Disputatio:Londinium (urbs Romana)

Titulus

I think this is the first such article we have -- how nice that it is for a city on the very edge of the (Roman) world!

I wonder whether, since it's setting a precedent, a better title might be Londinium (urbs Romana). I don't think it makes any odds in this case, but, e.g. for Roma or Lutetia, we might want (a) the Roman city, (b) the Roman goddess, (c) the modern city. So then we'd have Lutetia (urbs Romana), Lutetia (dea Romana), Lutetia. What do you think? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:51, 29 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a very good proposal.--Rafaelgarcia 10:21, 29 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought to connect a "neutrum" with a "neutrum", but Londinium urbs Romana is, of course, also correct, so no objections from me. --Alex1011 11:11, 29 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean. I think that our usual practice is, if the two words are in a grammatical relationship with one another, not to use the parentheses (and this is different from de:wiki, for example, which seems to use parentheses in a rather different way, as does German technical prose).

So that would give Londinium Romanum, and nothing wrong with that heading that I can see. But, again, Lutetia Romana wouldn't do (because it might mean the goddess or the city), and Roma Romana wouldn't do (because it doesn't disambiguate: Rome is always Roman), and Ad Confluentes Romanos wouldn't do. That's what set me thinking about precedents, and the best form to use for all our future articles about Roman cities -- of which this is the first! It seemed to me that ... (urbs Romana) would do for all those cases.

Since there are no objections, I'll move it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:37, 29 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]