Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 16
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Spartan army
Hello! Over the past few days, an IP editor has been adding stuff on the Spartan army, especially Spartan "philosophy" and outlook on life etc. While most of it seems fairly innocuous, the sources he/she uses are not: History Channel documentaries and novels on ancient Sparta. And then there are comparisons between the Spartan ethos and "new Soviet man". I've reverted on sight and despite my attempts at explanation on why these sources are worthless, the IP has been re-reverting (obviously, I am an incorrigible "Athenian-lover"). Since this is a content dispute and not outright vandalism, I don't want to ask for page protection, but perhaps someone else might have a better idea about how to proceed here. Constantine ✍ 15:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- The History Channel has taught me that everything about human history can be explained by mysterious visitors to Earth. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Who is Gaius Flavius Antoninus?
Hi everyone. I thought I'd seen everything, but it's not everyday that you come across the name of a new assassin of Julius Caesar, right here on Wikipedia! Apparently his name was Gaius Flavius Antoninus, and Mark Antony had a novel way of having him killed. Candidate for speedy deletion? Oatley2112 (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not mentioned in my copy of the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology under Flavius or Antoninus. In my catalogue of individuals mentioned in Pauly-Wissowa Flavius 31 and 32 are called "Flavius Antoninus" with no praenomen mentioned, but that's all I have on them. A Google search for the name didn't uncover anyone connected with Caesar. Probably a spurious entry that nobody's ever questioned. P Aculeius (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd use the tag {{db-hoax}}. But get a look at that edit history. It isn't as if somebody's just now noticing that the article exists. It was even moved once to the "full name." Perhaps a historical novel is to blame? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Cynwolfe's right on the method: speedy deletions of hoaxes have to be obvious and unquestionable hoaxes. I ran into this the other day. We've been saying for years that Olivier played this guy; cf. Talk:Lucius Caesetius Flavus. davidiad.: 15:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well solved! Though I'm still not clear how Lucius Caesetius Flavus gives us Gaius Flavius Antoninus even with Shakespeare as the intermediary. I'm no doubt overly optimistic about a speedy deletion on hoax grounds. Notice it was the article on the easily verifiable Caesetius that had been proposed for deletion, not the non-Flavius Antoninus. For some reason, the complete absence of evidence that something exists creates a demand for sources that state "this doesn't exist" (why would such a statement be made, if the thing is a fabrication?), and yet I once engaged in a vicious argument against editors trying to assert that Pippa Middleton wasn't notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. But pray, Davidiad, whence the male prostitute? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Show's what I know: I thought db-hoax was a ProD tag—I've added one. Despite the editor's Shakespearean confidence at the Talk Page I linked, this Flavius Antoninus is nonsense and has nothing to do with Shakes. Hence my editing the Olivier list in the proper direction, to Caesetius, as was done years ago at Julius Caesar (play). Still a hoax, so Antony's male prostitute is a figment, much more so than the pimp named Prudent who is supposed to have been Beckett's would be assassin. davidiad.: 16:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well solved! Though I'm still not clear how Lucius Caesetius Flavus gives us Gaius Flavius Antoninus even with Shakespeare as the intermediary. I'm no doubt overly optimistic about a speedy deletion on hoax grounds. Notice it was the article on the easily verifiable Caesetius that had been proposed for deletion, not the non-Flavius Antoninus. For some reason, the complete absence of evidence that something exists creates a demand for sources that state "this doesn't exist" (why would such a statement be made, if the thing is a fabrication?), and yet I once engaged in a vicious argument against editors trying to assert that Pippa Middleton wasn't notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. But pray, Davidiad, whence the male prostitute? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Cynwolfe's right on the method: speedy deletions of hoaxes have to be obvious and unquestionable hoaxes. I ran into this the other day. We've been saying for years that Olivier played this guy; cf. Talk:Lucius Caesetius Flavus. davidiad.: 15:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd use the tag {{db-hoax}}. But get a look at that edit history. It isn't as if somebody's just now noticing that the article exists. It was even moved once to the "full name." Perhaps a historical novel is to blame? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Note that the creator of this article has all of two edits: [1]. Looks like some casual experimentation that went without real scrutiny for eight years. How many more articles are there like this? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for everyone's input. I must say that this is the only deliberate hoax I have come across in my four years of editing Roman and Byzantine articles, so hopefully it's not widespread. What I find more frustrating are the numerous brief stub-articles taken from Christian Settipani's genealogical works, about Roman cavalry officers or military tribunes who are possibly related, three or four generations down the line to a Roman proconsul or local noble, with the articles mostly filled with conjectures about who they were related to. Oatley2112 (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't been following this, but at one time was concerned about an undue weight problem with Settipani. Isn't it the case that many of these articles wouldn't even exist without him as a source, and so they're inherently single-source articles? And isn't that supposed to be a no-no? Would these stubs be better collected by family, at least? Let me make a comparison. I've recently redirected numerous "mythology" stubs to overview articles on Roman birth deities or agricultural deities or some centralized treatment (an ongoing task). If the name occurs only once, and scholars usually discuss it in the context of overall function along with other epithets or rare names, then it seems to me that they're better understood in context. Each article could never be longer than two or three sentences (because they really have no "mythology"), without merely repeating the content that provides the overview. Is the same true of the Settipani-based articles? Should be they collected somehow? Like the admirable gens pages that P Aculeius worked on, making clear that they were prosopography pages, not mere dabs. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Something along those lines sounds eminently sensible. I think it's time I resumed working on that project, anyway. I already did a lot of the major families (the gens Valeria being the most glaring exception, if I recall), and the minor ones sometimes took only a few minutes. Persons attested only from inscriptions can and ought to be listed, although not redlinked, so long as we can determine the person's proper name in order to categorize him or her properly. However, in the case of this fellow, I think we need some evidence that a person of that name existed, if only from an inscription, and that he hasn't been made up out of whole cloth. P Aculeius (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't been following this, but at one time was concerned about an undue weight problem with Settipani. Isn't it the case that many of these articles wouldn't even exist without him as a source, and so they're inherently single-source articles? And isn't that supposed to be a no-no? Would these stubs be better collected by family, at least? Let me make a comparison. I've recently redirected numerous "mythology" stubs to overview articles on Roman birth deities or agricultural deities or some centralized treatment (an ongoing task). If the name occurs only once, and scholars usually discuss it in the context of overall function along with other epithets or rare names, then it seems to me that they're better understood in context. Each article could never be longer than two or three sentences (because they really have no "mythology"), without merely repeating the content that provides the overview. Is the same true of the Settipani-based articles? Should be they collected somehow? Like the admirable gens pages that P Aculeius worked on, making clear that they were prosopography pages, not mere dabs. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Move
Historic roads and Roman roads are up for a move. Please see Talk:Roman roads. Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 16:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello all! I’m working with the Saylor foundation to create a series of original, crowd-sourced textbooks that will be openly licensed and freely available on the web and within Saylor’s free, self-paced courses at Saylor.org. We are using Wikibooks as a platform to host this project and hope to garner the interest of existing members of the Wikibooks and Wikipedia community, as well as bring in new members! We thought that some of your members may be interested in contributing to our book Saylor.org's Ancient Civilizations of the World. Thomas_Simpson (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Where does WikiProject:Greece end and Wikiproject:Classical Greece and Rome begin?
As the title implies, I've seen several articles (like Bosporan Kingdom) now with WP:Greece in talk field but not this project. I've been correcting them, but would like to make sure I'm doing the right thing. --Brigade Piron (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- The two projects actually overlap. WikiProject Greece concerns all things Greece; this project covers topics under the umbrella of Classics, which includes Greek topics from roughly the early Byzantine period back to prehistory. So there's never any conflict in having both projects on a talk page, and if there is a WPGreece template on a page about an ancient topic, there should probably be a WP Classical Greece and Rome, too. davidiad.: 12:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- There was also a discussion at one time about whether the project should've been named "Ancient Greece and Rome," since over the years project members have taken an active interest in late antiquity or other topics, such as Mycenaean Greece, that some might not consider "Classical" (though perhaps broadly "classical"). As I recall, no one had particularly strong feelings about the name either way, but agreed that the project should accommodate the broadest scope. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's fair enough. Would I be right in assuming that Hellenistic kingdoms in the east should be counted in this project then, but not in WP:Greece? Is cultural resemblance or geography more important? --Brigade Piron (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- There's at least one editor active in articles pertaining to both projects who might have a perspective on this (User:Cplakidas). I'm just thinking out loud here, but if Wikiproject Greece considers all of Greek history within its scope, then countries that were under Greek rule in antiquity, or were Greek colonies, would seem to fall within scope for both projects. In the process of adding or removing project banners, I would encourage you to note what you're doing in your edit summary, specifying the project. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, but it's a bit fanciful to say that Hellenistic kingdoms were under "Greek Rule" isn't it? I think your idea is good - I'll leave notes if I do replace any other templates --Brigade Piron (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- There's at least one editor active in articles pertaining to both projects who might have a perspective on this (User:Cplakidas). I'm just thinking out loud here, but if Wikiproject Greece considers all of Greek history within its scope, then countries that were under Greek rule in antiquity, or were Greek colonies, would seem to fall within scope for both projects. In the process of adding or removing project banners, I would encourage you to note what you're doing in your edit summary, specifying the project. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's fair enough. Would I be right in assuming that Hellenistic kingdoms in the east should be counted in this project then, but not in WP:Greece? Is cultural resemblance or geography more important? --Brigade Piron (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- There was also a discussion at one time about whether the project should've been named "Ancient Greece and Rome," since over the years project members have taken an active interest in late antiquity or other topics, such as Mycenaean Greece, that some might not consider "Classical" (though perhaps broadly "classical"). As I recall, no one had particularly strong feelings about the name either way, but agreed that the project should accommodate the broadest scope. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't remove any tags unless it's obvious that the article has nothing to do with the history of Greece. Within that project's stated scope one finds:
History, including the prehistory of Greece, the history of ancient Greece including the Hellenistic world, the history of the Byzantine Empire and of medieval Greece in general, to the history of modern Greece
The relation between this project and WPGreece is the same as the relation between the Classics departments and the Hellenic Studies departments at both schools I attended: there is considerable overlap and cooperation. I, as a member of both WikiProjects, add both templates to every page on any Greek topic that I create or rate. davidiad.: 20:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Davidad. A project banner should indicate that project members are willing to act as a resource for a given article and to contribute to its development as a group with a relevant knowledge base. If disputes pertaining to the article arise, it's a legitimate form of canvassing to solicit opinions toward consensus by placing a notice on the talk page of a project that has bannered the article. There is such a thing as banner spamming. But Bosporan Kingdom has a section on Greek colonies, so the article does seem to fall within the scope of Wikiproject Greece as described. Greek was spoken there, and according to the article, the area came under Byzantine purview. (But Davidad, have you a handy source for the tagged statement in the intro?) Cynwolfe (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't, probably because of my young age most of my reading has been in scholars who shy away from the terms Hellenization and Romanization as a rule. The claim definitely needs a citation, though, given that the Black Sea became a destination only in the second wave of colonization. The "in the sense that a mixed population adopted the Greek language and civilization" bit is apparently the key, but the books that I taught from do not make this distinction between the eastern and western colonies being mixed or closed populations of Greeks. (Only a few are explicitly said to have successfully established an early insular foothold via the complete expulsion or enslavement of the native population.) I assume some specialist literature on colonization or the Bosporan Kingdom itself would have to be marched out in support of the statement, if in fact it is supportable. I'll keep an eye out. davidiad.: 22:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- I tagged that, if you wait a couple of weeks, I'll be able to add some sources from the Danish Centre for Black Sea Studies. Must bear in mind that there are very few books (in European languages) on the subject. I believe that quite a slug of it is made up, like the article for Tiberius Julius Rhescuporis V which is pretty much total fiction.
- --Brigade Piron (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I doubt that statement will end up being kept. Awesome that you have access to stuff from the Danish Centre for Black Sea Studies: not an institute that I'd expect to exist. Rad. davidiad.: 21:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't, probably because of my young age most of my reading has been in scholars who shy away from the terms Hellenization and Romanization as a rule. The claim definitely needs a citation, though, given that the Black Sea became a destination only in the second wave of colonization. The "in the sense that a mixed population adopted the Greek language and civilization" bit is apparently the key, but the books that I taught from do not make this distinction between the eastern and western colonies being mixed or closed populations of Greeks. (Only a few are explicitly said to have successfully established an early insular foothold via the complete expulsion or enslavement of the native population.) I assume some specialist literature on colonization or the Bosporan Kingdom itself would have to be marched out in support of the statement, if in fact it is supportable. I'll keep an eye out. davidiad.: 22:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Article is currently undergoing a major expansion. Please join the discussion at Talk:Sacred Band of Thebes#NPOV and David Leitao. Thank you. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- There is a related SPI here. Some of the diffs provided are from editors who participate regularly in this project, and all the articles involved are within the scope of the project. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Two things:
- The SPI has been closed and archived, and the user blocked indefinitely.
- Obsidian Soul has done a staggering amount of work on Sacred Band of Thebes in a remarkably short time. Spectacular, really. I know the subject matter only glancingly, but I"m thinking of nominating it for a GA, if some other project members would be willing to give it a critical look-through first. The article now has a much greater emphasis on military history, so it could use a set of eyes attuned to that aspect, as well as the broader cultural concerns. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Two things:
Latin epigraphy and orthography
Could I trouble someone to look over this edit yielding Senatvs Popvlvsqve Romanvs (and at least one other use of v in lowercase)? This is based on MOS:Ety, For better accessibility, Latin quotations should never be set in all caps or small caps, even when the use of lowercase might seem anachronistic. I don't know anything about the history of this guideline (other than this discussion), but it does seem there might be times when you would need to transcribe your source exactly, in dealing with epigraphy as such and not just the content of the inscription. In the Roman Republic article, however, I don't know why the phrases were represented as if they were inscriptions (if there was a legitimate reason, I wouldn't think the normal issues of readability need apply for such a short phrase). At any rate, in changing from upper to lower, I would find the use of v in the example above troubling. It would be nice if someone who cares more than I do about orthography and representing epigraphy could review MOS:Ety and the particular edits at Roman Republic. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that this result is absurd. The style guideline amounts to saying that diplomatic transcription of Latin inscriptions is not permissible in the encyclopedia. I'd like to think that isn't true, or oughtn't to be. But at the same time I have to admit that the instance at Roman Republic is more the indulgence of a visual preference--it's certainly not a diplomatic transcription of anything. So, while I might argue for retaining a precise transcription somewhere in Wikipedia for scholarly purposes, I wouldn't stand in the way of undoing small caps in such a case as this one. Yet of course anyone doing this needs to convert vocalic V to u, or else errors are being introduced into the encyclopedia where there were none before. I've notified this editor, added a warning to MOS:Ety, and cleaned up this edit. I hope the folks who like to enforce/tidy according to MOS can avoid leaving such mistakes in the articles. Wareh (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- My apologies; not being a member of this WikiProject, I wasn't aware that V was used in uppercase but U and V were both used in lowercase. I think that's a far more sensible situation than what I left with my edit, but I had assumed that v would be less contentious than u. Thank you for having fixed the edit; I've made the same fix to the same problem I had introduced in the lead. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 08:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you. I was really tired when I wrote that, and not sure I made sense. To Wareh, yes, I was unclear why the phrase was represented as if it were an inscription. In the infobox, however, there's been discussion of how to represent Senatus Populusque Romanus typographically in order to make the SPQR initialism "pop," with varying uses of caps, small caps, bold, italic and who-knows-what devices. (I was not involved in this process.) That's a separate issue from the point at MOS:Ety, which I'm very glad you addressed regarding u/v. But what about your point regarding diplomatic transcription? You're quite right that current wording seems to prohibit it. For a guideline or explanation, I find the phrase might seem anachronistic to have a whiff of we're pronouncing on something when we don't really know what we're talking about. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- "It's anachronistic" is a comment sometimes made by chance visitors to the Latin Vicipaedia, most often on our use of arabic numerals, less often on our use of lowercase, and now and then on our choice of Latin as a medium of expression :)
- Small caps are also used in Wikipedia articles in transcribing Latin coin legends. With these and with inscriptions, I agree, it's by far the best method, and the MOS needs adjusting to allow for it. Andrew Dalby 13:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks, Andrew: I knew there was at least one other example of where small caps seemed functional, but couldn't think of it. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you. I was really tired when I wrote that, and not sure I made sense. To Wareh, yes, I was unclear why the phrase was represented as if it were an inscription. In the infobox, however, there's been discussion of how to represent Senatus Populusque Romanus typographically in order to make the SPQR initialism "pop," with varying uses of caps, small caps, bold, italic and who-knows-what devices. (I was not involved in this process.) That's a separate issue from the point at MOS:Ety, which I'm very glad you addressed regarding u/v. But what about your point regarding diplomatic transcription? You're quite right that current wording seems to prohibit it. For a guideline or explanation, I find the phrase might seem anachronistic to have a whiff of we're pronouncing on something when we don't really know what we're talking about. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- My apologies; not being a member of this WikiProject, I wasn't aware that V was used in uppercase but U and V were both used in lowercase. I think that's a far more sensible situation than what I left with my edit, but I had assumed that v would be less contentious than u. Thank you for having fixed the edit; I've made the same fix to the same problem I had introduced in the lead. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 08:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Since I didn't see some familiar names I would expect in the edit history, I just wanted to make sure project members interested in this topic were aware of the article's existence. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Justinian dynasty
Hello! I'd like to know if "Justinian dynasty" is supposed to be "Justin-ian" (i.e. "Justin's") or rather "Justinian's", and what the standard name is in scholarship. I can see why it would be named after Justinian rather than the rather obscure Justin, but in this case, shouldn't it be the "Justinianian dynasty"? Constantine ✍ 20:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Although the latter may be hyper-correct, I find comparatively few RS that use it. Neither phrase seems especially common. Perhaps scholars avoid it because they have to choose between correctness and utter inelegance. Moses Hadas dodged the bullet with "Justinian's dynasty". Cynwolfe (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- If this referred to a Dynasty named after Justinian, I would prefer "Justinian's" or perhaps less informally, "Dynasty of Justinian." But looking at the article, it's apparent that the founder of the dynasty was named Justin, so "Justinian" is the correct adjectival form. This is consistent with other Byzantine dynasties, so I'd say it's probably the correct scholarly term as well. P Aculeius (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's pretty much what I had figured as well, but the problem is that the equivalent terms in German is "Justinianische Dynastie", in Greek Ιουστινιανή δυναστεία, and in French Dynastie justinienne, the emphasis always being on Justinian. The examples of "Justin's dynasty" or equivalent terms are far far fewer by comparison. So I strongly suspect that the name, even in English, is tied to Justinian rather than Justin.Constantine ✍ 09:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- But "Justinian" is the adjectival form of "Justin," so that's exactly what it should be in Greek, French, and English. Not sure about the German version, but the others all seem to be formed on the stem of "Justin," not "Justinian," which would make no sense. Dynasties are always named after their founders or places of origin, not their most famous members. After all, we speak of the Merovingians, not the Clovidians, and the Carolingians, descended from Charles Martel, rather than the Charlemagnians... possibly the German form is an aberration too long established to be remedied, or there's some other reason for avoiding "Justinische" in German. P Aculeius (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- In Greek at least, "Justin's dynasty" would be "Ιουστίνεια δυναστεία", not "Ιουστινιανή", which is "Justinian's". Anyhow, I think we agree that the term intended is "Justin's dynasty", that's mostly what I was concerned about. Thanks! Constantine ✍ 17:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's not what I'm saying. "Justinian" means "of or deriving from Justin," and that's why this is correctly applied to the dynasty. Since Justinus and Justinianus are Latin names (or adjectives), it only makes sense for the Greek form to transcribe the Latin one. The article should keep its current title of "Justinian Dynasty" and not be changed to "Justin's Dynasty." P Aculeius (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- In Greek at least, "Justin's dynasty" would be "Ιουστίνεια δυναστεία", not "Ιουστινιανή", which is "Justinian's". Anyhow, I think we agree that the term intended is "Justin's dynasty", that's mostly what I was concerned about. Thanks! Constantine ✍ 17:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- But "Justinian" is the adjectival form of "Justin," so that's exactly what it should be in Greek, French, and English. Not sure about the German version, but the others all seem to be formed on the stem of "Justin," not "Justinian," which would make no sense. Dynasties are always named after their founders or places of origin, not their most famous members. After all, we speak of the Merovingians, not the Clovidians, and the Carolingians, descended from Charles Martel, rather than the Charlemagnians... possibly the German form is an aberration too long established to be remedied, or there's some other reason for avoiding "Justinische" in German. P Aculeius (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's pretty much what I had figured as well, but the problem is that the equivalent terms in German is "Justinianische Dynastie", in Greek Ιουστινιανή δυναστεία, and in French Dynastie justinienne, the emphasis always being on Justinian. The examples of "Justin's dynasty" or equivalent terms are far far fewer by comparison. So I strongly suspect that the name, even in English, is tied to Justinian rather than Justin.Constantine ✍ 09:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- If this referred to a Dynasty named after Justinian, I would prefer "Justinian's" or perhaps less informally, "Dynasty of Justinian." But looking at the article, it's apparent that the founder of the dynasty was named Justin, so "Justinian" is the correct adjectival form. This is consistent with other Byzantine dynasties, so I'd say it's probably the correct scholarly term as well. P Aculeius (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Help request
Hi, I was hoping that someone from this project might be able to transcribe the two Greek words at the bottom of this source (page 92) so that I could include them in the etymology of the name Dictyophora for the article Phallus indusiatus. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm assuming someone better at Greek than I am is on this, but diktuon (you might also find the k as a c, and the u as a y), "net, fishing net", and pherō, "I bear, carry," with the form -phor common in scientific terminology to mean "a 'bearer' or carrier of; agent," so the dictyophora are "net-bearing." As the image so vividly illustrates. That is one funky mushroom. (Incidentally, you might be criticized for using an out-of-date source on a point of etymology, but in this straightforward case, it isn't going to make any difference.) Cynwolfe (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Also known as the "crinoline stinkhorn" or "veiled lady"! davidiad.:τ 12:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I was wondering what the letters were; is δεχτμον and φέξω correct? Sasata (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- The Greek is δίκτυον, diktyon, and φέρω, phero. That source is using an old Greek font that uses some queer forms and ligatures. davidiad.:τ 16:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've added the linked references to Liddell & Scott, thanks kindly for your assistance. Sasata (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- The Greek is δίκτυον, diktyon, and φέρω, phero. That source is using an old Greek font that uses some queer forms and ligatures. davidiad.:τ 16:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- We're using the guy who coined the name as the source of the roots he used to make it. How is that "outdated"? (plus there's only so much that can have changed in the understanding of ancient greek since then!) Circéus (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ha, well in that case you'll probably be accused of OR. I'm always really interested in how these names were chosen, since some are more whimsical or less obvious. It wasn't meant as a criticism from me. I try to steer clear of etymology, which bizarrely arouses passions as strong as those directed at claims of what tribe, nation or people were the first to [fill in the blank]. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to hear about OR in fungi etymology, we should dig up the debate about where the hell the root -cybe used in a whole bunch of names (cf. Psilocybe) came from! XD Circéus (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ha, well in that case you'll probably be accused of OR. I'm always really interested in how these names were chosen, since some are more whimsical or less obvious. It wasn't meant as a criticism from me. I try to steer clear of etymology, which bizarrely arouses passions as strong as those directed at claims of what tribe, nation or people were the first to [fill in the blank]. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The Dolabellae
Hi - a (hopefully) quick question/confirmation. The Dolabella page states that this branch of the patrician Cornelii were Plebeian (which puts it at odds with the Cornelia (gens) page, which says they were patrician). I don't think the Dolabella page is correct. Although Publius Cornelius Dolabella had himself adopted into the plebeian family, the rest of the clan were patrician, weren't they? Certainly the imperial Dolabellae were patricians, and the current thinking is that they were descended from the patrician suffect consul of 35 BC, not the plebeian suffect consul of 44 BC. Can someone confirm my belief that the Dolabellae were patrician Cornelii? Thanks. Oatley2112 (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology lists the Dolabellae amongst the patrician families of the Cornelii, which makes sense if you suppose that the Cornelii were originally patrician and gradually acquired plebeian families through freedmen, adoption, etc. But in case the entry was mistaken, or referred specifically to the later members of the family, I checked in Broughton. P. Cornelius Dolabella, consul 283 B.C. (listed in some sources as Dolabella Maximus, although Maximus may be assigned by error, as his colleague seems to have had that surname as well) is shown as Patrician. There's some confusion over the praetor of 211, with Broughton following Münzer and giving his surname as Cethegus, instead of Dolabella, following Zonaras. However, the Cn. Cornelius Dolabella who became Rex Sacrorum in 208 is also listed as patrician in Broughton. L. Cornelius Dolabella, who would have succeeded him if he had been willing to abdicate his position as duumvir navalis in 180, is shown as patrician, as is the Cn. Cornelius Dolabella who was consul in 159. So it seems pretty clear that the Dolabellae were patricians, even if one or more went over to the plebeians. P Aculeius (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's what I thought. Thanks for confirming! Oatley2112 (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Roman cities infobox
I was just wondering if this Wikiproject has something similar on the English wikipedia that the Italian wikipedia has here?
In the event that such an infobox doesn't exist yet, it seems to me that its addition would be welcome. Two examples of its use can be seen here and here. For one thing it links roman cities to their provinces and the legions which were stationed there and clearly and easily presents basic information about when the settlements were active. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 18:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Anybody here?--U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 18:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- My impression is that most editors who frequent this page are wary of infoboxes. In theory, I like infoboxes. I think they're handy for students. In practice, they often cause headaches. Either they attract content that doesn't have citations (mythology infoboxes are the worst for this), or editors get into nitpicking arguments about the content. The box then starts to bloat, becoming discursive and no longer functioning as a neat snapshot of factoids. The infobox at it:Emona is nicely compact and useful. The box at it:Colonia Agrippina starts getting a little discursive. None of this is to say that you shouldn't create such an infobox. I have no opinion on that either way. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate the answer, but I would very much like some sort of thumbs up before I do what seems like a substantial amount of work so that it doesn't end up being deleted. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 20:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't really compared its usage with that of the Italian examples, but there is {{Infobox castrum}} which I suppose would be our equivalent of Italian's Template:Castra_romana that is being used in those examples. davidiad.:τ 23:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Great! Thank you. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 00:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't really compared its usage with that of the Italian examples, but there is {{Infobox castrum}} which I suppose would be our equivalent of Italian's Template:Castra_romana that is being used in those examples. davidiad.:τ 23:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate the answer, but I would very much like some sort of thumbs up before I do what seems like a substantial amount of work so that it doesn't end up being deleted. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 20:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- My impression is that most editors who frequent this page are wary of infoboxes. In theory, I like infoboxes. I think they're handy for students. In practice, they often cause headaches. Either they attract content that doesn't have citations (mythology infoboxes are the worst for this), or editors get into nitpicking arguments about the content. The box then starts to bloat, becoming discursive and no longer functioning as a neat snapshot of factoids. The infobox at it:Emona is nicely compact and useful. The box at it:Colonia Agrippina starts getting a little discursive. None of this is to say that you shouldn't create such an infobox. I have no opinion on that either way. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Citing Pauly-Wissowa
Please look at Template:PWRE and its sample use in Acestodorus. Does it conform to the rules and make sense? S8w4 (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
We need your help to better define the Thraco-Roman and Daco-Roman terms/cultures, using the most modern, reliable sources. We have a user who is trying to erase the two at any cost in order to push a POV in relation to Origin of the Romanians, despite of having a lot of articles (like Justinian I) pointing to them. Above all, we need to write better, sourced leads and identify the origin/first sources for the usage of the terms. Unfortunately, the literature is scarce in this area, mostly in Romanian and Bulgarian, unlike the documentation/research available for Gallo-Roman and Romano-British culture. I tried to improve the articles at my best but facing difficulties and would appreciate any help. Thanks! --Codrin.B (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- One problem is that "Thraco-Roman" and "Daco-Roman" are adjectives; see WP:TITLEFORMAT on the preference given to nouns as titles. At minimum, I would suggest renaming them Thraco-Roman culture and Daco-Roman culture (which are now redirects), just as Gallo-Roman is only a redirect to Gallo-Roman culture. If the article is about Thraco-Roman culture, it would be about the culture of Thrace and the Thracians under Roman rule, and would complement the article on Thrace (Roman province), aka Thracia. An article named for the province itself generally deals with administrative and military history, but most provinces don't have a separate culture article dealing with language, art, religion, architecture and so on. Romano-British culture doesn't strike me as contributing much as a complement to Roman Britain; in fact, the latter deals more extensively with culture as such, and if I had nothing better to do, I would argue for merging the former into the latter.
- It could probably be argued that Gaul is unique, and that in general there's no reason to separate cultural life from the overview article on a Roman province, in which case Thraco-Roman and Daco-Roman should be merged into Thracia and Dacia (Roman province) respectively. Looking at Roman Dacia (=Dacia (Roman province)), which is a far superior article, I see no reason to have a separate article called either Daco-Roman or Daco-Roman culture; I'd be inclined to support a merge.
- If they should remain independent articles, I would keep them focused on describing the culture of Roman Thrace and Roman Dacia. Although these two cultures are not as well represented in Anglophone scholarship as Roman Gaul or Roman Britain, "Thraco-Roman" or "Romano-Thracian", and "Daco-Roman" or "Romano-Dacian" are just labels for the topic. Your sources may also talk about "Dacia under Roman rule" or "Roman-era Thrace." For instance, Oltean's Dacia (Routledge, 2007) looks very useful[2]. There may not be a lot of books devoted solely to Romano-Thracian or Romano-Dacian culture (in contrast to Gallo-Roman or Romano-British culture), and you may need to gather material from books dealing generally with Roman provinces or other topics pertaining to the Roman Empire as a whole. But you could certainly find sufficient material on art from Thracia/Dacia, and what languages were used within the province, and what products were traded, and the evidence for religious practices, and what can be learned from inscriptions of the period, and military culture, and so on. The problem with the lead section now seems to be questions of ethnicity, and how Thraco- relates to Daco-. If you get rid of that stuff, and set forth the scope of the article as describing cultural life within a geographically defined Roman province, you may be able to defuse the situation. I still wonder, however, whether the better solution might be merging Thraco-Roman into Thracia and Daco-Roman into Roman Dacia. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Currency of the Roman Empire
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Roman_Empire#Currency about what should be designated the Roman Empirer's 'currency'. Input from others in this project would be appreciated.
—Sowlos (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Categories: Archaeological sites in Greece
Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 12#Archaeological sites in Greece by period:
- Propose merging Category:Ancient Greek archaeological sites in Greece to Category:Ancient Greek sites in Greece
- Propose merging Category:Roman archaeological sites in Greece to Category:Roman sites in Greece
– Fayenatic London 21:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Latin translation needed
I'm working on a new article on Volubilis in my user space. I'd be grateful if someone could help with translating an inscription - see User:Prioryman/Volubilis#Triumphal arch. Prioryman (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd love someone to take a look at this and tell me where I'm wrong. I don't actually find modern sources giving a lot of evidence for a battle. Eg [3], [4](p.174), [5](pp75-76), [6]pp 518, 720. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- The most generally useful sources appear to be your last linked item (Potter) and a couple of items in Potter's footnotes, to which I can't get access right now. What is it that you want looked at, Doug? The article doesn't seem to differ much from your last edit, and the discussion is a bit old. Andrew Dalby 21:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Checked a few sources for you. A Google Books version of Gibbon (I suppose you don't include him as a "modern" source) doesn't seem to describe the battle, but my annotated Gibbon does (I only went to the back room to find it after wondering why there were no footnotes in the Google Books version). It seems to agree with the description in the article. Bowersock's Julian the Apostate (1978), which isn't cited in this article, does mention in passing that Julian crossed the river and defeated the Persian army before the gates of Ctesiphon, but supplies absolutely no details. Browning describes it in much more detail, but doesn't cite his sources in the text. Again it agrees with the article, and perhaps adds a few more details of interest that perhaps should be added (for instance, ill omens attending Julian's sacrifice following the battle). The defeat of the Persians before Ctesiphon is also mentioned, but not described in much detail, in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology under Julian. This article was written by William Plate, LL. D., who gives a list of sources at the end, but it's not clear which sources provided which information. However, there seems to be absolutely no doubt that the battle occurred, or that it was a complete rout. If it takes more digging to figure out which ancient sources informed the modern ones, that still wouldn't mean the article should be revised or deleted for lack of evidence. But there seem to be plenty of modern sources that acknowledge a battle occurred, even if not all provide much detail about it. P Aculeius (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- A battle occurred, but evidently not at Ctesiphon. My first source,[7], says the march took too long and Julian headed back home and was attacked on the way back. My 2nd source is by the same author and says "To reach Ctesiphon, the old capital of the Parthians, his army had to cross the large Tigris River. Awaiting them on the opposite hank, though, were the Sassanid elephants. By the time Julian's forces came up with a plan to get across the Tigris, it was mid-June. Thus, they would not have time to siege the city and starve out the enemy before cold weather and winter would come. The Romans abandoned the campaign to return home."
- Cambridge Ancient History says "When Ctesiphon was at last in sight, the emperor defied his generals' caution and ordered troops to be ferried across at night to the far bank of the river, in an encounter before the gates they successfully drove the Persian defenders back into the city, but had to be restrained from risking all by undisciplined pursuit (xxiv.6; cf. Lib. Or. xvm.248-5 5; Zos. 111.25)." and "There was seemingly no strategy beyond an assault on Ctesiphon. Now that Julian's army was before the walls, the reality of the city's impregnability forced a dramatic reconsideration, Mike the sand shifting beneath his feet' (Greg. Naz. Or. v.io). A council of war decided on an advance into the Persian interior east of die Tigris, in the hope (it may be suggested) of a rendezvous with the second force under Procopius and Sebastianus." And after burning his boats off Julian went and was killed.
- Potter says "Nor, it seems, did he have very good intelligence about the defenses of Ctesiphon itself*. When he reached the city in mid-June, he found that he lacked the where- withal to lay siege to the place.196 He had no choice but to retreat, but the land behind him was Hooded, making it impossible to go back the way that he had come.19 To return to Roman territory, he would have to march north along the Tigris. At this point he decided to burn the ships that had been used to transporr a part of the army, and the bulk of its supplies."
- However, our article is based on Gibbon and he appears to tell a very different story, with a battle outside the walls with 2500 Persian deaths, a story I don't find in the sources I've used.
- Looking further though, eg[8], I see that Ammianus Marcellinus does describe a battle outside of Ctesiphon with 2500 Persian casualties. So I'm left a bit confused. I'm still not convinced Merena was in charge at Ctesiphon. Our Roman narrator shows him in charge after Ctesiphon.[9]. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- A good secondary source in which all the primary sources are cited is M. H. Dodgeon, S. N. C. Lieu, The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars: 363-628 AD, a Narrative Sourcebook (Routledge, 1991) preview here. You want pages 231-274 of the original edition (with endnotes pages 390-394), and crucially the summary on pages 235-237. None of this is available for preview where I live -- but I'm laughing, because I have the book at home, part of my reward for reviewing a manuscript submitted to Routledge. You may think you can see pages 237 onwards, but you can't: the online edition is completely re-paged, possibly abridged, and those pages are different.
- An immediate thought in my mind is that the material about the death of Julian is wrongly inserted in this article of ours. His death occurred 4 weeks later, in the Battle of Samarra, on which we have a separate article. The only "aftermath" of this battle is that Julian rejected peace feelers from Shapur and the Romans, probably unwisely, marched northeast.
- Getting back to the Battle of Ctesiphon, Dodgeon and Lieu are in no doubt that it took place. They don't date it precisely, but our date of 29 May does not conflict with their overall chronology. Their next suggested date, for the council of war that decided on a march northeast, is (?5 June).
- Dodgeon and Lieu's summary is "The Romans were victorious at a battle before the gates of Ctesiphon but were unable to exploit the victory because of ill-discipline" (p. 235). For this they cite Ammianus, Zosimus, Libanius, Festus, Gregory Nazianzene and Sozomen, and they give translations of all except Ammianus. I can quote any details you want, but Merena does not occur in their index. One should be aware, of course, that these sources are all on the side of the army that lost the campaign -- therefore, they would not necessarily be well-informed on the command structure etc. of the army that won it. Andrew Dalby 18:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your time on this. Um, any chance you want to rewrite the article and source it properly? I ended up at this article because of vandalism at Persian war elephants which includes a bit about the battle of Ctesiphon and the surprise attack there by the Persians and their elephants which resulted in a Roman loss and Julian's death (well, that's what it says anyway). Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was hoping someone else would leap in first ... Oh, OK then, I'll have a go this weekend. Haven't done a battle before ... Andrew Dalby 08:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- The history of our article Merena won't surprise those familiar with the splendeurs et misères de Wikipédia. It was started (to turn a redlink blue) as a straight copy from Battle of Ctesiphon (363). A reference (unjustified) to Ency. Brit. 1911 was added for luck. Then, in 2009, a child vandal added some lurid stuff to it which has remained till now. The whole thing, complete with false reference and vandalism, has now been translated to the Farsi (Persian) Wikipedia. So your suspicions above are justified. We can't say Merena was overall commander of the Sassanian army: Ammianus is the only source for him, and says that he was a cavalry commander after Ctesiphon, and was killed at Samarra. Andrew Dalby 17:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm working on this, though it hasn't been apparent yet. I'm about to translate a new article Julian's Persian expedition from my Latin draft on Vicipaedia. For some reason, only the Italian and Russian wikis have had any such article until now, though you'd think it's a notable subject. It seemed best to start with this new page because I think some of what's currently in the Battle of Ctesiphon (363) article really belongs there. Andrew Dalby 11:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your time on this. Um, any chance you want to rewrite the article and source it properly? I ended up at this article because of vandalism at Persian war elephants which includes a bit about the battle of Ctesiphon and the surprise attack there by the Persians and their elephants which resulted in a Roman loss and Julian's death (well, that's what it says anyway). Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Checked a few sources for you. A Google Books version of Gibbon (I suppose you don't include him as a "modern" source) doesn't seem to describe the battle, but my annotated Gibbon does (I only went to the back room to find it after wondering why there were no footnotes in the Google Books version). It seems to agree with the description in the article. Bowersock's Julian the Apostate (1978), which isn't cited in this article, does mention in passing that Julian crossed the river and defeated the Persian army before the gates of Ctesiphon, but supplies absolutely no details. Browning describes it in much more detail, but doesn't cite his sources in the text. Again it agrees with the article, and perhaps adds a few more details of interest that perhaps should be added (for instance, ill omens attending Julian's sacrifice following the battle). The defeat of the Persians before Ctesiphon is also mentioned, but not described in much detail, in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology under Julian. This article was written by William Plate, LL. D., who gives a list of sources at the end, but it's not clear which sources provided which information. However, there seems to be absolutely no doubt that the battle occurred, or that it was a complete rout. If it takes more digging to figure out which ancient sources informed the modern ones, that still wouldn't mean the article should be revised or deleted for lack of evidence. But there seem to be plenty of modern sources that acknowledge a battle occurred, even if not all provide much detail about it. P Aculeius (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Catullus 16 up for GA
Catullus 16 is up for GA review.
Lest I run afoul of prohibitions against canvassing, I will merely state that I bring this fact to your attention because I know that several members of this project have a degree in classics, a good education in the classics, are beautifully self-taught, or have high intellectual standards. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
RfC on WP:ERA
Members of this project are invited to participate in the current RfC on the wording of WP:ERA pertaining to BC/AD and BCE/CE. I'm notifying this project because articles within our scope are among the most likely to need an era designation (to distinguish, for instance, the 2nd century BC/BCE from the 2nd century AD/CE). The original RfC was posted here, where you may follow the link to the live discussion. Thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Here's a direct link to the discussion. Paul August ☎ 18:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Page move discussion
I'd be grateful for the contributions of people with expertise in both classical texts and Wikipedia policy at Talk:Ceterum_censeo_Carthaginem_esse_delendam#Recent_page_move. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Article for deletion on Marcus Appuleius, consul of 20 BC
Hi everyone - I just created an article on Marcus Appuleius, the Roman consul of 20 BC. It has been nominated for deletion on notability grounds. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Appuleius. Could I ask members of this group to have a look and make comments as appropriate? Thanks. Oatley2112 (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, OK, trying to fulfill the "comments as appropriate" part of your request, but WP:POLITICIAN ought to cover it. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help, Cynwolfe. It's nuts sometimes - not only do you spend days going through the sources, you then create an article, only to then spend even more time trying to defend why you created it in the first place! Sigh... Oatley2112 (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Didn't we have a governor of Judea whose article was nominated for deletion like a month ago because he tweren't gonna show up in Us Weekly any time soon? davidiad.:τ 03:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help, Cynwolfe. It's nuts sometimes - not only do you spend days going through the sources, you then create an article, only to then spend even more time trying to defend why you created it in the first place! Sigh... Oatley2112 (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
If we see any more of these, just comment as "Speedy keep per WP:POLITICIAN", which stipulates the automatic notability of:
Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices.
That latter criterion should also be of use to you, Oatley. Well, and that "legislature" bit means that any Roman senator is automatically notable. Be aware too that if you say "we have articles on other figures like this," the deletionista is likely to counter with WP:OTHERSTUFF (the existence of similar articles not being grounds for keeping something). Sometimes, however, it seems to be permissible to point to categorical precedent, though the guideline is vague:
In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items.
This is amplified at the essay WP:Other stuff exists#Precedent in usage. They tell you not to wikilawyer, and then they tell you to base your arguments on policies and guidelines (the law) rather than reason or chimerical common sense, so what do they expect? Deletionists also regularly cloak "I don't think this is important" as notability, when the minimum threshold for considering notability is simply being noted by a sufficient number of third-party sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- So helpful. davidiad.:τ 18:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
A radical proposal...
OK, I'm sure I'll come under fire with this one, but here goes anyway... Recently, I've been doing quite a bit of work on pages from ancient civilisations (i.e. pre-4th C AD-ish) (like the Kushan Empire, Western Satraps, Han Dynasty China etc. who existed at the same time - even having trading relations with Greece and Rome - but who are not included in a wikiproject. Increasingly, modern scolarship is beginning to see ancient history as a much more fluid and international entity. My case is this: WP Classical Greece and Rome is great, but could it not be moved to encompass all ancient history (with defined date limits of course) and then have Greece and Rome individually included as "Task Forces" like in other wikiprojects? Would a WikiProject Ancient History not be a good thing? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this! ---Brigade Piron (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- The central concept of you idea is not quite radical. It is more your choice of WikiProject.
- Expanding this project wouldn't consolidate all of ancient history under one WikiProject. There are others. And, on the issue of fluidity. The same can be said of boundaries between ancient and modern histories, not just between geographical areas.
- Wouldn't focused historical task forces make more sense at WP:HISTORY? It already encompass all mentioned scopes and is the central WikiProject.
—Sowlos (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I like what you say, Brigade Piron, but this project is not exclusively about history, though most of us love history (this goes with what Sowlos is saying, I think). The "classical" hints that the project encompasses all of what's traditionally known as "classical studies," which includes languages, mythology, archaeology, art, literature, and so on. That said, we seem to lack much of a scope statement, and while this talk page is quite active, we don't pay much attention to the administrative niceties of the project page. I'm surprised that there isn't a WikiProject Ancient History. To me, however, expanding the scope of this project would be overwhelming. We already encompass thousands of articles, and I continually find more that we haven't bannered that are plainly within scope. There are some high-traffic, high-importance articles within project scope that are in an embarrassingly sad state. The interaction you describe is a great idea, but I'm not sure it's best to go about it by diffusing the attention of this project. But don't consider that a lack of interest. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, since I'm tableing this motion hypothetically, would it alay some of your worries if I suggested it be called WikiProject Ancient Civilisations? That would naturally encompass all the areas above, though I note the objection of Sowlos. --Brigade Piron (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Catullus 16 peer review
This is a notification that a request has been made for Catullus 16 to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of that article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Input sought at Roman Empire
At Roman Empire, we are seeking opinions about how to fill the "type of government" slot in the infobox. There is a proposal to label it an empire. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- I took a quick look Cynwolfe but was not able to see the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Naming - Cratinus vs Kratinos
Hi, wondering what the rules are - he was Greek and lived long before Rome became well known so I would think original Greek transcription would fit better? Richiez (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Going by the most common usage of English-language scholarship, and WP:COMMONNAME, the Latinized transliteration is probably going to stand on Wikipedia for most ancient authors. The Germans have always been more likely to use the so-called "scientific" transliteration, hence de:Kratinos. davidiad.:τ 21:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, most western scholarship uses or has historically used Latin forms of Greek names. There's another logical reason for this: we're not using the Greek alphabet, we're using the Latin one, so there's no reason for strict transliteration. The idea is to render names according to the conventions of the language and alphabet being used. Strict transliteration necessarily rejects those conventions even if it results in strange and unfamiliar formations. Wikipedia isn't intended to break new ground by rejecting established scholarship and conventions; it's meant to collect all relevant data for the convenience of users. So the German convention contravenes the basic policies of English Wikipedia.
- That doesn't mean you can't include a strict transliteration in the article lead, though. Something like, "Cratinus, in Greek Κρατινος (Kratinos)..." with Cratinus used throughout the article, unless a source using another form is quoted. That would be perfectly reasonable. P Aculeius (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Good Article Nominee: Philomela
I have spent the last few weeks revising and expanding the article on Philomela. I have proposed my work for Good Article status. If anyone is interested in reviewing it, take a look at WP:GAN. I appreciate it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia - Limes Dacicus
Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia - Limes Dacicus is listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/New WikiProjects (version of 10:52, 29 December 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
New stub articles within project scope
I have created two new stub articles needing expansion, additional work and input from project participants. The categories could use a review by others as they may need some tweaking, additions or subtractions.
The articles are:
Curia of Pompey and Porticus of Pompey which are given english common names. Please feel free to to expand and colaborate! Thanks and happy editing!--Amadscientist (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- One thing I am unsure of from other similar articles- Should it be Porticus of Pompey, or just Porticus Pompey?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Compare Porticus Octaviae (in Italian Portico di Ottavia); Porticus Argonautarum ("Portico of the Argonauts", Portico degli Argonauti); and Porticus Catuli, "Portico of Catulus". You might check Richardson, A New Topographical Dictionary[10] who uses the Latin Porticus Pompeii; but if you haven't used Richardson before, see first Bill Thayer's brief but as always astute layman's review at LacusCurtius. I would say that it should be either Porticus Pompeii or "Portico of Pompey" (that is, translating both elements into English). Cynwolfe (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Cynwolfe, either Porticus Pompeii or Portico of Pompey (although I would suggest Portico of Pompeius as an alternative in English; I know that "Pompey" has the benefit of long usage in English, but it both sounds and looks like a nickname). Since I don't know how familiar the English name is, I'd defer to Cynwolfe's judgment, but for anything not that widely discussed in the first place (and architectural features might qualify), you might be well advised to begin the lead with something like, "The Porticus Pompeii or Portico of Pompeius is a gate...", or alternatively "The Porticus Pompeii or Portico of Pompeius (or Pompey) is a gate..." The advantage of these is that it places a slight preference on its original Latin name, making the article consistent with similar articles, but without suggesting that scholarship preferring English names and grammar is incorrect. By placing the English form(s) in bold as well, you leave it up to the reader to decide which form to use, even if you use one form consistently throughout the article (quotations excepted). I think it's important to consider the fact that different scholars make a wide variety of choices when dealing with the names of people and things from antiquity, and have for centuries; with a little foresight it's possible to accommodate that fact without actually taking sides. P Aculeius (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I apologise for not seeing this sooner. Rather a full plate on Wikipedia this last few months. I am familiar with Richardson, but was concerned that the title not confuse the reader with a similar structure in Pompeii. I tend to agree with Cynwolfe's second suggestion as I was also concerned about the use of porticus over portico.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Cynwolfe, either Porticus Pompeii or Portico of Pompey (although I would suggest Portico of Pompeius as an alternative in English; I know that "Pompey" has the benefit of long usage in English, but it both sounds and looks like a nickname). Since I don't know how familiar the English name is, I'd defer to Cynwolfe's judgment, but for anything not that widely discussed in the first place (and architectural features might qualify), you might be well advised to begin the lead with something like, "The Porticus Pompeii or Portico of Pompeius is a gate...", or alternatively "The Porticus Pompeii or Portico of Pompeius (or Pompey) is a gate..." The advantage of these is that it places a slight preference on its original Latin name, making the article consistent with similar articles, but without suggesting that scholarship preferring English names and grammar is incorrect. By placing the English form(s) in bold as well, you leave it up to the reader to decide which form to use, even if you use one form consistently throughout the article (quotations excepted). I think it's important to consider the fact that different scholars make a wide variety of choices when dealing with the names of people and things from antiquity, and have for centuries; with a little foresight it's possible to accommodate that fact without actually taking sides. P Aculeius (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Janus
Janus has been nominated as a GA. Could I encourage a couple of project members to actually read the article, and offer some suggestions as to what might need to be improved before establishing this as one of the few mythology/ancient religion articles to achieve this rating? I have reasons for not participating in the review. One is that I don't know how to read at least half the prose. Another is that I'm foolishly contemplating a run at Cupid before Valentine's Day, which would no doubt become a full-time occupation. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, you do know how to read... it's yet another premature GA nomination of an article which doesn't yet meet B class criteria (but in this case, for readability, rather than coverage). Not easily remedied. And I'm getting bogged down in Roman roads and other infrastructure... (that's the thing those cupids are frolicking on. It too has powerful suckage)... Haploidavey (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Help needed removing copyvio
See User talk:Moonriddengirl#User Mondigomo and massive copyvio - some of these articles will be of interest to editors here. Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is now at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Mondigomo if anyone has the time to chip in. Dougweller (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Alexander the Great article
Hi I just though I would mention this here as it probably concerns you guys. The Alexander the Great article is in a pretty sorry state, with certain sections having bizarre tracts of biased text and opinions in poor English pasted into them, I raised this last month on the talk page but no one who has the power to edit the article has noticed as of yet. Considering the article is such a high profile one it really should be fixed asap. 82.10.182.26 (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Kenny
scope overlap with Wikipedia:WikiProject Rome
This Project page should explain how the scope overlap is supposed to be resolved. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- By definition their scope is the Rome part of Classical Greece and Rome. A child project section where WP:ROME is described as having primacy over articles related to specifically to the city of Rome would do it.
—Sowlos (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's not really a problem to have projects with overlapping scopes (see e.g. WP:GREECE), but I can't see why Wikiproject Rome exists, since this project deals with articles about classical Rome all the time. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Shouldn't a Wikiproject devoted to Rome be about the city of Rome throughout its entire history? Otherwise, why isn't it "Ancient Rome"? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Apparently, a lot of people in the West (esp. in the US) primarily understand 'Rome' and 'Greece' as referring to ancient history. WP:ROME seems to share in this confusion: 'This WikiProject has been formed to foster the improvement of Wikipedia’s coverage of ancient Rome. It covers the city, monarchy, republic and empire, including the modern life of the city itself, its architecture, people, as well as its ancient and contemporary history. ... Similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, Rome along with Greece, this project's scope retains those precise periods but with an emphasis focused on structures, monuments, people and locations of importance to Roman history.'
- For the record, I think multiple projects within the scope of ancient Roman civilization is redundant. It is difficult to divide the topic in any meaningful way as it is all very interrelated.
—Sowlos (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yup, it's a poorly crafted statement of scope. Akhilleus points to Wikiproject Greece, which is much clearer. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Along the lines of Wikiproject Greece it occurs to me that a Wikiproject devoted to the Eternal City throughout its history, from the Iron Age to the present day, could be a valuable thing--but the scope would go from Hut of Romulus to Theatre of Pompey to Sant'Eustachio to Piazza_del_Campidoglio to EUR, Rome to 8½, and everything in between, and beyond. But WP:ITALY covers that, I suppose. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- It looks rather like a version of WP:London which has got fixated on the ancient stuff which would be better in this project - though when it comes to co-ordinating articles on the capital city of Italy (rather than Ancient Rome per se) I can see it would be useful.Brigade Piron (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Cynwolfe is right, it is a poorly crafeted statement of scope. The project was originally limited to the city of rome and was a stale prject with two members. I spoke to the person who put it together and they built it for someone who seems to have lost interest, but I contacted everyone I could when I began restoring the project. I expanded it to all things relating to ancient Rome but I chisiled over the original statement incorporating what was there into a few different version. I agree the project should also be renamed to WikiProject Ancient Rome. That is actually a good idea but I wanted to also emphasise the city itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- It looks rather like a version of WP:London which has got fixated on the ancient stuff which would be better in this project - though when it comes to co-ordinating articles on the capital city of Italy (rather than Ancient Rome per se) I can see it would be useful.Brigade Piron (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Along the lines of Wikiproject Greece it occurs to me that a Wikiproject devoted to the Eternal City throughout its history, from the Iron Age to the present day, could be a valuable thing--but the scope would go from Hut of Romulus to Theatre of Pompey to Sant'Eustachio to Piazza_del_Campidoglio to EUR, Rome to 8½, and everything in between, and beyond. But WP:ITALY covers that, I suppose. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)