Talk:List of Lycian place names

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Turkey Low‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics 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.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles 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 Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geography Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

The pic

I went to track down the source of the supposed 15th century map and all I could find anywhere was, in paraphrase, "This is my picture and I own it and I photographed it. I have all the credentials." Great. From where? The contributor is not active now. I think we should know the cartographer's name and the map's provenience or the provenience of the MS if the cartographer is not known. Not only that, but this article is a list and the map only shows Lycia, no detail. So, I replaced it with a modern map of stated creation, which I copied from the article. At least we know who he is and we have his statement that he created the map.Dave (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Condensation of intro

The intro was not quite right. The sources are any in the ancient world, not just ancient Greek ones. I notice there is an editor who wants to plug the Hellenity of the region. You might as well know, if you didn't already, President Wilson and Ataturk hammered out an agreement for the final settlement of the demise of the Ottoman Empire that they would create what a certain British WWII general called a "tidy battlefield." Greece went over to the limits of the Aegean. Turkey got the coast of Anatolia. The Turkish populations were removed from Greece and the Greek populations were removed from Anatolia. This created a certain ongoing nostalgia for Greek Anatolia, parallel to the Armenian nostalgia for Armenian Anatolia. While I can sympathize with any and all individuals tormented by the twists and turns of history, which certainly is a great devil, WP must be careful not to allow these former nationalistic issues to bias the encyclopedia. Lycia is a tourist region today. Most of interest, I would say, are the monuments of the Luwian people. Let's keep it in perspective.Dave (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One table

The current classification is I think confusing and artificial. Ptolemy is split over 2 sections, with and without inscriptional evidence. Not only that, but there are other sources. We need to be able to expand to include them. This is a job for super-table, one great table stating the names, the sources and the inscriptional names, if any. Moreover, that inscriptional table is most confusing. Why are there two names? Where does the non-inscriptional one come from? Also the equal signs seem a bit tacky. Are they on the inscriptions? What is this, a group of mathematical formulae? What do you mean =? Some expansion and tabularization seems warranted.Dave (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The names

Our Greek contributor wants to use the Greek names for the towns. That is not warranted. Identification should be the English names, derived from the Latin in most cases. The original names were Lycian. Then they were Hellenized and were Greek for a few centuries. Then they were Latinized as a Roman province. Currently most have Turkish names. This policy question has been faced before. The English WP uses the English names. The articles are under the English names. There is no point in in piping the name to a Greek name. That can be brought out in the article. We use English names, and those are most like the Latin.Dave (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lycia/Caria

This article covers names of Lycia. Some have been tagged Caria. Under what circumstances that can have been true has not been defined by the article. It would need to be. I'm deferring this by removing reference to Caria.Dave (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greek names

I decided to defer to the previous contributor and add the Greek names. When transliterating Greek the custom is to use ks for ksi. Moreover, WP went for u as the transliteration of upsilon. Y and x are Latinizations.Dave (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Map 65

Since I started using Map 65 here in the last week or so I have had to change the link at least once. I may not be able to put a link in. The publisher obviously does not want you to have it. They are willing to make it reviewable; you can get some if not all online. Right now the link is not working. The site is down. However, it is not a file access problem but a server access problem. I don't know what they are going to do finally. Only generally. Generally, the book publishing industry is fighting back. They are going to make sure you get absolutely nothing for free. WP is the greatest sales opportunty that ever was. All you have to do is find ways to charge people for everthing listed as a source in WP. You probably can look forward to all pay sites. Beware, you people that publish, if you close the lid too tight it will not be possible to do credible articles here. Don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg. I will keep my eye on that link. Meanwhile, you can find it in reviewable stages online elsewhere. No need to mark it a dead link. If it does not come back in another day or so I am just taking it out. Meanwhile I will try to find other sources of site identification.Dave (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Lycian place names. 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/20120226204856/http://people.usd.edu/~clehmann/erp/Lycia/lycia.html to http://people.usd.edu/~clehmann/erp/Lycia/lycia.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 15:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]