Talk:Temple of Caesar

message: Good article, but sections need to be incorporated together into fewer titled sections.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, and I tried to correct numerous format errors (use of first plural person, bulleted lists everywhere, wrong use of capital letters, typical confusion between tuff and tufa (I can continue for months...), but the creator of the article (labelling my edits as "vandalism"), clearly a newbie of Wikipedia, reverted everything... So I reverted it again to my Wikipedia-decent version, adding further wikification and cleanup. --Attilios (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Pardon me, but I can see where this is heading and it needs to stop before it gets started. This article has some MAJOR structural problems. I agree with Attilios that it needs to be 'wikified' before becoming consumed by details. The scholarly debate over the niche is a minor point, especially considering that the introduction fails utterly to meet the criteria of WP:LEDE. Anyone who's serious about editing the article will address this kind of thing before arguing about a pet point. The overall purpose of the article from a reader's POV should come first. Many readers don't make it past the introduction of an article; they're just looking for quick info. A strong intro is essential both in making the article useful, and in keeping its various pieces of info in proportion. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't add at all that content that Minuet attributes to me!! It was already in his article!!!! It seems he has identity problems. Anyway, I'm going to correct the errors. --Attilios (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format problems 

message: As with any article, I'm sure this one has content that bears improvement, even though it seems thorough. My point is that it's time to think about the article as an article, and not to engage in talk-page debates that don't provide immediate benefit to readers of the article coming to it for the first time. The issues with the introduction really have to be addressed. Please review WP:LEDE; this is much more urgent than specific points that need to be subjected to verifiability tests. Observing the usual procedures of WP:V and WP:UNDUE will solve content debates. But the intro is in desperate shape, and must be made usable for the casual reader. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And thank you for all the work you've done here. (Thanks also for trying to clear up tuff/tufa … I'm still not sure I have it straight.) Cynwolfe (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory section 

message: Here Webster's:
"Tufa 1: TUFF 2: a porous rock formed as a deposit from springs or streams" 
Attilios, as you can see, in English Tufa and Tuff are synonyms, and I repeat it again:
in architecture and in archaeology the building material is called TUFA!!! TUFA!!! and TUFAS!!! (pl.) and not TUFF. Please, see Stamper, Frischer, Claridge, etc., etc., etc., etc.
But I think you have even never read the Wiki article Tuff, because at the beginning of the article you read:
"Tuff is sometimes called tufa, particularly when used as construction material, although tufa also refers to a quite different rock."
That's why I say that the Wiki distinction, in this case, is weak and erroneous, because the general term is, first of all, Tufa (see Webster's Collegiate Dictionary).
The general term Tufa is used for two different, but sometimes similar, types of rock: the Volcanic Tufas, called also Tuffs, and the Calcareous Tufas, called simply Tufas.
Both Volcanic and Calcareous Tufas have been always used for architecture and building, and actually some Volcanic Tufas resemble Calcareous ones (soft, friable, porous, etc.).
Here again the complete list of the Ancient Rome TUFAS:
Cappellaccio (grey, soft and friable), Grotta oscura (yellowish, rather porous), Fidenae (yellowish with black inclusions), Monteverde (greyish brown peppered with white and darker inclusions), Anio (reddish brown tufa), Peperino (Ashy blue-grey, hard and compact).
MjMenuet111 (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't matter if you keep staying stuck to what your sources write. They are wrong, since here the volcanic rock you mean is called tuff in the Wikipedia article, so you MUST keep coherence with the current Wikipedia standard, since here you're working in Wikipedia, not in an archaeology site. Hope you understand that your sources are the wrong ones, simply because 90% of non-geologists confuse tufa with tuff. Hope it's clear. Good work. --Attilios (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Johnbod. It would be good to focus on the overall presentation of the article. Very short sections affect readability, for instance. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to improve the situation, but so far always hampered by this obtuse editor. What he writes is good, but his style is a nightmare. It seems he never read, not even the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, but any encyclopedia at all. Further, the tuff matter is totally trivial. Since the Wikipedia article about the volcanic rock uses the spell "tuff", we simply have to stick on it for the sake of internal coherence. Ciao and thanks for help! --Attilios (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

text: So keep living in your world of archaeology. Sorry if geology is different. Anyway, with your revert campaign you're going to have a short life here. --Attilios (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to speak to MjMenuet111 civilly, Attilios; it will ease things considerably. Remember, being right doesn't give you the right to not be civil. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Please stop with all the bolding MjMenuet. It makes your text somewhat more difficult to read. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tufa... Again 

message: I'm only adding an image of the front of the temple to this article. Frankcjones (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding an image