Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →


Contents

Lusitania Incorrect

There are serious glitches in the part of Roman History of Lusitania and the Lustani culture. Who do I speak about this? I'm a history major, and I know alot about the subject.

Best Regards., Phill.

Click on the "edit this page" tab at the top of any article that can be improved, and make the changes yourself. Just so long as everything you add is not original research but is based on reliable sources and is verifiable. (Add references to primary sources, etc., if at all possible.) Wareh 13:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


Troilos/Troilus

I've just added myself to the members list as I'm working on the Troilus article which lies, at least partially, in this wikiproject's area.

The old version seemed to have text from several different edits which repeated or contradicted each other. I've split and sorted the article into Greek, Roman/Latin and medieval/renaissance sections and put in a reference section. As the literary sources are so inconsistent, I've followed the lead of one previous editor who gave the Proclus/Kypria version and am going through the literary sources, more or less chronologically, giving what information is available from each. So far, I've added information from Apollodorus, Virgil and Plautus and expanded discussion of Homer and Attic pottery. (Note that nasty red colour. Is there an expert out there?) I shall be following up other references in the books by Robert Graves and Timothy Gantz. Certainly, Dares and Dictys will be referenced as they are the major influence on the medieval writers. I've also created a redirect from Troilos

Any comments etc. gratefully received. --Peter cohen 23:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Alcyone

Just a heads up, the article Alcyone needs some serious work. I was trying to fix it up, but I realized I don't know enough about the mythology to even fix the ambiguous sentence construction (for instance, it doesn't seem like Eosphorus was the king of Thessaly, but then who was?). This article is important because the phrase "halycon days" and the word halycon itself traces back to this ancient myth. It'd be nice to have a better article on the myth itself. Thanks guys, Cyde Weys 02:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hippocrates, father of Peisistratos

Greetings. I noticed that someone had inserted the text "(Check Link)" after the Hippocrates link on the Peisistratos page, and on further investigation found that there was no article for the right Hippocrates. So I found some suitable information on him on the net (including Herodotus i. 59, v. 65.) and created the Hippocrates, father of Peisistratos article.

Along the way, I noticed a link to your project, and since it seemed appropriate, I decided to be bold and link that article to this project via its talk page. I hope that's all right. Cheers! --DavidConrad 06:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire FAR

Byzantine Empire has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mythology categories

We now have

They have a large overlap. In fact, both appear on a lot of the same articles. Is, or was, there a plan here? If so, it doesn't seem to be working.

I have proposed deletingthe people cat and upmerging. There should be a better way to break down Template:Cl:Greek mythology (by city and by type?) Thoughts? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

By parents (eg "children of Zeus", "children of Apollo" etc)? I think what the categorizer may have been trying to do was keep people / mortals separate from Category:Greek gods/Category:Greek goddesses - so gradations in categorising, of deity, semi-divine/semi-mortal/demigod/'hero', and mortal, seems the best way. Also, group obvious groups together (nymphs, Pleaides, etc), with a category each, then perhaps divide those categories by gender (demigods and demigoddesses had very different functions in Greek myth) ? Neddyseagoon - talk 23:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the parent idea might be useful. Listing Priam's children would make a mess of his page, but might be worth having elsewhere. The mythological genealogy book, whose name escapes me at present, lists more names than implies by the traditional fifty sons. There aren't however names for all fifty daughters Virgil claims. ;-) Peter cohen - talk 12:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Most of Priam's children are mere names without a story attached, and couldn't be more than an item in a list. I can't see why you'd want List of children of Priam.
I think Category:Greek heroes, Category:Greek heroines, Category:Greek nymphs, and so on is a good way to deal with the problem. Although, you're going to get fights over whether Medea belongs in Category:Greek heroines (she does) because she's a pretty sinister figure and whether Helen belongs in Category:Greek goddesses because it's possible that she originated from a tree goddess.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
We could get round the "heroine" issue by insisting on using the Greek terminology - heroine is a modern coinage without a Greek equivalent (demi-goddess?), whereas "a Greek hero" doesn't mean the male equivalent of a heroine (ie what the hero page is on at the moment), but a status, a son of a god/goddess (eg Aeneas, Achilles etc), or a figure around whom a hero-cult (in the religious not social sense) gathered (eg Hellenistic rulers, like those of Pergamum).Neddyseagoon - talk 12:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I'm pretty sure "heroine" has a Greek equivalent: ἡρωῖναι or ἡρώισσαι. In contrast, I'm not sure that "demi-goddess" is ever used, but I can tell you that ἡμίθεοι is comparatively rare in Greek; perhaps more importantly, scholarship refers to these figures as heroes and less often as "demi-gods". --Akhilleus (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
And heroine Then pardon my ignorance. My point (albeit clumsily put) was that hero is frequently used in Greek and as an English transliteration of sons of deities, whereas daughters of deities are called nymph, naiad, etc.etc. more often than "heroine". (And yes, demi-x is an ugly construction anyway.)Neddyseagoon - talk 16:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Breaking the categories down by parentage and geography is perhaps less helpful, because the parentage of some figures is mutable depending on which ancient source you're looking at; same deal with the city of origin. There are also heroes who are born in one place but perform their heroic deeds elsewhere; you could even make the case that Oedipus is an Athenian hero. For that reason I'd avoid classifying these figures by geography. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
These are cats; Oedipus can go in Cat:Theban mythology and Cat:Athenian mythology if necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

British Museum Compass page (online collections database)

This is now no more - the BM page has been rejigged and so none of the links to Compass work. A quick search suggests this made leave about 400 bad links on Wikipedia to repair, and so I thought I'ld call on this Project for help. (Also, their collections database itself - rather than the Compass window on it - will soon come out on this new website, so we may be able to link to entries in there instead/too.) Neddyseagoon - talk 15:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Victorian cartoons

An anonymous user at ip 200.214.14.2 has been adding Victorian cartoons by John Leech from The Comic History of Rome to numerous articles related to Roman history (see Romulus and Remus). In my view they are usually inappropriate, but I do not wish to remove them if editors think them OK, so I just want to draw attention to them here. Here is the edit hitory. [1] Paul B 15:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree they're not in the right place, unless the article has a section on the reception of a story in later art & culture, which of course they'd be fine for illustrating. They would be appropriate for an article on the cartoonist, or on Roman History in modern art/popular culture. Wareh 16:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research at Minoan civilization

Hello, perhaps we can get some more eyes at Minoan civilization, where a new user insists upon adding some irrelevant material, including a reference from Plato's Laws, apparently in the hope of proving that the Minoans were Greeks. Since few people seem to be watching the article, it's basically me and the other editor reverting and having a futile discussion on the talk page. More voices would help. Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Aargh. That's on my watchlist now. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice; I'll watch them too. And speaking of spreading original research, see now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eidon. Wareh 13:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
What about Noesis? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
That one is probably more up Wareh's alley: what do you say, W? semper fictilis 17:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I reverted on the basis that the material was from John Opsopaus and not from any ancient source (diff). Wareh 17:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To Do List

The project page mentions a to-do list which doesn't appear here. Am adding it accordingly. Is there another place that contains this info? Alcmaeonid 18:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 3: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    Sack of Delphi?

    It's common received opinion that Brennus and his Gauls sacked Delphi in 279 BC and looted all its treasure. However, I've been researching the article on Brennus, and the only sources I've been able to find for the invasion are Pausanias and Justinus, both of whom say the Gauls were repulsed from Delphi and slaughtered as they retreated. Strabo reports a story told in his time that the gold and silver found at Tolosa (Toulouse) was spoil from the sack of Delphi, but he doesn't believe it, not only because the Gauls were scattered after their defeat and in no fit state to carry treasure anywhere, but because Delphi had already been emptied of treasure by the Phocians in the Third Sacred War the previous century (all these three sources can be read by following links in the footnotes). Are there any other ancient sources that refer to the sack and looting of Delphi, or is this supposed event a myth? --Nicknack009 12:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

    • P. Green, Alexander to Actium, p. 133 says "The Gauls thrust south, into Thrace, Asia Minor, the Balkans. Walled towns were reasonably safe, but the countryside was gutted. One horde was finally turned back, at Delphi, by a mixed army under the leadership of the Aetolians, who very soon saw that these hulking broadswordsmen were dangerous only at close quarters, and highly vulnerable to guerilla tactics." He cites Pausanias 1.4, 10.19-23; Poly. 4.46; Memnon FGrH 434 F8, 11; Diodoros Siculus 22.3-4, Justin 25.1-2. (Some of these references might be for other episodes in the invasion.) There was also a festival at Delphi established to celebrate their deliverance from the Gauls that was called the "Soteria" ("Salvation"). So, no, not sacked by Brennus. I'm not sure where the confusion comes from, but Delphi did have trouble later--if I recall it was sacked by Thracians during the Mithridatic war (?). semper fictilis 13:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks. The passage from Polybius and one of those from Memnon refer to the Gauls settling near the Hellespont and founding Galatia, and I've referenced them in the article. I'll have to see if I can find out more about the Soteria and incorporate that. The other Memnon passage and the one from Diodorus refer to the death of Ptolemy of Macedon during Bolgios's invasion and aren't directly related to Brennus, but I'll be sure to use them when I write Bolgios's article. It certainly seems, though, that the sack of Delphi is an invention of overenthusiastic modern Celtophiles. --Nicknack009 21:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • On the festival, there's G. Nachtergael, Les Galates en Grèce et les Sôtéria de Delphes: Recherches d’histoire et d’epigraphie hellénistiques, Brussels 1977. It presumably will have collected all of the material about the attack itself. I don't have a copy myself, but I don't live far from a good research library. If it'll be some help, I can try to get it for you. semper fictilis 22:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

    Deletion request: Cretan mythology

    Members of this project may be interested in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cretan mythology. (The discussion was transcluded here before, but that's probably not a good idea, as some AfDs can get very long.) --Akhilleus (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks Akhilleus! That's what I get for trying to go the short way 'round. I had no idea it would be transcluded with that code. That being said, there has been some suggestion on the AfD page to make this article into one that actually deals with Cretan myth. Is anyone in the project familiar with this information and the litterature surrounding it? CaveatLectorTalk 17:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

    Deletion request: Asgard in popular culture

    Members of this project may be interested in the deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asgard in popular culture]. CaveatLectorTalk 14:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    Wrong project page, sorry y'all. I'll leave up the message if anyone is interested, though. CaveatLectorTalk 14:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    Deletion of Hydra in popular culture preposed

    This one, however, is sure to interest the project members: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydra in popular culture. There are a lot of these floating around, actually. I think it's a good 'to do' topic. CaveatLectorTalk 15:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


    Solon

    There was a B rating on the Solon article. I have now revised the article and I would like it to be assessed again. What now?Lucretius 04:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

    Assuming you think the rating for Solon ought to be increased above B, the usual course of action is to nominate it at Wikipedia:Good article candidates or Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, once you think it meets the relevant criteria (good, featured). It appears from our quality scale that an A-class rating can be given without a GA nomination, but I assume that an A-class article should in principle still meet the GA criteria. EALacey 07:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    After watching GA, I would avoid the process; but the criteria are sound, unless they've been meddled with recently. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

    Sourcing articles

    Hello all. I'm not a member of this project, but I thought that here would be a good place to get an informed consensus on a question I have, namely:

    • Where an article uses sources from the period (such as Livy, Josephus etc) should that article be qualified with the mention that it is not recounting verifiable facts about an event, but the source's version of that event? In other words, ought the article to explain the inherent bias often found in ancient sources (ie Livy's pro-Roman agenda)?

    Regards EyeSereneTALK 09:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

    I'm glad someone's raised this issue, since it's something I was wondering about myself. Our articles should definitely direct readers to the ancient sources, since that's one of the main ways in which they can be useful. But there may be room for debate about how we should do this, particularly since the Wikipedia policy on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources doesn't seem to have been written with ancient history in mind.
    It's doubtful that any ancient source is a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition; for instance, Livy was hardly subject to peer review or editorial oversight. In principle, then, all articles have to be in line not just with the views of ancient sources but the views of modern scholars. However, I don't believe that this requires all statements referenced using ancient sources must be qualified with "the possibly-biased Livy says...", or similar words. I would say that an ancient source can be used on its own as a citation if it is uncontroversial in modern scholarship that the source provides sufficient grounds for making the relevant statement. This does require editors to consult some modern scholars on the topic of an article, but those authors needn't be cited for every statement, only for points of interpretation; e.g., "Livy says that Senator X died in the same year. A. N. Historian suggests that this would have weakened the patrician cause..." If this is done, the reader should have reason for confidence that the use of ancient sources is in line with modern academic views. (Similarly, when we cite a modern scholar for an unqualified factual statement, we should make sure that the statement is not commonly disputed, but it would be overkill to cite tertiary sources just to back up a secondary source.)
    Explaining the bias of a source is good, but to avoid original research we should do this by citing a modern source explaining how the source's bias is relevant to the subject of the article. EALacey 11:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    Livy may not have been peer-reviewed, but he was certainly subject to oversight - by Augustus. Unfortunately, sometimes he's the only reason we are able to say anything at all about a subject. Virtually all our knowledge of the events and personalities of early Roman Britain comes from one historian, Tacitus, whose biases are evident and whose ability to completely misinterpret foreign cultures is demonstrated by his account of the Jews in the Histories. However, no better source is available, and while he may be wrong, we don't know what he's wrong about. Equally, modern historians have their own biases. The characterisation of the Roman people as an easily-manipulated "mob" comes from the political climate of late 19th and early 20th century Europe, where aristocratic establishments were faced with communist revolutions and the demand for votes for the poor. I think it's best to start by explaining what the ancient sources say, and then deal with questions of bias and any significant modern objections. --Nicknack009 14:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    I quite agree. In case I implied otherwise, I do think it's more important for classics-related articles to cover ancient than modern sources. But we should report the contents of the ancient texts, where modern historians lack confidence in their reliability, only as what the authors in question said. Incidentally, one may wonder whether the imperial oversight reflected in Livy 4.20 was really intended to improve the historian's reliability. :) EALacey 14:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    Well, I'm sure Augustus felt he could rely on Livy not to write anything that might cause him any distress ;) --Nicknack009 15:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    Dredging up the "verifiabiliy not truth" chestnut, I think it's an issue inherent in many areas of Wikipedia - but one that particularly applies to this project's area of interest. Often all we can verifiably say is "According to X, Y happened this way." However, it's not always obvious from the context of an article that all we are really doing is accurately reporting X's POV... especially where the article just states "Y happened this way" with a citation to X. The reader then has to research X to come to their own conclusion about the reliability of X as a source.
    The reason I raised this is that I'm reviewing a Good Article candidate (Galatian War, currently on hold pending a copyedit) that, whilst well-cited, pretty much the only source used is Livy. I was already aware of his pro-Roman bias, and from his WP article discovered he apparently doesn't distinguish between fact and fiction. Can I in all conscience then say the article complies with "reliable" sources, that it is factually accurate, or that it is NPOV? EyeSereneTALK 14:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

    Solon and basing articles on primary sources

    Hi all - new speaker here (Lucretius 23:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)). I'm interested in this debate as I've been working on Solon and I nominated it for a GA. It has been rejected on the grounds that there is an over-reliance on ancient sources. My view is that an ancient source does not require an editorial caveat unless there is some dispute among modern scholars about its reliability. This however is to assume that the reader already has a basic knowledge of the topic (an ill-informed reader might choose to challenge every statement in an article). The Solon article includes 11 citations to modern scholars (15 if you add Ox. Class. Dic. citations) but apparently this is still not considered sufficient. The B rating on the Solon article might be justified for all I know (the introductory section probably does lack the right 'feel' of an encyclopaedia article). It is however crucial that there should be consistency in the rating of articles. I think this is best achieved if every rating is done by a minimum number of 2 people. If they disagree, a third person could be involved.Lucretius 23:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

    • I disagree with the assessment that Solon is not a good article; in my view, it meets the criteria admirably. On the question of primary vs. secondary sourcing, I think that you should probably put some effort into filling in the secondary sourcing, not least because it will help establish the entry as authoritative for those with little background in Greek history. Since you have the OCD handy, a good place to start is the articles cited in its bibliography. If you're having any trouble getting any of this, I live quite close to a decent university library and I can probably get you a scan or two. Just drop me a line. semper fictilis 13:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
    I've left a detailed note for Lucretius on his talk page regarding this - Solon would not pass GA in it's current form, but due to technical points rather than sourcing. GA is not FA; some reviewers can be a little harsh. In all though, this is probably better than being too lax ;) EyeSereneTALK 15:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks for these comments, which I interpret as 1 pass and 2 fails for GA status for Solon. I'll try to improve the article further, as recommended. Regarding the methodology of this rating business, I have these things to say.

    In my experience the only kind of evaluative continuum that provides for unanimity is the 3 point scale corresponding to Yes, Maybe and No. Your present rating scale (FA, A, GA, B, and - what's the 5th one?) denotes too many degrees of quality and it allows for too many shades of opinion. It should in fact be broken up to allow for differences in kind over and above differences in degree. For instance, FA should denote an article that is up to the standards of any reputable, professionally produced encyclopaedia, A would denote an article that is not yet of this kind, while GA, B and so on would denote a failure (ie the article would definitely not be published in a reputable encyclopaedia compiled by experts in their fields). The other kind of article is to be judged within the standards of an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Here GA merely denotes an article that is accurate and fairly comprehensive, but the article would not demonstrate all the scholarly conventions associated with a professionally produced encyclopaedia, and it might also allow for differences in style. In that case, B denotes an article that is not universally accepted as being accurate (in facts, spelling, punctuation) or as being comprehensive enough.

    So in my opinion all reviewed articles should be ranked according to 2 divisions, with a 3 point scale for each division. I think that would make the rating business a whole lot easier and must less prone to controversy. According to this system of ranking, Solon is certainly GA status and it would be difficult to imagine anyone disagreeing with that. But it's still only 'good' within the standards of the second division. Most contributors would be able to write an article of GA standard if they did the reseach and took sufficient care. That's how I see it. Lucretius 01:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

    Classical journal abbreviated RE

    Any idea what the full name of this journal is? Thanks.--Pharos 08:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

    I believe it's not a journal but the Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. See Pauly-Wissowa. EALacey 10:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for.--Pharos 11:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

    Icarus and Icarus imagery in contemporary popular music, etc

    The Icarus article, as well as articles such as Icarus imagery in contemporary popular music need to either be scrapped or completely rewritten into a well sourced article rather than a simple list of indiscriminate facts. Anybody up for coming together for this task? (Cross posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology) CaveatLectorTalk 21:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

    Peer review request

    Hello: I would like the members of this project to peer-review the article Economy of ancient Tamil country. I know the article isn't directly related to this project, but since you guys have done a lot of similar work on Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece, I thought the Tamil article would benefit from your comments. Please post your comments at the peer review. Thanks. Lotlil 00:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

    Elagabalus

    Elagabalus has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. DrKiernan 07:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

    Disambiguation of deities, heroes, etc.

    Currently, most Greek or Roman deities who share names with other topics (planets, etc.) are distinguished by the addition of "mythology" in parentheses to their article titles; e.g., Jupiter (mythology), Venus (mythology). I'm concerned that this doesn't accurately describe the contents of these articles, which generally cover non-mythological aspects of the gods, often in greater detail than they cover the mythology; thus the Jupiter article includes a section on the Capitoline temple, and could reasonably discuss philosophical interpretations including Jupiter as the Stoic divine principle. I also think that giving primacy in the article titles to mythology implies the viewpoint that all classical religion was concerned with the gods as represented in mythology. While one can argue that the Jupiter of the Aeneid is basically "the same" as Jupiter Capitolinus, this is nevertheless a POV; I note that Varro made a three-way distinction between mythical, philosophical and civic theology, and that some modern scholars believe that the gods of early Roman religion had no mythology. My preference would be to disambiguate these articles using either (god)/(goddess)/(hero) or (deity)/(hero), which I think would more accurately describe the articles' content while avoiding assumptions about how far the mythological personae of these figures overlap with their presence in cult, etc.

    Objections raised against this position on Talk:Vulcan (mythology) include the precedent for "mythology" in these cases, and the difficulty of classifying some beings (is Heracles a god?). I can't find any past discussion of this issue, so I'd be grateful to hear the thoughts of project members. EALacey 09:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

    Also, disambiguators are not expected to be even as precise as categories, which are a very blunt tool. If we could call all the articles listed under Vulcan simply Vulcan and still link to them easily, we would. I feel it is more important to have the disambiguator for Vulcan be short and memorable than to insist on precision (as distinct from accuracy). I would prefer to discuss how to break up the categories Cat:Roman mythology and Cat:Greek mythology, of which we expect more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    Please note that an article can be in more than one category, and Heracles probably should be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

    Copyeditor needed

    The current FAC for Orion (mythology) recommends a copy-edit. I really cannot do this myself; I'm too close to the article to see it clearly. Also, the FAC has brought out some very useful additions to the article, and I may be too respectful of my helpful colleagues' prose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

    Pericles

    Pericles has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Vassyana 08:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

    Anybody care to help out with the Heroides?

    I've just recently joined Wikipedia, and I am attempting (pretty much single-handedly) to construct the pages on Ovid's Heroides and Double Heroides from the ground up. I have most of this work in hand (as I am working on my doctorate on the subject at Oxford as we speak), but in particular if anyone is interested in digging up material and passing it along to me for the Heroides influence subsection, translations subsection, or external links subsection, I'd of course greatly appreciate the assistance. Any other input would obviously be welcome as well. I've decided to focus first on the single Heroides, since they're not the subject of my DPhil research, and therefore are a pleasant way for me to feel productive whilst avoiding my own work like the plague. I suppose I'll get around to seriously constructing the Doubles page eventually, but not just now I think... Also, I was wondering what the general opinion was on whether or not it would be useful to continue expanding the growing bibliography by sub-dividing it further into sections for each individual epistle, containing essays written specifically on those subjects, or whether that would be going overboard on the references? (is there such a thing as 'overboard on the references' on a paperless medium such as Wikipedia, I wonder?) Cheers! Shug2304 01:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

    I'm cheered to see your industry! Nothing like a dissertation for making progress on something else. My one comment is that, not only should the bibliographies not be expanded further, but they should be seriously pruned back. They are longer than is appropriate for a specialist or general encyclopedia. If works are needed only for the footnotes, give the bibliographic info there, and save the "further reading" section for those titles a reader new to the subject would want to consult first, are in English & relatively available, and will provide further bibliographic pointers. Of course this is just my opinion, but a look around at other exemplary articles will help you see what the practice is. Best wishes, Wareh 21:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. Also, the dashed boxes do not always display correctly at Heroides; for quotes use <blockquote>, Template:cquote, or Wikitables (see Praxilla for a simple two-column example). Wareh 21:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks, Wareh, I appreciate the input and advice. I'd appreciate your further input on the 'quotebox' issue, if you wouldn't mind: please see the discussion I've placed over here on the Heroides talk page. I also think my issue with the bibliographies is one of not being terribly familiar with Wikipedia standards. I mean, is Wikipedia supposed to have the the number of references that would be appropriate for a specialist or general paper-based encyclopedia? My initial thought was along the lines of "the more the merrier". I suppose I could just organise a giant bibliography on the Heroides in my own personal webspace and link to it from the Wikipedia page, but it seems a bit silly: why not just have all the information in one place? Could you point me to any relevant discussions on this issue? Thanks very much, and I hope to hear from you again soon.   Shug2304 00:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not the most expert person when it comes to tables & such technical stuff, but I've tried to advance the discussion at Talk:Heroides. I don't think there are any fast rules on bibliography length, and indeed I'm someone who appreciates & adds this kind of content. The principle Wikipedia is not paper is well established. It is important to keep works actually cited in the article (standard heading "References") separate from other bibliography (standard heading "Further reading"); note that a featured article like Demosthenes has a long list, but entirely in the first category. When a comprehensive bibliography is available on an external site, this allows a more manageable and useful concise list in the article itself (examples: Alcidamas, Plotinus). I do think that for a subject on the scale of the Heroides, it's a loss to usefulness for the encyclopedia's readers to have an unannotated list longer than for a huge topic like Aristotle. It's nice to use Wikipedia as a semi-permanent repository of one's own knowledge, but sheer accumulation of titles seems to present more danger of hypertrophy than most other instances of this. There's not much point in my seconding my own opinion though; I'll leave your bibliographies unmolested, and if you like you can see if anyone else deems them bloated & starts cutting. You may want to consider how the bibliography serves the article to which it is appended; if the work is not (A) cited above, or (B) a first-stop expansion on or complement to what is presented above (for B, a few words' annotation would be nice), then I would advise removing it to improve the list's serviceability, at any rate. Wareh 03:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    I think all of that is entirely fair, and well-reasoned. I'll undertake the pruning process ASAP, in the midst of the rest of the construction of those pages: it may not happen straightaway, as I'm still not 100% certain what I am or am not going to be referencing within the rest of the articles, since I've not written them yet, but I will reach that point eventually, I hope. :-P One thing that I didn't know how to do before, but which (looking at such pages as Demosthenes and William Shakespeare) I am now starting to get a feel for, is how to format in such a way as to separate Notes from References and still have links to the anchors within the page. I think this is a very user-friendly format and will strive to carry it out on the pages I'm constructing. Thank you very much for your suggestions; they're greatly appreciated! (Please do see my other comment at the Heroides talk page, as well.)  Shug2304 13:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

    Moschophoros

    Why is this article currently redirecting to Kriophoros when there is a notable statue of that name in the Acropolis Museum?--5telios 12:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

    Praetorian prefects and succession boxes

    I have a question regarding the use of succession boxes on Praetorian prefects. A problem is that these prefects weren't appointed for fixed terms, and sometimes had colleagues overlapping with the term of another prefect. I have a hard time fitting this somewhat logically into a succession box. Take for example Tigellinus. Right now I've decided on this:

    Preceded by
    Sextus Afranius Burrus    		 Praetorian prefect together with Faenius Rufus and then Nymphidius Sabinus
    62–68    		 Succeeded by
    Cornelius Laco

    But this doesn't specify the length of the term he shared with Faenius Rufus (62–65). Another option I've considered:

    Preceded by
    Sextus Afranius Burrus    		 Praetorian prefect together with Faenius Rufus
    62–65    		 Succeeded by
    Cornelius Laco
    Praetorian prefect together with Nymphidius Sabinus
    65–68

    Which I like better but it's still confusing because it gives the impression that both terms were succeeded by the one of Laco. Another option is to put successive terms in two succession boxes. In other words:

    Preceded by
    Sextus Afranius Burrus    		 Praetorian prefect together with Faenius Rufus
    62–65    		 Succeeded by
    Tigellinus together with Nymphidius Sabinus
    Preceded by
    Tigellinus together with Faenius Rufus    		 Praetorian prefect together with Nymphidius Sabinus
    65–69    		 Succeeded by
    Cornelius Laco together with

    Which is too crowded I think. Besides, this box makes it seem as if Tigellinus succeeded himself as prefect when he really was prefect continuously from 62 until 68. I've been thinking about not mentioning colleagues at all, and just specify his own term. Any suggestions or solutions? --Steerpike 12:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

    • It seems to me that the middle example is misleading in that it suggests that Burrus was the predecessor of both Rufus and Sabinus, and in fact, he was the predecessor of one and for a time the colleague of another. This leads me to support the bottom box, but like you find it a bit too busy. semper fictilis 22:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    Someone recently altered the box of Faenius Rufus into a form like this:
    Preceded by
    Sextus Afranius Burrus    		 Praetorian prefect
    together with
    Faenius Rufus
     62–65
    Nymphidius Sabinus
    65–68    		 Succeeded by
    Cornelius Laco
    Which I currently like much better than any of the previous. The entire length of the term is present, as well as terms shared with colleagues, and there is no longer confusion over who succeeded who. I think I might go with this one. --Steerpike 15:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

    Why do we need succession boxes at all? I think they use up a lot of screen space and effort by editors, with very little gain in information. If you're doing the kind of research that requires following a sequence of prefects, Wikipedia is probably not the first resource you should be turning to. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

    I think the box should be killed, since it is a clumsy and imperfect way to convey the information. I do think it is appropriate for the information to be included in the encyclopedia. But surely a better place is in the existing Praetorian_prefect#List_of_known_Guard_Prefects? My question would be: what information would be lost if the editors maintaining these boxes simply added dates (etc.) to those lists? Wareh 17:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    I think the succession box is useful, as much as with consuls, emperors or governors, etc... It's a compact, graphical way of presenting a few bare facts, and an easy shortcut for readers to navigate successive prefects. My last solution is fairly uncomplicated I think. Anyway, regarding the list of known prefects: as it happens I was already working on a new and improved version of this list, which should include the length of each prefecture. I hope to get it finished by next week. --Steerpike 18:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    Glad to hear you're making improvements to the list—thanks! (Perhaps "should be killed" sounded a bit harsh; I don't have any objection to your refined design appearing in the articles, though I think it's more important that the information appear together in one place.) Wareh 19:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    New list online at Praetorian prefect. Still incomplete, but much more comprehensive than the previous version. --Steerpike 12:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks—that's a good contribution. Wareh 13:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)