Jump to content

Talk:List of Roman theatres

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed to Merge List of Roman theatres into Roman theatre (structure)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

Merge Proposal and / or Redirect. Please do not modify it.
The result of the request for the Proposed Merger of List of Roman theatres into Roman theatre (structure) (this talk page's article) was:

Not Done—There Is No Consensus to Merge at this time. Proposal(s) for other merges should be placed in their own sub-sections for discussion.
— — — — —
  • Proposed to Merge List of Roman theatres into Roman theatre (structure) (ie just put the list below the article). The first of what is intended to be a series of proposals to reduce the very bad habit that has grown up in this area of separating short articles and fairly short lists. Here the article is only 6.2 kbytes (and gets av. 250 views per day) and the list 33 kb (and gets 24 views pd). It is unencyclopedic to keep them apart - readers of each should see both. Outside the table the list article has only a one-line introduction (which manages to include two spellings of "theatre/theater"). In cases where the combined length would be excessive (eg Greek temple and the matching list) there is sense in this approach (with a proper introduction) but not here. Hopefully combining them will encourage the addition to the list of commentary (currently effectively non-existent) and more references in the text to examples in the list. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Strongly oppose - There are plenty of these list pages for architectural units and other topics, both related to the ancient world and related to other topics. It's clearly standard practice and they are clearly indicated in the pages they complement. Since the lists are often much longer than the main article (in this case 5x longer) and are not necessarily of interest to the non-expert reader, it makes sense to keep them separate. That the main article could be longer is an argument for making it longer by adding content to it, not for tacking a big list onto it. A spelling issue (due to American autocorrect of a British spelling) isn't really an argument (and has been corrected). - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - I should also add that these list pages are very valuable to me as a teacher. They're both things that are easily added to by students who tend to be novice wikipedia users (and this is one of the pros of lists here), and they're also good examples of simple databases with lots of value. That they can be easily mapped and exported is also a plus. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These advantages are not lost when a list is placed in a section below the text in an article, and there are huge benefits for the general reader. That the lists are longer, as seen on the page, than articles (in most cases purely because of the size of the images) is no reason at all to separate them. What is potentially a reason is the combined size of an article + a list, but in this case this is still less than 40 kb, a perfectly acceptable size. Double that and you start to have an issue. Research on the web shows that readers (as of newspapers) almost all start at the top and keep going until they get bored etc. That there is plenty more they haven't read is not an issue - very few people will read an article of any length right through, and most only look at the lead. Some flick down screen by screen, and are much more likely to see a table at the bottom of the article than on a different page. If you really want to go the database route, that is exactly what Wikidata is designed for, and no-one will object at all. The "lists" guidance page you cite refers to bullet-pointed lists (as with the walls article), and the pros and cons refer to using these v. using text, mainly meaning within the same article, as I am proposing. The pros and cons of tables (as here) are very different, and I can't believe (having done lots of training) that ease of adding for very new editors is a "pro" for them - many will find it very frustrating. Again there is no need, except much greater length than here, for them to have their own pages. None of your arguments are making sense. Note that a good-quality list, like List of Ancient Greek temples, begins with a proper introductory text section, in that case well over a screen of it. I hope you are notifying your students' project in the appropriate place. Johnbod (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're talking past each other here. First, that list page is on exactly what we're discussing. Look at the example it links to; it's a "list of" page for dog breeds. The stand-alone list is a valid page type. You don't like this kind of page, but lots of people do and lots of them have been created for architecture and archaeology and classical-world material. Could this particular stand-alone list page use a longer lead? Sure. The solution to that is to make a longer lead, not to delete the article. My experience with table editing is also different, and in line with the list of pros already linked to. In short I think you're solving a problem that doesn't exist. (EDIT This was me, but the new iPad app grabs all the links and I wasn't logged in there.) - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against stand-alone lists where appropriate, as I have repeatedly made clear with the example of the Greek temples. I'm sure I have created a number over the years. I am not trying to "delete" anything. The only question is whether to have one page or two. Almost the only criterion for deciding this is whether the length of a combined page is excessive. 40 kb is not excessive. So this pair should be merged. There is no virtue or extra utility in a stand-alone list at all, except as a convenient way of avoiding excessive length. You are somewhat wilfully misinterpreting the guideline page. It is a page dealing with categories, and the "pro and con" list begins "Compared with a category, a list may have both advantages and disadvantages" (bolding the bit you obviously missed). The actual relevant page is Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, which you should certainly read, although it doesn't address this situation. Nor does the main Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, which begins "Lists are commonly used in Wikipedia to organize information. Lists may be found within the body of a prose article, or as a stand-alone article." and then "A list can stand alone as a self-contained page, or it can be embedded in an article.", but notably fails to address when either type is more appropriate. So don't claim policy supports your position - it doesn't. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While the article is short now, it could be much expanded. I find the list is long enough to be separate. It is not so much about the size in kb but in pages (14 on my monitor). --ELEKHHT 23:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not overly fussed about where the list ends up, but I think it ought to be noted that it isn't a very good list. It's very patchy and doesn't record data that it ought to, like diameters and dates. If properly expanded, it would be much longer than the list of ancient Greek temples currently is. If it remains a stand-alone article then it does need an actual introduction, but it probably wouldn't need to be as long as the Greek temples one - there is less jargon to explain. Furius (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I agree with ELEKHH on the length issue. In response to Furius, I think the list isn't bad as it stands, but it could indeed use some more info. I don't think it's very "patchy", though surely there are more examples to be added. Most of the work I put into it was converting the data into its present form, with occasional additions of new examples. I agree, too, that the entries could use date and size info. Size is probably better "diameter" than capacity, since the latter is mainly going to be extrapolated from the former. Date is trickier since most of these were renovated at some point, and many were converted from "Greek style" theaters during the Roman period. In fact I've suggested elsewhere merging all the ancient theaters, Greek and Roman, into one list since the distinction could be considered more a chronological one than anything else. As usual, I hope that others will continue to contribute to improve the page. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was rude. I think you are right about size, so I've gone through and added cavea diameters. I've also added links to the theatrum database where they exist. There appear to be quite a few more theatres to be added, particularly from France, North Africa, Turkey and Greece. Your point about the distinction between Greek and Roman theatres is, obviously, particularly relevant to the last two and to the debate that Johnbod has started - if this were merged with List of ancient Greek theatres, then obviously it couldn't be merged with Roman theatre (structure). Furius (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No rudeness detected! The theatrum links are great. What do you think about a merger between the two ancient theater lists? - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is probably good idea - the alternative is to try and devise a hard line between Greek and Roman theatres and there isn't an obvious one. Furius (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— — — — —
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a WP:PM.

Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GenQuest "Talk to Me" 20:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A copy of this template can be found here.

Alternate merge proposal discussions

[edit]

It seems that User:Johnbod's merge proposal has died down, with consensus against; should we open a new one for merging with List of ancient Greek theatres per User:Eponymous-Archon's suggestion? Furius (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be against doing that, though I recognize the issue. There might be a case for a List of Hellenistic theatres, but there is no point in dragging eg Orange into a monster list with pretty uninformative details and no introduction. Meanwhile some places should be on both lists. What would be useful is a proper article on Greek theatre (structure), but that does not interest listmakers. Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be snarky. It's possible to recognize the value of lists along with other kinds of articles. I just noticed the other day the absence of the Greek analog to the Roman theatre (structure) article, but don't have the time right now to do it justice. In the end though, it might be better to make one Ancient Theater (structure) page. Again, I would need to do a little more research than I have time for right now. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Orange is going to get dragged into a monster list anyway; the vast vast majority of ancient theatres are Roman. List of ancient Greek theatres already includes a number that were renovated, remodelled, or entirely rebuilt by the Romans. At the same time, most of the Greek, Albanian, Sicilian and Turkish examples in this list have Greek roots. My point is that I think the overlap of the two lists, once brought to completion, will be very large. Meanwhile there are a number which cannot be certainly determined to be Greek or Roman and therefore risk falling between the cracks of two separate lists. Agreed that the list could have more details and an introduction, but I'm holding off on doing that until I know what its fate will be. Agreed that Greek theatre (structure) should exist as well. I struggle to find the necessary time for writing actual articles of that calibre, I find that the short breaks I have are more suited to chipping away at a list or making a translation. So I'm more likely to do the latter activities. Furius (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Names?

[edit]

Just coming back here after a little while to add a new theater (Albintimilium) and I see that Furius has added a name column. Since most of these are simply in the form of "Theater of <placename>" and are therefore modern, I wonder whether this isnʻt more misleading than useful to novices exploring the Roman world. It also takes up more space in this confined area. Not a big deal either way to me. (The Theatrum database links are great!) - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • My arguments for the title column are: 1. It allows us to wiki link to the theatre's article (in an ideal world most would have one), 2. It allows us to distinguish between theatres that are at the same location, 3. some theatres, like those at Athens and Syracuse, do have names (either ancient or well-established in scholarship). I admit that the column does take up space. I don't think the anachronism is such a problem - it is repeated in the title of individual wiki articles. Furius (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many have articles to just drop the column. One might merge it with the ancient place name perhaps. Or just leave it. Can the coordinates easily go into small print? Johnbod (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 43 external links on List of Roman theatres. 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:

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) 04:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addition

[edit]

There is a Roman theater with Odeon in Catania that is not mentioned here but there is a Wikipedia page for it here: [1]. If I understood better how to add something to this list I would do so. Alas, I don't. AkilinaL (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teatro_romano_di_Catania

Greek theatres

[edit]

I'm not really sure why but I see some Greek theatres in here. Obviously the Theatre of Dionysus, the first theatre in the world, was not made by the Romans. They actually used it as an arena. The Theatre of Delphi also wasn't Roman, and the Odeons were just made during the Roman occupation. Onoufrios d (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Roman_theatres&oldid=1255617593"