Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Guides/Primary sources

Notes, References and Sources

Usually we have Notes heading explanatory and discursive footnotes, often conveniently generated by {{efn}} and {{notelist}}, and References for citations, with Sources if required to support References. It varies; Sulla collects Citations, Modern sources and Ancient sources under References. Here we've got the citations under Notes and the sources under References. Could we avoid "Notes" here? NebY (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Changed it to reflect the structure at Sulla. Ifly6 (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slight restructure for beginners?

Rather than showing the author-date and author-work styles together, could we separate them with a little explanation? Something along these lines:

Standard short referencing produces citations that show author and date, thus:

Markup

Renders as

Sallust, in the Jugurthine War, relates that Jugurtha said that Rome was "a city for sale and doomed to speedy destruction if it finds a purchaser!"{{sfn|Sallust|1921|loc=35.10}}

=== References ===
==== Citations ====
{{reflist|20em}}

==== Sources ====
{{refbegin}}
* {{Cite book |author=Sallust |author-link=Sallust |chapter=Bellum Iugurthinum |title=Sallust |series=Loeb Classical Library |year=1921 |orig-year=1st century BC |translator-first=John C |translator-last=Rolfe |ref= }}

Sallust, in the Jugurthine War, relates that Jugurtha said that Rome was "a city for sale and doomed to speedy destruction if it finds a purchaser!"^[1]

References

Citations

^ Sallust 1921, 35.10.

Sources

Sallust (1921) [1st century BC]. "Bellum Iugurthinum". Sallust. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by Rolfe, John C.

This is often inappropriate for ancient primary sources (Sallust didn't write in 2015), but we can put our desired text in the reference for the source, here as |ref={{harvid|Plut. ''Ti. Gracch.''}}

Markup

Renders as

Plutarch claims that Tiberius Gracchus was one of the first to scale the walls of Carthage during the [[Third Punic War]].{{sfn|Plut. ''Ti. Gracch.''|loc=4.5}} One Fannius also claimed to be the first.{{sfn|Plut. ''Ti. Gracch.''|loc=4.5}} ... Bad auspices are alleged in Plutarch on the day Tiberius sought re-election.<ref>Bad auspices reported at {{harvnb|Plut. ''Ti. Gracch.''|loc=17.1}}: "At break of day there came to the house the man who brought the birds with which auspices are taken, and threw food before them. But the birds would not come out of the cage."</ref>

=== References ===
==== Citations ====
{{reflist|20em}}

==== Sources ====
{{refbegin}}
* {{Cite book |author=Plutarch |chapter=Life of Tiberius Gracchus |title=Parallel Lives |series=Loeb Classical Library |year=1921 |orig-year=2nd century AD |volume=10 |translator-first=Bernadotte |translator-last=Perrin |ref={{harvid|Plut. ''Ti. Gracch.''}} }}
{{refend}}

Plutarch claims that Tiberius Gracchus was one of the first to scale the walls of Carthage during the Third Punic War.^[1] One Fannius also claimed to be the first.^[1] ... Bad auspices are alleged in Plutarch on the day Tiberius sought re-election.^[2]

References

Citations

^ ^a ^b Plut. Ti. Gracch., 4.5.
^ Bad auspices reported at Plut. Ti. Gracch., 17.1: "At break of day there came to the house the man who brought the birds with which auspices are taken, and threw food before them. But the birds would not come out of the cage."

Sources

Plutarch (1921) [2nd century AD]. "Life of Tiberius Gracchus". Parallel Lives. Loeb Classical Library. Vol. 10. Translated by Perrin, Bernadotte.

NebY (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

discussion continued

NebY I really like that. If you want to effect the edit, do go ahead! (Edit.) It may be worthwhile to do the same example with the change; ie here omit Sallust and produce largely according Plut Ti Gracch references. Ifly6 (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got in a mess of incomplete duplications and no-wiki tags the first time I tried it, but I can happily try again - soon! NebY (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a moment so I omitted Sallust and set up according versions to compare the versions. Ifly6 (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good - clearer than I'd planned. The Table of Contents looked strange to me, with Reference, Citations and Sources repeated at fairly high levels, so I've tried setting them deeper and applying {{TOC limit}}, and tweaked this page a little too; strange things were happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NebY (talk • contribs) 15:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the rendered side to use {{fake heading}}, I think those issues should be solved now. Ifly6 (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, another one for the toolkit. NebY (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fragments

@T8612: I'm under the impression that you know more about TJ Cornell's Fragments than I do. I think there's a similar Fragments for Greek historians too. If you're interested, I think it would be a nice contribution to explain how those are cited in the literature. (Edit.) And as to the recently extended § Coins, I think you're definitely the expert on that matter. Ifly6 (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifly6: I could write something on Greek fragments and how they are usually cited if you would like. The most comprehensive resource on Greek fragmentary historians is the BNJ, but general guidance on how to cite fragments would also apply to Hesiod, Euripides, Pindar, etc., and to editions such as the PMG and TrGF, etc. What would you like to be included? (This page seems to mostly be Rome-focused, but fragments of Roman authors might be cited in the same way as Greek authors?) – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Aurel: I suspect that the focus on Rome at the moment is because Ifly is more of a romanist than a hellenist, rather than because the page is meant to be particularly Rome focused. For the lyric fragments this paper might be useful further reading; it's aimed at people teaching undergrads but the interested amateurs who make up much of wikipedia's editorship probably have much the same difficulties discussed there. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that was the case, regarding the focus on Rome. Reading that article makes me think that linking a resource such the Müller-Jacoby Table of Concordance might be useful, given the confusing nature of differing numberings. For our section here, a good starting point would be to include some general advice on making sure to specify which edition or numbering is being used, to avoid ancient and out-of-date editions, what, for example, "fr." and "fr. 3 Most = fr. 2 Merkelbach-West" mean, not to use cryptic methods of referring to fragments (e.g. "OF 6 B"), and so forth. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the addition of all that stuff would be very valuable. General guidance on fragments would be helpful for parsing stuff with Greek historians just as it would be with the more recent Fragments of the Roman Historians. Caecilius has it right inasmuch as the current text is slanted hugely toward Roman studies because I largely focus there. It is not purposeful. Ifly6 (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sounds good. I will add something soon. – Michael Aurel (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with a knowledge of Roman fragmentary authors could modify or expand what I've written if needs be, or insert a few Roman examples so the section isn't so Greek-centric. Otherwise, another possible avenue for expansion could be a section on artistic sources. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheatsheet for shortened footnotes

I was contemplating adding an example of using |loc=[URL section] to provide specific links, but I've already struggled to see the essential adjustments in the current guide and one more example might break me. So I've tried a cheatsheet-style table; as it turns out, it does work for me and maybe it would for others. It's at User:NebY/sandbox/referencing. If you like it, should we include it in the guide? NebY (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been aware that this is supported for some time. I don't do it though, largely because the URLs add a lot of cruft that is difficult for humans to parse in the Wikitext editor. Just my "two cents". Ifly6 (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a reader or watchlist-reviewer, I appreciate those links, but as an editor not so much - the usual wikiproblem. Apart from that, is your feeling that a cheatsheet table isn't helpful? NebY (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think a table would be a nice way to display the various syntaxes etc. I just wouldn't want to take action which would increase the chance that articles become plastered with link cruft. Ifly6 (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like other syntaxes added to the table in User:NebY/sandbox/referencing? NebY (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where there is a specific cite template for an ancient source you can somewhat avoid the horrible wikitext problem:
{{harvnb|Iliad|loc={{Iliad|en|2|3|4}}}} gets you Iliad, 2.3-4
(see Category:Specific-source templates and its subcat Category:Perseus Project templates for more options). But that does only work where such a template has been implemented for the particular source you want to use. Usually better for them to just use the |url= parameter in the {{cite}} template. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[FOOTNOTESallust192135.10-1] Sallust 1921, 35.10.

[FOOTNOTEPlut._''Ti._Gracch.''4.5-2] Plut. Ti. Gracch., 4.5.

[3] Bad auspices reported at Plut. Ti. Gracch., 17.1: "At break of day there came to the house the man who brought the birds with which auspices are taken, and threw food before them. But the birds would not come out of the cage."

[1]

[1]

[2]