Talk:Leptis Parva

Etymology

It's fine that this is sourced here but it's worth noting (and correcting?) Leptis Magna, which offers a completely different (sourced) meaning of the original word. Also note that Livius disagrees with both pages and thinks that it's a local name carried over by the Phoenicians when the settled the area. — LlywelynII 13:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. Will have to give this some thought. The explanation given here seems much more logical than a direct connection with Arabic, although of course Phoenician is a Semitic language. But I wouldn't discount the possibility that they're false friends. A local name seems like the most difficult to verify, since, to paraphrase the DGRBM's analysis of one proposed etymology of "Caesar", next to nothing is known of the languages of the region prior to their settlement by the Phoenicians, Greeks, and Romans. But since the same name appears in (at least) two places, it seems likely to be a generalized term for the type of place (such as a waystation, the etymology given by the DGRG, which attributes it to Phoenician), rather than a specific location (even if it might not be Phoenician, strictly speaking). It shouldn't be hard to describe or footnote varying explanations, though. P Aculeius (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Cite DGRG

• Revision as of 22:22, 14 November 2018 by user:P Aculeius "No need to change citation styles in order to add a link."

The publication date given in the long citation is now incorrect. You have reverted it to 1854 when the link is to a publication date of 1857.

The of Template:Cite DGRG is useful for the maintenance categories it introduces including "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the DGRG without Wikisource reference". So the reason for introducing the template is not just "in order to add a link" but for other reasons as well. The advantage of the category mentioned is that the articles so tagged can be prioritised for porting to Wikisource, which in turn makes it easier for a reader to read the original text of the source.

Do you have any reasons for wanting to keep the current format of the citations other than personal preference? -- PBS (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The publication date is correct; the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography was initially published in 1854, although different copies have the dates of reprinting given with other years, including 1857 and 1878—with apparently no significant difference in content. You linked to a copy dated 1857, but you'll notice the library cataloguing data in the front of the book uses 1854, the original date of publication. Examining the entry carefully in different editions, the article seems to be identical, word-for-word, occurring in the exact same position on the same page.

Equally relevant is the fact that the article uses a standard citation format throughout; the use of a template causes some citations to use inconsistent formatting. That's an important consideration in any article. Using a template also requires more work from editors, as editors have to learn the parameters in order to use the template correctly, and while the in-line citation uses standard link formatting, the template involves a different set of parameters that can't be intuited; you have to search out the template to figure out how it works, and even then you may be in the dark with respect to the meaning of some of the contents. So really the issue is changing only some of the citations to an inconsistent format that isn't as easily understood or used by editors. That's not desirable in this or most other articles. P Aculeius (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

That the reprints may or may not be sidestepped by simply changing the publication date to that of the edition. I fail to see why you would not wish that to be done.

I am sorry but I do not understand what you have written, "you have to search out the template to figure out how it works," I know how the template works. "So really the issue is changing only some of the citations to an inconsistent format that isn't as easily understood or used by editors". Do you really think that editors are too stupid to use templates, or do you think the documentation is difficult to understand?

You have not addressed the issue of categories and the development of the encyclopedia. I am willing to change all the citations to use the same visual format as CS1 (without using templates to do so) do you have any objections to that other than personal preference for the current format? -- PBS (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The question is when the book was published, not when the copy you happened to link to was reprinted. The date of publication tells us something about the source and its authors; the date of a reprinting tells us little of value. If you're trying to be technically accurate about which printing was consulted for the information in question, 1857 is wrong, since the article wasn't written using an 1857 copy. But why you would think the date of the printing of the copy you happen to link to is more important or useful than the original date of publication is beyond me.

You're putting words in my mouth; I didn't say that Wikipedia editors were too stupid to use templates. I said they shouldn't have to research various templates in order to figure out what the citation coding means; that puts an obstacle in the way of editing articles by making citations that require only basic linking much more complex. In theory all frequently consulted sources could be reduced to templates, but that would make page markup impenetrable to all but the most experienced and dedicated editors. Why make things more complicated than they need to be?

Your answer is that it is useful for "maintenance categories... that can be prioritised for porting to Wikisource". But surely this can and ought to be done without introducing inconsistent citation styles, or requiring that all citations to a particular source use a specific style, which would be tantamount to requiring all articles containing a citation to a particular source to use that citation style for all sources, since maintaining consistency within articles is strongly preferred. Wikipedia explicitly states that no citation style is preferred to others. Requiring all other sources cited to match a particular style simply because that style is used by a particular template is the worst possible result. If a template is so inflexible that it can cannot be adapted to different citation styles, then it should either be adapted to make it more flexible, or its use limited to instances where it won't introduce inconsistency. P Aculeius (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The first edition can be added with the parameter "origyear=" which displays as [1854], but it is better to include the date of publication of a particular edition/reprint in case there are inconsistencies. Editors do not need to add citations in any style they are free to add them as they will. Others (as I have offered to do) can make them consistent if they wish to do so. The templates do not have to follow CS1, it can also also follow CS2 or any other style for which there is a mode switch.

You write "So really the issue is changing only some of the citations to an inconsistent format that isn't as easily understood or used by editors. That's not desirable in this or most other articles." Your proof of these two assertions? Your statement "That's not desirable in this or most other articles." is you own opinion, I have provided you with a reason for including the template (inclusion of useful hidden maintenance categories. As for using templates one has to use them a lot in Wikipedia for example {{|tlx|Infobox ancient site}} (and {{isbn}} needs to be added to Butler's Lives of the Saints) so why not citation templates as well?

You seem to want to have you cake and eat it, you object to adding a template that will aid with development of the project, because it introduces an inconsistency in the visual format of the citations, but simultaneously you do not want the other citations to use CS1 for no clear reason that I can ascertain. Perhaps you can explain what in you opinion is the aspect of CS1 that makes it worse than the current inconsistent format. -- PBS (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

What part of imposing your preferences on other editors seems like collaborative editing? The manual of style specifically states that there's no mandatory citation style, but that maintaining consistency within articles and readability while using and editing articles is highly desirable. Your only reason for introducing a format that isn't consistent with the article's established citation style is that you want to use a template that's not flexible enough to accommodate other styles, and this solely because you find it potentially useful for a hidden maintenance category. Does the template make the article easier to read? No. Does it add useful information? No. Readers can find the same information and even click to see the original article text without it. Does it make the article easier to edit? Certainly not, since editors now have to familiarize themselves with the particular template in order to edit the citation. So why make the change? Even less helpful, your suggestion to deal with the issue of imposing your style on *one* part of an article is to impose a new style on *all* of the article. But I suggest that if you start going around articles with more active editors contributing and patrolling, and replace established and consistent citation styles with one of your own preference, you're going to find an awful lot of people objecting. P Aculeius (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"So why make the change?" Because making the change will allow a template to be used which will include categories that are useful in developing the project. Your argument for not changing the current format of the citations is either based on ease of access, which although I dispute, will be just as easy if the style of CS1 is used without templates. Your argument about readers does not hold water because readers will not find the CS1 style any more difficult to follow than the current format (and they will be oblivious to whether templates are used or not). Adding a template to one citation will help with developing the encyclopaedia so apart from "I don't like it" do you have a substantive reasons for not allowing CS1 to be used? -- PBS (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not my argument. The reason for not converting all of the citations to your preferred style is because Wikipedia has no preferred style, and you're attempting to override the established style of articles because you "like it", since you decided to start name-check points from article deletion policies that have no relevance here. Your argument is, "I want to add a template that requires a different citation format. You say that consistency within articles is important. Therefore all of the citations should be changed to my format." That's not a valid line of reasoning. Any clear and useful citation format is acceptable in Wikipedia, and you don't get to override everyone's preferences simply because you have a template for a particular source that only allows for certain ones. You could as easily change all citations into templates; Wikipedia has lots of templates that can be used for this. But templated citations make Wikipedia harder to edit, as they take up much more space in the editing window, much of it consisting of code, and editing the citations themselves then requires editors to investigate each template used and learn its parameters. That makes more work for editors, without any significant advantage, which is a second argument against converting all citations to a particular source to a template, aside from the fact that it results in inconsistent citation styles within articles. P Aculeius (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)