Talk:Epic Cycle

message: Spurious recent edit summaries aside, this article has used the BCE/CE convention consistently since the article was first expanded, 20:06, 22 June 2005. Editors with this on their Watchlist should ensure that "BC/AD" isn't forcibly intruded, contrary to Wikipedia MoS and common courtesy.--Wetman (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has used the BCE/CE convention, but the recently created  infobox uses BC/AD. (The discussion that led to the creation of this infobox is at Talk:Trojan War.) So the page ends up showing two different dating systems. This doesn't bother me, since I think the difference between BCE/CE and BC/AD is merely cosmetic, but I can see how someone interested in consistency might be bothered. However, the Trojan War template is used in articles that have the BC/AD system, including Trojan War. So changing the template to BCE/CE will introduce inconsistencies in other articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Disinfoboxes are not encyclopedia text and follow no universal pattern that is to be applied to the actual text of articles here or anywhere. The template is not the article, nor was it intended— assuming good faith— as a Trojan horse to force "BC/AD" on Wikipedia text throughout, nor to insist on, to taker another example, American spellings. This instance is just one in this user's pattern. By the way, escalating recriminations on this heading may be viewed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard
--Wetman (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: At Template talk:Trojan War I have now suggested amending the template— though its usage is not actually the issue here— to read "BC[E]". That solves all "problems".--Wetman (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No matter what happens with the template, I agree with Wetman that there is no need to make changes to the dating system of this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Wetman and Akhilleus that a difference of a single letter in the template date should not affect the longstanding dating convention in this article. I'll also leave fuller remarks at the template talk page. It's tempting to say that the Greece and Rome project should come down on the side of one dating convention or the other, but the problem with this should be obvious: some articles are under the aegis of both the G&R project and others that might have the opposite style preference. (Also, if I may, the Trojan War template is more of a navigation template pointing readers to related topics than an infobox; the top section is a bit of a compromise, and as a whole the template isn't meant to deliver info about a particular article.) Cynwolfe (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Based upon the above, I've restored the BCE/CE date era usage. Paul August ☎ 16:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A BC/AD warrior 

message: "In more recent times it has been argued that the fantastic and magical content of the non-Homeric epics mark them as inferior."
That's the full current content of the section entitled "Reception."
It is supported by a single reference to a 1977 article. If that's what the article said, it would be ridiculous, and should not be used. For, let's not forget, the Cyclops, the Sirens, the visit to the land of the dead, all in The Odyssey. But the article doesn't say that. It makes a claim that The Iliad is unique in that it avoids the more supernatural explanations and tries to downplay the fantastic in The Odyssey (by arguing that a shape-shifting Thetis (Odyssey Bk 4) is more "appropriate" than a shape-shifting Nemesis (p. 41), but there is no attempt to say the Homeric poems are "superior" because they eschew the fantastic.
Even if the article did say that, why is this single article the only content which purports to cover the nearly 3 millennia since the "composition" of the Epic Cycle? If there is no there there, shouldn't the section be eliminated? Of course there is much more than this article. In fact in the first paragraph of the article is a quote: "enough and too much has been written about the Epic Cycle." If no one is willing to research what is available, this section, which purports to be part of an encyclopedic article should be jettisoned. AnthroMimus (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't read the cied article (J. Griffin 1977, "The Epic Cycle and the Uniqueness of Homer", Journal of Hellenic Studies 97: 39–53), but I agree that the section "Reception" as it now stands ought to go. I'm going to remove it. Paul August ☎ 10:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception