I believe we should add the Parthian Empire as a territory/country temporarily occupied by the Romans. Indeed Trajan occupied the Persian southern area of Susa and named a king for his "Vassal State" in Parthia. Any opinions?--2offadyke (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The template is already eccentric enough as it is. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 2offadyke. If there was a vassal king, there was even a territory he controlled (even if for very limited time). I find the Template very well done.--OneDalm0 (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this template really need a link to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact? It's about a WP:FRINGEy as it gets without suggesting something about the lost city of Atlantis. The section on Mediterranean Antiquity from the article is packed with unsourced speculation, conspiracy theories, and possible hoaxes. Nev1 (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia must deal with everything about a topic: even a possible Roman contact with the Americas. If it is a hoax? Let the reader decide about....we cannot decide with our POV that IT IS a hoax, if we are not sure! Galileo was accused of a hoax and we now know he was right, let's remember it.--OneDalm0 (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong about Galileo and wrong about this. There are all sort of weird ideas about where the Egyptians, Celts, Romans, etc went, it's inappropriate to use templates to suggest they are right. Dougweller (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the one who is wrong is Dougweller. B.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.160.117 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]