Talk:Ancient Rome

message: AD/BC is best used on many articles that might have a christian or biblical connotation, tens, if not hundreds of thousands of other articles use the CE/BCE dating system to indicate Common Era and Before Common Era instead of Anno Domini (In the Year of Our Lord) and Before Christ. Given that the Romans themselves used neither system, but did in fact oppress and condemn Christianity until Constantine at the end, I think your general reader would benefit from the use of the CE/BCE system instead. I am familiar with WP:RETAIN as well as WP:ERA though, so I intend to gain consensus before making this change across this article. TY. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 18:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, strong oppose. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

text: I'll add my oppose here, for the record. As I've stated elsewhere, the Christian religion arose out of the instincts of the ancient Roman world, and toward the end of it, was adopted by it. So, AD/BC is appropriate. Another point to consider is the accuracy of the Babylonian–Egyptian solar calendar with regard to starting at the same time each year, especially with the improvements under Caesar. Alternative calendars are often not quite so accurate. I don't really understand the need to relabel when you are retaining the arbitrary nature of the calendar with regard to its denoting a certain epoch. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Oppose suggestion by confirmed sockpuppet account. The use of BCE vs. BC should have nothing to do with whether the subject of an article had an affinity or lack thereof for Christianity. That's tantamount to saying we'd best not use "Thursday" on articles that don't accept Thor as a real deity.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 00:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Ditto with the opposition, pending some evidence that a revival of Roman paganism makes the use potentially offensive with regard to this specific article, as opposed to atheists and scholars who'd prefer to end use of the BC/AD nomenclature entirely. — LlywelynII 13:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:ERA]] to CE/BCE 

message: I understand different editors might have different preferences about phrasing, notability, and specific images but the article very much needs some image showing how marshy the original area was. Even if the specific image to the right needs to be removed for whatever reason, kindly substitute some other better image that captures the same major points about the former rivers and lakes long since entirely vanished from the area. Ditto, Roma Quadrata and Murus Romuli might need expansion and improvement but the topics should be linked from this article in some fashion even if we don't go into details here about the various confusions, scholarly arguments, source contradictions, etc. — LlywelynII 13:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: The Rome of "Romulus"

message: *Move excessive links here for any possible discussion:
:Some things just grow by incremental edits. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, had grown to 9 entries. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four links. 
:The problem is that none is needed for article promotion. 
*ELpoints #3) states: 
*LINKFARM states: 
*ELMIN: . -- 
*ELCITE:   
*WP:ELBURDEN: .
* Also, concerning dead "External links": Dead URLs are of no use.
** Lacus Curtius
** Livius.Org 
** United Nations of Roma Victrix (UNRV) History
** Water and Wastewater Systems in Imperial Rome
** The Jewish History of Rome
** Roman DNA project  --  Otr500 (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Could you give me some information about the rise of Rome? 70.78.144.142 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The rise of Rome