Talk:Antinoöpolis

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list:

Needed articles.

We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.

Cleanup.

To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?

Standardize the Chronology.

A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)

Stub sorting

Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .

Data sorting.

This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.

Egypt Mid‑importance

	Egypt portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oriental Orthodoxy

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on the Oriental Orthodox Church on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Oriental OrthodoxyWikipedia:WikiProject Oriental OrthodoxyTemplate:WikiProject Oriental OrthodoxyOriental Orthodoxy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why the woman's portrait?

Why is there an uncaptioned portrait of an Egyptian woman in the infobox for this city?--Jim10701 (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mummy portrait in encaustic (ie pigments are in wax), Louvre collection, is from Antinoopolis (I have no idea why it also says Fayum, which is further north, and on the west bank, other than that a great quantity of such painted Greco-Roman portraits being found there); the info given in description states that its from the 2nd century, presumably as the sitter has a hairstyle 'in the manner of Sabina', wife of Hadrian. But yes, it does need that data added as a caption. Cheers, (Scott E Hill (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Even with the caption, it seems odd to illustrate an article on a city with an individual's portrait, unless maybe it was a particularly notable representative of the city. Also, the caption talks about the hairstyle, but uses an extremely tightly cropped version (another is available on Commons) in which we can't see the hairstyle. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tradition vs History

The section 'Relevance to Christian History' offers no references in support at all and fails to meet even the most basic requirements for either history, or Wikipedia.

"...hundreds of thousands of Christians were tortured and killed in the third and fourth centuries..." - should not be claimed without supporting evidence.

Unless this section is brought up to standard soon, I intend to either delete, or edit it heavily. - Extramural —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Please do, it could really use a cleanup! Augustun84 (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antinopolis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929132944/http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak/Francogallica/Divorce_fran.htm to http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak/Francogallica/Divorce_fran.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: move the page to Antinoöpolis at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 15:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antinopolis → Antinoöpolis – Antinoöpolis makes better sense than "Antinopolis", which misses out two vowels and a whole syllable from the Greek's "Antinouopolis", and implies someone called "Antinus" is being comemorated, not Antinoös. This is dictionary style of the Oxford Classical Dictionary and all of the English-language citations on this page.

Antinoöpolis is the correct name of the city in English; named after the deified youth Antinoüs. The diaereses ö and ü are not foreign imports or archaisms but native English diacritics indicting that the second vowel is pronounced independently of the first, as in Greek, as in the names "Zoë" and "Chloë". "Antinopolis" appears to be a mistake, not spelled thus in any reliable source. GPinkerton (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support as for reasons above. "Antinoöpolis" is definitely the correct form. I'm even prone to accept "Antinoopolis", but definitely not the current title. Strangely, no one has noticed that before. Khruner (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The name certainly needs to be changed, but "Antinoopolis", without the diaeresis, seems to be the common name in the sources. Looking at major reference sources first, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (2000), The British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt (1995), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Egypt (2012), Egypt in Late Antiquity (1993), and The Cambridge History of Ancient Egypt (1998) all use "Antinoopolis", as does the online UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology (in progress since 2008). The only major reference work I can find that uses the diaeresis is The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2001). A. Parrot (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In support of Antinoöpolis, as well as the The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2001), there is, as mentioned, The Oxford Classical Dictionary, (4th ed.)(2012), The Encyclopaedia Britannica (2010), The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (2005), Grove Dictionary of Art (2003), The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites (1976), and, where it is mentioned under a different heading, the great LSJ, standard-most reference on Ancient Greek. In addition, most of the older printed literature used Antinoöpolis. For "Antinoopolis" there is the New Pauly and the Barrington Atlas and the works cited above (and more); for "Antinoupolis" there is the newsletter of the most recent excavations (2010), the Antinoupolis Oracle. For "Antinooupolis" there are certain SEG articles on epigraphy. GPinkerton (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I really dislike "Antinoopolis" and "Antinooupolis" since they both suggest a rather silly pronunciation in English. While the diaeresis doesn't guarantee that people will pronounce it correctly, or at least differently than I fear these spellings will produce, at least it's a signal to readers that it might be pronounced differently. P Aculeius (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meroë is transliterated on the same principle; it guides the English-language reader to pronounce the "oe" as two separate syllables, not as a diphthong, as would be expected. The Wikipedia page uses the diaeresis. Another example is Boötes. GPinkerton (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The proposed name is certainly correct, although I'm not certain that the alternatives are technically incorrect. As long as they're mentioned somewhere in the article (there may be too many for the lead, and some explanation might be expected), it seems fine to choose one as the primary form for the title and the article. I tend to think that the reason some sources avoid diaeresis is because diacritical marks were difficult to type/altogether absent from typewriters for most of the twentieth century, and English speakers aren't used to seeing them, leading some editors to dismiss them unnecessarily as "fussy" or "confusing". Owing to the availability of redirects in Wikipedia, I think we can risk that in favour of historical and technical spelling. P Aculeius (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.