Talk:Lusitania

message: How is Lusitania supposed to be spelled? The spelling "Lusitana" is used twice in the article, including one used in the infobox. Are both spellings valid or is "Lusitana" an error? Howardcorn33 (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling?

message: Lusitanian should either be integrated here, or the content about the pre-Roman people should be moved there (and that page renamed to Lusitanians). --Joy [shallot] 11:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: (Discussion that was here is moved, unchanged and unedited, to Talk:Lusus. --02:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lusus]] 

message: I was looking for the ship & got directed here. Shouldn't I've gotten a disambig page, first?  Trekphiler 19:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You did. The first line reads "This article concerns the Roman province. For other uses, see Lusitania (disambiguation)." The Ogre 17:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You were. Maybe I wasn't. The page that list both as choice is Lusitania (disambiguation). The Ogre 14:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: Currently, the text of Prehistoric Spain seems really to be about prehistoric Iberia.  Similarly, the text of Prehistoric Portugal seems really to be about the same thing.  This would be perfectly understandable seeing as there was no Spain and no Portugal in prehistoric times. I have argued therefore that it would be best to have these articles merged under a title which indicates the geographical region rather than the modern states.  I have proposed the articles be merged and moved to Prehistoric Iberia.  Please come and discuss the proposal. Jimp 09:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Jim. If the merge goes through, what shall we do with Pre-Roman Portugal? You see, Prehistoric Spain encompasses a period that the "Portuguese" articles differentiated into Prehistoric Portugal and Pre-Roman Portugal. Should we merge them all? The Ogre 13:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge Prehistoric Spain with Prehistoric Portugal & move to Prehistoric Iberia 

message: I believe that the term "Lusitania" today usually refers to all the portuguese speaking areas in the world as a collective entity. That is, Portugal, Brasil, Goa, Cabo Verde and several others. Is there any Wikipedia entry which deals with this? Martin Packham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.108.246 (talk • contribs) 
:It is true that sometimes Lusitania is used in modern times to mean just Portugal, and is the modern Latin name for the country as can be seen in the Latin Wikipedia article on that country. What you are looking, however, for is Lusophone and Lusitanic. See also Community of Portuguese Language Countries. The Ogre 21:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern meaning of 'Lusitania' 

message: Even good etymologies are often meaningless. The following chancy text needs to be presented as a report of published material rather than a personal excursus in order to to be included:
:"The original word could have been from Proto-Celtic *Lugu , meaning God, from which the Celtic god Lugus took his name meaning probably "the shining one", in Celtiberian this god was called Luguei. It can be compared with the Proto-Celtic word *Lug meaning deceive and the Latin word Lusi also meaning deceive ('game' or 'play')." 
Any connection between this unsourced riff and the actual significance or derivation of the historical toponym Lusitania seems to be slender. I left the very doubtful sentence "The name may be of Celtic origin: Lus and Tanus, "tribe of Lusus".". Though the name may indeed be of Celtic origin, tanus doesn't signify "tribe". --Wetman 05:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymological excursus

message: The entire section on the wars between the Lusitanians and the Romans are incorrect and have no references. Datarune (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: No References

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lusitania. 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/20040611215344/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.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) 22:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The end date has to be wrong since the Roman Empire did not exist in 891.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.179.30.209 (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disestablished 891 AD