![]() | Tessarakonteres has been listed as one of the
Warfare good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 24, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Right, to explain my logic in reverting this article's categorisation as Category:Mythological ships. Mythology/mythological is (and I quote the mythology article) "either the body of myths from a particular culture or religion" (my bolding). Now, that is not what we are looking it here. If, by saying that the ship appears in Callixenus, Athenaeus and Plutarch, but that these works drew on a fictional story of a 40-decker, and so the ship did not exist, that does not make it mythological. There is simply not the correct religio-cultural element present to speak of the story of this ship being a myth, nor the right antiquity (we are not talking of the centuries between, say, Alexander and Homer, but only a relatively short time, and a more recent one, in which "myth" is already established, and does not include recent events) - a fiction within historial works, perhaps, but not a myth within mythological ones. (Thus Category:Fictional ships would be closer, though that is not watertight - that cat is closer to 'ships in fiction'.) Plus Category:Mythological ships is winding down, or at least coming up for a serious overhaul/renaming in terms of definition. Neddyseagoon - talk 01:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing.
1 Of or relating to mythology or myths; of the nature of or based on mythology or mythical narrative. 2 Of a writer: myth-making; creating or concerned with mythology or myths. 3 Appearing or celebrated in mythology; existing only in myth; imaginary.
The quoted features of this purported ship are so outrageous that this ship clearly falls in the realm of myth. And just because something is written, it is not myth? The Greeks did not write down myths? Please....-- Filll 13:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
We might need more precise categories but this will become far more tedious than necessary very quickly, and I am not sure that the number of ships we have to categorize would warrant it. However, does anyone really believe that this ship existed in the proportions claimed? Or is it closer to legend, myth, tall tale, exaggeration, fiction, etc?--
Filll
14:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I replaced the tag for this mythical ship. As an editor, that's my right, and I placed it there originally. To revert it without consensus is not appropriate. If you want to throw a dispute tag somewhere, be my guest. I will follow the consensus here whichever way it lies. At this time, there is no consensus, so please do not remove the category tag. Let's play fair here without an edit war. Orangemarlin 14:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to follow reason here, but right now we're arguing semantics of the word myth and mythological. Do reasonable people here really expect to come to a resolution on a definition, especially when said words have definitions that meet the needs of both sides? Orangemarlin 14:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
<undent>We are just caught up in some disagreement about definitions, as pointed out above, so we are talking past each other. This is silly.-- Filll 17:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no myth involving the Tessarakonteres - no great story associated with it.
The article currently references Casson for the dimensions. [2] He records, I would assume, the correct measurements in cubits; however, the conversion from cubits to modern measurements (or, at least, feet) appears to have been done on the assumption that a cubit is exactly 18". I know nothing about cubits, but that seems unlikely. However, he's a reliable secondary source and may well be correct; likewise, it may be common shorthand, given the possibility the possible uncertainty over the precise measure of a contemporary Egyptian cubit.
If anyone has a source that provides those details currently supported by the Casson cite, but which uses a longer cubit, then feel free to swap the cite and update the list. Bromley86 ( talk) 10:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | Tessarakonteres has been listed as one of the
Warfare good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 24, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Right, to explain my logic in reverting this article's categorisation as Category:Mythological ships. Mythology/mythological is (and I quote the mythology article) "either the body of myths from a particular culture or religion" (my bolding). Now, that is not what we are looking it here. If, by saying that the ship appears in Callixenus, Athenaeus and Plutarch, but that these works drew on a fictional story of a 40-decker, and so the ship did not exist, that does not make it mythological. There is simply not the correct religio-cultural element present to speak of the story of this ship being a myth, nor the right antiquity (we are not talking of the centuries between, say, Alexander and Homer, but only a relatively short time, and a more recent one, in which "myth" is already established, and does not include recent events) - a fiction within historial works, perhaps, but not a myth within mythological ones. (Thus Category:Fictional ships would be closer, though that is not watertight - that cat is closer to 'ships in fiction'.) Plus Category:Mythological ships is winding down, or at least coming up for a serious overhaul/renaming in terms of definition. Neddyseagoon - talk 01:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing.
1 Of or relating to mythology or myths; of the nature of or based on mythology or mythical narrative. 2 Of a writer: myth-making; creating or concerned with mythology or myths. 3 Appearing or celebrated in mythology; existing only in myth; imaginary.
The quoted features of this purported ship are so outrageous that this ship clearly falls in the realm of myth. And just because something is written, it is not myth? The Greeks did not write down myths? Please....-- Filll 13:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
We might need more precise categories but this will become far more tedious than necessary very quickly, and I am not sure that the number of ships we have to categorize would warrant it. However, does anyone really believe that this ship existed in the proportions claimed? Or is it closer to legend, myth, tall tale, exaggeration, fiction, etc?--
Filll
14:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I replaced the tag for this mythical ship. As an editor, that's my right, and I placed it there originally. To revert it without consensus is not appropriate. If you want to throw a dispute tag somewhere, be my guest. I will follow the consensus here whichever way it lies. At this time, there is no consensus, so please do not remove the category tag. Let's play fair here without an edit war. Orangemarlin 14:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to follow reason here, but right now we're arguing semantics of the word myth and mythological. Do reasonable people here really expect to come to a resolution on a definition, especially when said words have definitions that meet the needs of both sides? Orangemarlin 14:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
<undent>We are just caught up in some disagreement about definitions, as pointed out above, so we are talking past each other. This is silly.-- Filll 17:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no myth involving the Tessarakonteres - no great story associated with it.
The article currently references Casson for the dimensions. [2] He records, I would assume, the correct measurements in cubits; however, the conversion from cubits to modern measurements (or, at least, feet) appears to have been done on the assumption that a cubit is exactly 18". I know nothing about cubits, but that seems unlikely. However, he's a reliable secondary source and may well be correct; likewise, it may be common shorthand, given the possibility the possible uncertainty over the precise measure of a contemporary Egyptian cubit.
If anyone has a source that provides those details currently supported by the Casson cite, but which uses a longer cubit, then feel free to swap the cite and update the list. Bromley86 ( talk) 10:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)