Talk:Rome

Infobox images alignment

Dear all,

I have replaced the old lead image with a superior panorama picture which not only features all aspects of the old image, but also includes a wider POV I have put the Colosseum, the most recognisable monument in Rome in the 2nd row, whilst also grouping it with the Emmanuel monument. This is because having two images of similar aspect ratios results in an equal division of the rowspan. Consequently, I put the row with the 3 images together in the 3rd row.

If anyone has any suggestions, dissents, and more, then please feel free to reply Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Becausewhynothuh?  Disagree. The current order of photos is more intuitive and aesthetically pleasing, and the top image of the photo montage has better framing, lighting, and resolution than the alternatively proposed image. Chronus (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Aesthetically pleasing???

Based on what exactly? and how exactly is it intuitive when you insist on reverting edits which would place two same aspect ratio images together? Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

intuitive and aesthetically pleasing are so subjective as to mean nothing. Kindly provide more objective reasons.

I disagree with your point that the top image had better framing when in fact the new one shows not just the aspects of the old image, but additional parts of the city, with a hint of greenery as icing on the cake. better resolution is yet another point that I disagree with, as they are both high quality images, with little noise and high sharpness. lighting is subjective since the old picture clearly uses a filter, whilst the new one is a natural lighting daytime image. Furthermore, the aforementioned panorama nature of the new lead image automatically puts it at an advantage as far more of the city is shown, which is a key aspect of such lead images Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

History section

There seem to be large parts of the history section which pertain to the Roman Empire as a whole, rather than just Rome as a city. This part probably needs a rewrite.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2023

Famnixx (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I seen some typos that’s all

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2024

Please restore the previous arrangement by reverting this edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1196605274. The previous intro was better (the previous first sentence was clear and concise), the current one is long and incoherent (see the current second sentence; no verb, no subject).2A01:E11:17:40B0:E5EF:790B:F21C:C5A9 (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The Vatican is not the only country within Rome

Regarding the following text: "Vatican City (the smallest country in the world) is an independent country inside the city boundaries of Rome, the only existing example of a country within a city. "

The Sovereign Order of Malta is a country within Rome as well although it holds no territory. Should this be mentioned in the article? 87.244.235.173 (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

While the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is sometimes regarded as a "sovereign entity", that does not necessarily make it a "country". It certainly does not meet all of the criteria of the Montevideo Convention. Please also note that the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is already mentioned in the 'International relations' section of the article. Donald Albury 23:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)