![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Hello! Over the past few days, an IP editor has been adding stuff on the Spartan army, especially Spartan "philosophy" and outlook on life etc. While most of it seems fairly innocuous, the sources he/she uses are not: History Channel documentaries and novels on ancient Sparta. And then there are comparisons between the Spartan ethos and " new Soviet man". I've reverted on sight and despite my attempts at explanation on why these sources are worthless, the IP has been re-reverting (obviously, I am an incorrigible "Athenian-lover"). Since this is a content dispute and not outright vandalism, I don't want to ask for page protection, but perhaps someone else might have a better idea about how to proceed here. Constantine ✍ 15:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I thought I'd seen everything, but it's not everyday that you come across the name of a new assassin of Julius Caesar, right here on Wikipedia! Apparently his name was Gaius Flavius Antoninus, and Mark Antony had a novel way of having him killed. Candidate for speedy deletion? Oatley2112 ( talk) 13:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Note that the creator of this article has all of two edits: [1]. Looks like some casual experimentation that went without real scrutiny for eight years. How many more articles are there like this? --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Historic roads and Roman roads are up for a move. Please see Talk:Roman roads. Simply south.... .. always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 16:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello all! I’m working with the Saylor foundation to create a series of original, crowd-sourced textbooks that will be openly licensed and freely available on the web and within Saylor’s free, self-paced courses at Saylor.org. We are using Wikibooks as a platform to host this project and hope to garner the interest of existing members of the Wikibooks and Wikipedia community, as well as bring in new members! We thought that some of your members may be interested in contributing to our book Saylor.org's Ancient Civilizations of the World. Thomas_Simpson ( talk) 18:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
As the title implies, I've seen several articles (like Bosporan Kingdom) now with WP:Greece in talk field but not this project. I've been correcting them, but would like to make sure I'm doing the right thing. -- Brigade Piron ( talk) 10:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't remove any tags unless it's obvious that the article has nothing to do with the history of Greece. Within that project's stated scope one finds:
History, including the prehistory of Greece, the history of ancient Greece including the Hellenistic world, the history of the Byzantine Empire and of medieval Greece in general, to the history of modern Greece
The relation between this project and WPGreece is the same as the relation between the Classics departments and the Hellenic Studies departments at both schools I attended: there is considerable overlap and cooperation. I, as a member of both WikiProjects, add both templates to every page on any Greek topic that I create or rate. davidiad .: 20:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Article is currently undergoing a major expansion. Please join the discussion at Talk:Sacred Band of Thebes#NPOV and David Leitao. Thank you. -- OBSIDIAN† SOUL 15:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Could I trouble someone to look over this edit yielding Senatvs Popvlvsqve Romanvs (and at least one other use of v in lowercase)? This is based on MOS:Ety, For better accessibility, Latin quotations should never be set in all caps or small caps, even when the use of lowercase might seem anachronistic. I don't know anything about the history of this guideline (other than this discussion), but it does seem there might be times when you would need to transcribe your source exactly, in dealing with epigraphy as such and not just the content of the inscription. In the Roman Republic article, however, I don't know why the phrases were represented as if they were inscriptions (if there was a legitimate reason, I wouldn't think the normal issues of readability need apply for such a short phrase). At any rate, in changing from upper to lower, I would find the use of v in the example above troubling. It would be nice if someone who cares more than I do about orthography and representing epigraphy could review MOS:Ety and the particular edits at Roman Republic. Cynwolfe ( talk) 01:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Since I didn't see some familiar names I would expect in the edit history, I just wanted to make sure project members interested in this topic were aware of the article's existence. Cynwolfe ( talk) 14:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I'd like to know if " Justinian dynasty" is supposed to be "Justin-ian" (i.e. " Justin's") or rather "Justinian's", and what the standard name is in scholarship. I can see why it would be named after Justinian rather than the rather obscure Justin, but in this case, shouldn't it be the "Justinianian dynasty"? Constantine ✍ 20:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I was hoping that someone from this project might be able to transcribe the two Greek words at the bottom of this source (page 92) so that I could include them in the etymology of the name Dictyophora for the article Phallus indusiatus. Thanks, Sasata ( talk) 08:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi - a (hopefully) quick question/confirmation. The Dolabella page states that this branch of the patrician Cornelii were Plebeian (which puts it at odds with the Cornelia (gens) page, which says they were patrician). I don't think the Dolabella page is correct. Although Publius Cornelius Dolabella had himself adopted into the plebeian family, the rest of the clan were patrician, weren't they? Certainly the imperial Dolabellae were patricians, and the current thinking is that they were descended from the patrician suffect consul of 35 BC, not the plebeian suffect consul of 44 BC. Can someone confirm my belief that the Dolabellae were patrician Cornelii? Thanks. Oatley2112 ( talk) 06:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I was just wondering if this Wikiproject has something similar on the English wikipedia that the Italian wikipedia has here?
In the event that such an infobox doesn't exist yet, it seems to me that its addition would be welcome. Two examples of its use can be seen here and here. For one thing it links roman cities to their provinces and the legions which were stationed there and clearly and easily presents basic information about when the settlements were active. -- U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 18:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Please look at Template:PWRE and its sample use in Acestodorus. Does it conform to the rules and make sense? S8w4 ( talk) 10:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
We need your help to better define the Thraco-Roman and Daco-Roman terms/cultures, using the most modern, reliable sources. We have a user who is trying to erase the two at any cost in order to push a POV in relation to Origin of the Romanians, despite of having a lot of articles (like Justinian I) pointing to them. Above all, we need to write better, sourced leads and identify the origin/first sources for the usage of the terms. Unfortunately, the literature is scarce in this area, mostly in Romanian and Bulgarian, unlike the documentation/research available for Gallo-Roman and Romano-British culture. I tried to improve the articles at my best but facing difficulties and would appreciate any help. Thanks! -- Codrin.B ( talk) 12:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Talk:Roman_Empire#Currency about what should be designated the Roman Empirer's 'currency'. Input from others in this project would be appreciated.
—
Sowlos (
talk)
00:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 12#Archaeological sites in Greece by period:
– Fayenatic L ondon 21:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm working on a new article on Volubilis in my user space. I'd be grateful if someone could help with translating an inscription - see User:Prioryman/Volubilis#Triumphal arch. Prioryman ( talk) 10:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd love someone to take a look at this and tell me where I'm wrong. I don't actually find modern sources giving a lot of evidence for a battle. Eg [3], [4](p.174), [5](pp75-76), [6]pp 518, 720. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 15:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Catullus 16 is up for GA review.
Lest I run afoul of prohibitions against canvassing, I will merely state that I bring this fact to your attention because I know that several members of this project have a degree in classics, a good education in the classics, are beautifully self-taught, or have high intellectual standards. Cynwolfe ( talk) 11:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Members of this project are invited to participate in the current RfC on the wording of WP:ERA pertaining to BC/AD and BCE/CE. I'm notifying this project because articles within our scope are among the most likely to need an era designation (to distinguish, for instance, the 2nd century BC/BCE from the 2nd century AD/CE). The original RfC was posted here, where you may follow the link to the live discussion. Thanks. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd be grateful for the contributions of people with expertise in both classical texts and Wikipedia policy at Talk:Ceterum_censeo_Carthaginem_esse_delendam#Recent_page_move. Thanks. -- Dweller ( talk) 16:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone - I just created an article on Marcus Appuleius, the Roman consul of 20 BC. It has been nominated for deletion on notability grounds. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Appuleius. Could I ask members of this group to have a look and make comments as appropriate? Thanks. Oatley2112 ( talk) 22:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
If we see any more of these, just comment as "Speedy keep per WP:POLITICIAN", which stipulates the automatic notability of:
Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices.
That latter criterion should also be of use to you, Oatley. Well, and that "legislature" bit means that any Roman senator is automatically notable. Be aware too that if you say "we have articles on other figures like this," the deletionista is likely to counter with WP:OTHERSTUFF (the existence of similar articles not being grounds for keeping something). Sometimes, however, it seems to be permissible to point to categorical precedent, though the guideline is vague:
In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items.
This is amplified at the essay WP:Other stuff exists#Precedent in usage. They tell you not to wikilawyer, and then they tell you to base your arguments on policies and guidelines (the law) rather than reason or chimerical common sense, so what do they expect? Deletionists also regularly cloak "I don't think this is important" as notability, when the minimum threshold for considering notability is simply being noted by a sufficient number of third-party sources. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'm sure I'll come under fire with this one, but here goes anyway... Recently, I've been doing quite a bit of work on pages from ancient civilisations (i.e. pre-4th C AD-ish) (like the Kushan Empire, Western Satraps, Han Dynasty China etc. who existed at the same time - even having trading relations with Greece and Rome - but who are not included in a wikiproject. Increasingly, modern scolarship is beginning to see ancient history as a much more fluid and international entity. My case is this: WP Classical Greece and Rome is great, but could it not be moved to encompass all ancient history (with defined date limits of course) and then have Greece and Rome individually included as "Task Forces" like in other wikiprojects? Would a WikiProject Ancient History not be a good thing? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this! --- Brigade Piron ( talk) 09:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a notification that a request has been made for Catullus 16 to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of that article. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 22:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
At Roman Empire, we are seeking opinions about how to fill the "type of government" slot in the infobox. There is a proposal to label it an empire. Cynwolfe ( talk) 13:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, wondering what the rules are - he was Greek and lived long before Rome became well known so I would think original Greek transcription would fit better? Richiez ( talk) 19:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I have spent the last few weeks revising and expanding the article on Philomela. I have proposed my work for Good Article status. If anyone is interested in reviewing it, take a look at WP:GAN. I appreciate it. -- ColonelHenry ( talk) 02:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia - Limes Dacicus is listed at
Wikipedia:Database reports/New WikiProjects (version of
10:52, 29 December 2012).
—
Wavelength (
talk)
17:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I have created two new stub articles needing expansion, additional work and input from project participants. The categories could use a review by others as they may need some tweaking, additions or subtractions.
The articles are:
Curia of Pompey and Porticus of Pompey which are given english common names. Please feel free to to expand and colaborate! Thanks and happy editing!-- Amadscientist ( talk) 03:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Janus has been nominated as a GA. Could I encourage a couple of project members to actually read the article, and offer some suggestions as to what might need to be improved before establishing this as one of the few mythology/ancient religion articles to achieve this rating? I have reasons for not participating in the review. One is that I don't know how to read at least half the prose. Another is that I'm foolishly contemplating a run at Cupid before Valentine's Day, which would no doubt become a full-time occupation. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
See User talk:Moonriddengirl#User Mondigomo and massive copyvio - some of these articles will be of interest to editors here. Dougweller ( talk) 17:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi I just though I would mention this here as it probably concerns you guys. The Alexander the Great article is in a pretty sorry state, with certain sections having bizarre tracts of biased text and opinions in poor English pasted into them, I raised this last month on the talk page but no one who has the power to edit the article has noticed as of yet. Considering the article is such a high profile one it really should be fixed asap. 82.10.182.26 ( talk) 22:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Kenny
This Project page should explain how the scope overlap is supposed to be resolved. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 11:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Hello! Over the past few days, an IP editor has been adding stuff on the Spartan army, especially Spartan "philosophy" and outlook on life etc. While most of it seems fairly innocuous, the sources he/she uses are not: History Channel documentaries and novels on ancient Sparta. And then there are comparisons between the Spartan ethos and " new Soviet man". I've reverted on sight and despite my attempts at explanation on why these sources are worthless, the IP has been re-reverting (obviously, I am an incorrigible "Athenian-lover"). Since this is a content dispute and not outright vandalism, I don't want to ask for page protection, but perhaps someone else might have a better idea about how to proceed here. Constantine ✍ 15:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I thought I'd seen everything, but it's not everyday that you come across the name of a new assassin of Julius Caesar, right here on Wikipedia! Apparently his name was Gaius Flavius Antoninus, and Mark Antony had a novel way of having him killed. Candidate for speedy deletion? Oatley2112 ( talk) 13:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Note that the creator of this article has all of two edits: [1]. Looks like some casual experimentation that went without real scrutiny for eight years. How many more articles are there like this? --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Historic roads and Roman roads are up for a move. Please see Talk:Roman roads. Simply south.... .. always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 16:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello all! I’m working with the Saylor foundation to create a series of original, crowd-sourced textbooks that will be openly licensed and freely available on the web and within Saylor’s free, self-paced courses at Saylor.org. We are using Wikibooks as a platform to host this project and hope to garner the interest of existing members of the Wikibooks and Wikipedia community, as well as bring in new members! We thought that some of your members may be interested in contributing to our book Saylor.org's Ancient Civilizations of the World. Thomas_Simpson ( talk) 18:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
As the title implies, I've seen several articles (like Bosporan Kingdom) now with WP:Greece in talk field but not this project. I've been correcting them, but would like to make sure I'm doing the right thing. -- Brigade Piron ( talk) 10:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't remove any tags unless it's obvious that the article has nothing to do with the history of Greece. Within that project's stated scope one finds:
History, including the prehistory of Greece, the history of ancient Greece including the Hellenistic world, the history of the Byzantine Empire and of medieval Greece in general, to the history of modern Greece
The relation between this project and WPGreece is the same as the relation between the Classics departments and the Hellenic Studies departments at both schools I attended: there is considerable overlap and cooperation. I, as a member of both WikiProjects, add both templates to every page on any Greek topic that I create or rate. davidiad .: 20:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Article is currently undergoing a major expansion. Please join the discussion at Talk:Sacred Band of Thebes#NPOV and David Leitao. Thank you. -- OBSIDIAN† SOUL 15:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Could I trouble someone to look over this edit yielding Senatvs Popvlvsqve Romanvs (and at least one other use of v in lowercase)? This is based on MOS:Ety, For better accessibility, Latin quotations should never be set in all caps or small caps, even when the use of lowercase might seem anachronistic. I don't know anything about the history of this guideline (other than this discussion), but it does seem there might be times when you would need to transcribe your source exactly, in dealing with epigraphy as such and not just the content of the inscription. In the Roman Republic article, however, I don't know why the phrases were represented as if they were inscriptions (if there was a legitimate reason, I wouldn't think the normal issues of readability need apply for such a short phrase). At any rate, in changing from upper to lower, I would find the use of v in the example above troubling. It would be nice if someone who cares more than I do about orthography and representing epigraphy could review MOS:Ety and the particular edits at Roman Republic. Cynwolfe ( talk) 01:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Since I didn't see some familiar names I would expect in the edit history, I just wanted to make sure project members interested in this topic were aware of the article's existence. Cynwolfe ( talk) 14:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I'd like to know if " Justinian dynasty" is supposed to be "Justin-ian" (i.e. " Justin's") or rather "Justinian's", and what the standard name is in scholarship. I can see why it would be named after Justinian rather than the rather obscure Justin, but in this case, shouldn't it be the "Justinianian dynasty"? Constantine ✍ 20:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I was hoping that someone from this project might be able to transcribe the two Greek words at the bottom of this source (page 92) so that I could include them in the etymology of the name Dictyophora for the article Phallus indusiatus. Thanks, Sasata ( talk) 08:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi - a (hopefully) quick question/confirmation. The Dolabella page states that this branch of the patrician Cornelii were Plebeian (which puts it at odds with the Cornelia (gens) page, which says they were patrician). I don't think the Dolabella page is correct. Although Publius Cornelius Dolabella had himself adopted into the plebeian family, the rest of the clan were patrician, weren't they? Certainly the imperial Dolabellae were patricians, and the current thinking is that they were descended from the patrician suffect consul of 35 BC, not the plebeian suffect consul of 44 BC. Can someone confirm my belief that the Dolabellae were patrician Cornelii? Thanks. Oatley2112 ( talk) 06:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I was just wondering if this Wikiproject has something similar on the English wikipedia that the Italian wikipedia has here?
In the event that such an infobox doesn't exist yet, it seems to me that its addition would be welcome. Two examples of its use can be seen here and here. For one thing it links roman cities to their provinces and the legions which were stationed there and clearly and easily presents basic information about when the settlements were active. -- U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 18:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Please look at Template:PWRE and its sample use in Acestodorus. Does it conform to the rules and make sense? S8w4 ( talk) 10:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
We need your help to better define the Thraco-Roman and Daco-Roman terms/cultures, using the most modern, reliable sources. We have a user who is trying to erase the two at any cost in order to push a POV in relation to Origin of the Romanians, despite of having a lot of articles (like Justinian I) pointing to them. Above all, we need to write better, sourced leads and identify the origin/first sources for the usage of the terms. Unfortunately, the literature is scarce in this area, mostly in Romanian and Bulgarian, unlike the documentation/research available for Gallo-Roman and Romano-British culture. I tried to improve the articles at my best but facing difficulties and would appreciate any help. Thanks! -- Codrin.B ( talk) 12:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Talk:Roman_Empire#Currency about what should be designated the Roman Empirer's 'currency'. Input from others in this project would be appreciated.
—
Sowlos (
talk)
00:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 12#Archaeological sites in Greece by period:
– Fayenatic L ondon 21:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm working on a new article on Volubilis in my user space. I'd be grateful if someone could help with translating an inscription - see User:Prioryman/Volubilis#Triumphal arch. Prioryman ( talk) 10:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd love someone to take a look at this and tell me where I'm wrong. I don't actually find modern sources giving a lot of evidence for a battle. Eg [3], [4](p.174), [5](pp75-76), [6]pp 518, 720. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 15:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Catullus 16 is up for GA review.
Lest I run afoul of prohibitions against canvassing, I will merely state that I bring this fact to your attention because I know that several members of this project have a degree in classics, a good education in the classics, are beautifully self-taught, or have high intellectual standards. Cynwolfe ( talk) 11:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Members of this project are invited to participate in the current RfC on the wording of WP:ERA pertaining to BC/AD and BCE/CE. I'm notifying this project because articles within our scope are among the most likely to need an era designation (to distinguish, for instance, the 2nd century BC/BCE from the 2nd century AD/CE). The original RfC was posted here, where you may follow the link to the live discussion. Thanks. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd be grateful for the contributions of people with expertise in both classical texts and Wikipedia policy at Talk:Ceterum_censeo_Carthaginem_esse_delendam#Recent_page_move. Thanks. -- Dweller ( talk) 16:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone - I just created an article on Marcus Appuleius, the Roman consul of 20 BC. It has been nominated for deletion on notability grounds. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Appuleius. Could I ask members of this group to have a look and make comments as appropriate? Thanks. Oatley2112 ( talk) 22:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
If we see any more of these, just comment as "Speedy keep per WP:POLITICIAN", which stipulates the automatic notability of:
Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices.
That latter criterion should also be of use to you, Oatley. Well, and that "legislature" bit means that any Roman senator is automatically notable. Be aware too that if you say "we have articles on other figures like this," the deletionista is likely to counter with WP:OTHERSTUFF (the existence of similar articles not being grounds for keeping something). Sometimes, however, it seems to be permissible to point to categorical precedent, though the guideline is vague:
In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items.
This is amplified at the essay WP:Other stuff exists#Precedent in usage. They tell you not to wikilawyer, and then they tell you to base your arguments on policies and guidelines (the law) rather than reason or chimerical common sense, so what do they expect? Deletionists also regularly cloak "I don't think this is important" as notability, when the minimum threshold for considering notability is simply being noted by a sufficient number of third-party sources. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'm sure I'll come under fire with this one, but here goes anyway... Recently, I've been doing quite a bit of work on pages from ancient civilisations (i.e. pre-4th C AD-ish) (like the Kushan Empire, Western Satraps, Han Dynasty China etc. who existed at the same time - even having trading relations with Greece and Rome - but who are not included in a wikiproject. Increasingly, modern scolarship is beginning to see ancient history as a much more fluid and international entity. My case is this: WP Classical Greece and Rome is great, but could it not be moved to encompass all ancient history (with defined date limits of course) and then have Greece and Rome individually included as "Task Forces" like in other wikiprojects? Would a WikiProject Ancient History not be a good thing? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this! --- Brigade Piron ( talk) 09:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a notification that a request has been made for Catullus 16 to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of that article. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 22:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
At Roman Empire, we are seeking opinions about how to fill the "type of government" slot in the infobox. There is a proposal to label it an empire. Cynwolfe ( talk) 13:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, wondering what the rules are - he was Greek and lived long before Rome became well known so I would think original Greek transcription would fit better? Richiez ( talk) 19:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I have spent the last few weeks revising and expanding the article on Philomela. I have proposed my work for Good Article status. If anyone is interested in reviewing it, take a look at WP:GAN. I appreciate it. -- ColonelHenry ( talk) 02:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia - Limes Dacicus is listed at
Wikipedia:Database reports/New WikiProjects (version of
10:52, 29 December 2012).
—
Wavelength (
talk)
17:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I have created two new stub articles needing expansion, additional work and input from project participants. The categories could use a review by others as they may need some tweaking, additions or subtractions.
The articles are:
Curia of Pompey and Porticus of Pompey which are given english common names. Please feel free to to expand and colaborate! Thanks and happy editing!-- Amadscientist ( talk) 03:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Janus has been nominated as a GA. Could I encourage a couple of project members to actually read the article, and offer some suggestions as to what might need to be improved before establishing this as one of the few mythology/ancient religion articles to achieve this rating? I have reasons for not participating in the review. One is that I don't know how to read at least half the prose. Another is that I'm foolishly contemplating a run at Cupid before Valentine's Day, which would no doubt become a full-time occupation. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
See User talk:Moonriddengirl#User Mondigomo and massive copyvio - some of these articles will be of interest to editors here. Dougweller ( talk) 17:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi I just though I would mention this here as it probably concerns you guys. The Alexander the Great article is in a pretty sorry state, with certain sections having bizarre tracts of biased text and opinions in poor English pasted into them, I raised this last month on the talk page but no one who has the power to edit the article has noticed as of yet. Considering the article is such a high profile one it really should be fixed asap. 82.10.182.26 ( talk) 22:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Kenny
This Project page should explain how the scope overlap is supposed to be resolved. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 11:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)