Talk:Augusta

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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.

The result of the debate was Move. —Centrx→talk • 21:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Augusta (disambiguation) → Augusta – Augusta, Georgia, currently has Augusta as a redirect. However, the city in Georgia does not satisfy "Primary topic" as set out on WP:DAB, particularly with state capital Augusta, Maine, and Roman honorific Augusta on the disambiguation list. Bolivian Unicyclist 00:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Support, as proposer. Bolivian Unicyclist 00:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support While Augusta (GA) is definitely a more important city than Augusta (ME), the latter being a state capital would give it some additional weight. --Polaron | Talk 00:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Augusta Georgia is probably the more well known place, but I don't think it rises to the level of being the primary meaning of "Augusta" throughout the English-speaking world. older ≠ wiser 02:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- english speaking world? How much english must one speak to belong to this? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Kirjtc2 03:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Usgnus 05:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Vegaswikian 05:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support once all main namespace links to Augusta have been changed. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Stronger support since I found the only correct target for more than one of those links was Augusta (disambiguation). --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Siradia 00:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —this is messedrocker (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Augusta, Georgia does not even make up 20 % of all Augusta combined Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Those voting here may want to look at the similar nomination at Talk:Vancouver (disambiguation)#Requested move. Vegaswikian 05:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The original Latin names of many ancient places - in Australia[edit]

too good to correct it... Stupid girl (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Praenome, cognomen of places[edit]

Places did not and do not have a praenomen or cognomen; that is only for people. Whether the Augustus goes before or after is an accident of naming the place. For example, if it was named after the tribe, the tribal name by convention was in the genitive case placed after the Augustus. No one was ever named "Augustus of the Suessiones." Naturally there are one or two cases of places given the name of a person, which did have an agnomen (a lot of these "cognomina" are agnomina). They are few and far between here and if more were put in, such as Caesar Augustus, they would have to take their own disambig page. Moreover, this misapplication of the Roman personal naming scheme is very confusing to the public. I find it confusing. This is actually original research; no one else organizes place names by praenomina, cognomina, etc. Very clever but totally confusing and original, so I am reorganizing to the usual people and places.Dave (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally missing articles[edit]

Many of these items are being used to suggest totally new articles; they are not even subsections of a main article. This is not the place to suggest new articles. The disambig as I understand it is to prevent confusion and give index direction to existing articles, which it cannot do if the article does not even exist as part of another article. So, I am fixing the red links the way it is done in all the other disambigs.Dave (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]