User talk:Cynwolfe/List of ancient Roman altars

Inclusion criteria?

I think this list might be a good idea. I've come across quite a few arae but most are quite obscure - no more than epigraphy really, relevant to Imperial cult for the most part, with little or no elaboration on context. They (their inscriptions, anyway) are mentioned in articles but are unlikely to have a dedicated section anywhere. And they're unlikely to get one. Tell you what, I'll put some in, kind of casual, and you remove or keep them as you see fit. Then I'll have some kind of idea where we're headed. Haploidavey (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would obscure altars identified solely by their inscriptions be worth including? Such as these fellows? I reckon that might open the doors too wide; but lemme know what you think. Haploidavey (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too think the list would be useful because some altars wouldn't need a full article, but might sustain a paragraph that doesn't fit elsewhere (as in a deity's article). I say we just put whatever we have here, and worry about how to present or organize it later. In addition to geography, we're dealing with both altars known from literary texts to have existed (mostly in Rome) but not identified archaeologically (and some identified), and those known only from archaeology/epigraphy. If the latter have images, you could start an image gallery temporarily, so we can review what we've got to work with. One problem is that every "temple" would have an altar, so I don't think these should be listed as assumed. Listed only if the altar is discussed in and of itself, like the Altar of Dis and Proserpina, which I haven't listed yet but am very interested in. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes good sense. Haploidavey (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I bin experimentin'. Layout's tricky for the pix. The Roman religion template pushes all but the lede image down to page base. So I've removed it; that helps. As does having more entries per header. Haploidavey (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it will be a problem when the sections are expanded. There's a way to do a section break, so the image stays with the section, but I don't usually like the way it creates trapped white space so I've never noticed the formatting. Would be useful here, because eventually the section will fill up better, and it would only be a placeholder. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Davey, I'm going to dump what I can from Richardson's New Topographical Dictionary while I watch election results tonight (I live in a 'bellwether' state, but I shall of course voice no political opinions here — I'm merely digressing). For now I'm probably going to note each of these as (R p. ???) — feel free to add info on any of these, from Richardson or anybody else. I'm envisioning a short paragraph on altars that don't have an article or that aren't treated in another article (or ought to be treated or developed in another article but presently are underdeveloped). For altars already covered, just a description sentence and a link. I'll probably have the page open for quite a while, so I'm hoping we don't edit-conflict. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bellwethers or lambs to slaughter? Your image du jour scares the hell out of me, and so did Andrew Neale's TV programme on... certain related topics. Please do go ahead and enjoy the unsullied openness. I'm indulging a different kind of migraine, a rewrite of that bloody Roman Triumph, grounding it more thoroughly in relation to pompa and Ludi; which seems somehow appropriate in view of the, um, "upcoming electoral festivities". Haploidavey (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't get very far with arae after all. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]