Talk:Ancient Rome/Archive 1

1510:"The eastern empire, governed from Constantinople, is referred to as the Byzantine empire after 476 AD." Admittedly the phrase Byzantine Empire is one of modern day historiographical convenience, but it is worth noting that significant contemprary opinion regarding this label initiates its use after the reign of Heraclius and the rise of Islam, instead preferring 'Eastern Roman Empire' for the sixth century. Clearly there is a division between this view held by the likes of Mark Whittow and contrasting views like those of Ostrogorsky, but perhaps this should be relected. 31: 805:

government systems with descriptions of the historical periods could be tricky, and might bloat the sections unnecessarily. On the other hand, it could be just what that section needs to give a fuller understanding of the changes in Roman society; I don't know. So, should we rename "History" to "History and government"? Or leave it as "History", or what? Hmmm. Well, couldn't hurt to try. -

1896:. "because she dressed well and talked rather more freely and wittily than a young girl should." False: Livy specifically says she was put on trial for unchastity, although it was suggested by her dressing, etc. "She got off with a warning from the Pontifex Maximus": True. On balance the statement of this story is true, but it is simplistically and thus tendentiously written. 1021:, not necessarily a short-term goal) have the same sort of citations any other article has: at least one cite every couple of paragraps, and another citation wherever a disputable or unusual statement occurs (e.g., the claims that the Julio-Claudians after Augustus were seen as largely corrupt and depraved needs a cite). What about them doesn't work? Maybe we could try 1604:

periods; there were cash subsidies; there were special subsidies to parents of more than 3 children (apart from the Trajanic dole to children); etc., etc. It seems to have been more or less enough for the recipients and their dependents, but it's very hard to tie that down as was done in this edit. Such an addition needs to be written by an expert.

956:), and also allow us to significantly shorten (through summarization) the "Class structure" section on this page, helping reduce bloat on a very broad topic (it's not easy to cover 1200 years in a single article!). Plus I think there's a huge amount of information left on this topic that's not yet on Knowledge, such as information on the 713:

general historical followings after the end of the Roman Empire); we should be able to easily cut this number in half with judicious trimming and summarizing, moving information to subarticles, and merging sections together where subsectioning is unnecessary. As I see it, the sections should eventually look a little more like this: -

1710:), why have this relatively detailed treatment appear twice, identically, in two different articles? The importance of human sacrifice to the ancient Roman civilization, in the general scheme of things, was much less than that of many other facets of the civilization which get no such treatment in this article here; for example, 1335:. I'm saying latter option, "let's put it on peer review so it'll get wider attention again and more work will be put into it." I deffinetly think this can make FA status eventually, but not yet. It needs more more work, which i think a peer review will help with. but per your suggestion, it can wait a little while first. -- 1537:

I don't see any reason to say that the Roman Empire stopped existing in 476 unless you consider the Roman Empire to have ceased to exist in the East in 395, so I don't think the passage quoted up top is appropriate. Since most people think otherwise, I'm changing it to "...Constantinople, is usually

712:

I feel this article needs a major reorganization. There are currently 41 entries in the Table of Contents (more like 50 before I removed the "Legacy" section, which should be merged into the appropriate sections on culture, language, etc., leaving only possibly a short subsection of "History" for the

645:

Hi wikipedians! Thanks to the Improvement Drive (and due to that Ancient Rome is one of my great interests), I will try to contribute to this article. One thing I immediately noticed was that I think there are too few images - in my opinion every major section should have a suitable image. This makes

468:

Latin per se but from ecclesiastical Latin, or from medieval Latin (both of which were distinct from Latin as spoken during Roman times), or in some instances made up out of Latin roots by mid- to high-Renaissance English authors. I'd like to request comments on this, especially from Rick Norwood. --

265:

Whatever small documentary evidence we have and the general similarity of Roman architecture and customs to Etruscan indicate the Etruscans were in on the founding, perhaps even the only founders. In other words, the article begs the question. The whole point of the investigation concering the origin

1618:

There are some recent additions by 152.163.100.133 on human sacrifice that appear to be copy-and-pasted from another website -- verify for yourself by Googling on text from the addition. This is potentially interesting information, but I suspect that these additions ought to be deleted for copyright

631:"Roman" architecture is just Greek with small modifictions, similarly with Roman sculpture. Roman painting is a combination of Greek and Etruscan. In short, Rome was a tremendous influence -- but only by passing on forms developed in other cultures. Rome was not an innovator in art or literature. 630:

Roman history had a strong influence, but as the article notes, the only new artistic form that Rome developed was the satire or slapstick play (unless you count extreme sports). Victorians read Virgil because they knew Latin but not Greek, but Virgil imitated and actually copied from Greek epics.

620:

I have to say that I'm not in total agreement over the lack of cultural legacy that Rome gave us. To say that these have had little to no effect on the future generations is a fallacy, Roman literature had a strong effect on Victorian England which cannot be understated. It also looks really stupid

325:

while gibbons is the canon here the brevity with which he is dealt give somewhat false impression of the state of affairs here. the decline of rural lands was as much a force of taxation rules on cultivated land as all the other stated issues here, c.f. N.J.G.Pounds, which caused degredation of the

269:

But I must say, the issue is even more general. The earliest "Etruscologists" invented a whole migration of the Etruscan civilization from Anatolia to support the Aeneas myth. Archaeology battered down that tower long ago. The Etruscans were there before the Italics. Certainly, there were there long

1927:

I dont care wether this information is being challenged or not, the fact that there are two view points to this makes it important to have those two view points. Now I have just written a well informal section of Sacrifice, if you would like to add to it the second view of historians then do so, if

1603:

I undid the well-intentioned addition, because it is so one-dimensional (and in part, wrong) as to be very tendentious and, overall ,meaningless. Children had a special welfare system, for example, instituted by Trajan and expanded on by later emperors; the quantities varied a great deal in various

483:

I'm planning to make significant changes to the chapter about Roman republic. About half of the text in the current revision deals with the personal history of just two men, Julius Caesar and Augustus. While the two men where extremely important in the history of Rome, there are definitely too much

261:

Specifically, an early settlement by the Latins and Sabines followed by an Etruscan takeover is certainly not supported by any archaeology. This is the traditional story. There isn't much archaeology on the initial communities mainly because most of Rome is inaccessible to archaeologists. There's a

1726:

Again wether you have your own theories or Pesudo=Historical inquiry in the matter that best to leave it to yourself, Human Sacrifice an important aspect of early Roman Religion needs mention therefor, Again an important subject in Roman history which needs to be mentioned, just like its teck,eng,

1494:

You did well to check. No such thing.... Doubtless some modern historian said that the phrase was appropriate, which it is, to Rome's expansion. I'm not sure it's ancient; it was the motto of a 19c French general, though, who prolly got it from somewhere. Anyway, Rome had no such thing as a motto,

1437:

This is a general article on ancient Rome for an English encyclopedia: so I removed anything that was on some detailed facet of ancient Rome, or in a foreign language. Some of these smelled of sales boosting — translations of German biographies of Caesar, a Finnish book on consuls, etc. The Trojan

213:

I removed the chapter about Weddings. If we were to discuss all similar matters, such as funerals, religious rituals, triumphal processions etc, in such detail, the article would grow beyong all proportion. I only retained a brief summary about the weddings in the "Family" chapter. However, as the

181:

I think all the descriptions of buildings in the "Great Roman Buildings" and "Forum Romanum" section have no place in this article. This article is already far too wide-ranging and bloated, and there are already separate articles on Roman architecture and the Roman Forum, where these items are all

1806:

5c. Some Vestal Virgins were put to death, yes. It was by no means human sacrifice, but judicial execution for a religious crime. They were, for example, handed over not to a priest (priests performed sacrifices), but to the common executioner. Though these executions may look to some of us today

1759:

4. Why does human sacrifice deserve detailed exposition here, but fundamental topics such as slavery — far, far more important to Roman society thru the end of Antiquity — not? This is a summary article: balance is what is required. (And "The Romans did have...": Why "did have"? "had" is standard

1566:

Contrary opinion (see my user page): it is better in the long run not to revert any vandalism. The immense waste of time involved in reverting constant vandalism is far better used working on new material or significant edits. Reverting vandalism endlessly solves nothing: what needs to be done is

1321:

I welcome any attempts to spread knowledge of this article around so it can get more work done, though I'm already aware of dozens of shortcomings and problems with the current article as it stands, so if you're saying "let's put it on peer review because it's excellent and we're out of things to

1211:

fixed, is that the same item is repeated again and again in the footnotes, rather than listing each item only once and linking to that item on the list as many times as is necessary in the text, by using the {{ref_label|x|y|z}} templates I very carefully illustrated for you directly above. Please

675:

on this page? This article is called "Ancient Rome", not "Geography of Ancient Rome"; there's vastly more to know about Rome than where its boundaries happened to be at certain moments in time. Having more than one or two maps seems excessive when there are so many other aspects of Roman history,

434:

I'm also not entirely comfortable with the assertion that the reason that Latin is no longer widely spoken is because it relies more on inflection than syntax - that would mean that German is also no longer widely spoken... 100 Million German speakers would probably disagree... but I'll leave the

804:

Not a bad idea (and I'd considered it simply because currently both sections have subdivisions according to the Kingdom/Republic/Empire trichotomy, though the history subdivisions are vastly longer and more useful than the government ones), though finding a way to incorporate descriptions of the

273:

Was there an Aeneas? Did he come from Troy? Who knows. The archaeology supports a flourishing Etruscan maritime civilization before the founding of Rome, with settlements as far south as the Naples region and all the way north to the Alps. Let's not get too carried away by third year high school

1646:

Even "fixed", it's very poor and confused; plus isn't there an article on Roman religion, where this would belong rather than burden a quick synopsis of ancient Rome with these (somewhat prurient) details? From a Knowledge policy standpoint, that last sentence certainly has a whiff of "original

1042:

If you click on the note number in the text, it doesn't take you to the reference, and the order the references are organised in at the end makes it impossible to tell which reference refers to which. It's probably because there isn't a one-to-one relationship - several notes refer to Livy, for

239:

I think we should have a section discussing how Roman culture and history is being used today. There have been a lot of tv shows, HBO's 'ROME', for example; as well as video games (Rome: Total War) that are heavilyt based off of Roman history. Does anybody think that a "Roman History In Popular

817:

I think the problem is that Ancient Rome is too big a subject. This introductory article should be just that -- an introduction -- with the details in subsidiary articles such as Roman literature, the Roman Empire, Roman religion, and so on. But it would be a huge job to move details to the

1587:

That's my whole point. If enough of us refuse to revert, the articles will liquefy, and the boss of this outfit (Mr. Wales, whose word is law) will change the rules and make traceable registration required. 95% of all vandalism is from unregistered editors. But by reverting vandalism, we are

1441:

I removed the ancient references altogether, since there are many hundreds of books that might plausibly be put here. Absolutely major sources, for example, would include Appian, Dio, Dionysius, Polybius, the Historia Augusta, the works of Cicero. This is an article, not a reading list.

228:

Could I suggest that a small footer be included titled 'The Legacy of Rome', or something like that. Obvious the civilization has a huge effect on modern Western culture, more than most people realize (esp in civics and law). A section that ennumerates these contributions would be good.

1322:

work on and that's the next step in making it FAd", I disagree with that course of action; if you're saying "let's put it on peer review so it'll get wider attention again and more work will be put into it", I agree, though we should probably wait at least a little longer first. -

170:

My suggestion would be to treat them in a paragraph titled "Successor states" or something along those lines. Byzantine empire had a history, culture, administration, language, and religion so different from Roman Empire that I think it goes beyong the scope of this article.

509:

If I was to go ahead with this, I would need help from other people on the content, as I don't know too much about the subject matter - my motivation for doing this is because it seems to be needed, and I believe I can figure out the technical aspects of making it happen.

262:

little space in the forum, but they aren't going to remove any buildings there looking for prehistoric sites. The author of our article is just trying to give the credence of archaeology to the traditional story. If it doesn't fit, get rid of it. Any doubt, throw it out.

430:

I changed the bit about the majority of English words having Latin roots, since there are plenty of words that have Germanic/Saxon/Celtic/Proto-Indo-European roots. But I freely acknowledge the importance of Latin or successor language roots (lots of French, for one).

676:

art, society, etc. that are going unillustrated, and when there are already dozens of maps on this page's subarticles. Wouldn't an image of Romulus and Remus or something under the "Monarchy" history section be more useful and appealing to readers than a generic map? -

257:

The misconception concerns the founding of Rome. The facts have been twisted to support the story given in Vergil's Aeneid, which, because the poem is so good, seems to collect unthinking afficionados of its literal truth. It is in fact probably NOT literally true.

923:

This is not bad; but it's going to be hard separating (say) 'civil engineering' from 'military' and 'provinces and roads', or 'government' from 'class structure'. The basic idea is good, but we'll have to keep in mind the multiple references between sections. --

1852:

5h. "When the sixth king of Rome, Servius Tullius, expanded the walls of the city, four human victims were buried alive" — Four bodies have been found (I think, didn't check); but there is no indication they were buried alive, nor even that they were "victims" of

1928:

you would like to cite in there that there inaccuracy's BE MY GUEST. However if your here to censor information and cover up little doo dits you dont like then we call that Vandalisim and clearly a historical agenda and thats why iam reverting--Marduk

159:

How should this article treat the Byzantine empire. Arguably, it was the same country or state as the ancient Rome. Also, we shouldn't forget other countries/states that claimed to be the "new Rome", i.e. Holy Roman Empire, Russia, possibly others.

1957:

A criticism section is probably warranted. If it could be improved on what I wrote, that would be great. An article about a country that conquered and devastated as many nations as Rome cannot be complete without some form of a criticism section

1730:

If you would like to input a different prespective into the matter then do so but do not make deletions without a clear Reason cited why and that reason cant just be any old reason of I dont like it so iam going to boot it...-Signed Marduk

270:

before the founding of Rome. Their presence in the Aegean is related to their having been a maritime empire, as they were equally present widespread over the Med. The Italics moved in on this coastal civilization from over the mountains.

288:

The current version of the "Decline and fall" -section is very much centered on Gibbon. Perhaps it would need some more contemporary viewpoints? I'm mostly interested in the Republic, so somebody with real knowledge might update it.

1358:

The recent addition on the Roman economy is sourced and interesting, but the use of the word "advanced" is POV. I would like to see the author do a rewrite which states the kind of economy he means, instead of "advanced" economy.

1905:

5l. "but if a Vestal being slightly too fashionably dressed and witty led to her being tried, it's pretty clear that 'finding' a Vestal to sacrifice if the omens were bad or a major battle was lost wouldn't have been too hard."

2003: 1939:

article: it is right that something should be said about the topic there. It is pointless assuming, or projecting, hostility or censorship onto people you don't know, by the way: that usually makes one sound like a crackpot.

791:

I agree there are too many sections. I think the "government" section, which is broken down per historical period, should probably be merged with the relevant sections under "history", and "law" should go under "society".

542:

I would not like to become the sole maintainer. I would be willing to continue doing technical stuff, but selection of featured articles and suchlike should be done by somebody who can tell whether or not the content is

1000:

The footnote minilinks don't work the way they're currently set up. I think it's probably better for a summary article like this to just give a general bibliography, and source the detail articles in more detail.

598:"The Roman law formed the basis of most of the legal systems of Europe and her colonies for hundreds of years and has been the direct inspiration for the Senate of the United States and other modern nations" 1883:

5j."And it didn't take much for a Vestal to be accused of betraying her vows." Completely false; on the contrary, very few cases of such an accusation are attested, and it was a striking, unusual occurrence.

1089:

Is there some reason you refused to just answer my question when I asked you what wasn't working about the footnotes? I could have easily told you about footnote styles like the ones used in this line here.

579:

Oh yes! I definitely think there should be a portal for Ancient Rome, due to the huge number of articles and the incredible importance in history. I'd be happy to help out. My warm regards, Dennis Nilsson.

566:. Please feel free to copy this notice to other places where it might be noticed by knowledgeable people. I will be away for the next few days, and will pick up discussions early next week at the latest. 1400:

Welcome to Knowledge! I have a feeling if there was more information on shopping in Rome, it'd probably be present in this article. I never thought of Ancient Rome as a large shopping centre, though...

1588:

perpetuating the system that allows it: in sum, the system currently relies on peons to keep the articles clean, rather than on intelligence, and if you are reverting vandalism, you are being used.

1665:

there is a vote taking place perhaps you would like to contribute of course I would like to think your view will be the same here and there but then again, who knows... -signed Marduk the hero XD

1866:

College of Priests". There were many colleges of priests. "College of Pontiffs" is meant. (2) bad omens occurred very frequently, most did not lead to the consulting of the Sibylline Books. (3)

1025:

them rather than expunging them from the article; footnotes are remarkably useful in historical topics, not only for references, but also for providing external links and relevant sidenotes. -

1862:

5i. "Bad omens led the College of Priests to consult the Sybilline Books why the Manes might be displeased." — Four separate mistakes in this single sentence: (1) There was no such thing as "

444:

We should add that Latin continued in use as the language of learning and science long afterwards. Not sure when scientists started publishing in their own languages though. The Enlightment?

1013:

Not a good idea if we want this to have a shot at Featured article some months down the line; a comprehensive, lengthy list of footnotes isn't an absolute requirement, but it is certainly a

1577:

Annoying it may be, Bill, but we still need to revert -- otherwise we may as well not have any articles. This one is currently in a mess because vandalism hasn't been promptly reverted. —

192:

I think a section on construction and engineering is missing yet crucial. When I think of Ancient Rome, I think of roads, aqueducts, sanitation and massive buildings like the coliseum. --

2012: 601:

The name Senate came from Roman government, not Roman Law. See the main article on Roman Law. Nothing there providing support for a relationship between Roman Law and the US Senate.

1673:

for others to judge; I'm not fighting the reversion — I guess I don't really care if Knowledge looks amateurish, thank God it's not my site — but at least the corrections of spelling (

1528:

Its also worth noting that its a completely artificial term; the "Byzantines" still referred to themselves as Romans even as the Turks were banging down the gates to Constantinople.

1182:

Is there some reason you refused to read my answer to your question? The notes on Chavez are one-to-one and in the same order in botn text and footnotes, which they weren't here. --

266:

of Rome is to try and find evidence settling such questions. They aren't settled yet. We shouldn't mislead the public. Let's present the question, not the prejudice that led to it.

1465:

OK, why don't you assemble a classic bibliography (the best of the ancients, then Burckhardt, Carcopino, Mommsen, Tenney Frank, Platner-Ashby, Steinby, etc. and a good list)?

1661:

Bill I commend you, your view is that because it doesent belong there as the article is a quick synopsis is in fact very good citing. Could I direct your attention here then

1413: 145:

I have now completely changed the "religion" section of the article. Please help me to improve it, especially with spelling :-) The table that was there can now be found at

1393:

Hi! I am 12 years old and I need some information on shopping in Ancient Rome for a guide-book I am doing for homework! And I need it by 3-1-06 (Friday 3rd January 2006).

1284: 970:

Good idea. It's a big topic and deserves representation, and to give it the representation it needs would unbalance this article (which it's already threatening to do). --

182:

covered far better. I recommend deleting those sections entirely. At most, perhaps have a bare list of the items, with links to the full articles on each. Any objections?

1913:

Conclusion: A pared down, tightened up version of this, with the typos and errors of fact and English corrected or removed, is fine. In which article is a judgment call.

985:, copied the original section there and put up verify and expansion requests, and cut the section here down a bit. I'm collecting my sources to expand the new article. -- 135:

temples, persons, cities (other than Rome itself), technologies, works of literature etc. If we were to do that, the article would soon grow out of all proportion. --

1432: 1552:

Please get involved in reprting vandalism done to this page, since recently some keep erasing and inserting nonesense words. Make sure you warn the users first in

488:. Therefore I'm goingt to significantly shorten the part about late republic, while adding modest quantities of material to the part about the earlier period. -- 254:

The section on monarchy contains a bad misconception, which I propose to correct. If no one has anything to add or does it first I will do it within a few days.

1538:

referred to..." Is this appropriate? It just seems somewhat POV to me, especially on a topic often discussed by historians and not really "resolved" at all.

656:

I have now researched images for Ancient Rome and managed to add reasonably suitable ones to all major section. Hope they are to your satisfaction. Regards, --

299:

I have no problem with contemporary views but Gibbon should be included since there is no definite view. This would show how views have changed from his time.

1446: 484:

details about them concidering the long history of the Republic. Also the chapter is quite long when it should essentially be a summary of the main article,

85:

This article was chosen as Article Improvement Drive article of the week on Sunday, 11th December 2005. The archive of the selection process can be found at

1740:

1. No objection to reporting on Roman human sacrifice. It did exist, if in historical times rare, and in prehistoric times (by definition) is hard to prove.

1961: 1807:

like human sacrifice, this is an example of ahistorical bias: the ancients themselves did not consider them sacrifices. "To placate the Goddess" is false.

497: 1923:

Those are all good points, as much as Id like to debate and discuss historical inquiry's I only have about 10 more minutes, so iam going to say this:

1043:

example. They need to be reorganised so that each reference has one footnote, and the footnotes are in the same order as the references in the text. --

818:

appropriate sub-article (or make sure they were already there) and it would take a judicious hand to evaluate what is introductory and what is detail.

552: 699: 660: 1974: 573: 1567:

pressure the powers that be to force traceable registration in order to edit; at which point most of the vandalism will dry up pretty permanently.

2029: 1718: 1245: 1186: 1068: 478: 110:

This is an excellent COTW. Such an important topic but so little information on the most important page about it. I'll start working on it :-) --

1834:

5f. "apparently in memory of an earlier practice where young boys were sacrificed in this way — "apparently", etc.: unsubstantiated speculation.

1825:

5e. "(binding and drowning human victims being another ancient Indo-European practice)" — Why "another"? no IE practice has yet been mentioned.

690: 584: 2046: 1935:

Good, then we are in agreement. Your additions, checked for accuracy and grammar and spelling, and tightened up a bit, are to be found in the

1382: 492: 1874:. (4) the SB were consulted not to see why the Manes might be displeased, but which god(s) might be displeased. It was usually not the Manes. 1270: 1220: 1161: 1047: 1029: 989: 974: 809: 506:, which is a disambiguation page and has nearly 400 links pointing to it from articles (not counting the ones from Talk or Knowledge pages). 406: 389: 1592: 1522: 1343: 1326: 316: 303: 1633: 1469: 1456: 1944: 1917: 1693: 1655: 1571: 1532: 928: 415: 206: 964: 101:

Moved the downfall up. The history sections should be connected. Ideally, this article should resemble that of a modern nation I think.

1754:

3. Identical text should not be in two different related articles; pick one and stick with it. The narrower article seems better to me.

1542: 1499: 1426: 1064:

Okay, they work now. Now we need to put in which particular chapter or page reference of, say, Tuomisto, applies to which footnote. --

333:

I completely rewrote the "Decline" -chapter to briefly summarise all the viewpoints given in the main article. I hope you approve. --

1623: 439: 337: 175: 153: 92:

Don't delete, I dont' have the time to start the article but it is the current COTW. For those who do look at the Ancient Rome list.

686:

I agree. I couldn't find any better suitable image, and your suggestion is much better. I will try to find Romulus and Remus... --

1608: 1005: 936: 473: 1964: 1295: 1505: 607: 451: 1735:

The reasons are clear; you obviously are not reading them, so I'll list them here, one by one, so you can't avoid seeing them.

244: 1984: 1613: 233: 376: 196: 822: 595:

what is the basis for the 2nd half of the following statement regarding the relationship of Roman Law and the US Senate?

1706:

fighting the reversion. Aside from the merits of the addition (which is looking worse every minute, see the Talk page of

796: 517:

It needs a suitable name. I'm thinking "Ancient Rome", but there may be other options. My intention would be to redirect

351: 186: 1363: 1313: 293: 222: 164: 139: 86: 1998: 1477: 650: 362: 326:

status of colonii to that of near slave. would also be nice to see a section on roman influence in the fuedal manse.

635: 521:

to the portal so that every vague reference and accidental linkage to "the Romans" would end up in a suitable place.

1388: 831: 524:

I think it would be appropriate to include Byzantium, and maybe Ancient Greece if it doesn't already have a "home".

1372: 411:

I just added the first references. I will not rest before Ancient Rome is a featured article, so please help be! -

1581: 590: 278: 1560: 1378:

The adjective "advanced" does not really convey any information, only an opinion. Can't you be more specific?

952:

pages dealing with this topic, and would centralize information on numerous currently-existing articles (like

680: 425: 458:"thus most modern English words directly derived from Roman Latin are religious, legal, or scientific terms 1598: 995: 982: 944:

Or any similar title, if anyone has any suggestions. This article would be based on the text currently on

1266:

Still no response? Joy. We'll just have to wait until you're willing to actually discuss the footnotes. -

105: 76: 71: 66: 2008:

Do we have to have this huge table in the middle of the article? It makes the article appear cluttered.

96: 1452:

The German biography of Caesar is actually a classic. IMHO it can and should be used as a reference. --

38: 646:

it far more appealing to the average reader. I will try to go about it. My regards, Dennis Nilsson. --

240:

Culture" section would be a good idea? Perhaps only a few sentences, but it seems worth mentioning. --

114: 1952: 1157:

for an example of a article with a lengthy and in-depth, but very well-organized, footnote section. -

1936: 1746: 1707: 1670: 367: 283: 122: 949: 563: 355: 214:

information originally in the "Weddings" paragraph was relevant and usefull, I created the page

2022: 1422: 960:

of low classes in Rome, who are dramatically underrepresented in the history books. Thoughts? -

562:

I am interested in opinions on this idea, and I invite discussion on the topic at my test page

536: 345: 215: 1970:

How about merging the Criticism section with Scholarly studies under the e.g. Criticism name?

502:

Hi folks, I'm contemplating the possibility of creating a portal for Ancient Rome, to replace

1843:

5g. "In this way the Romans also had a tradition of Child Sacrifice." Completely unattested.

1651:(I fixed that), persisted in despite editing, suggests that the rest ain't so great either. 1341: 1311: 1293: 707: 456:

I have a concern which I'll also take up with the poster who made the following alteration

401: 621:

saying that the cultural legacy was small when there is an entire subsection on it later.

8: 1989: 1486:("with sword and plow"). The book claims it to be the another motto of the Ancient Rome. 1300: 436: 953: 938: 696: 687: 657: 647: 581: 448: 386: 2019: 1971: 1893: 1547: 1519: 1416: 1402: 1379: 1360: 1353: 819: 632: 548: 300: 241: 47: 17: 1154: 394:

Well in that case, lets look into referances that back up what this article says. --

1941: 1914: 1727:

and base out military Human Sacrifice and its religious practise needs to mention

1715: 1690: 1652: 1605: 1589: 1568: 1515: 1496: 1466: 1443: 1242: 1183: 1065: 1044: 1002: 986: 971: 793: 556: 464:

In my understanding, modern English words derived directly from Latin are not from

230: 2009: 2004:

Demographic outlines in the 6th century BC—1st century AD (the city of Rome area)

1981: 1630: 1529: 1438:

Origin was one of literally many tens of thousands of similar small papers. Etc.

1336: 1306: 1288: 925: 470: 395: 373: 275: 202:

Agree. I created the relevant headlines. Hopefully somebody will add material. --

193: 146: 1892:

5k."Livy tells the story of a Vestal called Postumia who was put on trial" True

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

640: 624: 615: 485: 128: 1745:

2. I objected so little to the general principle, that I moved the section to

1995: 1662: 1287:, might make our lives slightly easier. in particular with citing sources. -- 445: 383: 102: 2043: 1539: 1487: 1369: 1332: 1323: 1267: 1217: 1158: 1026: 961: 945: 806: 714: 677: 666: 570: 249: 93: 1689:), slight copyedits, and commented-out alerts should be allowed to stand. 1816:

5d. After Cannae, 2 Greek and 2 Gauls were sacrificed, but not 2 Vestals.

1620: 1578: 604: 183: 1553: 1453: 1305:

i'm thinking this article is ready for a peer review. any objections?--

828: 489: 412: 359: 334: 313: 290: 219: 203: 172: 161: 150: 136: 111: 1557: 1994:

My apologies - I reverted to the wrong edit by mistake...oops... --

1368:

I stated that it is a point of view of many economic historians. --

1412: 1980:

Excuse my denseness, but why is a criticism section necessary?

518: 274:

Latin courses. You professional Roman citizens, where are you?

131:. I would suggest that this article is not a place to discuss 2018:

I think we should. Otherwise I'll put it somewhere else :P --

532: 503: 1669:

I'd removed this garbage and put it on the narrower article

372:

Does anyone think that this can become a featured article.--

2042:. I'm surprised it lasted on this page as long as it did. - 1241:

Okay. Step back. The article's yours, life's too short. --

127:

The current version has a section concerning the the

460:

consciously borrowed from their use by Roman authors

1514:This technicality seems more suited to the article 1207:.. You really don't get it. The problem, which you 671:Does anyone else think it's a huge mistake to have 1556:, but they continue, do go ahead and report them. 1629:I thought it read like a report I say nuke it. 1331:Oh, i know we're not out of things to work on 1017:on nominations. An article like this should ( 1112: 1106: 1102: 1140:Should have an E, but alas, 'tisn't there. 382:The lack of references will be a problem. 1714:, which gets the barest passing mention. 1136: 1125: 1113: 1107: 1433:Pruning of "References" section, Feb 06 1121: 479:Scope of the treatment of Roman history 14: 1894:(iv.44, toward the end of the section) 547:For examples of existing portals, see 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1749:despite disagreeing with the detail. 1126: 354:to mine for stuff, but there's also 25: 435:rewrite to someone else for now... 358:, which partly overlaps with this. 352:list of Ancient Rome-related topics 23: 87:Talk:Ancient Rome/AID vote archive 24: 2060: 1639:Its fixed now, have fun with it. 498:Should there be a "Roman" portal? 1411: 539:, which is currently a redirect. 29: 1765:5. Now for the matters of fact: 1132:Neque porro quisquam est qui do 218:and move the material there. -- 1647:research" to it. The error on 1543:20:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC) 1506:Transition to Byzantine Empire 1490:17:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 627:22:14, 13 December 2005 (GMT) 555:, and many more are listed at 13: 1: 1614:Human sacrifice contributions 1500:17:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 1447:16:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 1271:10:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 1246:17:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 1221:13:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 1187:12:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 1162:11:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 1069:11:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 1048:11:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 1030:10:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 1006:10:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 990:22:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 975:17:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 965:15:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 929:17:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 832:15:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 823:15:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 810:09:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 797:08:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 700:07:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 691:07:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 681:05:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 661:03:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 651:01:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 636:13:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 608:06:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 585:05:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 574:21:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC) 474:01:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 452:21:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC) 440:20:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC) 416:18:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC) 338:19:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC) 279:15:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 245:03:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 234:06:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 223:09:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC) 207:09:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC) 2038:Then, obviously, you should 1619:reasons. Any reason not to? 1383:21:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC) 1373:19:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC) 1364:14:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC) 983:Social class in ancient Rome 981:I've created a new article, 493:07:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC) 187:20:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 7: 1344:04:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 1327:03:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 1314:01:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 1296:01:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 1216:, so we can move forward. - 827:How about this variation? 535:would probably be moved to 10: 2065: 1975:21:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC) 1965:17:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 1945:19:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC) 1918:15:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC) 1719:22:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 1694:17:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 1656:23:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC) 1634:03:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC) 1624:00:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC) 1609:20:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 1572:20:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 1561:01:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC) 1533:05:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 1523:16:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC) 1470:11:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC) 1457:05:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC) 1427:13:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC) 2047:05:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 2030:13:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 1482:I've read recently about 1478:Supposed unofficial motto 1214:actually read what I said 1153:I recommend checking out 407:18:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC) 390:14:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 377:14:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 2013:18:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC) 1999:16:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1985:09:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC) 1937:Religion in ancient Rome 1793:is a typo. It should be 1776:is a typo. It should be 1747:Religion in ancient Rome 1708:Religion in ancient Rome 1671:Religion in ancient Rome 1593:10:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1582:07:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1389:Shopping In Ancient Rome 363:02:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC) 317:14:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC) 304:13:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC) 294:06:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC) 197:16:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC) 176:14:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC) 165:13:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC) 154:15:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC) 140:06:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC) 115:04:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC) 106:22:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC) 97:17:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC) 1495:official or otherwise. 950:Culture of ancient Rome 591:Roman Law and US Senate 564:User:LesleyW/RomePortal 527:Other uses of the word 356:Culture of Ancient Rome 1518:than to this article. 537:Roman (disambiguation) 513:Some possible issues: 216:Ancient Roman marriage 2040:put it somewhere else 1642:Yours truly --Marduk 426:Latin Language Legacy 42:of past discussions. 1599:Roman welfare system 996:References/Footnotes 531:currently listed on 1702:Changed my mind. I 866:Provinces and roads 954:Equestrian (Roman) 939:Roman social class 1953:Criticism Section 1425: 1419: 1409: 1405: 1396:PLEASE HELP!!!!! 1155:Hugo Chávez#Notes 911:Civil engineering 549:Portal:Egyptology 82: 81: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 18:Talk:Ancient Rome 2056: 2026: 1516:Byzantine empire 1421: 1417: 1415: 1407: 1403: 1339: 1309: 1291: 1139: 1130: 1124: 1117: 1111: 1105: 557:Category:Portals 553:Portal:Star Trek 404: 398: 368:Featured Article 284:Decline and fall 123:What to include? 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2064: 2063: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2024: 2006: 1992: 1955: 1616: 1601: 1550: 1508: 1480: 1435: 1391: 1356: 1337: 1307: 1303: 1289: 998: 942: 874:Class structure 751:Class structure 710: 669: 643: 618: 593: 500: 481: 428: 402: 396: 370: 348: 286: 252: 147:Roman mythology 125: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2062: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2033: 2032: 2005: 2002: 1991: 1988: 1978: 1977: 1954: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1930: 1929: 1921: 1920: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1767: 1766: 1762: 1761: 1756: 1755: 1751: 1750: 1742: 1741: 1737: 1736: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1697: 1696: 1683:Pons Sublicius 1675:Feriae Latinae 1659: 1658: 1649:Feriae Latinae 1637: 1636: 1615: 1612: 1600: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1575: 1574: 1549: 1546: 1526: 1525: 1507: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1484:ense et aratro 1479: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1460: 1459: 1434: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1390: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1355: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1302: 1299: 1285:check this out 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1142: 1141: 1134: 1119: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 997: 994: 993: 992: 978: 977: 941: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 918: 917: 916: 915: 912: 906: 905: 904: 901: 898: 895: 892: 886: 885: 884: 881: 878: 875: 869: 868: 867: 864: 861: 858: 852: 851: 850: 847: 844: 841: 815: 814: 813: 812: 789: 788: 785: 784: 783: 777: 776: 775: 772: 769: 766: 760: 759: 758: 755: 752: 749: 743: 742: 741: 735: 734: 733: 730: 727: 724: 709: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 668: 665: 664: 663: 642: 639: 617: 614: 612: 592: 589: 588: 587: 545: 544: 540: 525: 522: 499: 496: 486:Roman Republic 480: 477: 437:YggdrasilsRoot 427: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 369: 366: 347: 346:Other articles 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 328: 327: 322: 321: 320: 319: 307: 306: 285: 282: 251: 248: 237: 226: 211: 210: 209: 190: 179: 178: 157: 156: 124: 121: 119: 80: 79: 74: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2061: 2048: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2031: 2028: 2027: 2021: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2011: 2001: 2000: 1997: 1987: 1986: 1983: 1976: 1973: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1963: 1962:63.173.47.193 1959: 1946: 1943: 1938: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1919: 1916: 1912: 1911: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1895: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1764: 1763: 1758: 1757: 1753: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1743: 1739: 1738: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1728: 1720: 1717: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1695: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1664: 1663:Talk:Carthage 1657: 1654: 1650: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1640: 1635: 1632: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1622: 1611: 1610: 1607: 1594: 1591: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1580: 1573: 1570: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1559: 1555: 1545: 1544: 1541: 1535: 1534: 1531: 1524: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1501: 1498: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1489: 1485: 1471: 1468: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1458: 1455: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1445: 1439: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1414: 1410: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1394: 1384: 1381: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1371: 1366: 1365: 1362: 1345: 1342: 1340: 1334: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1325: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1312: 1310: 1298: 1297: 1294: 1292: 1286: 1272: 1269: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1247: 1244: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1222: 1219: 1215: 1210: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1188: 1185: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1163: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1138: 1135: 1133: 1129: 1128: 1123: 1120: 1116: 1115: 1110: 1109: 1104: 1101: 1100: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1070: 1067: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1049: 1046: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1031: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1004: 991: 988: 984: 980: 979: 976: 973: 969: 968: 967: 966: 963: 959: 955: 951: 947: 940: 937:New article: 930: 927: 922: 921: 920: 919: 914:Ship building 913: 910: 909: 907: 902: 899: 896: 893: 890: 889: 887: 882: 879: 876: 873: 872: 870: 865: 862: 859: 856: 855: 853: 848: 845: 842: 839: 838: 836: 835: 834: 833: 830: 825: 824: 821: 811: 808: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 795: 786: 781: 780: 778: 773: 770: 767: 764: 763: 761: 756: 753: 750: 747: 746: 744: 739: 738: 736: 731: 728: 725: 722: 721: 719: 718: 717: 716: 701: 698: 694: 693: 692: 689: 685: 684: 683: 682: 679: 674: 662: 659: 655: 654: 653: 652: 649: 638: 637: 634: 628: 626: 622: 613: 610: 609: 606: 602: 599: 596: 586: 583: 578: 577: 576: 575: 572: 567: 565: 560: 558: 554: 550: 541: 538: 534: 530: 526: 523: 520: 516: 515: 514: 511: 507: 505: 495: 494: 491: 487: 476: 475: 472: 467: 463: 461: 454: 453: 450: 447: 442: 441: 438: 432: 417: 414: 410: 409: 408: 405: 399: 393: 392: 391: 388: 385: 381: 380: 379: 378: 375: 365: 364: 361: 357: 353: 339: 336: 332: 331: 330: 329: 324: 323: 318: 315: 311: 310: 309: 308: 305: 302: 298: 297: 296: 295: 292: 281: 280: 277: 271: 267: 263: 259: 255: 247: 246: 243: 236: 235: 232: 225: 224: 221: 217: 208: 205: 201: 200: 199: 198: 195: 189: 188: 185: 177: 174: 169: 168: 167: 166: 163: 155: 152: 148: 144: 143: 142: 141: 138: 134: 130: 120: 117: 116: 113: 108: 107: 104: 99: 98: 95: 90: 89: 88: 78: 75: 73: 70: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2039: 2023: 2007: 1993: 1979: 1960: 1956: 1922: 1906:Speculation. 1871: 1867: 1863: 1794: 1790: 1777: 1773: 1729: 1725: 1711: 1703: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1660: 1648: 1641: 1638: 1617: 1602: 1576: 1551: 1536: 1527: 1520:Rick Norwood 1509: 1483: 1481: 1440: 1436: 1395: 1392: 1380:Rick Norwood 1367: 1361:Rick Norwood 1357: 1304: 1283: 1213: 1208: 1137: 1131: 1127: 1122: 1114: 1108: 1103: 1022: 1018: 1014: 999: 957: 946:Ancient Rome 943: 897:Architecture 826: 820:Rick Norwood 816: 790: 782:Architecture 711: 708:Organization 672: 670: 644: 633:Rick Norwood 629: 623: 619: 611: 603: 600: 597: 594: 568: 561: 546: 528: 512: 508: 501: 482: 465: 459: 457: 455: 443: 433: 429: 371: 350:There's the 349: 301:Vincent Gray 287: 272: 268: 264: 260: 256: 253: 242:Ironchef8000 238: 227: 212: 191: 180: 158: 132: 126: 118: 109: 100: 91: 84: 83: 60: 43: 37: 1301:peer review 1243:Nicknack009 1184:Nicknack009 1066:Nicknack009 1045:Nicknack009 1003:Nicknack009 987:Nicknack009 972:Nicknack009 908:Technology 794:Nicknack009 779:Technology 737:Government 231:Ericcjensen 36:This is an 2010:Whispering 1982:pookster11 1687:*Suplicius 1679:*Latinatae 1631:Whispering 1554:good faith 1530:pookster11 1338:ZeWrestler 1308:ZeWrestler 1290:ZeWrestler 926:MatthewDBA 903:Literature 857:Government 768:Literature 697:Dna-Dennis 688:Dna-Dennis 658:Dna-Dennis 648:Dna-Dennis 582:Dna-Dennis 471:MatthewDBA 397:ZeWrestler 374:ZeWrestler 133:individual 1990:vandalism 1872:Sybilline 1868:Sibylline 1853:anything. 1791:Latinatae 1778:Sublicius 1774:Suplicius 1760:writing.) 1548:Vandalism 1354:Advanced? 883:Education 757:Education 673:four maps 625:LordHilly 543:accurate. 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 1996:Chrisd87 894:Religion 891:Language 888:Culture 871:Society 863:Military 843:Republic 840:Monarchy 837:History 787:Military 774:Religion 765:Language 762:Culture 745:Society 726:Republic 723:Monarchy 720:History 695:Done. -- 446:Fornadan 384:Fornadan 312:Agree -- 129:Pantheon 103:Fornadan 2044:Silence 1795:Latinae 1712:slavery 1540:Nyttend 1404:THIS IS 1370:RafaelG 1333:Silence 1324:Silence 1268:Silence 1218:Silence 1209:haven't 1159:Silence 1027:Silence 1019:ideally 962:Silence 877:Economy 807:Silence 748:Economy 715:Silence 678:Silence 571:LesleyW 94:Falphin 39:archive 1870:, not 1685:, not 1677:, not 1621:Mlouns 1579:Donama 1488:Alitus 1423:(TALK) 1023:fixing 958:lowest 880:Family 854:State 849:Legacy 846:Empire 754:Family 732:Legacy 729:Empire 641:Images 616:Legacy 605:Hmains 519:Romans 184:Mlouns 2025:спойт 2020:Brand 1972:Brand 1454:Chino 1418:OCKER 1408:ESSED 829:Zocky 533:Roman 529:Roman 504:Roman 490:Chino 466:Roman 413:Chino 360:Zocky 335:Chino 314:Chino 291:Chino 220:Chino 204:Chino 194:Johny 173:Chino 162:Zocky 151:Chino 137:Chino 112:Chino 16:< 1942:Bill 1915:Bill 1789:5b. 1772:5a. 1716:Bill 1691:Bill 1653:Bill 1606:Bill 1590:Bill 1569:Bill 1558:Zmmz 1497:Bill 1467:Bill 1444:Bill 1015:boon 948:and 667:Maps 403:Talk 276:Dave 250:Rise 149:. -- 1864:the 1118:Yo. 900:Art 860:Law 771:Art 740:Law 449:(t) 387:(t) 1704:am 1681:; 1001:-- 792:-- 569:-- 559:. 551:, 462:." 289:-- 229:-- 171:-- 1797:. 1780:. 1406:M 1401:— 400:| 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index