# Talk:Monte Testaccio

This review is transcluded from Talk:Monte Testaccio/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hello. I will be doing the Good Article review for this article. Overall, the article is very good, sourced, and easy to understand. The only suggestion I have is that per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to summarize the main points of the article. I'd add something about its later uses or tituli picti inscriptions to the lead, as they both are covered in depth in the article. I'll allow seven days to make the improvement. Nikki311 03:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want this article to fail for such a small thing, so I've fixed this myself and passed the article. Nikki311 18:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out.  For some reason, this article fell off my watchlist.  Viriditas (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monte Testaccio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050302200446/http://ceipac.gh.ub.es/MOSTRA/u_expo.htm to http://ceipac.gh.ub.es/MOSTRA/u_expo.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

So, Attack Ramon insists on wikilinking "gay", and again and insists that ""gay" doesn't need a wikilink," is not a policy based argument. Well, it is, and it's common sense too. The most obvious one first: "gay" links to gay, primary meaning "homosexual", a meaning the word did not really have in 1831; the passage, It is impossible to conceive a more animating scene than the summit of the hill presents. Gay groups dancing the saltarella, intermingled with the jovial circles which surround the tables; the immense crowd of walkers who, leaving their carriages below, stroll about to enjoy the festive scene, makes it pretty clear that we're not talking about groups of dancing homosexuals dancing in Rome, and saying otherwise is a really poor case of WP:OR. Second, even where "gay" meant "gay", linking it is discouraged via WP:OVERLINK. Thirdly, wikilinking within a quotation is strongly discouraged via MOS:LWQ, in part because (as in this case) you're putting words in the author's mouth--that is, you're making them say "homosexuals". Are those three reasons enough? Drmies (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Please cite the policy that  syas  "gay" does not need a link. Attack Ramon (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Can you read? Drmies (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 yes, can you? In particular, are you aware that the 5th reason contradicts your first one? Attack Ramon (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
By now you're just trolling. Please prove that the author meant to say that groups of homosexuals are dancing. Please also prove that the MOS does not say wikilinking within quotes is discouraged. Eric Corbett, I remember that a few years ago we ran into something where a wikilink within a quote was really the only way we could handle something--surely this is not one of those cases. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
It actually seems to me that you are trolling, as evidenced by your practice of following me around, undoing my edits and posting spurious  warnings  on my talk page in an obvious attempt to annoy me. Back to what I asked you - do you see how claiming  that we shouldn't ink to 'gay' because we don't know if the author  meant  'gay" in the sense of "homosexual" contradicts the claim the we shouldn't link to 'gay' because  linking to terms whose meaning is obvious is discouraged? If you are so concerned with links within a quote (as opposed to trying to annoy me by undoing my edits) why did you not unlink the other linked ter, not 5 words away from the one you unlinked? Attack Ramon (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I think my warnings were less spurious than yours. And let me say it one more time, slowly: even if "gay" meant "gay" it shouldn't be linked because IT IS OBVIOUS TO THOSE WHO READ ENGLISH. Nothing is gained by linking it. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
You, presumably read English, and yet you were not certain if the author meant gay. If you had claimed this from the start  - this is policy BTW, regarding links in quotes-  rather than falsely claiming there's a wiki policy agains linking to 'gay', we could have avoided this debate. But it's obvious you care more about annoying me than about policy - per the examples I've shown. 15:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attack Ramon (talk • contribs)  
I am certain the author didn't mean gay, as I've said a few times already. That I said there is a policy against linking this one specific word is a silly interpretation of my words, but it does show that you're...well. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Apart from anything else, it is clearly THE WRONG LINK, so should not be made. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Attack Ramon (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The first known use of the term "gay" to refer to homosexuality was in 1953. As the source quote is from the early 19th Century, it clearly does not refer to the subject you are linking. Scr★pIronIV 15:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense, and on further inspection, you are likely right - seems that link was introduced very recently, and incorrectly. Thanks. Attack Ramon (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I look forward to the ANI thread Jovial groups of dancing homosexuals. EEng 16:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
It should probably be a full-fledged article. Let's plow the pre-1850 archive for "gay" and make it say what it doesn't say. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
User:EEng, if I get an invitation, will you dance there with me? Drmies (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
At ANI or Monte Testicle? EEng 23:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)