Category talk:Ancient Roman temples in Rome

Old talk from Category talk:Temples of Rome

Renaming

I agree, in order to put it in line with the category about roman temples in the rest of Europe. --G.dallorto 14:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, because I'd like to distinguish roman temples in Rome from roman temples that referes to ancient romans elsewhere in the world. Imo it's better to have Temples of Rome as a category that is linked to rome and to Roman temples that is under category Romans. Furtheremore I don't catch the reason for the adjective ancient; are there any new temples in Rome? --mac 15:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume that you didn't investigate into this issue. Therefore, there are new temples in Rome. More generally, Ancient Roman is required because most temples in the world are buddhist temples or hindu temples. Rome indicates only the location: we can have Ancient Greek temples in Italy, and Ancient Roman temples in Greece. So, we must use precise designations. --Juiced lemon 16:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume you haven't red carefully. I've proposed to have both. Temples that are in rome (and only in rome) and roman temples that are elsewhere. This way it's possible to refer from rome to those temples there are only in rome ( it's a subset ) and from Roman temples to all the temples including the ones that are in Rome.

My goodnes, do you two have to dispute all the time? We are just trying to sort out the best way to arrange information, not to make war! Mac9, in Rome you also have the Jewish Temple, as you must know too well. Will you then put it together with PAGAN temples in the same category? Of course ANCIENT pagan temples and other MODERN types of temples should be distinguished. On the other side, I agree with you that "ancient roman" temples elsewhere must be put together, but this is why I favour "ancient roman" as a label. However, I don't want to argue, I shall wait for this discussion to come to a conclusion. --G.dallorto 22:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

---