This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of the Aegates article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Battle of the Aegates is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 10, 2021. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Battle of the Aegates was copied or moved into Ships of ancient Rome with this edit on 01:51, 1 August 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The text in this page contains many words and letters that should not be there. Is there something wrong with it?
It’s back again. I’m not sure how to fix it, as I’m seeing it on the main page description of the article in my app. Beautyandterror ( talk) 01:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Can someone request the page be locked? Beautyandterror ( talk) 01:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, excellent. I think I still had an old version of the page loaded. Glad it’s taken care of, thanks. Beautyandterror ( talk) 01:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Now I'm seeing next to the top line of the first paragraph "Italic text" in bold italics with an empty footnote. I've looked at the page source, & the source for the infobox, but I'm finding no clue where these words come from. A clue is that I've looked back a several revisions & still see these words; I figure someone vandalized one of the templates used in this article. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
The battlebox lists the numbers of Carthaginian ships launched and lost as different than what the Favignan(sp.) island page does (i.e. 400 ships with 120 sunk). Which is right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.150.229.189 ( talk) 00:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
== When were rams attached? From the section on Marine Archaeology: "It is believed that the rams were each attached to a sunken warship when they were deposited on the seabed." I wonder if this could be phrased better? There's an ambiguity in the "were ... attached ... when" formulation that implies that the rams could have been attached to the ships after they were sunk, which is either absurd, or serious archaeological fraud. One assumes the rams were attached to their respective ships before the battle. Bog ( talk) 03:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move unopposed. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 21:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Battle of the Egadi Islands → Battle of the Aegates – This article concerns an important event in Roman history, and so most scholarly literature uses the Roman name, not a modern one. The article was originally created at "Battle of the Aegates Islands", and remained there for several years, until another editor moved it without discussion, claiming that this name was "far more common". This Google Ngram appears to demonstrate otherwise: there are no book hits at all under the present title. A regular Google search shows hits, but many fewer than at the original name or the proposed name. "Battle of the Aegates" should be preferable to "Battle of the Aegates Islands", since there are no other Aegates; the name is derived from the island of Aegusa (now Favignana), which is one of them. "Aegates Islands" is also unidiomatic in English, since Aegates is plural: we say "Bahamas" or "Bahama Islands", not "Bahamas Islands"; "Caymans" or "Cayman Islands", not "Caymans Islands"; so with the Balearics, Canaries, etc. The current page at this title is a simple redirect to this article, and it shouldn't be too hard to fix the other links here, as there are only a few dozen. P Aculeius ( talk) 19:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Aegates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi ArbieP, these edits have caused cite 90 to not link to any source, and introduced two new sources which are not used in the article. Perhaps you could rejig things so that cite 90 does point to an appropriate source again, and move any sources not used in the text to "Further reading"? Thanks Also, Encyclopædia Britannica should only be linked at first mention. Cheers. Gog the Mild ( talk) 11:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Gog; Ta for your note; I've put things right (I think). I'm a bit new in this area of editing. ArbieP ( talk) 13:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Volatile! ArbieP ( talk) 13:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The last sentence in the text quoted below seems to conflate the number and origin of recovered rams with the number and origin of recovered helmets. Without reading the sources I can not correct the problem.}}
Since 2010 eleven bronze warship rams have been found by archaeologists in the sea within a 1 square kilometre (0.4 square miles) area off Phorbantia, along with ten bronze helmets and hundreds of
amphorae. The rams, seven of the helmets, and six intact amphorae, along with a number of fragments, have since been recovered. Inscriptions allowed four of the rams to be identified as coming from Roman-built ships, one from a Carthaginian vessel, with the origins of the remaining two being unknown.
WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX - Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat. This is very clear. WP:FAOWN does not fossilize an article, especially on something as straightforward as this. Pipsally ( talk) 03:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Gog the Mild, the guidance at WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX does deprecate the use of qualifying terms, including "decisive". Hog Farm is only partially correct when they say that it is there to prevent original research. It is also that there is significant nuance to such terms that cannot be captured in isolation. "Decisive victory" can have various meanings. It could mean: defeated in detail, concluding a campaign or a meaning that is particular to the disciplines of military history or military science. It represents an opinion and conclusion of the author(s) and, in a scholarly work, they will detail their rationale for reaching such a conclusion. As a scholarly concept it is evolving (see decisive victory an this search); hence, any assertion would depend on the framework of reference as it existed at the time the view was formed. General perceptions of a "decisive victory" are that it is an exceptional outcome. Consequently, any conclusion in Wiki's voice should be based upon a consensus in the sources (plural). The place to elaborate how the outcome is viewed in the sources is the aftermath section, where different views and the rationales in the sources can be explained. An overall summary is best made in prose in the lead, since prose can capture nuance. At Battle of Trafalgar and Battle of Agincourt, there are some interesting discussions regarding "decisive victory" in the infobox.
I have looked at the article and the result in the infobox is a legacy of the earliest iterations of the article when "decisive" was considered acceptable. In the aftermath it states (the only reference to it being a decisive victory): After achieving this decisive victory over the Carthaginian fleet, Catulus continued the land operations in Sicily against Lilybaeum, Eryx and Drepana; which continued to be defended by Hamilcar Barca and his army.[91 - Goldsworthy (2006) pp 125-126]
. I have limited access to this source but I believe you are referring to: The battle of the Aegates Islands decided the war.
[1] In the circumstances, I don't think it is being too pedantic to say that he isn't specifically calling it a "decisive victory". At the
FAC, you elected to describe the victory in the lead: "It was the final and deciding battle of the 23-year-long First Punic War.
It was [IMO] a very appropriate choice.
I would therefore suggest that it is appropriate to report the result in the infobox as "Roman victory". The guidance also restrict additional comments in this field (ie Treaty of Lutatius)) but I won't stand on this - though it is problematic when such information becomes overwhelming and leads to bloat). I would also suggest modifying the sentence (above) which cites Goldsworthy such that it does not invoke by inference the theoretical concept of "decisive victory" - which Goldsworthy does not appear to be actually doing. Given the fuller context of the paragraph in which the sentence appears, it may be perfectly reasonable to just drop the word "decisive" or substitute "conclusive" - though in either case, fighting continued on land. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
After achieving this decisive victory over the Carthaginian fleet, Catulus continued the land operations in Sicily against Lilybaeum, Eryx and Drepana; which continued to be defended by Hamilcar Barca and his army.That the war on land continued after the "decisive victory over the Cathaginian fleet" seems a contradiction. Most of the rest of the paragraph then elaborates the reasons (though not the criteria) by which scholars might have argued and conclude that the battle "decided the war|was decisive". The victory|battle was not decisive at the time it occurred. It did not end the war there and then. It came to be viewed (in sources) as such because of what subsequently happened. Consequently, I think that this paragraph (IMHO) puts the cart before the horse but could be easily (and minimally) be rearranged to explain and why there is a consensus in the sources that it was a decisive battle. That Hamilcar delegated negotiations to Gisco (because he didn't want to get nailed up) and the terms of the treaty are secondary to why the battle was decisive. Overall, any change making clear why the victory decided the war would be minimal. Further, the article would benefit by doing so. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Cinderella157, I can see what you mean. Would you feel it was clearer if the start of opening sentence of the Aftermath was changed from "After achieving this decisive victory over the Carthaginian fleet" to 'After the battle'; and a sentence was added to the start of the next paragraph along the lines of 'The battle is considered by modern historians to be the decisive battle of the First Punic War and by some to be a decisive point in the rise of Rome', referencing this to the sources given above?
{{
Sfnm}}
eg {{sfnm|Anderson|2014|1p=22|McCarthy|1959|2pp=45, 114}} (see
Template:Sfnm). I tend to use sfnm if there are more than two citations being made. Regards,
Cinderella157 (
talk) 02:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)The article needs clarification in the following terms. It currently says "eleven bronze warship rams have been found... Inscriptions allowed four of the rams to be identified as coming from Roman-built ships, one from a Carthaginian vessel, with the origins of the remaining two being unknown". If five have their origins identified, then there are 11-5=4, that is four, unidentified, not two. What is the truth of the matter? Deipnosophista ( talk) 21:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of the Aegates article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Battle of the Aegates is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 10, 2021. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Battle of the Aegates was copied or moved into Ships of ancient Rome with this edit on 01:51, 1 August 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The text in this page contains many words and letters that should not be there. Is there something wrong with it?
It’s back again. I’m not sure how to fix it, as I’m seeing it on the main page description of the article in my app. Beautyandterror ( talk) 01:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Can someone request the page be locked? Beautyandterror ( talk) 01:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, excellent. I think I still had an old version of the page loaded. Glad it’s taken care of, thanks. Beautyandterror ( talk) 01:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Now I'm seeing next to the top line of the first paragraph "Italic text" in bold italics with an empty footnote. I've looked at the page source, & the source for the infobox, but I'm finding no clue where these words come from. A clue is that I've looked back a several revisions & still see these words; I figure someone vandalized one of the templates used in this article. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
The battlebox lists the numbers of Carthaginian ships launched and lost as different than what the Favignan(sp.) island page does (i.e. 400 ships with 120 sunk). Which is right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.150.229.189 ( talk) 00:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
== When were rams attached? From the section on Marine Archaeology: "It is believed that the rams were each attached to a sunken warship when they were deposited on the seabed." I wonder if this could be phrased better? There's an ambiguity in the "were ... attached ... when" formulation that implies that the rams could have been attached to the ships after they were sunk, which is either absurd, or serious archaeological fraud. One assumes the rams were attached to their respective ships before the battle. Bog ( talk) 03:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move unopposed. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 21:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Battle of the Egadi Islands → Battle of the Aegates – This article concerns an important event in Roman history, and so most scholarly literature uses the Roman name, not a modern one. The article was originally created at "Battle of the Aegates Islands", and remained there for several years, until another editor moved it without discussion, claiming that this name was "far more common". This Google Ngram appears to demonstrate otherwise: there are no book hits at all under the present title. A regular Google search shows hits, but many fewer than at the original name or the proposed name. "Battle of the Aegates" should be preferable to "Battle of the Aegates Islands", since there are no other Aegates; the name is derived from the island of Aegusa (now Favignana), which is one of them. "Aegates Islands" is also unidiomatic in English, since Aegates is plural: we say "Bahamas" or "Bahama Islands", not "Bahamas Islands"; "Caymans" or "Cayman Islands", not "Caymans Islands"; so with the Balearics, Canaries, etc. The current page at this title is a simple redirect to this article, and it shouldn't be too hard to fix the other links here, as there are only a few dozen. P Aculeius ( talk) 19:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Aegates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi ArbieP, these edits have caused cite 90 to not link to any source, and introduced two new sources which are not used in the article. Perhaps you could rejig things so that cite 90 does point to an appropriate source again, and move any sources not used in the text to "Further reading"? Thanks Also, Encyclopædia Britannica should only be linked at first mention. Cheers. Gog the Mild ( talk) 11:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Gog; Ta for your note; I've put things right (I think). I'm a bit new in this area of editing. ArbieP ( talk) 13:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Volatile! ArbieP ( talk) 13:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The last sentence in the text quoted below seems to conflate the number and origin of recovered rams with the number and origin of recovered helmets. Without reading the sources I can not correct the problem.}}
Since 2010 eleven bronze warship rams have been found by archaeologists in the sea within a 1 square kilometre (0.4 square miles) area off Phorbantia, along with ten bronze helmets and hundreds of
amphorae. The rams, seven of the helmets, and six intact amphorae, along with a number of fragments, have since been recovered. Inscriptions allowed four of the rams to be identified as coming from Roman-built ships, one from a Carthaginian vessel, with the origins of the remaining two being unknown.
WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX - Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat. This is very clear. WP:FAOWN does not fossilize an article, especially on something as straightforward as this. Pipsally ( talk) 03:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Gog the Mild, the guidance at WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX does deprecate the use of qualifying terms, including "decisive". Hog Farm is only partially correct when they say that it is there to prevent original research. It is also that there is significant nuance to such terms that cannot be captured in isolation. "Decisive victory" can have various meanings. It could mean: defeated in detail, concluding a campaign or a meaning that is particular to the disciplines of military history or military science. It represents an opinion and conclusion of the author(s) and, in a scholarly work, they will detail their rationale for reaching such a conclusion. As a scholarly concept it is evolving (see decisive victory an this search); hence, any assertion would depend on the framework of reference as it existed at the time the view was formed. General perceptions of a "decisive victory" are that it is an exceptional outcome. Consequently, any conclusion in Wiki's voice should be based upon a consensus in the sources (plural). The place to elaborate how the outcome is viewed in the sources is the aftermath section, where different views and the rationales in the sources can be explained. An overall summary is best made in prose in the lead, since prose can capture nuance. At Battle of Trafalgar and Battle of Agincourt, there are some interesting discussions regarding "decisive victory" in the infobox.
I have looked at the article and the result in the infobox is a legacy of the earliest iterations of the article when "decisive" was considered acceptable. In the aftermath it states (the only reference to it being a decisive victory): After achieving this decisive victory over the Carthaginian fleet, Catulus continued the land operations in Sicily against Lilybaeum, Eryx and Drepana; which continued to be defended by Hamilcar Barca and his army.[91 - Goldsworthy (2006) pp 125-126]
. I have limited access to this source but I believe you are referring to: The battle of the Aegates Islands decided the war.
[1] In the circumstances, I don't think it is being too pedantic to say that he isn't specifically calling it a "decisive victory". At the
FAC, you elected to describe the victory in the lead: "It was the final and deciding battle of the 23-year-long First Punic War.
It was [IMO] a very appropriate choice.
I would therefore suggest that it is appropriate to report the result in the infobox as "Roman victory". The guidance also restrict additional comments in this field (ie Treaty of Lutatius)) but I won't stand on this - though it is problematic when such information becomes overwhelming and leads to bloat). I would also suggest modifying the sentence (above) which cites Goldsworthy such that it does not invoke by inference the theoretical concept of "decisive victory" - which Goldsworthy does not appear to be actually doing. Given the fuller context of the paragraph in which the sentence appears, it may be perfectly reasonable to just drop the word "decisive" or substitute "conclusive" - though in either case, fighting continued on land. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
After achieving this decisive victory over the Carthaginian fleet, Catulus continued the land operations in Sicily against Lilybaeum, Eryx and Drepana; which continued to be defended by Hamilcar Barca and his army.That the war on land continued after the "decisive victory over the Cathaginian fleet" seems a contradiction. Most of the rest of the paragraph then elaborates the reasons (though not the criteria) by which scholars might have argued and conclude that the battle "decided the war|was decisive". The victory|battle was not decisive at the time it occurred. It did not end the war there and then. It came to be viewed (in sources) as such because of what subsequently happened. Consequently, I think that this paragraph (IMHO) puts the cart before the horse but could be easily (and minimally) be rearranged to explain and why there is a consensus in the sources that it was a decisive battle. That Hamilcar delegated negotiations to Gisco (because he didn't want to get nailed up) and the terms of the treaty are secondary to why the battle was decisive. Overall, any change making clear why the victory decided the war would be minimal. Further, the article would benefit by doing so. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Cinderella157, I can see what you mean. Would you feel it was clearer if the start of opening sentence of the Aftermath was changed from "After achieving this decisive victory over the Carthaginian fleet" to 'After the battle'; and a sentence was added to the start of the next paragraph along the lines of 'The battle is considered by modern historians to be the decisive battle of the First Punic War and by some to be a decisive point in the rise of Rome', referencing this to the sources given above?
{{
Sfnm}}
eg {{sfnm|Anderson|2014|1p=22|McCarthy|1959|2pp=45, 114}} (see
Template:Sfnm). I tend to use sfnm if there are more than two citations being made. Regards,
Cinderella157 (
talk) 02:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)The article needs clarification in the following terms. It currently says "eleven bronze warship rams have been found... Inscriptions allowed four of the rams to be identified as coming from Roman-built ships, one from a Carthaginian vessel, with the origins of the remaining two being unknown". If five have their origins identified, then there are 11-5=4, that is four, unidentified, not two. What is the truth of the matter? Deipnosophista ( talk) 21:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)