Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome

Project overviewTasksCurationGuidesAwardsOur classicistsTalk page

Disambiguation of links to Marcus Annius Verus

Could you help to disambiguation the the links shown at Disambig fix list for Marcus Annius Verus. I find some of the names of Roman leaders difficult, particularly where the dates overlap and I would not want to direct readers to the wrong one.— Rod ^talk 15:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

There are also a few other Roman names with multiple disambiguation links:

• Titus Aurelius Fulvus listed at: Disambig fix list for Titus Aurelius Fulvus
• Marcus Annius Verus @ Disambig fix list for Marcus Annius Verus

* Gaius Fabius Ambustus @ Disambig fix list for Gaius Fabius Ambustus * Lucius Valerius Flaccus @ Disambig fix list for Lucius Valerius Flaccus

• Manlius Torquatus @ Disambig fix list for Manlius Torquatus

* Marcus Vinicius @ Disambig fix list for Marcus Vinicius

• Scipio Nasica @ Disambig fix list for Scipio Nasica

Any help with any of these would be appreciated.— Rod ^talk 20:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Daunians

Hello,

A discussion relating to the genetics of the Daunians is taking place here [1], for anyone who is interested. Khirurg (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice of discussion about Roman flag templates

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template#"Flags" of the Roman Empire/Republic about the flag templates , , , , , and the accuracy of using them. Please participate at that page if interested. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Capitalisation style

Yea, yea, this is a nothingburger if anything. I'm just somewhat peeved by constant 'corrections'. There's a pretty large split between different capitalisation styles. On one hand, we have what some editors want to impose on Wikipedia and, on the other hand, we have what is prevalent in modern classical studies works.

Sure, in old stuff like Abbott's History and description of Roman political institutions (c. 1905) you'll see lots of "Senate", "Roman Republic", "Tribal Assembly", "Populares", "Late Republic", etc. In modern works, like Mouritsen Politics in the Roman Republic (2017) and Flower Roman Republics (2010) you'll see basically none of this: unless it starts a sentence, it will be lower case. Eg "senate", "Roman republic", "assembly", "populares", "late republic", etc.

Is there a consensus or general guideline as to which style we ought to be following? Ifly6 (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It's less clear-cut than a division between older and newer works. Without seeing this comment, I would have expected the opposite. Older works I've consulted—including some very frequently-used sources—tend not to capitalize "senate" or "assembly", and perhaps not "republic", although when prefixed by "Roman" they sometimes might be treated as proper nouns, and capitalized. Recent works seem more inclined to treat these as proper nouns irrespective of the context, as long as they're referring to specific institutions rather than generic examples. I tend to follow the older sources, as their writers and editors tended to be sticklers for grammar and its rules, but sometimes I simply follow what seems to be common sense: is a word being used as a proper noun or not?

But then there are cases where there seems to be no satisfactory answer: surely "Pontifex Maximus," "Rex Sacrorum", and "Flamen Dialis" are proper nouns, the titles of specific offices; but then we don't usually capitalize "consul" or "praetor"—presumably these are common nouns. I don't really know how to resolve this question, and I'm sure that imposing a particular style across the board, although practice varies in scholarship, can never satisfy everyone. Which is why I think the better solution is to encourage internal consistency within articles, instead of trying to impose consistent capitalization of ambiguous nouns across all articles. P Aculeius (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yea, that's a pretty reasonable position (internal consistency). I'm not surprised that there isn't much consensus one way or the other, given that this sort of grammatical discussion is unresolvable. Cf Cornford, Microcosmographia Academica (1908) (specifically, discussion on "comma hunting").

On pontifex maximus, rex sacrorum, and flamen dialis, these are also (to my knowledge) not fully capitalised in recent works as well. There is "flamen Dialis" (Mouritsen, supra, at 198; also Drogula, Commanders and command (2015) 66) but "flamen dialis" (Cornell, Beginnings of Rome (1995) 223 (italics in original)); "rex sacrorum" (ibid 227 (italics in original); also Drogula at 66); and "pontifex maximus" (Mouritsen, supra, at 138 (italics in original); also Drogula at 66). The justification I vaguely remember from one of my classical studies professors is basically that capitalisation did not exist in ancient times; of course, that is anecdotal and also perhaps not fully and accurately recollected. Ifly6 (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I can fully believe that they said this, but of course it's utter nonsense—lowercase letters didn't exist in ancient times. And we still capitalize proper names—the conventions of writing in English aren't suspended when the subjects belong to antiquity. I note however, that every time I write "senate" someone seems to come along and change it to "Senate". And of course "Pontifex Maximus" is always capitalized when it refers to the Pope; why would we do it differently for all earlier pontifices? Are we saying that it's only a title when used by the Pope? Surely there's something wrong with that! P Aculeius (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

lowercase letters didn't exist in ancient times was why I remembered it as being curious (if anything). The only real justification is that because capitalisation doesn't exist, you pick either all caps or all lowercase if writing in Latin. (The names are not in Latin.) We write normally in lower case, with a few exceptions, thus the choice is made. This is not really the same with "senate" vs "senatus". I have no justification for preferring "senate", "republic", etc beyond this-is-what-I-am-used-to; that is also probably the justification on the other side.

Having done a somewhat more full "survey" among the books that I have on hand (a totally unbiased and entirely random sample), I can only find Goldsworthy's books (all published by Yale) to capitalise "Senate"; everything else seems to use "senate". This is the same with "republic". As an aside, only Drogula's book (UNC Press) uses "Xius's" – eg "Marius's" – instead of what is normal, which is to use the trailing apostrophe alone. This marks, I guess, another deviation from "normal" English conventions on possessives with singular nouns. Ifly6 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

New article based entirely on primary sources

I'm somewhat concerned that the article Ptolemaios son of Glaucias, newly created, seems to be based entirely on primary sources. I wonder if someone more knowledgeable about the subject could see whether or not it's worth saving or not.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Even a cursory glance at the article appears to show that the vast majority of it is cited to scholarly articles, not primary sources. The only explanation I can think of for the question is that the article contains long passages from antiquity—which are then properly cited to secondary sources. Do they need to be included in their entirety? Is the subject important enough to have his own article? These may be valid questions, but the state of the sourcing does not appear to be problematic. The presence of primary sources—whether or not they are included in the secondary sources cited by the artlcle—is of no concern in this sort of article; indeed, it would seem deficient if it did not include them. But the fact that secondary sources incorporate long passages written by or about a figure from antiquity doesn't negate the fact that they are secondary sources. P Aculeius (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I’d suggest having another look- some of them appear to be scholarly sources until you click on the link as far as I can figure out, P Aculeius. Something weird is going on here.—Ermenrich (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Citations 8 through 13 are primary sources, but I've looked at the others, and they are secondary (although this one is very old). Moreover, there's at least one secondary source in my possession: "The Dreams of the Twins in St Petersburg" by John D. Ray, in Through a Glass Darkly: Magic, Dreams & Prophecy in Ancient Egypt (2006), ed. Kasia Szpakowska. It seems to me that the Sample Papyri section should be cut, but the topic is a valid one. A. Parrot (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Citations seem good enough for me, but I'm questioning the notability of the man, as well as Horos son of Nechoutes. T8612 (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

On a separate but related topic, is Ptolemaios son of Glaucias preferred to Ptolemaios (son of Glaucias)? Ifly6 (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the former is preferable - it's how he usually signs his name in the letters and how he is usually referred to in scholarship. The man is definitely notable - there is a whole chapter on him in D. J. Thompson, Memphis under the Ptolemies (1990) and a lot of scholarship regarding his archive. He's a key case study for the nature of ethnic identity in Hellenistic Egypt. I agree that the 'Sample Papyri' should be cut - that's material for wikisource, really. Furius (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, except that wiki-style means it should be Ptolemaeus rather than Ptolemaios, doesn't it? Furius (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Horos son of Nechoutes is also the subject of multiple publications (as is really anyone from Graeco-Roman Egypt for whom a full archive has survived) and is also therefore notable. Furius (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

FA Review: Hippocrates

I have nominated Hippocrates for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)