Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Project overview Tasks Curation Guides Awards Our classicists Talk page

Tabulating Vase painters[edit]

So, earlier I did this to the Penthesilea Painter (Previously it looked much like this). A big problem is that there are lots of holes in the information, particularly as some museums don't have their catalogues online (looking at you, Britain). So, I am wondering (A) if people think this is something that should be done for the other painters and (B) if so, does the table provide all the information it should in the best way it could? Furius (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

When to use Hades and when Pluto[edit]

Hello, can you have a look at Talk:Kasta_Tomb#Hades_vs._Pluto , we're trying to determine whether Hades should be used for Greek mythology and Pluto for Roman. The respective articles in Wikipedia aren't helping very much either as it seems to be a contentious issue. Thanks. George C. Tsiagalakis (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

New article Demography of the Roman Empire[edit]

Having nominated this for MfD thinking it had been abandoned, User:G.W showed up and suggested it be moved to mainspace, which I've done. It needs talk page headers, maybe a lead, etc. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

GA reviews of Women in ancient Rome and Languages of the Roman Empire[edit]


I've reviewed the article Women in ancient Rome for GA and am in process with Languages of the Roman Empire. However, the nominator, Historian7, has been inactive on Wiki for about a month, so I was wondering if there are any editors here who would be willing to work on the issues that my reviews bring up. It would be a shame to fail these articles after all of the work that went in to them.--¿3family6 contribs 05:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You have my sympathy. I wasted time on the same guy; but our reviews may not be wasted if one day someone a little longer-lasting tries taking the articles to GAN, and the existence of the reviews can be brought to the attention of the new reviewers: that could actually be done by a bot, I think; or we can copy the comments into the talk page just in case ("NOTE TO FUTURE GA REVIEWERS"). But we need some way of weeding out such fly-by-night nominations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
In all fairness to the user, the contributions to the article were extremely good and none is far from GA...—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
We reviewers thought all the articles worthwhile and likely to get to GA with a little coaxing, which is partly why, I suspect, we were so disappointed. Our beef is with evaporation, not contribution. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, I can't blame someone for giving up after waiting almost three months and still not seeing your nomination reviewed.--¿3family6 contribs 15:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, blame yourself for not reviewing it sooner! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm leaving both article on hold for seven days. I encourage any editor who so wishes to to improve the articles to GA status. I am willing to prolong the nominations if there is a pledge that they will be completed.--¿3family6 contribs 18:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)