Here is a list of names I found in the old List of city names (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27815) thread:

Regia Civitas (Capital) BUILT
ThunderFalls BUILT
Elysium NEXT
President - New Dellville
Vice-President - Marl Downs
Domestic Advisor - ?????
Military Advisor - Reneaux
Foreign Minister - Civvium
Science Advisor - ?????
Deputy Domestic Advisor - Grand Ronville
Deputy Military Advisor - Myarsatoria
Deputy Foreign Minister - Gabba Gabba
Deputy Science Advisor - ?????
Keeper of the City Names - Fort Anarchy
Governors (in order they register)

kmadopolis
Crater Lake
Kev's Pike
Neuma
Starlifterville
Serutanland

Perhaps the people of our current lame duck government might comment on what to do, what has been decided, what is now proper.

I wanted my city to be called Ebor (deputy science advisor last time) but I don't know what heliogabalus or germanos wanted to call their cities. Just use the list as it is there or promote your own choice of name as you see fit - it's your prerogative as Domestic Advisor. :)

Hey! Until September the 1st I'm still Domestic Advisor!

Oh, I'm not? Oh, I see. Well you don't need me anymore I see... :cry:

Mordheim, we do need you. How do we name this new city? Go right ahead with your job -- I just felt encouraged by a Duke and thought I'd post something... Will you post a poll today?

Originally posted by mordhiem
Hey! Until September the 1st I'm still Domestic Advisor!

Actually you will be Domestic Advisor until September 3rd. ;)

duke of york said:

but I don't know what heliogabalus or germanos wanted to call their

my choice still is Gabba Gabba, as anarchywrksbest put in the list.

Originally posted by duke o' york
I wanted my city to be called Ebor

Then why didn't you respond to my PM? I did ask when i made that list......

Lets talk about disbanding and moving this city before we get carried away naming it. Once you name something, you can't get rid of it, you know :lol:

Originally posted by Leowind
Lets talk about disbanding and moving this city before we get carried away naming it. Once you name something, you can't get rid of it, you know :lol:

:lol: Very good, but i don't like that idea. I know it is in a bad place and will have corruption and mess up city placement a bit but i do not like the idea of a santised city scheme.

It is a big world for us to settle and a few cities out of place won't hurt :)

Originally posted by Leowind
Lets talk about disbanding and moving this city before we get carried away naming it. Once you name something, you can't get rid of it, you know :lol:

As I said in another thread, I support this for now. Unless we can find away to get this city to fit nicely into a good city pattern, we should just move it. It's still a free city, let's just make it be where we want it.

Surely the other cities can be planned around it like in Ainwood's city plan, with the slight alterations.

I can't believe so many people want to disband this city. Playing Emperor for many years (but not Deity), I would always just live with it, because a city is sooo valuable. Surely we can fit it into our plan, even though I'd rather have a bridge. We have a city, without a bridge, and I for one am happy to use it. Ditto for the Legion, we have it, lets use it wisely. And on that thought, we have a Capital, building our Colossus, lets keep it.

All this talk of moving the capital, sacrificing our Legion, disbanding our new city, is disorienting to me.

There's no real reason to sacrifice the Legion. In two turns RC will grow to size two and that will eliminate the extra shiled being used. Moving the capital is not anything to be considered for a long while. The wonders are going to be almost complete before we have to decide any of that. It won't be that much of a factor since once we are in a Democracy, it won't matter. ;)

Moving the city is something that makes sense if we cannot get a good city layout using it. The most important thing in the game is land. If we can't use as much of it as possible, then we are wasting resources.

Besides, we will still have the city, it will just be in a different spot. :D

It's a complex game with many decisions to be made, no one ever said it would be simple. ;)

I think we should think about disband the city. But not until we can settle the the other cities. So while the settler is moving to the land to build the new city, Nineveh can maybe build a settler and contribute to our science.

Ok, let's try to keep all the disband/keep discussion to this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31073). Otherwise the discussion is being carried on in three different threads.

We do need to decided on whether the city is going to stay or disband before the next batch of turns. The worker in the city will have to be put to whichever terrain follows what the choice is.

So whats this thread for as we already have a naming thread?

I think we need a thread to poll whether or not we disband Ninevah. We have a poll to rename, and now a poll on how the disband Ninevah, but there still seems to be a split on the best course of action. As far as I can tell there's been no firm decision either way yet.

These is a thread to decide which square the worker from Ninevah should work, and that basically depends on whether you want the city to be dispanded or not.