Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] re: Classical Philology

The article is about the journal. Wouldn't it make more sense to address classical philology as a discipline?Ifnkovhg 00:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}} shouldn't be used on project pages. The article for the discipline is at Classics (Classical studies redirects there); at least in the U.S., the academic discipline is not called "Classical philology" as often as "Classics". There is a fair amount of terminological variation, I suppose, but I don't think I'd look for an article about the field at Classical Philology first. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately, at the top of the article Classical Philology, the reader is told,
For the subject, see classical philology and Classics.
So there shouldn't be any confusion. Now, there doesn't seem to be a good reason for classical philology to exist in its present exiguous form; the only good I can see in it is that it spares us having to say, at the top of Classics, that "classical philology redirects here; for the journal see..." Wareh 13:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Achilles. Sorry about my procedural boo-boo. Ifnkovhg 02:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, I think you've noticed that if I were in charge of the naming conventions, they'd be quite different... --Akhilleus (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hellenistic World

I think there is quite a confusion with articles concerning the Hellenistic period. It seems that actually Hellenistic Greece is the main article for this period of Greek History, but Hellenistic period's purpose is unclear, talking only about Alexander's conquests and the spread of Greek culture. I think it would be better to restrict Hellenistic Greece to political etc history of the Greek peninsula during the Hellenistic period, maybe also rename the article to "Greece during the Hellenistic period", and expand the Hellenistic period so that it will include information about Hellenistic history (i.e. history of all Hellenistic states [kingdoms, cities and koina]), art, religion, philosophy and civilization, somewhat like the French article. So, would you agree with that? Ashmedai 119 16:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have now begun the reorganisation of Hellenistic articles.
MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration of the year?

I'm sure other people have noticed but Plutarch has been the "collaboration of the month" for over a year now. I think this project would benefit from more regular updating. Otherwise it appears not much is being done here. --Steerpike 10:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latin at WP:GAR; could lose GA status

  • Latin is at WP:GAR; could lose GA status. --Ling.Nut 06:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forgotten ancient Greek cities work

Cities such as Didyma, Priene, Halicarnassus, etc. have been neglected. Have no fear- in my ongoing work with Asia Minor, I'll get them all up to speed and linked with the project. I have many sources and digital pictures for each city. I'm going to come up with a template for the cities so that they look great when being tied into their current Turkish counterparts. Monsieurdl 22:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fetiales (Feciales)

I want to point to this article about Roman cult. It is relatively short compared to the articles in other languages. It would be good if there was someone who would expand this article from other Wikipedias. And also I think, it is a good idea to move it to Fetiales, which is more common than feciales. Thanks. --Tomaxer 18:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Thermopylae GA sweeps review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I have recently reviewed Battle of Thermopylae and have determined that it is in very good shape but need some assistance to remain a GA. I have put the article on hold for seven days until the issues on the talk page of the article are addressed. I wanted to mention it here since the article falls under this project, and if interested, could assist in improving the article and help it to remain a GA. It currently has a few problems concerning inline citations and other general fixes. Additionally, I will be leaving messages on other WikiProjects and editors affiliated with the page to increase the number of participants assisting in the workload.

If you have any questions about what I've said here, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 23:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Battle of Marathon is currently on hold as it needs some more inline citations for several facts and quotes. You can see the statements that should be addressed on the talk page of the article. --Nehrams2020 20:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Women athletes in ancient Greece

Gymnasium (ancient Greece) says: "in ancient Greece only men practiced sports". Sparta says: "a strong emphasis was placed on the physical fitness of men as well as women. Despite their physical fitness, women could not compete in the Olympic Games, according to the Olympic rules (they competed in the Heraea Games instead)." Heraea Games says: "The ancient Heraea Games, dedicated to the goddess Hera (also spelled Heraia) is the first sanctioned (and recorded) women's athletic competition to be held in Olympic Stadium." (etc.) -- We need to reconcile these. -- 201.19.77.39 13:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd edition

If anyone is concerned about finding information that is not from reliable or up-to-date sources, then I gladly lead you to The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd edition by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth, Editors. It contains invaluable information that could not be found readily if you work from a personal library or the internet as I do. If you are stuck in a rut, go there- it is a gigantic book, but it is well worth it! The only negative is that it costs anywhere between $45-$75 at least. Monsieurdl 13:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration of the month

I saw a topic earlier about changing the "ancient" collaboration of the month to something different. I have a couple of suggestions for a new one- and if I don't get any responses then I'll consider that to be a go ahead to change it to something else. Hopefully I'll have some feedback on this!

You're welcome to change it to anything you like as far as I'm concerned. I think it's time to get this section back on the rails. --Steerpike 08:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject History

Just a note to say that WikiProject History has been restarted. some of you may be interested in joining.--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 14:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greek mythology: Partenope

I'm not entirely versed in the mythology of Ancient Greece, but I have breifly heard of the story where Partenope (siren) tried to enchant Odysseus from his ship to the isle of Capri. In the story Odysseus had his men tie him to the ship so he was able to resist the song of the sirens; as a result Partenope unable to live with the rejection of love, drowned herself and her body was washed up upon the shore of Naples....

I figured this was highly important so I created Partenope as a disambiguation (there was a kingdom named after it briefly and an opera too)... if anybody who is an expert on Greek mythology could help start Partenope (siren), with more info than I know, then that would be great. - Soprani 10:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Partenope is the Italian form. It is appropriate for Handel's opera, but otherwise Parthenope should be used. There is some further discussion of the siren in the last paragraph of Siren#Encounters_with_the_Sirens, without any references to ancient sources, however. Really, then, in my opinion, Partenope, with that spelling, should be a redirect to Partenope (opera), which in turn can have a header if needed to point the reader to the disambiguation page Parthenope (English spelling) for more information. This page already exists, and already links to siren for more information about the mythological Parthenope. (Unless there is an unexpected explosion in the amount of quality information someone wants to add about this Parthenope, surely the article siren has plenty of room for her.) I'll add a reference to the opera. Wareh 13:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
(Cross-posted with the above.) The usual Greek spelling is Parthenope, where the disambiguation page states that she's one of the Sirens. The Siren article already mentions Parthenope, and I doubt there's enough to say about her or any other individual Siren to justify a separate article.
The Siren article states that "Parthenope had a brief unconsummated romance with a man named Metiochus". I'm not sure what the source is for this or for the version of the story you've heard involving Odysseus. Some ancient authors do say that the Sirens threw themselves to their death after Odysseus passed by safely – OCD cites Hyginus 141 and Lycophron 712 ff. However, neither of these gives the Sirens a romantic motive for suicide or singles out Parthenope. Meanwhile, Strabo mentions a monument and contests to Parthenope at Naples, without telling her story. Smith's Dictionary has an entry on Parthenope referring to the commentary of John Tzetzes on Lycophron; I suspect this may be the source of at least one version of the story. EALacey 13:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've implemented a solution that recognizes that, in English, the spelling "Partenope" should refer to the opera. (The opera page does now direct readers to Parthenope for other uses.) I now see that Soprani moved the article on the opera from Partenope to Partenope (opera) in order to make way for the (as it turns out, unneeded) disambiguation page. If an administrator wants to do it, it would be appropriate to move Partenope (opera) back to Partenope now. Wareh 14:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] collaboration of the history projects

Hi, I'm newly appointed coordinator of the Wikipedia: WikiProject History. I was coordinator of the Wikipedia: WikiProject Military History before. My scope is to improve the cooperation among the different history projects andf use the synergy of a common infrastructure to improve article quality. One idea would be to merge small project into a larger wikiproject history with a common infrastructure and the small projects continuing independently as task forces of this project. What are your suggestions? Greetings Wandalstouring 15:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wandalstouring. This project has been quite for a long time and think that it would benifit from become part of WP:History. Just thinking out loud, would it be possible for this WikiProject to be merged in WP:History as a task force. Kyriakos 07:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, the Classical Greece/Rome project covers articles that are not strictly history--I mean, Zeus, Medea, and Heroides aren't naturally classified as historical articles. So I wouldn't support a merge--some level of coordination with WikiProject History would be worth thinking about, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Zeus is part of an ancient religion, Medea of ancient mythology and the Heroides are ancient literature in what aspects are they not history? Wandalstouring 16:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
In a sense, everything in the past is history. That doesn't mean that Wikiprojects dealing with mythology, religion, and literature should be merged into WikiProject History. I mean, you're not trying to incorporate WikiProject Novels, are you? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Akhilleus, has a valid point. But I guess we could just put a WP:HISTORY tag on these articles and not merge. Kyriakos 21:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 18:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iaso and Iesous

There has recently been a very long discussion at Talk:Jesus#Jesus' name Iesous is from Iaso. Drawing on a theory of the 19th century theosophist Madame Blavatsky, an unregistered user believes that the Greek name used in the New Testament for Jesus is derived from that of the Greek healing-goddess Iaso. The user has not cited any author who agrees with Blavatsky's position, although (s)he appears to believe that it is supported by Liddell and Scott; in fact, their lexicon merely gives Iesous as the Ionic genitive of Iaso, without asserting an etymological connection with the name of which Iesous is the nominative. The user also cites the Catholic Encyclopedia as saying that the name Iesous for Jesus is "of Greek origin", when it only states that certain church fathers mistakenly held this position. All this has been pointed out at length on the Talk topic cited above.

Since the Jesus article is semi-protected, it cannot be edited by an unregistered user. However, the Iaso article can. Since early 2006, about half of this article has been taken up by a section on Iaso's name that seems to be based entirely on Blavatsky and another eccentric 19th century writer, Nicolas Notovitch. (It does also try to imply that L&S and the CE support Blavatsky's view.) This seems to me a fairly clear violation of Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and undue weight, so I tried to remove the section when I became aware of it. The Blavatsky-supporting user has insisted however on its inclusion, and even when I left in a one-sentence reference to Blavatsky's view (this version) he reverted my edits and stated that I was "doing Vandalism to Wikipedia" (Talk:Iaso, emphasis in original). His position seems to be that Blavatsky is so notable that her views on Iaso should be cited even if they aren't discussed in modern scholarship on Greek religion or Christianity. I don't wish to pursue an edit war, and I would really appreciate an independent view on whether the Iaso article should mention Blavatsky's position, and if so at how much length. EALacey 15:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually think even the single sentence is appropriate at Iaso. It would better belong, if anywhere, as part of an article seeking to list all theories on the name "Jesus," regardless of how absurd they may be. This is an obvious case of a crackpot single-issue editor making the encyclopedia worse. I hope others will join me in adding Iaso to their watchlists and reverting any more of this from 72.186.213.96. Moreover, it would be really helpful if other editors, as they see fit to revert Anonymous's continual introduction of the inappropriate material, would second my warning at User talk:72.186.213.96. Maybe eventually the paper trail will justify action against this. Wareh 21:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Greek Government

I saw that this article was created recently by a newbie editor: Ancient Greek Government. Now I think it is fairly clear that the original edit was made in good faith by a child or someone who had just learnt about ancient greece in school. I didn't think it was appropriate to delete the article, it's perfectly legitimate so I was looking around for somewhere to redirect it to - *but couldn't find anything*. Is there an article dedicated to ancient greek politics? I can't find it. If not, why not? Witty Lama 15:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sparta needs cites

Sparta still needs additional cites. -- Writtenonsand 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)



Indeed it does. Also, articles need to differentiate between the full Spartan citizens and the helots/slaves who lived within Spartan territory. Intranetusa (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed to translate Latin book titles

Hi, is anyone able to help provide English translations for the following book titles in Latin that appear in "John Parkinson (botanist)"?

  • Paradisi in Sole, Paradisus Terrestris (1629) – this is currently translated as Park-in-Sun's Terrestrial Paradise, which seems a bit strange to me.
  • Theatrum Botanicum (1640) – this is currently rendered as The Botanical Theatre, but one source has Theatre of Plants instead. Which translation is better?

If necessary, please discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that everything is already ideally rendered, and I'd advise against making any changes. Don't you get the pun, Park-in-Sun = Parkinson? Wareh (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Euhemerism and other fringe views in mythology articles

User:Athang1504 has recently been creating or expanding a number of articles about figures from Greek mythology. While these contributions often seem quite detailed and well-informed, they tend to employ original research in interpreting ancient sources, and I'm confident that the conclusions they draw would typically be regarded as fringe positions in modern scholarship. For example, many of this user's edits promote or assume a Euhemerist view of Greek myth; i.e., that myths about gods and heroes closely reflect the lives of actual historical figures who were afterwards deified. Thus readers may learn that Helios "is not a personification of the Sun, as some people think, but a real person who lived in pre-cataclysmic times". Other unusual views being stated as fact include that "Homer must have flourished before 1000 BC", and that the Orphic Argonautica is pre-Homeric and describes a visit by the Argonauts to North America. Nobody except me seems to have taken much notice of all this, perhaps because many of the articles concerned are on fairly obscure topics.

I could simply revert all Athang1504's edits (except for article creations), but they're clearly made in good faith, and some may be useful. I don't know enough about the topic to tell whether anything is wrong with, say, Combie, an article created by Athang1504. So I'd like to appeal to any specialists in Greek mythology to review this user's contributions, and perhaps see if they can do a better job than me at explaining why Wikipedia can't say that Helios was a historical king of Egypt. EALacey (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have examined the situation and found it to be at least as bad as EALacey suggests. I've just nominated several articles created by this user for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combie (which covers several other articles as well). Wareh (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd revert everything, personally--there may be some stuff worth preserving in those edits, but they're fringy enough that we shouldn't have them showing while we sort things out. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Euenor

This "article" claims that Euenor was the first king of Atlantis - yet that article never mentions him, and has Atlas as first king. Who was Euenor and should his article be corrected or deleted? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an inaccurate statement of the account in Plato, Critias 113d1. If anyone wants to translate the Spanish Wikipedia article, it would be a huge improvement. ("Who was Euenor?" See also these other persons.) Wareh (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've translated the Spanish article and added a paragraph about the historical Evenors. I'm not sure that any of these people would have merited an article individually, but since there are several we can't simply redirect to another article, so probably need at least a disambiguation page. EALacey (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Nice work! Wareh 15:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Galla Placidia and Justa Grata Honoria portraits

The portraits of these two women are taken from a 'a miniature painting on a gilded glass medallion ca. 400, Brescia: Mus. Civ.'. There seems to have arisen a confusion as to which one is which. (Compare the Spanish wiki.) I had been under the impression that the portrait now being shown in Galla Placidia was in fact Honoria - she certainly looks younger to me. Is it in fact known for certain which is which? Djnjwd 23:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For Hyacinthe Collin de Vermont

Does anyone know who Apulas or Artambares are? They may be the French transliteration of a character known in English by another name. Neddyseagoon - talk 11:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Imperium needs better cites

Imperium "incorporates text from the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913." However, it has no in-line cites and apparently no other sources, although edits have been made to this article by various authors over several years. I have no expertise in this area myself. Can anyone add good cites to this article? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a Greek and Roman Classics dictionary entry:

Imperium was under the republic a power, without which no military operation could be carried on as in the name and on the behalf of the state. It was not incident of any office, and was always specially conferred by a lex curiata, that is, a lex passed in the comitia curiata. Consequently, not even a consul could act as commander of an army, unless he were empowered by a lex curiata. It could not be held or exercised within the city in the republican period; but it was sometimes conferred specially upon an individual for th day of his triumph within the city, and at least, in some cases by a plebiscitum. As opposed to potestas, imperium is the power which was conferred by the state upon an individual who was appointed to command an army. The phrases consularis potestas and consulare imperium might both be properly used; but the expression tribunitia potestas only could be used, as the tribuni never recived the imperium. In respect of his imperium, he who received it was styled imperator. After a victory it was usual for th soldiers to salute their commander as imperator, but this salutation neither gave nor confirmed the title, since the title as a matter of course was given with the imperium. Under the republic the title came properly after the name; thus Cicero, when he was proconsul in Cilicia, could properly style himself M. Tullius Cicero Imperator, for the term merely expressed that he had the imperium. The emperor Tiberius and Claudius refused to assume the praenomen of imperator, but the use of it as a praenomen became established among their successors. The term imperium was applied in the republican period to express the sovereignty of the Roman state. Thus Gaul is said by Cicero to have come under the imperium and ditio of the populus Romanus.

The article as it stands gets off topic when it talks about potestas in general. The discussion of one imperium being superior to another is bogus. The term should be one potestas being superior to another. Imperium had nothing to do with the office. It was a military command over a specific region. The law under an imperium was more like martial law granting broad powers in the region to exercise control by one individual subject to limitations by the senate. It was independent of office however, and the section on the break down of lictors should not be in the article. I would recommend that the article be merged with imperator were it not for the discussion of imperium Dei, but even that section would be better incorporated into divine right of kings. Because imperium and imperator both come from the same Latin verb imperare "to order", they really should not have seperate articles. Curiously, the article on imperator does not mention that those who hold imperium were called imperator. Legis Nuntius (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map of 69AD

Today I created a map covering the Year of the Four Emperors. The image can be found here. As you can see, this is very rudimentary. Only a few important cities are marked, and none of the provinces are identified by name. Unfortunately this is about as far as my basic Paint skills stretch. I also wanted to include the positions of each legion, and a few more significant battle sites, but I wasn't even sure whose side each province was on to begin with (and they tended to shift over the course of the year). If there's anyone with better graphical skills, and/or knowledge on the topic at hand, you're more than welcome to give this map a makeover (or produce a better one altogether). --Steerpike (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please check the colors of the legend, they don't seem right. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the problem exactly? The legend should correspond to the colours on the map. But just to make sure, I've changed the colours for Galba and Otho. The various shades of red were probably a little confusing. --Steerpike (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terence

from the talk page :

The Internet Archive has a book] that looks like Donatus's work cited in the article. I want to make sure it really is, and if so to link to it. Can somebody tell?

trespassers william (talk) 15:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done It's the Teubner, 1902. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization of articles covering Hellenism

I started a discussion at Talk:Hellenism#reorganization and foreign-language articles that may be of interest to people in this project, in a similar vein as User:Ashmedai 119's comment above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joriki (talk • contribs) 21:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now begun the reorganisation of Hellenistic articles.
MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Massacre of the Ninth Legion

An article has been created called Massacre of the Ninth Legion, about an incident in Boudica's rebellion which is covered in a couple of lines by Tacitus, based entirely on a dramatic reconstruction on the TV show Battlefield Britain. I've proposed it for deletion on the grounds that there's nothing that can be said about it that isn't adequately said in Boudica, Quintus Petillius Cerialis and Legio VIIII Hispana, and would appreciate some informed opinions on what should be done with it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's get rid of it. The other articles cover the subject, and no one's going to be searching for "Massacre of the Ninth Legion". --Akhilleus (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If you could give your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of the Ninth Legion, hopefully that'd influence the decison made. Thanks. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Julian the Apostate

There's a discussion underway at Talk:Julian the Apostate about whether the page should be moved to another title. Project members may be interested in participating, since one of the issues is how articles on Roman emperors should be titled. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:Julian the Apostate said the naming conventions should be discussed here. The example of Ivan the Terrible (whose wiki article is Ivan_IV) was said not to apply, since there are standards for naming European monarchs, and that this is the place for discussion of standards for classical Romans. Julian is in a unique position, so I don't think any decision, either way, will affect any other title. His wiki article is Julian the Apostate which some (myself included) argue violates NPOV. Some people do not recognize there is any POV issue involved, and there is a tiny debate between numismatics and others whether he would be Julian_I or Julian_II(numismatics). I read Ammianus Marcellinus and gained a good deal of respect for Julian, as opposed to the man who brought Christianity back, Constantius II. Of course, to the Christians, who might well be a super-majority of wikipedia readers, rolling back Christianity in the Roman Empire is his most important feature. To me, it is not, and calling him 'apostate' is an attempt to blacken the name of this person forever. JoshNarins (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a discussion on naming conventions for ancient Romans and/or Roman emperors should probably occur at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ancient_Romans), or a separate convention should be created for Roman emperors. (If either of these things happen, a note should be posted on this talk page so members of this Wikiproject are aware of it.)
But I don't think we need to make changes to the way articles about Roman emperors are named--I don't think there are big problems with the titles of Augustus, Caligula, Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, Philip the Arab, etc. The issue of whether Julian the Apostate is "POV" is one that should be discussed at Talk:Julian the Apostate. But I would caution anyone against the assumption that editors who think that the page should remain at Julian the Apostate lack respect for Julian, or that editors who think so are Christians; such assumptions smack of accusations of personal bias, and if carried far enough might violate Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rome. Archaeology and the Imperial Fora.

I am a freelance specialist for the study of the archaeological area of the Imperial Fora of Rome. I would like to contribute new information relating to the excavations conducted within the area of the Imperial Fora from 1995 to present. Please contact me at mgconde@yahoo.com

Have they been published, or pre-published? If so, please provide citations; if not, we can't use the information yet. See our policy on citation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latin translation?

Hi people,

my Latin is hitting its limit. What does New Latin principum mensis dicatus mean? "It is considered the foremost among the dishes" [i.e. foodstuffs]?

Thanks in advance! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You may want to try the forums at textkit.com. I'm under the impression that they all have dual doctoral degrees in Latin and Ancient Greek. Also, Yahoo answers will get you 2-4 translators usually. The Perseus site is always the best. I think you might have meant principium rather than principum. principium neuter adjective, 2nd declension, singular, nominative, modifies mensis, "first." mensis, masculine noun, 3rd declension, singular, nominative, subject, "month." dicatus past passive participle alternate form, 2nd conjugation, indicative, "spoken." "The first month spoken." I'm not sure what that means. Legis Nuntius (talk) 05:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
mensis is likely ablative plural of mensa, "table". Where does this quote come from? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
yeah, that's it. According to the dictionary, it can also stand to mean the meal which sits upon the tale. I think Dysmorodrepanis answered the question himself "foremost among the dishes". Would the ablative be an ablative of quality? Legis Nuntius (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
My reading is "reserved (dicatus) for the tables (mensis) of princes (principum)". I'd like to know what the food is - masculine nominative singular. Anyhow, that's my intepretation. Lucretius (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a very plausible reading, but it's hard to be sure without some context. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The context is best supplied by 'cibus', hence 'dicatus'. Lucretius (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heading to Rome from the U.S.A. this spring

Happy to take photos for any articles needing them - any suggestions where I should start looking to tally up some useful contributions I might make? Thanks folks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the Greek/Roman gods may need some pictures of statutes. Also, the Romulus and Remus article does not have a picture of the so called hut of romulus, which was discovered on the Palatine hill. For some reason, there are no pictures of the Temple of the Tiburtine Sibyl, which is located in Tivoli. There is also no article written about it. I have one picture of the temple, but it is from afar and with the huge waterfall. Some closeups may be nice. You can take a bus to Tibur/Tivolli. If you go, check out the temple, Hadrian's Villa, and the Villa d'Este. The Villa d'Este is a good place to take a date, it is jaw dropping. There are also some frescos of the temple at the Villa, which do not exist anywhere on wikipedia. I'm not sure when the temple was built but it would have to be before the 4th century BC. The bus ride is 30-45min and you can pick up the bus at one of the last stops on the metrolina. There is a colossal bust of Alexander the Great in a niche off Aurelian's Wall on the other side of the Villa Borghese (not at the piazza del popolo side). It is a bit larger or the same size as the Constantine I head at the Capitoline. Most people don't know it exists. If you are only going for a short time, its probably not worth walking to get to it. Santa Costanza does not have pictures of the two depictions of Jesus. The church is from the 4th century. In fact, many of the Churches of Rome have few or no pictures at all. Renovations may be complete at Santo Stefano Rotondo, which is on the Celian hill. Wikipedia also lacks a fresco by Raphael that is in the Villa Farnesina. The Villa Farnesina is pretty cool; it has a bunch of other frescos of mythological gods and beasts. It's south of the Vatican on the west side of the Tiber. The owner of the villa used to serve meals on golden plates and then throw them in the tiber to wow his guests. Of course he nets in there, but they didn't know that. You can go see Rome's Botanical Gardens, which are near the Villa as well. Legis Nuntius (talk) 06:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Some close up photos of Trajan's column showing the equipment of Roman soldiers. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

All great suggestions, I'll be there for a few weeks solid and will have plenty of time to head up to Tivoli and of course to the Borghese (and I love the head AND the foot at the Capitoline) :)
I also spent a day in Celio walking the hill, etc., but the renovations at Santo Stefano Rotondo were underway and I could only see the roof and upper part of the exterior past the partitions. What a great day that was, walking and lunching in the park with friends... I'll do my research and plan it out - keep them coming! -- User:RyanFreisling @

Almost anything you see is worth taking a picture of, but remember that many interior spaces (churches, museums, etc.) will not allow flash photography or the use of a tripod. If you have a good digital SLR, you can overcome this by using a high ISO, but you may have better luck taking pictures outside. A visit to Ostia or Hadrian's villa might give you some good opportunities. A picture of the terraces at Praeneste would be nice, too. I'm looking forward to your contributions! --Akhilleus (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely good advice, and that Praeneste recommendation is interesting since I'd wanted to get to Lazio. Also, take a look at what I've posted to date, here in my gallery. Cheers! -- ~~
A picture of the pope's underpants might be interesting. I suspect they they are white but I don't know where he hangs them. Good luck. Lucretius (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

More photos of Roman emperors would be appreciated, especially the more obscure ones. --Steerpike (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I made your trip known on another talkpage: Here a kind editor has announced his trip to Rome. Are there any photos we need from this place? Wandalstouring (talk) 13:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is a list of museums in Rome. If he could visit the National Museum of Sant'Angelo Castle (Museo Nazionale di Castel Sant'Angelo), Historic Museum of the Liberation of Rome (Museo Storico della Liberazione di Roma), or the Vatican History Museum (Museo Storico Vaticano), that'd be great. I don't know the collections they offer, but they do state to have "military" sections, and anything in them is likely to be of benefit to some of us. Oberiko (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey kids - heading out to Roma next week. Last chance for specific photographic requests! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Συνάντηση Βικιπαιδιστών στην Αθήνα

there will be a meeting of wikipedians in athens on 31/03/08, see el:Βικιπαίδεια:Συνάντηση —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.173.150.146 (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greek text needed

The article Ancient Greek units of measurement needs about 8 words of Greek text for units of volume. I don't have access to breathings and accents to finish the job, also I don't have some letters. I've been cutting and pasting from the existing text that someone else put there. Help would be appreciated. On a general note, I think this is the kind of problem that arises when Greek text is used in an English encyclopaedia - few people have the knowledge, the computer know-how or the inclination to edit Greek text accurately. This might even discourage many people from contributing to an article. So maybe we should be more sparing in our use of Greek. However, the Greek is already there, it makes the article look erudite and it looks unfinished. Lucretius (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Done! Wareh (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etruscans taskforce

I'm looking into creating a taskforce to improve the quality of articles relating to the Etruscan civilization. Let me you if you'd be interested in joining or you have ideas about which project it would best be organized under. Best wishes/Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] floruit categories

It's sometimes useful to get a list of all people who lived during a particular time. For people whose birth or death is known, at least to the century, the xxx births and xxx categories are useful for that (e.g. Category:1st century deaths). There are thousands of Wikipedia articles on ancient Greeks and Romans, however, whose centuries of birth or death aren't known, but who are known to have flourished during some particular time. For those people, I've been going through and adding them to the appropriate xxx people category (or a subcategory), e.g. Category:3rd century BC people. Thought I'd drop a note here so hopefully more people start using those categories. --Delirium (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems I am having with my Roman constitution entries

I moved Roman Senate to Senate of the Roman Republic and Roman assemblies to Legislative Assemblies of the Roman Republic. I am attempting to create a series of entries on the Constitution of the Roman Republic. This way, I can go into more detail on these subjects than what is on Wikipedia already, and can illustrate the inter-connectiveness of the Roman constitution. InvictusCaesar100 keeps undoing the changes that I made when I redirected the old pages to the new pages. The only substantive differences between the old entries and the new entries is that the new entries have more detail and more citations. The result is that there is now a duplication of entries on the same subject.

While my entry on the Roman Senate does not include much on the Senate of the Roman Empire, the old entry on the Roman Senate also contained almost nothing on the Senate of the Roman Empire. The old entry went into detail on the powers and structure of the Senate of the Roman Republic, and then included some history of the senate after the fall of the republic. I moved all of these post-republic sections to my entry on the History of the Constitution of the Roman Republic. I moved the specific paragraph on the senate of the Roman Empire to another entry in my Roman constitution series here. I would like a moderator to help me resolve this issue so that I don't have to keep playing these games with InvictusCaesar100.RomanHistorian (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with InvictusCaesar100. Your two redirects deleted the data of Senate and Assembly under the Empire. Could you not move the Empire content to Senate of the Roman Empire and Legislative Assemblies of the Roman Empire. So the content isn't lost and you or someone else can later expand these pages. You could then make the original pages to disambiguation pages and add links to the Republic and Empire pages. --Mdebets (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there actually a good way to divide this up? It's not like the Republican Senate was disbanded and an Imperial one reconstituted later, but it was literally the same institution whose function within the state and society gradually changed. --Delirium (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Merger Gynaeceum and Gynaeconitis

I proposed a merger of Gynaeceum and Gynaeconitis, as they are just synonyms. Discuss here --Mdebets (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero! It is also a Nike slogan. Legis Nuntius (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
My Latin is unfortunately non-existant. Would you mind translating. --Mdebets (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
"While we have talked, envious ages have flown away. Seize the day, trusting the least in tomorrow." --Horace Odes 1.11[1]. Legis Nuntius (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] need help and clarification

greetings, this controversial image Image:AncientPhonecian.jpg clearly represents a Minoan woman, it was shot at Akrotiri, why then is it linked to Phoenicia? need expert opinion if anyone can help. ;) Eli+ 22:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the people who researched and published the book "Phoenicians: Lebanon's Epic Heritage" disagree with your controversial opinion to the extend that they feature it on the front cover of their book.[2] That is why it is linked to Phoenicia. ;} - Gennarous (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposing new category; soliciting ideas

I was thinking of creating a new subcategory to Category:Ancient Greek writers to include writers whose works are now lost to us, such as Agathocles (writer) or Agathosthenes. I am however uncertain how such a category's title should be worded. Category:Ancient Greek writers whose works are lost seems unwieldy and a bit of a mouthful, but I'm not sure how you'd go about it otherwise. Ford MF (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit tricky, because most authors have left at least some fragmentary trace. A category for works surviving only in fragments would be easier to manage. Of course almost all ancient authors have suffered from the loss of (some of) their works, so e.g. "largely inextant authors" could quite literally be applied to Sophocles. I'm not trying to shoot down your suggestion, just to help you think about some of the blurred boundaries. It would seem to make sense to add "preserved only in fragments" to "lost," but that leads to its own problems: Sappho has a couple of complete poems and is otherwise fragmentary and would thus be less qualified for this label than Parmenides or Heraclitus. Wareh (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I get what you're saying. That's why I'm trying to nail down some precise language for such a thing, if it's even possible. I mean, I know what I mean when I say "Largely inextant authors" and it's obviously not Sophocles or Sappho. I can imagine a list of names of people who should be in such a category, I'm just trying to figure out how to put that to make such a thing feasible and reasonably unblurry. Ford MF (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess what I'm saying is that such a category should exclude writers with a large enough surviving body of work (fragmentary or otherwise) that modern readers are able to make an informed critical judgement about it, and include everyone about whom it's only possible to relay ancient critical opinion. Ford MF (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
"Ancient Greek writers known only by reputation"? (Or does "reputation" suggest something too definitely, when there may be just a couple of sentences in our sources? Then "only from secondary sources," which would add some latitude for some quotation in those secondary sources but less than what makes a direct estimate possible.) No matter how phrased, though, there are going to be difficult issues at the boundaries. For example, there are some darn obscure historiographers who scholars claim are represented in extant historical traditions. Some editions of "fragments" are much more liberal in identifying evidence that might give a positive basis to judge the nature of lost writers' works. All that said, I think "by reputation" or similar is workable enough (perhaps with a few sentences of explanation at the category page), and it would be a shame if you didn't follow your inspiration. Someone else can always come along and make things more precise! Wareh (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
That's good enough for me. I was just trying to see if anyone had a smarter phrasing than I could think of. Category:Ancient Greek writers known only from secondary sources seems the closest to me. Thanks! Ford MF (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Great! I'll get round to making an equivalent Roman category in a few weeks. As to the category name, how about "known only from quotations"?--Yolgnu (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I already went with the title above, largely because for some of these guys, like Agathosthenes, there aren't even any extant quotations. Ford MF (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed in Macedon article

A debate has been going on in that article between User:3rdAlcove and myself and User:Ilidio.martins. He insists on:

  • Removing the WP:GREECE tag from the discussion page.
  • Changing "Hellenistic period of Greek history" to "Hellenistic period of world history", while I insist on "Hellenistic of Greek and world history.
  • Changing the lead sentence from the current "Macedon was the name of a kingdom centered in the northern-most part of ancient Greece, bordered by the kingdom of Epirus to the west and the region of Thrace to the east." to something like "centered in present-day Greek Macedonia and extending west to Albania and north to the Republic of Macedonia". I find this frivolous and have explained my reasons on Talk:Macedon#Enough_already.

3rdAlcove and I conceded the first two points, hoping it help reach a compromise, but of course that only led him to insist on the latter point even more. However, I feel very strongly that the current form of the lead sentence is both more accurate and appropriate. Any input in helping to achieve a consensus is welcomed. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article Question

I am interested in having my article, Constitution of the Roman Republic, nominated for Featured Article status. I am wondering if some of the people on this project can look at the article, and tell me if it might be close to Featured Article level. Before I have it nominated, I want to figure out if I need to make any more changes.RomanHistorian (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I just did a quick scan and I have to say it's very, very impressive work. On the surface I see no problems, but I'm not really at home in the topic itself, so I can't make any suggestions in that area. I do hope you take this to FA. Cheers. --Steerpike (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on Roman Empire

Hoping to solicit some responses to an RFC I opened in Talk:Roman Empire#Western Roman Empire. Thanks. Brando130 (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category Archaeological sites in Greece re-org

I have organised the category Category:Archaeological sites in Greece and intend to do the same for other countries with greek and Roman remains. Some feedback would be appreciated. --Mdebets (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quintus Fabius Maximus Aemilianus

I was looking at Quintus Fabius Maximus Aemilianus'wiki, when I noticed it said, 'After his consulship he went as proconsul to Hispania where he fought and defeated Viriathus in an episode of the Lusitanian War but failed to capture him and the war went on until the fall of Numantia by his brother a decade later.'

Yet in the Viriathus page it also states, 'Rome sent Quintus Fabius Maximus Aemilianus, with 15,000 soldiers and 2,000 cavalry to strengthen Gaius Laelius Sapiens who was a personal friend of Scipio Aemilianus Africanus. The Romans lost most of these reinforcements in Ossuma. When Quintus Fabius risked combat again, he was totally defeated near what is today the city of Beja in Alentejo'.

These are two contradictory statements, which is true? Caelestis Filius (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Solon article - gearing up for FA nomination

The Solon article looks to me as if it is within sight of an FA nomination. There are some scholarly movers and shakers around here who like to help make things happen and their assistance and advice would be welcome. Please see and use the relevant Discussion page for input. Damning criticism is also acceptable but damn you if you do! (;|) Lucretius (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orsilochus ordered incorrectly

Hey, I know this is more a technical question than a classical one, but can anyone figure out why Orsilochus shows up incorrectly in Category:Characters in the Odyssey? It appears first on the category page, as if it was defaultsorted as an asterisk, even though it's not, and I can't figure out why, and it's driving me absolutely nuts. Ford MF (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked into this and I have no idea why this is happening. Maybe ask on WP:VPT? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman emperor assessment

Just to make a small update on the state of Roman Emperor articles. I've devised the following short categorisation system to establish which articles are good, passable, or bad:

  1. Augustus
  2. Tiberius
  3. Caligula
  4. Claudius
  5. Nero
  6. Galba
  7. Otho
  8. Vitellius
  9. Vespasian
  10. Titus
  11. Domitian
  12. Nerva
  1. Trajan
  2. Hadrian
  3. Antoninus Pius
  4. Marcus Aurelius
  5. Commodus
  6. Pertinax
  7. Didius Julianus
  8. Septimius Severus
  9. Caracalla
  10. Macrinus
  11. Elagabalus
  12. Alexander Severus

With the exception of the Year of the Four Emperors biographies, 1st Century Emperors are coming around quite nicely, counting three FA status articles and three GA status articles. Considering the amount of time and editing that went into these articles, I think their status is well-deserved. Congrats especially to Hoshidoshi, PericlesofAthens, LaurenCole and EALacey for their contributions, and thanks also to everyone who has tirelessly battled vandalism on these pages. 2nd Century biographies are less excellent unfortunately, and are badly in need of expansion, especially the more obscure emperors such as Didius Julianus, Macrinus and Alexander Severus. The articles on Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius are probably the closest to potetial GA status. Hadrian requires more extensive referencing, while Marcus Aurelius needs some major expansions. All members of the wikiproject are invited to collaborate on these pages. My personal ambition is to bring all these biographies to at least GA status in the long run. Regards. --Steerpike (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)