Talk:Roman Forum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled[edit]

The Temple of Jupiter is on the hill of Campidoglio and not on Roman Forum 84.253.136.132 12:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC) (MM on italian wiki)

Perhaps it's interesting to add a paragraph about the mysterious Lapis Niger, which was an important place for the ancient Romans on the forum. Check this site for some information.

- FB

needs references![edit]

Or at least a further reading section. Something as famous as the Forum that has had as much ink spilled about it should have an excellent bibliography section. -- phoebe/(talk) 05:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


missing!!![edit]

Remarkably poor article: its scope is entirely pre-Christian. A great deal of information on mediaeval structures, removed and extant, could be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.14.67 (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the above....just that saying what the article needs and then walking away from it.... says a lot. People should put up or shut up on Wiki....I am tired of watching these articles get stamped with an Oberon College student tag then read them like they were written by a copy editor at the National Enquirer.
If you have input....edit the article. Otherwise keep those comments to yourself. We know it....we just don't care about people that ONLY comment on Wiki. Research and make the changes.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll second that, which may sound to the inexperienced like an intemperate outburst. Worse to me are those self-possessed passers-by who disfigure articles with tags demanding citations— often enough cited further along in the same article.--Wetman (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I now know why there are so many suggestions by people who do not make edits.....but they could eventualy come back and do so after waiting and not seeing the work done.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the deal with all the vandalism here?[edit]

Good to see that there are editors keeping an eye out for this crap. Thanks. I have lett Wiki know about the problem but they feel it is not enough to lock the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.180.178 (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This article has been identified as a hub[edit]

This article links all the structures and monuments of the forum and imperial comitium.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


Major expansion and re-write[edit]

Please feel free to contribute what you feel is of value. As the article grows (and the subject can be very long) there should be room for many images and links to expand on the subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There was an image gallery of lovely pictures, but somebody removed it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
While the images were very good, Per MOS, Galleries are not encyclopedic and do not add value to the article. Article with images for the sake of having nice images without context become cluttered.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
When there is a large public space, such as the Forum, galleries can be appropriate. They aren't universally frowned upon. Aside from my panoramic picture I added yesterday this article is really lacking in pictures that give a sense of space and setting. Some additional photos/panoramas/ortho images would greatly improve the article. If someone hasn't been there I think it would be very difficult to appreciate/comprehend the site based on just text.--DannyBoy7783 (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Galleries are not encyclopedic and take away from the article. They have no context as a gallery and can become overwhelming and confusing since today the images are of ruins. They do little to help a reader understand the site except for context of what they appear as today. Galleries of images of current sites do little to add understanding to the oalmost two thousand years worth of history.

However, I do agree that images are important to an article and that we could use more here, but only to illustrate the article and the information in it.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding on to what's already been said, A stronger focus on different parts of the forum like the different meeting places and temples and their significance would also add to the page. Possibly looking at sources from the Italian history books could support the page a bit better. Jpimentel2013 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)