Talk:Roman Kingdom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Should there be a "Roman" portal?

Hi folks, I'm contemplating the possibility of creating a portal for Ancient Rome, to replace Roman, which is a disambiguation page and has nearly 400 links pointing to it from articles (not counting the ones from Talk or Wikipedia pages).

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.

Some possible issues:

1. It needs a suitable name. I'm thinking "Ancient Rome", but there may be other options. My intention would be to redirect Romans to the portal so that every vague reference and accidental linkage to "the Romans" would end up in a suitable place.
2. I think it would be appropriate to include Byzantium, and maybe Ancient Greece if it doesn't already have a "home".
3. Other uses of the word Roman currently listed on Roman would probably be moved to Roman (disambiguation), which is currently a redirect.
4. 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 accurate.

For examples of existing portals, see Portal:Egyptology, Portal:Star Trek, and many more are listed at Category:Portals.

I am interested in opinions on this idea, and I invite discussion on the topic at my test page User:LesleyW/RomePortal. 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. LesleyW 21:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm currently taking Latin 2 and this site has really helped me with extra credit and understanding Romian myth and history.-Pelican, 12/14/2005

Timezone in infobox?

The timezone entry in the infobox seems really out of place. Remove it, I say.

The reign of Romulus

The reign of Romulus -Isn't this just a myth - isn't this something that some academics heartily disagree on!?!? If so, shouldn't it be so stated in the article. I read another wikipedia article saying that Remus/Romulus story and the foundation of Rome is considered a myth by some academics, while other believing it to be a historical fact. Could someone please reconcile these different opinions and explain what is going on!?! --ToyotaPanasonic 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(afterwards inserted heading)

(This old comment deserves a heading, so that it doesn't disturb this talk page. Said: Rursus ☻ 10:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

This page doesn't seem to make enough (if any) distinction between what is myth or legend (e.g., founding of Rome by Romulus in 753 B.C.) and what is generally accepted as historical fact.Scrutchfield

There is a historiographical problem with this name. The kings may not exactly belong in a Republic, but no one (at all) refers to a Roman Kingdom. Maybe the entry should be called 'Foundation of Rome' or 'Kings of Rome,' or 'City of Rome, early history'.

I don't mind them being in a separate entry, but if we are trying to make this searchable, no one will ever search for this here!

MichaelTinkler

I have never read about this topic in English, so I didn't know. What do you recommend? IIRC it's sometimes called (translated) 'Roman Kings' in German. --Yooden +  
 

I'm really at a loss. In English it's usually just an early chapter called something like 'The Kings of Rome' in histories of the Republic.

It will eventually be found through the link on Roman Republic, so it can keep the name until someone comes along with a better name. --Yooden

Yep --MichaelTinkler

I think Roman Kingdom is probably reasonable. You might not have heard of it (at least by name) since it is very early in the history of Rome at an almost legendary time. Rome is much better known (at least popularly) towards the end of the republican era and during the empire.

I've removed the totally misleading map, and added "In legend" to the intro. This still needs a lot of work - it's presenting the legends as fact in the body. Morwen - Talk 10:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC) +

Cleanup suggestions

This is something of an amalgam of things said above, plus some additional complaints I feel are valid.

• Grammar
  • Capitalization was in a terrible state, and I've done everything I can to clean it up. Every instance of the word "King" was capitalized, as well as every other Roman office, as well as most any Latin term (note that offices should not be capitalized while institutions should be, with exceptions). I recognize there will probably be some argument over a few of the capitalization edits, and I probably haven't even been totally consistent. I had to make at least fifty edits for capitalization, though it felt like more, and I hope someone with good knowledge of the matter can help distinguish such issues as whether the "Roman forum" might be more correctly the "Roman Forum" in this context.
  • One of the original editors made some exceptionally tangled and repetetive phrases ("The boy found his dog who went with the boy to the home of his boy and his dog..."), some of which I have tried to correct.
• Content
  • POV is abundant, and I was more concerned with grammar in my edit, but here's an example: "Unlike any other King before him, Tarquinius used violence, murder, and terrorism to maintain control over Rome. He repealed many of the earlier constitutional reforms set down by his predecessors. The only thing of any real good he did for Rome was the completion of the temple to Jupiter started by his father Priscus." I don't know much about this matter, but I know it's not encyclopedic to say this. My edit isn't much better, but it takes out anything absolutely blatantly POV. ("More than other king before him, Tarquinius used violence, murder, and terrorism to maintain control over Rome. He repealed many of the earlier constitutional reforms set down by his predecessors.") If anyone knows more about this, it would be wonderful to see it written appropriately.
  • Legend/Myth. Of course, all the ancient secondaries we can work with are tainted with myth, but we need to express that fact in the phrasing of the article. If we can reverify some of the material here we can make citations. It's much better to say "Historius wrote that the boy was cruel to his dog" than "The boy was evil and terrorized his dog daily."
  • The title has been indicated as highly unusual, and I (in my limited experience with the topic) have not heard this period called the Roman Kingdom either. I suggested "Pre-republican Rome" somewhere on this talk page, and I think something to that general effect would be better, if no absolutely proper term can be found.

Hope we can turn it around, Fearwig 09:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

2008.5: yes. The article still needs "mythification", the seven kings are partially legendary kings. The Tarquinii might be historically attested from Etruscan sources, and so actually existant, but "Romulus" is obviously an [INSERTME] for a long historical development. I would prefer that the article describe those kings as symbolic examples, representing a certain qual of the Roman thinking. Said: Rursus ☻ 10:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Verginia

Where could I get a list of Wikipedia people (experts) that are knowledgeable on Ancient Rome. I would like to get some input to the "apocryphal" question at Talk:Verginia? Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Dating the end of the monarchy

We have a problem on this page. The rape of Lucretia is given as 509 and the expulsion in 510. This can not work. Can someone sort out the dating and provide trustworthy references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharoth (talk • contribs) 12:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Whoever keeps vandalising this page should be banned. Thats what I think. Anyone else? Flash Man999 01:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has inserted a section about the election of pickles that seems to be vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianroberts1976 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there really no archaeological record of the events described in this article?

No physical evidence - only written evidence from years later? Someone should review the literature on the Roman Neolithic - I think there's more information that could be used in this article, and would be able to at least have valid citations.--LeValley 05:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point.--69.62.180.183 (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-sentence

I doubt that the following makes sense:

The traditional chronology, as codified by Varro, allots 243 years for their reigns, an average of almost 35 years, which, since the work of Barthold Georg Niebuhr, has been generally discounted by modern scholarship.

Is there some way to fix it?Dynasteria (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Roman Kingdom/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

hello, can someone tell me what a lobby is?

Last edited at 15:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 04:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

New suggestions

Just read the article and been thinking about it for a couple of days. My first ideas are: 1) Title - Standard in English historical literature is "Regal period" (cfr. Enc. Britannica, Cambridge Hist. Ancient World, Gary-Scullard). This is because a latin Rex is a title strongly related to its religious function, while at present the English usage for King is basically synonymous to Sovereign, a term related to a single person holding the power but not to his religious or supernatural attributes. 2) Myth - Here the problem is that we have VERY few primary sources, and most of them are disputed in value and date. Moreover the people who lived in that era recorded events mainly in a mythological form (cfr. the Iliad and the Odyssey, probably(?) written in Greece in the same period of the founding of Rome). The main accounts on the period are from secondary sources of the late republic - early empire era, when legitimation of the new imperial state and the recalls to "the old republican virtues against the evil reges" where the main interest of writers of both political sides. Archaeologists have found evidence of some myths, but as is obvious scant remains more than 2500 years old in an area that has ALWAYS been densely populated are easily the subject of fierce disputes between scholars. So we might just add a paragraph stating this in a more concise form, and go on with a deeper cleaning.

RiccardoRB 06:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)RiccardoRB Kings of Rome King Traditional Reign Latin kings Trojan War–753 BC Romulus 753 BC–716 BC Numa Pompilius 715 BC–674 BC Tullus Hostilius 673 BC–642 BC Ancus Marcius 642 BC–617 BC Lucius Tarquinius Priscus 616 BC–579 BC Servius Tullius 578 BC–535 BC Lucius Tarquinius Superbus 535 BC–510 BC/509 BC

this doesnt seem to make sence as the kings reighns overlap just a hint not sure if this is supost to be like that sorry about spelling having a mental blank

In English usage the word "king" may be synonymous with "sovereign", but it certainly does refer to a religious role. As a crucial part of his coronation service, the king is anointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. In addition, the sovereign is Supreme Governor of the Church of England. What goes for a king also goes for a queen (regnant) : "sovereign" tends to be the gender non-specific version of king or queen. Simon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.56.165 (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Roman kingdom

I am suggesting a name change. It is almost never called this in any sources I have seen. Would it be possible to change the name to Rome: The Regal Period. This is what it is referred to in the Encyclopedia Brittanca which is a pretty definitive source. TarquiniusWikipedius 07:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with the present name; but the replacement is not a proper name, which is WP style for articles. It could go to WP:RM without specifying a replacement.... Septentrionalis 04:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Pre-republican Rome"? It needs to be changed, that's what matters. I can only imagine delinquent secondary students all over the world writing about the Roman Kingdom because they read about it on Wiki... Fearwig 08:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello everybody. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with kingdom. It translates the Latin word, which is regnum, and was used to refer to the state under the kings. I just looked that up now in Cassell's and I am sure if I bothered with Andrews', White's or the big French one, Gaffiot's, it would be the same story. As for the Encyclopedia Britannica, they use monarchy more than anything else. There is no standard term, you see. If you have not yet seen kingdom, that is because you have not looked extensively. I have before me a book at random from my collection, which I used in college, A History of Rome to A.D. 565 by Boak and Sinnigen. This was a standard text. It uses monarchy and has no confusion about that at all.

We need a word parallel to Republic and Empire. These are sovereign states with a specific form of government. "Pre-republican", "Early", "Regal Period", and all the other indirect terms, are not the same at all and just don't do it. The fact that someone else may have used them reflects individualism in writing history and not standard practice at all. There is the principatus, then there is the res publica, then there is the regnum. There is no doubt at all concerning whether it was a regnum, that it had a beginning, and an end, even though there were interreges. The very word interreges takes its meaning from the reges. What shall we say a regnum is? I don't see any "early" or any "period" or any "pre" this or "pre-" that in the word at all. English pretty much gives us two choices. We can use a word related to monarch or one related to king, but it must mean the state associated with the form of government. I don't really care whether someone else on the Internet is currently using kingdom. Someone has used, does use, or will use it I am sure. There is nothing confusing, original, obscure, or inappropriate about it. There were many "Roman kingdom"s later in Italy I assure you.

Well if you are challenged by Latin and have not read much history and find kingdom terribly in error and upsetting I suggest we go with monarchy, which is actually the more common in the printed encyclopedias, especially Britannica. The Britannica online ready reference won't do it, you know? It's only a ready reference, an invitation to buy the real thing.

Excuse me if I seem emphatic but I don't see any confusion here at all and certainly not an error being promulgated among the children of the English-speaking world. Well, if dissatisfaction continues I will rename it to Roman monarchy, but there is no need, really. Everything is set up for kingdom, all the links, everything. I remember when I took classics we used to talk about the Roman kingdom all the time. If you were going to discuss mediaeval and modern times too then you would have to specify which kingdom.Dave 15:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Been a while on this, but scholars refer to either the regal period or Rome of the kings, but certainly not the Roman Kingdom. For example, Tim Cornell's influential book refers to "regal Rome"; Cary and Scullard's British history of the late 20th c. calls it "Rome in the period of the kings." I therefore suggest changing the name to something like TarquiniusWikipedius suggested way back in 2006, "Rome in the Regal Period" or "Ancient Rome under the Kings". - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Eponymous-Archon: You know what, I think you're right. I've been doing a lot of editing in related topics as well as this one and I completely missed this prior to your comment. I took a moment to check a couple of sources and it does appear that Roman Kingdom is not a thing. Would you please put this forward for a proper proposal for move? I actually prefer Ancient Rome (regal period). That appears to be the most commonly used term in the literature. Can more than one suggested move be proposed? Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that's as good a name as any. I'll do the request for change. Thanks for chiming in! - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 June 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Guanaco 08:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Roman Kingdom → Ancient Rome (regal period) – As discussed above, the current name is not in use in the scholarship on ancient Rome. This name instead uses a popular terminology. Ancient Rome is also the title of the broader topic article, so this is consistent with that usage as well. Eponymous-Archon (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose move as proposed, but am open to a move. How about Regal period? That seems simple and unambiguous to me. Regal period in ancient Rome would also work. Srnec (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Support Regal period:It satisfies WP:PRECISE, it does not violate WP:ATDAB or WP:MOSAT, it's in keeping with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE.

Regal period used in the following:

• Momigliano, Arnaldo. “An Interim Report on the Origins of Rome.” The Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 53, 1963, pp. 95–121. JSTOR
• Ridgeway, William. “The Value of the Traditions Respecting the Early Kings of Rome.” The Classical Journal, vol. 14, no. 6, 1919, pp. 371–382. JSTOR
• Erskine, Andrew. “Hellenistic Monarchy and Roman Political Invective.” The Classical Quarterly, vol. 41, no. 1, 1991, pp. 106–120. JSTOR
• Cornell, Tim. The beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000–264 BC). Routledge, 2012.
• Janssen, L. F. “The Chronology of Early Rome.” Mnemosyne, vol. 23, no. 1, 1970, pp. 68–81. JSTOR

Redirects for Rome (regal period); Ancient Rome (regal period); Kingdom of Rome; Roman kingdom.

Thanks guys! Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose "Ancient Rome (regal period)" is a reducitio ad adsurdum of our naming conventions. Perhaps regal period or regal period (Rome). "Regal period" is somewhat more common in the literature, but "Roman kingdom" is an excellent name as well. See this ngram. Whiff of greatness (talk) 05:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in. I don't understand the reductio comment. The reality is, as you discovered, that "regal period" is the term in use in English-language scholarship. Click through to the examples in the ngram and you'll find that the Roman kingdom examples either aren't about the thing we are talking about, or are from quite old, typically translated works...and still not about our topic here. PS you changed your rationale several times when writing this comment. I'll leave this version of mine here, but I'd suggest that running through three or four arguments indicates how the proposal deserves support. Eponymous-Archon (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• Skeptical of the original proposal and strongly oppose "Regal period" with no other disambiguation. Oppose "Regal period in ancient Rome". I don't think any of these are particularly intuitive titles compared with the current one, although I don't feel particularly attached to the current one either. I think that "Regal period", with or without disambiguation, is particularly unintuitive, but without disambiguation in the title I think that "Regal period" alone is fatally vague, and shouldn't even be considered as the title. I'm not sure that there is a title that would be as or more intuitive than the current one. When trying to think of a title, I find myself using the slightly poetic "Rome under the kings", which I don't think is a very good title, either, although at least it doesn't sound as clinical to me. Assuming that doesn't strike anybody else as a better title than the current one, I think the best option is to leave it where it is for now. P Aculeius (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@InformationvsInjustice: @Srnec: I agree that something like a bare "Regal Period" isn't good, since it's not clear whose period it is. However, the current name is clearly inadequate as it simply is not used. I'm not sure about the need for intuitiveness: we can provide redirects for the current and other titles that seem likely to be searched for. For the ancient city, wikipedia has Ancient Rome, so how about keeping that with either "Ancient Rome (regal period)" or "Ancient Rome under the kings"? (Note too Corinth and Ancient Corinth for the use of the preceding adjective.) Alternatively, how about one of those without the "Ancient" in front? Those seem to me to get at what's needed without using terminology that's not in use, and meet the standards in Wikipedia:Article titles: Recognizability; Naturalness; Precision; Conciseness; Consistency. For another reference, note that there is Athens and Classical Athens, the latter of which might suggest "Regal Rome" (though again that's not a very popular term in modern scholarship). - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Parentheticals are used to distinguish articles of the same name, which is not an issue here. That many readers don't know what the regal period is is neither here nor there. The title tells the reader the name of the subject, the opening of the article explains what it means. What other article puts the actual name of the subject inside a parenthetical? Whiff of greatness (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Parentheses are used in any article where the topic is referred to by the same term as another topic. For example, all of the planets, e.g., Jupiter. So they're pretty common. I've no objection to not using them, so "Ancient Rome of the regal period" or "Ancient Rome of the kings"? - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: having just posted yesterday, I'd just like to add that there are good reasons for the current title, even if it doesn't really satisfy everyone. Even though we have a blanket topic, "Ancient Rome", we also have "Roman Republic" and "Roman Empire", both of which are widely-known terms of long-standing. "Roman Kingdom" is not so widely known or used, but it is a logical parallel to these other divisions of Roman history. I'm not enamored of "Ancient Rome of the . . ." because no matter how you finish the phrase, "Ancient" is redundant (there's no other period in which there were kings of Rome), and if you finish the phrase with "kings" then the preposition surely needs to be "under", not "of". Which, as I said, is poetic, and now I see there was some support for a similar wording before, but I still don't think that "Rome under the kings" is a markedly better title than the current one. But so far, it's the only one mentioned here that I don't think is worse than the present title, and it doesn't sound like there's much enthusiasm for it.

With respect to the criteria under Wikipedia's policy on article titles, recognizability says: "a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." That means that the title doesn't have to be a popular term or one used in academia, provided that it describes the topic in a recognizable manner. Both the current title and some of the other suggestions meet this criterion; "Regal period" does not. Intuitiveness is a legitimate concern; in the naming policy, it's described as naturalness, with the following language: "the title is one that readers are likely to look or search for". This particular criterion also mentions "what the subject is actually called in English", but there doesn't seem to be a particularly widespread term (and that's okay, not every topic has a single title that's widely known and agreed upon). Readers are more likely to search for "Roman Kingdom" (or "kingdom") than for any of the other proposals. "Kings of Rome" is even more likely to be searched for, but that redirects to "King of Rome", which is another topic.

Here's where the last three criteria come into play: precision (the title "unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects"). None of the proposals is more precise than the current title. Conciseness (the title "is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects"). The current title is more concise than any of the proposals other than "Regal period," which arguably fails all of the other criteria. Lastly consistency (the title "is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles"). Here too, "Roman Kingdom" is consistent with the titles of the other two major divisions of Roman history, "Roman Republic" and "Roman Empire". The other possible titles are not. So despite the apparent lack of academic use of the term, it does seem to satisfy the relevant criteria for article titles better than any of the other proposals. So we ought to have a rather compelling reason to change it, and right now I don't see one. P Aculeius (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on titles says: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." That rules out the current title, which is not "not so widely known", it's not known at all outside this article. That's reason enough to change it. As it stands, wikipedia is now giving the incorrect impression that "Roman Kingdom" is the term to use for this period.

On the criteria, because readers search for a non-existent term doesn't mean wikipedia should sanction the term by using it to name an article. That's what re-directs are for. I have no idea what term people most search for (is there a way to find that out?), but if you look at this talk page, a large fraction of the comments since 2005 are about how this article is wrongly titled. It's been over 10 years of such comments, and it's past time to correct the mistake.

I don't care about including "Ancient," so if something beginning "Rome…" is preferable, let's go with that. (Other places don't have "Ancient," like Classical Athens, but we don't have an analogous term for Rome.) As to your suggestion of "Rome under the kings", , I don't see that it is poetic at all. "X under the Ys" is used frequently in exactly this circumstance. See for example the book "England under the Tudors" or start a google search with "Italy under" and you'll get several relevant completions.

So, shall we adopt your Rome under the Kings with a redirect from the current title? @InformationvsInjustice: @Srnec: thoughts? - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting both the policy and its application. The statement that "generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources" clearly doesn't apply to all cases, since it says it's the "general" case, not the full and universal policy. I previously cited and quoted from several specific criteria for article titling, which all cover situations not addressed or determined simply by observing the "general" rule. You can't simply quote a broad statement in a policy and then ignore everything more specific that comes after it. Deciding that terms not in "general" use are "ruled out" is a clear misapplication of the policy. Nothing is "ruled out" by the statement you're quoting.

It's also not the case that "Roman kingdom" is not known at all outside this article. A simple Google Books search would have demonstrated that statement to be wrong. Excluding bizarre religious tracts, you'll find the term used by Gibbon (vol. V, p. 117 of the 1901 edition), in the Hare & Thirlwall translation of Niebuhr's History of Rome (vol. II, p. 91 of the 1838 edition), by Woodrow Wilson in The State (p. 94, 1894 edition), in Morey's Outlines of Roman History (passim, in 1900 edition), Snider's European History (p. 469, 1908 edition), and more recently, Ferenczy's From the Patrician State to the Patricio-plebeian State (p. 26, 1976), Starr's "A History of the Ancient World" (p. 476, 1991), The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies, section 27.1 (2014), and in a non-historical context in the 2013 biography of Benjamin Britten by Paul Kildea (Britten wrote an opera, The Rape of Lucretia). Cornell's The Beginnings of Rome doesn't use the exact phrase "Roman kingdom", but it does use the word "kingdom" to describe the dominion of the Roman kings several times. So it's not a "non-existent term".

I think that most classical scholars would be astonished to learn that they couldn't use the phrase "Roman kingdom" to describe Rome under the kings unless there were a scholarly consensus in favour of doing so. The article title doesn't give an incorrect impression; it says what it's about, with reasonable specificity. It really doesn't matter how widespread the phrase is as long as it's a clear and appropriate title within the criteria of the article naming policy, which it is. Sometimes the best title for an article isn't particularly familiar, but if it meets the other criteria then it's perfectly appropriate as a title. P Aculeius (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

They would be even more astonished to learn that that is the preferred term! Clearly, they prefer "regal period". A quick Google Books search reveals that the exact phrase "Roman kingdom" is as likely to refer to the Gallic kingdom of Syagrius as to pre-republican Rome. It is not "regal period", but in fact "Roman kingdom" that is hard to understand without context. Citing Gibbon, Niebuhr and Woodrow Wilson does not bolster your case. In Mary Beard's recent SPQR, the term does not appear, but "regal period" appears over a dozen times. Nor is it new: Francis Newman published Regal Rome in 1852. Srnec (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

You may not think it important whether major authors or important translations have used the term, but I think it's very relevant to whether the term is and has been used in scholarly literature, which you asserted it had never been. Citing authors who use other terms would be relevant if someone had questioned whether anyone used them, but nobody did. However, "Regal Rome" and "Regal period" are not the same title, so the appearance of one doesn't support the other. If the question is, "would the word 'regal' be an accurate description?", then Newman's writing would be relevant. But the question is whether the term "Regal period" is generally understood to refer to the Roman kingdom; and for that purpose, Newman's use of "Regal Rome" in 1852 is not relevant at all.

I also note that while the phrase "Roman kingdom" is indeed often used to refer to the "Kingdom of Syagrius", the phrase almost always appears as "the Roman kingdom of Syagrius", or something similar, at least in the first instance. It never appears as "Roman kingdom" without providing any context. I doubt anyone would expect an article titled "Roman kingdom" to refer to Syagrius' short-lived realm, which occupied just part of northern Gaul, and only existed for about twenty years, instead of Rome under the kings. P Aculeius (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"which you asserted it had never been". Where did I assert that?
How can you argue that "Roman kingdom" is unambiguous (most precise, you said) while at the same time admitting that sometimes it has to be disambiguated by reference to, e.g., Syagrius? Srnec (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, it was clearly a different editor who asserted that the phrase had never been used. And what I said was that the phrase "regal period" could refer to any former kingdom, while the phrase "Roman kingdom" could not. There is a distinct difference between saying that "Roman kingdom" is precise, and saying that the phrase can occur in no other context or as part of no other terminology. The difference in this case being that bare references to the Roman kingdom without any further context clearly refer to the subject of this article, and not the kingdom of Syagrius, also known as the Kingdom of Soissons (what the Wikipedia article is titled). The fact that Syagrius' short-lived realm is sometimes referred to as a Roman kingdom doesn't make the phrase "Roman kingdom" ambiguous, any more than referring to the "United Kingdom" with no further context is ambiguous due to the existence of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, or the United Kingdom of Portugal, Portugal, and the Algarves, during other short periods of history. All references to those necessarily require context, at least on the first instance that they are mentioned; without such context, a different meaning is naturally assumed. P Aculeius (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support Regal period, the term that seems to be in widest use for this subject. As no other articles use that title, it should be a perfectly acceptable title.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not in use in this bare form, that is, without a preceding "Rome of/in" - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources that use "Regal period" without "of/in Rome" are relatively easy to find.[1][2][3][4]--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

But all of those sources are books that are already clearly identified as being about Roman history. Can you find even one source that uses the term without any context to mean the Roman kingdom specifically? It's silly to give an article such as this a generic title, the subject of which would be a complete mystery, and fail almost every criterion for choosing article names. P Aculeius (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

A better question would be, can you find any source that uses "regal period" to refer to anything else? We have an article on the Warlord Era. And see New Kingdom and Old Kingdom. It is possible for an otherwise generic term to be a term of art and as such be treated as primary topic. Srnec (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the actual titles are New Kingdom of Egypt and Old Kingdom of Egypt, neither of which are remotely common usage. But point taken anyway. The main purpose of a title is tell the reader the correct name of the subject. The fact many readers won't know what name scholars call this subject makes it all the more important that we tell them. Whiff of greatness (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Srnec is correct. There's not a need to use anything but "Regal period", since no other article uses the title "Regal period". That said, I'd support Roman regal period, Regal period of Rome, etc. as a distant second choice, as it's better than the current title or the nominator's proposed one. I oppose the proposed title Ancient Rome (regal period); that's simply not how Wikipedia disambiguators work - "Ancient Rome" never refers to the regal period to the exclusion of the Republic and Empire.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe one of the earlier periods of Athenian history is referred to as the "Regal period". Although Cuchullain has created redirects with that label & differing capitalization to point to this article. -- llywrch (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• New Comment @Eponymous-Archon, Cuchullain, Srnec, Whiff of greatness, and P Aculeius: I don't think this has been proposed, but I now like it most: Roman regal period. Better than Rome under the kings. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose What is the point of the change? The current title is accurate. Regal is just another word for 'kingly'.

Comment I'm also uncomfortable with "regal period", for the same reasons that P Aculeius is. Wikipedia is meant to be a general reference encyclopedia, and while "regal period" may be the most common name used in specialist sources for the period, it isn't a term which is generally recognised. Warlord era is different: Chinese history is not something routinely taught in the Anglosphere, so a term of art is more appropriate because a higher proportion of the readers are likely to be specialists – over the past 90 days, almost the number of readers of Roman Kingdom has averaged 823 per day vs. only 283 per day for Warlord Era. "New Kingdom" and "Old Kingdom" are also different because I would argue they are not terms of art – six-year-old me would have known that "New Kingdom" and "Old Kingdom" referred to periods in ancient Egyptian history, and while six-year-old me was a historically aware child, he was still six, and not au fait with specialist terminology. (Whereas me today, who has a degree in history and has attended lectures by Mary Beard, would not have assumed that "Regal Period" necessarily referred to Rome's regal period, though having looked into it I can't find any other Regal Periods it is likely to refer to.)

"Roman Kingdom" might be a sub-optimal title, but I am unconvinced that any of the proposals are a clear improvement. Of course, this is soluble with redirects, but it seems to make no sense to have an article that no one arrives at directly because it is an unobvious choice for a name. I note that neither Regal Period or Regal period even exist as a redirect... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This would be inconsistent with Roman Republic and Roman Empire. Also, While Regal period might be more popular with academics, (According to google Ngram) "Kingdom" is 46 times more used and thus more likely to be understood by non-native speakers. Koopinator (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as, although we do not know enough about the period to accurately classify the kingdom or the identity of it's ruling elite, the current title is easily understood and instantly recognizable to an uninformed audience. As it is, anyone could probably guess what the article is about. Also, "Regal period" does not satisfy WP:PRECISE as it alone does not explain the regal period of what? SpartaN (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

In Wikipediaese, a title is unambiguous when it can refer to only one article. You are expecting the title to explain the topic. Titles are are attached to articles. The article explains the topic. The title tells the reader the name of subject. That's plenty of work right there. Regal period is my first choice, but I know that's a hard sell. What about regal period (Rome)? Whiff of greatness (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

"Regal period" fails every one of the criteria mentioned under WP:CRITERIA except for "conciseness". It is not recognizable: even people familiar with Ancient Roman topics would not necessarily anticipate that the article would be about the Roman kingdom. It is not natural: readers are unlikely to search for information about the Roman kingdom under the title "Regal period". It is not precise: it could refer to any culture, state, or society that had kings at one point but not another. And it is not consistent with any of the related articles: the most closely related articles are "Roman Republic", "Roman Empire", and "King of Rome". "Regal period (Rome)" would certainly be recognizable and precise, but it would still not be a title that readers might expect, and it would still be inconsistent with the related articles.

WP:COMMONNAME is also relevant: ambiguous or otherwise problematic names may be avoided even though they are frequently used by reliable sources. It is perfectly acceptable to choose another name that satisfies the relevant naming criteria. The current article title has apparently been used in English scholarly literature since the seventeenth century; even if works on Roman history frequently refer to the "regal period" or some variation thereof, without identifying it as "Roman", that it refers to Roman history is only apparent because of the context in which it is used (works on Roman history). Adding a disambiguator for an otherwise ambiguous term seems like a circuitous way to avoid a simpler and more natural term.

"Roman kingdom" seems to be a perfectly acceptable term; the only real argument for changing it seems to be that "regal period" is currently preferred in specialist literature. But since Wikipedia isn't specialist literature, and that title is completely ambiguous, it makes little sense to make it the article title, even with disambiguation. It's reasonably cromulent to use the phrase "regal period" within articles about Roman history, where the context would make clear what is being referred to; but it simply should not be used as the article title, with or without disambiguation. P Aculeius (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:NATURALDAB, using a less common name still used in English reliable sources is preferable to bracketed disambiguation. Regal period (Rome) is still less natural or consistent than "Roman kingdom"; it's also less concise and contains parenthetical disambiguation. It is at least precise, but I'm still unconvinced that it counts as an improvement. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I also oppose Regal period (Rome) - again, that's not how Wikipedia disambiguators are used. Parentheses are only added where there's a need to distinguish one article from others; there are no other articles called "Regal period". "Roman regal period" would be better as a descriptive title, though it's unnecessary.

Also, despite what's claimed above, "Regal period" better fits most of the WP:CRITERIA than either the present name or the proposed alternatives:

• Recognizability: The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. "Regal period" is far more used in the sources than "Roman Kingdom" for this subject so it will be more recognizable (arguably, "Regal period of Rome", etc. are even more recognizable).
• Naturalness: The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. - It's been demonstrated that "Regal period" is what this subject is usually called in English.
• Precision: The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects; Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. Regal period is used only for this article and not for any others.
• Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Obviously, "Regal period" is the most concise option, and as said, there are no other articles to distinguish it from.
• Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. This one is more questionable, but most other articles on historical periods and Roman history use the titles the sources use.

--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I know I already spoke, but we really shouldn't assign such a broad term as "Regal period" to one nation. It can apply equally to any nation that was once a monarchy, which means it's not at all precise. Nor does it help readers passing over the link not realizing it has anything to do with Rome unless there's an addition phrase saying "of Rome". Nor does it serve any purpose other than to stay "trendy" with the latest terminology that only a specialist would know. We need to keep in mind that Wikipedia articles are intended to serve an uniformed audience as well, which means titles have to be accessible and easily understood. Roman Kingdom is easily understood. SpartaN (talk) 06:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

How can "regal period" be less understood than "Roman kingdom" when it is in far more widespread use? This makes no sense. The purpose is not "trendiness" but rather to reflect actual scholarship (not just recent scholarship, see my citation of Newman above) and not give readers a mistaken belief: namely that the pre-republican Roman monarchy is commonly called the "Roman kingdom" in parallel with "Roman republic" and "Roman empire". It manifestly is not. Srnec (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose move of this article I'm not convinced that there is a good reason to change the name of this article. "Regal period", as I pointed above, could be applied to earlier ancient Athenian history, thus the criteria of Precision & Conciseness are not met. I honestly don't find "Regal period" to apply as naturally to the topic as "Roman Kingdom" or "Rome of the Kings"; preferring "regal" over "kingdom" will only lead us into the weeds arguing whether the Roman Kings meet some criterion for "real kings". As for "Consistency" ... the English language is inconsistent. If that is the primary or sole reason to change the name, then that's insufficient; many subjects use titles that are inconsistent or sound awkward. An example of this is a subject category a librarian friend mentioned to me years ago that exists in the Library of Congress categorization -- "Righteous gentiles of the Holocaust", or books about people who saved Jews from the concentration/death camps -- it's an unusual way to phrase the topic, but no better way to express it comes easily to the tongue. -- llywrch (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You are correct about Athens, which suggests that Regal period in ancient Rome or some such would be better than plain Regal period. But what is "preferring 'regal' over 'kingdom' will only lead us into the weeds arguing whether the Roman Kings meet some criterion for 'real kings'" supposed to mean? Regal, from regalis, from rex, obviously refers to kings. Again, the problem with the current title is that it is not reflective of actual usage. It is longstanding Wikipedian usage and I suspect that is colouring the views of some longstanding Wikipedians. (I know, I've been there before myself.) Srnec (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

"Regal period" has been the preferred usage in published writing since about 1850, accord to this ngram. Not only that, but the gbook results for "regal period" refer to this period almost exclusively. What are we if we don't follow the RS? Just a blog giving our opinions. Whiff of greatness (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

What the ngram proves is that the phrase occurs x number of times in literature dated to a particular time. However, it fails to account for the context in which it appears. I imagine that every reference to "regal period" either occurs in a work whose title already identifies the topic as Roman history, or states in some way that the Roman kingdom is the one being referred to. What you won't find is the bare phrase "regal period" as a headword in non-specialist works; i. e. works not specifically about Roman history or at least the classical world. If you asked ten history majors "what does the phrase 'regal period' refer to," you're likely to get ten variations of "a period during which a society was ruled by kings and queens", unless in some way you indicate which culture you're referring to.

The topic of this discussion is not whether the phrase "regal period" is an accurate description of the period of time during which Rome was ruled by kings, or even if it's the description used most frequently by historians. The question is, "what is the best title for this article?" And the answer is, something that is recognizable to a general readership; something people unfamiliar with specialized literature might look under; neither generic nor ambiguous; something that is precise, concise, and preferably consistent with related articles. The phrase "Roman kingdom" fits these criteria better than any of the other proposals. I think it's rather pedantic to require article titles to match whatever phrase is most frequently used within specialized literature. If you think Wikipedia's article titling policies make Wikipedia a blog, then for you it's just a blog, and it's always been a blog. Nothing we decide here will change that. P Aculeius (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Latin

The article currently opens "The Roman Kingdom (Latin: Rēgnum Rōmānum; Latin pronunciation: [ˈreːŋ.nũː roːˈmaː.nũː])." This implies that the phrase has a classical Latin origin, which I find unlikely. The Perseus Digital Library has a large collection of Latin source material, but only two examples of regnum Romanum. Neither of them are relevant to this issue. One is from Livy: "When they came there, and had carried out their father's instructions, a desire sprang up in the hearts of the youths to find out which one of them should be king at Rome (regnum Romanum)." (1.56.10). The other example is from Ranieri Pisa Granci, an Italian Renaissance poet too obscure to get his own Wikipedia entry (or an English translation anywhere I could find). Luther uses the phrase in A Commentary on the Psalms, but again nothing to do with this period: "So the church after Christ, prayed for the advancing of God's kingdom, and after this prayer followed the ruin of the Roman kingdom (regnum Romanum), which before seemed to be invincible." On Gbooks, regnum Romanum is most commonly a reference to the Medieval German state. Whiff of greatness (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. You may want to see Steven Fanning, “Emperors and Empires in Fifth-Century Gaul,” in Fifth-Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity?, ed. John Drinkwater and Hugh Elton (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 288–97, which is all about how the terms rex and regnum were not uncommonly used in Late Antiquity, even by Roman writers, for the emperor and the empire. I also get the same results as you on Google Books: the Latin term is more likely to refer to the "kingdom of the Romans" (i.e., the Holy Roman Empire) than to the earliest Roman state. The Latin in the intro ought to be removed. Srnec (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The question under discussion is the title of the article in English Wikipedia. If the title of the article is "Roman Kingdom" (or "kingdom"), then the term would normally appear in boldface in the lead sentence. That doesn't mean that other terms aren't used or can't be used in this or other articles, provided that what is meant by them can be understood from the context. How common or uncommon the same phrase translated into Latin was in Roman times really isn't that relevant, especially as there's no evidence of a different Latin phrase that was generally used to refer to the same thing, with a convenient English equivalent that could be used for the article title. I doubt very much that there was one to begin with; this degree of historical categorization and the idea of demanding uniform terminology is very modern. I'm sure that "regal period" wasn't used, either. But even if it had been, it wouldn't be very persuasive for this debate, because it would be a culture's reference to its own history in a context that readers would be expected to understand without more specificity. Surely we could write about "the Presidency" in the expectation that people would anticipate it being about the American presidency, but two thousand years from now that's not likely to be clear.

I also don't think that a perusal of the "Perseus Digital Library" counts as a reliable source or a proper survey of the use of a Latin phrase. First of all, most of the Roman historians exist only in fragmentary form, if at all. Second, the Perseus collection's Latin contents are far from comprehensive, and most of it simply doesn't refer to the Roman kingdom by any title, since most of the works don't discuss early Roman history. It's also unclear how thorough the search feature is. And aside from that, how many other terms for the same thing occur in Latin texts there? We don't know; none have been mentioned. At any rate, a descriptive English title doesn't have to be the preferred term used in the language of the culture being discussed. It needs to be a useful description of the topic in English. The dominance or lack of dominance of the translation in a small sample of ancient Latin historians really doesn't matter. P Aculeius (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a separate discussion, since it pertains to this article no matter the title. We wouldn't add tempus regalis to the lead if the article were moved. It is absolutely relevant whether the term regnum Romanum is even classical usage (esp. when we give a classical pronunciation). Srnec (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 27 June 2017

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

No consensus to move. There is a clear absence of consensus here. bd2412 T 03:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Roman Kingdom → Roman regal period – In the discussion above, there was a rough consensus that the phrase "Roman Kingdom" is not an appropriate article title, as the phrase is quite rarely used in the sources. Especially with "Kingdom" capitalized, the title gives the impress that this is a common name for the subject along the lines of Roman Republic and Roman Empire, but this is not true. The name is also ambiguous; a Google Books search reveals that many uses of the phrase "Roman kingdom" actually intend other topics, notably the "Roman kingdom" of Syagrius.[5][6][7] As shown in the last RM, "Regal period" appears to be the most common term for this phase of ancient Roman history; it certainly returns far more (and more relevant) Google Books hits.[8] "Roman regal period" should be a suitable WP:NATURALDIS solution for those worried about confusion with other topics potentially called "regal periods". Cúchullain ^t/c 19:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Support for reasons I discussed in the prior move proposal. What I like about this title, is that it loses the misleading "kingdom", but will still pop up in the predictive text searches when someone types Roman... along with the other two articles. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support. The current title with a capital K is unacceptable. Although a lower-case k might be the simplest solution, the term itself is not in widespread use for this period of Roman history. The common term is "regal period". Srnec (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. This seems to be the same debate we just had, and for which it was clear there was no consensus to move to any one of a number of similar titles. A slight variation on phrasing is the only difference, but really nothing new. Much of the rationale is clearly false; there was no consensus that the current title was "inappropriate", nor that the title gives a false or misleading impression. The term "Roman kingdom" is not made the least bit ambiguous by the occasional reference to "the Roman kingdom of Syagrius" in literature about the Frankish kingdoms or related topics; that point was already refuted. "Regal period", even with disambiguation, is still a specialist term that most readers won't know to look for, and it's no more descriptive than the current title. Arguing the same thing until everybody else is tired of contributing isn't particularly collaborative. P Aculeius (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

How is it possible for readers to know the present title better than the term "regal period" when the present title is not in widespread use outside of Wikipedia? You haven't refuted anything, you've just ignored what actual sources (generalist and specialist) say. They do not say "Roman kingdom" very often when talking about the early Roman state. Srnec (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This isn't about what people know. But in part, it's about what people would look for, and nobody is going to look under this title any more than the other very similar alternatives mentioned above over the course of ten days. It's not about what specialist literature calls it when the context has already been provided. Wikipedia isn't a classical history encyclopedia or a history of Roman civilization. I'm not ignoring what any source says. You haven't cited a single scholarly source that says, "the only official and correct name of this is topic is THE REGAL PERIOD: no context is needed to establish that it refers to Rome, because everybody already knows that there was only one significant REGAL PERIOD, and any other names and/or descriptions for the same are wrong, immoral, and an abomination before all humanity". Under Wikipedia's article naming policies, which have already been discussed at great length, a perfectly reasonable description that everyone can understand, which has been, is, and can be used without risk of confusion, is at least as valid as the proposed name.

What has been refuted, twice so far, is the notion that occasional references to the Kingdom of Soissons as "the Roman kingdom of Syagrius" somehow render the bare phrase "Roman kingdom" ambiguous. No source uses that phrase in the manner suggested; i.e. without providing any context that would enable to reader to know that what is meant was a very small, very short-lived kingdom in what would soon become Frankish territory. If you want to keep arguing that any other use of the phrase "Roman kingdom", even with context provided, renders that phrase ambiguous, then please, find just one scholarly source that uses the phrase "Roman kingdom" without any indication of the context to mean the kingdom of Syagrius instead of Rome in the time of the kings. Otherwise, the argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. P Aculeius (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: I'm sorry, is it inappropriate, even though the prior proposal was to move it to a different namespace? This is just not an area I know enough about. To address your point about the term itself, I really did struggle to find instances of the term "Roman kingdom". As opposed to regal period. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This suggestion is almost exactly the same as half a dozen other variants discussed over the course of the last ten days, none of which even came close to a consensus. The fact that this precise formulation wasn't mentioned until after that debate was closed, and then was posted as an entirely new proposal immediately after it was closed, suggests an attempt to do an end-run around the collaborative process by which various members of the community weighed in before. Several members of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome gave their opinions in the previous discussion only because a notice of the discussion was placed on the project talk page after the discussion had begun; they weren't notified by the person proposing the change last time or this, although this is a rather important topic for that group. So a large number of people joined in the discussion that was closed today. It's unlikely that all of the same people will participate this time around, particularly if they think that the matter has been settled for the time being, or if reopening the discussion makes it seem like giving their opinion before was a waste of time. So it really doesn't seem appropriate to start this discussion all over again at this point. P Aculeius (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: "The fact that this precise formulation wasn't mentioned until after that debate was closed, and then was posted as an entirely new proposal immediately after it was closed, suggests an attempt to do an end-run around the collaborative process by which various members of the community weighed in before."

So, to me, this looks like a group of engaged editors who each have something to offer trying to improve WP. I feel that Roman regal period is an improvement to this topic's title, more so than that proposed in the first debate.

If that's not the case, what would you suggest? Seriously, I trust your judgement.

Also:

Common names and retronyms: There is no common name for this topic. Therefore anything we choose is coming from the scholarly community. Honestly, I consider myself a "lay classicist" if I may be so bold, and I actually thought that this term was the common name for that period. The proposed new title cannot be confused with a common name for the topic, in the same way that Early Dynastic Period (Egypt) can't be confused for a common name for the topic.

Consistency and predictive searching It retains the consistency of the current name space and Roman Empire and Roman Republic. It's an improvement without sacrificing what the current title gets right. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You may not have intended to reopen the same discussion, but that's the practical effect. We have the same people making the same arguments with very little difference. All of the arguments made with respect to the previous suggestions seem to apply equally well to this one. However, there is a flaw with your first conclusion. I agree with the premise that there is no common name, although clearly the other supporters disagree with this. However, the lack of a common name doesn't necessarily lead to picking a name from a particular source. A simple, concise, and natural name for the topic, fitting Wikipedia's article naming criteria, is always preferable, no matter what other, less suitable alternatives might be found by mining scholarly sources.

"Roman kingdom", "Rome under the kings", "Regal period of ancient Rome", and numerous variations all exist because they're basically generic formulations for something that doesn't have a common name familiar to the general public. And that's okay; English doesn't have to refer to the same thing the same way every time. One is as good as another, in the abstract; but the current title meets all of the criteria for article names as well or better than any of the other proposals. If you're worried about the current name being "confused with" a common name, then the current proposal has the very same drawback. The current name is more consistent with existing related articles than the proposed name; it's certainly much more intuitive. The most obvious formulations would be "Roman kings", "Roman kingdom", "kingdom of Rome", "Kings of Rome", and the like, in no particular order. That's why I think the present title is better than any of the proposals. P Aculeius (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, another user opened the new discussion. I wouldn't have. But now that it's here, what do you suggest? Should we not participate? Should an administrator close it? Please advise. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how the proposed name has the drawback of being confused with a common name. Academics call things "periods". And I was actually confused by the title and thought that Roman Kingdom was the common name for the period. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

As I say below, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this RM or participating in it. It's also not the same discussion; it uses one of several variants that was discussed to gauge consensus for moving to that specifically. And yes, that's one of the main problems with "Roman Kingdom": it gives the impression that this is a common name for the topic, though it is not.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

For starters, there's absolutely nothing "inappropriate" about this RM according to any established policy or practice. For one thing, the last RM was for a different title; for another, it closed as "no consensus", not "no move". That happened because the original proposal didn't find much support and several other options came up. There was indeed a rough consensus that "Roman Kingdom" is not a good title - most participants who got into that said as much, and more importantly, it was shown that that title isn't in significant use by sources, a point wasn't ever refuted.

As for the request for scholarly references to "Roman Kingdom" in reference to the kingdom of Syagrius, I gave several,[9][10][11] and more are easily found. Other uses are for different topics entirely, eg scholarly works discussing prophetic interpretations in which the "Roman Kingdom" refers to the Roman Empire in contrast to the kingdom of God.[12][13][14] In fact, on Google Books, "Roman Kingdom" refers to the Roman regal period less than it refers to other uses. The fact remains that sources don't call the regal period the "Roman Kingdom" with any regularity, and therefore, neither should Wikipedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It was thoroughly refuted, and here comes more refutation from the words of your so-called sources:

• source 1: book titled Late Roman Warlords (context), chapter titled "Syagrius and the Kingdom of Soissons" (context), headline "The Kingdom of Soissons in Conventional Scholarship and as Redefined by Edward James" (context), text "In the conventional version of the history of fifth-century Gaul (context), Aegidius and Syagrius held most of the North and north-central Gaul for about twenty-five years, from c.AD 461 to 485/6 (possibly with Count Paulus ruling between the two). (context) The area of this 'Roman kingdom' is not, of course, given in any primary source, and estimates of its extent are based on the absence of evidence for this region being under the control of any other rulers."
• source 2: book titled The Roman Remains of Northern and Eastern France: a Guidebook (context). Figure 4: "Eastern Gaul in late antiquity" (context), evidently a map (context) on which the phrase "Roman kingdom" appears; the map doesn't display in either Firefox or Safari, so I can't say any more about it, other than that the phrase clearly appears only within multiple contexts already indicating what it means and excluding any other possible meaning. This is the only occurrence of the term in this book; it's not used in the text.
• source 3: From Polls to Empire: the Ancient World, C. 800 B.C.-A.D. 500 (finally, a source that could possibly include more than one entity under the title of "Roman kingdom"). "Syagrius (ruled c. 466–c. 487)" (context), "Syagrius was defeated and killed by Clovis, who was consolidating control of the various Frankish groups; the autonomous postimperial Roman "kingdom" was absorbed into Frankish power." (context)

So, your point, which you keep repeating without the slightest justification, is that the phrase "Roman kingdom" should not be used as a title because people might assume it refers to the Kingdom of Soissons. But not one single source uses the phrase "Roman kingdom" to refer to the Kingdom of Soissons without clearly and unambiguously providing the context in which that phrase was used in advance of and simultaneously with using it; the best sources you were able to muster place the phrase in "scare quotes" or avoid using it in the body text altogether. Only one of them is a general reference source, rather than a work whose primary focus is on the establishment of the Frankish kingdoms; none of them use the phrase "Roman kingdom" isolated from context or in any way expect the reader to know what is referred to without having to explain what they mean.

In other words, there is absolutely no evidence whatever that anybody understands or expects anybody else to understand the phrase "Roman kingdom" by itself to refer to the Kingdom of Soissons, rather than Rome under the kings. The argument is thoroughly, totally, and utterly refuted, is covered with refutation, refutation drips from its eaves, and it needs to stay inside and watch Netflix. P Aculeius (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You've clearly demonstrated that the phrase "Roman kingdom" is in use for the Roman kingdom of Syagrius. I've also demonstrated that it's in use for the Roman Empire in other contexts. Your argument that uses for the Roman kingdom of Syagrius in Soissons are illegitimate if they mention Syagrius or Soissons is pretty strange. Obviously any use of any term will be in its own context, including the "Roman kingdom" of the regal period. Moving back to the actual topic at hand, I note that you're still not arguing that that "Roman kingdom" is more common than "Regal period" for this subject, which appears to be unsupportable on its face.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Suppose. As Srnec already noted, the capital K issue makes this move an unambiguous improvement. But no one calls this period Roman regal period either. I'd still prefer regal period. Whiff of greatness (talk) 03:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. Your first argument is, "A is an improvement on B, therefore C is an improvement on B". If capitalization is an issue, then fix that or propose fixing that. Changing the title from one phrase to another has nothing to do with how it's capitalized. The second argument is simply a return to the previous discussion, which was just closed without anything near a consensus in favour. P Aculeius (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I was explaining the evolution of my own views, not that anyone needs to care about that. When Roman regal period was first proposed, I considered it a lateral move rather than an improvement. But after reading Srnec's comment, I'm on board. Whiff of greatness (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Whiff of greatness: I agree that "Regal period" is fine on its own, but there was reasonable concern that the phrase is ambiguous with other periods of history. There are 200+ uses of "Roman regal period" on Google Books,[15] and as a descriptive title (ie, the "Regal period of Roman civilazation") it should be fair game.--13:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to the statement, "the capital K issue makes this move an unambiguous improvement." The argument this implies is that the article should be moved to "Roman regal period", because "Kingdom" in the present title should not be capitalized. That argument makes no sense. It's a bit like concluding that you must drain a bathtub because there's a rubber duck floating in it, when you could simply remove the duck. P Aculeius (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I still don't understand why this is necessary or desirable. The current title is a very accurate description of the article. There were kings in Rome, therefore it was a kingdom. "Regal" is simply another word for kingly. What is the difference? If the sole concern is that people who know the time period as the "Regal period" (and I doubt there are any such people) then simply add a redirect. Urg writer (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's been explained. It is necessary and desirable because we do not just title our articles with acceptable descriptive phrases, but with the common name. We are not interested in whether or not "Roman kingdom" is acceptable or accurate. It may as well be both. We are interested in whether or not it is the best title. And it is not. Because as a specific phrase, it is very rare for describing the early Roman state (indeed, it is probably rarer than you know, since it is certainly rarer than even I suspected). Because as it stands the capital K suggests that this is a proper name, which it most definitely is not. Because there is in fact a term in very widespread use for describing precisely the early Roman state ("kingdom"). That is "regal period". This article is about the regal period of Roman history.
Even if we accept that There were kings in Rome, therefore it was a kingdom is a logical argument, it does not follow form that that we should therefore call the kingdom a kingdom. After all, Australia is a kingdom by this logic, but actually calling it a kingdom is unlikely to be clarifying. Srnec (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

So what should one call a polity governed by a king? -- llywrch (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This is coming uncomfortably soon after the last suggested name change; in fact, when I first looked at this talk page I honestly thought this was the previous discussion & wondered where my comment had gone. Seeing how heated the last discussion had become, I'd prefer to see a 1-2 week cooling off period between proposed name changes.

  But to the question. I'm opposed because I don't see how the new title is an improvement over the current one. "Roman regal period" is just as potentially ambiguous as "Roman Kingdom". Further, when someone objects that the proposed new name isn't the best one (& offers reasons), then they are told the old one isn't the most commonly accepted name by the academic community. When someone objects that there is no "most commonly accepted" name by the academic community (& offers reasons), they are told it isn't the best name. Ad infinitum. I honestly feel the reasons being provided for changing the name reduce to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And I'll admit that this isn't the best possible title -- if I had to change it, I'd rename it "Rome under the kings", but I suspect that title wouldn't be acceptable because it sounds too much like the title of a book. So this is a case of the perfect is the enemy of the good. And fighting every nomination of a new name will only distract members of WP:CG&R from improving content. Nevertheless, until someone can provide a positive reason to prefer another specific title for this article, let's have a moratorium on proposed renaming. (Discussing possible better names is another matter. I see no harm in talking.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Comments in a move discussion should compare the merits of various proposed titles. I hope we can avoid any more posts of this type, which I consider unhelpful at best. Whiff of greatness (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm just calling a spade a spade here. To repeat myself, all of the arguments for changing the title have been little more than expressing a dislike for calling this period a "kingdom". No one has provided a positive reason to prefer either of the alternative titles yet proposed. No one wanting a change has provided a review of the language the experts use for it. Do your homework, or have your opinions treated accordingly. -- llywrch (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Could you at least read what others are writing? As Cuchullain notes, regal period "certainly returns far more (and more relevant) Google Books hits" than Roman Kingdom does. I thought Srnec put the argument in a nutshell: "The current title with a capital K is unacceptable. Although a lower-case k might be the simplest solution, the term itself is not in widespread use for this period of Roman history." To repeat my own argument from the last RM, this ngram shows that "regal period" is the most widely used option. The difference in usage is quite dramatic when you consider that "regal period" refers to this subject almost 100 percent of the time while the phrase is "Roman kingdom" is likely to appear in unrelated contexts such as "post-Roman kingdom." Whiff of greatness (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

But nobody has ever been arguing that they're opposed to having "Roman kingdom" instead of "Roman Kingdom". TBH that's not really an important issue, and it's one that the Romans themselves wouldn't have recognized, as they didn't really use capital and lowercase letters. Anywhere other than Wikipedia, both words would be capitalized because it's the title of the article. But if the only issue here is whether it ought to be at "Roman kingdom" instead of "Roman Kingdom" then this debate could have been resolved with consensus ages ago. I don't think anybody's strongly attached to the capital letter.

The whole argument is about whether to move it to a completely different title. And there's nothing new in this discussion that wasn't talked about in the previous one. We have three or four people who are determined to move it to something else, although there's less agreement on what; about as many people who think the current title is better than any of the suggestions that have been made, and a handful of others who've posted just once or twice, without really moving either side to a consensus. Which is what we need to have in order to make a change, unless there is no alternative, such as leaving it where it is. And that's an option. There doesn't seem to be a consensus, nor any prospect of reaching one in favour of substituting "regal period" or any number of variations thereof for the current title. There's nothing wrong with observing that fact. But suggesting that other people's comments aren't helpful, aren't welcome, or that they're not reading what you write, is not collaborative and doesn't move this topic forward. If there's no consensus, there's no consensus. P Aculeius (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This would be inconsistent with Roman Republic and Roman Empire. Also, While Regal period might be more popular with academics, (According to google Ngram) "Kingdom" is 46 times more used and thus more likely to be understood by non-native speakers. Koopinator (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Academic use is what concerns us here. I also don't see any evidence supporting your claim that "Roman Kingdom" is more common (which contradicts the above evidence).--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to "Roman kingdom", I was referring to the word "Kingdom" which was more popular than the word "regal" and thus more likely to be understood by non-native speakers. See Here. I also don't see why academics should take priority over non-native speakers. Koopinator (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Koopinator: the issue isn't academics vs. laypeople. There is no "layperson" word for this topic. There is only a choice between terms of art. Roman regal period seems to be the more frequently used term in academic publications and it also flows with Roman republic and Roman empire. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@InformationvsInjustice: I'm sorry if i am repeating anyone here, But how often is "Roman regal period" actually used, In those words? I've done a google books search and it appears most actually call it the "Regal period of ancient rome". Koopinator (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Koopinator: Roman Regal Period is a contrivance. As much as Roman Kingdom is. However, it is true or two the sources on the topic, and less likely to be confused by readers as the name that the Romans used to refer to their state. You are very correct in pointing out that Regal period of Ancient Rome or Regal period of Rome are used perhaps just as often as Roman Regal Period. Perhaps more so. But it's a compromise for the purposes of Wikipedia. It's consistent with Roman Empire and Roman Republic. it's just a better compromise than the current title. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"Regal period of ancient Rome" is contrived as well, although "regal period of Rome" does see some real world usage. See this ngram. This is from SPQR by Mary Beard, currently the top selling work on Roman history: "It was only a short step from this, a step many historians then took, to claim that the Roman "regal period," as it is now often called, never existed." (p. 94). She also has a chronology on page 563 where the name is given as "REGAL PERIOD." Whiff of greatness (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Requested move 15 July 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, yet again, and it does not seem one is on sight. I would echo Llywrch's comment above: And fighting every nomination of a new name will only distract members of WP:CG&R from improving content. Nevertheless, until someone can provide a positive reason to prefer another specific title for this article, let's have a moratorium on proposed renaming. No such user (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Roman Kingdom → Roman kingdom – There is no evidence that "Roman Kingdom" is a proper name for the early Roman state. It is, at best, a descriptive title. Therefore, we should use lower case. Srnec (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral, for now. (changed to Oppose, see below). Granted that nobody in Roman times used the exact words, "Roman Kingdom" (or for that matter, "Roman Republic" or "Roman Empire") since English didn't exist yet. And the Romans themselves didn't distinguish between proper nouns and common nouns, as far as we know, since that's a modern convention dealing largely with capitalization, which also hadn't been invented yet. So while we know that Livy referred to the Regnum Romanum, which we translate as "Roman kingdom" or "Kingdom" we have no idea if he intended to name it that, much less what the Romans of regal times called it, since there's next to no written Latin from that period or describing it Rome as a political entity other than simply "Rome". And while we have many references to the Republic and Empire, the lack of clear distinction between classes of nouns for capitalization make it somewhat hazy whether there was a proper name for the Roman Republic or Roman Empire. We capitalize them by modern convention, not ancient.

Applying that same logic consistently, the title is fine as is. But it's not particularly objectionable without capitalization, either, and I did previously make the point of how for all the talk about how it was supposedly capitalized wrong, nobody was actually arguing to fix the problem by changing the capitalization. However, it does seem like a rather pointless exercise. I don't believe for a minute that the name needs to be changed in order to prevent people from being confused about whether the phrase is an "official" name. The idea that ancient cultures had concepts such as "official" or "legal" names of this type is seriously anachronistic, and the distinction itself is of next to no importance whatever, particularly considering that nobody living today really has the right to decide what the "official" name shall have been. And few if any reference works would bother making such a distinction in an article title; the only reason we can here is because Wikipedia policy ignores title case for article titles and section headings. So I guess if it absolutely must be moved, this is the least harmful move and the most consistent with Wikipedia policy. But the whole thing still seems like a waste of time and effort to me. P Aculeius (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. We use lower case when the English name is a conventional description, e.g. Tang dynasty. We don't do it when it's a direct translation, as is the case here. Regnum Romanum is as easily translated Kingdom of Rome as Roman Kingdom, and would be capitalized either way, just as we capitalize Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and Soviet Union, when translating from Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик, and Сове́тский Сою́з, respectively. Or is someone arguing that Livy himself was only being descriptive and not using it as a name, and we're thus translating a description? If so, on what source basis?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• I dealt with the Latin question here. Livy's regnum Romanun can be translated as "sovereign power at Rome" (Spillan's translation) or "king at Rome" (Foster). It's not a proper name of a period. Whiff of greatness (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean about this instance of the phrase not clearly naming the kingdom, although Spillan's rather awkward translation seems more faithful to the word. De Sélincourt's rendering is similar. Elsewhere, no less a personality than Tarquin the Proud refers to having ruled "no mean kingdom". So the word regnum in the sense of "kingdom" definitely appears in Livy, at least descriptively. But it's not clear whether we have any ancient sources using it, or anything else for that matter, as a name for the Roman monarchy. Modern convention would treat it as a name, I think, if one chooses to use this phrase rather than another, as we have here. Here are some examples from English usage, excluding works about Biblical prophecy, a couple of recent self-published works, and a few history books where the phrase occurs only as the title of a chapter or section, but not in running text (and is therefore always capitalized).

• David Nasmith, Outline of Roman History from Romulus to Justinian: "Roman kingdom"
• Rose Williams, From Romulus to Romulus Augustulus: "Roman Kingdom"
• Daniel Defoe, Jure Divino: "Roman Kingdom" (some editions, others "kingdom")
• William Carey Morey, Outlines of Roman History: "Roman kingdom"
• Thomas Chapman, "Essay on the Roman Senate": "Roman Kingdom"
• Dan Crompton, "A Classical Primer": "Roman kingdom"
• Kevin Osborn, "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Classical Mythology": "Roman kingdom"
• Benjamin Smith, Back to School: "Roman kingdom"
• Craig R. Smith, Rhetoric and Human Consciousness: "Roman Kingdom"
• Walter R. Newell, Tyrants: "Roman kingdom"
• Kathleen S. Lamp, A City of Marble: "Roman Kingdom"
• Arthur J. Hughes, Man in Time: "Roman Kingdom"

Based on English usage one seems as good as another. Some treat it as a proper name, and some don't. As an article title one thinks of it as a proper name, but Wikipedia's article titling policies specifically reject title case. So it seems like a matter of personal preference. I've been wavering on this ever since the naming debate began, and currently I'm leaning back toward capitalization, because it seems consistent with English usage, not of this phrase specifically (since usage is divided), but since we conventionally capitalize Roman Republic and Roman Empire as proper names. It's true that the Romans themselves used these phrases to name the Roman state. But they didn't capitalize them. That's an English convention. The Romans didn't clearly distinguish between proper nouns and common nouns, nor did the names they gave to things like states have any sort of "officialness". There was no Roman law that declared, "Chapter XXIV, section viii: the name of this state shall be The Roman Republic, hereinafter referred to as the Republic." That's a modern concept that wasn't even thought of in Roman times, and really wasn't necessary. So really the argument here isn't about Latin, but English. I think it's clear there's no clear "right" or "wrong" answer here, but at the moment I think the argument for the present capitalization is slightly stronger. P Aculeius (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support move to Roman regal period as better reflecting how sources refer to the topic, but as an alternative, support lower-cased Roman kingdom as a necessary measure. Regardless of Latin use, which has no bearing on English, and individual editors' preferences, the governing guideline is MOS:CAPS. This says to avoid capitalization except in cases of proper names "that are consistently capitalized in sources". Both P Aculeius's results above and a cursory Google Books search shows that "Roman kingdom" is not consistently capitalized where the phrase is used for this topic ("regal period" is the much more common term[16]). As such, the capitalization needs to be removed if the "Roman kingdom" phrase is kept.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. My preference is regal period or regal period of Rome. This would conform to usage in the RS. But the least we can do is avoid misleading readers into believing that the current title is a proper noun. Whiff of greatness (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning Oppose per WP:Titlechanges. The nominator is wrong. There is some evidence, see google ngram case insensitive "the roman kingdom". The evidence is mixed, unclear, even weak. Why should it go inconsistently with Roman Empire, Roman Republic, and German Empire? I think the weakness for the capital K rests on the infrequency of use, lack of familiarity, and the huge amount of revisionism in the topic. A history without documents, reconstructed from legends. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This case-sensitive version is a bit clearer, I think. It has already been shown that in the vast majority of cases, the phrase "the Roman kingdom" does not refer to this subject. Whiff of greatness (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think your highly restrictive search is clearer at all. This is not a new topic. case sensitive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

A timeline of 1600 to 2008? Capitalization was handled quite differently in the 18th century, you know. Usage shifted from "Roman kingdom" to "regal period" around 1850, as you can see here. Whiff of greatness (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Funny, you get very different results if you remove "the" as a search term and require "Regal Period" to be capitalized. Obviously if you restrict your search in just the right way you can get results you like. But as was already stated repeatedly, "regal period" could refer to any country that once had a monarchy, and those results are all included in these searches, which makes them invalid. And more importantly, the article isn't going to be moved to "regal period" any time soon, so a timeline of usage between the two phrases isn't relevant to this proposed move. The issue is capitalization, not whether it's the right name. A lot of perfectly good sources treat it as a proper name, and the only argument against following them seems to be the circular "it's not a proper name." P Aculeius (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that's ever been demonstrated. In fact, most references to "the Roman kingdom" or "Kingdom" seem to refer to the period of the Roman monarchy, as was previously argued through two long, long move request debates, both of which ended with no consensus to move. There's no point in relitigating that here. The main point of contention here is whether capitalizing "kingdom" creates an unjustified risk of giving the air of "officialness" to the title, but the reasoning given by most of the proponents of this move is circular: "Roman Kingdom" can't be a proper name because the proper name of the Roman monarchy is "Regal Period". But that's no more "official" than any other phrase, and what's actually been shown is that "Roman Kingdom", with or without capitalizing "kingdom", is reasonably common, and much more precise. Phrases like "Roman Empire" and "Roman Republic" are "official" not because the Romans had a concept of official, formal names, but because those titles more or less sweep the field in modern English (except among those who prefer referring to the "Principate" and the "Dominate"), although it should also be pointed out that the Roman use of Republic technically encompassed both the monarchy and imperial times, since res publica broadly referred to the Roman state as a whole. Anyway, think I'm throwing my lot in with the oppose camp now. P Aculeius (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Based on 21st century usage, I find that only two of the ten results gbooks gives on the first page are relevant. Six are about biblical prophesy, two others are about Syagrius. I would conclude that the ngram grossly exaggerates the relevant usage of "Roman kingdom" as compared to "regal period." Whiff of greatness (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how many times it's necessary to reiterate that this isn't a proposal to rename the article. Going back to that argument over and over again is completely irrelevant here. So you can hand-pick the evidence you want and ignore everything else until the cows come home, but it's only a distraction. The only issue here is whether to treat "Roman Kingdom" as a proper name, not whether the article should be called something else. Right now I think that the arguments in favour of treating it as a proper name are slightly stronger. P Aculeius (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The term "regal period" may sound ambiguous. But in fact, it refers to this subject almost 100 percent of the time, as you can see here. On gbooks, it is about twenty times more common than capitalized "Roman Kingdom," according to the ngram. If you consider that most instances of "Roman Kingdom" do not refer to this subject, the effective ratio is more like fifty or sixty to one. Of course, it was Roman and it was certainly a kingdom. But if that's the logic for calling it a Roman kingdom, then the term a descriptive and it should be lower cased. Whiff of greatness (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed move (again)

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: no consensus in 6 years. William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

---

As the person who resurrected this issue, I want to apologize for being unavoidably out of easy internet access for the past month. I'm disappointed to see a lack of consensus on a name change. The current title, as has been noted many times, is simply not in use (and never has been). Almost any of the alternatives that have been proposed would be better, but I'd favor something that includes the most commonly used word these days: regal. (And I say this as a published historian of ancient Rome.) - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Please point to some good sources that call it something else. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources that call it "regal period"? Britannica and SPQR by Mary Beard. If you search on gbooks, "regal period" gives you 40 pages of hits. Almost all of these are relevant. Whiff of greatness (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner

No. The Britannica article is "Ancient Rome", not "Regal Period". Even the subheading under which the phrase "regal period" occurs is called "Early Rome to 509 BC". It's clearly not being used as any kind of "official" name, or with any more authority than describing early Rome as a kingdom, which by definition it was. And while Mary Beard uses the phrase, she doesn't use it as a title, or a subheading, or a proper name even once. It's just a description, without even a hint of officialness. Which you wouldn't expect anyway, since SPQR isn't concerned with putting things in scholarly terms; it's a highly irreverent distillation of Roman history aimed at general audiences. I'm not saying it's poorly written or questioning its accuracy; but it's not exactly the kind of authority you appeal to in order to show that any name has some kind of official scholarly sanction. If you haven't actually read it, Beard frequently assigns memorable, but not particularly respectful nicknames to legendary personages; she describes people and situations in terms that, while very entertaining, and easily relatable to modern audiences, may be somewhat misleading if viewed from a strict historical context. "This is how SPQR describes something" simply isn't very authoritative. P Aculeius (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You'd hardly expect Mary Beard to use an incorrect term even in a more popular book and she doesn't. This is the point: not that she doesn't use this article's current title as a subheading, but that she doesn't use it at all. Instead she uses "regal period" 19 times. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be hung up on the idea that this is a "right vs. wrong" issue. It's not. There is no "official" name and never will be. But it's even more ridiculous to say that "this term is valid because A, B, and C use it", while at the same time dismissing D, E, and F because you think they're too old, or not important enough. And the argument presented below is simply hypocritical: "those who oppose us are stymieing consensus. We're not stymieing, it's them." It's time to move on. P Aculeius (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course it matters who uses a term and when. You'd surely prefer "Greek" to "Grecian", yet Keats didn't. The English language has moved from one term to the other and it's of course perfectly valid to prefer the recent term to the outdated one. Likewise Wikipedia's title article does in fact say you should use reliable sources, which severely disfavors somebody writing about stuff you forgot in high school over somebody writing a peer-reviewed textbook on the topic in question. The latter is obviously more reliable. These objections are counter to common sense, as well as WP's practice. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You simply dismiss sources you don't agree with by saying they're too old or not scholarly, calling them unreliable or saying that they're counter to common sense, but you're perfectly happy to rely on extremely recent works that aren't written for scholarly purposes. This isn't about archaic language or poetry. It's about clear English, and quite a lot of people have already chimed in to say that the present title is perfectly clear, while most of the proposed alternatives are not. Is the strategy to keep calling the question over and over until everybody else gives up and lets you do whatever you want out of sheer frustration? P Aculeius (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I've been quite clear that the scholarly consensus is completely against the current title and I and others have given multiple citations for that. You respond with out of date and/or non-scholarly books, so I rather think that you're the one who is trying to wear everyone out by sticking to a title that is obviously inappropriate. Your suggestion that we refer to 18th-century volumes are what's counter to common sense. A simple redirect solves the problem of people who search for the topic with the current title, and then they would find out how people working in 2017 and who know the field actually refer to the period. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. Calling the same question again and again for the same reasons when it's clear that no consensus to move exists is the opposite of collaborative. Nothing new has been said here; the previous debates abundantly demonstrate that the present title has been used for this topic by many sources, some of them important sources, for hundreds of years up to and including the present. Simply repeating the canard that it "is not and has never been used" despite refutation piled on refutation is utterly pointless, as is continuing to oppose a perfectly acceptable title that clearly identifies the topic, and insisting that an inherently vague and undescriptive title is somehow entitled to official recognition, despite a complete lack of authority on that point (and there could never be; there is no official body in charge of naming or renaming historical periods). It's time to let this issue go (see WP:DEADHORSE), and find other ways of contributing to Wikipedia. P Aculeius (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I chimed in again on this because, as I said, I was out of touch for the past month during previous threads and I think the current name is unacceptable (and a sad example of how Wikipedia's methods can result in unacceptable results, but that's another story). Note too that most of the threads on this page since 2005 are about how poor the name is. So…no one has shown that the current title is in use in scholarly sources. Citing 100+ year-old books or popular "things you forgot" trade books isn't comparable to, say, Cornell's standard textbook on early Rome (cited in my post above from 21:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)). To the contrary several of us have repeatedly shown that "regal" is the key word and "regal period" the typical phrasing. Personally I'm very happy to have "Roman Regal Period" as the title, as has been suggested at several points above. Conversations above were stymied by a lack of consensus from those of us who oppose the current title, so I hope we can agree on this one as much preferable to the current, even if not our own first choice. srnec, Cúchullain, Whiff of Greatness, Information ys Injustice. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

With respect to the claim that "most of the threads on this page since 2005 are about how poor the name is", there were exactly two comments suggesting moving the title prior to the bumping and subsequent series of move discussions beginning less than two months ago. Both of those comments were from August 2006, at which time the consensus was against moving. The bulk of the comments were about other topics. So the premise that "most of the threads since 2005 are about how poor the name is" is clearly erroneous. P Aculeius (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

"Regal period of Rome" is far more common in the sources than "Roman regal period."[17] Whiff of greatness (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner In ictu oculi (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

No, if you search for Ngrams on "Roman Kingdom" with "Roman Regal Period" and "Regal Period of Rome" (not case-sensitive), you'll find no hits at all for "Roman Regal Period" and just one for "Regal Period of Rome", clearly showing that at all times "Roman Kingdom" has been the more common term in published literature. Even if we accept the criticism that "Roman Kingdom" is occasionally used in connection with other topics, those topics are always clearly identified by the context in which the term occurs; "Roman Kingdom" by itself and without any other context always refers to the topic of this article. But "Regal Period of Rome" is not "far more common" by any measure; not historically, not currently, not in published works, not in scholarly literature. P Aculeius (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

"Roman Kingdom" by itself and without any other context always refers to the topic of this article.: No, as has been repeatedly noted. Nearly all the references in the ngrams to "Roman kingdom" are either archaic or refer to something other than this topic. "Regal" is now the standard adjective for this period of Roman history. There really isn't any debate about this. Check the already cited works of Cornell or Beard or even MacMullen's "The Earliest Romans: A Character Sketch" which doesn't even include the word "kingdom" but uses "regal" throughout, or the CAH VII(2) (1989) which also never uses "kingdom" to describe what it calls the "regal" period. There just isn't any debate about this and the constant misrepresentation of it is wearying (at best). - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You seem to keep missing the word "context" here. As was explained before in one of the several previous debates about the exact same thing, the phrase "regal period" doesn't identify any particular time or place unless you give it context, and every source that uses it has context in that it occurs within a book or article that already identifies the topic as Roman history. Without such context, the phrase is totally useless as an article title, just like "first dynasty" or "hill country". "Roman Kingdom" without any other context always and necessarily refers to Rome in the time of the kings. Any other use of the phrase is clearly distinguished by context: "the Roman Kingdom of Syagrius" as a rare synonym for "Kingdom of Soissons" only occurs in works discussing Frankish history and the breakup of the Roman Empire; and even in those works it is never referred to as "the Roman Kingdom" without any qualification. Likewise, you cannot disregard a clear descriptive name merely because obscure theological tracts by forgotten writers refer to a fictitious notion of Rome as a kingdom in the realm of Biblical prophecy. Ask any history professor with a decent knowledge of the classical world what "regal period" refers to, without providing any hint that you're asking about Roman history, and chances are he or she will need you to be more specific before he or she can identify the topic you mean. Ask the same question of "Roman Kingdom" without any other context, and you should always get the right answer without needing to provide more information. In other words, everybody knows what the present title refers to, and nobody knows what "regal period" refers to without additional information. P Aculeius (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a bare "Regal period", but either "Roman regal period" or "Regal period of Rome". I lean towards the first only to keep it more in line with the other "Roman…" articles on periods of ancient Roman history. As for the hypothetical history professor, I am one (not hypothetical though), and if you came up to me and asked about the regal period, I'd say "Roman?" right away…but again, I'm not suggesting that phrase without "Roman" in front of it. Likewise, if you asked me about the "Roman kingdom", I would correct you and ask if you meant the "regal period". (And you continue to insist that "Roman kingdom" refers to this period when used alone, but it doesn't. The overwhelming usage since at least the middle of the 20th c. is for "regal period" or something else with "regal" in it. "Roman kingdom" just isn't used in this way by people in the field.) - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we just settle on something without quibbling? Either one of those choices is far superior to the current. A title starting with "Roman" seemed to have more support above, but honestly I don't care. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Eponymous-Archon, P Aculeius, and Whiff of greatness:, so I certainly think that Roman (lower-case) kingdom, Roman regal period, and probably a couple others would be better than the current title and I voted thusly. That said, there have now been 5(!) suggested moves. I'm not sure what happened to the original one that was proposed in 2006, But this is the fourth since June. I care about the move enough to vote and discuss, but come on... Could someone please figure out if there's a consensus or not, for moving it or not, and then let's all accept that decision and if you don't agree, we can revisit the question after some reasonable period of time has passed. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's already been determined that there's no consensus to move. That's what the last three requests all determined, and the person who closed the last one suggested the same thing you did. That lasted all of one day. I'm all for closing the debate, but I'm not the one insisting that something needs to be done about the present title, since I think it's still better than the alternatives, and meets all of Wikipedia's naming criteria. I guess we'll see if this gets closed in another three days, and if it does get closed with no consensus again, I wouldn't be surprised to see another proposal to move a day or two after that. Perhaps the strategy is just to outlast all opposition. P Aculeius (talk) 04:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Srnec, InformationvsInjustice, P Aculeius, Whiff of greatness, Cuchullain, and Informata ob Iniquitatum: I think there's majority opinion that the current title is inadequate (exceptions include vociferous opposition), but we haven't come down on a replacement. My vote would be for "Roman regal period". It starts with "Roman", uses the common "regal period" phrase, and is not going to be confused with some other period or place. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Eponymous-Archon: I agree. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly. The consensus seems to be that none of the numerous variations proposed are as good as the present title, for reasons that apply to this variation as well as the other slightly different proposals. Slight variations on the same proposal over and over again aren't going to create consensus that clearly didn't exist before. P Aculeius (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: When you edit, I listen :-) I think that lower case "k" would be an improvement, along with "regal period", or "Rome under the kings" but not enough to keep re-proposing a change. :-( Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote of confidence. It's very much appreciated. But just in case you were confused, my reply was to Archon's post, which is why I didn't indent it under yours. P Aculeius (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems that we have a pretty clear consensus that "Roman Kingdom" is a problematic title, but we're stumbling on trying to identify a better one. It appears that there are only one or two editors who support the "Roman Kingdom" title (none particularly strongly, despite the argumentative nature of the commentary), but for whatever reason we're not able to reach a consensus to move it. However, it will be moved eventually, because "Roman Kingdom" is an unsuitable title on its face, and obviously the contention isn't going away. I expect there will be further move discussions until one of the better suggestions prevails, perhaps when we get a higher level of participation than the handful of editors who've weighed in on the last few attempts.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Readers understand "Roman Kingdom" just fine. There is no obvious better name, so leave as is. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Per MOS:CAPS, Roman kingdom would be a better name, though not ideal, and even that proposal failed to reach consensus.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. This horse is dead, as all these RFCs prove. Time to move on and make some useful contributions elsewhere -- ones that might actually have a benefit to the readers. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Move on, do something constructive.Urg writer (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roman Kingdom. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051203215843/http://www.suppressedhistories.net/secret_history/patriapotestas.html to http://www.suppressedhistories.net/secret_history/patriapotestas.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)