Talk:De Viris Illustribus (Jerome)

message: Tried that already and that is the way I had it originally; however that makes the main article HUGE and the kilobytes will exceed 100 KB = a size that will be difficult to navigate for many people (especially dial-up). When linked to individual biographies, then the size of the main article is within range that everyone can navigate. So, bottomline, the only reason I am really doing it this way is because of "navigation" and the size of the main article becoming too large (would be over 200 KB). Any other suggestions on how to have all of Jerome's 134 "Christian author" biographies into one article? There happens to be dozens of Wikipedia articles that reference individual Chapters (i.e. Chapter 2, Chapter 61, etc) of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus.--Doug talk 19:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging Jerome's indiviual Chaper biographies 

message: It's good that someone took the time to create seperate pages for each chapter, and this is acceptable, but remember that articles should have some sort of prose, which this article lacks. Please condense and rewrite this article to make it more readable. bibliomaniac15 00:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice. As the original author, I certainly will do that and it should be done in the next few days. --Doug talk 00:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:3O|Third Opinion]] 

message: Adding wikilinks and pictures (which is all Doug has claimed to have done) is not enough to turn a cut-and-pasted primary source into an encyclopedia article.  The minimum first step for all the chapter articles is to delete the biography itself (anyone who wants to read it can use the external link.  The problem is, once you remove the biographies, you realize you have no encyclopedic content left.  Mostly just a rubric that gets repeated across all the chapter "articles."  Clearly, anything that there is to be said about this book (as opposed to dumping the translation) can be said right here at this main article.  I'm afraid that I just don't buy the claim that there are some mysterious administrators, authorities, etc., who have deemed this to make any sense.  I anticipate taking the whole series to AfD within a day or two.  Wareh 03:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a "cut and paste", nor just "dumping" of text, but a translation from the Latin that Jerome wrote of these biographies. Many other articles, noted above, make reference back to these individual biographies.A similiar article I did (that has been around for months with no objections) is Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus. --Doug talk 08:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is not similar because it does not consist of huge amounts of text.  I'm struggling to understand what you mean by the denial of "cut and paste" and "dumping."  It seems very clear that it has all been cut and pasted and dumped into the articles from http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm.  "A translation from the Latin" is a description we can agree on – it is "a translation from the Latin" that you have cut and pasted and dumped into the articles in lieu of encyclopedic content.  To clarify: if Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus consisted of "a translation from the Latin" (but it doesn't in fact), it would be a no brainer to delete the "translation from the Latin" from Wikipedia.  The external link to the translation is sufficient.  If you really want the translation brought over into Wiki-world, what you want is Wikisource, not Wikipedia, which is devoted to articles about topics. Wareh 17:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid you're missing the point of that policy, which envisions the adaptation of content from public-domain sources that contain encyclopedic content.  For example, turning a 1911 Encycl. Britannica article into a Wikipedia article.  But you're not bringing in encyclopedic content, but rather a book by Jerome.  This is not a starting-point for an encyclopedia article; any encyclopedia article needs to begin by deleting the text by Jerome, introducing quotes only insofar as they specifically serve the article qua article.  No changes you make to Jerome's text will magically convert it into an encyclopedia article; in fact, since the original translator presumably understands Latin better than you, any significant changes to the translation would presumably hurt it as a translation.  I'm having trouble finding any evidence that you're using these new article pages to present any encyclopedic coverage.  On your talk page, you've said "I do want to keep the original meaning of what Jerome intended for the reader."  This is unfortunately not what Wikipedia is for—as I say, the website for storing vast amounts of Jerome's texts and their literal meanings is Wikisource not Wikipedia.  The individual chapter articles are not articles about anything.  The content of the biographies needs to go.  Once it is gone, the justification for keeping separate articles for each chapter disappears (if you write enough viable encyclopedic content about this book to overflow a single article, then we can worry about sub-articles, which should probably be by topic not chapter).  Finally, I have to say I'm disturbed that articles are being introduced under a rationale such as, "Keep in mind, each biography has a very special meaning (if you study it very close)."  Original research theories about "very special meanings," and the public-domain sources you want to offer the public in support of your original theories, should be offered on your own website, not in the Wikipedia article space.  Wareh
You were asking if there is a similiar article that was doing something along these lines of having a list of names, then linking them to a biography; an example would be that of Giovanni Boccaccio of his 106 biographies On Famous Women. Check out these biographies and you will notice that approximately 70% are simple "stubs" of a few lines. Most of those do not even have any references where the information came from or its sources of this information. They are just lines that someone submitted and made an article out of. Where it came from is anybody's guess. What they mean is anybody's guess. Most of those articles have been around for about 5 years and to this day the articles are not even tagged that they have no sources or references. There are here then about 30 – 40 such article stubs on "famous women" that apparently someone some 5 years ago decided to put into Wikipedia and nothing has been done to them (i.e. tagged, found souces or references for the information, deleted, tagged for deletion, even a discussion along any of these points on the article itself). These articles don't even look like encyclopedic articles, do not have an encyclopedic style, no picture, nothing, except perhaps that someone made up these stories about these particular "famous women" and decided to put on Wikipedia. In fact the main article itself On Famous Women does not give it sources for this list of "famous women" or for any of its information. The list of "famous women" looks good to me, however where it came from and if this list is accurate is anybody's guess. This article has been around for years on Wikipedia; however to this day there isn't even a discussion about where the information came from. I am not intending to do original research, however intending to show what was meant in the original biography; similar when someone quotes a biography verbatim; they want to show what the orignal author meant to say about that biography.
Be sure to check out these articles that these 106 biographies On Famous Women link to and tell me what you think as to why these do not have references or sources where the information even came from. At least my articles have source information and look like an encyclopedic article (even with a picture). Is there room for improvement? Yes, there is always room for improvement! I will gladly edit these further in the future, just like I have already done on the dozens of other articles I have already started. Will others edit these biographies in the future? I suspect they will, just like any other article. Will others link to these biographies and the main article. They definitely will, since they have already. In fact, as an example is the main article here of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus. I took the advice from others and made those improvements. The article looks much better now than it did, say a few months ago. The idea is to edit new articles and make improvements. Of the several people that submitted their "Third Opinion", apparently you are the only one that is objecting to my articles. The others (except perhaps for one, maybe) all thought it was an excellent idea to have individual biographies. In fact they thought these biographies showed quality and in fact liked them. So the Concenses of the Community is that they thought this was proper, a good idea, and showed quality articles. That's a far cry from the articles On Famous Women.--Doug talk 12:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The essential difference at On Famous Women is that the names of women are linked to articles on those women.  That would be fine at this article; for example, link the chapter heading for Polycarp to Polycarp.  What there is no parallel for is an article like your Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 17, which is not an article about a chapter of Jerome's book, or an article about Polycarp, or an article about anything else: it is the chapter of Jerome's book itself. Wareh 13:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. On the question of consensus, I've yet to see evidence that your individual chapter articles have received careful review and approval from anyone.  Wareh 13:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defense of the sub-articles makes no sense 

message: I came to this through going through the WP:ADF log.  Wikipedia is not the right place for reproducing texts in print or appearing on other websites.  The texts are non-encyclopaedic.  A commentary on them or description of them might be.  That is done in the first few paragraphs.  The rest, together with the subarticles reproducing each chapter should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 23:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete the sub articles 

message: Got this information from the Wikipedia article on Simon Peter:
:The ancient Christian Churches, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Anglican Communion, consider Simon Peter a saint and associate him with the foundation of the Church in Rome, even if they differ on the significance of this for the position of the see of Rome and of the Pope in present-day Christianity. 
*--Doug talk 15:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simon Peter, also known as Saint Peter or Cephas, was an apostle of Jesus of Nazareth. A number of traditions, most notably Roman Catholic, hold that he was the first Bishop of Rome 
*--Doug talk 16:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds as if these articles should be merged.  Peterkingiron 21:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Suggestion withdrawn: Cephas and Simon Peter are in fact redirected to Saint Peter.  Primacy of Simon Peter and Vicar of Christ are valid topics entitled to remain distinct from Saint Peter, but I express no view on whether both articles are necessary.  Peterkingiron 22:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simon Peter 

message: Have reverted these back to just a list of biographies (however with no links whatsoever); very similar to my article De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) which has had no objections from the beginning. Now it is a very high quality article since it is almost identical to De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch), which is considered a high quality article (by many other editors).
:FYI – the "life of Paul the Monk" is taken directly from the text; but if you want just "Life of Paul", that is fine by me, even though that is not what it says in Jerome's De Viris Illustribus Chapter 135 which I was using as the reference source data to come up with this information. You can change it to your viewpoint if you like. The source just happens to say "the Monk". I wasn't there, so I would not know for sure, perhaps you do. I don't even know what the definition of a "Monk" is, so you have one on me here. I was just going on Chapter 135, which I suppose could be wrong. I'll go with your wording on this and say he was not a Monk. Is that a bad thing to be? Sounds like something I would like to be; the life of a Monk sounds real good – its pretty much what I am now (I think, but not to sure on the definition. Is it "carefree"?). Perhaps you can help me out on a definition here........
*--Doug talk 19:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of points about the lists as they now stand.  First, the listed names can and should be wikilinked to the articles on those people.  Doug, maybe you can bring in those links, since I think you've tracked down the encyclopedia articles that exist in Wikipedia on these persons.  Second, I'm a little confused about the "Liber I" vs. "Liber II" distinction as presented in the article currently.  Is it really the case that Book I of De viris illustribus consists of 134 biographies, whereas Book II consists entirely of Jerome's listing of his other works?  Is it, then, a work in two books, so divided?  That seems very odd, and I'd like to understand this better.  Wareh 16:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me clarify on my second point, about the structure of De viris illustribus.  The online Latin text here shows a work consisting of a Prologue + 135 chapters.  Chapters 1–134 are the biographies of other authors; Chapter 135 is the (auto)biography of Jerome himself.  It includes a list of his own works just as his biographies of others contains lists of their works.  What is your basis, if any, for a different view of the structure than this (no "books," Prologue + 135 chapters)?  Wareh 16:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You are not addressing my question, "What is your basis, if any, for a different view of the structure than this (no "books," Prologue + 135 chapters)?"  If there is any objective basis for dividing the presentation into "List I" and "List II," please state it here.  My sense is that there is no reason for the disproportionate space given to the contents of Chapter 135.  The extensive quotation of Jerome's work does nothing helpful towards presenting the topic (De viris illustribus as a whole), and if it belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, it's at the article Jerome, where of course a survey of what he wrote over his career would be appropriate.  Wareh 18:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S.  Do not remove the merge tag, as you did before, without some attempt at explanation and consensus on this talk page.  Wareh 19:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of biographies 

message: I have tried to improve the lead (diff).  Among what I removed was the following: Chapters 1–134 described as "134 biographies of ancient heroes and authors of Greek and Roman antiquity (much like that in Christian church history)" and Chapter 135 desribed as "a couple of dozen books of epistles and chronicles related to moral biographies (much like what can be found in the bible)."  To take Chapter 135 first, it is obviously a short chapter, not a couple of dozen books.  It lists a couple of dozen books written by the subject to which it is devoted (Jerome himself), but this is unremarkable, since that is generally speaking what a great number of the other 134 chapters do!  The description of Chapters 1–134 also perplexed me.  While it would be accurate to say that Jerome himself, and by extension all the figures whose lives he treats, are from Classical antiquity or Late antiquity, the description of "authors of Greek and Roman antiquity" was highly misleading, as one would then expect biographies of Cicero, Thucydides, Callimachus, etc.  Since I have not studied all these lives carefully, one question I'd like to answer is just how many of the 135 are (A) Christian, (B) authors.  I have a feeling the numbers are high but not necessarily = 135.  Finally, how are the contents of this book "like" Church history or the Bible?  The latter, especially, sounds like an odd POV for which we'd need some basis.  Wareh 19:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually like those improvements you made. Excellent job! How did you like how I put the very long list of biographies into 4 columns for easier navigation? --Doug talk 20:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad I didn't do anything disagreeable!  I like your four-column format; it's a definite improvement.  Wareh 21:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems in the lead 

message: My vote is to have this Section stay here since it is always described as the last part of De Viris Illustribus in all related texts as Chapter 135. The article of Jerome is already a very large article and I believe this additional information would only make it more confusing. There is plenty of room in this article (where it is known as associated material) to just leave it here. --Doug talk 11:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that there is nothing explaining or justifying the relevance of this list to an article on Jerome's De viris illustribus.  Yes, the list is in Jerome's book.  But, as the deletion discussion for your Chapter 1 article should be making clear to you, the mere contents of a famous book are not per se appropriate content for an encyclopedia article about the book.  The most obviously appropriate thing to do with this section is to delete it altogether and replace it with one sentence, e.g. "In the final chapter, Jerome gives an account of his own literary career, mentioning his translation work and listing his treatises on X, commentaries on Y, and books in Z genre."  Anyone interested in the whole list would naturally click on the external link and read Chapter 135 for himself or herself!  Again, this goes back to the basic misunderstanding that led you to pour Jerome's book into all those articles.  It was this section, no doubt, that motivated someone to nominate this article for deletion, since it is obviously inappropriate.  Reason prevailed and saved this article, because editors realized that, whereas the whole list may be inappropriate, the book De viris illustribus itself is notable, and there is no reason not to have an article about it, even if that article needed to be trimmed from the over-full form in which it existed.  Now, I am always in favor of as diplomatic an approach as possible.  My "merge" tag was a way of saying, "Doug, apparently this content is important to you.  It is not relevant to this article, but perhaps a survey of Jerome's work is relevant to Jerome.  With enough work, you could carefully work in a mention of anything in this list into the various appropriate parts of the Jerome article, so as to save your work.  Of course, this would involve dividing them along the generic lines drawn in that article—translations, historical writings, letters, theological writings—and finding the right place to insert any new information.  But it's doable."  If that project doesn't appeal to you, I hope you'll try to understand that exactly the same rationale leading to the deletion of your 62 articles containing the text of Chapters 1–62 will necessarily lead to the deletion of this section, which (just like those articles everyone agrees should be deleted) largely consists of nothing but a point-by-point summary of the contents of Chapter 135.  Wareh 00:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of "Jerome's account of his own literary career" to article Jerome 

message: I am trying to understand the difference in what I said and what you said. Can you explain the difference. Looks the same to me, so I am a little confused right now. I am comparing to the Jerome's De Viris Illustribus: English translation and it looks like what I said. Is it not Chapter 66 Cornelius? There must be a difference here which right now I am missing it. Please point that out, I would appreciate it. Thanking you in advance for your explanation on this misunderstanding of "Chapter numbers" and "numbered chapters". --Doug talk 18:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your wording was misleading.  It implies that someone making reference to Jerome's De viris illustribus (say, someone writing an article about one of these people) would normally write, "In Chapter 66 Cornelius, Jerome states that..." or "In 66. Cornelius..."  However, this is not the case.  To the extent that what you wrote was true, it was obvious, since it would apply to every book ever written with named chapters.  "The English translation at istrianet.org labels the chapters in the following format: Chapter 66 Cornelius" would be true, but it is not pertinent information about Jerome's book, so it wouldn't belong in this article.  The article states clearly the only pertinent facts: the book has so many chapters, numbered, and this is what they are.  That's all that can be said.  (Note that with works as old as this, we usually have to be careful about assuming whether things like chapter labels are in any way original and authorial, as these have often been added by later copyists and editors in order to clarify a work's structure.  In this case, at least it is obvious that they represent very naturally Jerome's authorial plan.)  Finally, in addition to these points, it was a nonstandard use of quotation marks around "Chapter number," and sloppy wording to suggest that "biographies are designated as numbers."  Reference is made to the contents of the various chapters by chapter numbers, but this is simply to say what is true of every book with numbered chapters.  Wareh 00:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The summary dismissal of the point above fails to account for the fact that, as is, there is no clear evidence in the content to whether Jerome numbered the chapters himself or not. If he did not, and it is reasonable to assume that he himself might not have given the prevailing customs of his time, then referring to any chapter by number, rather than name of the subject, could be misleading, particularly if someone else finds an edition without chapter numbers. On that basis, I think it makes a great deal more sense to not refer to chapter numbers, until and unless one can indicate that Jerome himself used them in the original text. John Carter 17:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapter numbers 

message: Should the link for "John" in this article be to John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, or John of Patmos? John Carter 17:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've inserted links to the subjects of chapters I could be absolutely sure of, which isn't many. John Carter 17:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jerome believed all three of the Johns you mention to be the same person.  Perhaps Names of John would be the most appropriate place to link?  Wareh 18:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't read your suggestion before linking it to John#Biblical references. I have a weak preference for the link I added. Names of John seems to have a POV problem at present; as I read it, it assumes the identity of these three Johns and the disciple whom Jesus loved, and even the title "names of John" seems to be based on this assumption. EALacey 18:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I saw you hadn't seen my comment here, but I also saw that you'd found a more neutral place to point the link.  Let's leave it there.  Wareh 20:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John? 

message: support – It is highly undesirable to have parallel articles on the same subject.  I am no expert on Jerome, but the article on him looks a good one.  This one should contain a brief statememt of Jerome's life and (substantial) literary achievement.  This should then be linked to the article on the subject using the  template.  Peterkingiron 09:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and boldly made the change described ... please feel free to revert if it seems to have been premature.  I left the merge tag there for now.  (With the full text of Chap 135 included, the section is still 50 words shorter than the previous description of of the content of 135).  – Pastordavid 16:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: FYI, to all involved: the CCEL translation (from the Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers series) is definitely PD; and the website describes it as such (as long as you don't use their xml mark-up).  I'm going to see if I can figure out how to get it into wikisource this evening.  – Pastordavid 17:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Public Domain

message: Doug's proposed rewording (see immediately above) would still be false; the year in question does not "depend on how you look at it."  Could we accurately say, "written in 392, or possibly the first eighteen days of 393"?  Yes, but this would be a bit bizarre.  Normal usage for very scholarly purposes usually doesn't trouble over something like this, not to mention an encyclopedia article.  But I'd be glad to see the extra information about the eighteen days (stated with a bit more care for accuracy) in a footnote—if I could only reassure myself that it was for any defensible reason.  Which brings me to my real question, which I'll go ahead and pose to Doug and any other interested persons here.
Why are all of these numerical details so important to Doug? I'm having trouble believing he wants an accurate, scholarly consensus article here. He is on the record as believing that Jerome's book contains "a very special meaning (if you study it very close)"; his other recent edits seem to be pushing some kind of numerology. There is always room for compromise between editors who can understand each other's good faith in shooting for a neutral, clear, and accurate presentation. But I'm very concerned (though sans any hypertension—Doug is confusing a ready flood of words for agitation) that, if Doug's numerological theories predispose him to the importance of a certain fact, he will want it in the encyclopedia whether it belongs or not.  These edits have every appearance of deforming the normal texture of articles, in order to make sure that their details support Doug's Petrarch Code theories. (If anyone else doesn't know about Doug's Petrarch Code & other unorthodox beliefs but wishes to consider whether they have any bearing on this, see further here, and here for specific application to Jerome.)
I hope my specific request is clear: First of all, Doug should state here, honestly and publicly, whether the edits he's making to this article are motivated in any part by your original and unverifiable theories about what this book means. (I've frankly never dealt with a situation like this before; normally, as I putter around Wikipedia with my Classics Ph.D. and try to make it a little better, any disagreements that come up are easily handled with reason and compromise.  If anyone has any advice about how to proceed in regard to an apparent editing campaign like Doug's, I'd welcome it here or at my talk page.  I'm a believer in AGF, but that's hard here.) Wareh 00:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doug is welcome to any ideas and theories he likes, no matter how adventuresome they may be; but WP articles must be firmly based on reliable, secondary sources. All that's needed here is a firm adherence to Wikipedia's core content policies, laid out nicely in Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Doug, I wholeheartedly agree that you are allowed to hold whatever personal opinions or theories that you choose, and that it is irrelevant to your editing as long as all facts, ideas, and datum are reliably attributed.  However, I don't agree that what I did was exactly what you were doing.  You were entering the entire text of De Viris into the wikipedia encyclopedia.  I entered one section; the rest I am formatting to put into wikisource.  The section I entered is one section to add to the content of the article – not to be the entirity of the content of the article.  Personally, I am glad you started this article – De Viris was not a work that I knew, and I am enjoying reading it as I proof it for wikisource.  Also, please note that I use Pastor in my username so that my POV and conflicts of interest are readily apparent to all other editors – it makes me a little more honest in my edits, forcing me to be more intentionally NPOV.  I do not use the username for any sort of appeal to authority (nor have I ever received any special consideration because of my title).  When I added the content of chap 135, it was based on the discussions here on the talk page, and if anyone objects I encourage them to remove it and improve the section.  – Pastordavid 11:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note that according to Wikipedia:User page guidelines "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia".  That is, your user page and associated user talk pages are not a personal web site or social networking tool.  General discussions of religious topics are inappropriate on Wikipedia.  If you wish to pursue personal views, you may want to try one of the social networking sites. Buddhipriya 17:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this article being edited to serve an agenda?

message: Isn't there some simpler way of saying when it was written? Right now, the article gives the impression that Jerome may have written this book in as little as two weeks. Wouldn't it be possible to say that it seems to have been primarily composed in the year 392, and perhaps published or distributed (whatever) at some later time? Also, I personally question the likelihood of such a profoundly religious person as Jerome was doing substantive work of this kind over what was basically the Christmas season, as that seems really unlikely to me. Also, most books do have a bit of revision during final editing before publication/distribution, and probably did even then. Wouldn't it be a bit clearer to say that it seems to have been composed in 392, with some final editing before publication (probably in 393)? John Carter 18:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree with you, there should be a simplier way to say this. Simpliest I would think using common sense is something with fewest words like: "written in 392 to 393" or maybe "written in 392 and 393". This last one using the word "and" I would think would cover everything since there is already a reference below with the exact probable dates. Why clutter it up with extra unnecessary wording. In fact the edit or two before said exactly that using the word "and"; which looked good to me. How about if we put it back to the word "and". Another idea might be "written in 392 – 393" = ultimate simplicity! Then let the reference notes give the exact dates. I wouldn't dare change it myself, however if anyone feels this is a good idea – BE BOLD. --Doug talk 18:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to find a WP:RS for the date and cite that.  Anything that is not sourced should not be used.  Speculations on when it may have been written are inappropriate for an encyclopedia article.  The present citation to a scholarly source seems quite clear to me, I don't understand what the concern about number formatting is all about. Buddhipriya 20:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree. The reference to the 14th year of the emperor does not in and of itself "trump" the other references to 392. The fact that the year of the emperor includes the year 393 does not mean that the other references to the year 392 are not to be relied upon; it might simply be referring to what we would call the year 392, although in a slightly different calendar. I would need to see a specific source specifically indicating that the book was written (at least in part) in the year 393 to justify inclusion of that year in the body of the text. John Carter 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  392–393 

message: A link to the WikiSource version of De Viris has been provided in the references section.  – Pastordavid 19:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiSource 

message: I first came to this page when there were deletion issues relating to it, or rather to the inclusion of large chunks of the text of the book.  I now consider thatthe article is coming along well.  Peterkingiron 17:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coming along well 

message: The link is currently to Modestus (Apostle of Carantania) (8th-century). Obviously not the right person. Liadmalone (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  32. Modestus