Talk:Roman triumph

message: I only have access to an electronic library version of this book, but the relevant discussion was to be found on p85f.
I realise the print book may have different pagination, so I haven't made an edit, and indeed whole chapters may have been swapped round from one edition to another which may explain why the change is so great, but I thought I'd mention in case anyone can check. Prhodian (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Note 11 page ref

message: One ref? Mary Beard's recent-ish The Roman Triumph is a milestone in this subject. She approaches the source material and accumulated myths with stringent scholarship. The article looks sad and bereft, nearly orphaned, and badly needs a copy-edit. I may have a shot at it, unless someone else feels like jumping in sometime soon.  Haploidavey (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of refs and inline citation

message: Am rearranging sections in chronological order. Will be leaving all the uncited material (thus, most of it) and removing as and when it can be replace or backed by inline citation. Main source to start will be Mary Beard's work (details as refs). Haploidavey (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: revision and copy-edit of article

message: This was gigantic and very intrusive, therefore I've removed it entirely. As it's a shared template, I daresay its originator(s) would rather it stayed as it was. I really don't think the article needs it. Interested parties should post here.Haploidavey (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Roman Military info-box

message: They're all my doing. Or fault, if you prefer. There's a lot of misinformation to be ploughed through and substitute with more considered scholarly opinion (and debate, where appropriate - that means every tagged para, in event of dispute. If disputed material is not sourced very soon, out it goes!) Haploidavey (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: horrible temporary headings and sub-headings

message: Lead inaccurately describes hereditary nobility as ruling empire. Have changed. Further cited changes required in intro. Will not notify these unless challenged. Haploidavey (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: cuts and changes

message: I'd sort of given up on the article - comes of reading too much Beard, I think - but Botteville's addition of Trajan's column pics has re-stimulated my interest. A few more (assuming they're available) might even kick-start things again. Haploidavey (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More pics!

message: There's almost enough material here for a readable and informative article, but it's jumbled and confusing. The Bacchic elements give me a clue on how to approach this. We need, I think, to steer away from Smith's very detailed but idealised, generalised model, and Livy's lengthy expositions of particular cases. Rather, we need to unpack particular features, issues and developments of the Triumph within a strong narrative structure. That'll take some time to sort out. I don't think readers need to witness the inevitable mess-in-progress (yes, I'm that optimistic) so I'll tackle the whole thing on a dedicated user-page - which of course "anyone can edit". Haploidavey (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, perhaps you'll point out where this error is to be found in the article, or change it yourself. I've searched the text twice, and can't find it. Haploidavey (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewriting article in user-space

message: The earliest forms of this article had no dates; the first instance I've found of a year with an era occurs here in 2007 and uses "AD." At some point, it was changed to BCE/CE; it's claimed in one edit summary that a "consensus" supported this, but I don't see any discussion of that on this talk page. I see that scoundrel Haploidavey claiming in edit summaries from 2009 that the convention was BC/BCE. Throughout December 2009, this seems to have been a football. It may be that substantial revision had been made of the previously dismal article in which years were rarely stated; a thorough revision would justify changing the era convention (well, IMHO), but I can't pin down when this occurred. I shall leave this matter to those who care. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, Haploidavey could at least get his story straight; maybe he's gotten old and lazy? Anyhow, I just put all this to him and he responded with a mumbled string of obscenities (which I won't repeat)  and the occasional bark about "substantial contributions" and "lame tedious disruptive era wars"; otherwise, he doesn't count himself among those who care, and prefers a simple life in his barrel. So, for now, here's an Io triumphe for the IP and BC/AD, and hubris to the Haploid and BCE/CE. Haploidavey (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the consensus lies in the fact that the current era style has survived for several years. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, one would certainly have thought that a sign of consensus, whether or not consensus was explicitly sought and obtained on the talk-page. And as far as I can tell, consensus trumps precedence. The era style doesn't bother me either way; the disruption does. A quite fabulous waste of time and energy, imho. Haploidavey (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, it seemed that when the article was revised with actual sources the era convention became CE/BCE; the guideline over at WP:ERA changed recently. It no longer privileges the convention ab origine, and requires only consensus rather than "substantial" reasons to change a convention. Which ought to result in lots of useless bloodshed. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Era convention 

message: His wikipedia page mentions he died of starvation, not strangulation. I've inserted a citation needed tag for now, but this needs to be resolved.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.90.127 (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for picking up this error, and tagging. Have changed text to conform with Plutarch's account and removed the tag - the link to Jugurtha's cited article will probably do for now. That said, this section's quite problematic; see article text on the difficulties in reconstructing anything like a "typical Triumph". Haploidavey (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jugurtha's death 

message: So many similar Wikipedia Pages have a complete list, either on the main page or as a separate page.  Why not here? KuudereKun 04:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the query @KuudereKun. There is no single, authoritative list of Triumphs on which we can rely. The Lists given in other Wikipedia pages are editorial compilations, extreme simplifications of the scant evidence we have in the various Fasti (others might disagree, of course). Some are drawn from other online encyclopedias or generalist articles and web-sites; some looks very like original research or straight copy from Primary sources. We don't use such articles, or other Wikipedia articles or List-articles as sources (there's a selective digest of Degrassi, but as an external link, and I'm not even sure it's OK to use, per copyright).  As far as I can see,standards of evidence and verifiable sourcing on English-language Wikipedia articles are higher than many. The article itself explains the problem of sources, evidence, context and scholarly consensus pertaining to Triumphs (or at least it seeks to do so). Haploidavey (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't there a List of all the Known Triumphs?