Talk:Rome/Lido di Ostia

Tale of two (or three?) Ostias
Should Ostia Antica have a see listing here, when it's not actually in Lido di Ostia? This was confusing enough to me where I had to look on Wikipedia to see whether Ostia Antica is located in Lido di Ostia.

And I'm still confused, actually, as there are three wikipedia Ostia articles: Ostia Antica, the archaeological site, the district of Ostia Antica (distinct from Lido di Ostia, but also part of Municipio XIII), and Lido di Ostia (which is what this article covers).

So is the archaeological site located in the district of Ostia Antica? I note that the Ostia Antica article says it's not even located within Rome at all. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:02, 3 June 2009 (EDT)


 * Bump. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:22, 20 January 2010 (EST)
 * Peter, You are confused. I am, too, and I live here!

????? (WT-en) Shep 01:04, 21 January 2010 (EST)
 * 1. Pompeii has a See listing so I don't see the problem there.
 * 2. One of the Ostia Antica hotels is actually in Lido di Ostia
 * 3. Ostia Antica is a very important site and I'd highly recommend a visit. So it has to be given some prominence, but no more than, say, the Roman Forum.
 * 4. The area around Ostia Antica, for which you have to pay admission, is known as the District of Ostia Antica. There are a few other minor ruins that possibly fall within that District and I may have made a mistake by putting them under Lido di Ostia!
 * 5. All these definitional problems could perhaps be overcome by having one article for Ostia.
 * 6. That could be Rome/Ostia or a separate Ostia article with a prominent link in GET OUT of Rome. More likely to be seen if retained as Rome/Ostia
 * Rereading your original piece I realise I misunderstood it. But I think my solution is still valid. (WT-en) Shep 12:16, 21 January 2010 (EST)


 * Having just one Rome/Ostia sounds like a fine solution to me. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:45, 21 January 2010 (EST)
 * Done!(WT-en) Shep 14:32, 22 January 2010 (EST)