:::I assume you are being humorous? Classical or Roman wikipedia which you want would only be an encyclopedia of the Classical age. Great to find out about togas and chariots and stuff, but precious little use for anything else. Dr Bradley's statement that the whole of latinity can be found in the works of Cicero, Caesar and Livy, as well as being a lot of nonsens, is very representative of a Victorian, Anglosaxon Protestant view of history - noble virtuous Romans , benighted superstitious Mediaevals. It is remarkable, but very telling, that the Latin dictionaries of that period never cite the greatest Latinist of all time (in volume, at least, even if you dispute his greatness otherwise), Augustine. He of course put forward the radical view in De Civitate Dei that Classical civilisation was a heap of ordure, and that the Romans in their history had been more barbarian than those they liked to call barbarian. Latin outside the Anglosaxon world has fortunately been rather more catholic, in every sense of the word - so that the enthusiasm of our American contributors for archaic Latin to them may look rather bemusing.[[Specialis:Conlationes/22.214.171.124|126.96.36.199]] 07:16, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
:::::An obvious way out of the dilemma posed by the Roman religionists' recent use of ''Status'' officially to define their capital is to recognize that common speech doesn't always (or perhaps even usually) stick to official names. People usually speak of France even though the country's official name seems to be ''République Française,'' and people usually speak of the United States, or even the States, even though the country's official name is ''United States of America.'' So there may be no reason that Latin texts can't & shouldn't mostly speak of the ''Status Civitatis Vaticanae'' as the ''Urbs Vaticana,'' or even the ''Vaticana.'' How far back does the current official name go, anyway? Does it precede the [[Concordatum anni 1929]] ("Lateran treaty")? or the catastrophe of 1870? Also, we should bear in mind that the [[Status Civitatis Vaticanae]] isn't the same thing as the [[Sancta Sedes]]. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:30, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
::::We have not addressed the main issue which is that most often in Latin, civitas means a city, not a state.[[Specialis:Conlationes/188.8.131.52|184.108.40.206]] 07:17, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
:::::Well, then, going back to your comment at the start, I think you are exaggerating the extent to which "civitas" means "city" in classical -- even late classical -- Latin. Looking at ''[[Oxford Latin Dictionary]]'', which ought to be a very good source for Latin up to 200 AD, "Civitas=city" (sense 3b) is first recorded from Seneca, is not noted at all from Tacitus, and has the fewest citations overall. The largest number of citations are for senses 1 "an organized community, esp. that in which one lives or to which one belongs as a citizen, a state", and 4 "the rights of a citizen, citizenship ...". I believe it's true that this changed later, but most of us don't have such ready access to the dictionaries that would demonstrate it ...