Talk:List of Latin place names in Continental Europe, Ireland and Scandinavia

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Europe Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Real names on cities and towns of the Roman Empire

I've been adding real locations on Portugal of the Roman Empire in this article, but has now I see clearly (sorry if I didnt saw), the article states that these "Latin" names are in fact, Latinized names used in the middle ages for places in Europe. I think we shoud create an article for the Real names on cities and towns of the Roman Empire. I see the same problem in other countries that use the real Roman names. That would be of a great help for people interested in History subjects. This article (Latin names of European cities) is interesting has a curiosity on Middle Ages geography. How we name the article if there's not one already. -Pedro 14:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree that it would be good and encyclopaedic to have a list of "real" Roman, that is ancient names. Unfortunately I don't have the expertise to make it. If anyone does, please help. --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gdansk

This page is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes:

For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945
For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945
In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively
In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdańsk (Danzig) and later Gdańsk exclusively.
For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.
Reverts to conform with community consensus are excluded from the three-revert rule (3RR). Only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR. Please use descriptive edit summaries.
Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. In case of doubt, assume good faith and do not bite newcomers.

The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary.

Good idea. But that is not necessary, because we have an entry for Danzig. Maybe you can help me with installing a table ? user:H.J.

Thank you Brian ! user:H.J.

Ok -- I have a couple of comments. First, I have already discussed that the methodology regularly used by Fr. user:H.J. leaves much to be desired. Family History (or annotated genealogy) must still be seen within a wider framework of normal history to be at all valid.

Second, the place names in this table are somewhat suspect. I'm not saying that they are incorrect (although some are abbreviations of Latin names that have been used as if they are the full names -- probably because of an unfamiliarity with Latin). Rather, these names seem to be the Latin names as used in a particular time period -- my guess is from the Early Modern period, specifically 16th or 17th c. As such, many of the names are Latinized versions of local names. They are not incorrect, but indicate that there was a non-Latin name in use, which was then given a Latin genitive ending to make it fit in with older place names derived from those given in Roman and Medieval times. The fact that there is a Latin name for something does not mean it existed as such in the pre-Modern period -- In fat, it's looking at history in the wrong direction -- taking a current thing, and making it causative to the past, instead of looking at the past and how changes then affect the present.

Third, since this is an English language encyclopedia, it is appropriate that attention first be paid to Latin-English, then to the translations to other languages. The only reason to focus on German equivalents is to propogate certain irredentist views which are inappropriate to this site. JHK

Your ever-present overpowering optimism really shines bright again, as always JHK !!!

The spellings are taken from actual recordings and I think all the different spellings one comes across should be listed , as I had started it(some were taken off), but then perhaps it would add too many , because spelling in German language was not standardized until the 20th century. Anyway we could add another column with current names and present countries, where applicable.

But your introduction text is very good . It is free of your behind the scene (/Talk section) "charm". user:H.J.

Thanks, user:H.J. -- Maybe lots of us could be more charming if you EVER bothered to look at historical method. If you actually understood what I said, there is no validity to the list as you wrote it except in the very narrow sense of the 16th and 17th century maps you used. The place names are not actually all the proper historic names -- or not those valid at different periods. So this needs to be written as either "Names found in Latin on certain maps of the 16th and 17th century and translated into German equivalents" which is at best semi-useful, or you have to accept that perhaps you don't have an objective view.

I notice that you haven't bothered to respond to either my questions as to the readings on historical methodology or to my most recent analogy of MD vs. PhD. Whether or not you like it, What you snidely call "charm" is merely reflects the frustrated expressions of a person who wants to see clear-cut, well-written articles on this site. You have demonstrated on almost every occasion that you don't care about accuracy or a correct approach to sources or history, but you continue to put up historical articles. If you bothered to take a step back and ask yourself why so many people object to the way your articles present information, you might realize that many of those objections are valid and do something about them! JHK

Regarding Latin names -- it is best to put the nominative form of the name whenever possible. If there is no nominative (or a genitive form is used as a nominative), it is often an indication that the Latin name is an adaptation of another local name. This is actually quite important, since it helps indicate (although seldom conclusively) the most-often used name of the town without the Latin ending. JHK

To JHK I am reading the civitatis of the actual records. Perhaps we can start a section somewhere decribing urb civitatis etc. For now leave it off the list as is.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. In Latin, the nominative (subject) form of the words are urbs and civitas. It could be that what you are reading says something like, "of the city of..." , but I wouldn't know without reading it myself. Please believe me on this -- I can think of an example that might help. I have done a lot of work with Latin sources, and, for example, I can't think of a time when I saw the word 'Moguntia in a document, because the reference is usually in the context of "of Mainz (Moguntiae)" or "to Mainz (Moguntiam, sometimes Moguntiacem -- scribes weren't always grammatically corrtect)" or "in Mainz (where they alternate between the Dative Moguntiae and the Ablative Moguntia". Nevertheless, there IS a correct form to use in present circumstance -- and it's the Nominative (except in those cases I mentioned where there is only a genitive). For the actual words for city and town, we use urbs or civitas in English. JHK

I am looking at ,example: Moneta Nova Civitatis Hamburgensis . What is the difference of urbs or civitas ? HJ

Ok -- then it says "new money (coin, or coinage) of the city of Hamburg." Technically (in Classical Latin) the civitas was the state, or polity, whereas the urbs was a town or city, usually walled. By the late Middle Ages, I'm pretty sure the two were used almost interchangeably, so you could say "city" -- except that, because Hamburg wanted to claim or imply a type of independence, the word could have been chosen deliberately -- scholars would know the difference. See what I mean about history and sources (and even coins are sources -- I wrote a grad paper on the use of coinage for propaganda purposes in the reign of the Emperor Gallienus and almost all the sources were the coins themselves!) not being straightforward? You really have to look at things from as many angles as you can, and then, based on what you know and what has gone before (and is accepted or rejected), draw a conclusion. ;-)

civitas was the state (city and surrounding areas with the same name) versus urbs the city by itself . That's what it sounds like to me.I am talking about 1500 1600 1700's. We definately should have an entry on this, by you if you can do it , or with help. HJ

Thanks for your confidence, but I'm not sure it's worth an article, because it's really more of a historical usage of a word -- so more a dictionary entry.

Overall, I think that you are making a safe assumption for the 16th - 18th centuries -- except that you'll find it's not true in many cases! For example, with Hamburg, you have a definite urbs Hamburgensis -- the city itself. But you also have the civitas Hamburgensis -- an independent state or polity (kind of). This is true to a point, but seen in light of the times, and the fact that the powers of the Hanse cities was greatly reduced, you can see why they would want to emphasize a more significant political identity. SO, you have to see civitas not only as a geographical location, but more importantly as the State -- not geographic, but a political and social entity. Then, you have to judge each occurance in the context in which it appears. Does that make sense? I know sounds confusing, but really, that's the only thing that works! JHK

that's a fine brief essay on urbs, civitas, and the propaganda value of choosing one or the other on coinage, JHK. I agree entirely. MichaelTinkler

Thanks! ;-)

Mediolanum is the Latin name of an Italian city. It is the Latin name of a city of the Holy Roman Empire. It is not the Latin name of a German city. --MichaelTinkler

MT you are absolutely right, that is what is is now. And this is a good example how facts get messed up by different inputs.

When you click back on my original entry you will find that I am stating that during the Holy Roman Empire... The Holy Roman Empire was removed , but should be re-inserted. The German name for the city is Mailand Meiland ,Lombardei Now it is in Italy . Somewhere I have suggested that we could add another column with current names and countries. What do you think ? user:H.J.

Well, the entry title says 'german cities'. Milan was never called 'Mailand' except by Germans, and, as I told you elsewhere, its official name was always 'Mediolanum' until it became 'Milano'. Don't put it on the current entry. We do not need this entry, or other gazetteer entries like it. --MichaelTinkler

Hi all -- I changed the name and removed HRE because Latin names for cities in the HRE is way too narrow for a good article, and it was growing beyond that. Also, I removed HRE because it is a political entity, not a time period. This is much more useful if we make it broader. -- JHK

to JHK ,changing it to European cities would enlarge the list greatly. JHK and MT Going back to your and MT's answers on urbs versus civitas , I would say, the urbs is the city itself, while the civitas is the city and surrounding area under the same city government. (Sacramento city=urbs and Sacramento city and Sacramento county=civitas). Civitatis would be translated ...of the city , as in moneta civitatis , money of the city.

Yes, but as JHK wrote above, just because someone claims to be a civitas doesn't mean that they necessarily ARE a civitas.

To both of you, on the use of specific descriptions, Germany or HRE had and has very strict regulations. They did not just build cities. A city charter was authorized by the emperor (or king, duke etc all with imperial or royal power). Even holding a market or holding a trade fair had to be authorized. When a city was filled up, a new city had to be authorized, then usually called Neustadt (neu city), whereas the old city was called Altstadt. the same went for money coining. The cities had authorization from the emperor etc, who gave the legal right to coin money. Having been Free Cities was so prestigious, that cities in Switzerland still displayed the imperial eagle, even after they were not in the empire any more. user:H.J.

Actually, of course, many cities pre-existed the empire (most of the Rhineland, for instance), and sometimes people did just do things and demand (or buy) recognition later. What you are describing, HJ, is the legal ideal rather than the reality. --MichaelTinkler

Ok -- I said above that civitas is not always (and in earlier times almost never) geographically defined. So, for example, if we were talking about modern Augusta Vindelicorum (where I lived for several years), there is an Altstadt and a Neustadt. But both of these would be considered urbs in Latin. On the other hand, the civitas Augustae Vindelicorum would be the courts, the government, and all the citizens with legal rights, AND the city itself. It isn't clear, and the HRE definitions actually don't come into it. Language transcends that. JHK

If a place is named civitas, as you discribe it , this includes the legal rights for self government. Is it for self government ? or limited government ? And if a city and county is named civitas, could or would they have stated that if they were not a civitas but only an urbs ? HJ

That's not what I'm saying -- it could include legal rights, but the difference is not a legal one. You have to understand that this is a case of language usage. We're talking about a period when people had rediscovered many lost classics and affected the trappings of Rome to enhance their standing and often to support their claims to independence or authority. In a case like the Hamburg coins, we're talking about what may have been the case, but more importantly, was what the people who ran Hamburg wanted other people to see them as. So not just Freie Stadt Hamburg, but Freier Staat Hamburg. And what they said did not have to be any more true than it is that all US citizens trust in God (as it says in our coins).

Also, between Late Antiquity and the Modern period, depending on where you were and how well-educated the writer, civitas and urbs could easily have been interchangeable in some people's minds. Language changes over time, and it's very difficult to make one statement that covers all circumstances. JHK

In the case you are describing, JHK, it is like the distinction in American English between road and street. According to some strict constructionists (like my father), "roads" are rural and "streets" are urban and "boulevards" have to have a strip of grass and trees down the middle of them. Most municipalities, however, ignore this distinction. Similarly, urbs and civitas and even municipium get thrown around a lot. Usage does not always conform to legal ideals, as you are showing. --MichaelTinkler

Sablones == Venlo? AFAIK, Venlo did not even exist in those days. There was a small port across the river called Blariacum, though, now called Blerick. (This is all from memory and I am not even sure it is correct, but I was born in Venlo and have lived in Blerick for a large part of my life.) Anyhow, just an 'are you sure?'--branko

No, Sablones was a Latin name used in later time for Venlo, as also Silva Ducis (that city wasn't founded until way after the Roman Empire was gone). However, these names are often used in scientific or genealogist sources, and I thought them to be interesting anyhow. --JHeijmans

General Question -- on Cologne -- we've got two similar Latin names -- are they both valid? IIRC, Colonia Agrippinensis is the original name -- but it may have been re-named for Agrippina at a later date...or I might be mistaken! We should get it straight, though. JHK

Would it be appropriate to add a column for the translation of the Latin name, where it makes sense to do so (e.g. Silva ducis)? I'd know I'd find it handy.

I don't think it would, really -- we never translate them in English -- just leave them as is! If you are wondering, though, just ask -- I'm sure one of the Latinists around will help. Silva ducis is "the duke's wood" but it doesn't mean much, because in the Middle Ages, a dux (the latin word) is a military leader, and doesn't fit into the whole title thing! JHK

Silva ducis I knew. Mainly I was wondering about the general ways in which names were Latinized, or new ones were coined. Resources on toponym etymology are not easy to find in one's spare time, so it seems like any material we added on it to wikipedia would be worthwhile.

Urgh -- the only real resources I know of are in German -- the Dictionary of Medieval latin might be helpful, but it isn't finished. As it stands, the information is way too complex for the 'pedia -- we're talking VOLUMES of Latin name-German versions (in dialects and several places where it could be). I think this table is somewhat useful, but I honestly don't know of any one resource. JHK

By the way -- a bunch of these "Latin names" are just names with a Latin Genitive ending -- perhaps we should find the nominative form before adding??JHK

If a single word ends in "-ensis" (English -ese), it's not the name of the city but an adjective describing its inhabitants. Thus "Berolinensis" means not "Berlin" but "Berliner". Is the city Berolinum, or what? -phma

I don't think so -- my experience with medieval Latin tells me that many local names were latinized, but generally only to the point of adding a genitive ending, so that the city (or Church, diocese, etc.) is referred to by Civitas -ensis -- the city is declined, but we then keep the Genitive of the name. So, if you were going to Berlin, you'd be going ad civitam Berolinenses. The awkward part comes when the declinable part gets dropped (which seems to have happened a lot), and we're stuck with the common name -- the Genitive. Thus endeth this spiel on Latin...JHK

That's not a genitive. I think it's called gentilic, or some such word, but not genitive. The genitive of Berolinum is Berolini. -phma

Right, but that's assuming that Berolinum is the Nominative -- is it? I really don't know -- I was just explaining why many place-names are listed by a third declension ending. Michael Tinkler is the person to ask about the specifics, and I think he has elsewhere on the site. WHy would you say it's not a Genitive, though? JHK

I don't think this page is correctly named because it is plural, but I'm not sure what to change it to. --Ellmist Thursday, September 5th, 2002

It's a list; there's no clean way to link to it no matter what you want to do. --Brion

What would be Latin name of New Belgrade? :) Nikola 20:48, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Augustae Vindelicorum

I just found a "Icones sanctorum" in my parents´book collection. I searched and got a ref to wikipedia. My problem is that i believe that Augustae Vindelicorum refers to a city where the book was edited ......but which city ????? Augsburg ?????????

Pls reply to gusva@algonet.se Gunvor Svartz-Malmberg, Värtavägen 30 SE-115 53 STOCKHOLM SWEDEN Tel 8-660 10 31

Moscow

Watisit called, I couldnt fidn it......

Splitting Balkans

This page has gotten fairly large, and the single long list format (contrary to guidelines) makes it difficult to edit and to find ancient names that match current names. Apparently, the North Atlantic portion has already been (mostly) split. It seems a bit of the Iberian peninsula has been done, too.

Since I've been doing some personal research on ancient names in the Balkans for the freeciv.org game -- and my additional data would increase the table size by at least 50% -- it seemed a good time to split the page.

After the weekend, assuming there is no problem, I'll begin carefully removing the originals from this table. Take a look at the new page, and please give feedback.

Eventually, I think other candidates for division would be Asia, and Italy itself, leaving just the outskirts of the Roman Empire here. WilliamAllenSimpson 07:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan split completed. Structural reorganization, moving list of included countries to front of article (more like the disambiguation format), and references to the end (more like most other articles). William Allen Simpson 08:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merging and Splitting

Some of these divisions into tiny pages (communities, rivers) would be better to find in one place. Who can tell whether something is "town" versus "city", or "Roman" versus "Latin". It seems to me that the "Source(s)" column could be used to indicate an ancient or "Modern" usage.

Meanwhile, there is a proliferation of pages for Britain and Portugal, but related names remain here that might be better there (with more descriptive page names).

I'm going to attempt a first pass that divides the names by country (where indicated) that should make things easier to edit, merge, and split. William Allen Simpson 17:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The countries have been divided, and I've finished merging the so-called "communities" page, and moving, and redirecting. The main thing left is to decide what to do with Africa and Italy. Africa is too small at the moment to bother with a new page, while it has become clearer that Italy could be huge, given the number of entries in the various other resources. After all, Italy is where the Latin language started. William Allen Simpson 05:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are Latin names

There are many names listed here that are not Latin. Examples, Mediolanum (Celtic), Neapolis (Greek), Silva Ducis (made up). If it is intended to have a definative list of names coined by Latin speakers when Latin was alive then severe editing is required.

But what is wrong with starting from Hofmann?

83.155.159.226 23:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)BMW[reply]

Apparently the poster is not reading the text carefully. Nothing about "when Latin was alive" as many places in the world have Latin names given in the 19th century. And of course, Hofmann is one of the reference works folks used. It's cited explicitly! As for the specifics:

Mediolanum — may or may not have roots in Celtic Gaul (see the several articles), but it was clearly a Latin name used by Romans, and is well attested. There are many Italian uses today of this name.
Neapolis — may have started as Greek, but not only was adopted as the Latin place name, but carried by the Romans all the way to Jerusalem, and other parts of the world that the Greeks never travelled.
Silva Ducis — goes back centuries, still used today.

--William Allen Simpson 01:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If not "reading carefully" then I am not alone. I suggested that there should be a definition like "coined by Latin speakers" or some other definition that gives the reader a clue as what these lists are. I did not say that there was one.

On specifics, Mediolanum is definately a Celtic name. The fact that the Romans used it does not make it a Latin name. The English use Paris and Madrid but neither are English names by any definition. As for Neapolis, its components are obviously Greek and do not exist in Latin. Incidentally I would be hard put to find a place frequented by Romas but not Greeks. The inverse is a piece of cake of course.

I can assure you that having lived many years in the Netherlands, and having visited the place in question several times, I have not stumbled on anyone using Silva Ducis. The fact that it was invented centuries ago by someone who knew Latin does not make it a Latin name. Many places (all over the world) have these psuedo Latin names and of course a list of them (if correctly identified and marked as such) might be of interest.

If things are left as they are the reader with no historical background might be misled to thinking the Romans named places in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia etc.

On presentation, the second column could be marked "Modern name", "English form (where applicable, e.g. Vienna for Wien)", "Other forms".

83.155.190.20 07:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)BMW[reply]

(heavy sigh) The list of names "coined by" are indicated by the references. That most of the names don't have specific references is a problem that needs to be rectified (I wasn't paying attention at the time, but believe somebody just typed in the names from GOL). Please feel free to add the earliest reference, as I was doing with Ptolemy on the Balkins list.

I firmly disagree about the usage. If it's in Latin sources, in many cases over a period of centuries, it's a Latin name, regardless of where it's borrowed, or where its roots or suffixes originated. There are plenty of notes already, and should you feel the need to add a linguistic history note (as was done for some), that would be great! If it's more than a note, it belongs in the article instead....

Likewise with the English names. I've never heard an English speaker pronounce Paris (pear-is) anything like the French (pah-ree), despite the similar spelling. English uses a lot of borrowed words, and I'm personally getting a bit sick and tired of nationalists arguing about who deserves credit for this or that. This is the English Wikipedia. Entomology belongs in the Wiktionary.

For a name you never saw in the Netherlands, Google sure gives a lot of commercial establishments with the name....

The "strictly Roman history" lists already exist for some areas, primarily Britain (that's why there's "see also").

This is the "comprehensive" list for Latin names of whatever origin. If you don't think the background section has enough explanation, why not suggest some more?

--William Allen Simpson 13:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to side with William Allen Simpson with reference to Mediolanum and Neapolis. They are definitely the Latin names for those cities, in use for well over 2000 years. Mediolanum has a probable Celtic etymology (from *medio-lanon, i.e. "the middle [of the] plain"), but is only attested in Latin. And as for Neapolis, of course it means "new city" in Greek, but the Greeks actually called it Parthenōpē.

On the other hand, William Allen Simpson, etymology (not "entomology", which is the study of insects) definitely belongs in the Wikipedia, as well as the Wiktionary. There are in fact many articles in the Wikipedia that deal with etymology.

My main problem with this article and its related clones -- and a huge problem it is, in my opinion -- is that no distinction is made between ancient names vs. medieval (or even modern) names. The former are usually the source of the native-language names, while the latter are based on the native-language names. In Italy, where there are literally thousands of ancient place names, the ancient Latin name and the medieval Latin name of a given town or city are often different. I could cite many examples, e.g. Udine, which is Vedinum in the ancient sources, but Utinum in medieval Latin; L'Aquila, which is Ad Locum Acculae in the ancient sources, but Aquilia in medieval Latin; etc. Ditto for Britain, e.g. Winchester, which is Venta Belgarum in the ancient sources, but Vincestria in medieval times; Colchester, which is Camulodunum in the ancient sources, but Colcestria in medieval times; etc. To the student of ancient history, the ancient names are of great interest, while the medieval ones are just a nuisance. Conversely a medievalist may be more interested in the medieval Latin names. My point is that they should be clearly separated, maybe placed in different columns.

Furthermore, many ancient Latin names refer to places that no longer exist. In fact, many ancient place names aren't even identified with certainty. Conversely, medieval and modern Latin place names often refer to places that did not exist in ancient times. This, of course, is universally true for countries for which not a single ancient place name is attested (e.g. Finland, Norway, Sweden, etc.), but is also true, in some cases, for Italian cities that did not exist in ancient times, e.g. Fabriano, included in this article as Fabiranum, Fabrianum. Once again, in my opinion, a clear distinction between the two would be helpful.

Pasquale 23:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of a single name is usually in each article. I'm pretty sure it would be out of place here.
As mentioned previously, some folks wanted Roman only, and so far they have Roman Britain.
The clear distinction is supposed to be using the references and superscript qualifiers, just as anybody would expect. Unfortunately, the original typists 2 years ago didn't add many references (although they provided them in the text). I've been adding references as I find them.
When it's all done, there should be a nice chronology of names on each entry, just as you suggest.
If they don't exist, sometimes folks put them in anyway, with a direction ("near otherplace").
It sounds like you know quite a bit about Italy. I figured Italy would get so big it will need its own page (as I mentioned a month ago here).
Please, add more notes and references!

William Allen Simpson 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Romania

Sorry, I didn't noticed that there is az independent Balkan page. But I'm a bit surprised. The Balkan is definitely part of Europe, not an other continent. I see some Western-European arrogance in this separation... Probably there are historical reasons, because most of the peninsula was Greek speeking in the antiquity but this was never the case with Dacia and Illyricum. So I think the pages should be merged or follow the ancient language-border or cut the Europe article into more geographical regions (if you think it too long). The present situation seems to be an anomaly for me. Zello 17:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had you looked at the top of the article page, and read the rest of the talk here, you'd see that's exactly what happened — Europe's been cut into geographic regions. Eventually, Italy will probably become so big it will be its own page. I have no idea how the folks decided which countries are traditionally part of the Balkan Peninsula, but since there's an entire article on it, that would be the place to discuss it. Anyway, thank you for your help, and I look forward to more article links.

--William Allen Simpson 17:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rump Europe

Ok, but at some point you should change the title "List of Latin Place Names in Europe" because it is quite misleading. Man thinks ALL of Europe reading this. Zello 17:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zello. William Allen Simpson has been cutting off so many pieces, all around the edges, North, South-East, South-West, etc., that perhaps the title for this page should refer to "rump Europe" rather than Europe. As for Italy, it probably has as many Latin place names as all the rest of Europe put together, in any case certainly the authentic ancient ones (since that's where the Latin language originated), so, if anything, it should have been the first one to be separated. Pasquale 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was preparing to split off Italy, and had so posted in this Talk page, and *you* Pasquale moved it up higher in the article. Therefore, I assumed that you didn't want it split. Anyway, when an article gets too big, it's supposed to be split. See Wikipedia:Summary style and many others. "Rump Europe" doesn't seem to be a good name. "Continental Europe"? "Mainland Europe"?

-William Allen Simpson 18:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do beg your pardon. I simply moved Italy to its correct place in the alphabetical order, since it seemed to be the only country out of alphabetical order. As for splitting it or not, at that time, I couldn't possibly have any opinion since your logic for when and how to split chunks of Europe from the rest, for the purposes of this article, totally escaped me. (Why, for example, the Iberian peninsula?) In any case, it was clear you were the one in charge of the splitting process... Pasquale 05:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to establish a navigation page for Europe with links to subregions like Italy, Hispania, Balkans, Western-Europe, Central-Europe, Eastern-Europe and British Isles. Zello 04:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished extracting Italy. Good idea, I'll work on it.

--William Allen Simpson 04:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you changed for Continental Europe. It is problematic because the term means the whole continent except Britain. I think there isn't any real name for exactly this group of countries. This is why I think better to split into Western-, Central- and Eastern-Europe. Of course we can done at any time later as the list became too long again. Zello 07:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good sir, please click the link. The definition clearly says: "explicitly excluding European islands and peninsulae." Before making the change, I searched for the best terminology ("Rump" didn't make the grade). And yes, assuming folks actually do more work, then we can split it further into N, S, E amd W. But that's a long way away.

--William Allen Simpson 10:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up, this is the first sentence but later says "Notably, in British English and Hiberno-English usage, the term means Europe excluding the British Isles" and "In Nordic usage, the British Isles, Scandinavia, Iceland and Finland are excluded." But never says that Hispania or Italy wouldn't be part of Continental Europe. Surely the term is a bit vague so I hope the list will be longer and you will split some day. Zello 22:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous alternatives

Sometimes there are really numerous alternative spellings and variants of some Latin names. See for example Olomouc in Brigham Young University Harold B. Lee Library. I don't know how to deal with them. List them all? Or if only some of them should be chosen, then what criteria should be followed when choosing? Jan.Kamenicek 19:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slovak diacritics

For William Allen Simpson: There is neither diacritics in Swedish, Polish, German etc.. names in English, please strip them of the whole article.

Irony aside, unless there is a well-established English name for a foreign city (such as Munich for München), the English name is the same as the local name, that is, with all the diacritics included. rado 13:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Diacritics is widely used in names of cities in Wikipedia and therefore I have reverted the William Allen Simpson's revert. Jan.Kamenicek 19:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italy

~~Why is Italy missing on the list? Meursault2004 09:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sorry, I missed List of Latin place names in Italy ... Meursault2004 09:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why only cities?

Why are only cities, and not regions or countries, listed here? john k 15:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utrecht

After 1000 BC, the city of Utrecht has been referred to as "Traiectum ad Rhenum". A Roman fort to keep safe the trade route from Cologne to England. Ad Rhenum as in at the river Rhine.

Veldidena / Oenipons

These two Latin names refer to the same city: Wilten (Veldidena) is a part of Innsbruck (Oenipons). Also, "Aenipons" is more common than "Oenipons". It appears on the Arc of Triumph in Innsbruck, and the Latin schoolbooks. The River "Inn" which gives the city its name was also called "Aenus".

Romania2

Why is Romania missing, that's bullshit! A lot of place names there have a latin influence, almost all! Just put them here! 195.240.93.153 13:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced that most people here would appreciate your question, if it was written in a more polite way. Despite this, have a look at the List of Latin place names in the Balkans, where you can find Romania. Jan.Kamenicek 19:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finland - Savonlinna

Does people have any hint, where the Latin versions listed here come from? For Savonlinna my observation is that on the old map of Olaus Magnus it is "Castrv Novv" or something like that. Are there any other references to recorded use of the name? --Isidorus Finn (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland

Ireland doesn't seem to fit here but, with only one entry, wouldn't make sense to haev its own article. How abot moving it to the British article? AndrewRT(Talk) 00:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really appropriate - Britain was settled by the Romans and Ireland was not. Any Irish places with Latin names were generally given in the middle ages by Christian writers. Sheila1988 (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Norway

The Norwegian names look more like adjectives to me. Can anyone confirm or invalidate this? --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of Latin place names in Continental Europe, Ireland and Scandinavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]