Talk:Roman temple

message: I have no idea why this page is such a hot target for vandals, but can we apply for semi-protection please? This is insane. Q·L·1968 ☿ 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the last months there have been exactly two active vandals, both on the same date (January 28), one during a six-minute time span of consecutive edits, the other with just one edit. This is hardly a cause for semi-protection.  --Lambiam 08:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: There is no source cited for this list of 'the most common' deities to which Roman temples were dedicated. I have seen alayses of dedicatory inscriptions for some provinces, but not for the empire as a whole or for the city of rlol
ome by itself. Lacking that, the current list looks suspiciously like "twelve deities off the top of someone's head".
--Nantonos (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: the most common 12? 

message: Using Egyptian temple as an example I will be expanding this article with refernces and academic sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion  

message: I made an edit  for clarity, which was promptly reverted by user:Johnbod with the edit summary "rv - there are these things called adjectives." As I hadn't removed any adjective but instead clarified meaning for the casual reader, I again made the edit. Again it was promptly reverted by Johnbod, this time with no edit summary or explanation whatsoever. There is no reason the edit couldn't stand or is/was unacceptable, save for Johnbod's glaring and persistent WP:OWNership issues of "his" articles. I'm happy to take this to WP:3O, shall we?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  My two cents: it's not a big deal; let it lie. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

text: (ec) The edit summary "let's make a sentence! it's fun!" for the diff above displayed the mixture of ignorance and arrogance that one has come to expect from this editor. It never occurs to him that the reason many of his edits are reverted is that they are not improvements. There is nothing at all 'improper' or unclear about the sentence as it was and is. The replacement "added later" suggests the original building was open to the elements, which was not the case.  Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  No adjectives were harmed in the making of this proper sentence... 

message: with a crowd gathered in the temple precinct
Does this mean near the temple? If so then say so.
Apparently one is supposed to read down to #Terms first, and also know that precinct means general or perhaps official, area. 
 Jidanni (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  temple precinct. 

message: Between the sections on "architecture" and "influence" this article suddenly has a section on the Caesareum, which ought to have its own article elsewhere. Why? Is it envisioned that the article will have articles on other temples by dedicant? How many? Will there be sections like Capitolium, sacellum.
Between the section on "influence" and "substantial survivals" this article suddenly has a section on the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, which has its own article elsewhere. Why? Is it envisioned that the article will have sections on other significant temples? How many? 
In both of these sections, the article suddenly zooms into a far greater level of detail than elsewhere and both should be removed; they are not "topics" at the same level as the other main sections of this article ("architecture" "influence" "substantial survivals") and they do not logically fit into the structure of the article (one sign of this is that neither section is mentioned in the lead). Furius (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it has a section on all temples of the Imperial cult, plus one on the IOM, as the Roman temple par exellence. The article has changed little since I expanded it 7 years ago. They could certainly be added to the lead, and perhaps should be. One would surely expect "Influence" to be the last text section? That seems very natural to me. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem is that neither of these sections explain why they are there and both of them are floating as top-level sections. Why is there a section on temples of the imperial cult but no other sub-type of Roman temple? Then, the appearance of IOM after influence seems very strange to me (we've gone through to the 19th century and suddenly we snap back to 509 BC for a section that discusses [because it's essentially all that we know] the disputed measurements and the dates of a specific temple). I don't think its importance justifies listing all the dates when it burnt down. If the point is that it was particularly influential, which is stated without any specifics, that point can be better made by mentioning it in text at points where its influence has been detected or where it is exemplary, as is done for the Pantheon, for example. Furius (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I will move IOM to be before influences, which I hope helps. I'm warming to your idea that there should be sections on Capitolium, sacellum.  Really the article needs more on the usage, staff, and precincts of temples. I did this before I did Ancient_Greek_religion#Sanctuaries_and_temples and most of Ancient_Greek_religion#Sacrifice, and this needs more like that.  Religion in ancient Rome has some of that. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caesareum and Temple of IOM