Talk:Jublains archeological site

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 6 January 2023 by reviewer Scope creep (talk · contribs).

Gaul Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gaul, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gaul 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.GaulWikipedia:WikiProject GaulTemplate:WikiProject GaulGaul articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

recovering lost work

too many intervening edits to revert the well-meaning NPP guy's third edit, need to deal with getting the info bov back and and correcting the erroneous location and alt entries and adding the others. Still less work than redoing all the intervening work. Back to translating the detail sections on individual excavations and working on repetition and organization. Elinruby (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

determined that the edit, whose size had alarmed me, in fact deleted of a lot of style code specific to fr.wiki; it did do the infoxbox layout a world of good, at a high price in translator time however, and which could have beem avoided through simple communication. I did a painful point by point comparison and hey, I know I am shouting into the wind, but sometimes a hyphen is just a hyphen and should not be a dash....and in the name of god why fiddle with this stuff as an article is being actively edited? I lost a lot of translation work to edit conflicts over a semi-correct application of spell-checking. Since it's really tedious to re-ddo work that was pro bono in the first place, I am probably going to leave the detail sections on individual excavatioms in draft and possibly make them child articles at a later date. !Elinruby (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naveau

overreliance to the point of promo Elinruby (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exciting to see people working on this

Not to mention translating French, by God. I don't think I know how to act.

Seriously, it's a Good Article on fr.wiki, which suggested it to me as a translation. It isn't afaik well known as an archaeological site, but several civilizations have settled there so it's probably highly relevant to a niche audience. And the artwork is drop-dead gorgeous.

Glad to see that it might actually see the light of day. I would ike to encourage the people who are working on it to please do continue. I think there is more on the French side; as I remember things, when the article was draftified I truncated off the untranslated French. I am on an underpowered mobile and really need to work in a single window. I came in here to make a translator note about something and got so excited I forgot what it was. May be back to do that. Thank you uch you guys. Elinruby (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a really, really good article. The subject is absolutely fascinating. It is one of the best articles on an archaeological site I have ever read. I, too, am very excited that it is nearing ready for publication. Interesting that the French article at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_archéologique_de_Jublains may have even more information. Will add if I see something missing, encourage everyone else to do the same thing. Agreed that the artwork is absolutely gorgeous. I am so glad you started the job of converting the article. Funny that several of us clearly had the same thought that this was great and stepped to. ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monument: translator note

The French historic site lists use this word to designate anything that is historic, whether it is a keep, a barn, a chalice or the footprints of Mohammed. There is no connotation of commemorating something as there is in English.

Just pointing out a hole in the road. Not saying anybody did this one wrong; I just saw this in the text I was looking at, is all, and it's a frequent issue. Probably exists elsewhere in the text. Elinruby (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another pitfall: important may mean "large" and this is a mistake that the tool does make. Instances of this word need to be checked against context to determine if intended meaning is "large" or "correct" Elinruby (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bourg: at its most generic, just means a town. I think but am not certain however that in this context it has a specialized meaning related to fortifications. Need to check this Elinruby (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: What parts specifically? Can you point them out. scope_creep^Talk 03:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To do Well, this is not a list of problems.It was really intended as a list of things the translator wondered about" + some PSAs to anyone else who comes along, but since you ask, I will try to be more specific. Monuments: I saw this in the translation I just did and dealt with it -- we aren't required to translate word for word. It may also exist however in the intro, where there is something about an array of monuments? Buildings? That attest to the spread of Romanization. Just saying, the footprints of Mohammed were on the monuments list in Algeria. This may also crop up in the Urbanism section. Important: just a known pitfall for anglophones, and I know from experience that online translators have an issue with cognates. I saw three instances in the in the work I just did. Somewhere in the Roman section I changed "the important city" (Le Mans} to "the metropolis". I left "important cross-road" as "important" because what is a big cross-road? There was another instance further down, I believe, referring to a building. I changed that to "large". I think there was only one instance of bourg and it's italicized. I left it alone because hey, town is not wrong, but I seem to remember encountering it before in a discussion of fortified cities. Unsure. It is not a common word in French, at least not Parisian French. While we are discussing subtleties, "cité" is another cognate. I am uncertain how big this place was, and whether it would have been considered a city at the time. "Settlement" or "town" or village "outpost" might conceivably also be a correct translation. Hope that helps; if you think I called something wrong, just let me know. I am just doing the due diligence on the translation tool, and the text went through sell-check too, which increases the suspicion level. If you are just looking for something to do, this article is my closely referenced than most French articles but is a heavy reliance on that one archaeologist. Nice bibliography btw. I looked at your edits and liked them, but am uncertain of your French level. For all I know you're a French archaeologist ;) If you are, I commented out a section about an "enduit", which is a thingie at the base of a wall, but it seemed out of context there; that mystery is still unresolved. Some of the tribe names might still be in French. I cleaned the CTX cruft out of the wikilinks but they should still be checked to make sure they do go to the right place. Finding lots of hits on Google Scholar (Jublains), haven't done anything with those yet. There is a whole category tree at Wikipedia Commons about this site. Was the porch to the temple destroyed or demolished or did it just fall down? I used collapse, but that was a guess. I also don't know what an octostyle temple is; that should be checked. Feel free to add anything that occurs to you that you can't immediately get to at the time. Elinruby (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Elinruby: I'm not French or an archeologist so wouldn't know any of this. If you can update the article is best, then please do. Octostyle seems to be a temple with eight colums in front of it. I could put a note in, using the efn tag I suppose, or link it to wikitionary would be better. scope_creep^Talk 05:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it a link in. scope_creep^Talk 05:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed octostyle to octastyle and and changed the link from wiktionary to Wikipedia. Please let me know if any of you has has any objections, we can just change it back again. ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another replacement word for some of the use of word monument might be construction.

For smaller, loose objects, you of course have artifact, but reading through the article this does not seem to an appropriate replacement for any instances of the use of the word monument in this specific article.

The crucial difference between French and English here seems to be that a monument in English is dedicated to something, the object/construction must be commerative in itself, while in French it is a word used about anything old it is thought worth commemorating. So a temple can be seen as a monument in English because it is dedicated to a god or goddess, while a palace would not naturally be so. For instance, it would be correct to write: “Buckingham Palace was a monument to the wealth and success of the Duke of Buckingham,” but it would not be correct to write: “Buckingham Palace is a monument to the Duke of Buckingham,” full stop. ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ByTheDarkBlueSea: That was solid work on the translation. I was really glad of the help. There is a mistake, you have linked to a redirect, for the octostyle link, that was the reason I linked it to the wikitionary. Apart from that change what you think needs done. I think you have a better handle on it, than I do. scope_creep^Talk 11:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Scope creep Thank you so much. I really appreciate hearing that. I was so glad when after seeing this great article that someone had already taken upon themselves the great task of starting to fix the rest of it. You did such a wonderful job.

I linked here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octastyle

Which redirects here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portico#Octastyle

Is that wrong somehow? I am sure you are right, and that this is a silly question :) I would just like to know why. We can just replace the link back to the wiktionary one again, no problem. Wiktionary is a great resource. ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that looks right. I must have looking at an older version or something. To honest I wasn't looking forward to it, but it such a great looking article and of a good size, it couldn't be left, so planning to spread it out over a few weeks. Generally these drafts barely getting any working unless the editor really keen. I was really hoping that Elinruby was going to turn up and continue the translation to check what I did. ByTheDarkBlueSea, if you find any of these article and you, ping me. scope_creep^Talk 13:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yes, it was lucky for all three of us that we simultaneously decided to take it upon ourselves to do at least something for the article at the same time! So much more fun, and so much less work than it would have been for just one person. It is a great looking article and one of a good size. I think we have reason to be proud of ourselves!

I just checked the article and the link looks all right to me to (after all, the links above is what I meant to do, I could have done something wrong somehow), but if you discover something wrong with it, please just change it to whatever you feel appropriate.

I will :) If you see another draft that catches your interest like this one did (similar, dissimilar but interesting, or just a short one), please ping me and I can see if I can help. This has been really fun :) ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ByTheDarkBlueSea: There are a lot of French archaeology articles! And the draft translations have been getting deleted like this one was going to. I would be absolutely delighted to make some suggestions. Do you have any preference as to period or region? Algeria, which of course used to be part of France, needs a lot of help as well. Off the top of my head, there are definitely a lot of articles about city walls, Gaulish excavation sites, and remote villages in southern and central France. I personally was intrigued by "mother goddess" and the great fresco up top, which were new to me, but if I log into the French translation tool it will probably suggest some more in this area, now. There are also a number of child articles to this one as I recall. When I was looking at references last night I was getting a lot of hits in which archaeology sites in the region were compared to this one, which is also interesting because of the very long and well-documented excavation history. The mosaic documented in the 18th century and now on display in the museum was a particularly nice point, I thought. Anyway... I guess I could ping you to a separate section here about related/child pages, and maybe send you some examples of other articles to your talk page. There are dozens of French translations languishing at WP:PNT, also, including a terrible machine translation about a chateau and royal residence that I have been rehabbing, off and on, for years now. Most of the pNT articles are about other topics though. Give me a definition of "interesting" and I will be delighted to make that happen. Ecstatic even. Seriously. Elinruby (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh yeah, btw, your enunciation of the "monuments" issue was exactly right, and very well put, I thought. I'm signed up for a very large project on the Napoleonic code, but if you want to do a deep dive in French archaeology I will certainly be available for questions or whatever. Let me know. Elinruby (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, a few of those French translations languishing at WP:PNT sound good. We could start with the chateau one or another excavation one, if you have one? ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for liking my enunciation of the "monuments" issue :) ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Nothing but the truth. I can't remember the name of the chateau and it looks like somebody decided the article was rehabbed enough and took it off the list. Can you translate or do you need the article to already be over here, or mostly in English? Ramparts of Senlis is something I worked on a while back, if you like Gallo-Roman excavations. It too has been untagged but I am fairly certain that it could be improved and probably should be reality checked. Speaking of reality checking, there was something in this article about an altar with alleys, which is some sort of computer-generated delirium. Aisles maybe? I will log into French and pull a couple from there, meanwhile Elinruby (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Over here and sort of half-done I feel is sort of my niche :) That is to say, I can translate quite a bit, but the importing process itself does not appeal to me. So something that can be rescued from drafts, that someone else has already imported would be perfect. ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Welp, I can make drafts. Elinruby (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: do you by chance know how to make this link to the French article? Elinruby (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it. You can see it in the very top-right of the article page. I will need to be created on the fr Wikipedia as well. It looks straight-forward. scope_creep^Talk 16:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am positive that the page over there has watchers who will notice the incoming link. I just don't know how to do it -- I don't generally do complete translations any more. Thanks for that, it also got it out of the not-matching-Wikidata category. Elinruby (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yep somebody at fr.wikimedia has made the link already. Elinruby (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Select something and see how it goes. I've never seen that WP:PNT project before. I thougt I'd seen it all. I've got tons of work on, but I would like a long term collaboration scope_creep^Talk 16:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. And no worries about the work, I'm committed to the Napoleonic code thing myself, but we apparently currently have at least an enthusiastic new editor for French archaeology, and that's a type of article that shows up there a lot Elinruby (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linked octastyle via Wikidata to fr:octostyle; they describe the same thing. (As a bonus, you also get a Swedish article for free.) Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jublains at Wikimedia Commons

Category:Archaeological site of Jublains Elinruby (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Check this one out: Currently not used on Wikipedia:

Elinruby (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elinruby. Do you want to create this category on Wikipedia. I've just noticed the articles doesn't have any category. I'll find out how categorise these archesological articles. scope_creep^Talk 18:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is enough material. We have the museum (which this image must be from) as an ILL in the See also. All of those ILLs are all interesting-looking translation possibilities. Maybe Gallo-roman archaeology? As for Jouvains, I think it got its own category at Commons because of all the great images, and that might not be true of all of them -Rubricaire doesn't seem to have much. But yeah, that is something that needs to be done, if you want to do it. Based on what I am seeing in the deep dive in JStor and Persée, what we have is a rather well-excavated group of sites that have the Roman roads in common. Jouvains and Rubricaire keep getting mentioned as relay stations. So yeah, that would be great. But if we are going to create categories there possibly should be something about that relay system. Since it was all over Gaul --probably the Roman Empire -- it might already exist. But it seems to be a fairly recent topic of interest, so maybe not. TL;DR=Sure! And I have suggestions, see above. Jouvains seems to be important enough for its own category or subcategory, but if we do the related sites some of them might not be. Maybe we should approach this a subcategory of Roman roads, if that's a category. Bottom lines, yes, absolutely please do. Elinruby (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right I'll do it tommorrow. I will need to search and what else can be added to it. scope_creep^Talk 18:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try and say that more succinctly. As best I can tell from the deep dive I did in sourcing, the notability of the site stems from the following, in no particular order:

At this one site there are some good traces from several cultures dating back to the Iron Age.
The early preservation of the site means that there is a large body of work and allows discussions of the evolution of land use etc
it appears to be a good example of the Roman relay system and perhaps also of commodity distribution in late antiquity
There seems to be a validated argument that this site is erroneously placed on what has been the standard map of the Roman road system in the area
Jublains and Rubricaire are good examples of different types of Roman relay stations
At the time when the archbishop had a house there, he got into some sort of beef with a local warlord nicknamed Wake-Dog, possibly a family feud.

A lot of that wasn't in the French text I translated, which was very focused on Naveau's work, and may not be completely in there yet. At the time I did this I was focused on mitigating the single-source aspects of the article. If you are particularly interested in one of these aspects I can probably get in some writing in the next day or so, assuming none of the couple things I am watching blows up too badly. Also, in the interest of powering through I did not match the existing citation style, which I dislike and don't want to learn, but yeah, we should have a single citation style. If you are somewhat comfortable in French, there is Persée, which has a lot of proceedings of the Académie Française etc. There is also a journal specifically devoted to archaeology in Western France. I don't remember the name, but I think I cited on it in that last batch of work I did here. Ping me if you have any questions, but feel free to improve the article and/or its presentation as seems best to you; the above are just suggestions. I spent a little time yesterday making sure the article was no longer an orphan, but a lot of that was fairly mechanical entries in See also sections that could probably be better woven into the text. The article on the current town is the most obvious example of this. I will be around but need to take care of some other things just now. Thank you for the help. Elinruby (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography is another category to possibly explore, since the article discusses several changes in the narrative concerning the site, in addition to the likely error on the map. For example, at one point the article says that the Roman station was originally thought to be military, but that more recent work has focused on the role of the granaries (though it uses a Latin term to say that) and there is a lot of discussion of it as a place for travellers and messengers to rest and/or switch out to fresh horses. Again, just a suggestion. One thing I have learned about categorization is that there are very specific definitions for some categories and the people working with them get quite upset if you use a category from the West Australia tree with respect to something on the east coast, for example, ad I have never located the documentation for the hierarchy, which is why I was so glad to see you offer to work on this. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

further followup exists but all of its other elements are the roads not the relay stations. Hopefully that helps somewhat. I don't think this article mentions the names of the roads that meet at this crossroads but when I translate the content doesn't always sink in, so somebody should check that. If not it an probably be fairly easily discovered if that becomes an in impediment. Elinruby (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cursus publicus is categorized as postal history and transport in Rome Elinruby (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

recovering lost work

Naveau

Exciting to see people working on this

Monument: translator note

Related articles that could be edited

Jublains at Wikimedia Commons