Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 2

message: Any ideas who the Polyenos in this erotic image by Agostino Caracci is?  He usually seems to have picked real historical/mythological figures as nominal titles for  these images, yet I can't find a Polyenus in the Iliad or Odyseey related to Chryseis, only a Macedonian strategist of entirely the wrong period called Polyaenus.
:There are other possible Polyaeni, for example Polyaenus of Lampsacus, but I can't identify this couple. Andrew Dalby 14:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that kind of confirms my impression that this Polyenos might be a fictional creation of Carracci's, paired with a 'factual' (ie appears in literature) woman to give it some false kudos/legitimacy.  Might anyone have an Oxford Classical Dictionary to hand, or a well-indexed copy of the Iliad or Odyssey?  He might be in there.  Neddyseagoon - talk 16:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Glycera: interesting question. I think possibly yes. I'll have a look this afternoon, unless someone forestalls me. Andrew Dalby 10:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It turns out there is an article, Glycera (courtesan), though it needs wikification if anyone feels like it. The girl in the picture doesn't seem to correspond with any of the three known Glyceras: the date is wrong. Andrew Dalby 13:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, yes, I started it in the meantime! :-)  Though if you or anyone could help update and wikify it that would be great.  I think there's also potential with her predecessor Polynice too, and other Hellenistic and classical Athenian courtesans and hetairae, though whether I'll have the time for making them myself is doubtful.Neddyseagoon - talk 16:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, right, I didn't notice that it was you! You move fast. I agree about the work that needs doing, including other courtesans waiting in the wings. I am an Athenaeus enthusiast, and he's a good basis to start with, so I may be one of those taking up your challenge. Andrew Dalby 12:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An Athenaeus enthusiast? - then Venus Kallipygos might be up your street. Neddyseagoon - talk 17:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How right you are. Andrew Dalby 19:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Polyenos

message: May I draw your attention to the discussion I've started there. Neddyseagoon - talk 15:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Category talk:Ancient Greek art]] 

message: My fellow Plato-lovers, may I call your attention to Meno, Phaedo, Crito, Theaetetus (dialogue), Protagoras (dialogue), Charmides (dialogue), among other Platonic dialogues? I have tagged all of these pages with a  template, because User:Brenda maverick, who has done some heavy editing on these pages, appears to have inserted her own interpretation of the dialogues into the articles. It would be helpful if other editors could look at the problem (if there is one). --Akhilleus (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Achilles, I looked at one dialogue, Crito.  Everything was fine up to the paragraphs about social contract, then it started to sound like a conference paper.  I removed these sections because they do not describe the dialogue but place value judgments on the arguments, when, in typical style for Socratic dialogues, Plato leaves the questions open to the readers. Zeusnoos 14:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Phaedo article was not as bad. One section stood out like a sore thumb ("Sub-textual interpretation").  There was no fixing it since the entire premise was incorrect (that transmigration was wildly unknown to the Greeks) and has been argued against since at least 19th century scholars. The author of that section claimed "some scholars" think Hindu texts were in circulation. There is no support for this claim.  There certainly were Orphics and Pythagoreans and other such cults, though. Zeusnoos 14:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling Platonic lovers--some articles on Plato's dialogues appear to contain original research 

message: The article Social class in ancient Rome needs serious attention. I've corrected its worst misapprehensions but it still needs proper sourcing and verification. --Nicknack009 00:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I brought this back from the archives, because it's an interesting topic, and deserves more attention.  I myself will contribute to it, ASAP. -69.70.169.168 21:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Social class in Rome

message: It's broken.  Does anyone know how to fix it or use it properly?
:I have created a proper template for this now.  Feel free someone to change it, but it's in a nice box so that it's striking on someone's talk page.  Please do start using this - and comments freely accepted.  Pjmc 19:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical Greece and Rome Wikiproject Invitation 

message: This one needs splitting down, for reasons outlined on its talk page.  Thought I might drum up some interest here, as tis a huge task.Neddyseagoon - talk 22:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Ancient Roman enemies and allies]] 

message: ...is in need of expert attention.  Thanks. Zeusnoos 18:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mithraism]]... 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 22:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Can anyone decode this Cicero citation: "Cicero, l. c. 4, 5"? Paul August ☎ 05:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not without more information, I think. l. c. means "in the place previously cited". So you need to look back to the previous citation of Cicero in that same book or article. If the author, copy-editor and publisher did their work correctly (which is not always the case, and that's why l. c. can be such a nuisance) you have to carry forward the title of the work by Cicero previously quoted, apply the new section numbers (4, 5), and, hey, presto! you have your citation. Andrew Dalby 16:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Paul August ☎ 16:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can you identify this Cicero citation? 

message: Maybe it's not stated on the project page because it's obvious, but is it all topics relevant to Classical Greece and Rome?  Anything that would be excluded?  --BrokenSphere 18:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "All topics relevant to classical Greece and Rome" sounds right, although there has been some discussion of chronological limits on this page. It seems like project members agree that anything in the ancient world is up for grabs. I don't think there's been much discussion of modern reception/reaction to the classical world, and I suppose one could argue that an article like Teaching of classical Latin in the United States is relevant to classical Rome--but that would probably be outside the wikiproject. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of this project 

message: The Helen article contains a timeline of her "life", including exact calendar dates calculated from Eratosthenes' date for the fall of Troy. I removed this timeline from the article awhile back, and today User:Dimadick and I have been arguing about whether it should be in the article.
I think that such a timeline is OR, since it involves an original synthesis of mythographic sources and a decision about the "real" date of the Trojan War; in addition, I think it's at the very least misleading, because Helen is a mythological figure, not a historical one.
Additional input at Talk:Helen would be appreciated. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline on [[Helen]] 

message: Hi. I've just created this article and would be grateful for expert additions to the current stub. The phrase has some notability and is also used in a modern idiom for total warfare and I think therefore qualifies as notable. I've found an English translation redirect which was pointed at Cato the Elder, which I've repointed, as his article is appropriately vast. --Dweller 16:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cartago delenda est]] 

message: Just letting the project members know about this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin phrases (2nd nomination) --Dweller 10:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin phrases AfD 

message: Greetings, earthlings! I come under the auspices of WikiProject Abandoned Articles, a project aiming to revive articles that have not been edited for a number of years. One such is the Verulamium Forum inscription, an article that seems quite useful but lacking in any sort of interpretation or evaluation of the source, so if anybody would be able to help bring it back to life, it would be much appreciated. Lord Pheasant 06:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a go, based on two websites, a wikipedia page, and my own knowledge of the Roman emperors, emphasising the fragmentary nature of the inscription and removing some redundancy (only the last line of the inscription is particularly disputed, so presenting the three versions of the inscription in full is not necessary). It'll probably need proper references, but I think it's now more accurate and slightly more informative. --Nicknack009 11:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the description of an inscription found here Catuvellauni#Under_Roman_rule the same as the Verulamium Forum inscription?  If so and it seems highly probably, despite the fact that there are many such inscriptions throughout Britain it seems, it could do with being wikified to point to the article.  The more wikilinks to the Verulamium Forum inscription article the less likely it's to be abandoned again.-BiancaOfHell 12:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted - I've added the link. --Nicknack009 13:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! Thanks everyone for your help — this is by far the best response I've had yet. I'll be sure to inform you if anything else Greco-Roman comes our way, but in the meantime, your input has been fantastic. Thanks again. Lord Pheasant 01:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Verulamium Forum inscription]]

message: The Classics article is extremely poor.  A couple of editors are recently trying to fix this, but since this is the very gateway to our project, I think we need to bring a lot of energy towards getting this article in top shape and, dare I say, making it a Featured Article!  Currently, a list of 'basic classics topics' was merged into the article in the form of a table.  Please see the talk page for more info on the merger and suggestions on how we can incorporate the information.  bonum fortunum! CaveatLectorTalk 19:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Classics]] 

message: I've overhauled the article and could use a copy-edit or second pair of eyes from anyone who's willing. - Mocko13 21:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a great improvement. Nice work. EALacey 21:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: One suggestion for anyone interested in improving the article: it would be good to have a section on Aeschylus' post-classical reception and influence. EALacey 22:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely an improvement, nice job Mocko. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job.  I'm going to make a few tweaks.  (I've removed 'soldier', which doesn't seem relevent.) semper fictilis 00:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Aeschylus]]

message: There's a discussion at Talk:Judgment of Paris (disambiguation) about moving that page to Judgment of Paris. Project members may be surprised to learn that the article on the mythological event, which was formerly at Judgment of Paris, has already been moved to Judgment of Paris (mythology), on the grounds that a 1976 wine tasting has become a primary use of the term. The discussion is now whether to move the disambig page to Judgment of Paris. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  page move discussion at [[Talk:Judgment of Paris (disambiguation)]] 

message: Greetings. I have a short list of missing topics related to Ancient Rome. I've tried to find allthe articles with the same or similar content but I'd appreciate if anyone could have a look at them. Thank you - Skysmith 13:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd be great--but what are the technical requirements?   Is there any way to wikilink from a graphic?  semper fictilis 02:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps most of the deities can be moved to an article called Minor Roman Gods and Goddesses? CaveatLectorTalk 20:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing topics 

message: I decided to join this delightful project. I want to bring Cicero up to a Featured Article eventually, but I will need help. I lament its B-Class. Brainmuncher 03:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cicero

message: I think the article Roman client kingdoms in Britain needs serious attention. It's written with no apparent knowledge of the wider context of Roman foreign policy, and seems to give the impression that client kingdoms were unique to Britain. Apart from a brief mention in Satellite state, there's no real discussion of Rome's attitudes to her foreign allies on Wikipedia to link to and give this article the necessary context, so either an article on Roman client kingdoms in general, or an expansion of the relevant part of the Satellite state article, is probably also necessary. Anyone have any specialist knowledge of the subject they could contribute? --Nicknack009 13:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman client kingdoms in Britain 

message: I don't know how widely it's used, but I would like to reorganize the front page for the Portal- divide the subtopics between Greece, Rome, and other civilisations, and sort from there. As a current student of Classics, I can see the benefit for future viewers. Cvandyke 08:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical Civilisation Portal 

message: The articles Gaius Julius Caesar and Gaius Julius Caesar the Elder are problematical, but it's the latter I'm particularly concerned with at the moment - there are a lot of things in it I can't find references for. Anyone have superior knowledge of the sources? --Nicknack009 01:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caesar's father 

message: The article De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) was created by a user who likes to include fairly questionable content, like a reference to "Peter, considered to be the first divine person by church of Rome."  Moreover, the user in question believes that the New Testament was written by Petrarch in the 14th century AD, and that various books contain "very special meanings" in need of being decoded.  (See further the deletion discussion for 62 of his articles that were deleted this morning.)  I am burning out trying to single-handedly steer De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) towards being a sound and encyclopedic article, and I hope someone else can start watching the page.  I have no agenda and would welcome editors with very different views from mine; the page just needs honest and experienced participants, period.  (It might also be worthwhile to explore Doug Coldwell's other contributions.)  Wareh 17:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article in sore need of more watchers 

message: I have added the Project talk page templates to all Emperors after Costantine I (Except Julian the Apostate who's template was already on the talk page)). I just want to say, there are alot of ancient Roman and Greek articles without the project templates, and they need templates. Mrld 23:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive noticed several articles without templates, but Im not confident enough to know what quality/importance it should be rated.  Should I leave them unassessed so that other people can decide where they belong, or just go with my instincts?  For example, on the importance scale how important would you rate topics to do with the kings of Rome (and related people/incidences of that time)? Would all such things come under the scope of this project? Hpmons 15:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates on Talk Pages

message: Oxyrhynchus 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.
LuciferMorgan 22:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oxyrhynchus FAR

message: Parthenon 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. Marskell 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parthenon FAR 

message: If anyone knows the first thing about nous, especially in Neoplatonism, your help with this article would be greatly appreciated.  It has recently experienced a big expansion with a lot of poorly-edited material that bears just enough relation to good information that one can't delete it in good conscience (especially given that the article was hopeless before the growth).  I can't figure out whether or where to begin reshaping it.  Wareh 20:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nous]]