Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 43

Ancient Elis and Elis (city)

The Elis (city) article is largely copied from William Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography of 1854, available online at https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0064:entry=elis-geo. I think that this would be clearer if the article said William Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography contains the following description of the city, followed by the text in Template:Blockquote. I am also doubtful of the value of nine paragraphs of mid nineteenth century text with minimal context. Do any other articles on Classical Greece and Rome face the same problem and how do they deal with it?

I have also been discussing the disambiguation between Ancient Elis and Elis (city) with Fayenatic at Talk:Elis (regional unit)#Updating wikilinks if anyone wants to contribute. TSventon (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• The use of public domain sources for article text is an old but acceptable practice, provided that it's correctly attributed. I believe there's a template to indicate when an article incorporates text from of the DGRG without indicating which passages are quoted, but the better practice is to quote relevant passages and augment them with other sources and information. IMO the DGRG, like the DGRBM, is an excellent starting point, but the article shouldn't be limited to what was written about Elis by one scholar, however learned, in the mid-19th century.

It's unlikely that much of the original article is inaccurate, but points of view do change with time—particularly when articles touch upon issues related to imperialism, race, class, or gender. I don't know if any of these or similar issues affect what's said about Elis, but surely there are other good sources and more recent scholarship that could be cited for the basic facts, and perhaps some interesting details. I don't think it's necessary to delete any particular content because it comes from the DGRG. I just think we ought to add to it, and make sure that the perspective of the article is still in accord with contemporary scholarship—as well as rephrasing or editing the text as needed, and preferably attributing direct quotations, instead of merely alluding to incorporated text. P Aculeius (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with everything P Aculeius says above. The goal here should be to rewrite such articles whenever we can. Paul August ☎ 16:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

P Aculeius, Paul August, Fayenatic, I have copied responses from Talk:Elis (regional unit)#Updating wikilinks by T8612 and Furius below. TSventon (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Fayenatic, I have copied your response from Talk:Elis (regional unit)#Updating wikilinks below. TSventon (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Elis (city) should be merged into Ancient Elis. The user who created the first article in 2018 used exclusively Smith, who wrote about the city-state of Elis (eg. the polis=urban area+depending territories). There may be enough ground to create an article about the region in antiquity, but most of the academic literature on the whole area deals with Olympia and the games, which was for most of their history within the polis of Elis, of which I don't think there is that much to say. The articles on Classical Athens and Sparta cover the city-state (or polis), the region in antiquity (Attica and Laconia), and the urban center. T8612 (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that they should be merged - there is a distinction between Elis the town and Elis the political entity, but it's a very fine one and it seems difficult to improve the quality of the article(s) while keeping the two topics separate. Nor is either topic currently large enough to require separation for length reasons. And as T8612 says, dealing with both together is wiki's normal practice; cf. Ancient Corinth, Argos, Peloponnese, Thebes, Greece, Sicyon. Furius (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

No objection to merger, but there should be a separate section for the capital city, and Elis (city) should redirect to that section, to make sense of incoming links about Elis as a birthplace / place on a route / archaeological site. – Fayenatic London 08:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right about that. Furius (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• I support a separate article for Elis the town, but I don't think Smith's text from 1854 makes a satisfactory Wikipedia article. A translation of the German article de:Elis (Stadt) would be an improvement. It links to the Greek culture ministry page on the town, http://odysseus.culture.gr/h/3/eh351.jsp?obj_id=2400, which has some useful information. TSventon (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Everything in the German article could be incorporated into a merged article that dealt with city & city state, in my opinion. There is one sentence saying that the synoikism took place in 471 BC, but we don't know what was on the site before that, and three sentences on the excavation history. Ancient Sparta manages to incorporate much more information on the site of Sparta-town within a single article (though that section would benefit from expansion) Furius (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Furius I am trying to get a steer about how to deal with 9 paragraphs of 19th century text and so far have two answers saying merge into the regional article and two saying rewrite the existing article. I think both would be an improvement on the current article, although rephrasing and extending the 1854 content would be a big job. The suggestion above is an attempt at a compromise. TSventon (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I'm just telling you that the German article is a five-sentence stub that will not help. The main German article de:Elis, might be more helpful, but is all on general historical narrative and (like many de articles) has minimal in-text citation. Furius (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• P Aculeius, Paul August, Fayenatic, T8612, Furius I have added the content of the German article on the city to Ancient Elis#City and added references. Further improvements are welcome. I now support redirecting Elis (city) to the section as the city article as argued by T8612 and Furius above. TSventon (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Roman gens article titles

A move request by Avilich brought it to my attention that per WP:ROMANS#Gens articles, the X (gens) naming has been deprecated in favour of X gens. A large number of articles still has the deprecated naming, however: Eventually the older articles will be moved to this style as well, but this has not yet been done with most articles to avoid breaking links, particularly with the larger articles. I don't see how renaming would break any links, so are there any objections if I just move all remaining X (gens) articles to X gens? Lennart97 (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

If I recall how redirects work, the items that were already redirected to the articles at these titles would be broken as double-redirects, but these might be fixed by bots now. I used to do this manually to make certain. However, most of the larger articles have probably already been moved. As the editor most responsible for establishing a uniform title format—and later revising it following numerous incidents with editors who were determined to ignore it—I have no objection to the moves if you actually want to undertake a rather boring and time-consuming task. And I don't think anyone else here will either—the main contributors to these articles of late seem to agree with the format, and have been making the moves themselves when they're able. P Aculeius (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

We're told at Wikipedia:Double redirects#Double redirects and bots that there are three active bots that fix double redirects within a few days and unless a redirect page is fully protected, requiring human intervention, "human editors would be best off putting their time on other tasks that can't be automated." NebY (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yep, usually within a few hours in my experience. Thanks for the responses, I'll get working on it. Lennart97 (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done All old-style gens articles have been moved. I've updated WP:ROMANS to reflect this. Lennart97 (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

A tremendous thanks for taking this on and miraculously finishing so quickly! P Aculeius (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

No problem! I guess there just weren't that many left :) Lennart97 (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Cimbrian War

Recent and recent-ish edits to Cimbrian War could do with some attention from someone knowledgeable about the subject. I noticed that the first sentence was nonsense ("the Cimbrian or Cimbrian War"), had a look at the history and reverted a series of edits that removed links and added (what looks like) unsourced content. But it's also possible that some of the changes were reasonable or that a blanket approach isn't appropriate. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

You removed an unsourced assertion about some Germanic or Celtic migrations, but at the same time restored another one that said the war caused a 'slow decline of the Roman Republic'. There's also those impossible casualty figures of 100–300k dead again. Avilich (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The "slow decline of the Roman Republic" claims in the infobox were there uncontested from September 2019 until a month ago, and there are general references cited, so seemed/s better to err on the side of caution, but no objection to anyone else removing them. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: I removed them, if you don't mind. Thanks for bringing your concerns here Avilich (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Germanic peoples needs impartial editors

For the past year at least the article Germanic peoples has been wracked by constant fighting over the definition of Germanic peoples and very little is getting done to actually solve the problem. The article is currently in a sorry state due to disagreements over whether scholars still support the concept of Germanic peoples (see Vienna School of History and Toronto school), what aspects need to be covered in the article, and what the proper relationship between ancient, medieval and modern in the article should be. As this article is directly related to this project, I thought advertising the troubles here might perhaps bring some new insights that would allow something to go forward and solve the impasse. One of the problems is that all participants are currently fairly invested in the debates.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm pleased to report that the atmosphere at the article is improving. However, we could still use some help from editors specializing in Roman history as we try to improve and rewrite the sections on, e.g. the Julio-Claudian dynasty's interactions with Germania and the attempt to establish a Roman province there. I think most editors currently there specialize in medieval/late antique rather than ancient topics.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Tarn & Graeco-Bactria

I'm having a little trouble on Demetrius I of Bactria and various related Graeco-Bactrian articles with keen, good-faith editors who are generally doing great work, but repeatedly adding points from an outdated source (W. W. Tarn). It's a topic that I'm fairly invested in and I worry that I'm getting territorial, so I wonder if a third party might be willing to step in? Furius (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Western Roman provinces after 476

Looking at the infoboxes of some of the Roman administrative subdivisions in the west, some appear to recognize the period of Barbarian rule when the provinces were kept intact (albeit not under Roman control), such as the Praetorian prefecture of Gaul (which recognizes its restoration under Gothic rule 510-536), the Praetorian prefecture of Italy (which has no indication that the period of Gothic rule would constitute some sort of interregnum) or Africa (Roman province) (which does not indicate that the Vandals presumably made no use of this adminstrative framework), but for others it is not recognized. The Visigoths in Hispania kept the Roman administrative structure of the provinces largely intact all the way to the 8th century (see this map and for academic reference, Herwig Wolfram's History of the Goths (1979) describes this in some detail). Is there a reason for why Barbarian rule is recognized in some cases and in others not recognized? I'm aware that you can hardly call Tarraconensis in Hispania a "Roman province" in the 8th century, but I don't think it would be accurate to call Africa a "Roman province" under Vandal rule either. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Ichthyovenator, I don't think there is a general rule. The province articles are very variable. There would be a case for saying the province ended once it was divided up into smaller units in the 4th (?) century... I don't think it makes much sense to have the article deal with the post-Vandal period - isn't that what the (rather sparse) article on the Exarchate of Africa is for? (But I suppose that covered a larger area at times). Furius (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, makes sense. I was just enquiring since it felt inconsistent to me; I guess this is something that can be looked at further if more work is eventually done on the province articles. If Africa was kept as a province within the exarchate (don't know if it was) then I think there is merit in keeping post-Vandal content there, but yes I think the articles should stop at whenever provinces got sub-divided or ceased to be used as adminstrative units. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Apollodorus, fragment

Hello all. Can anyone source the original of the following, with accurate (or at least, generally accepted) translation? It's a fragment of Apollodorus (I don't know which), and I've seen it used in modern secondary sources (not always with much conviction) as a primary reference to human sacrifice (of prisoners of war) to Ares in Sparta. The rather enormous "page" number seems unlikely. Is it a catalogue entry?

Apollodorus, frag. p.1056 ed. Heyne

Google-Scholar-fu came up with 6 or so examples of the same citation, same format, all seemingly referring to the same publication, dated 1803, edited by Christian Gottlob Heyne. I've also no idea whether Heyne's reading was accepted. Haploidavey (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Going to guess that this is the book in question, but I don't see anything about Ares in the index, and a text search doesn't find any mentions (although given the age of the book, and quality of the scans, the text recognition software might simply be unable to spot it—and obviously it wouldn't find anything written in Greek). The page number may be a typo, although in different circumstances I would suggest a line number. Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of German could scan the contents to see if it appears to contain something along the lines suggested. P Aculeius (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

That was incredibly quick! I'm now wondering if the original reference was to Enyalios; part of the difficulty with Ares is the identification of other deities with him, imposed to the extent that they're claimed as aspects of "the same" deity (which of course they're not, leastways at ground level). But a search using "Enyalios" proves fruitless, probably for the reasons you suggest. That generation of scholars was utterly amazing. Sigh... Haploidavey (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

On a hunch, checked the DGRBM on "Ares", and found what I suppose to be the original source of the citation: "At Sparta human sacrifices were offered to Ares. (Apollod. fragm. p. 1056, ed. Heyne.)" Here it seems possible that it should not say 'p.' but 'section' or 'line' or 'at'. Apollodorus is cited in three other places, which may help to identify the source better: i. 3. § 1, i. 9. § 16, and iii. 4. § 1, the latter two describing his worship at Colchis and Thebes. As for which Apollodorus it is, I would say it must certainly be No. 17 in the DGRBM numbering, vol. I, pp. 234, 235. He was a grammarian at Athens, and seems to have written extensively on mythology; his Bibliotheke seems to have survived to modern times, and was highly esteemed by the Greeks. The article mentions a critical edition by Heyne in four volumes, dating to 1783 and 1784, of which a revised edition was published in 1803—perhaps the one I linked above, but with different pagination.

Even if we cannot locate the relevant passage in either edition, now that we know what work it is, it should be possible to check other editions to see if they contain a similar passage about the worship of Ares at Sparta. The article I linked mentions other editions, but since they're all rather old and difficult to scan, perhaps a more recent edition would be easier to consult. For what it's worth, a recent author also cites this to Apollodorus, but the citation is independent of Heyne's work: "The statement of Apollodorus of Athens (second century BC) that the Spartans used to sacrifice men to Ares (Apollodorus, FGrHist 244 F 125) may also have been based upon myth." (Dennis D. Hughes, Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece, p. 128). I think there may be other citations. So it seems to be there—but I can't verify the pagination from what I was able to find quickly. P Aculeius (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Excellent work, thank you so much. You've put your finger (alongside Hughes') on the difficulty; is this based on myth, history, literature (high or low) or oral tradition, or all of these. It's critical stuff. You've made my day, and With your permission, I'll just steal what you've put here. If Hughes' source is independent of Hayne, so much the better. Haploidavey (talk) 06:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I think it's the same passage in Apollodorus, but cited from two different versions—an edition of Heyne for which we're not sure what the pagination refers to, since we don't have the exact edition or passage in front of us, and another called Fragments of Greek Historians, presumably, in which I'm guessing that "244" is a page number and "125" a fragment—although normally I would have associated 'F' with "folio". One reason I wish people would make their citations less cryptic—is this a standard numbering for Apollodorus, or just the one used by the book in question? And surely there's more than one book titled Fragments of Greek Historians by now. An author, or editor, would be useful here. But thanks to Google Books it probably won't be that hard to figure out which book is meant, and where it contains the relevant passage. Looks like it's probably Felix Jacoby's Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, which I'm having trouble locating in a searchable format online. There seem to be numerous volumes at Internet Archive, but I can't figure out which one it's in—even the Apollodorus volume that pops up is defying my search efforts! There's also Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum by Karl Wilhelm and Theodor Müller, of which volume I apparently includes Apollodorus in Latin; but I'm having trouble locating the passage. P Aculeius (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I happened across a whole page of facsimiles; very frustrating, some even in Black Letter (that would be Heyne and others) and utterly non-searchable using any tool or means other than the human eye. I would dearly like to know what the difference between the 2 versions might be AND the context. Why was he discussing this in the first place? I'll just keep looking. Haploidavey (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Just had some mail through; this query was noticed. I'll paste in the relevant parts below, with thanks:

"The fragment is from Porphyry. I found it on the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. It is:

Porphyr. De abstinentia, lib. II, 55:

Καὶ Λακεδαιμονίους φησὶν ὁ Ἀπολλόδωρος τῷ Ἄρει θύειν ἄνθρωπον.

The fragments of "Apollodorus Gramm. Atheniensis" are to be found in Karl Müller's Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum 1, Paris: Didot, 1853: 1:428-469; 4:649-650. This is fragment 20. (these citations, at least, according to the TLG's layout.) pp sender, Haploidavey (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've been trying to find that fragment too. FGRHist 244 F 125 must be a reference to Felix Jacoby's Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. as 244 is his number for Apollodorus of Athens. Sadly I don't have access to the Brill online editions. The difficulty has led me to wonder if we're right to call it a "traditional belief" that the Spartans made human sacrifices to Ares. That's the sole citation in Murray, as if we have no other classical reference, not even an epithet in Aristophanes or passing reference to not getting captured by Spartans. Leaping forward, I find no mention in Michael Winston's account of Vauvilliers' attack on Rousseau's praise of Sparta, as if it wasn't extant tradition at that time. We do find it in William Smith's 1848 article on Ares, again citing Heyne's Apollodorus. If it was a well-known tradition since then, has it been something highlighted in, say, criticism of the Spartan tradition in nineteenth and twentieth-century Germany? Skimming Losemann's article in Sparta and Modern Thought, I'm not seeing it. NebY (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's an 1853 translation of that Porphyry. Being in suspicious mood, I notice Porphyry doesn't retail it as common knowledge or describe it - as he does other human sacrifices (54-56) - as a regular occurrence. NebY (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Hm yes. Nice work. Our snippet is almost context-free. Like a see also or PS. I have to admit, I'm surprised at how sparse it is. But alternatively, might that mean that the matter's so well known that it barely needs mention? Haploidavey (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, with a little name-dropping to add weight. It's impressive how much work that snippet's doing nowadays. Could it be a combination of that and Herodotus on the Scythians that gives us Britannica and others saying the Spartans sacrificed prisoners of war to Ares? NebY (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Notice of Featured Article Review

I have nominated Roman–Persian Wars for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

Can anyone help with the ambiguous link to flask in Shikhin? The wording is from the Uzi Leibner citation (#7 in the article). I know what a krater was used for, but can't visualise what a "flask" might have been in Roman Galilee; except perhaps a small container for oil (such as a cruse). Narky Blert (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's disambiguation page for "flask" is not helpful for this; definitions of "flask" within archaeology vary, depending on the speciality, country and era under investigation, as much as morphology. And just how technical you want to be - [1]. Sorry, that's not much help, but the issues surrounding the terminology seem frightfully difficult. Some call a flask a bottle (apparently that depends on whether they're Romanists or Mediaevalists), Haploidavey (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC) If it was me, as there's nothing appropriate in the disambiguation list, and as the context is Roman Galilee, I'd just link to bottle, plus an explanatory footnote. From the linked glossary, under "Flask": "Romanists use this word as a synonym for ‘Bottle’". Unless the archaeology article has something useful. Haploidavey (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

wikt:flask isn't really apposite either. Odd, it seems such a familiar term. I've footnoted it instead of linking. I guess editing bottle to say that ancient oil, wine etc bottles (of some particular material/morphology?) are often called flasks and linking to that would be an option. NebY (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Like this? I thought it very odd, but it seems to be an established feature of the terminology: "a collection of 14 pre-Columbian Maya bottle-shaped containers known as flasks." (from a US site: [2] Haploidavey (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

And like these at the British Museum. NebY (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Some of those are rather beautiful. They wouldn't occur to me as examples of "flasks". Haploidavey (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps its related to pocket flasks being pill shaped or circular in their earliest incarnations? They seem to resembled figured flasks quite well. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

NebY's solution looks good to me; I was leaning towards something of that sort. (I like inline or footnoted explanatory notes, because they can help readers without confusing them.) Narky Blert (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Alcibiades FAR

I have nominated Alcibiades for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Access to the Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists?

Does anyone have access to the Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists? In particular, I'm looking for a copy of Michael Sampson's article "Deconstructing the Provenances of P.Sapph.Obbink" in vol.57 (2020). DOI: 10.2143/BASP.57.0.3288503. I'm trying to get my head around how the Dirk Obbink controversies impact on the authenticity (or, worrying, potential lack thereof) of the Brothers Poem. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that History of art, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

FAR notice

I have nominated Execution by elephant for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 05:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Lucius Turranius Venustus Gratianus

I just came across this orphaned article and was going to add it to List of Roman praetors but then noticed that the references are all by a single author. This makes me doubtful of the reliability of the info in the article. Perhaps someone more familiar with the topic could add it to the list and deorphan it if it’s ok, or PROD it if it’s not. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The article was created by a now-banned editor whose work focused on descent from antiquity, supported largely by the works of Christian Settipani. Settipani is an actual scholar whose work in this area is praised by some experts, although others are skeptical of his methodology, and last I heard the best criticism of it is that it is so dense that it is difficult to evaluate properly. Of course I can't evaluate it properly because I'm not an expert in the methodology, the senatorial hierarchy of Imperial times, can't read French (well, I can read it, just not understand it), and don't have access to Settipani's work in the first place. And that's an issue for most of our editors. The work is presumably valid up to an extent, but we can't easily verify most of its claims. And the editor who relied so heavily on Settipani had a habit of stretching his articles beyond the source, so that some of the articles he created have been deleted as "hoaxes", although I suspect they were created in good faith using an over-zealous interpretation of a very limited source.

None of which tells us absolutely what to think of the article you mention. Fortunately, while I can't verify what Settipani says (or whether he says it), I was able to find another source, though I'm not sure how best to incorporate it into the article. In the Clauss-Slaby Databank, EDCS-76300177, we have an inscription from Rome, dated between 270 and 330, in the form of a gift to Hercules Invictus from a praetor urbanus named Lucius Turranius Venustus Gratianus. The citation (in German, to an Italian source) is from "S. Orlandi, Una nuova dedica a Ercole da un manoscritto di Bonifacius Amerbach, in: L. Calvelli u.a. (Hgg.), Altera pars laboris, Venedig 2019, 205-219", at page 205. Google supplies the author's first name as "Silvia". So there's clear evidence that this person existed and was praetor urbanus. How he was related to other Romans known from other sources depends on Settipani, and presumably much of Settipani's work is based on naming patterns in the senatorial order during this period, but since we can't easily find what he says, we can't verify whether he considers these connections established, probable, or merely possible—in which case we can only take the article's word for it that it accurately represents what the source says.

Some members of this project automatically suspect all articles created by the editor in question. I don't like doing that without being able to review the cited source and evaluate it fairly. Since we have some independent evidence of the subject of the article, I would probably not delete it, but would add the source I found and hope to re-evaluate the article if and when Settipani becomes more accessible. But as I said, I'm not sure how best to incorporate the epigraphic evidence into this one—does anyone else want to take a crack at it? P Aculeius (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I can't find anything conclusive that differentiates him from his brother/father (it's blurry from what I gather) or even specifies the date of his praetorship. This link might be helpful to those who can find the inscriptions being referenced: Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire vol I, p. 402. I would consider Settipani generally reliable, especially for something as simple as confirming a date for a magistrate's rank. He does provide his sources as well. Unfortunately, I don't have access to his works beyond snippets on google and what little I do see in the snippets don't lend any light on the matter. SpartaN (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• According to the PLRE he may be identical with one Lucius Turranius Gratianus who was governor of Achaia c. 286 and praefectus urbi 290, under Diocletian. That is perhaps enough for meeting WP:NPOL, so a solution would be to create the article and redirect this one there. The dedication to Hercules apparently was never even published, so the subject here doesn't seem to need a standalone article for the moment. Whatever the case, if he's a praetor then he should be included in the list regardless. Avilich (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hierei

I suppose its the way things are now, but we have a short (and unreferenced) article on ancient Greek priestesses, Hiereiai, but nothing for their male equivalents, nor any clergy section in Ancient Greek religion. Don't worry, the Romans are much better covered, with Flamen, & all of Category:Ancient Roman religious titles. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Maps

A couple of times I have added infoboxes for Roman Empire sites, and it doesn't appear that there are location maps for anywhere from that period, so I have used current maps. I may just not have found the correct maps, but if they don't exist, it would be nice if someone who knew what they were doing could create them. Perhaps one map for each province from the time of Trajan would be nice. Peter Flass (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Pompeianus

There's a merge proposal for Pompeianus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus Pompeianus which could do with a helping hand from experts, disentangling what seems to be two pages where two people have been confused. The merge is probably best discussed at Talk:Pompeianus, although there is also some earlier discussion at Talk:Lucius Aurelius Commodus Pompeianus#Identity, and Pompeianus (disambiguation) might be useful page for reference. Klbrain (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page - Gaius Calpurnius Piso

Can anyone identify the Gaius Calpurnius Piso who was governor of Achaea in the early 1st century CE? So far as I can see, none of the Pisones mentioned in DGRBM held that office. The DGRG entry for Achaia names no governors, which was variously an imperial or a senatorial province at the time. Gaius Calpurnius Piso (conspirator) (#30 in DGRBM) looks like the best fit for the date, but I can't make the connection. Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The link when the name was added to the article in February 2010 was to the article Gaius Calpurnius Piso, which was moved to Gaius Calpurnius Piso (conspirator) in April 2021‎. The name should be supported by a reference or removed from the list of governors. TSventon (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Checking PW, Calpurnius No. 90, Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus is said possibly to have been the nephew of Rutilius Nudus, presumably the first person on our list of governors—but this is a century too early (and the wrong name). The conspirator is No. 65. My German is pretty bad, but skimming the article it looks like he was governor of Dalmatia; I do not see any mention of Achaea. No. 67 is said to have been governor of some province, based on CIL VI, 9831, but this seems rather flimsy. No. 57, whose name is uncertain, apparently tried to prosecute Verres for extortion committed in Achaea—also not clearly our man. If there's some evidence linking any of the Pisones to Achaea as a possible governor, it doesn't appear to be in PW. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The best I can find in PW is that Calpurnius 70 visited Achaia in 20 CE, and that Calpurnius 94 had a statue dedicated to him in Athens. The first is clearly not our man; the second is more promising, but unfortunately I haven't been able to find the relevant volume of Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum (entries 601, 602) online. Achaia 2 contains nothing relevant. Unless something better can be turned up, I say delete from the list. Narky Blert (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I've deleted him from the list. Narky Blert (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Separate articles for Greek and Roman characters?

• Zeus, Jupiter (mythology)
• Heracles, Hercules
• Hera, Juno (mythology)
• Aphrodite, Venus (mythology)
• Hermes, Mercury (mythology)
• Hephaestus, Vulcan (mythology)
• Ares, Mars (mythology)
• Artemis, Diana (mythology)
• Apollo (same?)

I was surprised to see that English and many other language Wikipedia versions have separate articles for the Greek and Roman traditions of these characters which I expect have popular recognition as being the same. I recognize that these characters have centuries of separation in Greek versus Roman traditions, but in comparing the content in these pairs of articles, much of it applies to both and is a WP:FORK.

Is anyone here aware of major discussions which established consensus about having separate articles for Greek versus Roman figures? I see multiple small discussions since 2005 discussing merges, but it seems like keeping them separate is a long precedent.

I am not asking to have a discussion or explanation now. I just want to know if anyone recalls major discussions or can link to them. A follow up that I might consider is trying to identify and list previous discussions on this issue. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I'm shocked to see such a comment from a Wikipedian. Greek and Roman mythology is NOT interchangeable just because they share roots and have interacted/been influenced by each other. And trying to merge these would be an absolute insane idea.★Trekker (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

In most cases I would say so, but Herakles, Hercules, and Hercules in ancient Rome is at least one article too many. A. Parrot (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a case for merging Hercules and Hercules in ancient Rome, and moving the latter's parts about Hercules in the Middle Ages and later times to Heracles in popular culture (which should be renamed for consistency). The Apollo article is the only article listed above that is not split between Greece/Rome, but it is too long. An article Apollo in popular culture should be created to move all the modern artworks. T8612 (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Certainly Hercules and Hercules in ancient Rome seem to have significant overlaps in scope – and they're small enough that merging the two wouldn't cause signficant length problems at the moment.

On the more general question, WP:CFORK#Related articles says that Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. If someone were to propose merging all of these articles, I would expect them to have to make the case that these truly are content forks and not legitimately related articles which contain similar information. (Just looking at Zeus and Jupiter (mythology) for instance, it's not at all clear to me that significant portions of the articles even do overlap!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry:There has been discussion about the disambiguator "(mythology)".Our articles about Jupiter, Mars and others quite rightly have very little about mythology and much more about their ancient and higly developed cults. As I remember it, the general conclusion was that picking and applying a better disambiguator would be rather hard.

Your impression that the Greek and Roman gods are the same isn't new. Latin's persistence led to eg Alexander Pope giving Greek gods Roman names when he translated the Iliad and Odyssey, and this tradition carried on through into the nineteenth century. The Romans themselves often gave local gods the names of the most similar Roman ones and rehomed some in Rome, and early Roman religion had had Greek influences as well as Etruscan and other Italian. What's more, the Romans had vast numbers of gods but for hundreds of years had comparatively few stories about them, so for example Ovid borrowed many Greek myths for his Metamorphoses. But Jupiter (mythology) is no more a fork of Zeus than metre is of yard. NebY (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

This merger proposal strikes me as a very Roman idea. They weren't great mythmakers, but were very hot on equating gods from other cultures with ones in their own pantheon. Thor is a thunder-god? ok, he's the same as our Jupiter. Odin has a reputation for enforcing contacts and for fast-talking? that's Mercury, then. Even if such an equation makes little mythological sense. And when dealing with a monotheistic culture, the attempted shoehorning makes no sense at all.

I agree with the comments above that we should distinguish, possibly in separate articles, between both Greek and Roman deities and what later European cultures made of them. Narky Blert (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Split of Decemviri

There's a discussion at Talk:Decemviri#Split? which might be of interest to this wikiproject Avilich (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Phanes (coin issuer)

There is a discussion at Talk:Phanes (coin issuer)#Recent additions to this article that editors to this WikiProject may be interested in. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Content dispute at Theogony

There is currently a content dispute at Theogony. Please see Talk:Theogony#Pseudologoi vs pseudea and logoi. Paul August ☎ 12:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Origin of the Albanians

A dispute has erupted over a controversial new map at that article. I've opened a discussion thread here [3]. In general, the article is plagued by POV-pushing (in my opinion, all "Origin of the X" articles are very bad idea and should be deleted) and could really use some community attention. Khirurg (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hasmonean dynasty#Requested move 25 October 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hasmonean dynasty#Requested move 25 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Another C. Calpurnius Piso mystery

Just ran into the following small mystery re. the article on Gaius Calpurnius Piso (conspirator):

The current text of the article says In AD 41, the emperor Claudius recalled Piso to Rome and made him his co-consul. This is cited to Cambridge Ancient History Volume 5 ed. VII, and tagged as "dubious". The original text, as added by an IP back in 2007 ([4]), said that Claudius made him suffect consul. The edit summary for the change to "co-consul" is the unhelpfully cryptic "pt" ([5]).

My questions therefore are:

• Is "co-consul" wrong, or is there some justification for it? The OCD and RE both say suffect consul.
• Any ideas what's going on with the CAH cite? Volume 5 is Greece in the fifth century BC, and (predictably!) does not mention Piso. There is no seventh edition. There is mention of Piso in Volume 10, 43 BC–69 AD, but I can't find any discussion of Piso's consulship (though it does refer to him in the index as being consul in 41).
• Was Piso actually consul (suffect or otherwise) in 41 (per the CAH index)? OCD and RE don't seem to give a date.

My inclination is to simply change this to Claudius recalled Piso to Rome, probably soon after his accession in AD 41, and later made him suffect consul and cite it to RE, but I suspect there are people who watch this page who are more interested in early imperial Roman politics than I and who might be able to advise! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Gallivan's "Fasti for the Reign of Claudius" lists Gaius Calpurnius Piso among known Claudian suffecti of uncertain date, and under the discussion of each such consul, says that there still is no evidence from which to place Piso's consulship in a particular year. This is the source cited in our article on undated consuls, and although I looked for epigraphic sources that might refer to his consulship, I came up empty—there are many inscriptions mentioning other Pisones who were consul, and one or two that might mention this one, but not apparently as consul or in a manner that would make it possible to date his term of office. So unless some hithertofore unknown and uncited source can be located, I would remove any reference to the date. As for "co-consul", technically all but a handful of consuls in Roman history had a colleague—perhaps that's what is meant, or else the writer simply assumed that he served alongside Claudius—something for which there is no evidence, and which would therefore be in error. It's certain that he was consul suffectus, however. The citation is certainly in error, but whether it's intentional or the result of some confusion I don't know. P Aculeius (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I've made the change here – do correct it if I've butchered anything! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

RM: The Enneads → Enneads

An editor has requested for The Enneads to be moved to Enneads. Since you had some involvement with The Enneads, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Havelock Jones (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alchemical literature

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alchemical literature is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alchemical literature. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

New Roman villa - discussion at WP:Archaeology

Hi folks. I would like to flag a post I've just put on the talk page of WP: Archaeology (see here) on a potentially problematic clash between public domain information and real-world ethics - specifically on the creation and my recent amendments to the Rutland Roman villa page. Flagging it here to seek honest and diverse views on my comments. Many thanks. Zakhx150 (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Sister of Alexander Severus

The article Theoclia (sister of Alexander Severus) covers a supposed sister of emperor Severus Alexander. But I've done some digging and it seems to me that the article might be confused.

• Dio mentions a daughter of Marcus Julius Gessius Marcianus who was killed in 218, she seems to have been married 1
• The Historia Augusta claims that Alexander Severus wanted to marry his sister Theoclia to Gaius Julius Verus Maximus 2

It seems to me that Theoclia (if she was real) and her possible marriage to Verus is thought to have been proposed during Severus reign 3, not when he was a young boy as he would have been in 218 when Marcianus daughter was killed. This work treats the two women as separate people, while this one argues that Theoclia is entirely made up. There is also the fact that Marcianus might have been Severus step-father, not father, so a daughter (if she was indeed married in 218) was probably too old to have been Julia Avita Mamaea's daughter, thus this woman may only have been Severus step-sister.★Trekker (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Corinthian War for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 05:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Afd notice: Institutional System

The article Institutional System is being nominated for deletion. Your feedback would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institutional System. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Demosthenes

I have nominated Demosthenes for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 04:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Peisistratos#Requested move 24 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Peisistratos#Requested move 24 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Favonian (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Epaminondas Featured article review

User:Hog Farm has nominated Epaminondas for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Help request and Fact check on Antiochia ad Taurum

Can you help or direct me to a qualified Admin? I need a review of my suggested revision for Antiochia ad Taurum as I've outlined at Talk:Antiochia_ad_Taurum#Antiochia_ad_Taurum,_Syria_not_Commagene.

No new data or facts, just an edit from the sources on Wikipedia for logical consistency. I'm just starting as a Wikipedia editor so didn't want to jump independently without the supervision of an experienced Admin. Thanks BiblicalArchaeologist

BiblicalArchaeologist (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation of links to Marcus Annius Verus

Could you help to disambiguation the the links shown at Disambig fix list for Marcus Annius Verus. I find some of the names of Roman leaders difficult, particularly where the dates overlap and I would not want to direct readers to the wrong one.— Rod ^talk 15:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

There are also a few other Roman names with multiple disambiguation links:

• Titus Aurelius Fulvus listed at: Disambig fix list for Titus Aurelius Fulvus
• Marcus Annius Verus @ Disambig fix list for Marcus Annius Verus

* Gaius Fabius Ambustus @ Disambig fix list for Gaius Fabius Ambustus * Lucius Valerius Flaccus @ Disambig fix list for Lucius Valerius Flaccus

• Manlius Torquatus @ Disambig fix list for Manlius Torquatus

* Marcus Vinicius @ Disambig fix list for Marcus Vinicius

• Scipio Nasica @ Disambig fix list for Scipio Nasica

Any help with any of these would be appreciated.— Rod ^talk 20:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Daunians

Hello,

A discussion relating to the genetics of the Daunians is taking place here [6], for anyone who is interested. Khirurg (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice of discussion about Roman flag templates

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template#"Flags" of the Roman Empire/Republic about the flag templates , , , , , and the accuracy of using them. Please participate at that page if interested. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Capitalisation style

Yea, yea, this is a nothingburger if anything. I'm just somewhat peeved by constant 'corrections'. There's a pretty large split between different capitalisation styles. On one hand, we have what some editors want to impose on Wikipedia and, on the other hand, we have what is prevalent in modern classical studies works.

Sure, in old stuff like Abbott's History and description of Roman political institutions (c. 1905) you'll see lots of "Senate", "Roman Republic", "Tribal Assembly", "Populares", "Late Republic", etc. In modern works, like Mouritsen Politics in the Roman Republic (2017) and Flower Roman Republics (2010) you'll see basically none of this: unless it starts a sentence, it will be lower case. Eg "senate", "Roman republic", "assembly", "populares", "late republic", etc.

Is there a consensus or general guideline as to which style we ought to be following? Ifly6 (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It's less clear-cut than a division between older and newer works. Without seeing this comment, I would have expected the opposite. Older works I've consulted—including some very frequently-used sources—tend not to capitalize "senate" or "assembly", and perhaps not "republic", although when prefixed by "Roman" they sometimes might be treated as proper nouns, and capitalized. Recent works seem more inclined to treat these as proper nouns irrespective of the context, as long as they're referring to specific institutions rather than generic examples. I tend to follow the older sources, as their writers and editors tended to be sticklers for grammar and its rules, but sometimes I simply follow what seems to be common sense: is a word being used as a proper noun or not?

But then there are cases where there seems to be no satisfactory answer: surely "Pontifex Maximus," "Rex Sacrorum", and "Flamen Dialis" are proper nouns, the titles of specific offices; but then we don't usually capitalize "consul" or "praetor"—presumably these are common nouns. I don't really know how to resolve this question, and I'm sure that imposing a particular style across the board, although practice varies in scholarship, can never satisfy everyone. Which is why I think the better solution is to encourage internal consistency within articles, instead of trying to impose consistent capitalization of ambiguous nouns across all articles. P Aculeius (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yea, that's a pretty reasonable position (internal consistency). I'm not surprised that there isn't much consensus one way or the other, given that this sort of grammatical discussion is unresolvable. Cf Cornford, Microcosmographia Academica (1908) (specifically, discussion on "comma hunting").

On pontifex maximus, rex sacrorum, and flamen dialis, these are also (to my knowledge) not fully capitalised in recent works as well. There is "flamen Dialis" (Mouritsen, supra, at 198; also Drogula, Commanders and command (2015) 66) but "flamen dialis" (Cornell, Beginnings of Rome (1995) 223 (italics in original)); "rex sacrorum" (ibid 227 (italics in original); also Drogula at 66); and "pontifex maximus" (Mouritsen, supra, at 138 (italics in original); also Drogula at 66). The justification I vaguely remember from one of my classical studies professors is basically that capitalisation did not exist in ancient times; of course, that is anecdotal and also perhaps not fully and accurately recollected. Ifly6 (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I can fully believe that they said this, but of course it's utter nonsense—lowercase letters didn't exist in ancient times. And we still capitalize proper names—the conventions of writing in English aren't suspended when the subjects belong to antiquity. I note however, that every time I write "senate" someone seems to come along and change it to "Senate". And of course "Pontifex Maximus" is always capitalized when it refers to the Pope; why would we do it differently for all earlier pontifices? Are we saying that it's only a title when used by the Pope? Surely there's something wrong with that! P Aculeius (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

lowercase letters didn't exist in ancient times was why I remembered it as being curious (if anything). The only real justification is that because capitalisation doesn't exist, you pick either all caps or all lowercase if writing in Latin. (The names are not in Latin.) We write normally in lower case, with a few exceptions, thus the choice is made. This is not really the same with "senate" vs "senatus". I have no justification for preferring "senate", "republic", etc beyond this-is-what-I-am-used-to; that is also probably the justification on the other side.

Having done a somewhat more full "survey" among the books that I have on hand (a totally unbiased and entirely random sample), I can only find Goldsworthy's books (all published by Yale) to capitalise "Senate"; everything else seems to use "senate". This is the same with "republic". As an aside, only Drogula's book (UNC Press) uses "Xius's" – eg "Marius's" – instead of what is normal, which is to use the trailing apostrophe alone. This marks, I guess, another deviation from "normal" English conventions on possessives with singular nouns. Ifly6 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

New article based entirely on primary sources

I'm somewhat concerned that the article Ptolemaios son of Glaucias, newly created, seems to be based entirely on primary sources. I wonder if someone more knowledgeable about the subject could see whether or not it's worth saving or not.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Even a cursory glance at the article appears to show that the vast majority of it is cited to scholarly articles, not primary sources. The only explanation I can think of for the question is that the article contains long passages from antiquity—which are then properly cited to secondary sources. Do they need to be included in their entirety? Is the subject important enough to have his own article? These may be valid questions, but the state of the sourcing does not appear to be problematic. The presence of primary sources—whether or not they are included in the secondary sources cited by the artlcle—is of no concern in this sort of article; indeed, it would seem deficient if it did not include them. But the fact that secondary sources incorporate long passages written by or about a figure from antiquity doesn't negate the fact that they are secondary sources. P Aculeius (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I’d suggest having another look- some of them appear to be scholarly sources until you click on the link as far as I can figure out, P Aculeius. Something weird is going on here.—Ermenrich (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Citations 8 through 13 are primary sources, but I've looked at the others, and they are secondary (although this one is very old). Moreover, there's at least one secondary source in my possession: "The Dreams of the Twins in St Petersburg" by John D. Ray, in Through a Glass Darkly: Magic, Dreams & Prophecy in Ancient Egypt (2006), ed. Kasia Szpakowska. It seems to me that the Sample Papyri section should be cut, but the topic is a valid one. A. Parrot (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Citations seem good enough for me, but I'm questioning the notability of the man, as well as Horos son of Nechoutes. T8612 (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

On a separate but related topic, is Ptolemaios son of Glaucias preferred to Ptolemaios (son of Glaucias)? Ifly6 (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the former is preferable - it's how he usually signs his name in the letters and how he is usually referred to in scholarship. The man is definitely notable - there is a whole chapter on him in D. J. Thompson, Memphis under the Ptolemies (1990) and a lot of scholarship regarding his archive. He's a key case study for the nature of ethnic identity in Hellenistic Egypt. I agree that the 'Sample Papyri' should be cut - that's material for wikisource, really. Furius (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, except that wiki-style means it should be Ptolemaeus rather than Ptolemaios, doesn't it? Furius (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Horos son of Nechoutes is also the subject of multiple publications (as is really anyone from Graeco-Roman Egypt for whom a full archive has survived) and is also therefore notable. Furius (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

FA Review: Hippocrates

I have nominated Hippocrates for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Pericles

I have nominated Pericles for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion

There is a move discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Pontus#Requested move 23 February 2022 which may be of interest to this wikiproject. Avilich (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Dionysius of Heraclea - small mystery

Our article on Dionysius, tyrant of Heracleia, tells us that he was an unusually fat man, with his obesity increasing to such a degree that he could no longer take any food, which then had to be introduced into his stomach by artificial means. In the end, however, he was choked by his own fat. This comes from William Smith's DGRBM entry. However, I can't find the source of this claim in any of the ancient authors that Smith cites. Athenaeus (12.72), Aelian (VH 9.13), and Memnon all discuss Dionysius' fatness, and tell a story that he could only be woken up by stabbing him with long needles(!) – do we think that Smith's story is a corruption of this, or does it come from somewhere else that I'm missing? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Might it be confusion from the story (Control-F for "p. 881") of Magas, King of Cyrene – also in Athenaeus – who apparently supposedly was choked to death by his own fat? Ifly6 (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that sounds plausible. Further examination of Athenaeus doesn't reveal the origin of the artificial feeding bit though, unless I'm missing something... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Gauging interest in a related project on ancient Celtic religion

Hey, folks! I am looking to organize a Wikiproject to address the topic of polytheism in Celtic antiquity—mainly the excavated ritual sites (e.g. Romano-Celtic fana) as well as the many Celtic gods attested in (Romano-)Celtic votives. The project would have some overlap with existing projects like this one, but would address a coherent, large, and exciting enough area of study that it deserves its own project. If any of you would like to work together with me on this, please let me know! — Uiscefada (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

There is already a wikiproject Celts that is inactive. I don't see how an even narrower subject can get more interest. I think you should try to revive WP:Celts. T8612 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:Celts, thanks. On the contrary, there is already a narrower Celtic Wikiproject that is more active and relevant than that one (WP:Gaul). WP:Celts covers the entire Medieval to Modern periods, which is thousands of years outside the scope of what I'm looking for. Kind of like me suggesting you guys operate under WP:Italy and Greece.

I'm mainly trying to gauge interest from other editors in this field of study first, which would be dealing with certain Roman religious archaeology in Britain, Gaul, and parts of Germany. The details of precisely where to house it can be worked out later and isn't the goal of my post here. — Uiscefada (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Not my area, and I agree with T8612 that I suspect that this might just be too niche to find many interested people, but you could also try asking at WT:ARCHAEO? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be "many" interested people, and I'm just asking for responses from those who are interested. But thanks, I will consider asking at WP:Archaeology as well. — Uiscefada (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Moving "Julian (emperor)" to "Julian"

As some of our long-time members and contributors may recall, there were a number of very heated debates over the years about moving "Julian the Apostate" to various titles, which finally resulted in the consensus title "Julian (emperor)" in 2013. A new proposal would move the article to "Julian" as the primary topic, based largely on page views. Personally I think this is a very bad idea, considering both the limited benefit and the difficulty we had arriving at a consensus title—but perhaps I'm in the minority now. Either way, the discussion would benefit from the input of people involved with CGR. P Aculeius (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

What was the problem with Julian the Apostate? T8612 (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Some people thought it was npov. Furius (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Triumvir monetalis#Requested move 10 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Triumvir monetalis#Requested move 10 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Tiridates I of Armenia

I have nominated Tiridates I of Armenia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: theGreek “megaton” interpretation

The dedicated page omits several findings of Dinsmoor (Ancient Greek architecture) and Burkett (Ancient Greek religion), such as the building form’s 3000 BCE Aegean history, an example found at the bottom layer of Troy, as the model for Greek homes, the oikos, centered on the hestia for the perpetual flame and having interior columns to allow for an extra wide room with short trees, for large, long, catered gatherings that later become the model for Greek Temples for other gods but with the same central hestia and added columns. The association with Hestia, known as the first of the gods, evidently central to Aegean culture throughout the bronze age, notably a humble Greek god as guardian of the flame of hearth and home… quite unlike the cult-of-personality gods that came later, gives a whole other dimension to where Greek culture came from and went to. The current Greek word for The English translation ‘megaron’ also changes the picture, being pronounced ‘me-gyro’ and thus seeming naming the building type for the central feature of a quite scientific design for a very long-standing humble, artistic, and democratic Bronze Age way of life. JessieHenshaw (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I was puzzled by this heading at first. I guess the "dedicated page" that we're talking about is Megaron, not "megaton". Maybe the best way is to raise these issues at Talk:Megaron. Andrew Dalby 15:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The father of Valens and Valentinian I

I was trawling around the EDCS this morning and ran across this inscription: CIL VI, 36956, with (in part) this text, evidently dating from the consulship of Flavius Valens (the emperor Valens, brother of Valentinian I) in AD 365: "Domino nostr[o] / Fl(avio) Valenti P(ubli) [f(ilio)]". This seems to indicate that the father of these two emperors was named Publius—we have him as Gratianus, surnamed Funarius due to his occupation as a rope merchant, but otherwise no discussion of his name. I've had a brief search for similar inscriptions that might refer to him directly or through a filiation, but no luck so far, and I'm not finding recent scholarship on him through Google, although I'm not an expert on using Google to find scholarly biographical sources.

Now, Gratianus is not a nomen gentilicium; so we don't know his full name in any case, unless it was "Flavius", like his sons used—perhaps he or one of his ancestors received Roman citizenship under Constantius Chlorus or one of his descendants—but even if this is uncertain, it seems significant that we apparently know his praenomen, since these were becoming scarce in the fourth century, and we don't really know the full nomenclature of a number of important figures from this period—including all of the emperors—with much certainty. In fact the reason I found this inscription is because I was looking for late inscriptions (actually, fifth century or later) with praenomina used as praenomina (in some late inscriptions the same names appear in seemingly random positions that make it hard to be sure whether they really are praenomina), and this one turned up because the first part of the inscription is much later than the rest.

I think that the article should probably identify him—in the body, since it's not the best-known way of referring to him—as "Publius (Flavius) Gratianus", but I didn't want to make this change concerning the father of two emperors without consulting other experienced editors from this project. Or perhaps letting one of them do it, if at all, as they see fit. I don't want to risk straying beyond what the inscription supports and into the realm of original research—although perhaps there is some more recent research incorporating this inscription, seeing as CIL VI has been out for quite a while; the inscription also seems to be discussed in AE on multiple occasions, last in 1903. So could anybody else give this a look? If nothing else, a second opinion on whether to treat the inscription as authoritative with respect to Gratian's praenomen would help. P Aculeius (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The 'f' appears to be just the website's conjectural restoration, and it's much more probable that the stray P stands for the usual p[io felice] than an implausible P[ubli filio]. No emperors after the tetrarchy had praenomina, and 'Flavius' was sort of a status marker that occasionally appeared on inscriptions and papyri; never on such official sources as coins. I think it's safest to simply assume the website got it wrong and, in the absence of better evidence, that those people all had a single name each. Avilich (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The 'f' comes from CIL VI, and is followed by both Dessau and AE—although none of them defines "P. f." I was worried that the inscription ought to be read "Pius Felix", but deferred to the authority of the EDCS and presumed that the interpretation was based on the cited sources; but on further investigation I see that both the EAGLE and EDH databases interpret it as "Pius Felix", and can only suppose that the EDCS transcriber was misled by the lowercase 'f' used to indicate an inferred or reconstructed portion of the text, since conventionally filiations are rendered with lowercase 'f'.

Well, that's a disappointment. But I wouldn't close the door on finding a few praenomina of later emperors (and Avitus' full name is still not definitively established)—it's a bit odd that every emperor up to the tetrarchy has a praenomen, but none after—except perhaps Avitus. It seems almost certain that some of them must have had praenomina which were simply disregarded as unnecessary elements in surviving literature and inscriptions, and the fact that we're unsure of their full nomenclature in so many instances (understandable, since many of them were rather ephemeral) only underscores the possibility. I note that besides the Symmachi, there are a handful of persons with known praenomina from inscriptions of the fifth century, and I found one person with a filiation dated to the end of the fifth century, or the first quarter of the sixth. P Aculeius (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh! And I ran across this curiosity from ICUR III 8158/ICLV 2132: "A(ulo) Tat(iano) et Q(uinto) S<y=V>m(m)a(cho) v[v(iris) cc(larissimis) co(n)ss(ulibus)". This dates to AD 391, the consulship of Flavius Eutolmius Tatianus and Quintus Aurelius Symmachus. While I can't rule out another error—is it possible that this one inscription preserves a praenomen for Tatianus? Not sure what else 'A' could stand for in this position. P Aculeius (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Postscriptum: IRT 462 has this from Neapolis in Africa Proconsularis, referring to Constantius Chlorus: "Fortissimis et Invictissimis Imperatoribus / dd(ominis) nn(ostris) M(arco) Flavio Valerio Constantio P(io) F(elici) Invicto Aug(usto)", which all of the databases seem to agree is the correct reading—there are several photographs, although only one of them was somewhat legible to me. So it seems that we do have the full nomenclature, including praenomen, of the founder of the Constantinian Dynasty! I had hoped to find this on an earlier occasion, but failed—and ran into it by chance this afternoon. For some reason, I always imagined that if Constantine or someone in his family had a praenomen, it would have been Gaius, but this is just as good! I further note that several inscriptions assume that Gaius was the praenomen of Licinian, but in each case the relevant portion of the text is completely missing, and I do not know the source for this interpretation. P Aculeius (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Post-postscriptum: perhaps it's something like CIL 17-4, 354 (not sure how to link this volume): "[Imp(eratori) Caes(ari)] C(aio) Valerio Licinio / [P(io) F(elici) Invicto s]emp(er) A[ug(usto)" in which the name is not interpolated, although much of the rest is. So I think we have prima facie support for the praenomina of Constantius Chlorus and Licinian—there may be other evidence out there, at least for Licinian. Any reason to disbelieve it? P Aculeius (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Post-post-postscriptum: CIL VIII, 9042, from AD 312: "D(omino) n(ostro) / Imperatori / Caes(ari) C(aio) Fla/vio Cons/tantino / Pio Felic<i=E> / Aug(usto) / (!) p(rovinciae) CCLXXIII". Was my guess right?! This sounds like Constantine really did have a praenomen—and it was Gaius! Understandably I'm surprised to keep turning these up, and this might be the last one, although if more turn up then I'll make note of them. But are these finds too good to be true? I expect to wake up any minute and find that I dozed off at my computer and can't find any of this again. P Aculeius (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I remember looking this up some time ago. The RE entries on Constantius I and Constantine both note that they have multiple attested praenomina in some isolated inscriptions, and in the latter entry the author ultimately concludes that none is correct and that the two and all subsequent emperors lacked praenomina. Salway explains that those variants are "hardly surprising given a public which had become unaccustomed to varying praenomina" in the 4th century. No secondary source ultimately calls Licinius "Gaius" and I'm inclined to think that the C stands for Caesar, which is missing in the entry. Avilich (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

CIL X, 7504 from Sicily has "D(omino) n(ostro) C(aio) Aur(elio) Valerio / Constantio Aug(usto)", which from the cognomen should refer to Constantius Chlorus, but besides differing with IRT 462 on his praenomen, it also gives his first nomen as Aurelius. Gaius Aurelius Valerius is the beginning of Diocletian's nomenclature, so I would guess that the author of this inscription erroneously combined Diocletian and Constantius' names—perhaps believing that Constantius was adopted by Diocletian rather than Maximian (whose name was "Marcus Aurelius Valerius"; perhaps "Flavius" was also one of his names, since he had a son Flavius and two daughters named Flavia). Your point about the weakness of these inscriptions—a small number from places other than Rome, with some discrepancies—is well-taken, but the suggestion that they are all mistaken and that there were no praenomina does not seem credible. I think perhaps they deserve at least footnotes with the names in the article leads—mentioning of course that they're possible, but not certain for the reasons you mention. P Aculeius (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, praenomina are completely absent from coins after Diocletian and Maximian, so it seems to me most natural to think that the inconsistent names reported in a few isolated inscriptions are at least largely the result of confusion. Of course, what I think doesn't really matter if reliable sources disagree, and indeed Salway thinks it likely that Constantius Chlorus was called "Marcus", though the RE, PLRE and others are less certain. I see no problem with footnotes, emphasis being given to the possibilities preferred by scholars, but the evidence for emperors other than Constantius is pretty slim (a footnote to Constantine would at most simply mention the variants without expressing preference for any of them). Avilich (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I can already see why with Constantine—after my last post I found two inscriptions calling him Lucius. Going to read Salway [edit: reread, I've read this before, but didn't remember any discussion of the Constantinians] this evening. P Aculeius (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Moving prorogatio into promagistrate

The current articles on promagistrates and prorogatio are mostly duplicatory. I feel they should be merged. A single longer article also is easier to patrol, maintain, and update than two separate ones. Thoughts? Ifly6 (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Cleomenean War

I have nominated Cleomenean War for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Cretan War

I have nominated Cretan War (205–200 BC) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 03:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

"Satyrus of Athens" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Satyrus of Athens and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 5#Satyrus of Athens until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)