![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Hi. I'd welcome some input at Talk:Battle_of_Thermopylae#More_Info.21 where there's debate over what size army should be added to the infobox at the battle's article.
I'm concerned by what appears to me to be a flawed OR analysis of an orginal source. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I have requested a peer review of Philitas of Cos. Eubulides ( talk) 20:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello all. I've just come across the stub article sparagmos and would like to ask if someone from the project would be kind enough to add the original term written in the Greek alphabet, please. It's just a stub, so if anyone has anything to add to it, that'd be great. Many thanks, DionysosProteus ( talk) 20:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I have recently developed the stub on the battle of corinth, but i don't know whether or not it can be considered an proper article yet. Please check it out and let me know what you think about it.
Murphy321 ( talk) 21:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I nominated Philitas of Cos as a featured article candidate; comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philitas of Cos. Eubulides ( talk) 03:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear all, I'm hoping you'll be able to resolve a debate for me: how is Alcestis pronounced? Actors I know seem to have a tradition of pronouncing it "al-SES-tis" but I'm assuming that "al-KES-tis" is the Greek version. Could anyone add a pronunciation guide to the article? Many thanks, DionysosProteus ( talk) 19:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have just carried out a major edit of Sparta. I would appreciate comments. Thanks. Lexo ( talk) 00:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me what the building is in the middle of this picture? This is the Roman Forum with the Temple of Castor and Pollux to the right. The building is at 41°53′28.48″N 12°29′8.02″E / 41.8912444°N 12.4855611°E and the picture was taken from the northeast. Thanks! — Wknight94 ( talk) 04:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This article has suffered much vandalism in the past. Some people now consider that this is an npov article stating that Ploutarch is an unreliable and non neutral historic(?). Its really bad to see how nationalism can infiltrate in a encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexikoua ( talk • contribs) 22:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC) -- Alexikoua ( talk) 22:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Someone is playing like a child with reliable sources. The article will remain without these out of the question signs, until someone has something serious to argue with(and I dont mean nationalistic, racist arguments that just a person's nationality makes him unreliable) Alexikoua ( talk) 19:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:JMG242.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The History of Sparta was given a start rating a couple of years ago. Can someone give it a look over to check whether it has improved since then. Thanks. Dejvid ( talk) 12:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I could use some input from any interested experts at Roman consul. Specifically, a debate over a date/period to apply the title in a historically accurate fashion, as opposed to Hypatus, or just plain old Consul. This gets into, essentially, the last Byzantine consul who would also have been considered a legitimate Roman consul. Thanks. Hiberniantears ( talk) 20:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Lucretius/Aristophanes and the coal basket I've recently created this userbox featuring an Aristophanic plea for tolerance (quoted from 'The Acharnians'). Others might be interested in adopting it. I am thinking of creating other Aristophanic userboxes, depending on interest/motivation etc. Maybe there is already some kind of project for classical userboxes. Lucretius ( talk) 00:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC) User:Lucretius/Aristophanes and the dung beetle Here is another one - this time a plea for co-operation (quoted from 'Peace'). I haven't worked out how to adjust for colour. I've used the English paraphrase as a link to a page that explains the context. Lucretius ( talk) 21:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC) User:Lucretius/Aristophanes and the clouds Here is the 3rd (and last?) in the present series. The link explains the context and in turn provides other links to Aristophanes and The Clouds. I think this is not a bad way to promote awareness of aspects of classical literature and language and maybe 'we' (who's that?) can create a collection of boxes for many different authors. Anyhow, it's worth a thought. Lucretius ( talk) 22:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC) User:Lucretius/Aristophanes and the victory song This is definitely the last one I'll post here. Like the others it links to one of my own sandboxes with an explanation of the context. Ideally all these userboxes should be in a 'neutral' or public space. If you notice the vocative is missing it's because this is not actually quoting Archilochus but Aristophanes echoing Archilochus. And by the way, she's a good looking girl! Looks spookily like Princess Dianna (the face). Lucretius ( talk) 03:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I've now created a new userbox category 'Classical Latin and Greek Literature' (here: Wikipedia:Userboxes) under the general category 'Interests and hobbies'. So far it only features quotes from Aristophanes but hopefully other contributors will add to it. The use of memorable quotes and subpage/sandbox links should greatly expand the reach and utility of the userboxes, I think. Lucretius ( talk) 23:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The two articles, Lysicles and Lysicles (general), need disambiguation. They refer to Athenian commanders who appear to have lived in the 5th and 4th centuries BC, respectively. I think it best to rename the first article Lysicles (5th century BC) and the second article Lysicles (4th century BC), with a disambiguation page listing both. Any better ideas, or shall I proceed with the move? - Canglesea ( talk) 19:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody who knows Roman History check the edits made by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.18.119.54? I'm not sure what they're doing is vandalism or is actually improving these articles. Little Red Riding Hood talk 02:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
A few days ago, a whole host of biographies of ancient people got uploaded to Wikipedia from 67.111.218.66. There have been other changes since from other IP numbers and new user names. They are not all to do with Ancient Greece and Rome, but a lot of them are. By the looks of the conversation on Talk:Guo Shoujing, there may be a class project to "improve" certain pages on Wikipedia. Presumably a teacher has handed obscure historical figures to pupils as a project. Among the pages in Classical Greece and Rome affected are: Herodian, Duris of Samos, Titus Labienus (historian), Marcius Turbo, Euclid of Megara, Bassianus (senator), Ardaric, Marcus Claudius Marcellus, Lucius Manlius Vulso Longus, Herophilos, Festus (historian).
The quality of these improvements varies, they rarely have any inline citations, and they do contain mistakes and exaggerations (weasel words and peacock terms), and a lot vague filler. In short, they tend to read like high-school essays. Eventually these contributions are going to have to be edited, trimmed, checked, reverted etc., but at the moment, the writers of these articles seem to be trying to protect their contributions. Singinglemon ( talk) 00:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I've assigned some ap students to work on catullus articles--so far c. 49 seems like a decent beginning. Any tips or comments appreciated. Drjzh ( talk) 21:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)drjzh
AP stands for Advanced Placement--these are courses in U.S. high schools that allegedly do college-level work. Near the end of the course, students in these courses take AP tests, and if they score well enough they can receive college credit (depending on the college/university they go to). Catullus is indeed taught in American high schools, even the naughty bits. Lesbia's name is pretty tame, really.
Drjzh, if you have not read WP:NPOV and WP:OR, which are two of the core content policies at Wikipedia, please do so ASAP. If you and your students don't understand these policies--the basic principle is that Wikipedia reports the opinions of secondary sources--then there will be unfortunate results. --Akhilleus ( talk) 13:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Sexually explicit? Yes and most Dads would say "Sure! He's already seen my Playboy magazines!" And teacher replies "I should have said homosexually explicit". That won't get too many nods of approval in spite of these enlightened times. An introduction to Catullus should be highly structured and it should be kept in the classroom - for the teacher's own safety as well as for the kids. That's my advice to Drjzh. Lucretius ( talk) 23:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes but somebody wants to bring a school excursion onto the building site and we are discussing safety issues. Lucretius ( talk) 01:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
If somebody, purporting to be a teacher, asks for advice about student research into Catullus here at Wikipedia, concerns relating to pornographic poems are hardly a non-issue. Issues like that have been known to destroy careers and childhoods. The discussion here is not interfering with your precious work, Aramgar. Lucretius ( talk) 23:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Some poems by Catullus are hardly more than pornography and carmen 56 is hardly more than child pornography. Child pornography certainly destroys childhoods and Catullus is not an appropriate subject for self-directed research by highschoolers. This is so obvious I wonder how anyone can challenge it. Anyway, enough said on this topic by me. Lucretius ( talk) 06:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I had already sailed over the horizon when this canonball splashed in front of me. I am entitled to fire back. I think 'pupulum' pretty much indicates 'a little boy' - in fact my dictionay uses Catullus to demonstrate the meaning. It's a wilfully broad interpretation that insists on taking it any other way. I'm not attacking Catullus. I think he's a great poet - along with myself, he was Rome's signpost to a great literature, until the emperor-toadying poets like Horace and Virgil settled for a quiet life on a nice pension. As for the 'teacher' who was going to set his class loose on Catullus - he has disappeared, which rather confirms my cautionary post, whatever his motives might have been. Now I shall go cruising again, in search of treasures. Lucretius ( talk) 06:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at the article on Hypatus and help expand it, or at least add some solid citations? This is essentially the Byzantine title for consul, and I was wondering if:
Many thanks! Hiberniantears ( talk) 18:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody take a look at Carthage. There's a discussion about what to include in the introduction. Wandalstouring ( talk) 14:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I've just created the article Prostitution in ancient Rome, based on W. C. Firebaugh's notes in his translation of the Satyricon of Petronius Arbiter, which are in the public domain.
Since this text was first published in 1920, it is somewhat out of date, and I would imagine that scholarship has moved on since then. This is thus in great need of cleanup and revision (which is why I'm posting about it here) but it seemed like a good starting point for a proper article. -- The Anome ( talk) 19:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have the time to do a merge of Lamachos into Lamachus? It is a little out of my area. - Canglesea ( talk) 04:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I need some consensus to a couple of illustrations I am working on. They illustrate a number of structures but.....I am finding competing information and discovering new material. So, I request input to alter this image. You can reply here or at my user page. Illustrators are, of course welcome to save the image and alter it, as it is in the Public Domain, but all alteration must be accompanied by clear citations.
Help Illustrate Wikipedia by consensus!
The first image is the same layout as the second so the subjects are the same, the ancient Roman Comitium and the Curia Hostilia (any information about the layout of the Curia Cornelia is acceptable as well)
Tear the heck out of it if you want....no need to be kind, LOL! I don't care. Just be accurate and cite all sources. Thanks!-- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a Wiki file picture of a great big seat in the Theatre of Dionysus, Athens. I suspect it held the rear end of the archon basileus or of the priest of Dionysus, though it is hard to tell from this angle 2000+ years later. The file lists it simply as a VIP seat. If anyone knows whose seat it was, please advise. Thanks. Lucretius ( talk) 03:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I led with my jaw because I'm not afraid to get hit (metaphorically speaking). Genuinely - thanks for the help. I'm not a great fan of the Romans - at least they built roads for the spread of Greek culture - so I'm not sure what role Marcus Ulpius had in Athens, but the inscription suggests he combined his duties with those of archon eponymos. Which suggests that the chair is historically descended from the archon's chair and therefore I could label it the 'archon's chair'. Any disagreements about this? Again thanks. Lucretius ( talk) 23:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks one and all for generous contributions. I've now titled the file at Wikimedia as Theatre of Dionysus and the throne for the archon eponymos (the throne is dedicated to a Roman citizen, Marcus Ulpius, and to his two sons, 3rd Century A.D., in recognition of their charitable works during a time of famine). Lucretius ( talk) 21:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Would someone more informed than me please have a go at sorting this article out? It's a shocker. Ericoides ( talk) 14:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
These two articles need to be merged: The Four Hundred (oligarchy) and Athenian coup of 411 BC. I don't know how to do it. On a more general issue - can an article with only one reference and only three cited sources be awarded a B status? Sicilian Expedition proves that it can. I feel a kind of reverence for the process that results in such mysterious results. Or maybe I've misunderstood something. Lucretius ( talk) 06:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently only a two-item dab; please see Talk:Ethnos. Skookum1 ( talk) 19:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Could someone review the article Gaius Ateius Capito (tribune) to see whether the "expert needed" label should be removed? I am no expert, but I thoroughly revised the article and provided documentation. The label implies that the information should be regarded with undue caution, but because I make no claim to expertise, and because the person adding the label left no comments about what deficiencies should be addressed, I don't feel I should remove it myself. Unless it's still there in a couple of weeks, at which point I'll just decide nobody cares and I'll take the initiative. Cynwolfe ( talk) 17:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, since there are now
quite a few lists on Roman architecture, I tried to create a new template for them:
{{Navbox
|name = Lists of Roman architecture
|title = Lists of [[Roman architecture]]
|image =
|titlestyle = {{{titlestyle|}}}
|list1 = <div>
[[List of Roman amphitheatres]] {{·}}
[[List of aqueducts in the city of Rome|List of aqueducts in Rome]] {{·}}
[[List of aqueducts in the Roman Empire]] {{·}}
[[List of Roman bridges]] {{·}}
[[List of Roman cisterns]] {{·}} <br>
[[List of Roman domes]] {{·}}
[[List of Greco-Roman roofs]] {{·}}
[[List of ancient Roman triumphal arches|List of Roman triumphal arches]] {{·}}
[[List of Roman villas in England]] {{·}}
</div>
}}
<noinclude>
</noinclude>
Any input is welcomed. Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 00:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
|
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 21:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
this template is broken, if no importance parameter is given, while a class parameter is, it doesn't work properly. It should set as default unassessed importance. 76.66.196.229 ( talk) 05:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey folks, it would be VERY GREAT if someone with the necessary knowledge starts some nereid articles (Callianassa, Callianira, Cymo, Doto, Galene, Halimede and Neso). Even if they are stubs, it would be highly appreciated. For with the taxonomic profusion of genera named after them - especially Callianira - we're getting into the most ugly dab hell. (As we get more articles on butterfly genera, this is only getting worse. For some reason, 19th-century entomologists found nereids especially tempting as butterfly genus namesakes.) Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 16:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm here asking for expert help in the article Neptune, it is incredibly short when compared to the length and quality of similar articles such as Jupiter or Venus. Although in general, all the articles on the Roman gods are pretty short, but Neptune is probably the worst off. -- Pstanton ( talk) 21:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
An I believe misguided editor has recently changed the article on the Julio-Claudian dynasty to exclude Augustus from the dynasty, on the grounds that he was only a Julian by adoption and not a Claudian at all. I think this is a misapprehension about what "Julio-Claudian" means - Augustus to Nero was a single dynasty, conventionally known as the Julio-Claudian because it included Julii and Claudii. On the basis of this change there's also a minor revert war over whether Claudius was the third or fourth Julio-Claudian emperor. Perhaps some better-educated Classicists could give it their attention and establish a consensus? -- Nicknack009 ( talk) 11:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
There is not complete consensus on the matter, some will say that Augustus is a Julio-Claudian, others will say he is not.
It's just another one of those problems of ancient history created by modern attempts to classify and define 'eras' or 'dynasties'.
There are references against Augustus being Julio-Claudian:
Likewise, there are references for Augustus being a Julio-Claudian (you can find them if you look, I can't be bothered).
As such, I'd say the person who did the edit is justified in removing him, but I'd also say you're equally justified in thinking he should be there.
You see, the definition applied by the editor seems to be 'someone who had a connection to both the Julian gens and the Claudian gens'. Therefore for this person, Augustus - because he did not have any connection to the Claudian gens - was not a Julio-Claudian.
Whereas it seems your definition is that a Julio-Claudian refers to someone who had a connection to either the Julian gens or the Claudian gens.
Both are valid definitions, but neither is right.
Short of finding the first recorded use of 'Julio-Claudian' and working out that use's definition, there's no right answer.
I suppose you could try and create a definition for the article in question, but you'd probably have to get it accepted first.
Alternatively, you might want to create a separate section discussing whether Augustus or not was a Julio-Claudian, and present both points of view.
Knobbishly ( talk) 06:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Knobbishly, none of those references you cite above support your hypothesis that Augustus is not part of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Do you have any others? 124.168.143.102 ( talk) 22:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Dougal Longfoot\
I've been browsing through the Adoptive Emperors, and I've noticed that someone has put up a "Nerva-Antonine Family Tree" (as can be seen on this page.
Here is my problem:
Since when was Marcus Aurelius was related to Trajan or Hadrian?
On what basis is this claim made?
I have seen this connection crop up numerous times across the internet, and some times in (?)books, but not a single one of these 'sources' has ever been able to provide any primary evidence for this connection.
As such, I am intending to remove all mention of this connection unless someone can come up with some genuine evidence to support it.
Knobbishly ( talk) 07:32, 3 March 2009 (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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Hi. I'd welcome some input at Talk:Battle_of_Thermopylae#More_Info.21 where there's debate over what size army should be added to the infobox at the battle's article.
I'm concerned by what appears to me to be a flawed OR analysis of an orginal source. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I have requested a peer review of Philitas of Cos. Eubulides ( talk) 20:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello all. I've just come across the stub article sparagmos and would like to ask if someone from the project would be kind enough to add the original term written in the Greek alphabet, please. It's just a stub, so if anyone has anything to add to it, that'd be great. Many thanks, DionysosProteus ( talk) 20:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I have recently developed the stub on the battle of corinth, but i don't know whether or not it can be considered an proper article yet. Please check it out and let me know what you think about it.
Murphy321 ( talk) 21:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I nominated Philitas of Cos as a featured article candidate; comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philitas of Cos. Eubulides ( talk) 03:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear all, I'm hoping you'll be able to resolve a debate for me: how is Alcestis pronounced? Actors I know seem to have a tradition of pronouncing it "al-SES-tis" but I'm assuming that "al-KES-tis" is the Greek version. Could anyone add a pronunciation guide to the article? Many thanks, DionysosProteus ( talk) 19:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have just carried out a major edit of Sparta. I would appreciate comments. Thanks. Lexo ( talk) 00:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me what the building is in the middle of this picture? This is the Roman Forum with the Temple of Castor and Pollux to the right. The building is at 41°53′28.48″N 12°29′8.02″E / 41.8912444°N 12.4855611°E and the picture was taken from the northeast. Thanks! — Wknight94 ( talk) 04:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This article has suffered much vandalism in the past. Some people now consider that this is an npov article stating that Ploutarch is an unreliable and non neutral historic(?). Its really bad to see how nationalism can infiltrate in a encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexikoua ( talk • contribs) 22:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC) -- Alexikoua ( talk) 22:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Someone is playing like a child with reliable sources. The article will remain without these out of the question signs, until someone has something serious to argue with(and I dont mean nationalistic, racist arguments that just a person's nationality makes him unreliable) Alexikoua ( talk) 19:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:JMG242.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The History of Sparta was given a start rating a couple of years ago. Can someone give it a look over to check whether it has improved since then. Thanks. Dejvid ( talk) 12:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I could use some input from any interested experts at Roman consul. Specifically, a debate over a date/period to apply the title in a historically accurate fashion, as opposed to Hypatus, or just plain old Consul. This gets into, essentially, the last Byzantine consul who would also have been considered a legitimate Roman consul. Thanks. Hiberniantears ( talk) 20:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Lucretius/Aristophanes and the coal basket I've recently created this userbox featuring an Aristophanic plea for tolerance (quoted from 'The Acharnians'). Others might be interested in adopting it. I am thinking of creating other Aristophanic userboxes, depending on interest/motivation etc. Maybe there is already some kind of project for classical userboxes. Lucretius ( talk) 00:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC) User:Lucretius/Aristophanes and the dung beetle Here is another one - this time a plea for co-operation (quoted from 'Peace'). I haven't worked out how to adjust for colour. I've used the English paraphrase as a link to a page that explains the context. Lucretius ( talk) 21:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC) User:Lucretius/Aristophanes and the clouds Here is the 3rd (and last?) in the present series. The link explains the context and in turn provides other links to Aristophanes and The Clouds. I think this is not a bad way to promote awareness of aspects of classical literature and language and maybe 'we' (who's that?) can create a collection of boxes for many different authors. Anyhow, it's worth a thought. Lucretius ( talk) 22:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC) User:Lucretius/Aristophanes and the victory song This is definitely the last one I'll post here. Like the others it links to one of my own sandboxes with an explanation of the context. Ideally all these userboxes should be in a 'neutral' or public space. If you notice the vocative is missing it's because this is not actually quoting Archilochus but Aristophanes echoing Archilochus. And by the way, she's a good looking girl! Looks spookily like Princess Dianna (the face). Lucretius ( talk) 03:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I've now created a new userbox category 'Classical Latin and Greek Literature' (here: Wikipedia:Userboxes) under the general category 'Interests and hobbies'. So far it only features quotes from Aristophanes but hopefully other contributors will add to it. The use of memorable quotes and subpage/sandbox links should greatly expand the reach and utility of the userboxes, I think. Lucretius ( talk) 23:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The two articles, Lysicles and Lysicles (general), need disambiguation. They refer to Athenian commanders who appear to have lived in the 5th and 4th centuries BC, respectively. I think it best to rename the first article Lysicles (5th century BC) and the second article Lysicles (4th century BC), with a disambiguation page listing both. Any better ideas, or shall I proceed with the move? - Canglesea ( talk) 19:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody who knows Roman History check the edits made by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.18.119.54? I'm not sure what they're doing is vandalism or is actually improving these articles. Little Red Riding Hood talk 02:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
A few days ago, a whole host of biographies of ancient people got uploaded to Wikipedia from 67.111.218.66. There have been other changes since from other IP numbers and new user names. They are not all to do with Ancient Greece and Rome, but a lot of them are. By the looks of the conversation on Talk:Guo Shoujing, there may be a class project to "improve" certain pages on Wikipedia. Presumably a teacher has handed obscure historical figures to pupils as a project. Among the pages in Classical Greece and Rome affected are: Herodian, Duris of Samos, Titus Labienus (historian), Marcius Turbo, Euclid of Megara, Bassianus (senator), Ardaric, Marcus Claudius Marcellus, Lucius Manlius Vulso Longus, Herophilos, Festus (historian).
The quality of these improvements varies, they rarely have any inline citations, and they do contain mistakes and exaggerations (weasel words and peacock terms), and a lot vague filler. In short, they tend to read like high-school essays. Eventually these contributions are going to have to be edited, trimmed, checked, reverted etc., but at the moment, the writers of these articles seem to be trying to protect their contributions. Singinglemon ( talk) 00:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I've assigned some ap students to work on catullus articles--so far c. 49 seems like a decent beginning. Any tips or comments appreciated. Drjzh ( talk) 21:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)drjzh
AP stands for Advanced Placement--these are courses in U.S. high schools that allegedly do college-level work. Near the end of the course, students in these courses take AP tests, and if they score well enough they can receive college credit (depending on the college/university they go to). Catullus is indeed taught in American high schools, even the naughty bits. Lesbia's name is pretty tame, really.
Drjzh, if you have not read WP:NPOV and WP:OR, which are two of the core content policies at Wikipedia, please do so ASAP. If you and your students don't understand these policies--the basic principle is that Wikipedia reports the opinions of secondary sources--then there will be unfortunate results. --Akhilleus ( talk) 13:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Sexually explicit? Yes and most Dads would say "Sure! He's already seen my Playboy magazines!" And teacher replies "I should have said homosexually explicit". That won't get too many nods of approval in spite of these enlightened times. An introduction to Catullus should be highly structured and it should be kept in the classroom - for the teacher's own safety as well as for the kids. That's my advice to Drjzh. Lucretius ( talk) 23:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes but somebody wants to bring a school excursion onto the building site and we are discussing safety issues. Lucretius ( talk) 01:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
If somebody, purporting to be a teacher, asks for advice about student research into Catullus here at Wikipedia, concerns relating to pornographic poems are hardly a non-issue. Issues like that have been known to destroy careers and childhoods. The discussion here is not interfering with your precious work, Aramgar. Lucretius ( talk) 23:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Some poems by Catullus are hardly more than pornography and carmen 56 is hardly more than child pornography. Child pornography certainly destroys childhoods and Catullus is not an appropriate subject for self-directed research by highschoolers. This is so obvious I wonder how anyone can challenge it. Anyway, enough said on this topic by me. Lucretius ( talk) 06:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I had already sailed over the horizon when this canonball splashed in front of me. I am entitled to fire back. I think 'pupulum' pretty much indicates 'a little boy' - in fact my dictionay uses Catullus to demonstrate the meaning. It's a wilfully broad interpretation that insists on taking it any other way. I'm not attacking Catullus. I think he's a great poet - along with myself, he was Rome's signpost to a great literature, until the emperor-toadying poets like Horace and Virgil settled for a quiet life on a nice pension. As for the 'teacher' who was going to set his class loose on Catullus - he has disappeared, which rather confirms my cautionary post, whatever his motives might have been. Now I shall go cruising again, in search of treasures. Lucretius ( talk) 06:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at the article on Hypatus and help expand it, or at least add some solid citations? This is essentially the Byzantine title for consul, and I was wondering if:
Many thanks! Hiberniantears ( talk) 18:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody take a look at Carthage. There's a discussion about what to include in the introduction. Wandalstouring ( talk) 14:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I've just created the article Prostitution in ancient Rome, based on W. C. Firebaugh's notes in his translation of the Satyricon of Petronius Arbiter, which are in the public domain.
Since this text was first published in 1920, it is somewhat out of date, and I would imagine that scholarship has moved on since then. This is thus in great need of cleanup and revision (which is why I'm posting about it here) but it seemed like a good starting point for a proper article. -- The Anome ( talk) 19:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have the time to do a merge of Lamachos into Lamachus? It is a little out of my area. - Canglesea ( talk) 04:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I need some consensus to a couple of illustrations I am working on. They illustrate a number of structures but.....I am finding competing information and discovering new material. So, I request input to alter this image. You can reply here or at my user page. Illustrators are, of course welcome to save the image and alter it, as it is in the Public Domain, but all alteration must be accompanied by clear citations.
Help Illustrate Wikipedia by consensus!
The first image is the same layout as the second so the subjects are the same, the ancient Roman Comitium and the Curia Hostilia (any information about the layout of the Curia Cornelia is acceptable as well)
Tear the heck out of it if you want....no need to be kind, LOL! I don't care. Just be accurate and cite all sources. Thanks!-- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a Wiki file picture of a great big seat in the Theatre of Dionysus, Athens. I suspect it held the rear end of the archon basileus or of the priest of Dionysus, though it is hard to tell from this angle 2000+ years later. The file lists it simply as a VIP seat. If anyone knows whose seat it was, please advise. Thanks. Lucretius ( talk) 03:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I led with my jaw because I'm not afraid to get hit (metaphorically speaking). Genuinely - thanks for the help. I'm not a great fan of the Romans - at least they built roads for the spread of Greek culture - so I'm not sure what role Marcus Ulpius had in Athens, but the inscription suggests he combined his duties with those of archon eponymos. Which suggests that the chair is historically descended from the archon's chair and therefore I could label it the 'archon's chair'. Any disagreements about this? Again thanks. Lucretius ( talk) 23:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks one and all for generous contributions. I've now titled the file at Wikimedia as Theatre of Dionysus and the throne for the archon eponymos (the throne is dedicated to a Roman citizen, Marcus Ulpius, and to his two sons, 3rd Century A.D., in recognition of their charitable works during a time of famine). Lucretius ( talk) 21:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Would someone more informed than me please have a go at sorting this article out? It's a shocker. Ericoides ( talk) 14:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
These two articles need to be merged: The Four Hundred (oligarchy) and Athenian coup of 411 BC. I don't know how to do it. On a more general issue - can an article with only one reference and only three cited sources be awarded a B status? Sicilian Expedition proves that it can. I feel a kind of reverence for the process that results in such mysterious results. Or maybe I've misunderstood something. Lucretius ( talk) 06:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently only a two-item dab; please see Talk:Ethnos. Skookum1 ( talk) 19:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Could someone review the article Gaius Ateius Capito (tribune) to see whether the "expert needed" label should be removed? I am no expert, but I thoroughly revised the article and provided documentation. The label implies that the information should be regarded with undue caution, but because I make no claim to expertise, and because the person adding the label left no comments about what deficiencies should be addressed, I don't feel I should remove it myself. Unless it's still there in a couple of weeks, at which point I'll just decide nobody cares and I'll take the initiative. Cynwolfe ( talk) 17:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, since there are now
quite a few lists on Roman architecture, I tried to create a new template for them:
{{Navbox
|name = Lists of Roman architecture
|title = Lists of [[Roman architecture]]
|image =
|titlestyle = {{{titlestyle|}}}
|list1 = <div>
[[List of Roman amphitheatres]] {{·}}
[[List of aqueducts in the city of Rome|List of aqueducts in Rome]] {{·}}
[[List of aqueducts in the Roman Empire]] {{·}}
[[List of Roman bridges]] {{·}}
[[List of Roman cisterns]] {{·}} <br>
[[List of Roman domes]] {{·}}
[[List of Greco-Roman roofs]] {{·}}
[[List of ancient Roman triumphal arches|List of Roman triumphal arches]] {{·}}
[[List of Roman villas in England]] {{·}}
</div>
}}
<noinclude>
</noinclude>
Any input is welcomed. Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 00:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
|
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 21:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
this template is broken, if no importance parameter is given, while a class parameter is, it doesn't work properly. It should set as default unassessed importance. 76.66.196.229 ( talk) 05:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey folks, it would be VERY GREAT if someone with the necessary knowledge starts some nereid articles (Callianassa, Callianira, Cymo, Doto, Galene, Halimede and Neso). Even if they are stubs, it would be highly appreciated. For with the taxonomic profusion of genera named after them - especially Callianira - we're getting into the most ugly dab hell. (As we get more articles on butterfly genera, this is only getting worse. For some reason, 19th-century entomologists found nereids especially tempting as butterfly genus namesakes.) Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 16:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm here asking for expert help in the article Neptune, it is incredibly short when compared to the length and quality of similar articles such as Jupiter or Venus. Although in general, all the articles on the Roman gods are pretty short, but Neptune is probably the worst off. -- Pstanton ( talk) 21:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
An I believe misguided editor has recently changed the article on the Julio-Claudian dynasty to exclude Augustus from the dynasty, on the grounds that he was only a Julian by adoption and not a Claudian at all. I think this is a misapprehension about what "Julio-Claudian" means - Augustus to Nero was a single dynasty, conventionally known as the Julio-Claudian because it included Julii and Claudii. On the basis of this change there's also a minor revert war over whether Claudius was the third or fourth Julio-Claudian emperor. Perhaps some better-educated Classicists could give it their attention and establish a consensus? -- Nicknack009 ( talk) 11:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
There is not complete consensus on the matter, some will say that Augustus is a Julio-Claudian, others will say he is not.
It's just another one of those problems of ancient history created by modern attempts to classify and define 'eras' or 'dynasties'.
There are references against Augustus being Julio-Claudian:
Likewise, there are references for Augustus being a Julio-Claudian (you can find them if you look, I can't be bothered).
As such, I'd say the person who did the edit is justified in removing him, but I'd also say you're equally justified in thinking he should be there.
You see, the definition applied by the editor seems to be 'someone who had a connection to both the Julian gens and the Claudian gens'. Therefore for this person, Augustus - because he did not have any connection to the Claudian gens - was not a Julio-Claudian.
Whereas it seems your definition is that a Julio-Claudian refers to someone who had a connection to either the Julian gens or the Claudian gens.
Both are valid definitions, but neither is right.
Short of finding the first recorded use of 'Julio-Claudian' and working out that use's definition, there's no right answer.
I suppose you could try and create a definition for the article in question, but you'd probably have to get it accepted first.
Alternatively, you might want to create a separate section discussing whether Augustus or not was a Julio-Claudian, and present both points of view.
Knobbishly ( talk) 06:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Knobbishly, none of those references you cite above support your hypothesis that Augustus is not part of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Do you have any others? 124.168.143.102 ( talk) 22:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Dougal Longfoot\
I've been browsing through the Adoptive Emperors, and I've noticed that someone has put up a "Nerva-Antonine Family Tree" (as can be seen on this page.
Here is my problem:
Since when was Marcus Aurelius was related to Trajan or Hadrian?
On what basis is this claim made?
I have seen this connection crop up numerous times across the internet, and some times in (?)books, but not a single one of these 'sources' has ever been able to provide any primary evidence for this connection.
As such, I am intending to remove all mention of this connection unless someone can come up with some genuine evidence to support it.
Knobbishly ( talk) 07:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)