Talk:Latium Vetus

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome C‑class High‑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
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Italy High‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copyediting

I rewrote the begining of the article, which was a surprisingly tough project on its own, as the article is written in a way that there was not a single sentence that had any logical connection to the one before it. This article also needs heavy copyediting as most of its 'size' is made up of meaningless, useless, or arbitrary terms that do not promote the article in any way. High language does not mean an article is a good one, in this case it just covers up many mistakes and bad wordings.

It is also missing a Geography section and has trouble in acting as an independent region as most of the article speaks of Latium as a whole and not on Old Latium. This article needs a lot of work and attention as it's an important article on ancient history, I hope whoever reads this will help out on this project. FlagFlayer 20:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 March 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Latium Vetus — Amakuru (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old Latium → Latium vetus – reason for move Vineviz (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Frost 11:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't list your reasons Ogress 01:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vineviz Cremastra _talk 23:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: OP's reasons are listed in #Proposed move: Old Latium → Latium vetus below. Frost 11:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Latium Vetus (capital 'V') appears more common[1] and is consistent with normal English capitalization rules. Here is one example where the italicized Latium vetus is used once, apparently to indicate Latin usage, and the place is thereafter rendered Latium Vetus in running text. (This is a book review of one of the sources referenced in the article.) --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Italy, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, and WikiProject Archaeology have been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 16:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Latium Vetus. Based on ngrams and a cursory look at Google Scholar search ([2], [3]) I agree with Myceteae that Latium Vetus appears to be most common.
I support despite that I disagree with the nominator Vineviz's rationale at #Proposed move: Old Latium → Latium vetus below. Vineviz falsely claims that Cornell's "The Beginnings of Rome" (1995), Forsythe's "A Critical History of Early Rome" (2005), and Smith's "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography" consistently use "Latium vetus" rather than "Old Latium". To the contrary, Cornell's The Beginning of Rome uses both Old Latium ([4], e.g. p. vii) and Latium Vetus; Forsythe's A Critical History of Early Rome uses "Latium Vetus" solely in the title of works cited ([5], p. 375), and uses neither in the actual text; Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (1865) uses "Old Latium" once ([6], Vol. II p. 81) and "Latium Vetus" solely in the title of works cited ([7], Vol. II p. 143). Vineviz should be aware that if comments contain fabrications of fact, that is a blockable form of disruptive editing, whether or not the fabrication is by a human or a hallucinating chatbot (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 199#LLM/chatbot_comments_in_discussions). Adumbrativus (talk) 06:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed move: Old Latium → Latium vetus

I would like to propose renaming the article currently titled "Old Latium" to "Latium vetus" for the following reasons:

1. Scholarly terminology: "Latium vetus" is the standard Latin term used in academic literature when referring to the original territory of the Latins before Roman expansion. Sources such as Cornell's "The Beginnings of Rome" (1995), Forsythe's "A Critical History of Early Rome" (2005), and Smith's "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography" consistently use "Latium vetus" rather than "Old Latium" when discussing this specific geographic and cultural-historical region.

2. Consistency with other Wikipedia articles: Wikipedia already uses Latin terms for other ancient Italian and Roman geographic regions (e.g., Gallia Cisalpina, Etruria, Magna Graecia). Moving to "Latium vetus" would maintain this consistency.

3. Disambiguation clarity: The current system of articles related to Latium creates confusion:

"Lazio" (modern Italian region)
"Latium" (general historical region)
"Old Latium" (early Latin territory)
"Latium Adjectum" (later additions to Latium)

Renaming "Old Latium" to "Latium vetus" would help distinguish between these related but distinct concepts and create a more intuitive/consistent naming structure.

4. Precision: "Old Latium" is a translation that appears rarely in scholarly literature as a proper noun. "Latium vetus" precisely identifies the specific historical-geographical entity being discussed.

If this move proceeds, I propose creating redirects from "Old Latium" and "Latium antiquum" (an alternative Latin form occasionally used) to maintain accessibility.

I welcome thoughts from members of this WikiProject about this move request.

Vineviz (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Failed verification of recently added citations

I spot-checked some of the sources recently added (Special:Diff/1284437536) and was unable to verify them.

For the sentence, The region was bounded by the Tiber River to the north, the Apennines to the east, the Tyrrhenian Sea to the west, and Monte Circeo to the south, one of the sources cited is T.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome (Routledge, 1995), p. 77. I could not locate the claimed information in Cornell p. 77.
For the sentence, The volcanic highlands of the Alban Hills (Latin: *Mons Albanus*) formed a religious and political center, hosting the sanctuary of Jupiter Latiaris, the cited source is C. Ampolo, in M. Torelli (ed.), Studies in the Romanization of Italy (Edizioni Quasar, 1995), pp. 35–36. I have access to a 1995 English edition edited and translated from Italian (University of Alberta Press). I did not successfully locate information about the Alban Hills or the sanctuary of Jupiter Latiaris anywhere in the book. Furthermore, Mario Torelli is the author, not the editor, of the book. I do not have the Italian edition, but I would be surprise if the edited and translated version differed to such a degree.

Vineviz, please explain and help me understand. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy#Fabricated_citations,_possibly_AI-generated,_in_content_by_User:Vineviz. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]