![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
More than 400000 images of objects from ancient time found in UK are now available on commons, released by the Portable Antiquities Scheme. See Commons:Village_pump#400.2C000_photographs_of_archaeological_objects_found_by_members_of_the_public_in_England_and_Wales. Ask also User:Fæ, User:Pigsonthewing.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 11:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I've taken a liking to template:harv for modern sources, but I was wondering what everyone thought the shorthand citations for ancient sources should look like. Now, I know that I could just say: "Dio, lv. 16.1" for "Cassius Dio, Roman History, LV. 16.1", but I'm specifically curious about how to handle authors like Suetonius, where it's "Suetonius, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Life of Tiberius, 64.3". Often, when citing Suetonius, I find I need to cite not just one of his "Lives", but multiple. So, should I do: "Suetonius, Life of Tiberius, 64.3", or "Suetonius, Tiberius, 64.3", or does anyone have a better way that goes together well with Harvard style references?
Also, it's been a while since there's been any activity here. Anything going on? Psychotic Spartan 123 18:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
This requested move discussion has been in progress for several days, but hasn't received a lot of comments. The article was originally titled "Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire", but was moved to its current title without discussion a little more than two years ago, on the ground that "Anti-Christian policies" was more neutral than "Persecution of Christians". The proposal is to move it back to its original title. Since this is one of the most popular topics in Roman history, it seems important to determine where community opinion really lies with respect to the title. But at this point, there are only five opinions: the nominator's, that of the editor who originally moved the article to its present title, an editor who has 0 contributions outside of this debate, and two others. If any project members see this post and have an opinion on which is the better title, please weigh in! P Aculeius ( talk) 12:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Looking through Category:Ancient Greek people stubs for articles which could productively be destubbed, I've noticed that there are about 40 articles on winners of the Stadion at the Olympics, all of which are of basically the same form, and most (all?) of which are simply never going to be expanded. Antimachus of Elis is typical of the type. They are all essentially the same: "$Athlete of $City was an ancient Greek athlete listed by Eusebius of Caesarea as the winner of the stadion race in $Olympic year."
Would there be any objections if I were to start redirecting the articles in this form to List of Olympic winners of the Stadion race? A number of other articles of the same form were previously redirected there following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantacles of Athens... Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 18:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I have begun to implement this only on the lowest of low-hanging fruit. Thus far I am giving any article with anything about the subject other than the fact that they won the race in a specific year a pass, so Tellis of Sicyon does enough to survive this run through. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 07:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Ugh, the more I look at these lists the less I like them. I've gone through List of Olympic winners of the Stadion race, redirected the worst of the substubs to that article, and removed all (I hope) of the links within the article which simply self-redirected. I've also found a few more articles of the same form not linked from that article, in Category:Ancient Greek people stubs, and redirected them. In the process, however, I have found List of ancient Olympic victors, which contradicts this list in multiple places, and where the Olympic years are a total mess: pretty much every Olympiad for which we know the result of more than one event is listed as corresponding to two different years, e.g. the diaulos at the 15th Olympiad is listed as taking place in 724 BC but the stadion of the 15th Olympiad in 720 BC. It looks like cleaning this up will be a total horror. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 16:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The page on Tithonos posits that there are two separate figures with nearly identical names, Tithonos and Tithonus. The article also says that "Tithonos" was the son of Eos (without citation) and that "Tithonus" was the lover of Eos. The same word (αγαυου) appears to be translated both as "haughty" and "lord," both of which are not very apt. I have never come across the former Tithonos and I have a feeling that whoever wrote this was confused about the Latinization of Greek names, among other things. I propose that this article be deleted. -- Aflecken ( talk) 13:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
As this discussion has been open almost a week, there have been no comments in the last three days, and it looks like we've pretty much come to a consensus, I have boldly merged the two articles. Kept Tithonus as the main article and turned Tithonos into a redirect from alternative transliteration. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 08:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 25/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
De Oratore contains two {{ disambiguation needed}} tags, from as long ago as December 2012 - to Marcus Porcius Cato and to Laelius. Can anyone help solve these problems? I wouldn't want to guess wrongly. Narky Blert ( talk) 11:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
The article Germanicus has been awaiting a review for Good Article status for two months and Sturmvogel 66, who said he would do it, has been inactive for a month now. If anyone has the time to give a review it would be appreciated. SpartaN ( talk) 23:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
re. the article Theoris of Lemnos, but this issue doesn't require any specialist knowledge of Theoris. (Raising this here on the grounds that there are probably more watchers of this page than there are of Talk:Theoris of Lemnos)
Our article currently follows Collins 2001 in saying that Theoris died "sometime before 338" (Collins 2001, p.477). That's fine so far as it goes, but I was looking today at Eidinow 2016, who says that the terminus ante quem for Theoris' trial and execution is 323 (Eidinow 2016, p.12). Normally I'd just deal with that by putting both dates in the article, with an explanation, but looking back at Collins he defends his terminus ante quem with a note which reads
The trial of Aristogeiton, during which Theoris' case is mentioned, took place sometime between 338 and 324, hence 338 is only a terminus ante quem.
He gives exactly the same date and explanation in Collins 2000, an earlier version of the paper. An even earlier version of the paper was delivered in 1997. Given my understanding of termini ante quem, it seems that Collins is wrong, and he means to have said that the terminus ante quem for Theoris' trial is 323. The fact that it wasn't pointed out in four years and two peer reviews, however makes me wonder if it is me who is making the basic mistake here. Especially as Collins 2008 once again gives 338 as the terminus ante quem, though this time without elaboration (Collins 2008, p.137).
So: is Collins making a mistake, which I should use my WP:DISCRETION to ignore? Am I being stupid? Should the discrepancy be mentioned in the article? Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 16:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
In my surveying of Rome-related articles, I found List of people mentioned in the works of Tacitus. Admittedly in its present state it's not a useful article -- viz. it merely lists names without providing any information who these people are or where their names appear in his works -- but with some determined work I can see how it could be useful to some people. However, if this page is developed to include all of Tacitus' works & provides the necessary information for finding these people -- & keep in mind that editors do alter the names as found in the manuscripts, so specific editions or translations may also need to be indicated -- it will doubtlessly lead to similar list articles being created for other important authors (e.g. Homer, Thucydides, Dio Cassius, etc.) Would having articles like this be a good thing, or should we follow the not yet formulated guideline that "Wikipedia is not a finding list of names"? -- llywrch ( talk) 20:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
There's an ongoing debate about what the title of this article should be, with some people suggesting the title is clear enough and useful enough to stay where it is, others arguing that it's not preferred in scholarly sources, and arguing for "Regal period" (with or without any mention of Rome), or perhaps a third option. I imagine several of the regulars here might want to give their opinion, but may be unaware of the discussion. Please, feel free to jump in, no matter what your opinion is! The more opinions there are from interested editors, the easier it'll be to determine whether a consensus exists for moving the article, and if so, to what title. P Aculeius ( talk) 01:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Some idiot well-meaning person has requested a copyedit from the "Guild of copy editors" and one has just accepted. No changes yet, but on past history changes may not be for the better.
Johnbod (
talk)
01:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
This article seems to be an obvious duplicate of Marcus Furius Camillus (consul of 8 AD). It escaped notice as a one-paragraph stub from 2009 until today, with no other edits for over three years. Today a user called "D A R C 12345" expanded it with somewhat; the additions go off on a few tangents, and don't seem to add anything that needs to be in the other article; they're also badly phrased, spelled, and punctuated. This is a very prolific editor, but he seems to be under the impression that the subject was a different man from the consul of AD 8. He also edited the article on the Furia gens, adding the duplicate in the wrong place, and linking a person with no article to a redirect to the person's father. Wondering what the next step to take with this article is. Merger, assuming there's anything to keep from the duplicate? P Aculeius ( talk) 04:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Germanicus; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 07:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I came across Wars of Augustus, it started in 2011, but the article is still in startup phase. What to do with it? Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
parmularius (gladiator) and scutarius: both created by Waerloeg in 2015, but neither actually appear to be words for distinct types of gladiator. None of the sources given in either article support the claim that they are, and the sources I have found rather seem to suggest that they refer to factions who favoured thraeces and murmillones respectively. For instance Carter (2006), "Palms for the Gladiators" p.651, who writes "supporters of thracian gladiators were known as parmularii, so-called after the shield carried by their heroes [...] and supporters of myrmillones were known as scutarii".
It seems like the best thing to do would be to redirect the articles to thraex and murmillo respectively, but gladiators aren't really my strong point, so I wanted to check here before doing so in case I am missing something, or someone thinks that there is a better solution. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 20:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Another one for the hivemind. The article's sources (such as they are) all lead back to the Index of Women of the World by Norma Olin Ireland (not a classicist). I don't have access to that, but I can't find anything in any of the usual places. Brill's New Pauly has nothing. The OCD has nothing. Smith's DGRBM has nothing. Plant's Women Writers of Ancient Greece and Rome, with its supposedly comprehensive list of attested ancient women writers, has nothing. I can't find anything on google or google scholar which doesn't derive from the Index of Women of the World. What am I missing? Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 09:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
So what is the best solution here? Simply turning Anicia into redirect?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 11:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
The easiest solution is probably, as P Aculeius says, turning Anicia into a redirect to Anicia (gens). The slightly more elegant solution is to move Anicia (gens) to Anicia (as there is nothing to disambiguate, there is no need for the parenthetical "gens"), which will require an admin to perform the move, as the target page already exists. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 17:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
So what should be done with the Anicia entry in List of craters on Venus? Even if we delete the Anicia page, the crater will still be named Anicia by the International Astronomical Union after the "Greek physician, poet"... Fornadan (t) 19:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Just to give everyone closure:
The Supplement to Index to Women of the World has this entry: "Amyte (Anicia) fl. 300 BC. Greek physician, poet, writer". Amyte is a fairly obvious misspelling for Anyte, so our conclusions were correct. It is cited to Kate Campbell Hurd-Mead, A history of women in medicine from the earliest times to the beginning of the nineteenth century p.34, which cites Pausanias. I can only get the snippet view of Hurd-Mead from Google Books, though, so I can't track that any further. Loeb and Teubner editions of Pausanias both clearly say "Anyte" rather than either "Amyte" or "Anicia", though. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 15:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I've just nominated these two articles for deletion because I'm convinced they're hoaxes, created by a now-banned user. Feel free to weigh in on the conversation. And if you can read French, please check to see if either person is actually mentioned in Christian Settipani's book -- although I strongly suspect they are not. (But I honestly would like to know.) -- llywrch ( talk) 19:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Moreover, what I find damning about these articles is that they are so similar in what they present: there's a birth & death date (when even we don't know this for otherwise well-documented individuals of the period), lots of genealogical information (usually connecting the person to someone better known), an absence of other personal detail, & the same useless citation of Settipani's book. Here let me emphasize the importance of that penultimate point, an absence of other personal detail. In every case of a notice of a person from Classical history, there is a reason we know they existed: an anecdote or two from a literary source, an inscription, an inference from facts in the imperfectly known lives of two or more other individuals. We know part of their lives for certain, much more from inference, & nothing about most of them. (There are only a very few ancient Romans whose lives are known in enough detail one could write a proper biography about them: Cicero, Augustus, Marcus Aurelius, & Julian the Apostate. Biographies about all the rest are a series of fragments tied together with a much larger share of conjecture.) We rarely know the year a given person died, & are lucky if we can pin it down to an approximate decade; even even less often know when that person was born. Yet all of the biographies G.-M. Cupertino wrote (either under his own username or one of his socks) has dates of their births & deaths -- yet not a clue how those dates were determined.
I'm going to stop here & apologize for not being more clear about my point. It's late here, & I'm letting my emotions rule instead of my reason. Maybe I'm entirely wrong here. But having read a few dozen of his "contributions" over the last few months, I can tell you they all have an identical feel to them, including the worthless cite of Settipani, while all of the biographies I've written are always very different in terms of what is said about their subject due to the different sources available, even when drawn from the same book. This similar feel leads me to conclude they're complete fabrications. -- llywrch ( talk) 08:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
There's a link to a DAB page in Virtus (virtue) which has been flagged as needing fixing since January 2013 – "[Cicero] uses [virtus] once to describe Caecilia Metella when she helps a man who is being chased by assassins". I can't work out which one it is. Cicero seems to have mentioned all six of them at one time or another. Can any expert here help solve the problem? For convenience, here's the relevant page of DGRB. (FWIW, I'm placing a small bet on the Vestal Caecilia Metella Balearica (priestess), whose person was sacrosanct.) Narky Blert ( talk) 19:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
She was the daughter of Q. Caecilius Metellus, who obtained the name of Balearicus from his conquest of the Balearic Islands during his consulship in 123; of her uncles, Marcus suppressed a revolt of the Sardinians and Gaius defeated the Thracians. Her brother was Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos, who was consul in 98. The mss. vary as to her name. In § 27 she is described as “Nepotis filiam,” here as “Balearici filia, Nepotis soror.” But since there is little doubt that she was the daughter of Metellus Balearicus, the text has been altered to correspond.It can be found on p.255 of Cicero. Pro Quinctio. Pro Roscio Amerino. Pro Roscio Comoedo. On the Agrarian Law. Translated by J. H. Freese. Loeb Classical Library 240. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930.
One of the quirks of the office of consuls under the Empire is how suffect consuls became an actual position. And that it makes a headache with those navigation boxes that appear at the bottom of many of the articles about the individual consuls.
To paraphrase Ronald Syme, prolegomena is unavoidable. Originally, a suffect consul was simply the person who replaced a consul when the latter died in office or resigned, & this was the practice for almost the entire Roman Republic. However, following Augustus' victory at Actium, he found he was in great need of men who had held the fasces to fill certain senior positions. As a result, candidates would serve as consuls for only part of the year; the last person to serve as consul an entire year was Nero in 57. At first, these shorter terms (which came to be known as a nundinium) were for six months; then for three months; then two. In the year 69, as each new emperor took office, the nundinia were sliced & diced quite randomly. (I suspect the year 190, with 25 consuls, is even worse.) This was an issue inasmuch as the office of consul had increasingly assumed more of a titular role than an actual one, & the suffect consul was a titular form of a titular office. Its chief importance was its use in dating the year, which could be identified either by the pair of ordinary consuls associated with it, or the pair of suffect consuls for the relevant part of the year: e.g., for August 56 one would indicate the pair Annaeanus & Ciltus not, say, Avitus & Paetus (this is the only way we know the names of many of these suffect consuls) -- although use of the ordinary consuls for any part of the year was often practiced.
Follow me so far?
So the question is how does one properly indicate which consul precedes & succeeds a given consul in the period 31 BC to AD 206, the year of the last known dated suffect consul? (The series of Republican consuls is quite simple -- just treat them all as the same. And the series of imperial consuls after AD 206 is relatively simple: since we don't know the name of most of the suffect consuls, we can simply ignore them.)
What I'm proposing for the consuls who held the fasces in the years 31 BC through AD 206 is the following:
Add to this the usual work-arounds for when we don't know the names of the immediate successor. Maybe just ignore the existence of suffect consuls in those years where we don't know any names, such as 104, 136, 137, etc.
I'd like to think adding this information means something to people beyond odd pedants like me. However, I spent a bit of time figuring out how to do this on a handful of articles (it is an example of complex manipulation of templates) & would like to get some feedback before modifying hundreds of articles only to find I'm making a distinction that really isn't a difference. -- llywrch ( talk) 07:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Having read the responses, & thought about it some more, I realized there was one more reason not to adopt the scheme I suggested: it requires an expertise with Wikimarkup that discourages casual users. While it's reasonable to insist on some familiarity with Wikimarkup to edit Wikipedia, understanding how that template was configured, let alone how to change it to accommodate changes in knowledge isn't reasonable. So I'm falling back to P Aculeius' suggestion of simply listing the consuls immediately before & after the consul -- & his colleague. And having revised a fair number of navigation boxes (from the set around 30 BC to AD 30 right before I started typing this), just simply listing those names results with enough complications. For some years, there are no fixed pairs of suffect consuls, for others there is only one suffect consul. There are some navigation boxes I'm not satisfied with, but at least what I'm doing is an improvement over what was there.
As for P Aculeius' comment about "whether Roman consuls should have succession boxes at all" -- I'll simply note someone else started adding these, probably around the time succession boxes were first added as a feature to Wikimarkup. I believe that if we are to have them, they might as well be correct. And they do look nice. As an aside, while I'm not keen on having infoboxes in biographical articles for the vast majority of consuls -- for most consuls, whose biographies will never amount to more than a few succinct paragraphs, having an infobox feels to me inappropriate -- there is some information which is best presented though an infobox, such as the voting tribe a given person belonged to. But that's a matter fit for another discussion.
Anyway, my thanks to everyone for their input. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Update: I've finished adding mising navigation boxes to all of the articles for the period 30 BC - AD 208, which is where the swamp of the suffect/ordinary consul problem lies. Feel free to have a look & condemn/praise my efforts. If nothing else, it was a beneficial exercise because I found two articles on consuls that had been floating out there, & allowed me to propose names for potential articles so that when they are created, they don't conflict with existing articles. (Whether or not these proposed names are adopted is another matter.) There are some boxes I'm not happy with because some suffect consuls were appointed to office individually, not in tandem, forcing me to improvise. I'm sure some of my improvisations aren't as successful as others. I also read quite a few existing biographical articles, which has lead me to the (diplomatically expressed) opinion that some articles are researched a lot better than others, some articles are written a lot better than others, & some articles aren't better than others in both categories. There is still a lot of work needing to be done. -- llywrch ( talk) 22:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I don't know a lot about ancient Greece, but I wrote a stub, Spintharus of Corinth, because I noticed someone had a link to the spider genus Spintharus intending it to go to an article about the architect. I figured I'd alert the relevant wikiproject about this article just in case I did anything wrong whilst being bold and creating it.
I was also going to write a proper disambiguation page instead of the janky hatnote, but looks like there are at least 6 people by the name of Spintharus, and I'm not entirely sure if any are the same person and which if any should be mentioned in a disambiguation page:
And there might be more! So I think I'll avoid a proper disambuation page for now, especially since it'll be full of mostly red links.
Anyway, hopefully this guy is notable for a wikipedia entry and I did a decent enough job with the stub. And apologies if this is unnecessary, but I figured better to be safe and give a heads up since I'm out of my element.
Cheers! :) Umimmak ( talk) 03:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm making some notes at the moment on the Adonia and looking to improve it a bit, and I was wondering if anyone could help me track down the source of this claim, currently in the article:
During this festival, ad-hoc groups of women only—according to Plato, who disapproved of the essentially non-Greek and female cultus, especially loose women, prostitutes and mistresses—gathered on the rooftops, wailing, drinking and singing.
The only reference to the Adonia in Plato I can find is a throwaway mention of the Gardens of Adonis in Phaedrus, and none of the works I have read on the Adonia so far have shed any light on the matter. It could perhaps be a mistake for Plato Comicus, who apparently wrote a play on the Adonia, though I don't know his fragments at all. Any clues?
Well, then! Has all this womanish pandemonium finished yet? Have they all finished with their lunatic drum beating and their vulgar drunken orgies and their rooftop wailing over their poor little Adonis? All this stuff reminds of the day--may we never see that day again!--when Demostratus talked us into sailing against Sicily. Remember? His drunken wife began an orgy of lamentations about her little Adonis. [Mocking her] "Oh, my poor, poor, little Adonis, my poor little Adonis! Oh, my poor, poor, little Adonis." She squealed and squealed interminably. Then Demostratus, the old piece of dung went on with "we need to enlist soldiers from Zakynthos!" and off she went again! She got up onto her roof this time and began screeching, "Cry, cry, ye all, for our poor, poor Adonis!" She screamed and carried on like this until the old ball-busting, wrath-straddled, God-cursed bastard, Demostratus, to spite her, pushed his vote through the Assembly! Such are the wild, undisciplined doings of women!
Regarding this template, I would like to point out that it seems actually quite incomplete to me (e. g. the whole province of Gallia Belgica and its colonies are missing). Does anybody see why only so few colonies are listed here in fact? I'm not an expert in Roman history, though – otherwise I would probably try to improve this by myself. Best regards-- Cleph ( talk) 17:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
There's a link in Titus Tatius to Carmania (now tagged {{ dn}}), which is a completely irrelevant DAB page. Neither Livy (I:13-14) nor DGRB (under Romulus) say anything about Titus and Romulus' conquests between the unfortunate incident with the Sabine women and Titus' death. The only Carmania in DGRG is the one in Asia. Has anyone got any ideas? I suspect a mistranscription, but can't think of any halfway-plausible emendation. Narky Blert ( talk) 13:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Could someone review recent contributions by Rjdeadly who has been emptying and shuffling some of the Roman wall/limes categories in the UK. It's not my subject at all but I know there was some discussion of the subject about a year ago, I thought you might like a heads-up. Cheers. Le Deluge ( talk) 11:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty to move this discussion to the talk page of the Limes article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty to move this discussion to the talk page of the Limes article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
OK here's another DAB puzzle, late Latin this time. Virgilius Maro Grammaticus has an ambiguous link to Cato. Can any regular here help solve the problem?
(The name "Sufphonias" in that article looks seriously dodgy; and the links to Aeneas and to Blastus also look wrong in all sorts of ways...) Narky Blert ( talk) 23:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
If anyone here can read ancient Greek, then User:The Blade of the Northern Lights is looking for some help in sorting out the list at User:Anomie/Neelix list/6#Greek. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Two things: I'm back from my months long hiatus, and I've "completed" improvements on articles of the would-be successors to emperors of the Julio-Claudian dynasty (except Agrippa). I'd appreciate any feedback regarding further improvements or to see if I've left out any important facts. The articles are, chronologically: M. Claudius Marcellus, G. Caesar, L. Caesar, Agrippa Postumus, Germanicus, Drusus Caesar, Nero Julius Caesar, Tiberius Gemellus, and Britannicus.
Gaius Caesar and Lucius Caesar are up for Good Article nomination and Peer review, respectively. I'm hopping to get all these articles promoted to GA status and if anyone has the time to review the G. and L. Caesar it would be much appreciated. I've been really busy with work out of town, but I have December off giving me time on Wikipedia. SpartaN ( talk) 22:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 14:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The rewritten version of the article much better reflects the reams of scholarship on the cult of Isis in the Greek and Roman worlds. I expect to take this article to FAC sometime in 2018, so any questions, comments, or suggestions for improvement are welcome. A. Parrot ( talk) 21:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The present category structure breaks down Category:Roman fortifications into legionary fortresses, auxiliary forts, vexilation forts. Is this division really necessary? Is it not over-categorisation? For some ruins, who could say definitively where they are legionary, auxiliary or vexilation? Is there enough content for all 3? Could they not be merged to a single Category:Roman fortresses ? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 22:30, 17 December 2017 (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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
More than 400000 images of objects from ancient time found in UK are now available on commons, released by the Portable Antiquities Scheme. See Commons:Village_pump#400.2C000_photographs_of_archaeological_objects_found_by_members_of_the_public_in_England_and_Wales. Ask also User:Fæ, User:Pigsonthewing.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 11:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I've taken a liking to template:harv for modern sources, but I was wondering what everyone thought the shorthand citations for ancient sources should look like. Now, I know that I could just say: "Dio, lv. 16.1" for "Cassius Dio, Roman History, LV. 16.1", but I'm specifically curious about how to handle authors like Suetonius, where it's "Suetonius, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Life of Tiberius, 64.3". Often, when citing Suetonius, I find I need to cite not just one of his "Lives", but multiple. So, should I do: "Suetonius, Life of Tiberius, 64.3", or "Suetonius, Tiberius, 64.3", or does anyone have a better way that goes together well with Harvard style references?
Also, it's been a while since there's been any activity here. Anything going on? Psychotic Spartan 123 18:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
This requested move discussion has been in progress for several days, but hasn't received a lot of comments. The article was originally titled "Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire", but was moved to its current title without discussion a little more than two years ago, on the ground that "Anti-Christian policies" was more neutral than "Persecution of Christians". The proposal is to move it back to its original title. Since this is one of the most popular topics in Roman history, it seems important to determine where community opinion really lies with respect to the title. But at this point, there are only five opinions: the nominator's, that of the editor who originally moved the article to its present title, an editor who has 0 contributions outside of this debate, and two others. If any project members see this post and have an opinion on which is the better title, please weigh in! P Aculeius ( talk) 12:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Looking through Category:Ancient Greek people stubs for articles which could productively be destubbed, I've noticed that there are about 40 articles on winners of the Stadion at the Olympics, all of which are of basically the same form, and most (all?) of which are simply never going to be expanded. Antimachus of Elis is typical of the type. They are all essentially the same: "$Athlete of $City was an ancient Greek athlete listed by Eusebius of Caesarea as the winner of the stadion race in $Olympic year."
Would there be any objections if I were to start redirecting the articles in this form to List of Olympic winners of the Stadion race? A number of other articles of the same form were previously redirected there following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantacles of Athens... Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 18:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I have begun to implement this only on the lowest of low-hanging fruit. Thus far I am giving any article with anything about the subject other than the fact that they won the race in a specific year a pass, so Tellis of Sicyon does enough to survive this run through. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 07:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Ugh, the more I look at these lists the less I like them. I've gone through List of Olympic winners of the Stadion race, redirected the worst of the substubs to that article, and removed all (I hope) of the links within the article which simply self-redirected. I've also found a few more articles of the same form not linked from that article, in Category:Ancient Greek people stubs, and redirected them. In the process, however, I have found List of ancient Olympic victors, which contradicts this list in multiple places, and where the Olympic years are a total mess: pretty much every Olympiad for which we know the result of more than one event is listed as corresponding to two different years, e.g. the diaulos at the 15th Olympiad is listed as taking place in 724 BC but the stadion of the 15th Olympiad in 720 BC. It looks like cleaning this up will be a total horror. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 16:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The page on Tithonos posits that there are two separate figures with nearly identical names, Tithonos and Tithonus. The article also says that "Tithonos" was the son of Eos (without citation) and that "Tithonus" was the lover of Eos. The same word (αγαυου) appears to be translated both as "haughty" and "lord," both of which are not very apt. I have never come across the former Tithonos and I have a feeling that whoever wrote this was confused about the Latinization of Greek names, among other things. I propose that this article be deleted. -- Aflecken ( talk) 13:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
As this discussion has been open almost a week, there have been no comments in the last three days, and it looks like we've pretty much come to a consensus, I have boldly merged the two articles. Kept Tithonus as the main article and turned Tithonos into a redirect from alternative transliteration. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 08:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 25/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
De Oratore contains two {{ disambiguation needed}} tags, from as long ago as December 2012 - to Marcus Porcius Cato and to Laelius. Can anyone help solve these problems? I wouldn't want to guess wrongly. Narky Blert ( talk) 11:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
The article Germanicus has been awaiting a review for Good Article status for two months and Sturmvogel 66, who said he would do it, has been inactive for a month now. If anyone has the time to give a review it would be appreciated. SpartaN ( talk) 23:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
re. the article Theoris of Lemnos, but this issue doesn't require any specialist knowledge of Theoris. (Raising this here on the grounds that there are probably more watchers of this page than there are of Talk:Theoris of Lemnos)
Our article currently follows Collins 2001 in saying that Theoris died "sometime before 338" (Collins 2001, p.477). That's fine so far as it goes, but I was looking today at Eidinow 2016, who says that the terminus ante quem for Theoris' trial and execution is 323 (Eidinow 2016, p.12). Normally I'd just deal with that by putting both dates in the article, with an explanation, but looking back at Collins he defends his terminus ante quem with a note which reads
The trial of Aristogeiton, during which Theoris' case is mentioned, took place sometime between 338 and 324, hence 338 is only a terminus ante quem.
He gives exactly the same date and explanation in Collins 2000, an earlier version of the paper. An even earlier version of the paper was delivered in 1997. Given my understanding of termini ante quem, it seems that Collins is wrong, and he means to have said that the terminus ante quem for Theoris' trial is 323. The fact that it wasn't pointed out in four years and two peer reviews, however makes me wonder if it is me who is making the basic mistake here. Especially as Collins 2008 once again gives 338 as the terminus ante quem, though this time without elaboration (Collins 2008, p.137).
So: is Collins making a mistake, which I should use my WP:DISCRETION to ignore? Am I being stupid? Should the discrepancy be mentioned in the article? Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 16:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
In my surveying of Rome-related articles, I found List of people mentioned in the works of Tacitus. Admittedly in its present state it's not a useful article -- viz. it merely lists names without providing any information who these people are or where their names appear in his works -- but with some determined work I can see how it could be useful to some people. However, if this page is developed to include all of Tacitus' works & provides the necessary information for finding these people -- & keep in mind that editors do alter the names as found in the manuscripts, so specific editions or translations may also need to be indicated -- it will doubtlessly lead to similar list articles being created for other important authors (e.g. Homer, Thucydides, Dio Cassius, etc.) Would having articles like this be a good thing, or should we follow the not yet formulated guideline that "Wikipedia is not a finding list of names"? -- llywrch ( talk) 20:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
There's an ongoing debate about what the title of this article should be, with some people suggesting the title is clear enough and useful enough to stay where it is, others arguing that it's not preferred in scholarly sources, and arguing for "Regal period" (with or without any mention of Rome), or perhaps a third option. I imagine several of the regulars here might want to give their opinion, but may be unaware of the discussion. Please, feel free to jump in, no matter what your opinion is! The more opinions there are from interested editors, the easier it'll be to determine whether a consensus exists for moving the article, and if so, to what title. P Aculeius ( talk) 01:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Some idiot well-meaning person has requested a copyedit from the "Guild of copy editors" and one has just accepted. No changes yet, but on past history changes may not be for the better.
Johnbod (
talk)
01:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
This article seems to be an obvious duplicate of Marcus Furius Camillus (consul of 8 AD). It escaped notice as a one-paragraph stub from 2009 until today, with no other edits for over three years. Today a user called "D A R C 12345" expanded it with somewhat; the additions go off on a few tangents, and don't seem to add anything that needs to be in the other article; they're also badly phrased, spelled, and punctuated. This is a very prolific editor, but he seems to be under the impression that the subject was a different man from the consul of AD 8. He also edited the article on the Furia gens, adding the duplicate in the wrong place, and linking a person with no article to a redirect to the person's father. Wondering what the next step to take with this article is. Merger, assuming there's anything to keep from the duplicate? P Aculeius ( talk) 04:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Germanicus; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 07:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I came across Wars of Augustus, it started in 2011, but the article is still in startup phase. What to do with it? Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
parmularius (gladiator) and scutarius: both created by Waerloeg in 2015, but neither actually appear to be words for distinct types of gladiator. None of the sources given in either article support the claim that they are, and the sources I have found rather seem to suggest that they refer to factions who favoured thraeces and murmillones respectively. For instance Carter (2006), "Palms for the Gladiators" p.651, who writes "supporters of thracian gladiators were known as parmularii, so-called after the shield carried by their heroes [...] and supporters of myrmillones were known as scutarii".
It seems like the best thing to do would be to redirect the articles to thraex and murmillo respectively, but gladiators aren't really my strong point, so I wanted to check here before doing so in case I am missing something, or someone thinks that there is a better solution. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 20:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Another one for the hivemind. The article's sources (such as they are) all lead back to the Index of Women of the World by Norma Olin Ireland (not a classicist). I don't have access to that, but I can't find anything in any of the usual places. Brill's New Pauly has nothing. The OCD has nothing. Smith's DGRBM has nothing. Plant's Women Writers of Ancient Greece and Rome, with its supposedly comprehensive list of attested ancient women writers, has nothing. I can't find anything on google or google scholar which doesn't derive from the Index of Women of the World. What am I missing? Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 09:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
So what is the best solution here? Simply turning Anicia into redirect?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 11:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
The easiest solution is probably, as P Aculeius says, turning Anicia into a redirect to Anicia (gens). The slightly more elegant solution is to move Anicia (gens) to Anicia (as there is nothing to disambiguate, there is no need for the parenthetical "gens"), which will require an admin to perform the move, as the target page already exists. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 17:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
So what should be done with the Anicia entry in List of craters on Venus? Even if we delete the Anicia page, the crater will still be named Anicia by the International Astronomical Union after the "Greek physician, poet"... Fornadan (t) 19:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Just to give everyone closure:
The Supplement to Index to Women of the World has this entry: "Amyte (Anicia) fl. 300 BC. Greek physician, poet, writer". Amyte is a fairly obvious misspelling for Anyte, so our conclusions were correct. It is cited to Kate Campbell Hurd-Mead, A history of women in medicine from the earliest times to the beginning of the nineteenth century p.34, which cites Pausanias. I can only get the snippet view of Hurd-Mead from Google Books, though, so I can't track that any further. Loeb and Teubner editions of Pausanias both clearly say "Anyte" rather than either "Amyte" or "Anicia", though. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 15:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I've just nominated these two articles for deletion because I'm convinced they're hoaxes, created by a now-banned user. Feel free to weigh in on the conversation. And if you can read French, please check to see if either person is actually mentioned in Christian Settipani's book -- although I strongly suspect they are not. (But I honestly would like to know.) -- llywrch ( talk) 19:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Moreover, what I find damning about these articles is that they are so similar in what they present: there's a birth & death date (when even we don't know this for otherwise well-documented individuals of the period), lots of genealogical information (usually connecting the person to someone better known), an absence of other personal detail, & the same useless citation of Settipani's book. Here let me emphasize the importance of that penultimate point, an absence of other personal detail. In every case of a notice of a person from Classical history, there is a reason we know they existed: an anecdote or two from a literary source, an inscription, an inference from facts in the imperfectly known lives of two or more other individuals. We know part of their lives for certain, much more from inference, & nothing about most of them. (There are only a very few ancient Romans whose lives are known in enough detail one could write a proper biography about them: Cicero, Augustus, Marcus Aurelius, & Julian the Apostate. Biographies about all the rest are a series of fragments tied together with a much larger share of conjecture.) We rarely know the year a given person died, & are lucky if we can pin it down to an approximate decade; even even less often know when that person was born. Yet all of the biographies G.-M. Cupertino wrote (either under his own username or one of his socks) has dates of their births & deaths -- yet not a clue how those dates were determined.
I'm going to stop here & apologize for not being more clear about my point. It's late here, & I'm letting my emotions rule instead of my reason. Maybe I'm entirely wrong here. But having read a few dozen of his "contributions" over the last few months, I can tell you they all have an identical feel to them, including the worthless cite of Settipani, while all of the biographies I've written are always very different in terms of what is said about their subject due to the different sources available, even when drawn from the same book. This similar feel leads me to conclude they're complete fabrications. -- llywrch ( talk) 08:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
There's a link to a DAB page in Virtus (virtue) which has been flagged as needing fixing since January 2013 – "[Cicero] uses [virtus] once to describe Caecilia Metella when she helps a man who is being chased by assassins". I can't work out which one it is. Cicero seems to have mentioned all six of them at one time or another. Can any expert here help solve the problem? For convenience, here's the relevant page of DGRB. (FWIW, I'm placing a small bet on the Vestal Caecilia Metella Balearica (priestess), whose person was sacrosanct.) Narky Blert ( talk) 19:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
She was the daughter of Q. Caecilius Metellus, who obtained the name of Balearicus from his conquest of the Balearic Islands during his consulship in 123; of her uncles, Marcus suppressed a revolt of the Sardinians and Gaius defeated the Thracians. Her brother was Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos, who was consul in 98. The mss. vary as to her name. In § 27 she is described as “Nepotis filiam,” here as “Balearici filia, Nepotis soror.” But since there is little doubt that she was the daughter of Metellus Balearicus, the text has been altered to correspond.It can be found on p.255 of Cicero. Pro Quinctio. Pro Roscio Amerino. Pro Roscio Comoedo. On the Agrarian Law. Translated by J. H. Freese. Loeb Classical Library 240. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930.
One of the quirks of the office of consuls under the Empire is how suffect consuls became an actual position. And that it makes a headache with those navigation boxes that appear at the bottom of many of the articles about the individual consuls.
To paraphrase Ronald Syme, prolegomena is unavoidable. Originally, a suffect consul was simply the person who replaced a consul when the latter died in office or resigned, & this was the practice for almost the entire Roman Republic. However, following Augustus' victory at Actium, he found he was in great need of men who had held the fasces to fill certain senior positions. As a result, candidates would serve as consuls for only part of the year; the last person to serve as consul an entire year was Nero in 57. At first, these shorter terms (which came to be known as a nundinium) were for six months; then for three months; then two. In the year 69, as each new emperor took office, the nundinia were sliced & diced quite randomly. (I suspect the year 190, with 25 consuls, is even worse.) This was an issue inasmuch as the office of consul had increasingly assumed more of a titular role than an actual one, & the suffect consul was a titular form of a titular office. Its chief importance was its use in dating the year, which could be identified either by the pair of ordinary consuls associated with it, or the pair of suffect consuls for the relevant part of the year: e.g., for August 56 one would indicate the pair Annaeanus & Ciltus not, say, Avitus & Paetus (this is the only way we know the names of many of these suffect consuls) -- although use of the ordinary consuls for any part of the year was often practiced.
Follow me so far?
So the question is how does one properly indicate which consul precedes & succeeds a given consul in the period 31 BC to AD 206, the year of the last known dated suffect consul? (The series of Republican consuls is quite simple -- just treat them all as the same. And the series of imperial consuls after AD 206 is relatively simple: since we don't know the name of most of the suffect consuls, we can simply ignore them.)
What I'm proposing for the consuls who held the fasces in the years 31 BC through AD 206 is the following:
Add to this the usual work-arounds for when we don't know the names of the immediate successor. Maybe just ignore the existence of suffect consuls in those years where we don't know any names, such as 104, 136, 137, etc.
I'd like to think adding this information means something to people beyond odd pedants like me. However, I spent a bit of time figuring out how to do this on a handful of articles (it is an example of complex manipulation of templates) & would like to get some feedback before modifying hundreds of articles only to find I'm making a distinction that really isn't a difference. -- llywrch ( talk) 07:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Having read the responses, & thought about it some more, I realized there was one more reason not to adopt the scheme I suggested: it requires an expertise with Wikimarkup that discourages casual users. While it's reasonable to insist on some familiarity with Wikimarkup to edit Wikipedia, understanding how that template was configured, let alone how to change it to accommodate changes in knowledge isn't reasonable. So I'm falling back to P Aculeius' suggestion of simply listing the consuls immediately before & after the consul -- & his colleague. And having revised a fair number of navigation boxes (from the set around 30 BC to AD 30 right before I started typing this), just simply listing those names results with enough complications. For some years, there are no fixed pairs of suffect consuls, for others there is only one suffect consul. There are some navigation boxes I'm not satisfied with, but at least what I'm doing is an improvement over what was there.
As for P Aculeius' comment about "whether Roman consuls should have succession boxes at all" -- I'll simply note someone else started adding these, probably around the time succession boxes were first added as a feature to Wikimarkup. I believe that if we are to have them, they might as well be correct. And they do look nice. As an aside, while I'm not keen on having infoboxes in biographical articles for the vast majority of consuls -- for most consuls, whose biographies will never amount to more than a few succinct paragraphs, having an infobox feels to me inappropriate -- there is some information which is best presented though an infobox, such as the voting tribe a given person belonged to. But that's a matter fit for another discussion.
Anyway, my thanks to everyone for their input. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Update: I've finished adding mising navigation boxes to all of the articles for the period 30 BC - AD 208, which is where the swamp of the suffect/ordinary consul problem lies. Feel free to have a look & condemn/praise my efforts. If nothing else, it was a beneficial exercise because I found two articles on consuls that had been floating out there, & allowed me to propose names for potential articles so that when they are created, they don't conflict with existing articles. (Whether or not these proposed names are adopted is another matter.) There are some boxes I'm not happy with because some suffect consuls were appointed to office individually, not in tandem, forcing me to improvise. I'm sure some of my improvisations aren't as successful as others. I also read quite a few existing biographical articles, which has lead me to the (diplomatically expressed) opinion that some articles are researched a lot better than others, some articles are written a lot better than others, & some articles aren't better than others in both categories. There is still a lot of work needing to be done. -- llywrch ( talk) 22:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I don't know a lot about ancient Greece, but I wrote a stub, Spintharus of Corinth, because I noticed someone had a link to the spider genus Spintharus intending it to go to an article about the architect. I figured I'd alert the relevant wikiproject about this article just in case I did anything wrong whilst being bold and creating it.
I was also going to write a proper disambiguation page instead of the janky hatnote, but looks like there are at least 6 people by the name of Spintharus, and I'm not entirely sure if any are the same person and which if any should be mentioned in a disambiguation page:
And there might be more! So I think I'll avoid a proper disambuation page for now, especially since it'll be full of mostly red links.
Anyway, hopefully this guy is notable for a wikipedia entry and I did a decent enough job with the stub. And apologies if this is unnecessary, but I figured better to be safe and give a heads up since I'm out of my element.
Cheers! :) Umimmak ( talk) 03:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm making some notes at the moment on the Adonia and looking to improve it a bit, and I was wondering if anyone could help me track down the source of this claim, currently in the article:
During this festival, ad-hoc groups of women only—according to Plato, who disapproved of the essentially non-Greek and female cultus, especially loose women, prostitutes and mistresses—gathered on the rooftops, wailing, drinking and singing.
The only reference to the Adonia in Plato I can find is a throwaway mention of the Gardens of Adonis in Phaedrus, and none of the works I have read on the Adonia so far have shed any light on the matter. It could perhaps be a mistake for Plato Comicus, who apparently wrote a play on the Adonia, though I don't know his fragments at all. Any clues?
Well, then! Has all this womanish pandemonium finished yet? Have they all finished with their lunatic drum beating and their vulgar drunken orgies and their rooftop wailing over their poor little Adonis? All this stuff reminds of the day--may we never see that day again!--when Demostratus talked us into sailing against Sicily. Remember? His drunken wife began an orgy of lamentations about her little Adonis. [Mocking her] "Oh, my poor, poor, little Adonis, my poor little Adonis! Oh, my poor, poor, little Adonis." She squealed and squealed interminably. Then Demostratus, the old piece of dung went on with "we need to enlist soldiers from Zakynthos!" and off she went again! She got up onto her roof this time and began screeching, "Cry, cry, ye all, for our poor, poor Adonis!" She screamed and carried on like this until the old ball-busting, wrath-straddled, God-cursed bastard, Demostratus, to spite her, pushed his vote through the Assembly! Such are the wild, undisciplined doings of women!
Regarding this template, I would like to point out that it seems actually quite incomplete to me (e. g. the whole province of Gallia Belgica and its colonies are missing). Does anybody see why only so few colonies are listed here in fact? I'm not an expert in Roman history, though – otherwise I would probably try to improve this by myself. Best regards-- Cleph ( talk) 17:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
There's a link in Titus Tatius to Carmania (now tagged {{ dn}}), which is a completely irrelevant DAB page. Neither Livy (I:13-14) nor DGRB (under Romulus) say anything about Titus and Romulus' conquests between the unfortunate incident with the Sabine women and Titus' death. The only Carmania in DGRG is the one in Asia. Has anyone got any ideas? I suspect a mistranscription, but can't think of any halfway-plausible emendation. Narky Blert ( talk) 13:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Could someone review recent contributions by Rjdeadly who has been emptying and shuffling some of the Roman wall/limes categories in the UK. It's not my subject at all but I know there was some discussion of the subject about a year ago, I thought you might like a heads-up. Cheers. Le Deluge ( talk) 11:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty to move this discussion to the talk page of the Limes article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty to move this discussion to the talk page of the Limes article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
OK here's another DAB puzzle, late Latin this time. Virgilius Maro Grammaticus has an ambiguous link to Cato. Can any regular here help solve the problem?
(The name "Sufphonias" in that article looks seriously dodgy; and the links to Aeneas and to Blastus also look wrong in all sorts of ways...) Narky Blert ( talk) 23:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
If anyone here can read ancient Greek, then User:The Blade of the Northern Lights is looking for some help in sorting out the list at User:Anomie/Neelix list/6#Greek. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Two things: I'm back from my months long hiatus, and I've "completed" improvements on articles of the would-be successors to emperors of the Julio-Claudian dynasty (except Agrippa). I'd appreciate any feedback regarding further improvements or to see if I've left out any important facts. The articles are, chronologically: M. Claudius Marcellus, G. Caesar, L. Caesar, Agrippa Postumus, Germanicus, Drusus Caesar, Nero Julius Caesar, Tiberius Gemellus, and Britannicus.
Gaius Caesar and Lucius Caesar are up for Good Article nomination and Peer review, respectively. I'm hopping to get all these articles promoted to GA status and if anyone has the time to review the G. and L. Caesar it would be much appreciated. I've been really busy with work out of town, but I have December off giving me time on Wikipedia. SpartaN ( talk) 22:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 14:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The rewritten version of the article much better reflects the reams of scholarship on the cult of Isis in the Greek and Roman worlds. I expect to take this article to FAC sometime in 2018, so any questions, comments, or suggestions for improvement are welcome. A. Parrot ( talk) 21:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The present category structure breaks down Category:Roman fortifications into legionary fortresses, auxiliary forts, vexilation forts. Is this division really necessary? Is it not over-categorisation? For some ruins, who could say definitively where they are legionary, auxiliary or vexilation? Is there enough content for all 3? Could they not be merged to a single Category:Roman fortresses ? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 22:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)