Talk:Rome, Georgia

Untitled

This page is somewhat misleading. Consider the following: "Because it was built on seven hills, Rome, Georgia, is named for Rome, Italy, which was also originally built on seven hills." More specifically, the 5 founders of Rome each chose a name for the city and put it in a hat. Daniel R. Mitchell put the name Rome in the hat because of the seven hills. And his name was the one pulled out of the hat. So the relevance of the seven hills was a deciding factor in its naming, but so was the luck of the draw. The details of this are documented at the following location: http://romegeorgia.com/sevenhills.html.

This issue has been addressed. Someone make some improvements before me, and I tried to make it a little clearer. JD Lambert 23:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the statement that Rome is second in population to Dalton in NW GA because the 2000 Federal Census lists Dalton's pop as 27,912 and Rome's as 34,980. The Dalton Metropolitan Area has a larger population than Rome, but that's comparing apples and oranges. JD Lambert^(T|C) 22:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Largest in the "triangle"

In the introductory paragraphs, it says something about Rome being the largest city in the triangle formed by points in Chatt, Bham, and ATL. I don't mean to be nitpicky (sp?) but, Gadsden is larger than Rome. I guess maybe Gadsden was not considered because it is linked to the interstate system. I dunno, maybe it should be re-worded to a more specific explanation. AlaGuy (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, AlaGuy, and it's not picky to point out something that is factually incorrect. I've tweaked the sentence to make it accurate in regards to Gadsden. JD Lambert^(T|C) 15:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

sounds great :) AlaGuy (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rome, Georgia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi. This article does not yet meet GA standards for the following reasons:

• The prose is, in general, not very good. For example, the first phrase of the article, "Nestled in the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains", is far too poetic and should be more formal.
• The lead should be rewritten to conform to WP:LEAD. That is to say that the lead should summarize the entire article.
• Citations are thin in areas. Every single fact needs to have a citation (especially dates, numbers, etc.), which means that there should at least be one citation per paragraph. Some sections have no citation at all.
• References need to be formatted properly. I recommend using the Cite template as opposed to trying to write your own. The "refTools" tool under My Preferences -> Gadgets is very simple to use and simply requires that you fill in the blanks. Each web reference should have at least a title, publisher, and access date. It's not necessary to provide an annotated bibliography like has been added to some references.
• Lists and charts should be transformed into written prose.
• Article sections should generally follow the guidelines provided at WP:USCITY.
• External links should not be present directly in the text.
• Do not WikiLink section headers.
• Images should not be left-aligned under headers and should not be hard-sized under 300px. Vertical images should be marked as "upright" per WP:MOS#IMAGES.
• Galleries should not be present. Either work the images into the article text or remove the images.

I know this is a lot of work, but you're off to a really great start. Feel free to ask me any questions. I will have this GA review watchlisted. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 01:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Eric, those are all excellent suggestions. Unfortunately, I won't have much time for editing for at least the next several months. Since no one else is editing much, I'm going to remove Rome from the GA review request until all these issues have effectively been dealt with. It will take awhile, but we'll eventually get it there. JD Lambert^(T|C) 22:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Top Picture

Although the aerial picture of Rome offers a nice view of the CBD and surrounding areas, I find that it is a little outdated. The picture information states that it was taken sometime in the 1980s. Due to the presence of the Hightower Library, it was probably taken around 1988-1989, making the picture around 20 years old. It does not contain The Forum, the new pedestrian bridge, the expanded tennis center, the new restaurants on the river, or any of the other improvements Rome has recently seen, all of which have changed the city's character over the past decade. It is also relatively low quality compared to pictures taken with newer camera equipment. I propose that the recently added view of Rome from Myrtle Hill, added on May 25, shall be the new top picture, at least until one that better displays the current structure of the city can be uploaded. It is my opinion that this picture displays Rome's beautiful downtown in a more pleasing manner. If this does or does not sound reasonable, please indicate on this talk page. If nobody has expressed interest in this change within a few days, I will change the picture and see what kind of emotion that stirs. Again, please feel free to share any opinion on this subject. GoDawgs1 (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As there has been no discussion or protest to the picture change after 12 days, I have gone ahead and made the switch. If anyone thinks this is a particularly good or bad change, please let it be known. GoDawgs1 (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

History of Rome, Georgia article

Because of the length of the history section in the Rome article, I propose creating a separate article giving the detailed history of Rome, with a shorter summary of Rome's history on the main page. This seems to be more in line with Wikipedia:USCITY. There are well over 10 paragraphs in the history section, and it completely dominates the article. If after a couple of days there is no discussion, I will go ahead and execute this edit. Please let me know your opinion. GoDawgs1 (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

History of Rome, Georgia is now created. If you're interested, please view the page, help make it better, and help shorten and rewrite the Rome city page's history section to conform to guidelines and make it reader-friendly. Thanks, GoDawgs1 (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

.

Merger

I redirected Rome, Italy's history in Rome, GA to the article because I think it has been adequately merged already. Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 05:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Media attention

Jason Aldean has a song where he mentions it called Country Boy's World. Currently there is only a section for movies but is this worth mentioning? Cleanelephant (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Citations required for notable people

I am removing the citation required notice on the list of notable people from Rome for all but one. There was a comment that "besides an article, each entry needs a citation which corroborates the assertion that the person actually is associated with Rome in some manner, per WP:NLIST & WP:LISTPEOPLE." I read the two policies cited, and I do not believe it means the citations must appear on the notable people section. I think the policies are telling us that there must be a citation somewhere, and that it is not enough simply that a Wiki article exists for the person listed. I checked every article of the people listed, and all of them cited their affiliation with Rome except the one for Stand Watie. If the articles of the notable people need citations where they state affiliations with Rome, a citation-needed note should be placed there, not here. JD Lambert^(T|C) 01:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

All article in Wikipedia are stand-alone. This is why we can't use another Wikipedia article as WP:RS. The links are for the benefit of the reader, so they don't have to read a resume here of some notable in an article which is supposed to be about the city, not people.

Usually, the article says the person is from a particular city (like Rome), but usually this is not cited in their bio either. That is, both articles are questionable. Therefore a cite is needed per the policies you have bracketed above. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rome, Georgia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081029230004/http://www.romega.us/archives/31/rccmMar3.2008.pdf to http://www.romega.us/archives/31/rccmMar3.2008.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081120123119/http://www.romegeorgia.com/fortnortonjackson.html to http://www.romegeorgia.com/fortnortonjackson.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Rome, Georgia/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.

Upgrading class to B, as it meets all criteria: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although the section on Economy needs expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. The article has a defined structure. The article is reasonably well written. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Photos, illustrations, and infoboxes are included. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. JD Lambert(T|C) 10:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 10:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 04:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

For each c?

"authority to reject the annexation and electoral systems for each c, as plaintiffs believed ..." - what is a "c"? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Cherokee town of Etowah, not Chatuga

The article refers to the Cherokee town of Chatuga being in the area but that town was settled much further north between Lookout Town and the Old Cherokee Nation capital of New Echota, about where Lafayette, GA is now. This is according to the combination of maps by John Stuart[1], George Hunter[2], Charles C. Royce[3] and James Mooney[4], which are the most reliable sources for Cherokee town locations. According to the maps and location descriptions from Royce, the Cherokee town of Etowah was located near present day downtown Rome at the confluence of the Etowah and Oostanaula River where they form the Coosa River or the "headwaters of the Coosa". Even given the altering of the flow of the rivers over time this would put it at or near Rome, GA, if not just to the south of the city. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I propose making an alteration to this statement within the article to reflect that Etowah was the town settled in the area as opposed to Chatuga. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources:

• LaFayette as Chatuga, Chattooga or Chatooga
  • [5]
  • [6]

• Rome as Etowah - "Head of Coosa":
  • [7] - Encyclopedia Britannica states that Rome was built on the site of a Cherokee town
  • [8] - Refers to Cherokee village as "Head of Coosa" (Etowah) and John Sevier's raid of the town and battle nearby

--Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Tsistunagiska, and thank you for all your research. I rarely use Wikipedia these days, but I'm glad you posted a comment on my talk page with the link here, and I'm glad I found it relatively quickly. I suggest you go ahead and make the change, because I don't see how anyone could reasonably dispute your information. JD Lambert^(T|C) 01:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Ditto! But what's the original site in Bartow County? GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 01:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussed it elsewhere with GenQuest but wanted to respond here. The location in Bartow County is most likely Old Etowah town or Old Hightower town which is discussed in sworn statements included in the archives of the Cherokee Supreme Court and included in the Cherokee Phoenix newspaper. It is across from the Etowah mounds which is an old Mississippian/Muscogee mound village. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)