User talk:Alicia M. Canto
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Another welcome
[edit]Welcome, Dr. Canto! It's a pleasure to see someone of your qualifications working on the articles here. Please drop me a line on my talk page if I can be of any assistance, e.g., with Wikipedia policies or administrative issues.Dppowell (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- No worries; your English is head and shoulders above my Spanish! Dppowell (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Roman Names
[edit]- Hi -- your recent edit to Hadrian broke the links to other Wikipedia articles I'm afraid, so I've reverted them. Unless we are going to change all the related articles to remove the J, it doesn't make sense to change it just on one article. There is a Wikiproject on Classical Greece and Rome that I am sure would welcome your expertise and where this could be discussed. The discussion page is here [1]. However, Wikipedia policy (as opposed to guidelines) on names is at WP:Names and says:
Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.This is justified by the following principle:
The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.
It can take a while to get use to how Wikipedia works and I'm taking the liberty of adding a menu to the top of this page. Do also think about creating your user page with a short bit about you and your interests (you might want the menu there instead). Read up on verifiability and reliable sources (this bit is hard sometimes when you are an expert on a subject because it can be a nuisance to actually provide a citation to something you know really well). And a big welcome to Wikipedia, apologies for having to make the change I did but as I said they meant that the links were broken. If you want more advice (or to shout at me) you can either reply here or on my talk page. Doug Weller (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I also think you may well run into some other policy/guideline related problems. Please read WP:COI and WP:RS and WP:SPS. Doug Weller (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
-I have read again the pages that you was indicating, but I do not find to what type of problems you refer, or in what article (Corocotta or Theodosius?). Might you be more concrete of what problem/s it would treat? Thank you. --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Basically, by using your own work you are running into a possible conflict of interest problem, but only if someone objects, so not a great worry if you are careful. The main problem is if you use papers by yourself that haven't been published in for instance an academic journal. See also WP:Verifiable. I was worried about that in the Corocotta article. Doug Weller (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I see, thanks for your opinion. To that I can say that an article of mine exists already in Internet, of February, 2005, which I linked in the note 1 (there from: "Text and context they will make easier value the nickname that follows to Grunnius, "Corocotta", that is the same of the thief -lestés in Greek - mentioned by Cassius Dio 56, 43, 3... "). On the other hand, as I say in the same note, the corresponding article is going to appear in a scientific accredited journal, since it is my custom (reflecting only approx. the half). In the meanwhile, I added the principal arguments of my revision, brief summarized, with his verifiable quote. It might be analyzed as a warning rather than a "conflict of interests", since my principal interest would not be that my proposal was known among the English-speaker, but among the Spanish-speaker. I believe that in cases as this one it would be more important to call the attention of the reader on the possible mistake that can contain that in the wikiarticle is exposed as certain. That, besides, I respected. Another thing would be if I had erased the previous text, but only I have added the alternative. Regards. --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: Dictator in perpetuum
[edit]I know, the Latin is correct and the expression is found in several inscriptions and in Livy. I thought the form dictator perpetuo was curious too, but apparently, there is epigraphical evidence for the use of the term, and it is quoted as a title in some of the literature I found doing a quick search. The problem is to what extent either of these forms should be considered an "official title". Because dictator perpetuo looks more 'rare', so to say, than the fairly plain, descriptive dictator in perpetuum, I was tempted to consider the first form more authentic "as a title". This is not really a strong argument; I guess that lack of space on a coin, for instance, could also account for the use of the shorter form. I have no objection to using both terms in the article. Iblardi (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The Misnomer: The Nerva-Antonian Dynasty
[edit]Thanks for your comment on my Talk-page Alicia Canto. I hope you'll make some walls tumble down with your work. Now, I have in my mind, especially, the convention of marking the Nerva-Antonian succession(?) a dynasty, when it may seem too explicitly signify a policy that refuses such transfer of power along lineages of blood, family and tribe; presumably agnatic, thus patriarchist. Pointing at the misnomer 'dynasty', how do you prefer to term the succession? --Xact (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)