Talk:Londinium

message: Gaulish was the Celtic language spoken by the Gauls of what is now France, Belgium, etc.
There is no reason whatsoever to believe it was a commonly spoken language in Roman London.  The local Celtic language was British or Brythonic: the ancestor of Welsh, Breton and Cornish.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.29.215 (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone seems to have already removed whatever you were talking about, but Londinium would have been a hodgepodge of official Latin, provincial Brittonic, and Gaulish. Whatever the Belgae's version of Celtic was (and it either was Gaulish or some close kin of it), it may have been the primary language initially spoken by the inhabitants, given the success of the Belgic Catuvellauni in the area in the century between the Roman invasions. Beyond that, there would have been plenty of Gallic merchants from Gesoriacum and further afield. — LlywelynII 15:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lingua Gallica / Gaulish?   

message: Also in the section for Populated places established in the 1st century it now lists Londinium and London both despite the fact that it is both the same place. Londinium is after all just the Roman language translation of London.70.178.153.27 (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Roman London would be a more logical title however many (see below) seem to disagree. But Londinium is not the translation of anything. The Romans founded the city and Londinium was its name for centuries (except when they tried to call it Augusta for a while). TheMathemagician (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Londinium is certainly a translation of something. It's not Latin for anything but [Celtic placename] and some Celtic placename was intermediate between the Latin and Old English names. That said, whatever that name was, it's much less common in English-language sources than the attested Latin one. — LlywelynII 15:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Shouldn't the title of this article be returned to the name Roman London?

message: After the defeat of Allectus, Londinium was said to have been renamed "Augusta", in honor of Constantius Chlorus. (Source: Shepperd Frere, Britannica.) The name stuck for some time, for Ammianus Marcellinus, writing in the 3rd quarter of the 4th C., refers to Roman London as "Augusta". I'm citing all this from memory, so confirm my sources before adding this to the article. -- llywrch (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already briefly mentioned in the article. However, the reasons for the change of name are unknown. All explanations are pure speculation. With the name Augusta the city appears in several sources. best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Better treatment and bolding. It almost certainly wasn't Augusta tout suite (too damned many of them), but we need a source for Augusta Britanniarum, Augusta Londiniensis, or whathaveyou. — LlywelynII 16:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing about its other ancient name? 

message: There was a cite and always loathe to remove those, but . There is nothing abnormal or difficult about pronouncing Londinium as  and we should just port that to the Wiktionary entry. The Classical Latin pronunciation would have been unusual () but it's not particularly noteworthy in any sense: modern English speakers wouldn't say it that way, modern Latin speakers may not, and period Latin speakers probably had some Brittonic lilt. Leave it at Wiktionary or include a passage on Latin, British Latin, and English pronunciations in the #Name section. — LlywelynII 16:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: It's rather nonsensical to lump all of them from various eras together as if they formed one atemporal city, particularly when only minimal information about dating and excavation is being addressed. We could use a section on currently extant remains (particularly those open to the public) and the old section could be redone with more information here or at a page like "buildings of Roman London". Really, though, I think it's better to address their creation when they were created; their excavation when they were excavated; extensive details at their dedicated pages; and their location by adding more to an already well-done map. — LlywelynII 00:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "Important Buildings"

message: Some other art discovered in London include these guys, if anyone takes a liking: — LlywelynII 15:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Art

message: There is currently an edit war going on about whether the population of Londinium was 30,000 or 60,000 in AD100. Neither involved editor has bothered to discuss things on the talk page. I believe 60,000 is excessive. I don't have sources to hand, but a quick search found this: a "possible suggestion of a population in AD60/61, therefore, would be about 10,000; a population of about 25,000 – 30,000 in AD100/120 and, although the area in AD200 is calculated as being larger, property density was falling so a slightly smaller population of about 25,000 might be suggested for AD200". . This has a source: "Londinium and Beyond: Essays on Roman London and Its Hinterland" from 2008, the chapter titled "The Population of Roman London" - locating it would stop the ongoing warring. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Population figures

message: The phrase sentence: Although Londinium remained important for the rest of the Roman period, it appears never to have recovered fully from this slump, as archaeologists have found that much of the city after this date was covered in dark earth has been tagged as unclear. Can anyone please succinctly describe what is unclear? -- Paleorthid (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A question for . Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks , Thanks  - The issue was the term "dark earth", which assumes has a specific meaning and subject.  The page of dark earth also is not well written and unclear.  Of course, earth is "dark", does that mean that the soil was not tilled?  Was tilled? Waist debris? Runoff? Manure? etc.  If an archaeologists says this, what does that mean and why is that important?  The rest of the sentence was okay IMHO.  Dinkytown talk 01:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I understand the intended meaning. Note that the context prior is all about extensive permanent structures: forum and basilica were the largest north of the Alps. Construction stopped in the the second half of the 2nd century, after which (the layer of dark earth tells us that) Londinium had a stable settled population that failed to put up anything to write about fortification-or-big-structure-wise, but it had a population dense enough to cause dark earth formation. A more succinct rewrite should be workable. -- Paleorthid (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I also understand the meaning, but I was hoping it could be more specific, such as the meaning of 'dark earth'; I assume as common household debris from settlement occupation, i.e. household waste, manure, non-farm byproduct of settlement occupation, etc.  But why would 'dark earth' be important in this case?  If Londinium was founded in 43AD, did the city have this dark earth continuously throughout the Roman and Medieval Period?  Is it proof of continuous occupation because of the presence of this dark earth?  Why was it proof that Londinium was a smaller city because of this dark earth (per the article)?  The problem also is that the 'dark earth' page is not very clear, too much technical jargon, and - even though I am a History Major, I was confused by the description. Sorry for the trouble... Dinkytown talk 01:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

text: I made some additional clarifications to dark earth.  Let see what happens... Dinkytown talk 01:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Londinium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jim-riddell.com/history/general/What+was+the+status+of+Roman+Londinium.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The link is to a 19th US senator rather than the Museum of London chap it should be. Can a suitable redirect be added (and additions to the 'Sankey' disambiguation page). Jackiespeel (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted the link as there is no article on this David Sankey. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Usual creative mis-assignment/linking process' There is a 'person page' on the web for the relevant DS which might be more appropriate. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *I am not clear what you are suggesting. Links to external sources are forbidden in main text. They are only allowed in references. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Sankey 

message: See and  - which emphasises the 'possible'. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not have access to the first source, but the second seems to say that the results are far too tentative for a change to the Wiki article. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, see Talk:Sino-Roman relations#Some evidence for people of 'East Asian' ancestry living in Roman London. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly Chinese skeletons found in Roman cemetery 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Londinium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150219043325/http://archive.museumoflondon.org.uk/Londinium/Today/vizrom/01+wall.htm to http://archive.museumoflondon.org.uk/Londinium/Today/vizrom/01+wall.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Londinium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150220011843/http://www.roman-britain.org/places/londinium.htm to http://www.roman-britain.org/places/londinium.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303114902/http://www.roman-britain.org/military/military_glossary.htm to http://www.roman-britain.org/military/military_glossary.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.museumoflondon.org.uk/Londinium/Today/vizrom/01%2Bwall.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is poor writing style and indicates ambiguity or opinion.  When I read this word or term in an WP article, I generally discount the whole thing.
By my count, the word "seem" occurs 13 times in this article.  That is Not Good. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to improve. PepperBeast (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the term "Seem" or "Seems to have". 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Londinium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513125933/http://www.archaeologyuk.org/ba/ba5/BA5NEWS.HTML to http://www.archaeologyuk.org/ba/ba5/BA5NEWS.HTML
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Londinium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080424072334/http://www.jim-riddell.com/history/general/What%20was%20the%20status%20of%20Roman%20Londinium.htm to http://www.jim-riddell.com/history/general/What+was+the+status+of+Roman+Londinium.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think that this is worth mentioning, but scholars disagree and we might wish to add that. See  and more. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Cantiaci city? 

message: NOTE: I am copying the text below from my talk page
"I don't know why you keep changing the demographic information on the Londinium page that I provide.
I don't see how the BBC can be a more reliable source, than the publications of a historian like Tacitus, who lived during that time.
I hope you have a good explanation to maintain that position.
I wait your answer.
Best regards  BryceHarper34 (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, please read this and this. Tacitus is what we call a primary source, while Wikipedia goes with what reliable secondary sources state. Also, please note that age matters, as said in the first link i posted above. Happy editing.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to say that and add that a source written around 98CE isn't going to work as a source for an overview of the demographics of Londinium. Doug Weller talk 20:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

text: With all due respect, have you read the links provided above ? If you have not, please read 'em and refrain from aggressive behaviour like "I see that you are falling into a clear fallacy here" when you disagree with other editors. Also, Doug's remark about a 2000 years old writer sounds quite legit.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Can someone else please help this editor? It would be useful to find any followup from the discoveries described in the BBC report, which of course is not from a television channel. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 06:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

text: No one said that you were insulting Doug or me, just said that your tone was quite aggressive. Anyway, please note that you're living during the 21st but this does not make you a reliable source for any event. The BBC has a historical department, this makes that source far more reliable than a 2000 years old source which fails to fit with WP:RS as me and Doug already told you several times.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 07:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , perhaps you could point out the problem to this editor? This is recent and says "The data for people coming from Germany, Italy and elsewhere on the Continent does correlate tothe inscription evidence from the settlement, and reflects what we know about the presence of the military and Imperial administra-tion in Londinium. The presence of migrant inhabitants throughout its history ensured that the settlement was a diverse and uniquesettlement from its foundation until its eventual abandonment inthe 5th century AD." Doug Weller talk 09:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia discourages the use of primary sources under WP:RS, both because it is original research, which is forbidden, and because primary sources are often biassed and need assessment by modern experts. Tacitus lived at the beginning of Roman rule in Britain and cannot be cited for the whole period, and modern scholars who have the benefit both of writers such as Tacitus and archaeological excavation will have a better idea of the situation. I would however agree that the BBC is not the best source. Its writers are likely to be generalists, not experts on the period. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Agricola left Britain for the last time in 85 AD, when the city was only in its 4th decade after founding. The statement about its population has no date assigned, but will be read as referring to its peak, beginning around 100 AD after Agricola was dead.  The BBC will have based their statement on some academic work (and there is a lot on Roman London), and ideally we should be citing that. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've adjusted and expanded the whole section, improving the sourcing. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Is this any better?  Or this? Johnbod (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics - should we rely on Tacitus for a statement on demographics? 

message: The article currently says: , with the reference https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/no1poultry_molas_2007/. That reference does not claim that the date of the drain is the likely date of foundation of the settlement, it just says . Inductiveload (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundation date unsupported by reference 

message: I just came across this article  about a Roman mosaic which has been recently discovered. Thought it might be of interest to this article. G-13114 (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: i think it might be worth waiting a few months till proper research articles appear. There are many Roman mosaics from London. A new one will not change the general picture.Udimu (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman mosaic floor found at Southwark Street development site