From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Classical League; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. |
|
 B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Top |
This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
/Archive1 (2005-2007)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
-
- "Classical civilisation is merely a redirect to Ancient history. Maybe it shouldn't be, but that's the current status." Well, the point is that it shouldn't be. Current status is not relevant. Can you point to these 'multiple reversions' - I can't find them.--Nema Fakei 13:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - The page was here a lot longer than the portal. Rename the portal if there's a problem with names matching up. Bacchiad 15:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Consider also that there's a category Classical Studies (and, as of about a day ago, Classical antiquity as well, courtesy of Mr Simpson, but I think that's complicating matters). Do we rename it Classical antiquity, Civilisation, or what?--Nema Fakei 17:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- The operative words are if there's a problem with names matching up. WTF is the problem with keeping the article as is? The article, as I said, has been doing just fine for quite a while without the categories and certainly without the portal. Why do any of these Johnny-Come-Latelies necessitate a name change? Bacchiad 03:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
Just to keep all the discussion in one place on the proposed merge, please discuss it on the Greco-Roman talk page.
- Disagree: I don't like that because stuff happened during this time in other parts of the world at this time. Cameron Nedland 23:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Disagree: There should be an "Ancient History" article with links to particular parts of the world and this article should be renamed "Greco-Roman history" and get a redirect from "classical antiquity" since no one uses "classical antiquity" to describe anything other than Greco-roman history.
[edit] Economics of Antiquity
Ran across this Prehistoric Origins European Economic Integration on Reddit today; has some interesting stuff about the economics of antiquity. OptimistBen (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] World wide view
There is currently a tag on this page complaining that this article does not present a world wide view of the topic. I respectfully suggest that this is silly. The scope of the article is clearly stated in the intro section as limited to the Mediterranean world. I suggested we add a see also section directing readers to articles describing the same time period in different parts of the world --ErinHowarth (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
