Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 (Nov 2006-Apr 2007) Archive 3 (May 2007-Sep 2007) Archive 4 (Sep 2007–Aug 2008)

Hi. I'd welcome some input at Talk:Battle_of_Thermopylae#More_Info.21 where there's debate over what size army should be added to the infobox at the battle's article.

I'm concerned by what appears to me to be a flawed OR analysis of an orginal source. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I have requested a peer review of Philitas of Cos. Eubulides ( talk) 20:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello all. I've just come across the stub article sparagmos and would like to ask if someone from the project would be kind enough to add the original term written in the Greek alphabet, please. It's just a stub, so if anyone has anything to add to it, that'd be great. Many thanks, DionysosProteus ( talk) 20:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I've added the Greek. Wareh ( talk) 15:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Many thanks, DionysosProteus ( talk) 01:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I have recently developed the stub on the battle of corinth, but i don't know whether or not it can be considered an proper article yet. Please check it out and let me know what you think about it.

Murphy321 ( talk) 21:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I nominated Philitas of Cos as a featured article candidate; comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philitas of Cos. Eubulides ( talk) 03:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear all, I'm hoping you'll be able to resolve a debate for me: how is Alcestis pronounced? Actors I know seem to have a tradition of pronouncing it "al-SES-tis" but I'm assuming that "al-KES-tis" is the Greek version. Could anyone add a pronunciation guide to the article? Many thanks, DionysosProteus ( talk) 19:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The first is the long-established and traditional English pronunciation. Those who use the second pronunciation (unless they are speaking Latin) would also use the transliterated spelling Alkestis. However, even Classicists who favor the second spelling system in their publications usually refer to this play by the first pronunciation; it is one of those extremely familiar names like Achilles or Thucydides that resists tinkering. The article, so long as it carries its current title, should give the first pronunciation; I think the transliteration Alkēstis given adequately indicates how those who use the hybrid Greek-English pronunciations would say the word. Wareh ( talk) 12:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I've added a link to the entry for the Greek word on Wiktionary, which has a pronunciation section. While I agree with Wareh that the traditional English pronunciation should be the one presented in the entry, I imagine some users would like to know the grc pronunciation, and this allows a clear method of presenting that info. Atelaes ( talk) 00:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. I have just carried out a major edit of Sparta. I would appreciate comments. Thanks. Lexo ( talk) 00:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Can anyone tell me what the building is in the middle of this picture? This is the Roman Forum with the Temple of Castor and Pollux to the right. The building is at 41°53′28.48″N 12°29′8.02″E / 41.8912444°N 12.4855611°E / 41.8912444; 12.4855611 and the picture was taken from the northeast. Thanks! — Wknight94 ( talk) 04:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

This article has suffered much vandalism in the past. Some people now consider that this is an npov article stating that Ploutarch is an unreliable and non neutral historic(?). Its really bad to see how nationalism can infiltrate in a encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexikoua ( talk • contribs) 22:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC) -- Alexikoua ( talk) 22:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Someone is playing like a child with reliable sources. The article will remain without these out of the question signs, until someone has something serious to argue with(and I dont mean nationalistic, racist arguments that just a person's nationality makes him unreliable) Alexikoua ( talk) 19:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:JMG242.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

The History of Sparta was given a start rating a couple of years ago. Can someone give it a look over to check whether it has improved since then. Thanks. Dejvid ( talk) 12:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I could use some input from any interested experts at Roman consul. Specifically, a debate over a date/period to apply the title in a historically accurate fashion, as opposed to Hypatus, or just plain old Consul. This gets into, essentially, the last Byzantine consul who would also have been considered a legitimate Roman consul. Thanks. Hiberniantears ( talk) 20:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

User:Lucretius/Aristophanes and the coal basket I've recently created this userbox featuring an Aristophanic plea for tolerance (quoted from 'The Acharnians'). Others might be interested in adopting it. I am thinking of creating other Aristophanic userboxes, depending on interest/motivation etc. Maybe there is already some kind of project for classical userboxes. Lucretius ( talk) 00:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC) User:Lucretius/Aristophanes and the dung beetle Here is another one - this time a plea for co-operation (quoted from 'Peace'). I haven't worked out how to adjust for colour. I've used the English paraphrase as a link to a page that explains the context. Lucretius ( talk) 21:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC) User:Lucretius/Aristophanes and the clouds Here is the 3rd (and last?) in the present series. The link explains the context and in turn provides other links to Aristophanes and The Clouds. I think this is not a bad way to promote awareness of aspects of classical literature and language and maybe 'we' (who's that?) can create a collection of boxes for many different authors. Anyhow, it's worth a thought. Lucretius ( talk) 22:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC) User:Lucretius/Aristophanes and the victory song This is definitely the last one I'll post here. Like the others it links to one of my own sandboxes with an explanation of the context. Ideally all these userboxes should be in a 'neutral' or public space. If you notice the vocative is missing it's because this is not actually quoting Archilochus but Aristophanes echoing Archilochus. And by the way, she's a good looking girl! Looks spookily like Princess Dianna (the face). Lucretius ( talk) 03:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I've now created a new userbox category 'Classical Latin and Greek Literature' (here: Wikipedia:Userboxes) under the general category 'Interests and hobbies'. So far it only features quotes from Aristophanes but hopefully other contributors will add to it. The use of memorable quotes and subpage/sandbox links should greatly expand the reach and utility of the userboxes, I think. Lucretius ( talk) 23:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply

The two articles, Lysicles and Lysicles (general), need disambiguation. They refer to Athenian commanders who appear to have lived in the 5th and 4th centuries BC, respectively. I think it best to rename the first article Lysicles (5th century BC) and the second article Lysicles (4th century BC), with a disambiguation page listing both. Any better ideas, or shall I proceed with the move? - Canglesea ( talk) 19:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Sounds good, and there are no impeding articles. I would just do it. Do you want help? -- Una Smith ( talk) 19:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Okay, if you will create the DAB page, I'll rename the articles. Canglesea ( talk) 21:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Sure. Just move the current article from Lysicles. -- Una Smith ( talk) 22:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Done. At this moment, there are just 4 incoming links needing disambiguation. -- Una Smith ( talk) 22:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Looks like those links are via a template, which has already been fixed; it can take a while for Wikipedia's internal indexing to catch up. -- Una Smith ( talk) 22:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Could somebody who knows Roman History check the edits made by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.18.119.54? I'm not sure what they're doing is vandalism or is actually improving these articles. Little Red Riding Hood talk 02:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Tricky. Particularly since some of these articles are of extremely un-notable Romans. But they do need checking (and deleting altogether in some cases). -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Transferred from the Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) page to a page where there's slightly more chance that some action will result. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I have glanced through the article Lucius Seius Strabo. I think all the changes were (certainly or probably) improvements. The anonymous contributor

1. removed the alternative name Lucius Aelius Strabo, which was a howler;
2. removed some irrelevant material that belonged in other articles;
3. improved the phraseology, and, more important,
4. made it much clearer what are facts and what are uncertain deductions.

On this basis (I don't have time to look at other articles) the contributor is a good historian whose fault is not to have realised that it's better to have an account, and better to explain major changes on talk pages.

The article has meanwhile been reverted to its previous mediocre state. And rew D alby 18:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for checking, Andrew. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply

"Mediocre" incidentally was an unfair term, as I see after re-reading more carefully. But I think User:Steerpike, who initially reverted the article, now agrees with me that the changes were improvements. And rew D alby 20:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks to all, I wasn't sure if they were good edits, or not.  :) Little Red Riding Hood talk 00:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply

A few days ago, a whole host of biographies of ancient people got uploaded to Wikipedia from 67.111.218.66. There have been other changes since from other IP numbers and new user names. They are not all to do with Ancient Greece and Rome, but a lot of them are. By the looks of the conversation on Talk:Guo Shoujing, there may be a class project to "improve" certain pages on Wikipedia. Presumably a teacher has handed obscure historical figures to pupils as a project. Among the pages in Classical Greece and Rome affected are: Herodian, Duris of Samos, Titus Labienus (historian), Marcius Turbo, Euclid of Megara, Bassianus (senator), Ardaric, Marcus Claudius Marcellus, Lucius Manlius Vulso Longus, Herophilos, Festus (historian).

The quality of these improvements varies, they rarely have any inline citations, and they do contain mistakes and exaggerations (weasel words and peacock terms), and a lot vague filler. In short, they tend to read like high-school essays. Eventually these contributions are going to have to be edited, trimmed, checked, reverted etc., but at the moment, the writers of these articles seem to be trying to protect their contributions. Singinglemon ( talk) 00:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Among other degradations, the interwiki links that these articles used to have are sometimes no longer there. The positive problems, I agree, are that the articles are padded, not encyclopedic, and rely on tertiary sources. I know about Duris of Samos (but have never yet worked on the Wikipedia article) so maybe I'll have a go at it now, and see what happens ... In that case the existing article was based on Britannica 1911, and needed improvement anyway. In some other cases -- e.g. Festus (historian) -- what we had before was so terrible that anything would be an improvement! And rew D alby 21:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I have (I think) now improved Duris of Samos, with proper references and no padding. There haven't yet been any attempts to revert me. There was actually a book about Duris in 1977; it's surprising that the essayist didn't discover that. And rew D alby 15:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I've assigned some ap students to work on catullus articles--so far c. 49 seems like a decent beginning. Any tips or comments appreciated. Drjzh ( talk) 21:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)drjzh reply

Yes, here's some advice. First look at the comments just above yours - many contributors are serious about their Wiki articles and they don't like them being used as highschool essays. So here's the advice - tell your students to copy the relevant articles onto their user pages, or onto sandboxes attached to their user pages, and do all their work there. That way they won't get caught up in any edit wars. When you've all finished your work, delete it. Lucretius ( talk) 03:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Actually, I'm not sure what 'ap' means but I find it hard to believe that highschool kids are being introduced to Catullus. In fact, this whole thing looks like a hoax to me. Oh rem ridiculum, Cato, et iocosam, dignamque auribus et tuo cachinno! Lucretius ( talk) 07:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't know what ap means either. But I can tell you that back in 74-75 I was studying selected poems o Catullus as a 13-14 year old preparing for Latin 'O'-level. I can recall that there was a lot of sniggering at the name Lesbia. The other set texts were Aenead Book II (I think in an edited version) and some Letters of Pliny the Younger.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 11:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply

AP stands for Advanced Placement--these are courses in U.S. high schools that allegedly do college-level work. Near the end of the course, students in these courses take AP tests, and if they score well enough they can receive college credit (depending on the college/university they go to). Catullus is indeed taught in American high schools, even the naughty bits. Lesbia's name is pretty tame, really.

Drjzh, if you have not read WP:NPOV and WP:OR, which are two of the core content policies at Wikipedia, please do so ASAP. If you and your students don't understand these policies--the basic principle is that Wikipedia reports the opinions of secondary sources--then there will be unfortunate results. --Akhilleus ( talk) 13:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Catullus is more than just naughty. The poem I quoted describes a pederastic rape. Teachers generally are very careful about how they introduce their students to risky ideas and I can't believe that teachers would just point their students at Wiki and leave them to research Catullus on their own. The kids might not mind but wait till their parents get to hear about the kind of things Catullus celebrated! Add this also - the teacher ( User:Drjzh) said c.49 looks like a good beginning. He means carmen 49 (topic is Cicero), and the pederastic poem is number 56 (here is a Wikisource copy:[ [1]]). If your 16yo son happened to be struggling with issues of sexuality, would you want him reading Catullus in an unstructured way? If your 16yo went on to rape a 12yo acquaintance, wouldn't your legal team make the most of the fact that his teacher steered him towards a poet who treats pederastic rape as a joke? Teachers are trained to be cautious about these things. Anyhow, if it's not a hoax, it's all very odd! Lucretius ( talk) 03:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC) reply

In the hypothetical situation you mention, I think I'd rather have my son reading Catullus than a lot of what he could see on the internet (or other parts of Wikipedia). In the situation that Drjzh is in, presumably the students are reading Catullus as part of a class, with some attention to the worldview behind the poems (including their sexual mores)--the Wikipedia assignment is ancillary to the other things they're doing in the class. (I'm going to guess, though, that 56 is not usually on the AP syllabus--but at least one high school teacher I've talked to covers poem 16, after getting permission from the parents to discuss sexually explicit topics.) --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Sexually explicit? Yes and most Dads would say "Sure! He's already seen my Playboy magazines!" And teacher replies "I should have said homosexually explicit". That won't get too many nods of approval in spite of these enlightened times. An introduction to Catullus should be highly structured and it should be kept in the classroom - for the teacher's own safety as well as for the kids. That's my advice to Drjzh. Lucretius ( talk) 23:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC) reply

We are here to build an encyclopaedia. Aramgar ( talk) 00:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes but somebody wants to bring a school excursion onto the building site and we are discussing safety issues. Lucretius ( talk) 01:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I watch every single Catullan article and redirect. There have been some fumblings at Catullus 3 and Catullus 49, but nothing serious. "Safety issues" and "pederastic rape" are complete non-issues. WP:NPOV and WP:OR are, along with WP:N and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Regards, Aramgar ( talk) 03:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC) reply

If somebody, purporting to be a teacher, asks for advice about student research into Catullus here at Wikipedia, concerns relating to pornographic poems are hardly a non-issue. Issues like that have been known to destroy careers and childhoods. The discussion here is not interfering with your precious work, Aramgar. Lucretius ( talk) 23:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Destroy childhoods...? Really? Isn't that a bit much? CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 04:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Some poems by Catullus are hardly more than pornography and carmen 56 is hardly more than child pornography. Child pornography certainly destroys childhoods and Catullus is not an appropriate subject for self-directed research by highschoolers. This is so obvious I wonder how anyone can challenge it. Anyway, enough said on this topic by me. Lucretius ( talk) 06:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll just say, with all due respect, that I think your definition of "pornography" is obviously rather broad. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 23:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply

And his reading of Catullus 56 is rather narrow; many things are supported by that text, but none of the participants need be a child, even in the modern sense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Could someone take a look at the article on Hypatus and help expand it, or at least add some solid citations? This is essentially the Byzantine title for consul, and I was wondering if:

A: We have it named correctly.

B: It should just be a redirect to consul, which in turn should have a subsection on Byzantine use of the title.

C: Should keep the article, but expand it to indicate the various types of Hypatus (i.e. Doges of Venice using it as an honorific granted to them by the Byzantine Emperor, or actual Byzantine officials carrying out tasks specific to a Hypatus).

Many thanks! Hiberniantears ( talk) 18:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Not sure if anyone has looked at this... or if this WikiProject is just stale, but I would appreciate some informed opinions on my request above. Thanks! Hiberniantears ( talk) 18:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Can somebody take a look at Carthage. There's a discussion about what to include in the introduction. Wandalstouring ( talk) 14:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I've just created the article Prostitution in ancient Rome, based on W. C. Firebaugh's notes in his translation of the Satyricon of Petronius Arbiter, which are in the public domain.

Since this text was first published in 1920, it is somewhat out of date, and I would imagine that scholarship has moved on since then. This is thus in great need of cleanup and revision (which is why I'm posting about it here) but it seemed like a good starting point for a proper article. -- The Anome ( talk) 19:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm away from my copy of Trying Neaira. Does anybody else have it? CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Does anyone have the time to do a merge of Lamachos into Lamachus? It is a little out of my area. - Canglesea ( talk) 04:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Most of the information in Lamachos is duplicated in Lamachus and the rest of it is junk, so the former should just be deleted. Lucretius ( talk) 00:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Done. - Canglesea ( talk) 06:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I need some consensus to a couple of illustrations I am working on. They illustrate a number of structures but.....I am finding competing information and discovering new material. So, I request input to alter this image. You can reply here or at my user page. Illustrators are, of course welcome to save the image and alter it, as it is in the Public Domain, but all alteration must be accompanied by clear citations.

Help Illustrate Wikipedia by consensus!

The first image is the same layout as the second so the subjects are the same, the ancient Roman Comitium and the Curia Hostilia (any information about the layout of the Curia Cornelia is acceptable as well)

Tear the heck out of it if you want....no need to be kind, LOL! I don't care. Just be accurate and cite all sources. Thanks!-- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

This is a Wiki file picture of a great big seat in the Theatre of Dionysus, Athens. I suspect it held the rear end of the archon basileus or of the priest of Dionysus, though it is hard to tell from this angle 2000+ years later. The file lists it simply as a VIP seat. If anyone knows whose seat it was, please advise. Thanks. Lucretius ( talk) 03:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Wasn't a seat at about this position left open in all theatres for Dionysus himself? It's possible this is the Dionysian seat, but (like you said) it's really hard to tell from this angle. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 05:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

There's an inscription on the seat which starts ΗΠΟΛΙΣ; I can't read the rest from the picture. I'll see if I can find a Blue Guide or something else useful later. --Akhilleus ( talk) 13:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Looks like the throne was for the priest of Dionysus, but I don't have a reliable source for that fact yet. --Akhilleus ( talk) 20:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

It is not the seat of a priest but a third century Roman official Marcus Ulpius and his two sons. The inscription may be found a IG II² 3700. Check it out here. Now if you will excuse me, I have some "precious work" to do. Regards, Aramgar ( talk) 21:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Excellent! Have fun with those Catullan trifles... --Akhilleus ( talk) 22:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I led with my jaw because I'm not afraid to get hit (metaphorically speaking). Genuinely - thanks for the help. I'm not a great fan of the Romans - at least they built roads for the spread of Greek culture - so I'm not sure what role Marcus Ulpius had in Athens, but the inscription suggests he combined his duties with those of archon eponymos. Which suggests that the chair is historically descended from the archon's chair and therefore I could label it the 'archon's chair'. Any disagreements about this? Again thanks. Lucretius ( talk) 23:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

At the very least it gives a pretty good illustration of what the archon's chair looked like, so I'd say that works. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 05:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply

He probably wasn't a Roman official (consular was a rank by the third century), he was an Athenian (his deme is mentioned) whose family had been Roman citizens for generations; he was given this extraordinary honor (and the implied tax exemption) for feeding Athens during a famine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks one and all for generous contributions. I've now titled the file at Wikimedia as Theatre of Dionysus and the throne for the archon eponymos (the throne is dedicated to a Roman citizen, Marcus Ulpius, and to his two sons, 3rd Century A.D., in recognition of their charitable works during a time of famine). Lucretius ( talk) 21:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Would someone more informed than me please have a go at sorting this article out? It's a shocker. Ericoides ( talk) 14:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

These two articles need to be merged: The Four Hundred (oligarchy) and Athenian coup of 411 BC. I don't know how to do it. On a more general issue - can an article with only one reference and only three cited sources be awarded a B status? Sicilian Expedition proves that it can. I feel a kind of reverence for the process that results in such mysterious results. Or maybe I've misunderstood something. Lucretius ( talk) 06:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Y Merger complete. Feel free to check behind me in case I missed anything. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 10:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Currently only a two-item dab; please see Talk:Ethnos. Skookum1 ( talk) 19:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Could someone review the article Gaius Ateius Capito (tribune) to see whether the "expert needed" label should be removed? I am no expert, but I thoroughly revised the article and provided documentation. The label implies that the information should be regarded with undue caution, but because I make no claim to expertise, and because the person adding the label left no comments about what deficiencies should be addressed, I don't feel I should remove it myself. Unless it's still there in a couple of weeks, at which point I'll just decide nobody cares and I'll take the initiative. Cynwolfe ( talk) 17:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm sure it's up to standard (or above), so I've taken the label off. Is the final reference to Quien es quien still necessary? I guess probably not, since you have cited primary/secondary sources fully; unless you disagree, I suggest you remove it. And rew D alby 10:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, since there are now quite a few lists on Roman architecture, I tried to create a new template for them:
{{Navbox |name = Lists of Roman architecture |title = Lists of [[Roman architecture]] |image = |titlestyle = {{{titlestyle|}}} |list1 = <div> [[List of Roman amphitheatres]] {{·}} [[List of aqueducts in the city of Rome|List of aqueducts in Rome]] {{·}} [[List of aqueducts in the Roman Empire]] {{·}} [[List of Roman bridges]] {{·}} [[List of Roman cisterns]] {{·}} <br> [[List of Roman domes]] {{·}} [[List of Greco-Roman roofs]] {{·}} [[List of ancient Roman triumphal arches|List of Roman triumphal arches]] {{·}} [[List of Roman villas in England]] {{·}} </div> }} <noinclude> </noinclude>

1. What name sounds better: Lists of Roman architecture, Roman architectural lists or Roman architecture lists?
2. What image can we add? Preferably, a featured one of a Roman building.
3. What categories should the template have?

Any input is welcomed. Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 00:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Of your three proposed names for the list, #2 or #3 is much better than #1. Wareh ( talk) 16:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{( t, c)} 21:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

this template is broken, if no importance parameter is given, while a class parameter is, it doesn't work properly. It should set as default unassessed importance. 76.66.196.229 ( talk) 05:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey folks, it would be VERY GREAT if someone with the necessary knowledge starts some nereid articles (Callianassa, Callianira, Cymo, Doto, Galene, Halimede and Neso). Even if they are stubs, it would be highly appreciated. For with the taxonomic profusion of genera named after them - especially Callianira - we're getting into the most ugly dab hell. (As we get more articles on butterfly genera, this is only getting worse. For some reason, 19th-century entomologists found nereids especially tempting as butterfly genus namesakes.) Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 16:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Alternatively, at least Callianira might be handled as a dab page, like Eunice already is. But since the nereids are really your critters, I thought I'd ask first if it's OK to change the redirect and make it a dab page. Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 16:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply

A stub is a placeholder for a notable subject to which a full encyclopedic treatment can eventually be given. So I'd rather not see stubs on minor mythological figures unless the material is known to exist from which those full articles can eventually grow. In those cases, the solution would seem to be redirects to Nereid where a listing with brief identifications would be appropriate. Wareh ( talk) 17:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm here asking for expert help in the article Neptune, it is incredibly short when compared to the length and quality of similar articles such as Jupiter or Venus. Although in general, all the articles on the Roman gods are pretty short, but Neptune is probably the worst off. -- Pstanton ( talk) 21:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply