Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 3

message: There are serious glitches in the part of Roman History of Lusitania and the Lustani culture.
Who do I speak about this? I'm a history major, and I know alot about the subject.
Best Regards.,
Phill.
:Click on the "edit this page" tab at the top of any article that can be improved, and make the changes yourself.  Just so long as everything you add is not original research but is based on reliable sources and is verifiable.  (Add references to primary sources, etc., if at all possible.)  Wareh 13:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lusitania Incorrect

message: I've just added myself to the members list as I'm working on the Troilus article which lies, at least partially, in this wikiproject's area. 
The old version seemed to have text from several different edits which repeated or contradicted each other. I've split and sorted the article into Greek, Roman/Latin and medieval/renaissance sections and put in a reference section. As the literary sources are so inconsistent, I've followed the lead of one previous editor who gave the Proclus/Kypria version and am going through the literary sources, more or less chronologically, giving what information is available from each. So far, I've added information from Apollodorus, Virgil and Plautus and expanded discussion of Homer and Attic pottery. (Note that nasty red colour. Is there an expert out there?) I shall be following up other references in the books by Robert Graves and Timothy Gantz. Certainly, Dares and Dictys will be referenced as they are the major influence on the medieval writers. I've also created a redirect from Troilos 
Any comments etc. gratefully received. --Peter cohen 23:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Troilos]]/[[Troilus]] 

message: Just a heads up, the article Alcyone needs some serious work.  I was trying to fix it up, but I realized I don't know enough about the mythology to even fix the ambiguous sentence construction (for instance, it doesn't seem like Eosphorus was the king of Thessaly, but then who was?).  This article is important because the phrase "halycon days" and the word halycon itself traces back to this ancient myth.  It'd be nice to have a better article on the myth itself.  Thanks guys, Cyde Weys 02:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcyone 

message: Greetings. I noticed that someone had inserted the text "(Check Link)" after the Hippocrates link on the Peisistratos page, and on further investigation found that there was no article for the right Hippocrates. So I found some suitable information on him on the net (including Herodotus i. 59, v. 65.) and created the Hippocrates, father of Peisistratos article.
Along the way, I noticed a link to your project, and since it seemed appropriate, I decided to be bold and link that article to this project via its talk page. I hope that's all right. Cheers! --DavidConrad 06:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hippocrates, father of Peisistratos 

message: Byzantine Empire has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byzantine Empire FAR 

message: This is now no more - the BM page has been rejigged and so none of the links to Compass work.  A quick search suggests this made leave about 400 bad links on Wikipedia to repair, and so I thought I'ld call on this Project for help.  (Also, their collections database itself - rather than the Compass window on it - will soon come out on this new website, so we may be able to link to entries in there instead/too.) Neddyseagoon - talk 15:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Museum Compass page (online collections database) 

message: An anonymous user at ip 200.214.14.2 has been adding Victorian cartoons by John Leech from The Comic History of Rome to numerous articles related to Roman history (see Romulus and Remus). In my view they are usually inappropriate, but I do not wish to remove them if editors think them OK, so I just want to draw attention to them here. Here is the edit hitory.  Paul B 15:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree they're not in the right place, unless the article has a section on the reception of a story in later art & culture, which of course they'd be fine for illustrating.  They would be appropriate for an article on the cartoonist, or on Roman History in modern art/popular culture.  Wareh 16:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Victorian cartoons

message: Hello, perhaps we can get some more eyes at Minoan civilization, where a new user insists upon adding some irrelevant material, including a reference from Plato's Laws, apparently in the hope of proving that the Minoans were Greeks. Since few people seem to  be watching the article, it's basically me and the other editor reverting and having a futile discussion on the talk page. More voices would help. Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aargh. That's on my watchlist now. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the notice; I'll watch them too.  And speaking of spreading original research, see now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eidon.  Wareh 13:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Noesis? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That one is probably more up Wareh's alley: what do you say, W?  semper fictilis 17:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted on the basis that the material was from John Opsopaus and not from any ancient source ().  Wareh 17:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research at [[Minoan civilization]]

message: The project page mentions a to-do list which doesn't appear here. Am adding it accordingly. Is there another place that contains this info? Alcmaeonid 18:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To Do List

message: It's common received opinion that Brennus and his Gauls sacked Delphi in 279 BC and looted all its treasure. However, I've been researching the article on Brennus, and the only sources I've been able to find for the invasion are Pausanias and Justinus, both of whom say the Gauls were repulsed from Delphi and slaughtered as they retreated. Strabo reports a story told in his time that the gold and silver found at Tolosa (Toulouse) was spoil from the sack of Delphi, but he doesn't believe it, not only because the Gauls were scattered after their defeat and in no fit state to carry treasure anywhere, but because Delphi had already been emptied of treasure by the Phocians in the Third Sacred War the previous century (all these three sources can be read by following links in the footnotes). Are there any other ancient sources that refer to the sack and looting of Delphi, or is this supposed event a myth? --Nicknack009 12:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *P. Green, Alexander to Actium, p. 133 says "The Gauls thrust south, into Thrace, Asia Minor, the Balkans.  Walled towns were reasonably safe, but the countryside was gutted.  One horde was finally turned back, at Delphi, by a mixed army under the leadership of the Aetolians, who very soon saw that these hulking broadswordsmen were dangerous only at close quarters, and highly vulnerable to guerilla tactics."  He cites Pausanias 1.4, 10.19-23; Poly. 4.46; Memnon FGrH 434 F8, 11; Diodoros Siculus 22.3-4, Justin 25.1-2.  (Some of these references might be for other episodes in the invasion.)  There was also a festival at Delphi established to celebrate their deliverance from the Gauls that was called the "Soteria" ("Salvation").  So, no, not sacked by Brennus.  I'm not sure where the confusion comes from, but Delphi did have trouble later--if I recall it was sacked by Thracians during the Mithridatic war (?).  semper fictilis 13:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The passage from Polybius and one of those from Memnon refer to the Gauls settling near the Hellespont and founding Galatia, and I've referenced them in the article. I'll have to see if I can find out more about the Soteria and incorporate that. The other Memnon passage and the one from Diodorus refer to the death of Ptolemy of Macedon during Bolgios's invasion and aren't directly related to Brennus, but I'll be sure to use them when I write Bolgios's article. It certainly seems, though, that the sack of Delphi is an invention of overenthusiastic modern Celtophiles. --Nicknack009 21:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *On the festival, there's G. Nachtergael, Les Galates en Grèce et les Sôtéria de Delphes: Recherches d’histoire et d’epigraphie hellénistiques, Brussels 1977.  It presumably will have collected all of the material about the attack itself.  I don't have a copy myself, but I don't live far from a good research library.  If it'll be some help, I can try to get it for you.  semper fictilis 22:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sack of Delphi? 

message: Members of this project may be interested in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cretan mythology. (The discussion was transcluded here before, but that's probably not a good idea, as some AfDs can get very long.) --Akhilleus (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Akhilleus!  That's what I get for trying to go the short way 'round.  I had no idea it would be transcluded with that code.   That being said, there has been some suggestion on the AfD page to make this article into one that actually deals with Cretan myth.  Is anyone in the project familiar with this information and the litterature surrounding it?  CaveatLectorTalk 17:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion request: [[Cretan mythology]] 

message: Members of this project may be interested in the deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asgard in popular culture]. CaveatLectorTalk 14:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong project page, sorry y'all.  I'll leave up the message if anyone is interested, though. CaveatLectorTalk 14:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion request: [[Asgard in popular culture]] 

message: This one, however, is sure to interest the project members: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydra in popular culture.  There are a  lot of these floating around, actually.  I think it's a good 'to do' topic.  CaveatLectorTalk 15:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of [[Hydra in popular culture]] preposed 

message: There was a B rating on the Solon article. I have now revised the article and I would like it to be assessed again. What now?Lucretius 04:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming you think the rating for Solon ought to be increased above B, the usual course of action is to nominate it at Wikipedia:Good article candidates or Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, once you think it meets the relevant criteria (good, featured). It appears from our quality scale that an A-class rating can be given without a GA nomination, but I assume that an A-class article should in principle still meet the GA criteria. EALacey 07:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After watching GA, I would avoid the process; but the criteria are sound, unless they've been meddled with recently. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solon 

message: Hi all - new speaker here (Lucretius 23:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I disagree with the assessment that Solon is not a good article; in my view, it meets the criteria admirably.  On the question of primary vs. secondary sourcing, I think that you should probably put some effort into filling in the secondary sourcing, not least because it will help establish the entry as authoritative for those with little background in Greek history.  Since you have the OCD handy, a good place to start is the articles cited in its bibliography.  If you're having any trouble getting any of this, I live quite close to a decent university library and I can probably get you a scan or two. Just drop me a line.  semper fictilis 13:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a detailed note for Lucretius on his talk page regarding this - Solon would not pass GA in it's current form, but due to technical points rather than sourcing. GA is not FA; some reviewers can be a little harsh. In all though, this is probably better than being too lax ;) EyeSereneTALK 15:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Solon and basing articles on primary sources

message: Any idea what the full name of this journal is?  Thanks.--Pharos 08:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's not a journal but the Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. See Pauly-Wissowa. EALacey 10:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for.--Pharos 11:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical journal abbreviated ''RE'' 

message: The Icarus article, as well as articles such as Icarus imagery in contemporary popular music need to either be scrapped or completely rewritten into a well sourced article rather than a simple list of indiscriminate facts.  Anybody up for coming together for this task? (Cross posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology) CaveatLectorTalk 21:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Icarus]] and [[Icarus imagery in contemporary popular music]], etc 

message: Hello: 
I would like the members of this project to peer-review the article EconomBold texty of ancient Tamil country. I know the article isn't directly related to this project, but since you guys have done a lot of similar work on Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece, I thought the Tamil article would benefit from your comments. Please post your comments at the  peer review. Thanks. Lotlil 00:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review request

message: Elagabalus has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. DrKiernan 07:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elagabalus 

message: Currently, most Greek or Roman deities who share names with other topics (planets, etc.) are distinguished by the addition of "mythology" in parentheses to their article titles; e.g., Jupiter (mythology), Venus (mythology). I'm concerned that this doesn't accurately describe the contents of these articles, which generally cover non-mythological aspects of the gods, often in greater detail than they cover the mythology; thus the Jupiter article includes a section on the Capitoline temple, and could reasonably discuss philosophical interpretations including Jupiter as the Stoic divine principle. I also think that giving primacy in the article titles to mythology implies the viewpoint that all classical religion was concerned with the gods as represented in mythology. While one can argue that the Jupiter of the Aeneid is basically "the same" as Jupiter Capitolinus, this is nevertheless a POV; I note that Varro made a three-way distinction between mythical, philosophical and civic theology, and that some modern scholars believe that the gods of early Roman religion had no mythology. My preference would be to disambiguate these articles using either (god)/(goddess)/(hero) or (deity)/(hero), which I think would more accurately describe the articles' content while avoiding assumptions about how far the mythological personae of these figures overlap with their presence in cult, etc.
Objections raised against this position on Talk:Vulcan (mythology) include the precedent for "mythology" in these cases, and the difficulty of classifying some beings (is Heracles a god?). I can't find any past discussion of this issue, so I'd be grateful to hear the thoughts of project members. EALacey 09:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, disambiguators are not expected to be even as  precise as categories, which are a very blunt tool. If we could call all the articles listed under Vulcan simply Vulcan and still link to them easily, we would. I feel it is more important to have the disambiguator for Vulcan be short and memorable than to insist on precision (as distinct from accuracy). I would prefer to discuss how to break up the categories  and , of which we expect more.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that an article can be in more than one category, and Heracles probably should be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation of deities, heroes, etc. 

message: The current FAC for Orion (mythology) recommends a copy-edit. I really cannot do this myself; I'm too close to the article to see it clearly. Also, the FAC has brought out some very useful additions to the article, and I may be too respectful of my helpful colleagues' prose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyeditor needed

message: Pericles has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Vassyana 08:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pericles 

message: I've just recently joined Wikipedia, and I am attempting (pretty much single-handedly) to construct the pages on Ovid's Heroides and Double Heroides from the ground up.  I have most of this work in hand (as I am working on my doctorate on the subject at Oxford as we speak), but in particular if anyone is interested in digging up material and passing it along to me for the Heroides influence subsection, translations subsection, or external links subsection, I'd of course greatly appreciate the assistance.  Any other input would obviously be welcome as well. I've decided to focus first on the single Heroides, since they're not the subject of my DPhil research, and therefore are a pleasant way for me to feel productive whilst avoiding my own work like the plague.  I suppose I'll get around to seriously constructing the Doubles page eventually, but not just now I think...  Also, I was wondering what the general opinion was on whether or not it would be useful to continue expanding the growing bibliography by sub-dividing it further into sections for each individual epistle, containing essays written specifically on those subjects, or whether that would be going overboard on the references? (is there such a thing as 'overboard on the references' on a paperless medium such as Wikipedia, I wonder?)  Cheers!    Shug2304 01:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm cheered to see your industry!  Nothing like a dissertation for making progress on something else.  My one comment is that, not only should the bibliographies not be expanded further, but they should be seriously pruned back.  They are longer than is appropriate for a specialist or general encyclopedia.  If works are needed only for the footnotes, give the bibliographic info there, and save the "further reading" section for those titles a reader new to the subject would want to consult first, are in English & relatively available, and will provide further bibliographic pointers.  Of course this is just my opinion, but a look around at other exemplary articles will help you see what the practice is.  Best wishes, Wareh 21:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Wareh, I appreciate the input and advice.  I'd appreciate your further input on the 'quotebox' issue, if you wouldn't mind: please see the discussion I've placed over here on the Heroides talk page.  I also think my issue with the bibliographies is one of not being terribly familiar with Wikipedia standards.  I mean, is Wikipedia supposed to have the the number of references that would be appropriate for a specialist or general paper-based encyclopedia?  My initial thought was along the lines of "the more the merrier".  I suppose I could just organise a giant bibliography on the Heroides in my own personal webspace and link to it from the Wikipedia page, but it seems a bit silly: why not just have all the information in one place?  Could you point me to any relevant discussions on this issue?    Thanks very much, and I hope to hear from you again soon.     Shug2304 00:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the most expert person when it comes to tables & such technical stuff, but I've tried to advance the discussion at Talk:Heroides.  I don't think there are any fast rules on bibliography length, and indeed I'm someone who appreciates & adds this kind of content.  The principle Wikipedia is not paper is well established.  It is important to keep works actually cited in the article (standard heading "References") separate from other bibliography (standard heading "Further reading"); note that a featured article like Demosthenes has a long list, but entirely in the first category.  When a comprehensive bibliography is available on an external site, this allows a more manageable and useful concise list in the article itself (examples: Alcidamas, Plotinus).  I do think that for a subject on the scale of the Heroides, it's a loss to usefulness for the encyclopedia's readers to have an unannotated list longer than for a huge topic like Aristotle.  It's nice to use Wikipedia as a semi-permanent repository of one's own knowledge, but sheer accumulation of titles seems to present more danger of hypertrophy than most other instances of this.  There's not much point in my seconding my own opinion though; I'll leave your bibliographies unmolested, and if you like you can see if anyone else deems them bloated & starts cutting.  You may want to consider how the bibliography serves the article to which it is appended; if the work is not (A) cited above, or (B) a first-stop expansion on or complement to what is presented above (for B, a few words' annotation would be nice), then I would advise removing it to improve the list's serviceability, at any rate.  Wareh 03:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all of that is entirely fair, and well-reasoned.  I'll undertake the pruning process ASAP, in the midst of the rest of the construction of those pages: it may not happen straightaway, as I'm still not 100% certain what I am or am not going to be referencing within the rest of the articles, since I've not written them yet, but I will reach that point eventually, I hope. :-P  One thing that I didn't know how to do before, but which (looking at such pages as Demosthenes and William Shakespeare) I am now starting to get a feel for, is how to format in such a way as to separate Notes from References and still have links to the anchors within the page.  I think this is a very user-friendly format and will strive to carry it out on the pages I'm constructing.  Thank you very much for your suggestions; they're greatly appreciated! (Please do see my other comment at the Heroides talk page, as well.)    Shug2304 13:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anybody care to help out with the [[Heroides]]? 

message: Why is this article currently redirecting to Kriophoros when there is a notable statue of that name in the Acropolis Museum?--5telios 12:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moschophoros