Category talk:Roman law
Oppose Law of Ancient Rome is correct. --Foroa (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Normally, that's the convention but not for Ancient Rome (or Ancient Greece). See Category:Ancient Roman categories. I guess because it's an adjective pertaining to a place and time rather than just a place or, more commonly, it's used as an adjective describing the style. It would be weird to call Category:Ancient Roman roads in Belgium "Roads of Ancient Roman of Belgium" (replace "roads" with "law"). Rocket000 (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- We have a problem of coherence with all these categories. What we do with them? --DenghiùComm (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
We don't need to have this discussion on multiple talk pages. Let's centralize somewhere. This page works for me (assuming Foroa is watching it). Like I mentioned here: "Ancient Rome", in most cases, is being used as an adjective pertaining to the style, not the region (and time-span) where the style comes from. There can be "Ancient Roman" things in/of any country. I think they should all start with "Ancient Roman", like the categories in Category:Ancient Roman categories. However, I'm not sure about categories like Military of Ancient Rome or Law of Ancient Rome because they do refer to the ancient civilization. Rocket000 (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand where is the problem. Category:Ancient Roman categories contains all categories wich have to do with the Ancient Roman world or civilisation. This is the reason why I requested to change the name of categories like military, law, roman paths, etc. for coherence with the other categories. I have more problem with names like "Ancient Rome", because it produce misunderstandings. We all know that the begin was a little ancient city called Rome, but then it become an ancient Roman world. So I would rather use "Ancient Rome" for the ancient city of Rome, and "Ancient Roman" for all other categories which concern the ancient roman world or ancient roman civilisation. --DenghiùComm (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not disagreeing. I support your renames. Like I said, I think they should all start with "Ancient Roman". I just wasn't sure about some. "Ancient Rome" normally means the civilization too, not just the city in ancient times, however, it is a little ambiguous, so let's stick to "Ancient Roman". Rocket000 (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have no time right now, but I am strongly disagreeing to use Ancient Rome as an adjective as it breaks all naming rules and consistency in many categories. I'll come back extensively on that within a couple of days. --Foroa (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, but it is used as an adjective. We're not suggesting that we start using it that way. We're talking about what to name the categories. Rocket000 (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I also prefer "Law of Ancient Rome" strongly. Ingolfson (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
General naming rules[edit]
I think that we have to avoid to get trapped, as in the en:wikipedia, by using too much adjective forms for naming categories. In the first place we have to look at a categorisation style as for countries, and this for several reasons. First category:Ancient Rome should be treated like the countries as with the many en:Category:Civilisations, en:Category:Former empires, en:Category:Former countries, en:Category:Former kingdoms and en:Category:Ethnic groups. We are only at the beginning so we better stick to a basic naming rule that can be consistently applied in the majority of the cases. Of course, we don't have to be too pedantic: Ancient Roman can be used as a style indicator, like Romanesque, Renaissance, ... for roads, bridges, statues...
I don't think that it is a good idea to use adjective forms for some main categories, such as Culture, Flags, Military, People, Weapons ... And say for yourself, "Ancient Roman maps", "Ancient Roman scale models", "Category:Ancient Roman military equipment (reconstructed)" and "Ancient Roman categories" don't sound right.
If we don't use a proper structured naming, we will get in troubles when there is a need for differentiating categories pertaining to periods in the Roman history: if you look a bit in en:Category:Ancient Rome by period, one will see what mess it can get. It will get worse if we want to improve for example Roman statue categorisation according to their period.
Moreover, if we continue using "Ancient Roman" systematically as an adjective form, soon we will see all sorts of "Roman" categories for the contemporary Rome, but equally promote names as Sicilian, Venetian, Valencian, Silezian, Napolitan, American, Scandinavian, European, Greek, ... This position makes things not easier, but if you look through Category:Ancient Roman categories, you will see that the wanted "Ancient Roman xxx" harmonisation is not really realistic anyway. --Foroa (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I support the naming scheme "Roman canals", "Roman aqueducts", "Roman law" etc. We call it neither "Ancient Roman Empire" nor "Ancient Roman Republic", right, so scratch the redundant "ancient". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- First: I understand very well the fear of Foroa to use "Ancient Roman" as an adjective form, that soon we will see all sorts of "...-an" categories. But "Roman" was a wide civilisation; the other geographic adjective forms (perhaps; or sure) not; so I think that's very difficult to not use this adjective for our categories. Second: I disagree completly with Gun Powder Ma: we need for our categories clear, not ambiguous names. So the most part of our "Ancient Roman" categories are "ancient Roman" subject or objects, and they are not to confuse with similar later subjects. In Italy (or elsewhere) we have ancient Roman aqueducts, and we have modern aqueducts; we have ancient Roman thermae and we have modern thermae; we have ancient Roman basilicas, and we have other basilicas; and we have an Ancient Roman Republic, and (if you know the history) in Italy we have other Roman Republics in modern times (1798; 1848). Only few "Ancient Roman" categories are = "Roman" (e.g. I think law or literature). Sure we have some very bad names like Category:Ancient Roman maps (they are not maps of the Romans, nor of the Roman time!), but finally this is only a conceptual category which contains the maps-sub-categories which have to do with the old Roman times, so I think that we can to stand for that; more important are the sub-categories that it contains! Third: much more I find that there is a big problem with the ambiguous name of "Ancient Rome". Everywhere this name is used, there are mess situations between "ancient Rome=city" and "ancient Rome=civilization". If we don't solve this problem, we will have every time in the future misunderstandings in the use of these categories. My opinion is that we have to use "Ancient Rome" only for the city (like ancient Naples or ancient Milan); and "Ancient Roman" for the civilization instead. For the rest, it's only a problem of consistency of our categories: this is the reason why I support to change the name of this (or of other similar) categories in "Ancient Roman law"; because these are categories they concern "ancient Roman civilization" and not the (ancient) city of Rome. --DenghiùComm (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think that we all understand most of the problem that is not easy to solve. When looking in Category:Ancient Roman maps, it becomes clear that the situation is not really that good. Before deciding, it might be a good idea to identify how many different ancient Roman categories (empire, republic, kingdom) we need for main categories such as maps, history, culture, people. The problem with the Roman civilisation versus city is not simple indeed.
- When looking in some continents, it is truly amazing how many cultures and peoples existed in South-America, Eastern Europe, China, Africa, Arabic world (170 tribes in Libya, hundreds of languages in India) ... It is not because from the Western world perspective, the ancient Roman civilisation was extremely important, that there are no other important ones; they will just need ten more years before they are properly present and organised on Commons. We are lucky with the Italians that did such a wonderfull categorisation job in Ancient Rome... --Foroa (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you Foroa, for your opinion. It's important to know that the problems are wider than only "at our home". I think that we all try to do the best for Commons, and it's fine to work together for this scope. Perhaps our big problem will be solved by the next generation of Common-ists... : - D Best regards at all! --DenghiùComm (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I really hope it doesn't literally take another generation for us to decide what to do here. I personally throw my hat on the side for the "topic of/in subject by criterion" convention. Consistency with the rest of the project is key. – Adrignola talk 19:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you Foroa, for your opinion. It's important to know that the problems are wider than only "at our home". I think that we all try to do the best for Commons, and it's fine to work together for this scope. Perhaps our big problem will be solved by the next generation of Common-ists... : - D Best regards at all! --DenghiùComm (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- First: I understand very well the fear of Foroa to use "Ancient Roman" as an adjective form, that soon we will see all sorts of "...-an" categories. But "Roman" was a wide civilisation; the other geographic adjective forms (perhaps; or sure) not; so I think that's very difficult to not use this adjective for our categories. Second: I disagree completly with Gun Powder Ma: we need for our categories clear, not ambiguous names. So the most part of our "Ancient Roman" categories are "ancient Roman" subject or objects, and they are not to confuse with similar later subjects. In Italy (or elsewhere) we have ancient Roman aqueducts, and we have modern aqueducts; we have ancient Roman thermae and we have modern thermae; we have ancient Roman basilicas, and we have other basilicas; and we have an Ancient Roman Republic, and (if you know the history) in Italy we have other Roman Republics in modern times (1798; 1848). Only few "Ancient Roman" categories are = "Roman" (e.g. I think law or literature). Sure we have some very bad names like Category:Ancient Roman maps (they are not maps of the Romans, nor of the Roman time!), but finally this is only a conceptual category which contains the maps-sub-categories which have to do with the old Roman times, so I think that we can to stand for that; more important are the sub-categories that it contains! Third: much more I find that there is a big problem with the ambiguous name of "Ancient Rome". Everywhere this name is used, there are mess situations between "ancient Rome=city" and "ancient Rome=civilization". If we don't solve this problem, we will have every time in the future misunderstandings in the use of these categories. My opinion is that we have to use "Ancient Rome" only for the city (like ancient Naples or ancient Milan); and "Ancient Roman" for the civilization instead. For the rest, it's only a problem of consistency of our categories: this is the reason why I support to change the name of this (or of other similar) categories in "Ancient Roman law"; because these are categories they concern "ancient Roman civilization" and not the (ancient) city of Rome. --DenghiùComm (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Category:Shield patterns of Ancient Rome?[edit]
Why is this - Category:Shield patterns of Ancient Rome in among the Category Heraldry? Just because it is on a shield does not mean it is heraldic. There is far too much nonsense talked about 'Japanese Mon' heraldry, Islamic heraldry, Bantu heraldry and so on. Can this please be moved somewhere more appropriate? Kiltpin (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)