Talk:Ancient Roman architecture/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

The connections between Greek and Roman architecture are significant in this article and it is helpful for comparison between the two cultures. Is there a bias towards Roman culture because that is what the article is on? Should there be more greek references?Carolinefreeman (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)carolinefreeman

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carolinefreeman. Peer reviewers: Kathryndelillio.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Expansion

Could show the buildings' relevance to ancient Roman religion.

--125.238.72.26 23:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Recommend expanding with information from Ancient Rome like:

A characteristic feature of Roman design was the combined use of arches and post and lintel. Although unfired brick was employed in all periods of Roman history, under the Empire, baked bricks became popular as a facing for concrete walls. From early times, stucco was used as a finish for important buildings, and the invention of insulated glazing helped keep buildings, such as the public baths, warm. For the more luxurious finishing of exterior and interior walls, sheathings of alabaster, porphyry, and marble were used.

--Silence 07:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This article desperately needs pictures.

--203.59.154.251 17:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories, anyone?

I'm sure someone can fit this into some architecture-related or roman culture Category thing as much as I'm sure I cannot.

Sources?

There are no sources for this article. --Oshin 18:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The following text also appears on the blog https://www.alison-morton.com/2016/08/13/come-into-my-roman-garden/ : "Excavations in Pompeii show that gardens attaching to residences were scaled down to meet the space constraints of the home of the average Roman. As town houses were replaced by tall insulae (apartment buildings), these urban gardens were replaced by window boxes or roof gardens." Who knows which one was the original...--MyEnvironmentalClock (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

That text was added to this article in September 2014, when it was copied over from the article on Roman gardens. It was added to that article back in 2007. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Style

This article has a rather informal style. Unusual Cheese 11:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually like the style. It's very clear and concise, and directed toward a general audience, not just college professors or people with doctorates, as many Wiki articles are. Supernova190 (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"freed the floor plan from rectangular cells to a more free-flowing environment" does not explain the floor plan at all, does not explain how it is more "free-flowing",

"Insulae were often dangerous, unhealthy, and prone to fires because of overcrowding and haphazard cooking arrangements" - same as above, does not explain reason for overcrowding, nor does it explain what an "insulae" is.

"Roman architecture was often at its most beautiful and impressive" - what made it so beautiful?

"Ancient Roman architecture adopted certain aspects of Ancient Greek architecture" - what aspects were adopted?

i think i've pointed out a few problems with this style. Thetntm (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"Greek architecture was more impressive than the Romans"

I find this statement to be very ineffective; how is it more impressive? It also quotes 'Roman citizen Itilidad Trobulsky' who says "The designs were smarter thought out and better,", who is this man and why is he qualified to be quoted in an encyclopaedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseraf (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think something ought to be added about metal ties. One associates the Romans with iron ties in lead but I have seen Greek? bronze ties somewhere in Turkey of uncertain date. Sheredot (talk) 11:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved with no objection to recreating an article focused on the city if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Architecture of ancient Rome → Ancient Roman architecture – IMHO the present title is simply wrong. It clearly restricts itself to the ancient architecture found in the city of Rome only. However the subject of this article is the ancient Roman architecture built by the Roman people throughout the whole Roman Empire, whether Rome, Italy, Europe, North Africa or the Near East. The proposed title would also avoid any conflict between "ancient" and "Ancient" by having the word first and automatically capitalised. Flamarande (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC) PS: A credible alternative could be 'Roman architecture' (it would be a matter of more common name), but 'Architecture of ancient Rome' simply shouldn't be used.

• Support As I read it, the current title restricts the topic to the city, while the proposed title is about the architecture for Romans as a group. The article is obviously about the latter, although the former might also be a suitable topic for different article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

citations please

It was stated in a previous section of the talk page, but citations are incredibly important to improving an article's credibility, and should be a given in a historical article of an influential civilization.
Anyways, im adding more of these:
Thetntm (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very useful (yes, I am being sarcastic). A week on "Today's Articles for improvement" and the only changes are here. Wonderful. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It might be nice when such things are done to notify the relevant projects. G&R has thousands of articles under its aegis, and all editors with relevant expertise or interest may not watchlist them all. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Other language articles for translation

The articles on the jaWiki and euWiki might be good to mine for content. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 05:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Modern influences

I'm uneasy about the section title, 'Modern influences' as this to me implies modern influences on the architecture. Perhaps something like 'Influences on modern architecture'? Although this may be too long winded. --CSJJ104 (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

How about "Modern impact"? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but could still imply a modern impact on the subject matter --CSJJ104 (talk) 10:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking "Modern use". Below I also mention that there are very notable structures today that are exact copies of ancient structures. Not just the Vegas stuff at Caesars Palace but, universities have copies of a number of buildings and as John mentions below the Neoclassic structures could be mentioned as well as a few others. Many government buildings in several countries make use of the idea of the Comitium and the structures there as government centers today.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Full citations

Can people please be aware when adding citations that the works are recognisable from citation details. Things like: "Lechtman & Hobbs 1986" "Mark & Hutchinson 1986" really need the full details, e.g. book title etc, possibly listed under "Works cited" if they appear more than once. At the moment such areas of text where details aren't provided risk (justifiably or not) of being removed as uncited. Please see WP:CITEHOW for more information about what is required. --CSJJ104 (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the items you are referring to are references copied from other articles. I will make a greater effort to track down missing cite information if I am copying content from other articles. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 14:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

That is easy enough [1]. Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Further development of this article

Now that all the empty sections are filled in, I think we should work on improving overall quality by reducing unnecessary length. Since this is essentially an overview article, there are lots of sentences that can be removed from the building subsections. Once the length has been reduced a bit, I think we should focus on improving the lede, history section and modern influences section. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has helped quadruple the size of the article in a couple of weeks. I don't actually think it is excessively long overall, but the text is very uneven, with much copied in from a bunch of articles of very different quality levels. Apart from what you say, a read through and copyedit just for language would be good. Also ordering the refs alphabetically. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Roman architecture in the modern era?

Should we have a section for modern use of the Ancient Roman architecture? Copies of buildings etc.?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Not that. But we should have a section briefly trying to outline the vast legacy of Roman architecture through Byzantine, Romanesque, Renaissance and Neoclassical architecture, into the modern day. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes...that makes more sense. Although I think there could be some mention of structures today that are direct copies of or that make use of the ancient form. --Mark Miller (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The article lacks a history section, covering the developing scale and ambition of RA, then its decline. The sections probably need rearranging: I think the "features" are too high, the building types too low, and so on. Materials possibly are too high. I see there is actually a very short section on its influence on later architecture. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

B class article

While the other projects ratings are not something I feel I should change myself (well...perhaps Greece and Rome) I feel good enough about this article now to add the Rome project tag and add this as rated at B class as the main coordinator of that project. It is also of top importance to that project. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think B class might be a bit ambitious. A high quality C class perhaps, but I believe it lacks a little bit in the citation department to be a B class. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 06:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There are eight identified cases of citation needed, many additional paragraphs with no citations, one source identified as unreliable, while one source is tagged as self-published. I think the references need some more work for this to get B. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

error found

"After the end of gladiatorial games in the 69th century". This is clearly an error, or a vandalism 77.165.165.233 (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

fixed, thanks Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

vandalism?

"Some of the most impressive secular buildings are the amphitheatres, over 69 being known" and "but most were built under Imperial rule, from the Augustan period (69 BC–69 AD) onwards" The Augustan period was from 27 BC to 14 BC. Vandalism? 121.209.194.244 (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that, it was from this vandalism back in May 2015. I've fixed it now (you can also be bold and fix vandalism when you see it, by the way). - Evad37 [talk] 08:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)