Talk:Glossary of ancient Roman religion/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Talk page length

This talk page is getting very long (400kB) and I strongly recommend using automated archiving, like on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid. I did implement it, but was interrupted by Elen of the Roads (talk). The issues with a long page can be read at WP:LENGTH. Can I proceed with the implementation? --Kslotte (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Let us look at manually archiving the page, as it contains a lot of related threads (as I said before, a lot of the glossary terms require each other), and also a lot of information which would actually be better stored elsewhere. I agree we should see if we can't make it a little shorter, but I don't think there's any reason at the moment to automatically archive it every thirty days.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand. --Kslotte (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Note, that the archive both provide searching and a index list (if it helps you refer to related things). --Kslotte (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm glad Elen stepped in here. The Glossary has been developed by quite a small number of editors; the same editors seem likely to keep working here, on and off, so I agree that auto-archiving's not a good idea. As Elen's pointed out here and elsewhere, most if not all Glossary terms link to each other and to various things dispersed throughout the talk page - some of which rambles quite interestingly and either has content still under discussion or continues discussion started under a different sub-head. Pretty digressive; so not the easiest of pages to navigate, let alone index or search. But at least the early discussions on format and bulk seem to have run their course (I hope); they could be archived. The collapsed paste-ins are the work of a single editor (Aldrasto11) and might be more useful to him on a user-page with reflist code. It's not much, I know, but it's a start. Haploidavey (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I added a hidden comment at the top of the page: "Do not implement auto-archiving, read Talk:Glossary_of_ancient_Roman_religion#Talk_page_length" --Kslotte (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact about this talk page is that it start to be too long and hard to read and edit. Is manual archiving the method to be used here? First step is to start copy-pasting (someone involved in the discussion) to Talk:Glossary of ancient Roman religion/Archive 1. Further instructions at Help:Archiving a talk page. It may also be useful to introduce some type of glossary term based discussions or draft sub-pages, like Talk:Glossary of ancient Roman religion/libri augurales or Talk:Glossary of ancient Roman religion/A-H. Links to these pages can be added to the top of the page. --Kslotte (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies Kslotte - I was going to do it, and then got distracted by something else. I'll do it this evening. Your idea about archiving to sub pages also seems good, so I'll look at that also. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

NP, Wikipedia won't crash with one talk page too long ;) --Kslotte (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if I can help you with anything. "Archiving" is my current Wikipedia state of mind. --Kslotte (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well....I set up an auto archive with a 60 day term and leaving 8 threads on this page. As I read through the bulk of what was here, there are a few threads that seem to be good discussions of how an entry in the glossary was developed, but if the references to the entry do not support the editor developed text, a discussion on the talk page doesn't matter. If a previously uninvolved editor comes here as asks, you can easily seach up the discussion in the archives and let them read how the consensus was developed. The argumentation about what sort of glossary this should be, totally doesn't need to be preserved here fresh, archived out of the way is better. Currently this page is to long to encourage other editor participation, one sees mountains of text and steps back from getting involved and making the article better. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Far as I'm concerned, you could archive it all and start fresh, but maybe after this RfA? Since this talk page is referenced there, would an archive make it harder for people to access the admin candidate's contributions? Cynwolfe (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. if people are tracking the contributions off of the candidates contributions page, and come here, they will likely know check the archives if anything more than the diff is needed to review. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Temporary paste-ins?

The section "Temporary paste-ins" takes up 80% of this talk page. Does it really need to be here on the talk page? or should it be a sub-page? --Kslotte (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "sub-page"? Cynwolfe (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

attrectare

Interesting word. Could its significance be explained a little more fully? (It lacks a citation.) That is, is this a correct thing to do, or does the verb mean to touch a sacred object when you're not supposed to? Does it occur in a context that suggests that touching a sacred object had to be done in a certain way (maybe a certain order of gestures, as when herbs are plucked for magico-medical purposes and the practitioner is told to use particular fingers or go about the plucking in a certain way)? Cynwolfe (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I added the citations. Macrobius cites Virgil II 217 ff. when Aeneas tells his father it would be nefas for him to touch the patrios(que) Penates since his hands are still polluted by the recent caedes slaughter, until he bathes in the running water of the river. Vergil has here Aeneas speaking as a pointiff. It was required that soldiers on coming back from campaign underwent a lustratio, though symbolic, by holding laurel branches upon entering Rome, but here it seems Vergil refers to the ablutions of the sacerdotes.

On delubrum: I think the word clearly refers to the lustrative actions (washing or aspersions) that were required of the worshipper before performing the rites to the gods. I do not think the fittest parallelel is the baptismal font, but the acquasantiera or better the temizuya of shinto shrines.

The purifying fuction of water is perhaps known everywhere. I shall add some other material. Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The passage from the Aeneid is also a good example for nefas — I think it's good when possible to give examples from the more familiar works. This is a particularly vivid moment in the Aeneid that people are likely to remember from it. Your parallels on delubrum are good, but is it not the case that Isidore himself makes the comparison to the baptismal font? (That is, WP would require that you have a secondary source that makes the shinto comparison.) It's been a while since I looked at Isidore, but if I'm remembering correctly this is one of those snapshots that show the Christian appropriation and reconceptualizing of Roman religion. Isidore seems at pains in contrast to some Church Fathers to find continuities rather than emphasizing radical disjuncture between traditional and Christian culture.

fanaticus

Just wanted to say - that's a splendid piece of work, and a great read. Haploidavey (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering whether Aldrasto had a sentence we could add on the Festus entry. Notice I put "citation needed," because frankly it's my assumption. I didn't look very thoroughly, though. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it goes with a revision I'm doing for the goddess Bellona. Actually, I did it Sunday night, and moments before I was about to save, my browser crashed. My fault, because I had a bajillion windows open and hadn't done my usual job of browser hygiene. Haven't had the heart to restore, since I had only part of the draft offline. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue is dealt with by Dumezil and Bloch. Places hit by lightning were considered loci religiosi and haruspices had a furrow ploughed around them and ordered them covered with earth. However about trees I do not remember whether they wrote anything. I shall look up for the citations.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)12:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I found this entry on delubrum in Festus s.v. delubrum that seems to fit and put the citation in fanaticus as well.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Festus says Delubrum dicebant fustem delibratum, hoc est decorticatum, quem venerabantur pro deo, so I'm not seeing how that supports the statement that his note elsewhere on a tree being fanacticus is "a reference to the Romano-Etruscan belief in lightning as a form of divine sign." This is the kind of statement that requires a secondary source. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

A google search gave 2 sources of the 17th century on the point. However I realised G. Colonna as I cited under delubrum is already saying the same thing. I think he is a reliable secondary source. BTW is not the variability i-u appearing in lumpa-limpa- limpidus? It may well be that there was also a lubrum for librum or luber for liber. Varro LL V 72 in fact says: "A lapsu lubrico lympha". I am no glottoligist thogh...?Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you add that to the fanaticus entry along with the ref to Festus? Cynwolfe (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Bellum pium et iustum

I looked at the link ius ad bellum and bellum iustum but they have nothing to do with Roman religion. I edited a bit this entry and I think the link should be deleted.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)09:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the entry can benefit from development. However, the links should stay, because they point to related concepts that the reader might want to look at. Doesn't have to pertain to Roman religion; it's just a way for someone to look at related material, or even at material that seems at first glance to be related but isn't (some articles have a note at the top saying "Not to be confused with" plus a link). Cynwolfe (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Deus and Theos are not cognates!

Zeus: supreme god of the ancient Greeks, 1706, from Gk., from PIE *dewos- "god" (cf. L. deus "god," O. Pers. daiva- "demon, evil god," O.C.S. deivai, Skt. deva-),from base *dyeu- "to gleam, to shine;" also the root of words for "sky" and "day" from: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Zeus & Thea: fem. proper name, from Gk. thea "goddess," fem. equivalent of theos "god," from PIE base *dhes-, root of words applied to various religious concepts, e.g. L. feriae "holidays," festus "festive," fanum "temple." http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=thea&searchmode=none Böri (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what your point is, but you need to provide scholarly sources, not links to websites. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Theos and Deus both mean "God" but etymologically these words didn't come from the same root! Böri (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Got it. I meant more specifically what you wanted the entry to say. For now I've just pointed out that the Romans translated theos as deus. Thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct remark from Bori (sory I cannot type dieresis). Theos has not the same root of deus and is cognate with fas, Themis, festus etc. from IE stemroot *dhes- as I mantianed for a long time to no avail here.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't you just correct the statement? What matters to the entry is that the Romans translated theos with deus; it's a matter of usage, not etymology. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

because I wanted to show that why I changed it. Böri (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Böri, I should've been clearer that I was talking to Aldrasto, who is a longtime contributor to the article. Wasn't criticizing anything you'd done. I hadn't recalled Aldrasto briniging this up before. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Entries on pontifical jargon from Macrobius book III

There are perhaps 2 or 3 other terms that could be considered for admission. One is averruncare to avert cf. god Averruncus.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a fine addition, especially since it relates to a preexisting article. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I realised my memory tricked me, it looks Macrobius III does not mention Averruncus. After reading the WP article and Gellius's quotation I found some support of the hypothesis that this theonym has something to do with the Aurunci. Of course the most obvious etymology is from verra as also for deliverers's and newborn's protecting goddess Deverra.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just looking up something in the glossary, and the entry on averruncare caught my attention again. I'm having trouble verifying the following references: Paulus excerpta Festi p. 511 M; Cicero Ad Atticum IX 21 1. Müller's edition of Festus (available in full here and here) has no p. 511. The 9th book of Cicero's letters to Atticus has no epistula 21. I rewrote the entry so that it summarized rather than interpreted the primary sources cited (though a secondary source is still needed) and for wordiness. If the citations of Paulus and Cicero can be corrected, by all means restore them. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Article tags

User dab has added two tags to the Glossary. One describes it as synthesis, and points to a talk-page discussion; but I see no such discussion here. Another suggests the content be moved to Wiktionary. Why? The article's a Glossary, dedicated to a specialist subject area. It's a service to readers. We have many similar Glossaries. Please discuss. Haploidavey (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is considered drive-by tagging. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I reworded the lede a bit, though I'm still flummoxed as to how anyone could regard these entries as dictionary definitions. I don't see how "synthesis" applies to a list article on the non-controversial topic of ancient Roman religious terminology; I'm not seeing what argument is implied, or what conclusions the collocation of material points to that are not explicit in the secondary scholarship. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

See also Glossary of spirituality-related terms. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

delubrum

I was trying to do some copyediting but don't know what this is trying to say:

the delubrum was the oldest form of an aedes with an ambiguous term valid both for the building and the surrounding area ubi aqua currit, according to the etymology of the antiquarian L. Cincius.<ref>Servius ''ad Aen.'' II 225</ref> It was used even to denote the fetish accommodated in it, the stripped stake.

"With" needs to connect something to something; the "ambiguous term" is with something, but I don't know syntactically what that is. And are we just saying that the word delubrum could refer to both the building and a surrounding area that had a freshwater source (ubi aqua currit)"? Again, Latin must be translated, since phrases that will be evident to a speaker of a Romance language are not necessarily so in English.

I'm assuming the citation means it's Servius who preserves Cincius.

Last sentence, with two instances of "it": The first "it" seems to have as its antecedent the word delubrum, whereas the second it seems to refer to the thing delubrum, since the stake was not housed in the word.

The stake leads to another question: where the heck did that come from? What "stripped stake"? Why are we to expect to find a stripped stake in a Roman shrine? I mean, if I spend some time and look outside the article, I can figure this out, but the WP reader needs not to have to do this. (I hope Aldrasto knows by now that I value his contributions and am only trying to make them accessible to readers.) Cynwolfe (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Glossary templates

First off, feel free to revert, after contemplation. (before, after)

I reformatted this page to use {{term}} and {{defn}} templates. Their main benefits are structured markup (the content is semantically laden now, and a computer will be able to parse them as glossary entries), and they add anchor links (so every entry can now be linked, without adding any code. Just a # , eg Glossary of ancient Roman religion#calator). The main drawback is increased editmode complexity. Hopefully you agree that the pros outweigh the cons!

The next level beyond this, for a large and full-featured page such as this, would be to create your own template similar to {{cuegloss}} (as used in Glossary of cue sports terms) to clarify when a bluelink is a within-the-page link, vs a link to another article. If you want that, it's up to you! (I haven't used them yet, but might be able to advise/assist).

HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look at this. I am somewhat concerned by the greater edit mode complexity, and the inability to edit only one entry at a time, though I'm willing to chalk that up to unfamiliarity. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can only edit by letter, which is kind of a pain in the fundament. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling that my notion of 'semantically laden' (like Finnegan's Wake is semantically laden?) is unlikely to be what the delightfully named Quiddity means, so I cheerfully admit to being dumb about such things. I always did link to an entry as [[Glossary of ancient Roman religion#calator|calatores]], for instance, or internally as [[#calator|calatores]], so I will need to hear the pros explained as if to a child. As for the cons, it is somewhat cumbersome not to edit a single entry at a time, and I'm not sure that every editor will be comfortable with the increased complexity. But as I said, I'm willing to give it a go, if there's consensus that this is for the best. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The semantic ladeness is on the HTML side, in that the new format exploits the <dl> ("definition list") system of HTML elements which carry with them semantically significant identities within the HTML document. This is good and sound web presentation, but really should not mean that we can't enable section editing with a definition list. That is, what is really keeping use from presenting a simple alphabet table of contents, but still allow section editing? See what I just did with ===={{term|term= abominari }}==== as an example. (Please feel free to revert me if this is uberoutofbounds.) Actually, that gives two elements with the id as the entry term, so that won't do. There must be a way around this not being able to edit entries separately.  ^davidiad_.: 00:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

@davidiad: Unfortunately any additional tags do break the semantic structure, as you saw. (I'm typing just as you're reverting ;)

@Cynwolfe: Understood. I'll nudge the creator of the templates, SMcCandlish, and see if he can advise. I'm not overly hopeful that it will be possible, and he appears to be busy this week, so I'll revert to the old format in the meantime. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: He answered, that it doesn't seem easily-possible to mix section-edit links into each {{term}}. So, what you saw would be the final result, with section-editing at an alphabetical level. I'll delegate the decision to you, as primary maintainer(s), as to whether you wish to continue with the templates, or not. As a glossary wikiproject participant, I'll stick around either way :) -- Quiddity (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I believe the first sentence-period of the lead should be as neutral as possible, i.e. fully centred on the topic in itself, Roman religion. Stating in the same sentence that the language of anc. Rom. rel. influenced later religious traditions and especially the language of the Western Christian Church is clearly a fact that does not belong to the topic in itself. In aristotelian language this is an accident and not the substance. Hope I made my thought understandable...Aldrasto11 (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

broken or misdirected links

in feria is Latinae really a species of fish ? was there no page for paganalia ? DaiSaw (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That should go to Feriae Latinae, and I'll fix that. Paganalia redirects to Sementivae, for reasons that are mentioned there—but I've been meaning to look at that more closely, since the treatment seems inadequate. Will fix the links, and thanks again. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

point of this page

"glossaries", or rather non-lists, non-articles, non-glossaries, non-dictdefs such as this one are a disaster, or they would be if they were not almost entirely unknown and unlinked. I stumbled upon this because somebody linked exta "entrails" to this page. Now exta, like all the other terms in this "glossary" are encycylopedic topics, or subtopics under the general topic of "ancient Roman religion". Either exta is a topic notable and substantial enough for a standalone article, or it should be treated as a sub-topic, section or paragraph organised topically, i.e. under "animal sacrifice in ancient Roman religion", and not alphbetical in some forgotten "glossary". The reason is that topical coverage is supposed to evolve and develop in topical context, including merging and splitting of topically related pages, not some strange "alphabetical" approach to a heap of loosely related terms. I will try to fix the "exta" problem, but I really don't see any non-harmful potential for this page as a whole. --dab (𒁳) 14:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see list of incoming links to the article. The benefit is that technical terms of Roman religion can be explained without offering a digression in the main articles. I've written many many articles on Roman religion, and found this glossary an invaluable resource to link to. The introduction suggests why terminology is a particular problem of ancient Roman religion. On your personal preference that such list articles not exist, please see MOS:GLOSSARIES. Or take it to WikiProject Glossaries. Tagging doesn't do anything to reduce article clutter. However, this glossary has indeed served as an incubator for independent articles: votum began that way, for instance. Obviously others could be created. A disambiguation page is most certainly not what's needed: perhaps you mean a set index article? Cynwolfe (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No entry for numen or genius?

These are both extremely significant concepts in roman religion and should have sections.173.56.79.75 (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

They both have their own articles, and mainly this is a glossary of technical priestly vocabulary, but readers should probably be directed to these topics. Last time I looked, though, neither numen nor genius was satisfying as a treatment of these concepts in Roman religion. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)