Talk:Ostia Antica

message: Lots of factual errors here!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.238.28.251 (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I wanted to warn editors of this article that I've just tagged the beautiful image of the Ostia harbor, apparently called "Trajan Harbor", for possible deletion due to failure to identify the copyright holder and lack of an original source. (See :commons:Image:Ostia model.jpg.) This appears to be a photo of the same model that VRoma, aka "Virtual Roma", has some shots of. The three I found (, , ) were not the same image, but may come from VRoma or wherever they got them from. (I still haven't found the identity of the facility that has the model itself.) Anyone who may have information on this image, or a freely-licensed replacement, may want to try to fix or replace it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trajan Harbor image may be deleted 

message: I added new information and revised the text to make the Introduction into more of an overview. Stwiso (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing of The Introduction

message: The factual assertions may or may not be well sourced, but it it is impossible to sort this out absent citations that refer to locations within the given references. Stwiso (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Stwiso, I believe you made that point. I say the following as someone who's just come to this article for the first time and had nothing at all to do with anything in it: instead of destroying the readability of the article with  after every statement, use citation labels to cover the entire unsourced section. Delete material if you have sources to show the statements are false, and replace them with factual statements. Or come to the talk page and discuss what you feel needs to be supported, and indicate the nature of your concerns. Or suggest sources. In adding , you somehow added an extra period and quotation mark each time, which left cleanup for others to correct. I agree that the statements need to be supported by sources, but on the face, they don't appear to be absurd or frivolous. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your tact is enviable, Cynwolfe.--Wetman (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of Verifiability

message: The article claims that Ostia had 50,000 people in the 1st Century C.E. and 75,000 people in the 2nd Century C.E. I can't find areas for either period. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites says it had 64 hectares in the early 1st Century B.C.E.  Since Roman urban populations were usually less than 200/ha, that would imply less than 12,800 people in the early 1st Century B.C.E.. Lo Cascio, citing Morley's Metropolis and Hinterland, references an estimate of about 30,000 people, apparently for the 1st Century C.E.. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to remember Meiggs having an even higher estimate for that period. But I confess it's a long time ago that he was on my curriculum and he may also have become outdated on the question since then. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population estimates? 

message: Ostia Antica was NOT an ancient Roman city; Ostia was. We now call old Ostia "Ostia Antica", the ancient Romans just called it Ostia. Pls rewrite clarifying since when "antica" was added to the name, and the world will be forever grateful.
Minilogicus, alias Arminden (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's no longer a city, is it. It's just the remains of what once was a city. But yes, the name is a modern one for that site, so I have changed "was" to "is". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong title/lead