Talk:Aventine Hill

message: A very informative article and I just have a few suggestions.  First, I would edit the link in the etymology section to only cover the word "Aventinus."  You also might want to include the dates of Ancus Marcius's rule.  I would also replace the phrase "fascism" with the "fascist period" or "under fascist rule" or something like that.  Finally, a couple of the sources require NU passwords to access the articles, which might be problematic for those wanting to access your sources.24.12.189.96 23:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: " An alternate etymology comes directly from the founding of Rome. Romulus saw birds from Aventine Hill, not Palatine Hill, so Aventine Hill was aptly named as where Romulus saw his omen (birds = "aves"). "
I can not obtain the source, but it is clearly incorrect. Livy and every other Roman historian clearly state that Romulus was on the Palatine, while Remus was on the Aventine. It is also stated as such in other Wikipedia pages on the Founding of Rome, Romulus and Remus, etc. Since they both saw an omen of birds, it is unlikely that only one hill would be named after such an event, especially since the founder, Romulus, spotted 12 vultures and founded Rome on the Palatine.
129.59.47.19 (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Palatine, not Aventine

message: I've cleaned up (a bit) some of the ancient history section. Currently there's nothing at all for the medieval period. The Etymology section's too long, and doesn't make clear that the etymologies given are ancient, and possibly spurious. We need secondary scholarship on these issues. Not sure we even need a "Mythology" section; or if we do, it needs rewriting. Why Cacus and Hercules?  
The article's one of a series (see category bar) on the Seven Hills. The legal boundaries of the hills have changed over time, as I think someone has stated in the article. Perhaps that's why someone included the Circus Maximus, Temple of Vesta and sundry other things non-Aventine or at least not distinctively Aventine in the infobox. I see a pope there; nothing about him in the article at all. And the Fascist-era Aventine Seccession is there; the brief summary in the article seems to belong. Should it, though?
My underlying criticism is that this is surely - or should be - an article on the Ancient Roman Aventine Hill. No? Yes? The infobox links to another article on the modern Aventine, or more precisely, to the modern Italian Ripa, which I assume includes at least some modern history. To be honest, I haven't checked out whether it does or not but Hm, not much there. Anyway, I think the post-Roman info really serves only to confuse things here. Comments on this matter will be very welcome. Haploidavey (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Where to go?

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a contested technical request (permalink).  — Amakuru (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 25 August 2022