Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 25

Contents

{{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome}}

Missing wikilink

The project template, template:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome is currently broken. It does not link back to this project talk page, the wikilink for WT:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome is missing since 2 December 2013. The obvious project name is currently not linked, and where on the usual project banners, a project talk page link appears, the project page link now appears. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It is actually linked at the end of the paragraph in question, with the piped text project page. However, if you did not notice that link then it's likely others won't either, so I have added a second iteration of the link to the paragraph. Thanks! AGK [•] 19:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. It wasn't in the usual place -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The image on the banner changed on 7 December 2013 to a simple "C".

The new image used for the project banner is a simple "C", is that supposed to represent 100? And what does "100" mean in the context of Greece and Rome? Wouldn't a combination of File:Alexander's Wars ua.png and File:RomanEmpire large.jpg be a better image? (ask the WP:Graphics lab for help if no one knows how to make such a map) -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your questions. C is the initial for Classical Greece and Rome (and Classics). The Phidias painting did not suit the dimensions imposed on logos by the project banner template: nobody can see such a tiny painting. I'd love a better image than just the letter 'C', but it'd have to be one that represents the entire project scope – not just one subject (like Rome). AGK [•] 20:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
For some reason, I thought of Roman numerals when I saw that "C" on the banner, and not "Classics". Perhaps the word "Classics" should be used?
My prior suggestion was a map of the achronistic maximum extent Roman Empire plus the achronistic maximum extent Greek empires + Alexandrian Empire + successor empires.
-- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
We can only use one of those maps, meaning the topics represented by the other are neglected in the banner's picture. AGK [•] 21:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
We could do both maps in one, we'd just need a new map. Which is why I suggested asking the Graphics lab to draw one. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
How about using something like this:

Paul August 21:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. What about an icon of an ionic column? Icons tend to look much crisper when used at tiny resolutions, such as the one demanded by the project banner template. For example:
AGK [•] 21:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Better. Paul August 22:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I've put the new icon in. If anybody finds a better icon, feel free to get rid of mine – but I think it's looking quite good. Certainly better than that tiny image we had before which nobody could make out. AGK [•] 10:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Augur vs Auspice

All you experts, could someone who knows what's up take a look at my question over at Talk:Auspice#Augur vs Auspice? Thanks —Akrabbimtalk 15:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

IP removing 'son'/'daughter' from infoboxes

68.119.73.241 (talk · contribs) seems to think we shouldn't be telling readers is a child is a son or a daughter in infoboxes. Is that correct? Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

@Dougweller: As the child is identifiable by the suffix of their praenomen, it seems unnecessary to specify their gender. I imagine infoboxes on modern people does not say "son" or "daughter" before each child for the same reason; e.g. at Elizabeth II, we know 'Charles' is her son. Also, space is at a premium in infoboxes. However, this is problematic because it corrupts the original assertion that Philip the Arab had three children; and in any case, a single-purpose batch of edits that only remove the gender identification of the subject's issue is prima facie worrisome. I'll ask the IP why they are making these edits. AGK [•] 10:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. The only problem I can see is that the reader has to know about the suffix if their praenomen - so without specifying sex we are aiming in the infoxbox only at readers with specialist knowledge, and I'm not too happy about that. Dougweller (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

BC/AD versus BCE/CE

This project is about "Classical Greece and Rome." Classical Greece was a 200-year period in Greek culture during the 5th and 4th centuries before the common (Christian) era, meaning before the existence of Christianity. And except for the period after the year 380, [1] Classical Rome, also, was a period in which Christianity either did not yet exist or played a minor role. In addition, the history of Classical Greece and Rome is important to the whole world, not just to Christianity. Therefore, in accordance with modern sensibilities, beautifully articulated by Kofi Annan [2] and quoted in section 2.1 of the Wikipedia article "Common Era," [3] all dates in this project should be expressed using neutral terms such as "BCE" (Before the Common Era) or "CE" (Common Era), rather than using terms referring to Christianity, "BC" (Before Christ) or "AD" (the Year of Our Lord).

English is the most widely used language in the world, with hundreds of millions of persons of varying beliefs using it as a second language. Therefore, it logically follows that, except in articles about Christianity, all dates (not just those used in the WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome) in the English version of Wikipedia (and probably in other language versions, as well, but that's for others to debate) should, when needed for clarity, be labeled using nonsectarian abbreviations, such as "BCE" and "CE." Parochialism should be eliminated from any encyclopedia that claims to be written for the whole world to use. As former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan argues in the Wikipedia article "Common Era": "...[T]he Christian calendar no longer belongs exclusively to Christians. People of all faiths have taken to using it simply as a matter of convenience. There is so much interaction between people of different faiths and cultures – different civilizations, if you like – that some shared way of reckoning time is a necessity. And so the Christian Era has become the Common Era."[3] This is not a radical idea: as this same article points out, the term "Common Era" has a long history in English, the first known use being in 1708. [3]

1. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#End_of_Roman_persecution_under_Emperor_Constantine_.28313_AD.29>

2. <Annan, Kofi A., (then Secretary-General of the United Nations) (28 June 1999). "Common values for a common era: Even as we cherish our diversity, we need to discover our shared values". Civilization: The Magazine of the Library of Congress.>

3. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era> Wikifan2744 (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Except that all the geographical area covered by this project subsequently became Christian, and BC/AD are far, far, more common in this rather conservative corner of academia than the alternative. I see you have been running this piece at other articles, and I suggest you read WP:ERA. Nor should consistency across a Wiki-project in this respect be attempted; it's an article-level issue. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose and concur with Johnbod - - Right now it's an article level issue, and should by all means stay that way (though being a realist I would differ from the op's rather forced perceptions regarding "modern sensibilities") Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • No, per above and longstanding convention. Oppose. AGK [•] 12:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I also oppose. WP:ERA is well-established: both systems are acceptable, the main issue is consistency. As Johnbod points out, the field of Classics tends to prefer BC/AD. The Wikipedia article on the Common Era also includes arguments against its use, including two that I find persuasive - that it's a euphemism, and remains the Christian dating system, thinly disguised, and that calling it the "common era" implies that the Christian dating system is universal when it's not. I'd also add that my father, a retired surgeon in the UK with an extensive record of publication in medical journals (and a convinced atheist), had never heard of it until I asked his opinion on it about a year ago, which suggests its currency is still limited. Judgement, rather than a blanket imposition of one option over another, is therefore required. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, it seems to be much more common in the US, and also English-speaking parts of Asia, than in Europe. But even in the US it is far from universal, though apparently slowly coming in via the education system. Here's a William Safire NYT piece from 1997, and the LA times in 2005. The BBC supposedly went BCE PC in 2011, though you could have fooled me - I wonder if they've stuck to it? Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been going more or less since the beginning of Wikipedia, and it never leads anywhere. This is why WP:ERA was created, so that editors can spend their time in more constructive ways. Fornadan (t) 15:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes some of us have heard it all before. Accessibility argues for BC/AD I think, but from a pragmatic point of view the current version of WP:ERA is the best we can do for now. What the proposer above may not understand is that Wikipedia needs to be a follower not a leader. So if at some point "Common Era" either becomes dominant — or fades away — then Wikipedia will need to reflect that change. Paul August 18:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hellenic vs Hellenistic periods

Copied from Talk:Hellenistic period:

Many, many years ago I was taught that the Hellenistic period begins with Alexander, and was preceded by the Hellenic period. This distinction corresponds to the lead at Wikipedia's article on Classical Greece:

Classical Greece was a 200 year period in Greek culture lasting from the 5th through 4th centuries BC.[1] This classical period had a powerful influence on the Roman Empire and greatly influenced the foundations of the Western Civilization. Much of modern Western politics, artistic thought, such as architecture, scientific thought, literature, and philosophy derives from this period of Greek history. In the context of the art, architecture, and culture of Ancient Greece, the Classical period, sometimes called the Hellenic period, corresponds to most of the 5th and 4th centuries BC (the most common dates being the fall of the last Athenian tyrant in 510 BC to the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC). The Classical period in this sense follows the Archaic period and is in turn succeeded by the Hellenistic period.

Imagine my surprise, then, on searching "Hellenic period", and being redirected instead to this article on the "Hellenistic period". I had stumbled across this problem at the article on Elegiac couplet, which presently states:

By the Hellenic period, the Alexandrian school made elegy its favorite and most highly developed form.

What was meant here was obviously supposed to be "By the Hellenistic period, the Alexandrian school ... (etc)," and I am going to edit it to that effect.

I'm not sure just what the "sometimes" means in the statement "the Classical period, sometimes called the Hellenic period" - perhaps the usage is now considered obsolete? In any case, as far as I can figure out, if the term Hellenic period means anything at all, it refers not to the "Hellenistic period" but to the pre-Hellenistic Classical period. Therefore the redirect should preferably go to Classical Greece rather than to here, but some sort of explanatory hatnotes at each page would be helpful. What is current scholarship on this question? Milkunderwood (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Or, if the term Hellenic period is not closely defined, perhaps it would be preferable for a search on this specific term to go to a disambiguation page, distinguishing between at least Classical Greece and Hellenistic period, and perhaps Archaic Greece as well. Either way, it should not point only here. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This is what the Oxford Classical Dictionary, 4th ed, 2012, has to say under the heading "Hellenism, Hellenization,":

"In modern times the 19th-cent. historian J. G. Droysen, taking his cue above all from the Maccabees and Acts passages, gave ‘Hellenismus’ (the German is best not translated) a powerful and extended sense, not just ‘correct Greek’ but ‘fusion of Greek and non-Greek’. Droysen associated the word with a particular period, that between Alexander (3) the Great and the victory of Octavian (later Augustus) at Actium. It was in this period, the ‘Hellenistic Age’, that Greek culture was most intensely diffused; this diffusion was seen as a success story, not least because it made possible the eventual rise and spread of Christianity.

The post-colonial, late 20th cent. has reacted against such a simple picture. In the Droysenian and post-Droysen view of the ancient world there was arguably (cf. Bernal) some neglect of the non-Greek, especially the Semitic, contribution to Greek achievements. Even in the study of the religion and art of the Archaic period (see greece (history)) the near-eastern element has recently (Burkert, West) been stressed.

‘Hellenization or Hellenism?’ is a question best approached by considering the main alleged agents of the process of Hellenization (alternatively phrased, ‘the main vehicles of Hellenism’).

Conventionally, Hellenization has in modern times been associated with the post-Alexander period, so that as we have seen the word ‘Hellenistic’ was (and is) regularly confined to the centuries 323–31 bc."

Philafrenzy (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that Hellenic Period once was a synonym for Classical Period, but I think the term Hellenic Period has probably now been dropped precisely in order to avoid this sort of confusion with Hellenistic Period, and we should also probably try also to avoid confusing the two, though it is easy to understand how it might happen, particularly as the term Hellenic is widely used in other contexts to cover a broad idea of Hellenism. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification. I have no idea whether Wikipedia has any guidelines for this sort of situation in dealing with obsolescent terminology, but it seems to me that for any number of reasons readers might use such terms in their searches, either because like me they were taught the distinction, or they have found references in older books, etc. The problem remains that a search for "Hellenic period" pointing only to the article Hellenistic period is incorrect, and misleading. I'll try posting this discussion at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, where perhaps some ideas for a solution might be tossed around and discussed. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the redirect so that Hellenic Period now goes to Classical Greece. I don't think the term Hellenic Period is in wide use but it certainly seems to have been in use at one time, viz: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hellenic which has the definition correct. I don't believe a hat note is necessary due to the lack of use of the term. Page visits to Hellenic Period were only 129 in the last 30 days so it seems unlikely people are even searching for the term. (I assume those visits include the redirects) Philafrenzy (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I think this fix solves the problem. The lead there at Classical Greece explains the three designated eras and where to find the other two; and I'm sure you're right about hatnotes not being necessary. I very much appreciate your help. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Planning a Jan 2014 collaboration

The collaboration has been Theatre of Pompey for nearly two years. Does anybody have an article they'd like to swap in as a new collaboration? Would anybody object if Special:MassMessage was used to invite the project's members to contribute to whatever the new collaboration will be? Crowdsourcing an article improvement takes a little work, but can have impressive results. AGK [•] 17:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts on an article to collaborate on? It'd ideally be one that's fairly important in the sphere of classics, but that is of poor quality. AGK [•] 11:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sweeping the front steps

I took the liberty of tidying up the front page (WP:CGR) and playing with the layout a little. I think the result, as it stands at the moment, is a much tidier and appealing front page. That can only be good for the project: the best examples of WikiProjects, which admittedly are a little process-y for my personal taste, do all seem to have one thing in common: a well-maintained and inviting project page. I hope nobody hates it, but I also hope somebody will think of a way to make it better still!

I was also thinking of updating the members list, which is looking a little long in the tooth. If anybody would prefer it stay as it is, I will await your objections ;-). Otherwise, I'm going to take off a few of the usernames from that list that appear to have stopped editing Wikipedia altogether. AGK [•] 19:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking pretty snazzy, AGK.  davidiad { t } 23:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks: glad you like it. Whether it will actually attract anybody to the project is a very different question ;-). AGK [•] 23:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
It does look snazzy. — LlywelynII 16:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────We seemed to be missing a few of the resources that most decent WikiProjects provide for members and editors. Of course, some other projects have all that ghastly bureaucracy that thankfully isn't found here – but at least in terms of the "resources" they provide, I figured we should follow their example. Thus, I've started us off with:

  • Guides: Writing a Good Article (GA), Writing a Featured Article (FA) – both just links to existing guides, and Finding scholarship for classics articles. Help on expanding the latter guide, and thoughts for new short guides that newbies would find useful, would be appreciated.
  • A-Class Review: I put a proper A-Class Review process in place, using a template, but I directed people to ask for A-Class status on this talk page. I didn't think anybody would want to bother watching a separate Assessment page. Nobody seems to bother with A-Class status for classics articles, but at least the process is there if anybody wants to use it.
  • Better table of assessment criteria: Just a tidier version of the boilerplate table most wikiprojects use. It might benefit from some classics-specific criteria being put in.

Thanks, AGK [•] 10:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If you are not very organized and numerous, there are likely to be very few A class reviews, and so very few A class articles. But having an A class at all at a stroke devalues all B class articles. Most projects have decided not to have this class at all. This project currently has only 7 A-class, but 524 B class and 97 GAs. It might be time to drop the class altogether. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Or to resurrect it? It depends on how willing people are to review articles under criteria that are almost as strict as those for an FA… AGK [•] 08:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't count on that. Looking at the 7 there are, one is in fact a talk page mistake, 5 are military, probably following a Milhist review, leaving only Nero. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I've always thought A-Class was fairly pointless. Why set up an enormous bureaucracy that replicates what FAC does? Unless there are objections, I'll dismantle our A-Class system and remove provision for it from our pages and templates. Thanks for your thoughts. AGK [•] 11:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Teleutias

Hi, on the Ancient Greece project on it.wiki we are struggling with a problem that hopefully we can solve with your help. According to de.wiki (de:Nauarch), Teleutias was in charge as Navarch of Ancient Sparta for three times (387/386, 392/391 and 390/389 BCE) and this is actually confirmed by ancient sources (Xenophon V, 1, 13 for 387/386; Xenophon IV, 8, 10-11 for 392/391, as a substitute for Herippidas; Xenophon IV, 8, 23 for 390/389 as a substitute for Ecdicus). The question is: how could that be possible, since by law no one in Ancient Sparta could have been elected as navarch for more than once? In fact also Lysander could not be elected as navarch a second time after 408/407 BCE and in the following years the Spartan fleet was formally conducted by other admirals instead, even if Lysander had the de facto leadership. Thanks in advance for your help. --Nungalpiriggal (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

While the navarch was the supreme naval commander, was he necessarily the only naval commander? I couldn't find anything specifically on this issue, but the simplest solution seems to be that Teleutias held these commands without ever being elected as navarch. Modern scholars have apparently proposed to emend the Xenophon v.1.13 to read that Teleutias was in this instance given an independent command (since Antalcidas appear as navarch both before and after this episode) and as noted the other two instances were as substitute. Fornadan (t) 23:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
And you should also consider how easy it was for ancient city-states to violate their laws, or to change them. Michel proposed that the Spartans reorganized their army between every two references to it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
At Xen V,1,13 I see the word ναύαρχον; can you give me an example of a modern scholar that have proposed to emend this pass? --Epìdosis (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm using the Landmark translation [1]. The translator deletes ναύαρχον and cites Hatzfeld as the source of this emendation. Fornadan (t) 16:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Mythological rapists

Would like some of the regulars to look at this category before I nominate it for deletion. I've only nominated one page for deletion before, and it's a cumbersome process. If someone else wants to take it on, that'd be fine with me.

I think this is an utterly inane category. It imposes modern social standards on mythological personages and events to which they clearly don't apply. The terminology alone fails the neutral PoV test, in my opinion. I spotted it while patrolling my watch list, and saw this edit summary on Selene, which had been added to the category: "Selene put Endymion into an eternal sleep making him immmortal and raping 50 daughters out of him." The person who wrote that created the category and added a number of major deities to it, so now this appears at the base of the articles on Zeus, Jupiter, Poseidon, Neptune, Apollo, Mars, as well as some Norse and Celtic gods. Even if the author's PoV weren't obvious, I think it also violates the policy on undue weight. Any other opinions? P Aculeius (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The guy seems to be an obsessive categoriser. He's tried to categorise Daleks as "fictional child soldiers" because they spend their entire lives in armour, and Luke Skywalker as a "fictional yogi" because he does a handstand once. He's currently categorising anyone in legend or mythology, including Icelandic sagas, who uses a sword as "Mythological sword fighters". He needs to be calmed down, but I've no idea how that might be achieved. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
See also Category:Mythological rape victims. I've removed the Irish entries from the rape categories, as none of them fit the description. The others probably don't either but I'm not so familiar with them. I'll notify the mythology wikiproject. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_11#Category:Fictional_sexists, where I list others. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree that "mythological rape" is problematic. Paul August 13:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Rape in Greek mythology might be better. AGK [•] 13:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
For a discussion of the problems with the notion of "rape" in Greek mythology see, for example, [2]. Paul August
From my standpoint, the inapplicability of the term is even simpler than that. The basic nature of myth is etiological; it tells us stories about the origins of things, of people, of races; about the nature of the universe and the world around us. Without commenting on the possibility that myths describe actual persons or events, the myth itself is a story told and retold for a purpose, like a parable, without the intention that it be taken literally. If a detail that you'd expect to hear about in ordinary life is omitted from a myth, it's generally because it isn't relevant to the purpose for which the myth is told.
Ignoring the above paragraph, the question becomes whether the modern concept of rape as a criminal offense can be applied to the immortal gods, who by definition are not subject to mortal laws. To the best of my knowledge, the Greeks didn't concern themselves with that question, at least not in this context. The use of the word to describe an act of sexual violence, as opposed to an abduction, is rare in classical myth. The only example that leaps to mind is the rape of Cassandra by Ajax the Lesser, who was punished by the gods for his offense. P Aculeius (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that seems to me a good example. If one felt the need for such a category (I don't think we do), Ajax the Lesser would actually qualify. In general, as you say, "rape" in the usual English narratives of classical myth doesn't coincide with rape as we now define it: it coincides rather with abduction. Andrew Dalby 12:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Classical_compass_winds Section: Greek is a mess

Anyone interested in commenting, expressing an opinion? Thanx. Thanatos|talk|contributions 05:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Footnote links to Greek/Latin texts

I went to Talk:Classical_compass_winds, as Thanatos requested above, and this made me notice a pair of footnote links to a reference in the Iliad. When I clicked on the "Greek" link I found it was to a Google Books text and, surprise, surprise, they've taken it off line because someone's fixed up with them to sell a reprint.

My question is, do we have general guidance anywhere about what sources to prefer for such links? In the case of the Iliad, we could link to Perseus, we could link to a text at archive.org, and there are other options too. I'd use Google Books only as a very last resort. Andrew Dalby 13:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems I was mistaken when I guessed why the Google Books text isn't visible to me: see Walrasiad's answer at Talk:Classical_compass_winds. I'm still curious to know whether we have preferences or guidance on choosing Greek and Latin texts online for linking to, e.g. in a footnote reference. Andrew Dalby 16:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure we do somewhere, which probably says "use Wikisource first", but clearly links to stable sources like Perseus or archive.org are preferable to Google books. Walrasiad's answer presumably means that google have made an assumption that nothing published before 1872 could possibly still be caught by life +70 years. Even a 20yo author in 1872 who lived to 90 would now be out of copyright if my sums are right. I can't see the date itself has any legal significance. Also google in-copyright book previews are often not visible globally, depending on the way the publisher allows them (eg books from British publishers are often visible in the US but not UK). Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, Googlebooks just pulled the 1872 date out of its derriere because of those calcs. If they were conscientious, they would have actually tried to track to copyright status of each book, rather than just "assume" and impose the 1872 barrier across the board on European readers. But I guess they are too cheap to hire a librarian to do the legwork. Maybe you guys need to write to your MPs asking them to push for a revision of copyright law. I mean, EU imposed "Life + 70" on the excuse that they had to "harmonize" with US copyright law, but conveniently "forgot" to also introduce the statutory "begin date" of 1924 of US law (or any begin date). Far from harmonized, we now have differences. EU has fifty years worth of books that are back under copyright while US has those same books in the public domain. Walrasiad (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sycophant at AFD

There is now a discussion at AFD to delete this article, which has a connection to the legal system of Classical Athens and to the Greek comedies and orations. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sycophant Banks Irk (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Chi-Rho, Chresimon , chrisimon, crisimon, crismon, chrismon, etc.

Anyone interested in commenting here? Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

This could still do with comment. AGK [•] 15:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

List of Roman emperors

Hi everyone! I hope some of you are interested to give your opinion at Talk:List of Roman emperors#"Byzantine" emperors should be listed as Roman emperors. Any editor with knowledge on the matter is more than welcome to say his/her opinion on the issue there. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Commented, thanks. AGK [•] 15:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Peer review#Cippi of Melqart

Anyone interested?!? P.S. Also, should it be added as being of interest to this wikiproject? Thanatos|talk|contributions 16:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Latin peoples article deletion

Article Latin peoples has been nominated for deletion. Please discuss. Diego (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Merger RfC

Request received at the Proposed Merger Noticeboard that Sycophant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should be merged with Sycophancy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Input welcome at Talk:Sycophancy#Merge with Sycophant?. Thanks. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 23:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 04/03

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tenagino Probus. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Pseudo-Philo

I dont know if this really falls under the scope of this Wikiproject, but its Latin. If there is a better place, please redirect me.

I'm making reference to Pseudo-Philo in another article and cannot tell from the Wikipedia article Pseudo-Philo article (which could use some clean up if there are any experts here) or my sources whether PP is generally considered as an author or as a text? Or is it either or both depending upon the context? (My context is List of fictional Jews if that matters) Thanks!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Poena cullei has passed as GA

At the moment, Poena cullei is listed as GA nominee at this Wikiproject page, it has now achieved GA status. Arildnordby (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


Artemisia I of Caria is suddenly famous

Artemisia I of Caria keeps having her nationality re-written according to the plot of a recent movie, for example like this. Any assistance would be appreciated. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a long punctuated war, the battles come and go. I think you can rest assured that the article is being watched... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 17:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Weidmann

Hi, I don't know if this is beyond the scope of this project, but does anybody here knows anything about the Bibliothecae graecae et latinae auctarium Weidmannianum? It seems to be similar in purpose as Teubner and OCT. At least four volumes were published of this series by Weidmann in Berlin (Berolini), around 1930:

  1. Menandri Reliquiae in papyris et membranis servatae (1929) Jensen, Christian Cornelius (1883-1940)
  2. Hesiodi carmina (1930) Jacoby, Felix (1876-1959)
  3. Antimachi Colophonii Reliquiae (1936) Wyss, Bernhard (1905-)
  4. Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium vetera (1935) Wendel, Carl Theodor Eduard (1874-1951)

Are these the only titles? Was this series discontinued? What happened to the publisher? Michael! (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

CfDs

There are two CfDs right now relevant to Byzantine history:

I support both, the idea is to replace the use of modern or religious place names with the contemporary name "Byzantine Empire" or a part of which. Of course it is being opposed by religious or nationalistic indignants. trespassers william (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Julius Caesar

Resolved: Edit req. denied. AGK [•] 15:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There's an edit request at Talk:Julius Caesar which was put up yesterday. The editor didn't include sources, and I don't have good enough sources to hand to be of much use. Is there someone here who could reply? Nev1 (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC).

Proposal for a new infobox for use with classical biography articles

As the author of a number of articles on Imperial Roman officials there seems to me to be lacking an infobox suitable for use in such cases. There is a template for Emperors, but not for lesser beings such as Praetorian Prefects, Consuls, Legati Augusti, etc. The article on the general Belisarius who must surely rank high amongst such functionaries in terms notability - good Wiki word(!) - exists without the benefit of an infobox. Does anybody else feel the need for such a mechanism? I would be very happy to draft something for the consideration of fellow-classicists if it is considered of any interest. If so, should I post it on this page or, if not here, where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjbjas (talkcontribs)

That sounds like a good idea to me. I recomend having a sandbox where you could place the finished result. Personally I'd also ask @Pigsonthewing: for input as seems to be having a good overview how to get the needs of a classical article build onto the basic Infobox. That way we would avoid cross-project hazzles and TFDs Agathoclea (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your support and advice. I shall get to it and seek the advice of @Pigsonthewing: before committing myself to anything.PjbjasPjbjas (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Why are existing infoboxes ({{infobox person}}, {{infobox officeholder}}, {{infobox military person}}, etc.) not suitable? What other parameters are needed, and why could they not be added to one or more of those templates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Naturally I examined the available infoboxes before raising this issue. However, I found that they were inadequate for use with Imperial Official biographies for a number of reasons. For instance: (i) they seem overwhelmingly intended for use in biogs of living persons; (ii) they do not allow for the complications of the cursus honorum or the tres militiae; and they do not accommodate the intensely hierarchical nature of the Roman Imperial service and allow for the mention of honorifics such as Vir Clarissimus, Ducenarius etc. Obviously other Wikipedians have found the existing templates unsatisfactory because I so far been unable to find a single instance of a WP Roman official biog. with an adequate infobox - see the articles on Stilicho, Symmachus, Timesitheus, Ulpian etc. for just a few examples of men whose uitae might seem to merit such treatment, but do not receive it.
I am trying to construct a suitable template, but when I attempt to adapt, say, that set up for Roman Emperors, I found the processes that seem to be required for inserting additional parameters beyond my understanding. I would like to include the following items of info:
1. name (obviously trianomina where possible indicating the gentilicum); 2. father; 3. mother; 4. voting tribe; 5. place of birth (city/province/region); 6. date of birth; 7. for each office held the following info: name of office and unit commanded where relevant; rank/status/title when office held; and current emperor; 8. wife/wives; 9. off-spring; 10. circumstances of death (i.e. suicide, murder, execution, slain in battle etc); 12. date of death.
Guidance on how to adapt an existing template to accept these sorts of parameters would be most gratefully received. PjbjasPjbjas (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hippocleides or Hippoclides?

A question coming from it.wiki, where we have the same doubt for the Italian languange: which is the correct English transliteration of the name of the eponymous Archon of Athens for the year 566 – 565 BC, known for a famous sentence of his: Hippocleides (as in en.wiki) or Hippoclides (as we can find in some modern sources)? Should the vowels ε and ί be transliterated as two distinct sounds as in Cleïs (Sappho's mother and daughter) or should they be treated as a diphthong and transliterared as "i"? Thank you, --Nungalpiriggal (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Both seem common, I don't think we can say either is the "correct" one. Paul August 18:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC).

Disambiguation-ish page that needs help

The page Epaenetus is a mess - a list of unrelated people that share only a name. I'm not sure if it should be turned to a disambiguation page, since it doesn't appear than any of the people mentioned is notable enough for an article - and the one exception might not even be known by this name (see Talk:Athenaeus). I'm posting here, since it seems all the people listed are ancient Greeks and Romans. I already posted about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Page needing help, so please comment there so we can keep the discussion in one place. Ego White Tray (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Classical Greece and Rome At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Complete inventory of archaic and classical Greek cities in Spanish Wikipedia

Hi, colleagues.

In Spanish Wikipedia a few users (mainly Dodecaedro and sporadically Dorieo and myself, members of WikiProjecto: Antigua Grecia) are facing a difficult and interesting challenge. They are writing a single article for every city included in the book An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis by Mogens Herman Hansen and Thomas Heine Nielsen. They are at about 650 cities, and the progress of the challenge is reported at Challenge 2014; there you'll find a complete list of categories as well, . When it would be finished (very soon, as I hope), I guess it will be a reference for Wikipedians in other languages who wanted to write lacking articles about minor ancient Greek cities. Best regards to all from ES:WP. --Pompilos (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Rationalising Roman Britain "battle" articles

I'd like to propose a rationalisation of some articles relating to battles in Roman Britain.

We currently have two articles, Massacre of the Ninth Legion and Battle of Watling Street, on events of the Boudican revolt. I think this is excessive, and a better and more informative article would be one on the revolt as a whole. Also, the titles of the articles have no currency in the literature in referring to the incidents in question, are probably inventions of Wikipedia, and the "Massacre of the Ninth Legion" is sensationalistic and sounds like something out of a penny dreadful. So I would suggest creating a new article called Boudican revolt or something along those lines, incorporating the historical, archaeological and military information from both articles and from Boudica, with that article reduced somewhat to being about Boudica as a person and a symbol.

We also have an article on the Battle of the Medway, one engagement in the Roman invasion in 43 AD. We don't have separate articles on the invasion and landing (although we do have Site of the Claudian invasion of Britain), the the battle on the Thames that followed and was decisive, or the march on Camulodunum, so I'm unsure why this battle needs to be singled out in this way. The article on the Roman conquest of Britain takes in further campaigns over nearly half a century. If we need a more specific article than that, perhaps a new article entitled Roman invasion of Britain (43), Claudian invasion of Britain or something similar, incorporating information from the relevant articles.

Any thoughts? --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree, this is long overdue. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Brigade Piron (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment: The Ass in the Lion's Skin

Recently I've had a bit of a problem with another editor concerning the fable of the Ass in the Lion's Skin, attributed to both Aesop and Avianus. While working on another article that mentioned Avianus, I chanced across this fable and recognized it as the apparent source of the chief plot device in The Last Battle, the final volume in The Chronicles of Narnia, by C.S. Lewis. I was about to mention it, when I noticed this in the page history. Evidently another editor had tried to add this reference, which seemed perfectly relevant, only to have it deleted by Mzilikazi1939 on the grounds that it was an "uncontextualised and unreferenced allusion." I had no idea what he meant by "uncontextualized," since the context was self-evident; and as for "unreferenced," the novel itself is a valid source for its own contents. But as Mzilikazi hadn't edited the page in over a year, I thought it might be safe to restore or rewrite what was clearly a relevant use of the fable in literature, and did so, providing the best context that I could, but limiting the reference to a single paragraph.

The following day, Mzilikazi deleted the reference for the second time, this time on the grounds that it constituted a "transgression of WP:IPC," a set of policy guidelines intended to prevent articles from becoming "indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft." Instead of discussing this reversion on the article's talk page, I found his rationale on my talk page, in which he claimed that the material did not belong because it was merely a "passing mention" in a book, and that unless the reference were substantiated by a secondary source, it also violated Wikipedia's policy against original research. I transferred the discussion to the article's talk page and there responded.

Conceding that I had not found what I considered to be adequate sources for Lewis' allegorical comparison between the events of The Last Battle and the rise of fascist and Stalinist tyrannies in the 20th century, I revised my paragraph excluding all interpretation, and, owing to good fortune, was able to find a source that explicitly stated that the fable was borrowed from Avianus – although, as I said, I feel that was unnecessary, as the use of the fable by Lewis was self-evident. Here I should add that none of the other examples given in the article attribute it to Aesop or Avianus, and that several of them seem to be easily distinguishable or to have originated independently; but this was not an impediment to their appearance in the article.

But even after I had made good faith efforts to conform to Mzilikazi's standards, he still found it necessary to edit my contribution significantly, transforming what I felt was already a very concise summary of how the fable drives and develops the plot of the novel, into a single, hopelessly vague sentence, "The story then develops in a tragic direction..." Mzilikazi justified this with the edit summary, "edited down an over-long reference." When I objected to this, I was told (on the talk page) that as I had written it, the paragraph violated Wikipedia's policy on relevance of content. Mzilikazi also dismissed my objection to the original grounds he gave (transgression of policy against loading articles with trivia or cruft) as a POV argument, since I had contended that the writings of C.S. Lewis are neither trivial nor cruft, but significant works of literature.

As it was becoming clear that Mzilikazi would not permit anything that didn't suit his personal taste in the article, and would simply continue citing supposed transgressions of policies to justify his edits, I suggested that I might need to refer the matter to arbitration... for which he then accused me of violating Wikipedia's policy on good faith! This seems to be reaching the height of hypocrisy, from an editor who simply deletes material that doesn't meet his standards, and cites one irrelevant policy after another to justify it. I realize that this seems to be a slow time for this project, and that nobody is itching for a fight. But at the same time, I think that the only way to resolve this otherwise intractable conflict is to ask for outside opinions on the matters at issue. P Aculeius (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

1889 Dictionary of Roman Coins, Republican and Imperial

Check out the 738 illustrations of the 1889 Dictionary of Roman Coins, Republican and Imperial, which I uploaded to Commons: commons:Category:A Dictionary of Roman Coins. :) trespassers william (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Bona Dea one of the semones?

The article "Carmen Arvale" does make such a statement. According to the cited authority these would include all the Fauni, Silvani, Vertumni, Semo Sancus and Bona Dea. He does not mention Salus Semonia oddly enough. Frankly I do not know whence this scholar' s information comes from...and I did not know that there was more than one Vertumnus, let alone the fact he was a semo: he is considered the equivalent of Velthuna, the supreme god among the Etruscans...Maybe somebody has an idea? Thank you for the attention.12:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)12:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikiproject Greek Anthology in Greek Wikisource

Hello, there is a project for the Greek Anthology (Palatine Anthology, Anthology of Planudes) epigrams in the Greek Wikisource. Please see s:el:Βικιθήκη:Wikiproject Greek Anthology. --FocalPoint (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Added Fasti etymology section as Task

Given paucity of information in lede, and unreferenced nature of section. Suggest editing from Lewis & Short, which includes detail relevant to etymology, rest of article: [3] Cheers. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Eclogue 4

I just wrote an article for Virgil's Eclogue 4. Feel free to look over it, make corrections, and ping me if you need any of the texts I cited if you want to verify/check what I wrote. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Impressive article! Just a suggestion, perhaps consider including a small, select passage of the original text in a quotebox (similar to that used here) to give the reader a flavor?—Brigade Piron (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah! Good idea. I will try to work with that.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

King of Rome

Should these kings be called legendary kings? An editor changed the section heading to remove 'Legendary', but their articles all refer to them as legendary. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I would say first that Roman Kingdom and King of Rome aren't properly distinguished as topics. Right now, each of the Roman kings has a substantial section in Roman Kingdom; that's redundant with King of Rome. I don't think it's important to use the word "legendary" in that section head for Roman Kingdom, but it's crucial to have introductory material in that section that explains the issues of historicity. This explanatory material is absent from the section. Then cut everything after the table (the sections on individual kings) or merge it into King of Rome. Roman Kingdom is a periodization article, complementing Roman Republic and Roman Empire. It should deal more thoroughly with the archaeology and modern views, and with how Romans described this period of their history and thought of it. I've often fudged by using "semi-legendary" for Numa and Servius Tullius, though. At the moment I don't know why. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Changed my bad section heading. I agree with all of this right now. Roman Kingdom should be similar in content to the articles on the Republic and the Empire, and we need to add some new material to King of Rome. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I should clarify that I'm not objecting to calling them "legendary" even in the header; just saying it may be cumbersome or unnecessary, if there's an explanation of the problematic relationship of myth, legend, and history in the Roman sources on this period. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Cite Josephus

I created Template:Cite Josephus to try harmonize the many refs to his works, and make use of that nice website, PACE, in addition to Perseus. In the future I hope to minimize the number of parameters, which presently are based on the urls of each site separately. trespassers william (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Editathon in London

Greetings. Wikimedia UK and the Institute of Classics would like to invite you to an editathon focussing on female classicists. The event will take place on the 23rd of September at the institute of classics in London, and also online. We would be delighted to have people from this wikiproject come and join us. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ The "Classical Age" is "the modern designation of the period from about 500 B.C. to the death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C." (Thomas R. Martin, Ancient Greece, Yale University Press, 1996, p. 94).