Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

File:Treasury big2.jpg

File:Treasury big2.jpg, a former featured picture candidate from 2005, has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Has it? Looks to me as if it's been nominated for a move to Commons. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I nominated it to move to commons, however, when I posted that message, it was up for deletion [1] which was removed after this message was already here [2] ; You need to check the history. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Meow.  ^davidiad_.:τ 01:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

So what's your point? (Not you, pussycat.) You told us it was nominated for deletion; when I went to check why, it was not nominated for deletion, but recommended for a move to Commons. What is it you wish project members to look at or respond to or do? Cynwolfe (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It was an advisory that something about Classical Greece was up for deletion. It was a recommendation suggested at FFD that files up for deletion should have the relevant wikiprojects informed. I can skip Classical Greece and Rome next time. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Once the file was no longer nominated for deletion, this topic became moot. If the nomination for deletion was defeated before anyone had a chance to comment on it, it's no wonder people were confused about the reason for your request, or whether you expected some sort of comment on a file that wasn't nominated for deletion. Please don't write off entire projects simply because people didn't understand what you were trying to do. That impacts the entire Wikipedia community. P Aculeius (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Mark Antony's birthday

Does anyone have good sources on the question of Mark Antony's date of birth? There seem to be at least three dates floating around. I mean the day, not the year, which is also questionable. Seems there's a little tug o' war between two dates over at his article, and when I attempted to look into it, I didn't come up with either one, but rather a third (based on a passage of Suetonius that says he had the same birth date as Drusus, the father of Claudius). If there's no "right" answer, we need to just say that, after some weighing of sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I could really use some help explaining how to document this, since I seem to be failing miserably: see Talk:Mark Antony#New section for summarizing. I'm not sure the other person understands the relation of primary and secondary sources in the field of classical studies, and perhaps I'm too "in-universe." Cynwolfe (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation discussion

The discussion Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Example of why "historical significance" consideration in PRIMARYTOPIC is a problem regarding the current wording of WP:PRIMARY TOPIC might be of interest to this project. The question is whether to discard "historical significance" as a criterion. Some members of this project have participated before in disambiguation discussions as they pertain to topics of classical antiquity. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Theodoric to Theoderic

As per my note on the talk page of Theoderic the Great I've started the process of correcting the spelling of Theodoric to Theoderic. This was an error carried over from the 19th century, whereas most reputable modern sources use Theoderic, the internet is filled with older materials that still use Theodoric. Because of this, "Theodoric" is so prevalent in Wikipedia, I thought it best to stop the correcting process and seek counsel here regarding the issue. Any thoughts? Feedback on the Theoderic talk page appreciated. -- spin|^control 01:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You're assuming that it's an error on the basis of variation in how the name was spelt in antiquity. But practically all scholarship until quite recently preferred the form "Theodoric," and this is still the form found in most references. It's not, as asserted on the recently-renamed "Theoderic" talk page, that scholars were unaware of variations in spelling. The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology uses "Theodoricus or Theodericus" as article titles, but within each article "Theodoric" is used consistently. I wonder if the belief that "Theodoric" is a mistake doesn't stem from a quite different error; precisely because the name was Germanic, it had no standard spelling, and so it was spelt phonetically, leading to variants such as "Theodoric" or "Theoderic."

I don't think it's important whether the preference for "Theodoric" was influenced by the similar spelling of the Greek "Theodorus"; that didn't make it any less valid. The fact that several recent articles seem to have used the other variant doesn't tell us any more than that it's generally fashionable to present articles in a novel light, and changing the spelling of familiar names always draws attention. It doesn't mean that any new discoveries or revelations have come to light, or that the accepted forms are somehow erroneous. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the familiar form should remain unless and until some compelling reason for changing it can be urged, and the fact that a few scholarly articles in recent decades have switched from one spelling to the other doesn't seem particularly compelling. P Aculeius (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with P Aculeius on this. I've often found COMMONNAME offensive to my au courant scholarly poncing, but this is a general encyclopedia that just happens to enjoy some quite strong specialist content: diverging from common usage in favor of hyper-correct scholarly distinctions would be to disregard our audience. Better to adequately discuss the variant spellings than to lead from the less common—even if more correct—form. In cases that might be controversial, we discuss moves before making them, by the way.  davidiad { t } 06:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have cited a number of most reliable sources on the issue of spelling the ruler's name and can cite many more. COMMONNAME is quite clear when it says: "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms". It's sad when CAH says "Theoderic", people prescribe the errors of the past. Citing Smith's is going back to the errors of the 19th c. Smith giving both forms was progressive for the time. The examples in COMMONNAME don't feature a similar issue. This ruler minted coins using the name "Theodericus": the correct name is clear... at least to our most reputable scholars, such as A.H.M. Jones and more recently Peter Heather and John Moorhead. Returning to the erroneous form here is to reinforce an error that the most reliable sources are trying to rectify and that we can resolve by following good scholarship. To retain "Theodoric" here would be to work against good scholarship by adding inertia and could eventually foil the efforts of scholarship, given the impact Wiki now has. It would be like forcing Wiki to use the common error "Ceylon" when its correct name is "Sri Lanka". Bad habits should be eradicated, rather than institutionalized. -- spin|^control 08:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

But that's not the point. Do any of these sources say that one form is correct and the other is not? The fact that Theodoric and Theodorus are two different names from two different sources is hardly news, and it doesn't tell us how Theodoric should be spelled. As Wikipedia's article on the name Theodoric makes clear, the Germanic roots of the name support the form Theodoric. Many variations have been used throughout history, but most of them aren't demonstrably "right" or "wrong." They're a matter of personal preference, and as far as I can see, the common use of "Theoderic" in our time simply reflects a fashionable trend. Unless you can find a scholarly source at the root of this change that says something like, "Theoderic is the form found in all of the ancient historians; Theodoric only appears in modern writers", I think we're dealing with nothing more than a novel (and therefore attractive) hypercorrection. P Aculeius (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

By persistent usage of one form over the other, scholars are demonstrating which they think is correct. It is unreasonable to think they would state "Oh, by the way, 'Theodoric' is wrong." Instead, they are voting with their feet. Google "Theoderic the Great" and count how many scholarly references there are in the first hundred hits. Then do the same with "Theodoric the Great". You will find not one recognizably scholarly reference to "Theodoric the Great". You'll find quite a few for "Theoderic the Great". It is misguided to talk of this issue as a hypercorrection when classicists from J.B. Bury to John Moorhead exclusively use the form. Perhaps you could find several university classics departments which use "Theodoric", but I doubt you'd find one. All the major primary sources use the form, Cassiodorus, Excerpta Valesiana, Ennodius (Panegyric of Theoderic) and the Gesta Theoderici. Internet may be drowning in a see of outdated materials, but Wikipedia doesn't need to go the same way. The reliable sources are clear. -- spin|^control 18:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right to change to "Theoderic". "Theodoric" was accepted in the 19th century but isn't acceptable now. Andrew Dalby 19:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Alas, I (and others) have been trying for years to change Julian the Apostate to Julian (emperor) (currently a redirect) on the grounds that this nickname from Christian polemic is out of keeping with contemporary scholarly tendencies and Wikipedia article titles for other emperors. "Most common" tends to prevail, though I am quite sure "apostate" is not a common word at all, and that most people would understand what topic was represented by Julian (emperor) better than "Julian the Apostate". I know this is rather off the subject, but it seems in some way a similar argument. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

And I agree with Cynwolfe's argument as regards Julian, because that's a case of an epithet (and not a name) pinned on an emperor by his political opponents. This is a very different case. Theodoric is most certainly not an antiquated, 19th Century spelling. It's been used since antiquity. After taking some time to look for ancient sources, I found that they were very much divided on the issue. For instance, the best source on Theodoric the Great, as well as Theodoric I and Theodoric II, seems to be Jordanes, whose history of the Goths was written within a generation of Theodoric's death. He mentions these three kings from chapter 33 to the end (as well as a couple of mentions in the introduction). Jordanes uses the forms Theodoric and Theoderic interchangeably, without any clear intention. Including accusative, genitive, dative, and ablative forms, I counted 26 uses of Theodoric and 16 of Theoderic.

Muratori's collection of inscriptions shows that there was just as much disagreement during Theodoric's reign:

• p. 266.8: Regnente D.N. Theoderico felix Roma; Regnente D.N. Theoderico bono Romae.
• p. 467.6: Rex Theodericus favente DO et bello gloriosus et otio fabricis suis amoena conjugens sterili palude siccata hos hortos suavi pomorum faecunditate ditavit.
• p. 504.10: D.N. rege Theodorico; D.N. Theodorico rono Rum [read "bono Rom."]; Rege Theodorico felix Roma.

Which spelling is used in Ennodius seems to depend on which edition you find; so with Gregory of Tours and Sidonius Apollinaris. The Greek spelling is Θευδεριχος, but that doesn't really help us here, since transliterating that would give us Theuderichos. Again, we're not dealing with a case of "right" and "wrong," and you still haven't found any sources that actually explain why they're preferring one spelling to another. If you're going to change an article title from the more widely-accepted form of the name to one found mainly in academic circles, you need more justification than the mere inference that the existence of some recent publications that have adopted the particular variant that you favour makes it more correct. The weight of both popular and historical usage are against a change that's supported by nothing more than the preference of a variation, without any explanation, in a few recent papers. P Aculeius (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Your recourse to Greek transliteration only backfires. Obviously, transliteration of medial /k/ into Greek so frequently is realized as chi. That is to be expected. Hebrew Kaph is transliterated into Greek the same way. Theuderichos, given well-known transliteration methods into Greek, is helpful. Incidentally, Mommsen uses Theoderich, but that's the German tradition. It is the source for "Dietrich".

As I explained on the Theoderic talk page, Two forms of a name as found in Jordanes is indicative of different scribes copying or a scribe well versed in one form frequently falling for their predilection. And I also explained there, it is not reasonable to expect a modern scholar to have to explain why they are using the form they do, when they clearly dissent from past practice. They are stating in its use they think it is the preferable form. World class scholars such as J.B. Bury and A.H.M. Jones used the form in preference to the prevalent form of the 19th c. World class scholarly publishers such as Oxford, Cambridge and Brill, have works that feature "Theoderic". The Italian Cultural Heritage Ministery uses it, both national and regional. Standard resources such as the New Pauly use it. Martindale's Prosopography of the Late Roman Empire endorse it.

We are interested here in reliable sources. There are none more reliable than those I've cited here and on the Theoderic talk page, Bury, Jones, Moorhead, Heather, as well as Bowersock ("Late Antiquity..."). These are the best known classical scholars of their eras who have worked in late antiquity. They all prefer to use "Theoderic" and that should close the issue. Reliable sources are the backbone of Wikipedia. This is not hypercorrectness or obscurantism. It is the closest English rendering to the name of the person, as advocated by the most reliable sources. -- spin|^control 04:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There's this fruitful conflict between RS for our text and "common name" for our pagenames: the fruit is e.g. "Prince Harry of Wales", a name rarely if ever written in that form. But this, like poor maligned Julian, is an irrelevance in this thread: sorry! Andrew Dalby 09:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't change one thing about the debate, so no, it's not closed. You haven't found or cited a single source that says, asserts, or implies that one form of the name is more correct than another. You haven't presented any source that explains away the use of Theodoricus in Jordanes or in Roman inscriptions dating to the reign of Theodoric. The entire premise of your argument is that if there's an academic trend towards an alternative spelling, it must reflect some sort of mystical revealed truth that requires no explanation, and should be followed unquestioned by the world. Surely that reasoning creates, rather than eliminates, the very kind of arbitrariness that you've flung about and ascribed without a shred of evidence to "19th Century scholars" and "the proliferation of out-of-print sources on the internet".

You've asserted, without any evidence, that Jordanes' alternating use of Theodoricus and Theodericus is the result of mixed manuscripts, even though he alternates from one to the other on the same page throughout his work. And even if that could be a reasonable explanation, you've provided no basis for deciding which versions come from which manuscript or why one of them should be preferred to the other; if you were going to choose a form based on nothing more than the number of times each form occurs, you would certainly not choose Theoderic. You've provided no evidence that Muratori misread or altered the inscriptions that he collected, based on his preconceptions or wishful thinking; indeed, if that were the case, one would expect to find all of them referring to Theodoric instead of half Theoderic and half Theodoric. The fact that they're not argues that the inscriptions were faithfully copied. But in order to throw out evidence like Jordanes and Muratori, you need to present other evidence on point, not merely speculate about reasons why they might be wrong.

The only thing that's been established in this debate is that the spelling Theodoric didn't originate in the 18th or 19th century and isn't a mistake of any kind. It dates all the way back to the reign of Theodoric, and there's been absolutely no explanation of any kind as to why, of two variant forms of the name in Latin, one should be preferred to the other. Not from you, or from any one of the sources you keep accumulating, as if this were a sheer popularity contest to see who can gather the longest list. It's an arbitrary decision, since Latin writers used both forms, and nothing is going to change that fact, no matter how many unsupported theories you come up with to dismiss the evidence. The spelling Theodoric has prevailed over time, up to and including its use in the present day. You haven't explained away modern sources that use it, except to assert, without evidence, that they're somehow incorrectly influenced by 19th century sources and the internet. If it's become fashionable in academic circles to use an alternate spelling, that tells us absolutely nothing about the correctness of historical usage, and isn't a justification to throw out established usage in Wikipedia articles. P Aculeius (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you are representing things accurately:

1. It's not a matter that "Theoderic" is the right form, but the closest representation in English of the form used during the person's life, therefore the most apt.
2. No-one claimed that the form "Theodoric" did "originate in the 18th or 19th century". It wasn't invented, but used then, based on tradition rather than accuracy (like biblical translations that give "of Nazareth" rather than "Nazorean" or "Nazarene").
3. You need to explain the inconsistencies in the Jordanes manuscript evidence in a reasonable manner so that you can make claims based on it. It is not sufficient to assert that they represent the original text, as scribal activity is a valid alternative explanation.
4. Muratori is not a primary source. He was a scholar of the 18th c. who amongst other things transcribed inscriptions. They are the primary source. Muratori is a level of complication away from them.

I have pointed to the most reliable sources including the most reputed scholars over the last century, the most prominent publishers, and such standard authorities as Martindale's Prosopography. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and there are none more reliable. -- spin|^control 04:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In order to be the closest approximation to the form used during Theodoric's life, you'd have to show which one that is... which you can't do, since there were several different ones used during his life, one of which was Theodoricus. The closest form to Theodoricus in English is Theodoric, not Theoderic. In order to reach your conclusion, you first have to show that only Theodericus was used during his lifetime, or at least that it was by far more common, something for which there is no evidence, and which apparently is not asserted by any of the sources you've cited.

My point about the 18th and 19th century is that the usage of Theodoric instead of Theoderic can't be ascribed to something done then, at least no more than the spelling of any other name. Theodoric was used before and after that period, so it makes no sense to lay responsibility for its prevalence or familiarity at the hands of 19th century writers, with the implication that it should be abandoned due to association with outdated sources. In fact, the use of Theodoric in 19th century references is completely irrelevant to this debate, since they neither originated it nor did anything other than follow an already existing tradition with respect to the spelling, just as 20th and 21st century writers have done.

I don't need to explain why Jordanes uses Theodoricus in some places and Theodericus in others. The fact that both are there is prima facie evidence that both forms were used in antiquity; if you want to discount Jordanes, you need to demonstrate with some kind of evidence why he shouldn't be believed. The inference that the differing forms is due to a combination of different manuscripts is only a guess; you haven't cited any source to support that claim. And even if it were true, there isn't any basis for concluding that one manuscript is more or less reliable than the other as to the spelling of Theodoric's name. Once the evidence has been presented, the burden is on the person who wants to discredit it to demonstrate why it shouldn't be believed. Speculating that multiple manuscripts must somehow have been involved, and somehow going from that inference to the conclusion that the twenty-six references to Theodoricus are the result of the inaccurate manuscript, doesn't meet that standard.

Transcribed inscriptions are very much primary evidence for how things were spelled in antiquity. You can't ignore them merely because they were collected by Muratori, or because Muratori lived in the 18th century. All of the evidence we have from inscriptions was collected by scholars such as Muratori, but you aren't arguing that all inscriptions should be disregarded; surely you're not arguing that only inscriptions copied in the 20th or 21st century should be considered, and that all earlier scholarship should be regarded as unreliable, and therefore safely ignored.

You can't just choose to ignore evidence because you don't like the conclusions it would force you to draw, and you can't rely on mere speculation, unsupported by any evidence, that those sources are unreliable. Nor is it fair to infer from the use of a variant spelling in some recent sources that the variation you prefer is better than the dominant form up to this time. If any of those sources actually asserted it was better or provided an explanation for the preference, then there'd be some kind of evidence, whether or not it were persuasive. But at this stage you haven't cited any such evidence; all you have is the fact that some authors have chosen to use it (while others have not). Without even one clear explanation from any source, the difference between Theodoric and Theoderic represents nothing more than your personal preference. Now, if a clear consensus develops in this community that prefers one form over another, it would be appropriate to change it based on personal preference. But we don't have a clear consensus. There wasn't even any discussion before the page was renamed. That's why it should be returned to the way it was until a consensus for changing it can be achieved. P Aculeius (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you've made any progress here. Your chorus of nothing more than your personal preference is just as unjustified as when you first used the idea. Your assertion about what Jordanes used is based on a copied manuscript, nothing directly from Jordanes, so scribal concerns, such as fatigue, are legitimate. Sadly Muratori is not a primary source. Ultimately, the only indicator Wikipedia uses is reliable sources. -- spin|^control 07:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Since discussion has split, I have now added a comment at Talk:Theoderic the Great. That seems to me the proper place. Andrew Dalby 09:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't find the Theodoricus argument convincing. Here is my take on this matter: Apparently, the vowel in question clearly comes from an o but is unstressed and therefore was pronounced in a neutral way that is closer to e. Contemporaries apparently oscillated between etymological and phonetic spelling. In variants of the name in which the vowel was stressed (Théodóricus), it unsurprisingly was an o again.

In German it still seems to be like that. We use Theóderìch for the historical people of that name and Théodòr as a modern name. (Accents added to indicate primary and secondary stress.) So we use e where the vowel is unstressed and o where it has a secondary stress.

Both spellings are correct and there is little reason to get excited. My personal preference would be to go with whatever is the spelling preferred by English-speaking scholars over the last 50 years or so. Hans Adler 10:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't Theodor as a given name represent Theodoros, not Theodoric? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be a common assumption, but I'm not aware of any evidence to point to it. In modern times, I'd say many more people are aware of historical personages named "Theodoric" than "Theodorus". Since most people named "Theodore" are neither "Theodoric" nor "Theodorus", you'd have to ask the parents which one they had in mind, and chances are they weren't thinking of either. My guess is that the two names merged in medieval times; some people were named in honour of Roman emperors and Christian saints named "Theodorus," while others were probably named after kings named "Theodoric" (which, in French, became "Thierry," still a common name; four early kings of France were named "Theodoric", but today they are referred to as "Thierry" in French). Once abbreviated, the two names became indistinguishable, and my feeling is that most people today are simply unaware that "Theodore" could be derived equally from either. P Aculeius (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm very surprised by this. I thought "Dietrich" and (as you say) "Thierry" were the modern equivalents of "Theod/ric". In what language does "Theodore" have a 50/50 chance of being derived from "Theodoric"? Andrew Dalby 09:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not a new issue. Variations in transliteration/transcription often lead to spelling issues. However, the cause and arguments for/against either option are irrelevant, here. WP:COMMONNAME applies.

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.

If reliable sources before year x use one spelling and reliable sources after year x use a different one, Wikipedia should use the latter.
—Sowlos 11:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Salting of Carthage

Various Wikipedia articles claim that the notion of Carthage being salted is a 19th century invention. Example articles are Third Punic War and Salting the earth. However, the latter article also includes a mention of a thirteenth century Pope expressing that idea, which demolishes the idea of it being a nineteenth century thing. Is the Pope quote accurate, and if so, how do we deal with the error, given that it is cited? And finally, given that half of the statement (the century) is factually incorrect, is the overall premise suspect - could it be true that Carthage was indeed salted? --Dweller (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Salting the earth says without citation that it wasn't even possible, but it occurs to me that low lying parts might have been salted by controlled flooding and evaporation. Or could salting have been a technical term for weed control that could also be applied to other, more effective methods? Hans Adler 11:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I do wish people would stop attributing every crackpot idea or myth to 19th century scholars... if they had any idea how much good work was done in classics during that period, we wouldn't be having half as many stupid arguments... P Aculeius (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Whether it's possible (i.e. whether the act would ever have the desired effect) isn't the issue, I suppose: the issue is, in the case of Carthage, who first said that it was done? The handiest source on this, of the articles cited at Salting the earth, is the nice short one by Warmington which I have just read. The answer is that Pope Boniface VIII does not make this statement, though he might easily be misunderstood to have done so. Warmington is unable to trace the assertion earlier than B. L. Hallward in Cambridge Ancient History vol. 8 (1930). It was then repeated by several usually-reliable scholars including Scullard and Warmington himself. Why Hallward said it, Warmington doesn't know.

So it seems it's a 20th century legend (correct, P Aculeius, not 19th century!), and since it's in several normally-reliable sources our articles should surely mention it.

What the Pope really said was that the site of Palestrina should be ploughed up, as Carthage was, and its lands should be salted. It's suggested that the Pope got the idea of salting a city site from the Bible (Judges 9:45), while he got the story that Carthage was ploughed up from the legal author Modestinus in Justinian's Digest (7.4.21). Andrew Dalby 12:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There's an interesting discussion of all this, and a little more, in R. T. Ridley, "To be Taken with a Pinch of Salt: The Destruction of Carthage", Classical Philology, Vol. 81, No. 2 (Apr., 1986), pp. 140-146. Now would someone kindly pass the pepper... Haploidavey (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Pygmalion issues help wanted

I have been attempting to refine improper linking to Pygmalion (play) and Pygmalion (mythology), and I could use some assistance cleaning up {{Pygmalion}}, {{Pygmalion navbox}}, and {{My Fair Lady}} (the latter two which I have recently created). I have posted some particular issues at Talk:Pygmalion (play)#Template:Pygmalion. Please feel free to jump in and edit the templates or leave comments there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that a problem with Pygmalion (mythology) is that the big list of supposed retellings is full of OR. Does a secondary source actually say My Living Doll is a Pygmalion story, or is a contributor just making the observation? Apt and clever it may be, but the article on the TV series doesn't mention Pygmalion, and no source is cited. There's a fine line in such sections between a trivia list, and outlining reception in the spirit of the "classical tradition". Cynwolfe (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to move Odyssey to The Odyssey

Our article on Homer's poem about Odysseus' return to Ithaca can currently be found at Odyssey. There's a proposal to move the page to The Odyssey. Comments welcome at Talk:Odyssey#Move? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Rhamnus

The usage of Rhamnus is under discussion, see talk:Buckthorn -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Aquila (Roman) requested move

There's requested move underway at Talk:Aquila (Roman), with Roman eagle as the proposed title. Please feel free to comment. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Julian article title

Being the person who rescued the Julian article from hagiography, I also would like to see the article with a neutral title which represents the usage of the most reliable sources. Is it time to put the issue again on the Julian talk page? I'd prefer using "Julian" as the title, shifting the current list of Julian names to "Julian (given name)" and using the about template to point to other people and other uses. To find Eric Bana's character in the Star Trek movie, I'd go to the Nero article and get pointed to "Nero (disambiguation)" to find a link. Similarly, to get to the star of Nip/Tuck, I'd go to the Julian article and find a link to "Julian (given name)". But I can live with "Julian (emperor)" or any reasonable alternative. So, is it time to request a move? and if so how about a three week period for consultation? -- spin|^control 04:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:ROMANS unhelpfully states: Roman emperors are generally considered the primary topic for generic names. Titus, Claudius, and Nero are all articles on Roman emperors, even though these are generic names shared by many other Romans. There are however exceptions. I fear that our Julian might be an exception, since his common name is an Anglicized name. Now, if I'm looking for Julian MacMahon (and I blush to say I did not have to look that up), I'm going to expect to type in both names, so I suppose an argument could be made for the emperor as the primary topic for the mononym. But "good luck" are the first words to spring to mind. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The cited exception is useful: For instance, the name Tacitus is most commonly associated with the senator and historian Tacitus, not the emperor Marcus Claudius Tacitus. There is already a more famous example of a person called Tacitus. A case would have to be made that there is a better candidate for the name "Julian" than the emperor, which seems unlikely. (The blush would be that you've admitted having watched Nip/Tuck!) -- spin|^control 03:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the article's talk page, it seems to have been 2-3 years since it was last seriously discussed. I don't want to start another major war over the issue, but there might be a less-contentious approach. I propose a simple straw poll, with minimal or no debate over the reasons why the article should be renamed, or how many sources suffix the Apostate to his name. Not sure if it should be a one-part or a two-part poll, but a two-part poll might minimize bias against changing the name, arising from disagreement over what to change it to. Something like this:

• Should the article Julian the Apostate be renamed, removing the words the Apostate?
• If the article is renamed, what should it be called?

1. Flavius Claudius Julianus;
2. Julianus;
3. Julian;
4. Julian (emperor);
5. Julian (Roman emperor)

If you want to pare down the number of choices, that's fine with me. I think that "Julian (emperor)" is probably the strongest candidate, since few people could be expected to know Julian's full name, and using the Latin form Julianus as a title might seem pedantic (although I would begin the article with "Flavius Claudius Julianus, the emperor Julian, sometimes called Julian the Apostate..." or something along those lines). Julian by itself seems ambiguous, since as has been pointed out, it's a common name in English, as well as referring to Julian of Norwich and others. Julian (Roman emperor) would introduce an unnecessary element, since as far as I know there weren't any other emperors named Julian. Thoughts? P Aculeius (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of two steps, as it is a logical process leading to a reasonable choice, but, having seen two votes on the subject, I'd say that the unsure would be diffident to change without knowing what to before voting and those who were lax to change would use the lack of upfront alternative to encourage no change. In a different world I'd wholeheartedly support the two step approach.

Having a disambiguation link at the top of the article should make it easy for those who get to the article through any confusion. And having an extra step to get to the Julian (given name) article might be added discouragement for those who frequently vandalize it. -- spin|^control 03:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That is a legitimate concern. But I think the risk is minimized if you present it as one two-part question, rather than requiring everyone to vote on the first one before they know what the alternatives being chosen from are. Perhaps it would be even better if we narrowed down the choices to a maximum of two or three. Personally I would throw out the full name, since nobody can be expected to use it to look for the emperor; I'd also throw out Julian (Roman emperor) since I don't think that degree of specificity is necessary. And while I think it's fine to refer to Julian as Julianus, I also think that's more of an antiquarian habit, and the discussion here is about a title that will be both recognizable to typical readers, and appropriately dignified. That leaves Julian or Julian (emperor).

I'm not too concerned about losing this one; that just means things stay the same a little bit longer. I first encountered Julian as "Julian the Apostate," without knowing what an apostate was; now that I know, I do find it rather offensive. Although I think I disagree with a point that I think was made by Cynwolfe a while back; I don't find "pagan" at all offensive, and think it would be a perfectly appropriate description; perhaps not because the early Christians used the word that way, but the actual meaning of the word is pretty inoffensive, and today the term seems to have lost much of its pejorative force. The scholars who've written about Julian over the last three hundred years seem to have appreciated Julian's tolerance and the virtues of the pagan gods; they were sympathetic, but used the word "pagan" anyway, not because it was pejorative but because it was the best and most familiar description. Even today we don't have any comparable word for those who worshipped Greek or Roman deities. But I digress... it's not a big deal if we still don't have a consensus for changing the article; if it's close, we can try again later.

Before we put this out there, though, I'd like to hear from those on this page who might have an opinion. Do you think that the best option would be Julian, Julian (emperor), or something else? As I already said, I think that Julian (emperor) would be the best choice, because it avoids the ambiguity inherent in Julian, since that's a familiar name. Whether the name is more or less familiar than the emperor is debatable (and probably unprovable), but taking a cue from the disambiguation guidelines, I wouldn't say that the emperor is much more familiar than all of the other uses of the name combined, and that means there's some ambiguity, which argues in favour of keeping Julian a disambiguation page. P Aculeius (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I would go with "Julian (emperor)". Many people have heard of him, but, for the multitude who haven't, there are a number of other Julians any of which may be at the front of someone's mind; therefore, as PA says, keep "Julian" as a disambig page. Andrew Dalby 09:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks P Aculeius for setting out the arguments so well, I support the idea. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd actually prefer Julian (Roman emperor) over Julian (emperor, and both to plain Julian--specifying that he was a Roman emperor makes the title less ambiguous. I was a major participant in past discussions, and my guess is that there will be consensus for a change away from Julian the Apostate this time (I'll support the change), so I doubt that a two-step process is necessary. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Of the alternatives to Julian the Apostate, this may be the least bad. But it is still an effort to invent a disambiguator when English already has one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I find it strange that people have been talking of disambiguation. There is no other famous person in history referred to simply as Julian. For example, Julian of Norwich is always initially qualified in discourse with reference to Norwich. We have specific guidelines in WP:ROMANS which says, "Roman emperors are generally considered the primary topic for generic names." We find with Augustus, Claudius and Titus, there are links to disambiguation pages for people with those as given names. The WP:ROMANS noted type of exception needs consideration: "For instance, the name Tacitus is most commonly associated with the senator and historian Tacitus, not the emperor Marcus Claudius Tacitus." There is already a more famous person referred to by the name. There is no-one more famous referred to by the name Julian than the emperor. If we follow the Wiki guidelines, there is no issue here.

("Julian the Apostate" goes against at least three Wiki principles, 1) according to reliable sources, 2) according to WP:ROMANS, and 3) according to WP:NPOV.) -- spin|^control 01:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This isn't meant to be a rehash of the arguments for and against renaming the article. It appears that everyone who's commented so far would like to change it, although we have three different opinions as to what it should be called. Given how hard it's proven to do this in the past, I think our best chance of success depends on reaching a consensus about what to call the article before proposing the move. The three proposals are: Julian (emperor), Julian (Roman emperor), and Julian with no disambiguation (which would require us to do something with the existing disambiguation page).

Of these, I think that Julian (emperor) is the best choice, and has the highest probability of success, because (1) it wouldn't misdirect anyone looking for other people named Julian, (2) it would be consistent with the other articles about Roman emperors where disambiguation is warranted, and (3) it wouldn't be any longer or more complex than necessary to achieve the goals of disambiguation.

Julian (Roman emperor) seems to go against the principle of choosing the simplest disambiguator; that isn't decisive in itself, since there could well be a good reason for making an exception; for instance, consistency with similar articles. But if consistency is our goal, then Julian (emperor) would be a better choice; most articles about Roman emperors have no disambiguation whatever in their titles; it isn't necessary to state that they were Roman or emperors. Those who do have some disambiguation seem to fall into three categories: (1) full name, instead of most common name (Tacitus, Probus); (2) most common name, followed by (emperor) (Valerian, Constantine II, Jovian, Honorius), and (3) most common name followed by an epithet (Philip the Arab, Julian the Apostate). Julian (Roman emperor) would only be necessary if there were a reasonable probability of confusing him with another emperor named Julian, who wasn't Roman; but the only other Julians who claimed the imperial purple were also Romans; Didius Julianus is pretty much always called that, rather than Julian, and there were between one and four usurpers during the reigns of Carinus and/or Maximian, but they're barely known to history and it's very unlikely that anyone searching for them would be unfamiliar with our Julian.

Julian with no disambiguator begins with one major disadvantage: it's a common name, which has belonged to a great many notable people, past and present. Placing the article there would make it the primary topic for that name. But if we look at the guidelines for determining whether something is a primary topic for disambiguation purposes, we find this: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." Even if we assume that the emperor is the most famous Julian (which is probably unprovable), I don't think we can say that a reader is "much more likely" to be looking for him than for any other Julian, or that it's more likely than all of the other articles about persons named Julian combined. The aforementioned guideline is followed by an explanation of how a topic may be primary due to "long-term significance," but I think that's even more difficult to determine and won't help us resolve the debate. Some sort of disambiguation seems to be appropriate, and if there's to be a primary topic, then the name would seem to be the most obvious choice, although one could just as easily move that and have no primary topic at all.

If we can agree on the best candidate of the suggestions made, we might reasonably hope to succeed in renaming the article. But if we put forward several competing proposals, and keeping the present name becomes one of them, then we won't have accomplished anything, because there probably won't be any consensus, and leaving the article as it is will win by default. If anyone else would like to comment on this proposal, now would be a good time. Otherwise, we may be able to move on to the next stage: proposing the move on the Julian the Apostate talk page. P Aculeius (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for restating. We should move, and we should not simply move to "Julian". I could accept "Julian (emperor)" or "Julian (Roman emperor)": I prefer "Julian (emperor)" because it's shorter and adding "Roman" offers no further help with disambiguation. Andrew Dalby 09:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The common name issue is a red herring. The Titus disambiguation page can be considered long enough for some to want it to take over the name page. Look at the Italian Claudio disambiguation page--Claudio is a very common name in Italy, though the emperor still has sway over the name. However, the issue is not about the commonality of the name. None of those called Julian are just plain "Julian". Those who go to Julian looking for some Julian somebody-or-other are heading for a disambiguation page. The page now bearing the name Julian is not an article, but rather a list of names. That is not the main stock of Wiki material: it is purely ancillary. Those people looking for the emperor should have the option of typing in his name and arriving at the article. Who of those who don't know the inner conundrums of Wiki nomenclature is going to think of typing "Julian (emperor)"? So they type in "Julian" and go to the given name page then scroll down looking for the only Julian called simply by that name. This is a form of bureaucratic self-defeat.

WP:ROMANS spells out the Wiki norm:

Roman emperors are generally considered the primary topic for generic names. Titus, Claudius, and Nero are all articles on Roman emperors, even though these are generic names shared by many other Romans. There are however exceptions. For instance, the name Tacitus is most commonly associated with the senator and historian Tacitus, not the emperor Marcus Claudius Tacitus.

The only exception given here is obvious: the writer who is also called simply Tacitus is far more famous than the emperor to us. We don't have a similar situation regarding Julian: there is no more famous Julian. That leaves the claim that because "Julian" is a common name we should throw away having an article called "Julian" so as to have a list of names instead. I think the approach is incoherent. Disambiguation pages should be treated as ancillary. If a person gets to "Julian" and finds an article about the emperor, there would be a link to a disambiguation page for the given name. That's just the basic way things are usually done with other Wiki articles.

However, at a scratch, I would accept most any name for the article in preference to the NPOV name we have today. If not Julian, then preferably Julian (emperor) for KISS, the Flavius Claudius Julianus for accuracy, then whatever you like that is not NPOV. Whatever is chosen that is not simply "Julian", the "Julian" disambiguation page must have a note at the beginning pointing to the emperor's article: For the Roman emperor, see Julian (emperor). For other uses, see Julian (disambiguation). Whatever you misguided souls decide will be a step up from "Julian the Apostate", so I am for it. -- spin|^control 03:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't like the tria nomina, as it defeats the purpose of "most common". Although I've stopped knowing what the phrase "red herring" means, if I ever did, one of the things I strongly agree with is that one can no longer make an argument that "Julian the Apostate" is most common. Stop 200 people on the street and ask them who "Julian the Apostate" is, and see what you get. I'll bet if you gave them multiple choice answers (like Roman emperor, Christian saint, medieval king, Byzantine historian), they still wouldn't pick "Roman emperor". Or, if you asked a random sampling if they'd ever heard of "Julian the Apostate," they'd say no. But if you asked if they'd ever heard of a Roman emperor named Julian, more would likely say yes, even if they didn't in fact know who Julian was, because it would sound like something familiar—which to me is the basis for "most common". Giving the greatest number of readers easiest access. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

...one can no longer make an argument that "Julian the Apostate" is most common. Stop 200 people on the street and ask them who "Julian the Apostate" is, and see what you get. I'll bet if you gave them multiple choice answers...
I concur. As such, I have always disliked that article's titling being "Julian the Apostate". It is my opinion that current title is due simply to tradition and a few vocal individuals burdened by religious POVs.
—Sowlos 16:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've placed a poll under Talk:Julian_the_Apostate per this discussion. It's meant to be a simple up-or-down vote, not a chance to re-argue all of the points we've discussed in the past. If we can't get a consensus for this move, it's unlikely any other proposal will receive a consensus at this time, and we should probably lay the debate to rest for another year or two. P Aculeius (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Alerts

It might be worth activating Alerts bot for this project. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

What are they? How would we activate them?  davidiad { t } 04:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The bot owner is Hellknowz, but it can be added in manually Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Feature requests. The bot creates a page Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Article alerts like Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Article alerts, which can then be transcluded into the main project page as WP California has done, or simply added to personal watchlist - which beeps once daily if the bot picks up an AfD CfD Rm etc. It's a way of watchlisting 1000s of articles for major changes without having to watch each individually. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting what things you do not realise are missing until someone else points it out. I agree, In ictu oculi, Alerts would be valuable.
—Sowlos 07:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! Now we'll actually know when a consul is nominated for deletion because he never got coverage in Interview magazine. I've added the project to the subscription list. Hopefully I've done it right and In ictu oculi's link above will turn blue soon. Then maybe we can add a link to the project page? Thanks a bunch, In ictu!  davidiad { t } 13:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I stuck a transclusion on the project page as In ictu oculi suggests.  davidiad { t } 13:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I still see a lot of articles well within this project scope's that have no G&R banner, so to get the full benefit of Alerts we might want to be diligent about planting the flag. You can place the banner without taking time to do an assessment; just leave the parameters blank. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

But if you have the time, please do asses articles you tag. :)
—Sowlos 18:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Evidently you can add the project banner to category talk pages as well, which I'm assuming would give us alerts on CfD and renaming issues with those. I've never done that kind of bannering, but placed ours at Category talk:Classical art. However, while the project template seems to recognize it's in a category automatically, ours doesn't convert the word "article" to "category" at the top as the two others on this page seem to have. Could someone with greater technical savvy check this? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how I never noticed this. Problem located and edit request made.  davidiad { t } 22:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

... and fulfilled.  davidiad { t } 23:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The article "Greek tragedy" is a horrible mess

Greek tragedy, "rated as Top-importance on (this) project's importance scale", is very very poor, needs citations all the way through, contains unsourced and factually dubious statements, written in barely intelligible English ... I am trying to correct some of the most obvious grammatical errors, but cannot add all the citations and references needed, can others please help!Smeat75 (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Just look at this, for instance, from the section "Modern theory" (of the etymology of the word tragedy):

"A more recent theory (J. Winkler) derives "tragedy" from the word rare tragìzein (τραγὶζειν), which means "change voice, take a voice bleating like kids," referring to actors. Unless, suggests D'Amico, tragoidía not mean simply "song of the goats", the characters that made up the satyr chorus of the first actions sacred Dionysian.[4] Other hypotheses have been tried in the past, including an etymology that would define the tragedy as an ode to beer.[5] pointed out that Dionysus, god of wine (drink of the wealthy classes) was actually preceded by Dionysus, god of beer (drink of the working classes). The Athenian beer was obtained from the fermentation of barley, Tragos in Greek. Thus it is likely that the term originally meant to have "hate spelled," and only later was extended to other meanings of the same name.

What I can say with certainty is that the root wa ve (τραγ-), even before you refer to the tragic drama, was used to mean being "like a goat" but the wildness, the lust, the pleasures of food, in a series of derived words that revolve around the "zone" of linguistic Dionysian rite."

Sort of funny in a way, but actually quite disgraceful. How to go about fixing that I do not know, almost better just to delete the whole article.Smeat75 (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Astonishing. I'd think it impossible that Jane Ellen Harrison (who is the scholar cited at note 5) believed that beer was the drink of the working classes in ancient Athens. Where on earth did that idea come from? Beer was scarcely known in Athens until the Fuchs family arrived there, with the Bavarian monarchy, in 1834. Andrew Dalby 09:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and even worse in my opinion is the statement "Thus it is likely that the term originally meant to have "hate spelled". Whaat? The whole article is full of such things.Smeat75 (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I could link to at least two discussions on user talk pages bewailing our failure to provide a Greek tragedy aritcle, but that would only further highlight our shame in not having addressed the deficiency. Probably two years ago now, Wareh and I were reviewing several major gaps in our coverage of Greek literature, and at that time we didn't even have an article on Greek tragedy (as I'm recalling) that was separate from Theatre of ancient Greece. We didn't have an overview article on Greek lyric either, so I offended scholarly proprieties by throwing a stub together that Davidiad improved. Then someone created this Greek tragedy article, which Davidiad pointed out to me with a pungent quotation in September 2012 just I was distracted by another major article. Latin literature is jawdroppingly inadequate, and we don't have an article on Roman oratory, Roman comedy (that's a redirect to Theatre of ancient Rome, which fails even to mention mimus, a topic among the many languishing on my user pages), or heaven help us Roman satire. If you want to feel really bad, note that more than 16,000 visitors dropped by Greek tragedy last month. I'm with Smeat75 on stubbing the thing until we can do better. Just grab a recent literary history or two and cobble together the basics that one might present in an introductory lecture to undergraduates. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Stub, stub stub.  davidiad { t } 13:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Our current article seems to have originated with this edit. I'm curious to know where all that obviously copied text came from. I'm also extremely surprised that apparently, as of May 22 2012, the article was simply a redirect to tragedy. Is it possible that some previous version has somehow gone missing? Paul August ☎ 13:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it was auto-translated from it:Tragedia greca. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

And Paul, you have me curious: it does seem such a major omission that it's hard to believe no one in the early days of Wikipedia even lifted an entry from a public domain source. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh wait: the answer may be in Paul's diff. It was probably originally felt that redirecting to tragedy was sufficient. So another option instead of cobbling together a stub is to resort to the redirect for now. Opinions on the best course of immediate action? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm too exhausted these days to write much of anything, but if someone wants to take this on, I think I have enough sources in .pdf-form to get something done.  davidiad { t } 18:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Smeat75's quoted "hate spelled" is our translation of the Italian article's odi al farro: "odes to spelt"!  davidiad { t } 23:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

David, can you give us links to those PDF sources? Paul August ☎ 13:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I can email ... everything is still under copyright, so I don't want to upload it to my website. (If you've tried emailing me, Paul, I've stopped using the email that we've corresponded through before: it was my spam sieve account and it just became overwhelmed. My new WP email works.)  davidiad { t } 22:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Late to this page I'm afraid. I have done a lot of rewriting today. Do look at it and improve it. Myrvin (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning stuff up!  davidiad { t } 22:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Roman roads

Does anyone know what to make of this edit? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not well written and needs citation.
—Sowlos 16:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it. It seems problematic to me: no reliable source and notability. Paul August ☎ 18:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Curia

With the Curia so much in the news, I feel compelled to raise the question of whether the ancient Roman curia should be the primary topic, or whether curia should be the dab. The article unhelpfully points readers to Curia (disambiguation) in the hatnote; it can't even be bothered to suggest Roman Curia as the most likely alternative. If you look at curia's traffic stats for this month, you see a spike that is obviously related to the naming of the new pope. If you look at what links here for curia, quite of lot of incoming links are to plainly Roman Catholic articles, where it never even occurred to the link-creator that it would go anywhere but to a relevant explanation—a useful indication that the ancient Roman curia can't claim to be the primary topic. The dab page itself is less than satisfactory.

Thoughts, suggestions, procedural input? Cynwolfe (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Since all of the uses of "curia" are related and arise out of the Roman assembly, my thought is that there should be a general article on the concept of the curia as an assembly, council, or court, from the earliest Roman curiae to the present day. Sections would be presented roughly in chronological order; each section or subsection would discuss, briefly, one use of the term, and provide a redirect to the specific article treating that topic in-depth. I don't think any one use has a clear claim to be the primary topic, although on the basis of priority and historical significance I would have guessed it should direct to articles on the Roman senate house. But as Cynwolfe points out, in modern times the only curia still making news is that of the church.

Just off the top of my head, I think topics to be treated in such an article would begin with the Roman curiae, and the comitia curiata, then move to the use of the term as a name for the senate house, under Curia Hostilia, Curia Cornelia, and Curia Julia; from there one on the use of the term by the Church (should "Roman Curia" and "Curia (Roman Catholic Church)" be merged? If so, the latter title would be less confusing). Then the use of "curia" in medieval times, such as the curia regis of France and England; although perhaps this should precede the Church use as it isn't still in use, while the Church's curia is. One could also consider this dividing the article between political and religious curiae rather than strict chronological order.

One would also have to include redirects to other articles, or the existing disambiguation page, for other uses; women named Curia, herbs belonging to the Genus curia, etc. I know this isn't as helpful as doing the work itself, but even if I were to tackle that I'd like to know what others think first. P Aculeius (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Started a rewrite this morning. I think I have the original Roman curiae pretty well covered, but the sections on medieval curiae and the ecclesiastical one could use some more material. I didn't touch the last section, concerning the British mandate in Palestine, since the concept of the curia there is totally beyond my knowledge. But I'm sure there ought to be more than one recent example. Would also like some suggestions on appropriate illustrations to complement the photo of the Curia Julia that I stuck in the middle. What other pictures would illustrate various curiae? P Aculeius (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that silence does not indicate a lack of appreciation for your efforts. Will try to do some peripheral tidying today, unless my Irish husband shares too much of his Guinness. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Latin War

Your learned opinion is wanted at Talk:Second Latin War regarding the recent (undiscussed) move of Latin War to Second Latin War. "Latin War" is now a disambiguation page with some 30+ pages linking to it. Fornadan (t) 19:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)