Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Unknown-importance backlog completely cleared

I have cleared all ~220 of the articles that were in the unknown-importance category. They have each been individually importance-assessed, so there are now 0 unknown-importance articles in this WikiProject (at the time of signing).

(I changed my username midway through, which might cause a bit of confusion!) LegesRomanorum (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge Aryasb into Abradatas

It has been proposed to merge the article at Aryasb into the article at Abradatas. Discussion at Talk:Abradatas#Merge from Aryasb. --Bejnar (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Up-dating of Gaius Furius Sabinius Timesitheus

I have re-written this article to make fuller use of the original sources and academic commentaries and to remove a superfluous family-tree (which related to Gordian III rather than Timesitheus. I should be grateful for an assessment and rating of the new text. Pjbjas (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed move of Catullus bibliography

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catullus/References#Requested move 14 September 2015. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Catullus/References/talk for what was done. The material has been saved at Talk:Catullus/References. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place

Sorry if I'm not doing this right, but I asked a question on the Proscription page. I know you aren't here to give me answers, but I'm fascinated by Ancient Rome and I'm trying to understand if I was reading the article correctly or not. Anyways, my question is linked to below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proscription#82_purge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Which Hazel? (talk • contribs) 04:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation guides. We need a policy - modern national pronunciations, or vox Latina / graeca, or both

A lot of articles in this Project have International Phonetic Alphabet pronunciation guides. For example, in Caesarion, we tell our readers to pronounce it /sɪˈzæriən/, which is not contemporary and which no contemporary would have recognized. I'm not convinced that many moderns would recognize it either. In Cicero, on the other hand, we give the well-established, modern English pronunciation, a classical Latin version, and a transcript of the Greek: /ˈsɪsɪroʊ/; Latin pronunciation: [ˈmaːr.kʊs ˈtʊl.li.ʊs ˈkɪ.kɛ.roː]; ‹See Tfd›Greek: Κικέρων, Kikerōn. I suggest that we need a policy, I also suggest that it's indefensible to have non-notable modern pronunciations given as the only option, and my draft would be:

Pronunciation guides for words in classical languages

All articles that use words in classical Greek or Latin may include guides (in the International Phonetic Alphabet or otherwise), to their classical pronunciation. The classical pronunciation should be as derived from Vox Graeca: The Pronunciation of Classical Greek, or from the second edition of Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin, both by W. Sidney Allen.

These articles, if they have a guide to the classical pronunciation, and if there is additionally a well-established and uncontroversial modern English pronunciation, may also include clearly-labelled guides to one or more current English pronunciations.

I'd welcome comments. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm wary of implying that any pronunciation is either "inarguably definitive" or "non-notable". If the history of classical studies proves anything about pronunciation, it's that it was fluid in antiquity, and that has been variable ever since. In the evolution of Old Latin into Classical Latin, we see numerous shifts in vowels, diphthongs, and consonants alike. It's impossible to put together a monolithic pronunciation guide that covers even the period of the Roman Republic, much less all of Roman History from the earliest written Latin to the late Empire. Let's look at some examples:

• Gaius was pronounced with three syllables in the earliest period, as the a-i combination was not a diphthong; the same name in Oscan languages became "Gavius". Even in the time of Cicero and Caesar, it could be pronounced either as two syllables or three, although two seems to have been the more common.
• Gnaeus seems less ambiguous, until you realize that in older inscriptions it's often written "Gnaios". There's evidence that the g was usually insisted on and probably pronounced; but also that some people didn't pronounce it, leading to the occasional misspelling, as well as dimorphisms as naevus derived from the same root, and gnatus being used alongside natus. In fact, down to the third century BC, and perhaps later, we have the dative and ablative forms Gnaioi and Gnaiod, instead of the "Classical" form, Gnaeo for both. That represents a huge chunk of Roman history, longer in fact than the age of Cicero.
• Names such as Fusius and Vetusius which appear in (relatively) early inscriptions represent archaic forms of Furius and Veturius, which evolved by a process that calls into question the received wisdom that 's' was always voiceless in Latin, never /z/ as it often is in English. You could dismiss this as a mere artifact of Old Latin, but many scholars believe that the records containing these forms date to the time of Sulla, whose era overlapped Cicero's youth. I'm not arguing that Fusius and Vetusius were in use that late; rather that the fact that they were the same names was still well-known.
• The shift from second-declension nouns ending in -os or -om to ones ending in -us and -um may have taken centuries; current thinking is that the final stages occurred around Cicero's time, but we cling to the later forms and hardly ever use the older in classical scholarship.
• The 'au' diphthong seems to have been variable throughout Roman history. Modern guides to pronouncing "classical" Latin (meaning the Latin of Cicero's time) always insist that it should rhyme with 'ou' in "cloud", and there is some evidence for this pronunciation, but there is also substantial evidence that in some names, such as "Paulla" and "Claudius" it could be pronounced in any of three ways: as 'ou' in "cloud", as 'aw' in "claw" (which is how we invariably pronounce "Claudius" in English), or even as 'ow' in "bowl". Greek transliterations of these names demonstrate all three pronunciations being used interchangeably, which seems completely counter-intuitive and certainly contradicts what we learn about pronouncing Latin in school.
• Regional pronunciations shed their own insights and uncertainties about the fluidity of Latin pronunciation. For example, Latin grammarians railed against the pronunciation of 'c' as 'ts' in the African provinces. One could suppose that this is an early stage of the shift from pronouncing 'c' always as /k/ to someimes /k/ and sometimes /s/. But in fact it probably indicates that the shift had already begun, because /ts/, if we credit the Latin grammarians with being able to distinguish between /ts/ and /s/, is hardly the same as /s/. We also note that the same rules of when 'c' in Latin words and in words derived from Latin should be "hard" and when it should be "soft" are practically identical in every language derived even partly from Latin.
• There is evidence that in Imperial times, the consonantal 'u' came to be pronounced much like 'v' in English, although there was no distinction in spelling.

Modern methods of pronouncing Latin have varied tremendously as well. The Latin of Shakespeare's time wasn't the Latin being taught in the nineteenth century. In the nineteenth century, the most common school of thought was that English speakers should pronounce Latin as though it were English, and not bother trying to reproduce the pronunciation of "Classical Latin". It wasn't until the twentieth century that this method was fully abandoned, but throughout the century Latin pronunciation in English still varied, especially with respect to the vowels and diphthongs, and the consonants 'c', 'g', 'j' and 'v'. Note the scene in Goodbye, Mr. Chips where Mr. Chips rails against the fashion of teaching Latin pupils to talk about someone called "Yulius Kaiser".

Then we have the matter of how to render Latin pronunciation in English. Even if we can agree on a single point in the development of Latin to represent (doubtful, as Latin pronunciation was in flux during the lives of Cicero and Caesar, which is the period that Latin courses usually strive to emulate), we have some schools of thought that prefer using English respelling, some that prefer IPA (which, I can state from numerous attempts to understand it and how to render Latin words and names in it, presents a number of challenges to anyone other than experts), and some that refrain from either, instead relying on other conventions, such as macrons over vowels, to indicate pronunciation. Having tried various methods, I've come to the conclusion that the best way to indicate how a word ought to be pronounced by English speakers is to use English respelling conventions, generally following dictionary methods that most readers have seen and can easily understand. No matter how often I scan IPA guides for general use, English use, or Classical Latin, I can't make head or tails of most IPA symbols without consulting the IPA tables to try and figure out what the author intended. I'm sure that most readers (as opposed to editors) feel the same way when they encounter IPA pronunciations.

So if you're going to include IPA pronunciations at all, I'd place them alongside (and probably after) English respelling pronunciations. And bear in mind that there's considerable variation in how certain letters ought to be pronounced, depending on how you feel about Latin pronunciation by English speakers. There's no one definitive answer to that. Pretending that there is seems pedantic at best. Let's avoid that. Surely we can all agree that the pedants are revolting!

Thank you. There is indeed no one definitive answer and would not be even if we had complete access to every ancient dialect and idiolect. That makes the present situation particularly unfortunate. We are presenting, usually as the only alternative, some rather amateurish attempts. I'll just repeat my suggested guideline, which I think is a definite improvement and I hope is flexible enough to leave room for all of the excellent points you make:

All articles that use words in classical Greek or Latin may include guides (in the International Phonetic Alphabet or otherwise), to their classical pronunciation. The classical pronunciation should be as derived from Vox Graeca: The Pronunciation of Classical Greek, or from the second edition of Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin, both by W. Sidney Allen.

These articles, if they have a guide to the classical pronunciation, and if there is additionally a well-established and uncontroversial modern English pronunciation, may also include clearly-labelled guides to one or more current English pronunciations.

@Kwamikagami and Angr: I'd appreciate advice in due course from other editors who have made very relevant contributions. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

My point was, there's no definitive standard for ancient or modern pronunciation. Every pronunciation guide out there is the product of significant scholarship over a number of years. Demanding that Wikipedia articles adopt a single standard and permit no other is potentially committing all editors to ahistorical editing and a specific point of view, which goes against the grain of Wikipedia's general policies with respect to allowing editors to set their own styles and maintaining a neutral point of view. The key to collaborative editing is flexibility. I don't mean that everything out there is equally valid, but dismissing a particular pronunciation merely because some editors aren't familiar with it or personally disagree with it, or because they prefer a different source for indicating pronunciation, would threaten the ability of this project to benefit from the knowledge and experience of other editors. So no, I don't think this sounds like a good idea. P Aculeius (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, good points, but the existing situation is still thoroughly unsatisfactory with grossly invalid practice widespread, and we do need to give some guidance to editors. Not, I agree, anything that might cramp style, more up to date scholarship, or NPOV, but Sidney Allen is a highly reputable (and flexible) source. What about watering it down slightly (using only permissive rather than restrictive language) to:

All articles that use words in classical Greek or Latin may include guides (in the International Phonetic Alphabet or otherwise), to their classical pronunciation. The classical pronunciation may be derived from Vox Graeca: The Pronunciation of Classical Greek, or from the second edition of Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin, both by W. Sidney Allen.

These articles, if they have a guide to the classical pronunciation, and if there is additionally a well-established and uncontroversial modern English pronunciation, may also include clearly-labelled guides to one or more current English pronunciations.

Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

A few points. First, the proposal reads like it's giving editors permission to provide pronunciation guides. No permission is or has ever been required, although in some cases it may not be strictly necessary to provide a pronunciation guide in the first place. For example, an article about Sextus Julius Africanus really doesn't need any elaboration. With the exception of the J, the entire name is reasonably close to the original pronunciation, following normal rules of English. And the only people likely to want to pronounce it like an authentic Roman probably know about the J already. Pronunciation guides are only particularly helpful for words or names that people might have trouble pronouncing in the first place. But mainly, the first sentence is entirely unnecessary, as no permission is required to add pronunciation guides where appropriate.

The second sentence may have been intended to sound permissive, but by phrasing it, "the pronunciation may be derived from A or B," it implies that it must be based on either A or B, not on any other source. That's not at all permissive. The third sentence suggests that any pronunciation other than one intended to represent Classical Latin requires substantial documentation. This also has the effect of suggesting that Mr. Allen's guides are preferred to others, and creates an undue burden for editors wishing to supply a pronunciation guide suitable for English speakers, even in cases where, as you say, the pronunciation is "well-established and uncontroversial." The proposal suggests that editors have to prove that any pronunciation is well-established and uncontroversial in order to add it. I think that the better policy would be to remove only pronunciations that do not make sense under either the rules of Latin (of any period) or the rules of English, without requiring specific attestation, which is unlikely to be easily found in many cases. Of course, if a word or phrase has too many possible pronunciations, a footnote or a section on pronunciation could be added without too much difficulty.

Rather than just criticizing, I think I'd better suggest an alternative that I hope will meet with your approval, as well as addressing my concerns. So here goes:

"Editors may wish to provide pronunciation guides for words or phrases that are not reasonably familiar, or the pronunciation of which may not be apparent from their spelling. Pronunciations representing Classical Greek and Latin, as well as modern English pronunciation, are preferred, but pronunciations representing specific dialects or eras (such as Ionian Greek or Ecclesiastical Latin) may be provided where appropriate. Some flexibility should be allowed, as pronunciation varied even in the classical period, as well as in modern English (for example, the pronunciation of Latin in English changed dramatically during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; some words or names may be pronounced according to either method). Some suggested sources for this purpose include:

• Vox Graeca: The Pronunciation of Classical Greek, by W. Sidney Allen
• Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin, by W. Sidney Allen
• Reading Greek, from the Joint Association of Classical Teachers
• Reading Latin, by Peter V. Jones and Keith C. Sidwell
• Wheelock's Latin, by Frederic M. Wheelock
• Bantam's New College Latin & English Dictionary
• Cassell's Latin & English Dictionary

"Editors may use different methods of representing pronunciation. See Wikipedia's pronunciation respelling key, Pronunciation respelling for English, and IPA for Latin. If the pronunciation of a word or phrase requires substantial discussion, please consider using a footnote or a separate section of the article for this purpose."

Okay, so, I've tried to avoid the appearance that these specific sources or a specific method of indicating pronunciation is mandatory, since, of course, they're not. And the list I made isn't meant to be definitive or exhaustive, just a starting point. If you have some other suggestions, go ahead and mention them, and we could add them to the list. But I think we should all be able to agree that these are good sources for Greek and Latin pronunciation. What do you think of this suggestion as a guideline? P Aculeius (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for these helpful remarks. Yes, I can agree with all of that and it's all useful. The thing that's really bothering me is the widespread use of un-referenced, usually IPA, renderings that seem to approximate what a bot programmed to produce some variety of modern English would make of a Latin name. Could you agree to any form of words that might suggest a little more strongly that this procedure is not usually helpful? And would you have any suggestions, or shall I make some? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, maybe I can take a stab at something, but I think that it's futile to ask people who want to use IPA renderings to provide references. There simply won't be references in most cases, whether you prefer IPA or English respelling. The more useful procedure would simply be to correct errors as you run across them, bearing in mind that there might be more than one way to render certain sounds, without one of them clearly being invalid. For example, when I studied Latin, the first 'u' in Publius was always pronounced like 'u' in put, never like 'u' in bus. Latin grammars don't always distinguish between the two sounds, but I have heard the latter pronunciation, and assume that it has been taught in the past, so I wouldn't automatically correct it, although I might set it alongside the other pronunciation. There may be instances where the author has simply used the wrong IPA symbols; but in others it's simply a matter of opinion between which of two equally possible sounds to use, and in those cases I hesitate to imply that there's a single answer that is always correct. If we can make allowance for that, then I think the best procedure is simply to correct errors when they're found.

Perhaps insert this sentence into my last paragraph from the proposal above: "Editors may use different methods of representing pronunciation. See Wikipedia's pronunciation respelling key, Pronunciation respelling for English, and IPA for Latin. Editors whose familiarity with IPA is limited are encouraged to use pronunciation respelling instead. If the pronunciation of a word or phrase requires substantial discussion, please consider using a footnote or a separate section of the article for this purpose." If you're not sure whether that's strong enough, what about Due to the high rate of errors in adding IPA pronunciations, editors whose familiarity with IPA is limited are encouraged to use pronunciation respelling instead. P Aculeius (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Again thanks for this, and I'd go for your second version.

I'd like to press you once more for the inclusion of some form of words that at least mildly deprecates somebody's unsupported guess at what some modern English tongue might make of the word. I can't see any value (can you?) in putting such a thing into an article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It's really not necessary to make a special policy for deleting information that's obviously erroneous or explicitly contradicted by reliable sources. That's a basic policy for all Wikipedia articles. At the same time, I'm wary of wording policies in such a way that makes people hesitate to add useful information, even if it's accurate, simply because they aren't able to provide adequate documentation. Obviously we'd like to have proper cites for everything possible, but pronunciation usually won't have citations and shouldn't be expected to. While information can be deleted when it's not verified by available sources, usually information that doesn't look like vandalism will be allowed to stay until someone gives it a thorough vetting and either finds sources to back it up, refute it, or conclude that it's probably erroneous. And that's what should be done with pronunciations except when there's an obvious problem. The way I look at it is this way: well-intentioned editors of varying expertise do their best to provide useful information. If it's wrong, more experienced editors can correct it. It's not an adversarial process. Let's not make it seem like one. If a pronunciation is clearly wrong, just correct it. P Aculeius (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. So the draft is:

"Editors may wish to provide pronunciation guides for words or phrases that are not reasonably familiar, or the pronunciation of which may not be apparent from their spelling. Pronunciations representing Classical Greek and Latin, as well as modern English pronunciation, are preferred, but pronunciations representing specific dialects or eras (such as Ionian Greek or Ecclesiastical Latin) may be provided where appropriate. Some flexibility should be allowed, as pronunciation varied even in the classical period, as well as in modern English (for example, the pronunciation of Latin in English changed dramatically during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; some words or names may be pronounced according to either method). Some suggested sources for this purpose include:

• Vox Graeca: The Pronunciation of Classical Greek, by W. Sidney Allen
• Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin, by W. Sidney Allen
• Reading Greek, from the Joint Association of Classical Teachers
• Reading Latin, by Peter V. Jones and Keith C. Sidwell
• Wheelock's Latin, by Frederic M. Wheelock
• Bantam's New College Latin & English Dictionary
• Cassell's Latin & English Dictionary

Editors may use different methods of representing pronunciation. See Wikipedia's pronunciation respelling key, Pronunciation respelling for English, and IPA for Latin. Due to the high rate of errors in adding IPA pronunciations, editors whose familiarity with IPA is limited are encouraged to use pronunciation respelling instead.

If the pronunciation of a word or phrase requires substantial discussion, please consider using a footnote or a separate section of the article for this purpose."

I'm certain that this is helpful and I suggest that it is suitable as a section on Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Guides. Would you like to put it there? It seems only fair for you to take the credit. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, alright, but before I do, do you think the last sentence in the first paragraph ought to start a new paragraph? Looking at it again, I think it might make more sense as the beginning of a new paragraph. P Aculeius (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I've refactored it above rather than inflate this section further. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, done. I added links to some of the topics and authors that might help explain what we mean, and clarified what was meant by "the pronunciation of Latin in English" and "substantial discussion" as well as linking "footnotes" to predefined groups, in the hope that it doesn't get confused with ordinary references. Did not link to the publishers Bantam and Cassell, as that didn't seem useful. P Aculeius (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Geta (slang) needs attention

The recently created Geta (slang) is unreferenced & short on context. If it's simply a word, perhaps it's more appropriate at Wiktionary? I have no knowledge of this subject and will defer to experts. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know! As for the contents, it's hard to tell just what it's saying, but as far as I know, and from what I can see of the article, there's no evidence that the name was slang of any kind. The grammar and spelling are terrible throughout, making it difficult to tell what the writer is saying, but it's just a cognomen, not a slang term for "emperor". The more I look at it, the more this page looks like it was written by a 10-year-old making it up out of whole cloth, perhaps not with the intention of starting a hoax, but to assert some basic misunderstanding of Roman history. I wouldn't say it's in bad faith, but I don't think there's any substance in it. P Aculeius (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Consistency of Importance Ratings

The articles Women in Ancient Sparta and Women in Classical Athens are both rated as Low Importance, but Women in Ancient Rome is rated as High Importance. I can't find any evidence of rationale behind this, and going by the description of low importance articles ("Subject is of little interest, except to Classical scholars."), it seems that the women in Athens and Sparta articles should be rated as more important than that. Am I missing something here, or is this simply an inconsistency in how people have rated these articles? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Not being in the habit of rating articles, I can only guess at the answer, but I have a few ideas. First of all, women in ancient Rome presumably encompasses all of Roman history, and the scope of the topic presumably includes all parts of the Roman Empire. So it's a much broader topic than either women in ancient Sparta or women in classical Athens, and to some extent may even overlap both of them. I might also suppose that there's probably more scholarship on the topic to develop a comprehensive article. Even though the objective importance of women in the city of Rome and at Athens might be comparable, if one article has a great deal more material to work with than the other, that might make a big difference to the subjective importance of the article in Wikipedia. In other words, you can only develop an article to the extent that valid scholarship is available to cover the topic; if there's only a fraction of the material available, the article can only be taken so far; and if it doesn't look like an article can be developed much further, that might play a role in its rating.

This might be the best explanation for the content of the articles. The article on women in ancient Athens has "multiple issues," and the tag goes on to say that the topic is written more like a personal essay stating the author's own point of view. There's not a similar tag for the article on women in ancient Sparta, but there should be. I skimmed over it a couple of times, and it's not at all encyclopedic. The lead isn't really written as a lead, it doesn't introduce the topic well or indicate the main subjects treated in the article, and much of it seems to be intended to present the topic from a particular point of view. Some of the statements of fact sound improbable, and would benefit from in-text citation to ancient authors, but both this and the Athens article seem to be suggesting that contemporary sources are wrong and therefore irrelevant. In other words, both articles seem to be picking and choosing sources in order to present a specific narrative, rather than giving a comprehensive and neutral perspective on the topic. And that, in turn, suggests that the available material is somewhat limited in scope and presentation, as does the fact that nobody seems to be in much of a hurry to fix them and make them more encyclopedic.

None of which is to say that they couldn't be treated much more comprehensively or from a more neutral point of view. If they were cleaned up and expanded, the importance of both articles to the various projects that cover them might become more apparent, and perhaps they would be rated higher. Perhaps what they're really in need of is attention from an editor with an interest in the subject and the ability to make them more comprehensive and more scholarly. P Aculeius (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Women in Classical Athens article needs a lot of work at the moment, and I'm currently trying to work out what exactly the best way of going about that is. That said, I was under the impression that importance and quality ratings were independent, i.e. the fact that the article needs work now is not a reason to rank it as unimportant, just a reason to mark it as start-class.

I also agree that the article is rather more specific than the Roman one (a single city-state in a period of only a few hundred years, vs. an empire which at its peak covered most of the mediterranean world and lasted for many centuries), but it's not as obscure as most of the other articles rated low importance (e.g. Pseudo-Plutarch), and is rather less obscure than many mid-importance articles (e.g. the Amasis Painter or Amazon statue types, or even Neaira (hetaera)).

I don't want to get involved in rating the importance/quality of an article I'm likely to do a lot of work on in the near future, so I'll leave it up to others as to whether the article is correctly rated for importance, but I'm going to go away and read through it and try to work out what needs doing...

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but I think the greatest ambiguity exists between High and Mid. Low importance articles are pretty clear. High articles, I'd expect, would usually be thematic and treating a topic of broad general relevance. For example, something generally descending like: Ancient Greece (Top) -> Ancient Greek art (High) -> Black-figure pottery (Mid) -> Analatos Painter (Low).

There is no doubt in my mind that "Women in Foo" articles should be ranked as high by this rationale.—Brigade Piron (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

toilet god

The article states that king Titus Tatius built a shrine to goddess Cloacina in his own toilet. The authority is a secondary source, a history of toilets. I do not know what is its primary source. Can somebody help me please? Also gods Crepitus and Stercutus are mentioned in the article. Unfortunately the authors of this and these other two articles do not make any effort to help the reader understand that this fact has nothing funny or silly about itself, given the nature of ancient Greek and especially Roman religion, in which the concept of divinity is derived from nature and life functions in particular. Moreover btw Stercutus was no longer understood in his original meaning by the Roman themselves who (see e. g. Macrobius book I) connected him with the act of manuring. which I think is wrong.Aldrasto11 (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Roman and Greek deities counterparts

(Revived discussion)

Hello, I am a newcomer to this WP.
I notice that for almost all Greek and Roman deities, there are two articles, both for the Roman and for the Greek counterparts (as Eros and Cupid). In my opinion, whereas in some cases such a distinction is important (e.g. when there was a difference in the way those deities were worshiped, as in Venus and Aphrodite), in many other cases (e.g. Eros and Cupid which I mentioned, and many others) the duplication seems to be redundant. Moreover, almost always both articles contain a "myth" section which has two versions of the same stories, and a "post-classical art" section, where usually there was no post-classical distinction between the two counterparts.
Are there any guidelines or conventions regarding which deities "deserve" a separate page from their counterparts and which do not? Was this subject ever discussed here (a quick search in the archive suggests that it hasn't)? Lophostrix (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. I don't have a lot of time right now but in a couple of days I'll go through the mythological beings and form a list that I think should be merged, but Heracles and Hercules would be my first recommendation. After we have a list we can go through them and form a consensus on which ones should and should not be merged. And by the way sorry for the slow response! Psychotic Spartan 123 13:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, and I don't consider your response slow by all means! Just a small follow up: in the cases we decide not to merge the articles, I think duplicate elements such as myths should appear only in one article (typically, of the Greek god). For example, whereas the articles Vulcan (mythology) and Hephaestus definitely should not be merged, the section Vulcan (mythology)#Greek myths of Hephaestus should not contain any text, but refer to the Greek god (maybe to the relevant section). Likewise, there is a huge confusion in the "art" sections (or equivalent) of many deities. For example, how would you call Aphrodite of Milos or Venus of Milo? The statue, of Greek origin, appears in the Venus article, while many post-classical artworks dubbed "Venus" appear in the Aphrodite article.
Another issue I would like to raise (forgive my overzeal, being a newcomer), is whether Heracles should actually be written Herakles (as in ), since 'κ' would be transliterated as 'k' (according to APA-LC 2010 ). In my humble (and nonprofessional) opinion, the APA-LC transliteration should be applied to all new and revised articles with Greek names. Lophostrix (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with moving articles from long-established names (Heracles) to trendy literalist interpretations (Herakles). We've followed the Latin convention for rendering Greek names into English for centuries, and that's the way they're familiar to most of us. Changing them over now would surely be a case of recentism, and insisting on those forms is pedantic, to say the least. I'm not saying that nobody can use those forms; but as a general resource Wikipedia articles should use established and widely-disseminated forms in preference to hypercorrect ones that most people won't be expecting. P Aculeius (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: Apparently WP:GREEK guideline settles the naming convention similarly to what you wrote. In short, whenever there's a common English name, we should use it (just as in Homer, Hesiod, etc.). Maybe I was a bit linguistically biased, as in my language the English names sound a bit like a recentism (and I refer to them as Homeros, Hesiodos, etc.) :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lophostrix (talk • contribs) 20:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's good to know there's a sensible policy in place. But there's nothing wrong with providing the original Greek spelling and a transliteration along with the normal English/Latin form, if it can be done without creating too much confusion (or adding a footnote if it gets messy). Nobody objects to that, as long as there's no attempt to say that one is right and the other wrong. P Aculeius (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Not entirely connected thoughts follow: I'm not keen to see articles merged since in most cases the Greek and Roman figures are usually distinct in their cultic and social connotations. If merging is attempted I foresee acrimonious and unprofitable debate about whether the Greek or Roman names should be prefered. But I think you're right to try to avoid duplicating content. Most of the mythic material can probably go under the Greek deity, though there are some distinct Roman myths (e.g. Mars as the father of Romulus and Remus, Juno and Aeneas). I don't know what to do about post-classical art, though in many cases there is so much material that I wonder whether it deserves its own sub-page. On the specific case of Heracles/Hercules, I note that he currently has three pages: Hercules (main) Heracles (Greek), and Hercules in ancient Rome, which seems excessive. My preference would be to delete Hercules and maintain the other two. Furius (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Furius: I agree that whenever there is a major cult or social difference, the articles shouldn't be merged. However that is not the case for many deities, whose only significance is mythic or artistic. See my example of Eros/Cupid - he is a major god in art, especially in post-classical art (usually as Cupid, in this case), and in mythology, but has no cult that I know of. More examples:

Aurora - Eos
Clementia - Eleos
Parcae - Moirai (the general articles, and for each one of the three)
Dike - Iustitia (though this article hardly gives justice to Iustitia)
Suadela - Peitho
Somnus - Hypnos - already have the same article.

and many more... Juno and Hera clearly have significantly different cults, and no one would suggest merging them, but merely remove duplicates in the myth and art sections. Flora and Chloris are not such a clear cut in my opinion: both have different origins, and Flora has some cult, but I think having them in the same page would improve both and add context. I think our measure should be whether both deities have or don't have a significantly different cult, such that cannot (or shouldn't) be explained in a small section.
As for our acrimonious debates, I think they are worth it if we can improve the content and readability of so many articles, and thus highly profitable... Lophostrix (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I take your point. I think that articles like Clementia and Eleos suffer from the fact that they are currently being treated as primarily "mythological", when in fact they are personified concepts... and I'd suggest that as cultural concepts Clementia and Eleos (and Dike/Iustitia) probably deserve their own articles. In cases like Aurora/Eos, Parcae/Moirai you're entirely right. For Eros/Cupid I see that we already have a separate page for Eros (concept) in addition to the two gods - so perhaps the solution would be to merge Eros and Cupid and then move Eros (concept) to Eros? Furius (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with this distinction between deities and personified concepts. Whereas Clementia/Eleos had a very small role in mythology and cult, it was not the case for other "personified concepts". Cupid/Eros, our recurrent character, has elaborate mythology connected with him, as is quite distinct from the concept "Eros" (which has meanings other than the classical one, thus deserves an article as a concept, not a deity). Other concept personifications have mythological attributes which cannot be ignored: Nemesis, Eris/Discordia,Hypnos/Somnus, etc. I would argue that all "personified concepts" (Clementia/Eleos) included, should be treated deities in the mythology, not as concepts (like the Eros (concept) example). I also think they should all be merged, as in the few example I had given. Lophostrix (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed all the roman deities which are listed in List of Roman deities, and compiled a list of Greek-Roman counterparts to be merged. The primary criterion was whether the deities had a cult or not (gods with significant cult are on the "not merge" list, unless the cult is similar or was just in one culture and not the other), and if they are indeed of the same origin and have the same mythology connected with them. Needless to say that all the Dii Consentes were not even considered for merger.

Merge list

Aurora - Eos
Clementia - Eleos
Concordia - Harmonia
Cupid - Eros
Decima - Lachesis
Parcae - Moirai
Flora - Chloris (Varro claimed they are of different origin, but is seems modern scholars disagree, and he is hardly a reason not to merge)
Fulgora - Astrape
Hercules - Heracles
Luna - Selene
Moneta - Mnemosyne (Iuno's epithet is unrelated to the goddess Moneta)
Mors - Thanatos
Morta - Atropos
Nona - Clotho
Orcus - Horkos
Pax - Eirene
Salacia - Amphitrite
Suadela - Peitho
Trivia - Hecate
Voluptas - Hedone

Not Merge list

Bellona - Enyo
Caelus - Uranus (no consensus within scholars whether Caelus was a Greek import)
Faunus - Pan
Fides - Pistis
Fortuna - Tyche
Libertas - Eleutheria (however, Libertas should be merged with Liberty)
Lucina - Eileithyia
Pudicitia - Aidos (was also a concept in Roman sexual ethics, unlike the Greek deity)
Salus - Hygieia
Saturn - Cronus (Cronus should be moved to Cronos)
Terra - Gaia

Yet undecided

Iustitia - Dike/Themis ("Lady Justice" should be moved to Iustitia...)
Pluto - Hades
Victoria - Nike
Looking forward to read your opinions, Lophostrix (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Apart some specific cases I am against merging articles. Scholarship is and cannot be other than fuzzy or murky on these issues. Instances are too numerous to discuss in detail: I posted a topic on Flora in Greece some months ago and nobody answered. I do think there was a Greek equivalent of Flora but certainly it was not Chloris. Keep in mind that this is one of the most ancient goddesses in many "primitive" religions the world around, e.g. in ethnic China. I also would object to Amphitrite and Salacia/Venilia, see what I wrote in Neptune. The Roman Parcae too have their specific rites described at length by Macrobius and Censorinus and cannot be reduced to the Moirai etc. etc.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Aldrasto, I have not yet had the time to explore all the points you have risen (I will continue my answer once I do), but please point out the articles that you do not object to merge. Basically my reasons for merging these articles are one of the two: either the deity is relatively minor and clearly "means" the same thing (in most terms, e.g. mythology, personification, identification, art), or it is a major deity like Proserpina or Hercules which are clearly imported gods. The second case is clearer to me, as it would be illogical (in my opinion) giving two articles to the same god, being worshiped in two different places. The proper thing to do in those case is to have one article about the "original" god, and have a section about the Roman cult (might be an extensive one, in the case of Hercules). The first case requires more thought: I (we?) have no evidence that Aurora is an imported Eos, and if I had to guess I would think they both derived from a "common ancestor" (not Hyperion..), but they meant the exact same thing in Roman and Greek eyes, and very early became to be identified with each other. Indeed, they had some cult differences, but the little (or none) info about it that's given here can easily be explained in the same article. The gain of having one myth, literature, art, genealogy (etc.) sections, in my opinion, outweighs the loss of having two write two different sections about "cult" (or most probably, two lines..). Regarding the Parcae-Moirai, I acknowledged they were indeed separate at the beginning (the Parcae were birth spirits), and had a Roman cult (but no Greek one, as much as I know), but here too this difference can be explained in two sentences, while all the rest (again: myth, personification, art) is the same. Btw, the current articles don't mention this difference... Lophostrix (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this list looks pretty good, although I'm not sure if Orcus shouldn't stay separate given the rather strongly developed identity in Roman and Etruscan myth compared with the Greek, in which he was really quite a minor figure. I don't see any problem merging the other individuals; the fact that there may have been different traditions associated with Greek and Roman versions of essentially the same deity doesn't prevent one from using one article and simply distinguishing them in different sections. On a tangent, I would say that "Lady Justice" (ugh, how that name makes me cringe) is usually intended to represent Themis, rather than Dike, unless there's some evidence of the sculptor's intent to render Dike. I'm not convinced that Justitia was ever clearly defined, as opposed to a personified concept or a translation of Themis and/or Dike, so without delving into the existing articles I lean towards merging into both as far as they can be separated. But I would merge "Lady Justice" into Themis with appropriate notation that Dike might be intended in some cases. P Aculeius (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I must state once again my opposition to the whole idea for one fundamental reason: there is no case in which scholarship is agreed that the figures were the same in origin and in cult. Certainly it is impossible to merge the Roman Parcae and the Moirai: their names themselves show they were essentially different. Nona Decima Morta are not at all the same as Atropos Clothos and Lachesis, they are goddesses of life: if something can be said on this, the Greek interpretation is overall pessimistic, as was the the Greek philosophy of life. See what I wrote on the relevant entries. Although Ceres is Demeter (and Proserpina Persephone) they had some different theology, connotations and cults for a long time etc. etc.Aldrasto11 (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Moreover it is the perception of many scholars that Roman religion preserved better the link with its prehistoric antecedent, prehistoric religion, in its figures and their myths, i.e. they have a clear functional significance. See my post above on the toilet god that is unanswered to date.

I would also point out that the equivalent of Concordia is Homonoia, not Harmonia, who is a figure in/of the myth of Cadmos.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

And Mnemosyne has nothing to do with Juno Moneta. Dear friend, ancient religion is a serious and complex topic. Do not broach it unless you are prepared to do a lot of serious research.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm generally against the merges - having looked at a number of the proposed ones I couldn't see any cases where it would really have benefited the articles. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• The more I look into it the more I have to disagree with my previous statements. For all their similarities many gods that were once perhaps the same had been syncretized under the Romans, or even re-purposed to the point of no return. There are still a few cases, such as Herakles and Hercules, both I think are completely one and the same used respectively be the Romans and the Greeks to their own ends. However, even in this case he had evolved too far into the mythology of different cultures that one article wouldn't do the differences any justice. Psychotic Spartan 123 20:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

BC births and deaths categorizations

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests#BC births and deaths categorizations – would people involved in this project care to help out? Please comment there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Castra or castella ?

Hi. I'm trying to add the "instance of" property (P31) on Wikidata for various items imported from the list of scheduled ancient monuments, that are often designated just "Roman fort".

I'd welcome some guidance as to what should be considered a castrum, and what a castellum (and/or whether there are other classes that should be used instead).

For example, am I right in thinking that sites like Derventio Brigantum, Cilurnum, and Vercovicium should all be classified as castella ? Or is that incorrect or over-simplified ?

Ardoch Roman Fort is currently indicated as a castrum. Is that correct ?

Is there a shortlist of sites that should be considered castra, other than placenames now ending in "-chester" ?

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

De laudibus Christi

I've been working on Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi for the past few days. It's one of the first examples of a Christian poem, as well as one of the few extant examples of a poem by a women. I'd love it if anyone wants to look over what I've made. Thanks.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

Could anyone have a look at Draft:Protohistoric Aquitania? It's currently eligible for deletion given it hasn't been edited in a while. Thanks, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

PA on Wikidata

I've proposed on Wikidata a new property for Kirchner's Prosopographia Attica: if you are interested, write here. Thank you, --Epìdosis 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The property has been created: d:Property:P2421. Use it! --Epìdosis 11:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Livilla and Pontius Pilate

Per request on the tasks page I looked into whether or not Livilla ran off to Judaea with Pontius Pilate and I couldn't find anything to verify the claim. In fact I could only find recent (1972 at the earliest with 2015's The Magic Circle: A Novel by Katherine Neville being the most recent) writings to suggest Livilla and Pilate had an affair. In my opinion, Encyclopedia Britannica is lying or just plain wrong.

I don't know who made the request so whoever does let them know. - Psychotic Spartan 123 13:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no sense making absurd accusations against a respected encyclopedia without even determining whether it says something controversial. Britannica.com doesn't identify Pilate's wife by name, or have anything to say about her apart from a brief mention in the Gospel of Matthew. I checked out Eusebius' ecclesiastical history and Josephus, and didn't see anything about his wife. Our article, Pontius Pilate's wife, says that the name "Procula" appears in the Gospel of Nicodemus, around the fourth century. That doesn't support any connection with Tiberius. The name "Claudia" is supposedly derived from Pseudo-Dexter, dated to 1619. Even if there were a reliable source for it, the name alone wouldn't imply a relationship to Tiberius. In his day there were hundreds, if not thousands of Claudii throughout the empire, and they couldn't all have been close relatives of the emperor. P Aculeius (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't making a statement about the Encyclopedia Britannica - personally I find much of it's content preferable to ours; I meant only that the information about Livilla having an affair with Pontius Pilate and escaping Rome to go to Judea is probably inaccurate. Although she might have had an affair with Pilate there is no evidence to suggest she ever married him, or that she herself was "Procula" or "Saint Claudia". To clarify, his wife might have been Livilla, but I think it's unlikely. Psychotic Spartan 123 23:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the Britannica is neither lying nor wrong; it doesn't seem to make any assertion about Livilla and Pontius Pilate. From the above, I'm guessing that it's the invention of a novelist, such as the aforementioned Ms. Neville, who never claimed it as historical fact. Just because somebody cites the Britannica doesn't mean that the "fact" cited is there! P Aculeius (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

From the wording of the request he made it sound as though he was of the belief that Livilla might have escaped Rome with Pontius Pilate. I wasn't asserting that anything Ms. Neville wrote was factual, only that recent fiction writings including hers are the only works that mention Pilate and Livilla in the same breath. Here are the facts: Livilla was married to Drusus Julius Caesar who was poisoned in 24 (according to Cassius Dio, History of Rome LVII. 22). Once Sejanus fell from power in 31 he was executed and Livilla died (sources disagree on method of death), therefore Livilla couldn't have escaped to Judea with Pontius Pilate who had been in Judea since at least 26 to 36.

Regarding Britannica Online, I take back my remark as the article says nothing of the kind regarding Pilate and Livilla. In fact, it doesn't even mention Livilla. I must have confused one of my sources as I was writing. Psychotic Spartan 123 01:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's because the fellow who asked the question cited to it. Not clear why. P Aculeius (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The person who asked was an IP.[1] I'm not sure if that means we should go ahead and remove it or not. Psychotic Spartan 123 18:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Post Virgilian Latin Pastoral Poetry

Hi. I'm new to this. As my first project, I decided to write new entries for: the Eclogues of Calpurnius, Eclogues of Nemesianus and Einsiedeln Eclogues. I also revised the biog pages for Calpurnius Siculus and Nemesianus, as they were previously cut and pasted from the old edition of the Britannica. I hope my contributions prove useful.

Anyway: now that I've had my fun, it would be great if others could check out and improve the new pages.

Moreover, any suggestions for my next project are welcome! Best regards Charles CHRM2 (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Poena cullei

This GA (good article) has a big problem with the history of its subject: cf. leges regiae, my translation with addition and corrections of lex regia of wiki.it. I left a note on the talk page of poena cullei, hope somebody can deal with the matter as I have no intention to argue with the editors.10:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)The system does not work, I cannot sign: I am Aldrasto11.

Hello ‎Aldrasto11, what do you think is the issue with the article? Nev1 (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The poena cullei was established by Numa Pompilius according to leges regiae, and in use since then. Please read the article.Aldrasto11 (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Pseudologoi?

Our article Pseudologoi claims they were the "gods of lies". I can find no reliable sources for any such group of gods, and I think the article probably needs to be deleted, please see Talk:Pseudologoi. Paul August ☎ 18:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Daimones, perhaps. Or personifications, maybe. See this page of google scholar results. Even so, I doubt they're worth an article of their own. List-worthy, but otherwise what's to be said of them? Haploidavey (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

On second thoughts... looks like the promotion of abstract nouns to deities, via Capital Letters. Again. Haploidavey (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pseudologoi

The article Pseudologoi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No relaible source can be found to support the existence of such a proper name, see talk page.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Paul August ☎ 13:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Ancient Greek Law

As many of the people know, the Ancient Greek Law page needs a whole lot of editing. It is written like an opinion and personal reflection. It also has no sources cited. Looking for information other that Athenian Law. I am looking for people to help me rewrite and fix this problem. Head to my talk for more info. You can also note that you will help here or at my talk. Thanks! Unoriginalkid (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Grc incubator project

Dear Classical Greece and Rome members, there is currently an ongoing proposal to have an ancient greek wikipedia created, so if interested you are welcomed to participate and share your thoughts, as well as participate in the actual incubator wiki. Best regards. Gts-tg (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Translation help

Hi! Could someone whose Greek is a little less rusty than mine kindly help with a translation of "ἱπποσκοπικόν βιβλίον θαυμάσιον" (a description that was used of the work of Simon of Athens)? I know roughly what the root words of ἱπποσκοπικόν mean, but can't pull them together. I'd be grateful for any help. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Try "a wonderful book about the examination of horses". Andrew Dalby 13:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

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

• 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 the list 33 kb. 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. Please comment at Talk:List of Roman theatres, not here. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Aion (deity)

This article has some good bits and has some bad ones. Yesterday I removed a section which read

Aion, also called Aeon is identified as the Logos in Hermetism; GRS Mead confirms that there is no distinction between the Logos and God: "...if the Logos or Æon is momentarily treated of as apart from Supreme Deity, it is not so in reality; for the Logos is the Season of God, God in His eternal Energy, and the Æon is the Eternity of Deity, God in His energic Eternity, the Rest that is the Source of all Motion."[4]"

This sounds to me like nonsense, and the source is a book from the late 19th century by a theosophist. But another editor has restored it on the grounds that Mead is a reliable source, so I thought I would seek a second opinion. Furius (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It is sufficiently nonsensical even to be pretty useless as a source for Aion in Theosophism. I have deleted it and will keep the page on my watchlist for a while. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Théâtre_antique_d'Orange#Requested_move_26_March_2016

French or English name? Comments welcome. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

"Mercury"

The usage and primary topic of "Mercury" is under discussion, see Talk:Mercury (planet) -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Archaic Greece

I've just been through the first stage of some much-needed improvements to the article on archaic Greece. The article is now marginally longer (actually just over 1000 words), has lost some of the cruft (for instance, shedding 2.5kb of "important people" who were mostly not important enough to merit a mention elsewhere in the article [2]), and has gained a few sections/subsections which were not there before (on Sparta, trade, and military developments during the period).

I would be very grateful if anyone interested would take a look and reassess it; the article before I got to it was languishing at start class (one of only six "top importance" articles at that level!), and I think it's no longer deserving of that dubious honour; though as I have sunk large portions of the last week or two into rewriting the entire thing pretty much from scratch, I'm not sure how objective I am!

Caveats:

The areas covered by the article is so far largely unchanged. There are two major and conspicuous gaps:

1. Any mention of women whatsoever
2. Anything on religion

Other things it doesn't mention but might stand to include, but are not limited to: the development of coinage, pre-Socratic philosophy, the Olympics, the development of calendars based on office-holder lists, and symposia.

Also, it is somewhat patchy in its coverage: Sparta gets a single paragraph; Athens five (and still it doesn't yet cover the Pisistratids or Cleisthenes!).

It's currently very dependent on only one or two sources for each section.

Even if you are not interested in Greece/the archaic world, I'd love any comments on how the article can be improved; I plan to continue working on it with the aim of getting it up to GA eventually. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Input needed at Rhamnous

Specifically, the dedication of the smaller temple at the site. Mangoe (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Tatiana: diminutive?

Tatiana is a female name of Sabine and Latin origin, a feminine diminutive of the Sabine-Latin name Tatius.

Was –an– indeed used to form diminutives? I'm aware of at least one non-diminutive use for –an– in names. —Tamfang (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think it was a diminutive, so I changed the word in the article text to "derivative", which can hardly be wrong. Roman names wth this -an- suffix usually originate through adoption: a "Tatianus" would be a former member of gens Tatia (hence formerly called "Tatius") adopted into another gens; the "Tatiana" from whom the forename derives, would have been a daughter or relative of such a "Tatianus". But that's all extrapolation from similar cases, and I wouldn't write more on the page without a source. Andrew Dalby 13:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Historia Augusta review?

Hi - For the last couple of weeks I've been working on the Augustan History page, focused especially on updating it with the latest research and findings. I'm keen to take this on to WP:GA status, but as I've been so immersed in it, I don't know if I'm overlooking something obvious. It would be nice if fresh sets of eyes could look it over and see how it reads and tweak where necessary. Thanks! Oatley2112 (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Plutarch

The Senate House Library has an exhibition about Shakespeare and has produced some video content to go with it. I talked to them and they are happy to release a couple of videos under a CC-BY-NC licence. As far as I can tell, for Wikipedia this essentially means a fair use rationale would have be used.

I thought the video about Plutarch's Lives would fit nicely with the article on Plutarch himself and the lives. It's less than a minute long. Does that sound reasonable? Would there be an issue with using fair use rationales for those articles? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This is very cool of the Senate House Library. I think the video itself would go on commons (or wikisource?), but could be linked to from the Plutarch page? It doesn't seem normal to have videos actually embedded in articles? But maybe someone more versed in the ways of the wiki (User:Johnbod?), will know otherwise? Furius (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think Commons explicitly excludes media with a Creative Commons Non-Commercial aspect as it's not completely open. Technically Wikipedia doesn't either, but fair use would be permitted which if I've understood correctly means we could still use the short video clip as long as it is only on a small number of articles and each one comes with a Fair Use rationale. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Embedded videos are now quite common in articles, and generally accepted. Smarthistory's ones in particular - see David (Michelangelo) and this search. Usually best low down. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a very neat approach, thank you for pointing it out. I've given it a go on Plutarch's article under the influence section. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Assistance please at Antonia the Elder

I would like some help and input on improving Antonia the Elder, section Progeny. The last paragraph doesn't appear to have a NPOV, instead seeming biased toward Gaius Stern and Sir Ronald Syme, and focuses on explaining and arguing in favor of the views of Stern and Syme. Thanks! Chickadee46 (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Having looked at the article, I would personally remove those two paragraphs, starting with "Many scholars think..." If this "debate" belongs anywhere, it should sit in the Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus (consul 32) article. That being said, these paragraphs are argumentative and lack narrative flow, as do sections of the Ahenobarbus article, with opinion (Stern's) masquerading as hard fact. So comments such as "First of all, the young Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus was born after the monument was completed. He cannot possibly be on the Ara Pacis." is taking as its basis an assumed date of birth in 2 BCE, whereas there are contrary scholarly views that he was born around 18 BCE (which stem from an explicit statement by Suetonius about Ahenobarbus' presence alongside Gaius Caesar during his eastern expedition). Given that Stern was the editor who added these sections in 2011, and was basing it on his own work (notwithstanding his expertise in this area), I think it currently fails the NPOV test. Oatley2112 (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible article split

There is a new discussion of possibly splitting the article: Perpetua and Felicity. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Revising the List(s) of Roman consuls

This is a project I've been mulling for several months, & I know that despite how I approach it I'm going to anger someone. But it badly needs to be done. The principal issues are these:

• For the most part, this list lacks a proper source. (And neither are the lists on the German, French & Italian Wikipedias -- but that's no excuse.) Not only does this run afoul of standard Wikipedia policies, it makes it difficult not only to catch subtle vandalism & inserted original research but difficult to keep up-to-date with the latest Classical research. Furthermore, there is also the issue that if you have some idea how the consular lists have been created, you will want to know why the list(s) on Wikipedia(s) vary from the one you are familiar with. Which is not evident. And lastly, I suspect I know where the information for this page came from, & it was not a reliable source. FWIW, I have been doing research on pulling together reliable sources for this list, & a sample of what I've done -- complete with the problems I'm facing -- can be found at User:Llywrch/List of Consuls notes. (Please don't edit, at the moment I'm just setting out the materials to figure out how big of a project this will be.)
• Some of the names expected aren't there. For example, in AD 190 there were 25 consuls for the year -- just one more thing Commodus & his minister did that led to his murder -- but only four are listed. Actually some parts of this list would arguably be better presented as their own pages, such as the consuls for the Year of Four Emperors (you have four different would-be rulers naming officials -- yes, this does lead to a mess), one on Varronian chronology (that redirect by that name honestly shouldn't be pointing to this article), & one on how Roman historians created the earliest sections of this list (one modern authority mused that the parts before 300 BC are closer to historical fiction than actual history).
• At over 200k in size, this page is way too big to manage. And just adding links to all the notable personages would easily increase its length by 50%; there are about 3000 consuls, consular tribunes, & suffect consuls one could write an article about, & the vast majority of them are arguably notable. (Currently there are almost 1200 such articles.) Back in the primitive times of the early Wikipedia, I created this list in three pages: one for the Roman Republic, the second for the Early Empire, & the last for the Late Empire. Then another editor came along & made them into a single page. I notice that the French & Italian Wikipedias have divided their list into three pages of similar size, linked together from a more-or-less introductory page. Only the German Wikipedia has a single page, although it is more organized & better groomed than ours.
• Of course, splitting this page up raises questions. Two or three pages? If there are two (or more) pages for the Empire, how do we split up the list? (Specifically, does the Early Empire end at AD 235? 240? 260? 283?) And the inclusion of the Republican Dictators is pretty inconsistent. I'm indifferent about including/excluding any of them, even the fictitious dictators of the late 4th century -- see the footnote I added to the page on them -- but IMHO we should be consistent in what is done.
• On a related note, should a list on the Republican consuls be named "List of Republican Roman consuls" or "List of Roman Republican consuls". I feel equally uncomfortable with either.
• On another related note, the navigation templates used to link consuls together really wasn't designed with our needs in mind. There are about a dozen different implementations of the templates. (And I probably am responsible for half of them.) I'm thinking hard about whether to convince the maintainers to make needed modifications, or learn how to make the changes myself. (I do know something about computers & programming.)

And there are a few other issues I could grouse about. But these six points are the ones I need & welcome input about. Either here, the article Talk page, or my Talk page. -- llywrch (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with much of what Llwrch has stated, but at this time I would simply add an additional item for consideration: any additions or modifications to the list of consuls would potentially require an adjustment to be made at the List of undated Roman consuls article. So for instance, a number of the suffect consuls for AD 190 may be present in the undated list, and so if we expand the suffects for 190, then we would need to ensure they were removed from the other list. But note that we may end up with one source stating that person 'X' was a suffect in 190, where another source may state that person 'X' was a suffect consul for a period in or around 190, or even sometime during the reign of Commodus, so identifying which source we use over another is also a vital component of this exercise. Oatley2112 (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You make a good point about keeping that list up to date, one I hadn't considered. (Although when I last looked at that page, I did think of adding names from the lists of undated consuls Paul Gallivan ends his articles on consular lists for certain reigns of the 1st century.) I'd consider this part of the general clean-up, & at the end if there were any undated consuls still outstanding, add those to that page. (I figure both pages will continue to see updates & revisions for a long time; suffect consuls are still being identified, & I doubt there will be an end to this identification soon.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I meant to work on this back when I was more active, but kept putting it off since making pages for various gentes was taking up enough time and energy. I agree with finding the best sources for attribution. Broughton is a good source, and I think we should go with him as far as possible, but make notes on variant traditions or disagreements by other scholars (to say nothing of additional consuls that Broughton might not have known about, if supported by other evidence). I don't think the page should be split up, but the presentation could certainly be better. I would like to jettison the distinction between "first" and "second" consuls. The consul article doesn't even mention anything along the lines of one consul generally having greater authority than the other; in fact that would run contrary to the principle of the dual consulship, and even if there were some sort of nominal deference, including it in the table as is suggests something much more significant; i.e. undue weight to what probably can't even be attested in most cases.

As far as what should be included, I suggest either A) only consuls (and consular tribunes down to 367 BC), or B) the foregoing plus all of the major magistrates (dictators, magisters equitum, interreges, censors, and emperors). A) would be more compact, and we could keep the others separate; including the other major magistrates would make the title misleading and turn this into a chronology. That's not a bad thing in itself, but it's not what the page was designed to be. For a really nice example of what a chronology of this type looks like, see this table from the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. III: it's not perfect, and it's not exactly what we need here, but it's very well presented and might suggest some ideas for related chronological tables on Wikipedia. In fact, this table was what first got me interested in Roman magistrates, some twenty years ago.

As you note, there's no great hurry to get this done; we could take our time and perhaps try designing some possible presentation formats. I'd still like to take a crack at it, although I have other projects currently taking up my attention. P Aculeius (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Broughton is a good source -- although I've flirted with using A. Degrassi's two works instead, & would seriously consider them could I read Italian -- but AFAIK Broughton only covers the Republican period. Which makes that part simple to complete. For the Imperial period, one would need to patch together a number of secondary sources due to ongoing identification of suffect consuls. For example, although I've identified several articles that cover the Principate, they were published around 1980, a generation ago, & scholars like Werner Eck have been improving on the results of those articles; the challenge is to either accept information that is reliably sourced but likely outdated, or accept information that has no source but is likely to be up-to-date. (And I can provide a few examples of what I mean.)

The issue of "first" & "second" consul is a more subtle one, one of prestige: the first consul was considered the senior member of the pair, & in Republican times when the 2 consuls alternated command, he would take the first month of the year. (This is based on Lily Ross Taylor & T. Robert S. Broughton, "The Order of the Two Consuls' Names in the Yearly Lists", Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 19 (1949), pp. 1-14.) So the order is important for the Republican period, although having the titles at the top is not. As for Imperial times, we do need some way to indicate which consul was selected by the court in the West & which by the court at Constantinople, which appears to be the case starting in AD 395 although it may have started a decade or two before. (Based on Bagnall, et alia, Consuls of the later Roman Empire (1987), pp. 13ff)

But as for layout, here is where I find a good reason to divide the two. The Republican series of consuls lends itself to this kind of simple & clean layout: the variant readings from ancient sources (e.g. Licinius Macer's claim that according to the Libri Lintei the consuls for 444 BC were L. Papirius Mugillanus & L. Sempronius Attranus) can then be moved to footnotes. No more lines reading "L. (or Proc.) Verginius Tricostus" with no clue where the variants come from. But for the Imperial series of consuls, the confusion of suffect consuls -- attested, deducted, or presumed -- do not work so well. Sometimes the suffect consuls succeeded each other in orderly pairs; sometimes one would be replaced before the other, leading to many challenges in documentation & tabular formatting. And then there is the record 25 consuls of AD 190. It's almost a relief that by AD 300 suffect consuls can no longer be documented. But I agree with you that keeping the lists in some kind of columnar order, while keeping the footnotes to a minimum. My guideline is that with one exception only information that can't be justified being moved to the person's article itself should appear in the footnotes on this page, & that exception is indicating to the reader (& future editors) where it's clear nothing is known of the consul beyond his name. (This is the case for some persons before 300 BC & in the last century of the consulate.)

Anyway, these are my thoughts. The easiest part to fix up will be the Republican series because of Broughton's book, although I expect there will be a few changes to his information. -- llywrch (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Re the names of articles if they are split up, how about "List of consuls of the Roman Republic" and "List of consuls of the Roman Empire"? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I can live with that. -- llywrch (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

And they should overlap slightly. Consuls of the Republic can extend to 31, or even 23 BC; Consuls of the Empire can begin where the problems begin, in 49 or 44. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There are at least two distinct purposes of a list of consuls. Perhaps, for the Empire, a list of ordinary consuls, for those of us who just want the official Roman date, with a cross-reference to list or lists of suffect consuls? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This is true - if I come across a source referring to the year of Caesar and Paulus, say, it would be a pain to have to search two separate lists. But, I might equally come across a source referring to the consul then in office - in that case having the suffecti somewhere else (or in several somewhere elses) is not brilliantly helpful either... Furius (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

One of the surprising things I discovered as I dug further into this was that for the first century -- & at least much of the second -- people did use the names of the suffect consuls to date documents. The best example are military diplomas, which is how the names of many of them have been recovered. And yes, the ordinary consuls were also used thru the entire year. The ancient Romans were just as inconsistent as we moderns. (I'm wondering if using background colors might help with users separating ordinary & suffect consuls; this is what is done on it.wikipedia. That way we'd be maintaining only one list, & avoiding the complication of keeping two lists in sync.)

But now for something different. I've begun comparing the Republican consuls to the fist volume of Broughton's list of magistrates, & found that our list follows it pretty closely (although I found a number of copying mistakes which are easily fixed), closely enough that I believe someone used it in the past. Much better than where I worried this list had come from. So at least that part of this list is reliable & almost sourced. -- llywrch (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a tool on Visual Editor to add open license text from other sources

Hi all

I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

List(s) of Roman consuls, update 1

To provide an update, I've managed to work thru all of the Republican consuls, & although I haven't added any citations, it's fair to say that list is accurate, more or less: there are a few errors, which can be explained as typos, & a few places where the difference between the present list & that of a reliable source (Broughton for most of it, the one Symes published in his The Augustan Aristocracy (1986), & one published in Chiron by E. Badian in 1990) is minor -- the order of a few pairs of consuls, one set where the suffect is confused with the ordinaris he replaced, & one suspect suffect consul that Badian includes (while tagging it as suspect) but the others omit. (Which will go into a footnote.)

As for the Imperial consuls, while I haven't focused on those from the third-century on yet -- I'm not expecting those to be an issue -- I am faced with the problem of tracking down recent reliable sources for the suffect consuls of the first two centuries; for a large chunk of the reign of Tiberius, the only reliable source I've been able to find is dated to 1955, & only contains the names & years of office. (It looks as if the choice is between having a list that is reliably sourced but possibly out of date, or a list that is possibly up to date but not reliably sourced.)

Another issue is my own limitations: the only languages useful for this project that I can read passably are English, German, & Latin & Old English. While most of the research on Roman consuls is published in German (probably more than is published in English), a fair amount is also published in French & Italian -- which I can't access unless I can run the text thru a translation service such as Babelfish, Bing Translator, or Google Translate. Mikythos kindly pointed me to a recent paper on academia.edu in Italian with some new proposed entries, but because the pdf consisted of encapsulated image files, all I could do was to look at all the information I couldn't use, & wait until it was available in JSTOR a few years down the road. But despite appearances, I am working on this, I hope to soon add the needed citation tags to this list. -- llywrch (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem I am having is that we might not know all of the consul suffectus', but we do know many of their names and dates. The ones whose dates we do know are very useful and can really narrow down many dates. For example, in a recent article of mine, Lucius Fulcinius Trio, I knew he died early 35 AD based on who was consul suffectus and not on who was consul ordinaris that year. Perhaps it's not important to know what part of the year he died in, but it is nice to be able to do so. Every little bit of precision in dating helps. So I hope we can at least keep the consul ordinaris in the in the same list as the consul suffects and, if necessary, resort to color coding as in the Italian Wikipedia. With regards, Psychotic Spartan 123 05:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

As for the distinction between Republican consuls and Imperial ones with different pages, I do not oppose and think it's a wonderful idea. Psychotic Spartan 123 05:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with keeping the suffecti together with the others. Will be glad to help with colour coding. Nothing's duller than a grey table, but colours have to be handled carefully. I tried to use subtle greens for the revised list of dictators and magistri equitum. P Aculeius (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Titus GAR

Titus, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Roman And Byzantine Military History

Hello, I am currently working on a small (I am the only active member as of now) task force within the military history WP, I would like to invite anyone interested in either Roman or Byzantine Military History, to work on the project with me. Here is the Link Incase you are interested, thank you. Iazyges (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)