Talk:Minoan Bull-leaper

Initial

If it has 1500 chars of text within a few days and well cited then this could easily go to DYK Victuallers (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Image

Bronze Minoan bull-leaper

I have replaced this image in thea article. Although the new image was only taken with my mobile phone camera, I think it is cleaner with no background heads for distraction. I won't be upset though, if someone replaces my picture with a better one. SpinningSpark 22:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Yours is a better angle, regardless of quality. Rehevkor ✉ 22:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the new image has a better angle and is cleaner - my photo wasn't targeted at the object, but the people looking at it (see the full image), but it was the best we had at short notice. Having a higher quality image would be good, though, in the long run... :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Disambig

I have moved the page again and removed the "(British Museum)" disambiguation, unless there was some unknown reason to keep it there. Rehevkor ✉ 02:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Assessment scale

I have changed the assessment to stub. It cannot both be assessed as start class and carry a stub template on the article at the same time. If someone wants to remove the stub template it can go back, but it still looks stubby to me. SpinningSpark 08:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Curatorial input

I am the curator in charge of this object at the BM: this page was created with my input with the help of Wikipedians in the course of the Backstage pass day, for which I am very grateful. I have included links to the History of the World radio series, and the related advertising campaign. My intention is to put information on Wikipedia about this object, and hope to carry on doing so as I learn more about Wikipedia, but am open to any comments about conflict of interest. User: Sphenisciform. —Preceding undated comment added 12:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC).

(Hello again!) There shouldn't be any problem with COI. I can explain it all in detail if it ever comes up. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, and thank you for helping me with this page on the Backstage Pass day. Sphenisciform (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Curators are most welcome, seems to me you should have no COI issues. This article will be on the main page of wikipedia in about a week so its important that its as good as it can be. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Very impressed with the DYK. Sphenisciform (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

About the bull

I heard a recent observation on television that the bull would most likely have been an auroch. Is there any evidence for this? 217.43.203.200 (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw that too. A few probable auroch bones have been identified from Bronze Age Crete recently but the identifications in earlier publications are a bit suspect. Identifying aurochs based on features such as horn shape and relative size from depictions is problematic. We need better published animal bone evidence to start trying to distinguish them systematically - I don't think we yet have definitive proof. Sphenisciform (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Better integration of sources

The current article does not have footnotes linking any of the books listed directly to the text. In many good articles a bibliography section is used in addition to a references/footnotes section. The {{harv}} template can help as it links any book listed using {{citation}} to the text or a short reference in a footnote. I suggest that if any of the potential sources listed in "Further reading" is footnoted in the text then a new section of Bibliography is created to distinguish the two. Fæ (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly over-the-top. It would be natural for an article on the current scale to have some "Further reading" in its own section. And the normal path of development would be to add inline citations as the text is developed, according to the requirements, to become footnotes in the "References" section. "Bibliography" is a less standard term, it seems; "Further reading" is simply the paper equivalent of "External links". I'm not a big fan of citation templates unless there is some pressing need for them. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned in almost all those publications in Further Reading, even though general sources, so I could change all to Bibliography (or keep as Further Reading) and put in Harvard references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphenisciform (talk • contribs) 11:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've gone back (largely) to a previous version with books, which are more likely to be available to the general reader. As far as I can see that section conforms to Wikipedia:Further reading. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid to say that your edit fails to comply with the guidance, see the bit where Further reading mentions "that do not appear elsewhere in the article and were not used to verify article content". In this case you have taken out the Bibliography just to paste an article citation that is used to verify the article and did appear in References and Bibliography before you deleted that section. Please revert. Fæ (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I have put the Evans ref into the citation, since as you point out it shouldn't be in the "Further reading" as well as the "References". Charles Matthews (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a poor solution as it hides a valid source in a footnote. The layout of many featured articles separates footnotes from references and cross-links to the sources. Sometimes the sections are called "sources" or "bibliography" and there is nothing in the guidance of Layout that recommends either solution as it varies depending on what would be clearest for the reader. For this article there is currently over-emphasis on the un-integrated book list of "Further reading" and a Sources or Bibliography section would correct this as it would highlight sources directly relevant and used to validate the text. Could you please explain what your objection to such a section is so that it can be addressed?

FA examples separating notes and references: Boydell Shakespeare Gallery, Dürer's Rhinoceros, Vasa (ship). Fæ (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally in favour of a split-level references section, i.e. "References" with "Notes" (the "Notes" being the footer section for the inline refs). So if "References" had the full reference, and the inline citation was just to Evans (1921), that would be fine. This did start with sorting out "Further reading" for conformity to the manual. I'm with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)#Notes and References for handling the point now arising. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement, this was the reason I was suggesting a separate section. I shall use the section names you prefer and redo the layout this way. Fæ (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hall, 1928

The following source does not look right to me. I believe the references to bull-leaping are about a fresco rather than a figure or statue. As the source seems available fully online, perhaps someone else could verify?

• Hall, H. R. (1928), The Civilization of Greece in the Bronze Age, Taylor & Francis

—Fæ (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation

Citation 14 is a youtube link that goes to a deleted video. Jgford1 (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Minoan Bull-leaper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100608081055/http://www.fallon.co.uk/historyoftheworld to http://www.fallon.co.uk/historyoftheworld
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100702211616/http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/classics/history/bronze_age/lessons/les/14.html to http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/classics/history/bronze_age/lessons/les/14.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)