Talk:Colonia (Roman)

Question
is Jerusalem in Israel? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.193.219.3 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC) (UTC)
 * See Jerusalem. -- JHunterJ 10:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

worth listing all colonies?
Is it worth trying to compile here a list of all Roman colonies rather than just a few isolated examples? - PocklingtonDan (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Dan, as you can see I made an edit or two in that direction, and I have been editing around this problem for a little while now. To cut to the chase, I think we should not try to complete the list.  There were 26 original colonies in Italy from the middle Republic; about 100 provincial colonies by the time of Augustus' death, all the product of the civil wars and their aftermath; and I'm guessing about 100 colonies founded in total thereafter (but many of these are 'titular' colonies).  I think the best way forward is that this article be written about colonies in general and the general phases of their evolution, and that we create a few stand-alone lists of colonies List of Roman colonies in Italy, List of Roman colonies in the provinces (I've started playing around with a template in my sandbox), List of titular Roman colonies.  semper fictilis 16:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, that seems fair enough. I would propose removing the table from this article, or working its contents into prose, and then linking to a separate article (List of Roman colonies ??) where we try and produce a comprehensive list. I don't think multiple list articles are needed - we could have one single list article with sections for different sorts of colonies if needed. Would you include the Latin colonies or just the purely Roman ones for the early republic? The Latin colonies weren't founded with Roman citizens but were still part of the Roman civilisation/under Rome's umbrella. Let me know what you think. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, maybe one list article is better. I'm inclined a little bit towards separate lists because the nature of colonization (and the colonies they produced) is so different from one period to another.  But that decision doesn't have to be made right away.  On the question of turning this list into prose, I'm not sure it's worth the bother, since it's such a heterodox collection. But before we do anything, let's try to create a list format.   semper fictilis 17:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think its easy enough just to have different sections in a single article containing lists - each section could have slightly different column headers for its contents if necessary to address the changing form of the colonies - "roman province" for instance isn't going to be all that interesting in the list of the earliest colonies, since the province system didn't yet exist and all the colonies were in Italia - so perhaps region might be more suitable for that particular section, for example. Also, although its a list article, there's nothing to prevent us illustrating it with maps showing the distribution of colonies in different eras, etc etc. A list article is primarily a list rather than prose but I don't think that means it has to be entirely a list and not feature other content where suitable. I'll try and start putting together a list of colonies and see what format seems suitable, but the current list used in your examples seems fine, with substitued headers for some columns for some eras. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're probably right about one list. How are you set up for bibliography?  There are a couple good appendices in P.A. Brunt, Roman Manpower.  Should I scan them for you?  semper fictilis 13:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)