Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 36

This is an archive of past discussions about 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 30

←

Archive 34

→

Merging articles on ancient authors with only one work?

There are a couple of cases of ancient authors known for a single work, where we have articles for both the author and the work. This is obviously not a problem where we know something about the author independently, but where we don't, most of the article about the author ends up being about the work and its legacy, while the article about the work is often just an outline. I wonder whether some of these articles ought to be merged or if the substantive material could be concentrated on the author page and the work-page be renamed to something like Outline of .... Candidates:

Diodorus Siculus and Bibliotheca historica (best candidate for merging)
Thucydides and History of the Peloponnesian War
Herodotus and Histories (Herodotus)
Quintilian and Institutio Oratoria
Strabo and Geographica (best candidate for "Outline of...). The author page has accumulated cruft.
Athenaeus and Deipnosophistae
Justin (historian) and Historia Philippicae et Totius Mundi Origines et Terrae Situs (another very good candidate)

I'm fully prepared to be told that this is a non-problem. Furius (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree they should be merged, probably to the author article.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm rather cautious, but not against. This causes issues for the categories as finicky category editors are likely somewhere down the line to object to a book being categorized as a biography or vice versa, & important categories may just be taken off. Herodotus and Histories (Herodotus) seem ok, so long as it is made clear (at various points) that the analysis is at the bio. I don't think an "Outline" solution has any role. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Btw, can it really be the case that modern scholarship believes that Galen actually wrote all or most of the Galenic corpus, as both articles seem to assume? Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It could simply be that it seems preferable to treat all of the works traditionally attributed to Galen together, even though the authorship of some is disputed—particularly if they're usually collected together, or it's unclear who else would have written them. P Aculeius (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Galen#Published works does have a short paragraph on this, although the way it is formulated ("forgeries and unscrupulous editions") is very misleading as to the historical value of pseudo-Galenic works (and pseudepigrapha in general). Of course modern scholarship deals with this; it is just waiting for a Wikipedia editor to do some research and rewriting (of both articles). Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 15:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed; at the moment both articles seem to say, or at least strongly imply, he wrote the lot himself, and hundreds more. I'm not objecting to the title, which indeed is the only thing that suggests this was not the case. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

He was a vastly prolific author, none the less. A significant proportion of the works include personal notes and anecdotes which ring true, fit into a coherent biography, and are actually used as primary sources when writing his biography. That's how we know what he ate when he was a student in Alexandria. But I'm not arguing that there are no pseudo-Galen works: certainly there are. Andrew Dalby 18:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the caution - these are important articles! It is possible to place a sub-section of an article in a category, though, isn't it? Furius (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

In principle this sounds fine. Looking over the examples cited, however, most of them look like a decent biography of the author is separable from, and perhaps risks being swallowed up by, the work in question. Diodorus, Athenaeus, and Justin do look like good candidates for merging; I expected there would be more material available on Diodorus, and there is enough in the DGRBM to expand his biography by a paragraph or two, but that's the limit. On the other hand, there seems to be a lot known about Thucydides, Herodotus, and Strabo, which might get lost in articles about their works. Quintilian falls somewhere in the middle. If handled well, I suppose they could still be merged, preferably under the authors' names; I think in most cases the author is better-known than the name of his work, which would still be a useful redirect, and allow us to link the name of the work where that seems preferable. P Aculeius (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but it should be done on a case-to case basis, as I would oppose several merges in the list. The life of Thucydides is known besides his work for instance. On the other hand, Diodorus or Justin are good candidates for a merge since we know almost nothing of them. T8612 (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

So, there seems to be a broad consensus that the pages on the authors (where kept separate) should be devoted to the biography of the individual and that things like "Historical method," "approach to myth," etc should be found on the page about the work? I'm looking at the articles on Herodotus and Thucydides as I write this comment and I find it difficult to explain why some material is on their page rather than the page about their work. Furius (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that's because it's hard to separate a person's technique from his biography—and it's entirely appropriate for there to be a short section on his work and methods even if the work has a separate article (that's why we have "main article" section hatnotes). Just like we would expect some information about the author in the article about his work. There should be some overlap. It's just a matter of achieving the proper focus, so that biographical articles are mainly focused on the person, and articles about writing are mainly about that. P Aculeius (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. But, for example, at the moment, Herodotus has sections on "Herodotus and myth" and "reliability", while Histories (Herodotus) is a list of events recounted in the Histories. I'm inclined to move that material into the Histories article and leave some summary comments on "Herodotus as a historian" or some such on the Herodotus page. Is that in line with what you are saying? Furius (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds like we're on the same page—about which topics should be on the same page! P Aculeius (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The reason why articles like Herodotus has sections that should be in Histories (Herodotus) & vice versa is that since their creation they've evolved independently & without coordination. A perennial need is to review related articles & resort their contents. -- llywrch (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Blanket oppose. Both the authors and their (attributed) works are notable. If there is too much overlap at present, that just shows there is nothing like enough material in the texts' articles: probably the Histories articles of Herodotus and Thucydides does not have enough material on the text, its transmission, the manuscript tradition, influence on subsequent historians, the practice of historiography, the cultural legacy of still-famous Greeks-Persians and Athens-Sparta wars, and so on. Some of the ancient texts whose authors only ever wrote (or had their name attached) to one thing should be considered under the same head, but this is not the case with any of the examples listed so far. Pliny the Elder and Naturalis historia are thoroughly different subjects.

Who mentioned Pliny the Elder? It's clearly a different kettle of fish with an author who is attested as a historical personage, but we have no source material for Diodorus and we aren't even sure that we know Justin's name. I don't believe that there is any scholarship on either that isn't about their historical works. Furius (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Diogenes Laërtius and Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers is another candidate. Furius (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

No need to merge really. It's true that a few on that list have lower notability, but even for them, why is a merger needed? They have at least some notability, and maintaining a separate article is good as it keeps the bio separate from the work. Of them all, the only one there might be a case for merging is Justin (and maybe Athenaus), in my opinion, for the same reason there is no article called author of the Historia Augusta - because nothing about him is known. As long as we know the name of the author for certain, and at least something about him, the article can stay. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I've put forward a merge proposal for Talk:Diogenes_Laërtius#Merge_with_Lives_and_Opinions_of_Eminent_Philosophers. This seemed like a good case, since the article on him opens with "Nothing is definitively known about his life" - really, there is nothing to say about him that isn't about his work, Lives_and_Opinions_of_Eminent_Philosophers. Please feel free to weigh in on the talk page. Furius (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This proposal is unnecessary and would in some cases be detrimental to the project. As has been said before, what determines whether there should be separate pages is notability and whether there is biographical info. My other problem with this concerns article improvement. Having separate articles encourages improvement to both the biographies and the texts. Should these mergers be executed, articles would have to be de-merged if someone were to improve either part to GA/FA status. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so how do you feel about examples where the author is only known for and from their work, like Diogenes Laertius? I've never seen a book or article on him that isn't about his Eminent Philosophers. I take the point that people have made above about Herodotus and Thucydides as people that it is desirable to retain a separate biography for.

As for your point on improvement, I raised this issue in the first place because I was looking into improving some of these articles (most of which are dire, as usual for wiki pages dealing with bigger topics) and found the situation with two articles each covering parts of very much the same material left me confused about how to proceed with improvement. So, I think that issue cuts both ways. Furius (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I take your point that there are topics where it may be warranted to have only one article. I'm not sure that Diogenes Laërtius is one of them since his article has more than marginal biographical information. This may be applicable to writers where we truly only have a name; I'm thinking here, for example, of Sulpicia, but even in her case one could say a stubby biography is warranted. So, as you see, I don't think there will be too many cases where there isn't enough info available.

Regarding improvement, I agree that many important topics on the Classics are in an abject state and that more 'professionalism' is needed in their improvement. To me, that entails being able to separate undue biographical info from relevant stuff on texts. For example, if I were to write an article on the Histories, only very little biographical material about Herodotus should go in the article. In conclusion, I don't think merging would contribute to article improvement, while it may be appropriate for a small number of individual cases. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Corinthian statues stolen by Rome

Is anyone aware of some Corinthian statues that were stolen by Rome in the sack of Corinth (and whose images are on Wikimedia Commons)? I'm working on the Achaean War and that particular battle of Corinth right now, and images of this kind would be excellent additions. So far, I couldn't find anything apart from the Jockey of Artemision (which is itself only probably from Corinth at best). Regards, HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If it counts, then so does the Artemision Bronze. I doubt that you'll encounter any examples that aren't very speculative. Furius (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, splendid work! The article is much improved! Furius (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! As for the statues, it is surprising. Both ancient and modern sources are clear that an enormous amount of art (including rare and renowned ones) was taken from Corinth, including a large amount of statues. No problem if it's only a "possible" (ultimately, not much ancient artwork is precisely traceable to its location), any good addition with at least a decent and noted chance of being from Corinth and looted by Rome will do. Regards, HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd have a look at Pliny's Natural History. It is one of our major sources about ancient art. -- llywrch (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Greek mythology Featured article review

I have nominated Greek mythology for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I find that I complained about using Encyclopaedia Britannica as a source for this article 9 years ago, which received the support of a couple of people... only to remain unchanged. (And since I know how complex a subject Greek mythology is, I'm very reluctant to take this on.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I told Sandy that I'd take a look. But a thorough review of that article would be an enormous job. And I know enough to know that I don't (currently) know enough to do it. Nevertheless I will see if I can contribute anything useful. Paul August ☎ 18:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Slavery in ancient Greece

I have nominated Slavery in ancient Greece for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 18:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Should Greek and Latin words be italicized using language templates?

Until recently I've always italicized Latin (and occasionally Greek) terms that aren't familiar to English speakers using standard wiki markup—enclosing them in double apostrophes. But recently I've been noticing some of our more active project members replacing this with {{lang|la|foo}} templates. Now, I'm not saying that this is technically wrong—although I'm not sure it isn't—but it seems like a cumbersome way to deal with these terms, and I've always found that enclosing text in templates makes it harder to read and edit text in the edit window: the more extraneous characters and invisible text there is, the harder it is to see what you're doing and avoid simple mistakes (one reason that I prefer using short cites and a bibliography to the long-form citations that I used to use when I was new, and why I deplore external links in body text, especially long, multi-line gibberish-filled links to Google Books).

But returning to the question—is using these language templates the best practice when you only want to italicize a word such as romanitas or paterfamilias in the middle of a sentence? I understand that the answer might differ from the first occurrence of the title in the lead sentence, where either the title itself, or the Greek or Latin original which the title is derived, is provided; this question is aimed more at body text, although if a distinction should be made, it might be helpful to understand the reason why we're using it in the lead to begin with. I expect that the editors who are already using the templates in the way that I refer to will reply to this, but I'd like to hear from the other editors in the project as well—should I be using these templates, or are they superfluous, even distracting? P Aculeius (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

lang places the article in a hidden category called Articles containing Latin-language text. Aesthetically it causes no difference except prompt a small pop-up "Latin-language text" message when hovering over the tagged excerpt. Of course, if an article has Latin or Greek text then it's obviously logical for it to be categorized as such, but the template only really needs to be summoned once for it to happen; so, if it sounds annoying to deal with in the editspace, you could remove all but one instance of it in any given article. This would remove most of the "Latin-language text" pop-ups, but this is hardly important. Note that Greek words aren't italicized. Avilich (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit. I initially though you were referring to me solely, but seemingly it was an edit at Boudica which led you here. I only use(d) this template for words which are already italicized anyway; I don't agree with that editor's use of it in unitalicized city names or even in titles of books (italicized) like Tacitus's Agricola. Avilich (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't want to make this personal—I just want some advice from other, more knowledgeable editors. I'm aware that you've been doing this, because you're a frequent contributor to articles on my watchlist (mostly all articles on Roman gentes, and some others on Greek and Roman subjects), but so far I haven't been taking any action, because I'm not sure if it's correct or incorrect or situation-specific. The other article is indeed what prompted me to ask what had just been a nagging question in my mind—there seemed to be no reason for italicizing "Londinium" in the first place, and I have no idea who decided that it and other Roman towns needed to be italicized. I do wonder what the usefulness of a category for "articles containing Latin-language text" is, if it includes any article that happens to include a technical term that may not be familiar to English speakers—of course there are many other articles that contain technical terms that aren't Latin—but if the article is in English, and the term is defined, linked to an article with a corresponding title, fairly transparent, or the meaning is obvious from context, what advantage is there to the category? Is it some sort of maintenance category so that editors can check whether Latin words or phrases need to be defined or linked? Or is it cluttered beyond all utility with articles that just happen to use a Latin word in passing? P Aculeius (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The category's ability to track down articles which have Latin language text must be of use to someone. While it exists, one might as well help it fulfill its purpose, though if you don't like the template cluttering your editspace I could limit its usage to 1 per page on your list. I only ever added this template when I was already editing something else, and I never planned to go on an editing spree to have it used in every page available. Avilich (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The category created by this template is claimed as of "high importance" to Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin, but I'm not sure whether that project does anything with it. The category contains 17,747 pages, which would perhaps be a fairly random selection depending on whether someone thought single terms in a foreign language should be templated or not. The "lang" template globally is used on 276,000 pages, of which, I guess, Latin must represent about 7%.

The doc page for Template:Lang says that it is for a "span of text" in a non-English language. Whether a word counts as a span of text is not specified, I don't think. I don't see any sign that it was intended for proper names, and, after all, it's not always a simple matter to pin a proper name to a specific language. Vercingetorix? Xerxes? Several reasons are given on that doc page for using the template, one of which is that screen readers need this information to know how to pronounce the text. I can see that, but I can also see and sympathise with P Aculeius's wish to reduce the quantity of non-text that is embedded in text, and thus to make the edit window a bit more approachable. Andrew Dalby 19:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Zagreus

The is a RFC at Talk:Zagreus, which may be of interest to this project. Paul August ☎ 17:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

So we're officially European?

As indicated by his edits at Marcus Junius Brutus this morning, User:GiantSnowman has declared that we now have an official standard of English, and it's UK, requiring the use of Eurodating—no doubt soon to be followed by compulsory use of the metric system and military time. I wasn't aware that Greek and Roman topics required an official style of English—or that Wikipedia encouraged projects that aren't distinctly involved with just one variant of English need to adopt one. But now I'm being told that it's "standard" in our project, and if I don't like it, I can lump it, just like I was told the other day that lowercase 'l' in filiations has been abolished in selected articles, because the letter is confusing due to its resemblance to 'I' or '1' or a pipe, and we must henceforth use smallcaps for just this one letter. Is it just my imagination, or has collaborative editing fallen out of fashion lately? Because this is really sapping any enthusiasm I had for working on the project right now. P Aculeius (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Dramatic much? The date style in the Marcus Junius Brutus article was already DMY; my use of the tag was simply to apply consistency per WP:DATEVAR. I did not say "like it or lump it", not even close. PS the last time I checked, Greece and Rome are in Europe... Giant Snowman 13:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. You changed over several dates yourself. And you plainly insist that it must be your way, since you instantly reverted my edit to reverse that change, and said that your style was the standard throughout the project. And you're confusing the subject matter of articles with the language in which they're written. If that were the determining factor, we'd have to write in Greek and Latin. You simply imposed your preferences on an article that didn't conform to them, and you refuse to allow them to go back to the way they were. If that's not "like it or lump it", what is? P Aculeius (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

You are again misrepresenting what happened. I said it was standard in articles I have seen. I have no preference whether it is DMY or MDY, as long as it is consistent. You blindly reverted and over reacted. Giant Snowman 11:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not aware of this project having any such standards and don't think it would be particularly wise for it to have them. Even if it did, the project has no power to impose what you or any other editor must do. My approach has always been to write things the way that makes sense to me and let other people worry about things like dmy/mdy, infoboxen, metric/imperial, and AD/CE, rather than trying to have my edits conform to some standard. If this is sapping your enthusiasm, that's no good, since you do excellent work. It may be different for you, but when this sort of thing affects me, I find that it usually means that I need to take a short break from wiki. Furius (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

This is an old problem on Wikipedia, & would be solved quite simply if all of you who are using the wrong version of English stop doing that & adopt the right version of English!

More seriously, as I understand it the long-established rules about using any dialect of English on en.wikipedia are these:

The person who creates a given article gets to set which dialect of English for that article.
The spelling & variants of English must be consistent in that article (e.g., don't use both "color" & "colour" spellings in an article--standardize on either -or or -our spellings).
One can only change the dialect from, say, American English to British, by the same process of changing AD/BC to CE/BCE -- i.e., achieve a consensus on the matter. Failing that, that article remains in the dialect its creator wrote it in.
As far as I know, WP:CGR has not standardized on one dialect of English, whether Standard American, Oxford British, Standard Canadian, Australian, South African, New Zealand, Jamaican, or any I have not mentioned. If the group has, it's news to me.

And if it were up to me, I would not standardize WP:CGR on any one dialect. There are enough issues to fight over than language. (IMHO too few people are sufficiently fluent in their native dialect to justify standardizing on any of these.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I understood the situation to be also. Furius (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

So did I. And I believe we'd agree that British date style, American date style, European date style if there is such a thing, are in an equal state of remoteness from classical Greece and Rome. There's no justification in MOS for going through an article on the ancient world that has a consistent date format, just in order to change it to another one. To judge by the edit summary and the diffs, that is what GiantSnowman did: assuming that's so, it would have been better not to. Any inconsistency (I don't happen to see any) could have been cured with an edit to the inconsistent item. Andrew Dalby 14:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Me too, except for "If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page." from WP:DATEVAR - my bold. An article on a Roman site in Britain could be changed to Brit styles. But I notice there is no requirement to have the date and WP:ENGVAR language style in sync, perhaps because not all the styles are decisively different between US & UK. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Mysteries of Isis in need of reviews at FAC

The FAC has some support, but it's in danger of being archived if it doesn't receive further comment. People from this project would be particularly suited to giving it a source review. If anybody is interested in commenting on a weird little corner of Greco-Roman religious tradition, and its intersection with ancient Egypt and modern esotericism, I'd very much appreciate it. A. Parrot (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Philip the Arab

Could editors from this Project take a look Talk:Philip the Arab? There is a heated discussion between editors there on whether Philip was of Arab or Syro-Phoenician descent. Both editors are citing sources, but are exchanging accusations of lying about the sources or cherry-picking them. I would expect editors more familiar with Roman history to be able to evaluate the sources used. Dimadick (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I see that this issue is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent_disruptive_editing_by_User:Julia_Domna_Ba'al, which will probably be able to say more about conduct; it doesn't seem obvious to me that JDB's edits are "persistently disruptive". My impression is that the disagreement about 'ethnic Arab' and 'Syro-Phoenician' is one that is difficult for anyone to resolve - ancient ethno-cultural identities don't map easily onto modern ones. But the sources being used by Julia Domna Baal are legitimate scholarly sources. Furius (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the article and noted that "Arabus" (given as part of his usual Latin name) needed to be changed to "Arabs". I verified this and made the correction. "Arabs" is an ethnonym ... but I think they are only looking at modern sources in that heated discussion. Andrew Dalby 15:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI, one of the participants in that discussion was banned. Another account appeared, claiming to be the banned user; I blocked that account indefinitely. People, let's keep that discussion within Wikipedia preferable behavior. -- llywrch (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

What heated discussion? That person googles "X person Syrian" then copy pastes what they see. They did the same for Julia Domna. "Syro-Phoenician" descent? What are you on about? "Syrian" is a geographic/political designation. It's not mutually exclusive to Arabs. There are many "Syrian" people, which includes Arabs among them since the 9th c. BC. In the early Roman period much of the province of Syria was inhabited by Arabs (according to Strabo, Pliny and Ptolemy, confirmed by modern historians). There is no argument taking place. That person is a troll and a POV pushing nationalist. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated War against Nabis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 00:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Featured article review of 300 (film)

I have nominated 300 (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. HumanxAnthro (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Subject of a mural

The articles for Lactantius and Apuleius both use the same mural as illustrating their subject. It clearly can't be of both of them, so do we know which? Opencooper (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Both have been suggested, but we don't know for sure. Diplomatic descriptions of the mural refer to the figure simply as "philosopher" (e.g., [1]. Furius (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I've updated the wording for both captions to make them less certain. Opencooper (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move

I have requested at Talk:Tmolus#Requested move 28 March 2021 that several pages be moved and renamed. Comments and suggestions are very welcome at that discussion. Cnilep (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

RE

I sometimes come across names which have the note "not in RE" next to them. What does this mean?★Trekker (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Almost certainly, RE refers to Paulys Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, aka Pauly-Wissowa, a handy little tome, pretty exhausive but not entirely (QED). I don't have one. And I've probably missed a diacritical or two there. Haploidavey (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Haploidavey:!★Trekker (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

A fraction of the RE is available on Wikisource and can be linked to from Wikipedia's editspace by typing [[s:de:RE:Aelius 133|*random text*]] -> *random text*. Most WS entries are currently incomplete or nonexistent due to copyrights, but all volumes can be downloaded for free on Library Genesis. Avilich (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I wrote a small text here on the RE. It is a monument of scholarship: 1100 contributors, 82 volumes, 88 years to complete! Alas everything is in freaking German. T8612 (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It's very good, but I made a few tweaks—hope you approve. And while I sympathize with your desire to read it in English (and resort freely to Google Translate myself), I'm not sure whether "difficult to read" is a fair assessment if you can actually read German—and have a background in classics. But I wasn't sure what to do with that, so I left that part of your description alone. P Aculeius (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I did not only mean the German, but also the numbering, which is very weird. You have two main series, and 15 supplements; then the "Band IV, Halbband 8" format is also strange. T8612 (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not that weird if you know German ;-) "Band" means "volume"; "Halbband" is equivalent to "fascicle". Although usually a "volume" is equivalent to a literal bound volume, like many multivolume projects, the editors found that a volume would need to be published in parts, or fascicles, & these fascicles often comprised several hundred pages. Then, since the Pauly-Wissowa took many years to produce, one fascicle every year or two (although at a slower rate after WWII), they decided to simultaneously begin work on the volumes beginning with "R", in hope of speeding up its completion. Lastly, since the accumulation of knowledge never stops, Supplements were issued to keep the material in the first volumes up to date.

Confusing? You mean people might not want to look in several places for information? That's why some helpful person compiled an index of all of the articles, which has been published as a pamphlet. (I know this from using the printed version.) I have to say that the German Wikisource people are doing a good job re-arranging related material on a given subject scattered amongst the volumes into one logical group. (Now to find access to a copy of Prosopographia Imperii Romani, 2nd edition, aka PIR². The copy closest to me is an hour's drive away.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
PIR actually has an article on more people alive between AD 1 & AD 300 than the relevant portion of RE. Which is why I'm looking for access to a copy. -- llywrch (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, but using RE fully, predicting just where the article you want will be, grasping the abbreviations, etc. ... It's not just understanding German, it's understanding German scholarly encyclopedias, and this one in particular, and German references to classical texts. Anyone can learn, but it's a little tough. Say "difficult at first". (At least it's not in Fraktur font. German classicists moved away from that a long time ago.) Andrew Dalby 10:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Mysteries of Isis GA Reassessment

Mysteries of Isis, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

An ANI case

There is a discussion at WP:ANI#Disruptive editing by users Lithopsian and Narky Blert which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Narky Blert (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Theater of Pompey

I remember seeing Theatre of Pompey in our tasks tab here like 5 years ago (I checked and it goes back to 2013). Could we pick a new thing or just remove the 'collaborative effort' section? Cheers SpartaN (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

It looks like we have two options here: either support the "Collaborative Effort", & update it on a regular basis -- or remove it.

This could be restarted if (1) we have a criteria to select candidates for this; (2) we agree on how often this should be updated (obviously more often than once every 5 years); & (3) we have one or more volunteers to do the work. The last is probably the most important requirement. I'd be willing to update this suggested task if we have a consensus on criteria for selecting articles, & that this is something useful to have. (I don't see how it would be harmful, & this might actually attract a new member or two if maintained.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Because almost 2 weeks have passed & no one has responded to my offer, I guess it's safe to simply remove the "Collaborative effort" section. -- llywrch (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. I look at this talk page regularly, but to be honest, I never really look at the main project page... Furius (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

List of Roman emperors, again

There is an ongoing discussion concerning the List of Roman emperors and how we can decide new and clear inclusion criteria that reflect reliable sources (as WP policy dictates they should) rather than the current approach (which, without references towards the criteria, falls under WP:OR). The discussion also has ramifications for the List of Byzantine emperors as whatever is decided will probably end up spilling over to that list as well. I encourage anyone who has the time and interest to weigh in here on which option they think is the best. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Classics related FAC

Hello all, I have recently nominated the article of classicist R. A. B. Mynors for Featured Article status. If you find this article interesting, you are invited to add your comments to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/R. A. B. Mynors/archive1. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Cotia and Cottia

Are we sure these two are not the same gente? As far as I know it was not unusual for gentes to sometimes have slight spelling differences (especially when it comes to double consonants) while still being one and the same.★Trekker (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Since one is known for only a single individual and the other for a pair of brothers who appear together in the sources, might it not make sense to have articles for the individuals rather than the (hypothetical) gens? Furius (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

All that "known primarily from a single individual" or similar language means is that only one member was mentioned in the sources I consulted at the time the article was written. In all but a few cases, there were many other obscure personages belonging to the same gens; nowadays I would include a list of those known from inscriptions if it could be done in a reasonable amount of time, but when I started this series I didn't even know how to find them, and had to work from a much more limited selection of sources. In fact, there are quite a lot of Cottii known from inscriptions, and at least a few other Cotii. They might be the same, but I don't feel confident in saying so. I'm not averse to combining the articles, but I can't remember whether I had any thoughts on these two names and whether they might be the same back when the articles were created. I probably can't tackle either adding additional members or merging the articles this week, but I might possibly be able to next week. But apart or separate, there's no question that they were either one or two distinct gentes. P Aculeius (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Galla or Gallia?

Gaius Sosius had a daughter that's usually called "Sosia Galla", but a number of sources (1, 2, 3, 4) I've seen seem to also call her "Sosia Gallia" instead. Can we assume these are print errors or similar?★Trekker (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that's more likely than not to be the explanation, but without digging any deeper it's not certain. Gallus was a common surname throughout Roman history; Gallius the nomen of a minor plebeian gens, albeit one that comes into view towards the end of the Republic. A second nomen, pointing at maternal ancestors, would be typical of mid-first century nomenclature, although I think this is a bit early for that. It's quite likely that someone could carelessly substitute a nomen for a cognomen, although it seems less likely to be repeated across multiple, independent sources, unless the gentile name is much better known—surely the reverse of the situation here. But that just brings me back to the beginning: more likely than not, Gallia is a mistake for Galla, but we can't be sure without a clear explanation from some scholarly source. P Aculeius (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Galla makes inherently more sense. Gscholar returns 100 results for it but only 6 for 'Sosia Gallia', and the PIR also spells it w/o 'i'. Avilich (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd follow PIR on this. Unless you want to do the spadework of going thru all of the possible times the name has appeared in literary texts & inscriptions. And I can't think of a good reason to undertake all that work just to determine whether to spell it with an "i" or not. -- llywrch (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Theramenes for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 01:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Gaiseric

Hello, I'm supposed to be on furlough from Wikipedia but an issue has arisen in a study group I'm working with about the name of Gaiseric. There is an alternative spelling, Genseric, but the origin of that version is unclear whereas Gaiseric is evidently derived from the Latin Gaisericus. The article was renamed following this proposal but the issue raised in the group is that Genseric is used in some WP articles such as Vandals but not in others like Vandal Kingdom, thereby creating confusion. Other sources prefer Gaiseric, such as Britannica and the authoritative Encyclopedia of European Peoples.

I propose that Gaiseric should be used in all articles about the Vandals and each should state on first mention that his name is sometimes rendered Genseric. I am pinging Woofboy and Srnec here because they took part in the RM, which was raised by an IP who I will try to contact separately, if possible. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that both forms occur in our literary and historical sources. It makes little sense to rely on Latin etymology for a name that clearly isn't Latin—and presumably each form is equally influenced by Latin. Which form you prefer probably depends on what was used by the sources in which you first encountered him—and I don't see any compelling reason to require all editors and all articles to use one preferred form, when he's easily linked to, and the first line of his article provides the two versions at issue, as well as a spelling variant. It's a bit like telling people what wording they should adopt. Nothing is gained by fighting over someone else's choice of words. Neither version is clearly wrong, so the most we can say is that it should be used consistently within articles (excepting quoted material)—not that it needs to be uniform among all articles. P Aculeius (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I hope no one is going to fight over it. The crux of the issue is consistency in closely related articles. As I said above, Vandals uses Genseric while Vandal Kingdom uses Gaiseric. Note also that I said "all articles about the Vandals", not "all articles in Wikipedia". The origin of Genseric is uncertain but some people suggest it is from the Old High German rather than Latin, although a Latin equivalent may well have been applied. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It is most certainly not a Latin name, although since all of the contemporary writing mentioning him will have been in Greek or Latin, the forms passed down to us are presumably Latinized—but that doesn't tell us which is correct. Although my expertise in Germanic names is limited, I did spend a lot of time cataloguing Germanic names years ago from various sources. I don't recognize any cognates of the prototheme, although -ric is a very common deuterotheme in Germanic names. But Gai- doesn't look Germanic at all. It could be; it could be eastern, it could be worn down beyond recognition; but I can't think of any other protothemes that resemble it. Gens- isn't familiar either, but it could be cognate with Gund-, a common prototheme. You might not be familiar with Gundisalvis, probably Visigothic, but it's the original form of Gonzales. I could certainly imagine that Genseric, or whatever the original form was, is derived from the same root. P Aculeius (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Gais- is the East Germanic form of a word meaning spear, which appears in North and West Germanic as geir/gar/ger depending on language (the second element in Hrothgar or Siggeir for instance). His name thus means "Spear-King". ~~I'm not sure where the Gens- form comes from.~~ According to Hennig Kaufmann (1968), the form Genseric is made by a hyper-correction in which an 'n' is inserted before an s because 'n' disappeared before 's' in Vulgar Latin (p. 134).--Ermenrich (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Unless some subsequent work has overturned Kaufmann 1968, that seems decisive. When both an incorrect and a more correct form are in common usage, there is no reason for wiki to perpetuate the incorrect form. Furius (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

His name has a whole lot of spellings, including Gensericus, so that doesn't come from nowhere. I don't see a need for consistency across all articles, but Gaiseric is probably the most common and preferable rendition in English. Avilich (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I personally favour consistency and therefore using only one form of the name across Wikipedia, and would be fine with either form. I note that Genseric and its derivatives is more common in Latin countries (Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, etc.), while Geiseric is found principally in Northern European languages, apparently in English too. T8612 (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd say we can just let the matter slide. Strict consistency is not a serious necessity, and both spellings are acceptable - as T8612 said, it's just a matter of which linguistic system's spelling is preferred. Academic sources don't seem to have any trend of partiality for a particular spelling either. As for Kaufman's analysis, while it may well be true, it must be said that spellings as used today often do not reflect traditional spelling - there isn't a question of "wrong", but of common usage. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

LacusCurtius nominated for deletion

A few days ago, our article on the LacusCurtius website was nominated for deletion, ostensibly on the grounds that it's not notable, having received little or no coverage in reliable third-party sources, although the nominator also observed that the website's creator is also the original author of the article, and has contributed to it since that time. I think that the latter argument is largely irrelevant, because Wikipedians have made substantial contributions to the article since that time, and I note that a member of our project, Cynwolfe, did some significant work on it a few years ago. But establishing notability is beyond my expertise and ability at the moment.

I'm pretty sure that LacusCurtius hosts many of the online texts that members of this project, and perhaps a few related projects on Wikipedia, depend on when writing and revising articles, and both the organization and annotation of those texts is invaluable. I suspect a wide range of classical scholars also avail themselves of the site due to its convenience, although they may not cite to it, but only to the texts themselves. Considering both the subject matter and the reasons why it might not be cited directly, I can see why it doesn't generate a lot of mentions in the news or in books. But something tells me it's probably notable, given the amount of use it must get. I just don't have the time and resources to prove it. Maybe some of the other members of this project can help. P Aculeius (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It was mentioned in news articles a couple times (once for a power outage affecting it, and another as a source on a polish military history magazine). This afternoon I'll try to find it in books where it's not just a citation. I know someone has to have given a detailed opinion regarding it. SpartaN (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't find anything book-wise, but people at the AfD page posted some websites mentioning LacusCurtius. Will integrate those into the article to save it in the morning. SpartaN (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Marcius Marcellus

I've come across mentions of "Marcius Marcellus", the name is listed on Marcia gens as being the man mentioned by Seneca the Elder, but there is also references to a doctor by the same name here and here. Are these likely to be the same man or separate people?★Trekker (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd said it's possible, but the first link isn't letting me see the preview and the other two don't give enough information on their own to say for certain. SpartaN (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@SpartaN: The first link states: Certainly known to Seneca the Elder was a work by Votienus Montanus in which he made frequent references to the eloquence of his friend Marcius Marcellus (Contr. IX.6.18).★Trekker (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Marcius Marcellus the doctor apparently lived in Pannonia at a much later date than Seneca (CIL III, 3413), so they're not identical. Avilich (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Archaeological relevance

In the last paragraph of Faversham Abbey, it says the place was built over a Roman building (as a lot of places in Europe tend to be). Does that by itself confer relevance to the WikiProject? I was going to assess the CGR importance rating in the talk page, but i'm not even sure it's in our purview. To clarify, the building it's on top of obviously *is* related, but the article itself isn't about the ruins. SpartaN (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

IMHO Any post-Classical structure should only enter our purview if some notable connection can be shown to reasonably link it to an earlier structure of Classical origins in that location. That a continuity exists between the ancient structure & the later one. Otherwise we will be faced with problems such as finding almost every building in the city of Rome should be part of our project just because part of the building -- in many cases the foundations, although I'm sure more than a few have incorporated fragments of ancient structures in their construction -- are ancient Roman in origins. -- llywrch (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merger: Populares and Optimates

Ifly6 has recently started updating Optimates and Populares, the "factions" of the late Roman Republic, and we agreed that a merger of these two articles would be better. The main reason is it is impossible to write about them individually. They are always referred together in ancient and modern sources alike, and both articles require an extensive historiography section that would be exactly the same in each article. The large literature on Populares/Optimates makes it a very difficult topic, which would be a bit simplified if both Optimates and Populares were dealt with in a single article. A similar arrangement can be seen in Guelphs and Ghibellines, two political factions in medieval Italy. T8612 (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

This seems very sensible to me and Guelphs and Ghibellines does indeed provide a good model. Furius (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Support. A single page discussing the two terms' applicability is better than presenting them individually as if historians already took them for granted. Perhaps a review of the Populares and Optimates categories should be done as well, since they contain people who don't fit at all into the label. Avilich (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think a review of the categories also is worthwhile, but perhaps more because many scholars disagree that the categories were identifying in the first place. Even if there is scholarly debate as to whether the labels identify ideologies, there is a clear consensus that they do not identify parties and we would have to have parties (and party loyalty) to clearly label Sulpicius as a "popularis". (Nb he isn't popularis in terms of ideology at all, see discussion at Mouritsen 2017 p 129.) Leaving the labels up, I think, implicitly misleads away from current scholarship. Ifly6 (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I was mostly drawing attention to the fact that there's nothing popularis about people like Cinna, Carbo and Sertorius, who are all currently classified as such and should not; though you may be right that simply having those labels around is already misleading. Sulpicius is another complicated can of worms. I've not read Mouritsen, but I know that in the past historians tried to see Sulpicius through a popularis–optimate lens and ended up with many confusing interpretations of him. Needless to say this approach is probably discredited as of now. Avilich (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, there's very little popularis about many people so labelled. Broadly, I think we're in agreement as to both the merger and the possible content of the merged article. I'd appreciate your comments also on User:Ifly6/Populares which I intend to work over into something like a merged article. Ifly6 (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Your draft seems well written and I think you could paste at least most of it on the Populares page right away. I also recommend you start an "Optimates and Populares" draft right away on your userspace so that one might already have an idea as to how the merged articles would look like. Avilich (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Support. I agree. Maybe merge them into "(Late?) factions of the Roman Republic". Might also include the liberatores if they qualify. SpartaN (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this is getting off the topic of the merger and more into the content of the article, but I don't think scholars today support a factionalist interpretation of populares and optimates. While I think it is perhaps didactic to speak of liberatores against the triumvirs, as Brutus and Cassius clearly were acting together (though the extent of the faction could easily be debated, Sextus Pompey seems to have been a semi-independent operator), there isn't a similar trend in scholarship on populares–optimates. While Mouritsen, Politics in the Roman Republic (2017) 116 et seq, talks about "the revival of Mommsen's ideological model, albeit without the formal 'party' structures, coincid[ing] with the rise in 'democratic' interpretations of Roman politics, which it logically complements" an ideological tendency does not a "faction" make. Ifly6 (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Support. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. 0qd (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a decent idea. Not sure what do with the categories tho, some people were certainly quite defined by their factions, but many others were not.★Trekker (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd get rid of the categories. It seems to me a lot like categorising people as "liberals" or "conservatives" - applying the labels is subjective and often uncertain, so it is better to discuss in article text, where one can be nuanced, than to use categorisation, which can't really reflect nuance in anyway. Furius (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree! Even just talking about Brutus, are we sure he's an optimate? He opposed Pompey during his sole consulship (in which Pompey also was supported by Cato) and supported Caesar after Pharsalus (helping Caesar co-opt former Pompeians in the east). Cato as tribune also proposed expanding the grain dole. Dolabella supported the liberatores in the aftermath of the Ides (before switching sides at Antony's instigation). Hirtius and Pansa – both loyal Caesarians before Caesar's death – gave their lives ostensibly for the senate at Mutina? Caesar – who Robb (2010) notes neither calls himself popularis nor is so called by Sallust (p 33) – deposed tribunes and contracted the grain dole. There is a lot of nuance to these characters which is submerged beneath their traditional labels. Ifly6 (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I think categories can be kept, but a List of Populares and List of Optimates should be made to remove the risk of arbitrary using these categories. Any addition to the list would need to be backed by sources. The Realencyclopadie has a very good list of Populares (but not for the Optimates) and it could be a good starting point. T8612 (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The idea of producing lists of populares and optimates runs into exactly the same issue - these were not fixed and objective labels. It would also not be wise to use the RE as the basis for any such list, since it was produced back when people were still using the "party politics" interpretation that is now discredited. Often it is really useful; in this case I think its age is a problem. Furius (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The RE articles don't use the "party politics" theory; the one on the Populares was written in 1965 in a supplement. Bear in mind that there is no consensus on this, and some academics still use these labels. T8612 (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

No real opinion, but you should be doing this at the article talk page, with just a notice here. I suppest this is copied & continued there. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I left a note on both articles' talk page. T8612 (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Finding a source

On page 423 of this work [2], the author writes in a footnote (the first footnote on that page) of a certain "Niese 331 ff" as a source. What exactly is he referring to, and is there any way of finding it? Given the events it is indicated to refer to, it would be a very useful resource if found (I'm working on the fourth Macedonian war and articles related to it at the moment). Regards, HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The footnote on the first page of the article has "More caution was shown by Niese, Geschichte der griechischen and makedonischen Staaten III (Gotha 1903), 335f. [hereafter cited as Niese]". Archive.org seems to have a full copy of that. NebY (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Trouble is, the source is in German, which complicates matters considerably. Is there any way of getting a translation? From what I can (rudimentarily) make out from the relevant pages of the article, the source seems to be indeed exactly what is needed. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, you can throw the online "Full Text" view at Google Translate giving this. At first that may seem to have given up translating part-way in, but when I give it time and scroll down gently, I find it progressively turning to machine-translation English, which you could then copy-and-paste or print-to-pdf. NebY (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you actually need to go back to Niese (1903), though? A lot of 19th / early 20th century German (and other) scholarship is good, but if there are key points about the course of the Fourth Macedonian War before the arrival of Metellus that are in Niese and aren't repeated in more recent standard works like Hammond, Griffth, & Walbank History of Macedonia, I worry that that is because they've been superseded. Furius (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Furius: Do you mean this one [3]? It seems to end at 167 BC. If there is another volume covering the final fall of Greece and Macedon, do let me know! It would be very useful. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

As for Niese, I agree I was initially a bit queasy about a slightly dated source, but he's actually quite good. Rather balanced writing, and broad coverage - not to mention that finding sources covering this period are like searching for cacti in a desert (of course, I may have overlooked some places others may know better, but still) - most authors focus on the more attention-grabbing Third Punic War, and most of the rest go for the fall of Achaea. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No, you're right - I forgot when the Hammond et al. end. Good to hear the Niese is ok. I'll take a proper look through my bibliographic notes now and add the sources that I'm aware of to the Further Reading section of the article. Furius (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Volusii

There is as of now no article for the Volusia gens, so I'm trying to find information about them to make one. Does anyone know if the Volusii mentioned here (written in German) are possibly related to Volusia Saturnina and her family?★Trekker (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Glossing of legion numbers in Latin (I, II -> prima, secunda...)

I had added to several articles on Roman legions a gloss in Latin containing information on how to read out the numbers, since to me it was a strange oversight that there was no information whatever on how to read something like "Legio XVIII", since the general reader would not know that the numeral stands for the word "duodevicesima". But my edits were reverted by an IP user who said the spelled out numerals were unsourced neologisms, and informed me of a past discussion that was had here, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome/Archive_33#Legion_Numbers_and_Descriptions. In it the user who proposed it said that he could not find reliable sources where the legions could be designated with their numbers in full spelling, therefore I assume I could not gloss the Latin reading to a legion number, since doing so would contain original research. Be that as it may, I feel that legion numbers can at least be glossed with their Latin readings, since such spelled out numerals are used in Roman Latin literature. For example, the Legio I Germanica is mentioned by Tacitus. If you open the text of Tacitus, the legion is named "legio prima". Tacitus, Historiae, 1.57: "Proxima legionis primae hiberna erant et promptissimus e legatis Fabius Valens" (ed. C. D. Fisher, 1911). The Legio II Parthica is spelled out as "legio secunda Parthica" in the Historia Augusta. Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Antoninus Caracalla Aeli Spartiani, 6.7: "conscii caedis fuerunt Nemesianus et frater eius Apollinaris <T>r<ic>cianusque, qui praef. legionis secundae Parthicae militabat et qui equitibus extraordinariis praeerat..." (Vol. 1, ed. E. Hohl, 1965). It is perhaps especially valuable to attest spelled out numerals for legions that were designated "second", since it would appear to provide a source for the number II for legion naming being "secundus" and not the possible alternative "alter". Livy can copiously attest spelled out numerals for various old legions across his books. Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, 10.27.10-11: "dextro cornu Galli, sinistro Samnites constiterunt. aduersus Samnites Q. Fabius primam ac tertiam legionem pro dextro cornu, aduersus Gallos pro sinistro Decius quintam et sextam instruxit; secunda et quarta cum L. Uolumnio proconsule in Samnio gerebant bellum" (Titi Livi Ab Urbe Condita. Vols. 2-3. ed. C. F. Walters; R. S. Conway, 1919-1950). Since it is felicitous to quote Cicero, a full spelling of the numeral for the Legio IV Macedonica can be found in him. Cicero, Philippicae, 5.23: "Postea vero quam legio Martia ducem praestantissimum vidit, nihil egit aliud nisi ut aliquando liberi essemus; quam est imitata quarta legio" (M. Tulli Ciceronis Orationes. Vol. 2, ed. A. C. Clark, 1918). For a change of pace, Legio XX Valeria Victrix is thus attested in the text of Velleius Paterculus. Velleius Paterculus, Historia Romana, 2.112.1: "[Messalinus] praepositus Illyrico subita rebellione cum semiplena legione uicesima, circumdatus hostili exercitu, amplius XX milia hostium fudit fugauitque..." (Velleius Paterculus: Histoire Romaine. Vols. 1-2, ed. J. Hellegouarc'h, 1982). Cicero can also attest for example the Legio XXXV. Cicero, Philippicae, 5.53: "...legioni quartae et eis militibus qui de legione secunda, tricesima quinta ad C. Pansam A. Hirtium consules venissent suaque nomina edidissent..." (M. Tulli Ciceronis Orationes. Vol. 2, ed. A. C. Clark, 1918).

The above has been a cursory and shallow, quick look through some of the Roman literature, that I just had that would spell out only a few of the numbers, and I tried to cite different authors with different editors for each. In addition, I had a look at the Notitia Dignitatum that is hosted on Bibliotheca Augustana [4], which contains many spelled-out legion numbers together with their adjectives. I feel this is enough to justify glossing in the English Wikipedia Roman legion numbers as part of a Latin legion name with their fully spelled out Latin ordinal numerals as an aid to those who do not have the appropriate knowledge of Latin. What does everyone think?

Another question is the best desirable format. In my edits, I added them italicized in parenthesis, and I capitalized all the words as is done in English (whereas Roman Latin did not have case distinction, so it confers no influence) in order to make the gloss look more harmonious with English practice; Legio X Equestris. Draco argenteus (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that the example that you show of Legio X Equestris is neat and tidy. Providing a gloss is useful since, as you say, it gives the reader information they otherwise might not have. I do not believe that this would count as OR, but you've shown a great deal of source material anyway... The previous discussion was about what the title of the article and standard reference to legiones within articles should be; we didn't really consider the possibility of including a gloss alongside the translation, so I don't think that discussion should stand in the way of making the change. Furius (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I personally like the discussion, and I feel for the title and lead these names look the best in English, since the syntax of capitalized, non-English "Legio" plus Roman numeral is a distinctive and memorable look (while for the body I'd support English, "Tenth Legion"). Honestly, the user who was against my edits probably just had a hunch with legion name "full designations" containing spelled out numerals, which he didn't believe in, and I happened to replicate the sequence of letters. But it would appear that Notitia Dignitatum is the needed source in that case. Draco argenteus (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

A lot of good points, but can we really use Cicero or Livy for naming conventions of Legions of the Imperial period. The Livy example I. Particular is for Republican legions that were solely numbered31.219.84.198 (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

My proposal does not include such suggestions. Draco argenteus (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, we're wouldn't do this anywhere else with number s in military units. The '1er Régiment d'Infanterie' is not followed by 'premier régiment d'infanterie'. '1. Panzerdivision' is not followed by 'erste Panzerdivision'. The Latin name of the United is already there. Glossing the numbers is unnecessary bloat. Not everyone had knowledge of ordinal numbers in German and French either31.219.87.129 (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

We're already diverging from those examples by using the Latin names rather than English translations as the title for the page, so I don't find this exceptionally decisive. The reader of the article on "1. Panzerdivision" doesn't need to know "erste" because they are reading "First/1st panzer division" throughout the article. By contrast, the reader of the Legio X Equestris is reading "Legio X" throughout the article and therefore needs some guidance on how to interpret that. Furius (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The guidance they need is that X stands for tenth, as already covered in the into in most cases in legion articles, for the Roman numerals. Not that X is an abbreviation for Decima, which is no more helpful to most readers, especially outside of 1-1031.219.87.129 (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC).

So it has been a couple of days, and it looks like, with myself included, there is more explicit support than opposition on this minor issue (which opposition is a single IP user), so I will add the glosses back in a day or two, if no one else will comment. Draco argenteus (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The IP's point that we don't do this elsewhere is sound. In diverging from normal Wikipedia article naming by using Latin rather than English, we already introduce one stumbling point for the general reader. Do we want to use that to justify further divergence, and open the article with the Latin name repeated twice, once with a Roman numeral and once with the numeral converted to a Latin word? If we do wish to provide that conversion, we could do it gracefully in the infobox, which has a native_name parameter that we don't seem to be using for Legion articles. I offer one version for Legio X Equestris with "Legio Decima Equestris" added and another with both X and Decima below an English-langiuage title. NebY (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That looks perfect to me. Somehow I had thought an infobox solution would be much harder to implement than that... I feel the second variant places too much emphasis on the English translation of a legion title, whereas legions do not seem to be often referred to by their translated English names (which to me feel informal), so I am in favor of the first variant, with the English translation being introduced only in the lead. Though alternatively it would just need a less informal-sounding English title, such as "Tenth Legion Equestris", followed below by "Legio X Equestris" and "Legio Decima Equestris". That is a naming used in some places. The infobox would look like this: [5] (or however the italicization should be). In principle I would also be in favor of changing the body of the article to use "tenth legion" more often than "Legio X", since this plainer naming is closer to how the Romans wrote of their legions; it is almost a misrepresentation to use only "Legio X" in English, since the Romans freely put the numeral also before the word "legio" in running text and speech. Draco argenteus (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh good! Yes, I used to think infoboxes too hard but the templates are rather good these days. I like the omission of italics in Latin names in your version. Looking back at the version history, I see usage changed several times in that article, once using 10th often, but I agree that Tenth would be better, as more accessible and a more familiar usage for legions. Trying to make that a global rule wouldn't work, too disruptive and besides quickly listing legions with numerals can work well, but while we're here (though at risk of derailing the discussion)....

I looked again at MOS:LEADSENTENCE and given that we start in the unusual position of having a non-English title, it seems to me we could replace

Legio X Equestris (Latin: Tenth Legion "Mounted"), a Roman legion, was levied by Julius Caesar in 61 BC

and its peculiar statement that Tenth Legion "Mounted" is Latin, with (using {{lang-la}})

The Tenth Legion "Mounted" (Latin: Legio X Equestris) was a Roman legion levied by Julius Caesar in 61 BC

or even

The Tenth "Mounted" Legion (Latin: Legio X Equestris) was a Roman legion levied by Julius Caesar in 61 BC. NebY (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it is wrong to claim that English is Latin, but I'm a bit wary about the amount of prominence being given there to the English name, given that essentially no one uses them. How about "Legio X Equestris (Tenth Legion "Mounted"), a Roman legion, was levied by Julius Caesar in 61 BC" ? Furius (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised at the idea that essentially no-one uses the English names. Google ngrams for Tenth Legion/Legio X and Ninth Legion/Legio IX suggest the English names are very common. Of course, the ngrams miss a lot such as plain "IX" in a list of legions, or "the Ninth" in narrative. Also those don't distinguish between scholarly and general use, though we can see fiction-only ngrams, eg Legio X/Tenth Legion and Legio IX/Ninth Legion. NebY (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I had a thought similar to that of Furius. Although you cite only numerical translations, you propose with it to justify a full translation. The problem is that the full translation is instead rendered tenuous by the same database, or indeed unattested on Google ngrams when it comes to the tenth legion (I could not find anything). With the numeral there is no issue--it is used by far more than anything else--but it is a different story if you consider the adjectives. To digress for one sentence, according to Google ngrams ~~names to the effect of "X Equestris" only really started being used in the 1960s~~ (retracted--depends on what you search for), and if you search for a lowercase "tenth legion", in the 19th century this type of naming used to greatly dwarf all others. But to return, in English, the adjectives are not common, and some could be hard to confirm. Google ngrams does attest "Ninth Spanish Legion" and "Ninth Legion Hispana", but both marginally. Many others are just not found on it. I personally of course feel the adjectives should be used, since we have a maximal context for all the legions, so as in Notitia Dignitatum, which does include the adjectives for legions. Despite the comparatively low incidence, I still find it desirable to use English at the top, but I want to innovate as little as possible. If you want, here is a BBC article written in the publicist style[6] using "Ninth Legion Hispana" (and otherwise just "the Ninth Legion"), and you can find academic papers using e.g. "Thirteenth Legion Gemina", etc., though this adds one clarifying word to the lead:

The Tenth Legion Equestris (Latin: Legio X Equestris, "Mounted") was a Roman legion levied by Julius Caesar in 61 BC.

Or otherwise mention the plain-English meaning of Latin "Equestris" later on in the lead or elsewhere in the article. To be honest, I am fine with pretty much everything at this point, since I had only wanted to clarify the Roman numerals in the obscurantist Latin spellings, and I am not well-versed in Wikipedia guidelines. In principle the "decima", "quinta", "duodevicesima" and so on, still do not tell readers how to pronounce them in the by far most popular kind of Latin for non-Christian Roman matters (e.g. [d̪uɔd̪eːu̯iːˈkeːs̠ɪmä], following Wiktionary--precarious to improvise because of the hidden vowel lengths; in fact the actual Wiktionary entry for wikt:duodevicesimus currently has one vowel wrong, which tells you how hard this is for everyone), which information is perhaps important for the consummation of the purpose, but they are I feel still significantly elucidating. In theory a template like the one used in articles on Chinese names and terms could be used, at some point. Draco argenteus (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I fear I misunderstood Furius's concern as being about "Tenth Legion" - sorry, Furius. Now I see it as being about making "Mounted" prominent, I share that concern with you and Furius, and I like your example of .beginning "The Tenth Legion Equestris (Latin: Legio X Equestris, "Mounted") was a...". But yes, for now you'd particularly like to find you've got consensus for adding the Latin words to the infobox as above. Furius, you haven't said so directly; are you content with that? IP 31.219, if you're reading this, are you? NebY (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer! I am happy with what you've worked out here (and also think that, even if I weren't, you should feel free to go ahead with it anyway!) Furius (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Super! Thank you very much NebY and Furi. The IP is taking long to show up--being hopeful that we have more or less covered his objections, I will begin editing now. Draco argenteus (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree, and there appears to be pretty clear consensus specifically against using English ordinals in this way in the previous discussion. It is at least surely worth canvassing some of those involved in the last discussion given that these changes seems so drastically different to the previous consensus.31.219.88.63 (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I have to say here it could be that you are actually permanently banned from Wikipedia--I haven't looked into why you (perhaps) have been banned, though it would not surprise me. For you, I will ping people from the aforementioned discussion: P_Aculeius, GPinkerton, Oatley2112, T8612, Llywrch, HalfdanRagnarsson -- do you think legion pages should start like this: Legio X Equestris, with an English + two Latin names at the top of the infobox, and the lead sentence looking like that? Do you agree that at no cost something like "Decima" should appear in any legion article, only the Roman numeral "X", even in the infobox? (pretty much the summary of what has been going on here). Also, could it be that the IP is a permabanned user, and would this change anything? I do apologize for notifying just all of you, but I am new to Wikipedia, and I don't know how to get this anywhere. The minimal version of my proposal is agnostic to the lead sentence, and I only want to add one line to the infobox with a fully spelt Latin numeral (+adding a basic infobox where there is none), which is what I wish to get a consensus for--do you oppose or support the addition of one line? I can forgo touching anything else. Draco argenteus (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd say leaving it in the old format is the best. Your plans of adding infoboxes are good to hear. However, I do not think the article should start with the English name of the legion as its first words on the first sentence; Latin names are more common for legions, and MOS is flexible to circumstances. (also, to my knowledge, the English terms used to refer to legions are generic and informal, not agreed upon universally.) The IP's ban does not matter, unless he is still showing disruptive behaviour; otherwise fine editors being guillotined for a few particularly bad wrong turns is common. We do have other articles using their native languages' names, eg. Grande Armée. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I thought he was somewhat disruptive as I saw his latest actions, since he has not been forthcoming. For example, he had several days to say anything in the discussion, but he withheld it to wait till he could spitefully protest by first instantly reverting my edits. His latest argument was approximately "I oppose including 'decima' because readers should only know that X stands for 'tenth'", which I thought was so comical as to not be worth responding to--"Legio Tenth"?--and another was a curious logical fallacy whereby I, by rather cursorily citing multiple sources from the republic, empire and late empire each that display the same custom, had somehow suggested that Cicero be used for determining the naming conditions of late imperial legions. It is such a strange objection, containing nothing of logical worth, that it was either made in bad faith, or it was deeply unintelligent, or indeed both. If you consider that all of his arguments were made in quick succession to stop me from editing in "decima" at any cost, it begins to look comical. In principle the whole holding onto the supposed consensus on spelled out Latin numerals being unacceptable neologisms is either unintelligent or in bad faith, since researching that much is extremely easy (and as a topic, was not discussed at all)--I am inclined to say, in bad faith, because what followed was incoherent, I might even say desperate. It is why I feel the IP is probably the permabanned user with whom the old discussion originated. Sadly I am both new to this world, and trying to play by the rules. Either way, it is good to get more input on the lead sentence and naming! Since it was just a digression, I have no strong feelings about it (or the ip user, I am mostly just amused at the stalwart tenacity not coupled with intelligent argumentation), but I do maybe have a case of being bold. Draco argenteus (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

yay for ad hominems! They're always a clincher in a discussion. There's nothing spifeful about it, but you made a load of bold changes without real consensus and which weren't aligned with what has been in place from the previous discussion. I've restored the infobox changes you made, because I think those are more sensible and aren't in conflict. Anyhow, let's see if anyone else has anything to add, seeing as I apparently am to stupid to contribute.31.219.88.63 (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Fully agree--and thanks for mature participation... nah, that was too cheeky. I have not said anything of your intellect, nor does it interest me. Either way, you have my thanks for coming around. Draco argenteus (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

(indents normalised to make continued discussion easier) I'm glad to see Draco argenteus's infobox changes have been restored in a few cases, and that I didn't completely spike that project by mentioning the order of the first sentence or by that digression into when to translate Equestris. But HalfdanRagnarsson, are you sure "Legio X" is more common than "Tenth Legion"? That Google ngram shows the opposite. And if we provide Legio X in bold, would it be such a bad thing to start an English-language article for general readers in English? For example, with

The Tenth Legion Equestris (Latin: Legio X Equestris, "Mounted") was a Roman legion levied by Julius Caesar in 61 BC. NebY (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying I was entirely sure, but what I meant was usage in a context of reference. For instance, an author might name a legion in Latin (eg. "he took with him X Fretensis, IX Hispana...") but might later refer to it in English (eg. "the thirteenth stopped at Aquileia..."). Of course, there's nothing inherently wrong if we decide to start with English, but I thought this would be better. If we choose to stick to the old format, however, one thing that does need to be resolved is the odd way in which some articles refer to the English translation as "Latin", eg. Legio X Equestris (Latin: Tenth Legion "Mounted"); instead, Legio X Equestris (Latin for Tenth Legion "Mounted") or Legio X Equestris (lit. Tenth Legion "Mounted") are better. Regards, HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry for the delay in answering (RL). It does seem I'm the only one that would be keen to switch to English-first, you've some preference for staying Latin-first, others aren't keen. We're agreed that we stop calling English Latin as in (Latin: Tenth Legion "Mounted"). I think I slightly prefer slightly prefer (lit. Tenth Legion "Mounted") to (Latin for Tenth Legion "Mounted"), and I can make those changes. I see we also have various others such as Legio III Parthica ("Parthian-conquering Third Legion") and Legio V Parthica (the "Fifth Parthian Legion") which seem to put a lot of weight on a title that was subject to change and might be better as (lit. Third Legion "Parthian"), (lit. Fifth Legion "Parthian") too. Does that look right? NebY (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@NebY: Yep, that's all right. Feel free to go ahead! HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)