this section add this new information. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepowerofnothing (talk • contribs) 18:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Rome's nicknames

another one is Caput Mundi; the city of the seven hills — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.130.241 (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"Caput Mundi" means "The Head of the World", not "The City of the Seven Hills". -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 December 2011

i would like to add some important information.

Ric5575 (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done. No specific request has been made. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 December 2011

i would like to add some valuable info and sources

Ric5575 (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You're editing the article, so you don't need anyone else to do it for you. Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Vatican

Ric5575 added a section on the Vatican. I've reverted this for the following reasons: While a section on the Vatican in this article may be a good idea, the type of information Ric is adding doesn't seem to me to be appropriate in its current form. It is exclusively about the Vatican and doesn't explain the Vatican's relationship to Rome. A separate section on the Vatican would need to: a) take into account the information about the Vatican already in the article (so as not to repeat what is there), and b) relate directly to Rome (this being an article about Rome). A section on the Vatican should also be brief, as there are already many WP articles about the Vatican. It should thus be written in summary style. Sunray (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't need a section about the Vatican on this article. Of course the Vatican should be mentioned where it is needed, but there is already an article about it on Wikipedia. This article deals with the Italian part of the city. Alex2006 (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Ric,

no, Vatican City in not part of Rome, it is an enclave of Rome. Alex2006 (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit post

i just made an editing on this article, if there is anything wrong with it, feel free to change, correct or even delete. let me know what went wrong and I'll do my best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ric5575 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Ric,I moved the paragraph about the Rioni where it belongs and already was :-) (Local government). The other paragraph is fine for me Alex2006 (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 February 2012

There are errors in the caption of the 1st figure: "A view of Rome: the top left picture to the is the Colosseum, followed ...". It should be changed to "Views of Rome: the top left picture is the Colosseum, followed ..." 87.11.214.64 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Some suggestions

I congratulate all who have written on this, but I am writing to request some changes.

AGE OF ROME. First, the expression that Rome has been inhabited for 2500 years is contradicted in the article itself, and also by one of the links given there. That link leads to a site which states that Rome has had "Continuous habitation since approximately 1000 BC" which would of course mean 3000 years. In any case the traditional founding date of 753BC would make it 2750 years old, in fact supported by what know of the seven Etruscan kings of Rome prior to 509 (not 510 as cited in the article) and their approximate periods of rule. In any case these are mythical, not in the sense of 'untrue' or unhistoric, but national stories, and if we give the age of Rome as an inhabited site it must be at least 3000 years. I have returned recently from the display in the Capitoline museums and it clear that the city was inhabited very far beyond this by Latin and other tribes. At the very least the contradiction between 2500 and 3000 should be resolved in favour of 3000.

FAO The UN's FAO is listed as a 'humanitarian' organisation. While it certainly does do work that would be classified as humanitarian its more accurate nature and what the page should call it is: "specialized agency of the UN". The UN has a series of these, UNESCO, WHO, UNICEF, etc and that is what FAO should be called. Rome also hosts the World Food Program, also a UN agency, separate from FAO but 'located there'.

CATHOLICS believe I think the distancing that is implied in the expression "Catholics believe" that St Peter's 'last resting place' is in Rome is weird. No ancient historian doubts it, nor does anyone seriously doubt that St Paul is also buried in Rome. Why this timidity?

"to this day" There is a tone of strangeness about some of the writing. For example the expression "to this day" thousands of pilgrims go to Rome. Err, I am living here and the numbers are immense and from all over the world. The expression 'to this day' makes it sound like a strange habit that would go out of fashion etc. Very POV in my view. Also, the expression that pilgrims have come to "Vatican city", this is nonsense. Until 1870 and the restoration of Rome, 1929 and the Lateran Treaties, reconfirmed in the 1970s, this distinction was not made. Pilgrims went to Rome, and that is what this expression should read.

GAW whatever I know that it is intended in WP to keep these world city rankings whatever they are, and that I won't get anywhere by mentioning them, but they seem to me really absurd for ancient and historically important cities like Rome. Thanks for your attention

PRC 07 (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have made additions and corrections to the 'language' section, 'pilgrimage' and a couple of other bits; including some of those mentioned above. Thanks, PRC 07 (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope I'm not kicking a hornets' nest, but I agree with the above discomfort with the line "Rome has been ranked by GaWC in 2010 as a beta+ world city" -- first off, I'd never heard of this GaWC before, and I strongly doubt that it's prominent enough to be known by its purported abbreviation. Secondly, I took a look at the list and think it's nothing more than an informed "fanboy" listing of international cities -- opinions can differ wildly on such lists. Finally, it leads the fourth paragraph of the entire article. It's fine as a factoid, but does it really warrant such prominence?

Terrific article, sorry if I'm being picky. IvyGold (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree, but this GaWC is spread all around Wikipedia, and actually there is a lot of people which seems to like it. He think it will be very difficult to remove it without a previous discussion. Alex2006 (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Just in case there will be one, I agree with you both in removing that reference. --Fertuno (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's bad enough to warrant full removal, but only less emphasis.

Here's my suggestion: if there's anyone who's taking the lead in editorial priorities, take the same exact GaWC line, verbatim, and move it to the very last line of the "Late modern and contemporary" section. It'd serve as a nice lead-out to the rest of the Rome categories, pinning down Rome's role and position in the modern world and economies, and then boom! onto discussions of Politics, Geography and so forth.

Is there anybody out there with enough of a dog in this fight to make the edit? IvyGold (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote above, the problem is that GaWC is spread all over. We should discuss a general removal/move of this stuff (maybe on the GaWC page?), not only here. Alex2006 (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Confusing translation of Italian "comune" as "commune"

From this article:

• "A new rising trend in population continued until the mid-1980s, when the commune had more than 2,800,000 residents; after that, population started to slowly decline as more residents moved to nearby suburbs."

And

• "Rome constitutes one of Italy's 8,101 communes, and is the largest both in terms of land area and population."

But Italy#Administrative divisions says:

• "Italy is subdivided into 20 regions (regioni, singular regione), five of these regions having a special autonomous status that enables them to enact legislation on some of their local matters. The country is further divided into 110 provinces (province) and 8,100 municipalities (comuni)."

Obviously the Italian word comuni is meant to indicate "municipalities" or "districts", or some such term, rather than the English word communes. The article on Communes does not mention Italy. In English the word "commune" more aptly applies to "an intentional community of people living together, sharing common interests, property, possessions, resources, and, in some communes, work and income." It is confusing to the reader in this context of Rome, and may bring to mind something more akin to the 1871 Paris Commune.

But the article then goes on to preempt the word "municipality", saying:

• "Since 1972 the city has been divided into 19 (originally 20) administrative areas, called municipi (until 2001 named circoscrizioni) or municipalities. They were created for administrative reasons to increase decentralisation in the city. Each municipality is governed by a president and a council of four members who are elected by the residents of the municipality every five years. The municipalities frequently cross the boundaries of the traditional, non-administrative divisions of the city."

At the least, I think wherever "commune" appears it should be replaced with the Italian word, italicized, comune (pl. comuni). I also question the capitalization of "commune" as given here:

• "The Commune of Rome covers an overall area of about 1,285 square kilometres (496 sq mi), including many green areas."

Beyond these two points, I believe this issue needs some discussion here. A major problem is that among English-speaking peoples, local terms for administrative divisions vary greatly from one place to another. Milkunderwood (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you and changed the article in accordance. There is only a small problem: Rome is not anymore a comune, but a comune speciale, named Roma Capitale. The article should reflect this change. Alex2006 (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Alessandro, your two edits entirely solve the problem - this is much better now. I had not previously noticed WP's separate article on "comune". I notice, though, that you retained a few instances of capitalized "Comune". Is this correct Italian usage? And you might as well go ahead and add the "comune speciale, named Roma Capitale" in an appropriate place in the article. Thanks very much for your help in cleaning up the article. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Milk,

you are welcome! about the capital "C": well, in the official use it is so (example: "Comune di Roma. Sito istituzionale") otherwise not. I will check in the article. Moreover, I slightly changed the first sentences in the introduction, I hope that it is ok. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Great edits, Alessandro; much clearer this way. I went back through after you to de-link the 2nd occurrence of comune in the same paragraph, and also italicized all other occurrences. I capitalized "Comune of Rome" to make it match "Comune of Fiumicino". And I added what I think is a useful explanation of "Lazio (Latin: Latium)", which had not occurred to me before I looked it up. Please check my diffs to see if you agree - thank you. Milkunderwood (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

...and I added a wikilink to Latium. :-) Perfetto! Alex2006 (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Perfetto indeed! Good link. We were editing at the same time, but my computer is taking 2-3 minutes to refresh each page. I think one of my caps was accidentally at a ref instead of in the text. I'll go back and fix it. Milkunderwood (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

(Now I don't know where it was - possibly ref #38? Probably doesn't matter.) No, another occurrence in the text - it's OK. Milkunderwood (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion: why you do not use the names in the original language and the English translation in brackets? I believe that this system would solve many misunderstandings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandro.spalvieri (talk • contribs) 14:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)