Talk:Caput Mundi

Relation of Prime Meridian and London's current role
The wording "because the United Kingdom and London remain a major global influence, this position of the Prime Meridian remains" is highly questionable and misleading. It suggests a causal relation between the two stated facts that implies the prime meridian was to be moved elsewhere if the global influence of London or the UK ceased. Such an idea is not supported by any sources that I can see.--Zooloo (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I have applied the change to the article. Szymioza (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

copying from other articles
The section on Paris is simply copied word for word, along with citations, from the Wikipedia article on Paris. it adds no new information on the subject. I dont see the value of this article.SiefkinDR (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The section on London also seems to have been copied word for word, along with all of its sources, from the article London. It seems that the text concerning the other cities has also simply been copied from those articles. SiefkinDR (talk) 14:39, 8


 * Altogether, the article looks more like a competition to find superlatives and assemble a WP:SYNTH collection of reasons why a city might be called Caput Mundi. NebY (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Article completely being taken out of context
This article is about Rome, which is the only city called "Caput Mundi". About NY being cited as "Novum Caput Mundi" is even acceptable, but now all these other cities that are considered just "relevant" cities, I believe it is taking the article to a level totally out of context. Vasltunnma (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * If you want to support your idea, you must add any source about that. Constantinople is one of the centers of the world for centuries. Both its population and importance showed that. Below the article you can see Constantinople subtitle and see the other sources. I dont understand your intention, you did not treat scientifically about the subject. Please think about that.
 * -Historianengineer (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)-


 * No one is questioning the relevance of Istanbul, I am saying that this name 'Caput Mundi' it was never called, it's not because a city is not called 'Caput Mundi' that it means that it has not been important. There are countless other cities that were relevant, and even so they are not added here. This article is so out of context that even the editors here believe that just because a city was relevant it should be added here. Vasltunnma (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Original research
I've just culled a large portion of this article as it appeared to be WP:OR. I've deleted Washington as none of the sources used the phrase "Caput Mundi" - instead there was a collection of information about the IMF, various think tanks, and even a newspaper (???). To list things like this in order to draw a conclusion is classic original research.

I also removed Constantinople. None of the three sources met the description of "Caput Mundi", and it again appears to be trying to justify inclusion by describing monuments that were built there (there was even a mention of the city walls, which was curious). I'm aware that the recent edit warring has been about Constantinople, however, so there may be additional sources out there that could justify re-insertion.

New York, London, and Paris all appear to be adequately sourced in their descriptions of being (New) Capitals of the World. However, there's still a lot of irrelevant content listed in their sections which have nothing to do with these labels, and again appear to be WP:OR attempts to justify the cities' inclusion. More work could be done here to improve these sections. — Czello (music) 08:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeed. We have very little on the concept of a caput mundi and only a brief section on Rome, the city for which the term was created. We don't say when the term came into use; for example, was it used in the early Roman empire to refer to its secular might or only when Rome became a centre of the Christian church? We have no explicit criteria for inclusion as a novum caput mundi, relying instead largely on newspaper columnists using that term, or some other that an editor deems equivalent, to emphasise this or that city's prestige. We then have collations of superlatives for selected cities, in collective WP:OR, without relating one selection to another. This is perhaps inevitable if we keep the article in its current form, but that form with its inclusion of novum caput mundi seems to breach the general notability guideline, eg "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ... Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Alternatively, we might
 * redirect to Rome
 * redirect to Global city, which relies on sources for mentions
 * retain mention of Rome, adding historic detail as to how and when the term caput mundi came to be used of Rome and with what import, but delete all mention of a novum caput mundi.
 * NebY (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I vote for the article to remove the "novum caput mundi" and leave only Rome. The other cities mentioned are opening a loophole to add any other cities that wikipedia users believe are relevant and want to add them here. Since the purpose of this article is about a nickname given only to Rome. All the other cities mentioned here are much more suitable with the article global city, that is, with cities that play a relevant role in today's world (mainly in the economic field), but which are clearly not known by this phrase.Vasltunnma (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @NebY,
 * Thank you for presenting alternative options
 * According to history Constantinople is also a Caput Mundi i added the last two sources(one is well known Edmondo de Amicis' book, other is an article) but i vote removing all except for Rome in the article because removing only Constantinople but keeping London, Paris, and New York in the article is ridiculous.
 * Best regards -Historianengineer (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)-
 * Only removing Constantinople but leaving London, Paris, New York in the artical is illogical. I added two new sources, one is an article other is a book(Edmondo de Amicis'), directly say Caput Mundi for Constantinople. In that the article must refer to only Rome If we only leave Roma in Caput mundi, it is logical and fair. -Historianengineer (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)-
 * It's great to see us reach consensus on this. Thanks for doing the culling, ; your first pass made it even clearer that trying to retain sections on cities other than Rome would still leave us with the problems of choosing cities and then choosing what to say about them, as highlights. NebY (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)