Talk:Roman villa

message: I have a site with description and photos from two of the roman sites listed here, but not linked.
* Hadrian's villa at Tivoli, Italy
http://sights.seindal.dk/sight/901_Hadrians_Villa.html
* Villa Romana del Casale in Piazza Armerina, Sicily, Italy.
http://sights.seindal.dk/sight/456_Villa_Romana_del_Casale.html
I'm not sure, though, whether it would be appropriate to link them from here.
They do supply information not found here, but I'd be promoting my own site.
--Seindal 10:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Fishbourne is not a roman villa. It is a Roman Palace. I am therefore changing this.
:An anonymous idiot. --Wetman 18:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information contained in the assertion "Fishbourne is not a villa. It is a Roman Palace." may be restated with equal propriety as "Fishbourne is so fabulous I'm calling it a 'palace'". There is no indication that Fishbourne was a seat of administration. It is a very luxurious villa, needless to interate.--Wetman (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fishbourne

message: This article rambles and repeats itself, and presents conflicting information. For example, at the top we're told that Pliny says a villa urbana is a villa easily reached from rome, while a villa rustica is farther out in the boondocks. Later, under the Architecture of the Villa Complex section, we're told that a villa urbana and a villa rustica are all parts of the same villa--with the urbana being the family household, and the rustica being for the servants. Additionally, there are two Architecture sections, the first of which says more about history and almost nothing about architecture, and the second of which gives factually contradictory information. I'm no expert on Roman Architecture, but this article needs some serious cleanup.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.86.217.230 (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article quality is low 

message: It makes no sense to have a section on this narrow topic when a reference to this topic on another wiki page is sufficient and villas elsewhere are ignored  Rjdeadly (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Villas in Gaul

message: Template:Infobox should not be used directly. Use appropriate infobox or remove it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: A lead doesn't need a "reference" WP:LEAD (by this I assume you mean a citation) if the article body has been referenced, which I just did. Besides this, not sure why its undue? This seems a highly subjective argument, what's wrong with including the main sites of extravagant villas, and noting their "diverse economic operations" is also helpful. Why do you think this its not? @Rjdeadly Danial Bass (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As WP:Lead states, it ......."should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic". Your proposed text gives far too much weight to the minority of extravagant villas. It also mentioned some areas that don't represent the whole; there were at least as many big villas in other areas, e.g Italy in general.Rjdeadly (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure why edits reverted