Talk:Roma

I had an idea for improving disambig pages in general; my current edit to Roma is a proof of concept. Please feel free to improve on it, or even revert it if you don't feel it's an improvement over the original, and please do post your comments/ideas/etc at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Thank you! --Ashenai 12:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the table format of the disambiguated links- I like it. It is much better than the usual plain lists. The graphic elements on the left are particularly appealing. Slainté, P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 21:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea. It does, however, put a greater load on the servers, to call up all the associated images. •DanMS 19:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

typo

"Ancient Rome, the capital of the ancient Roman Emprie" There is a typo. it should be "empire" instead of "emprie" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.103.172 (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Romani people AND Romani language?!?

I agree that neither of these articles have to do with the Italian and Latin name of the city of Rome, but that doesn't mean that the word "Roma" could not be indicating the Romani people/language. Certainly there are plenty of people who call the Romani people "Roma" or "Rroma" (stress on the second syllable, not the first, for both words). It seems as if there are some who also call the language Roma (such as the editor who took out the link to Romani language!).

Yes, "Roma" is the Italian and Latin name of the city of Rome, but it also happens to be the name of a Brazilian football team, three films, an opera, a type of rice, a type of tomato...not all of which get their name directly from the word for "Rome." The Brazilian football team, for example, gets its name from the name of the founder's Italian mother, Romilda Antonini. Better yet the Colonia Roma, which, as the article states, does not get its name "from the Italian city, but from a small village" that used to be called Aztacalco before the Spanish renamed it.

So why remove these pages from the article? --Kuaichik (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this article back to its original version as well. Note that another Malayali user has also added an actress whose name happens to be Roma (although I'm a bit surprised the article title isn't "Roma Asrani"). Her name does not necessarily have anything to do with "Rome," either; if I remember correctly, there is a Sanskrit-derived word for "hair" that is a similar word (rOmam, perhaps?). --Kuaichik (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

then the line "italian and latin" name will be removed Adrianzax (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? You're the only person who has said there is any sort of problem with that line. It is not false to say that "Roma" is the Italian and Latin name for Rome. It's just that that's not the only thing it is.

I think that a neutral third-party opinion is necessary before we can finally come to such a decision. That means someone else entirely, not just someone who supports your opinions or my opinions.

On Wikipedia, there is no hurry for such things. Why not wait until someone else comes along and gives their own opinion? --Kuaichik (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Badly needs cleanup

This page is all very nice, and many people put a lot of effort into it, but it seems too fancy for a DAB page. Go to WP:DAB and get some good tips on fixing it. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]