Talk:Eurymedon vase

Cited or sited?

"This vase is a frequently sited source" sounds like it should be "cited"? 87.113.103.239 (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the headlines

It is surely still possible to follow 700 odd words of prose without having the drift of each paragraph telegraphed to the reader with a headline? I would hope so anyway. Also what is scholarly evidence? Is it different from the kind of run-of-the-mill evidence us masterless men of the heath might understand? Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, enough with the headlines? This is how Wikipedia works, look at almost any other page in this encyclopedia. If you're going to single out this page for some anti-headline agenda, a better explanation is needed. To remove headlines is to reduce the page to a block of text that is unlike the rest of the articles here. For the sake of consistency and their inherent usefulness I've restored them. Blue Danube (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no agenda, I use headlines where they're appropriate. Here it is not. There is only one section because it is a logical unit and no other is needed. I'd respect your opinion more if you had some content to add instead of tinkering with the format and mindlessly imposing spurious Wikipedia "standards".Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 20:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Here, they are appropriate. Those paragraphs deal with differently nuanced topics; without them, it is of course still a "logical unit" but it becomes transformed into a eyesore block of text that is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. I'd respect your opinion more if you didn't resort to scornful condescension and mindlessly ignoring obvious Wikipedia organizational standards. Blue Danube (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, gotta agree with Blue Danube on this one, the page looks terrible, and doesn't flow well at all as one giant block of text. Stubbornly insisting on keeping the page as he created it, and edit summaries stating 'no thanks', looks a little like Twospoonfuls may be exercising ownership type protection of this page. Twospoonfuls, it is not up to you to say 'no thanks', if you want to revert it, offer a convincing counter-argument.Number36 (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've yet to learn what scholarly evidence is, and how does it differ from the problems of interpretation. Evidence is evidence, there isn't some priestly variety only scholars have access to. This "argument" (if I can dignify it with that Aristotelean term) would be more palatable if it wasn't an attempt to peddle arrant nonsense. And as much as I would be delighted to put forward a counter-argument I can't, because no argument has been posited in the first place. De gustibus non est disputandum.

Seriously, go and find some thing useful to do. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 17:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Like the Sphinx guardians of Greek mythology who posed riddles, Twospoonfuls posed insults to all who dare to edit his articles.

"Seriously, go and find some thing useful to do" ? Twospoonfuls, your arrogance is mindbending. Worse, you're arguing about a complete non sequitur! In your last post you never once addressed the issues of posting subheadings and your inappropriate ownership of the article that me, Number36, and the others are trying to contend with.

Additionally, your familiarity with Latin at least on the regurgitative level isn't interesting in the least, nor does it somehow instantly lend more weight to your ideas. You've thus far proved and demonstrated nothing more than your arrogance, your instant, knee-jerk hatred of Wikipedia style conventions and article layout, and worst, your aversion against engaging other users constructively and civilly. Blue Danube (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

'Scholarly' as an adjective merely indicates that the evidence is characterized by careful evaluation and judgment, that it is critical, intellectual and rational. You could say that some guy telling you something down the pub is evidence, it wouldn't be very good evidence though. Likewise poorly researched facts and unsupported suppositions wouldn't constitute scholarly evidence. Scholarly evidence is evidence which would be suitable for scholars, i.e. people who are learned about and specialists in the given field of knowledge. Specialists would indeed have access to, and knowledge about the evidence moreso than others, pretty much by definition of being specialists. I'm really puzzled as to why such an innocuous adjective is cause for objection. Also, saying that no argument has been put forward to be countered isn't accurate, it's the basis of the objections, a large block of text is messy and not conducive to readability, nor does it correspond with Wikipedia style conventions for these very reasons.Number36 (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Two points have been made here, neither of them have any merit. One that headlines are a wikipedia MoS requirement, and two that the page is an "eyesore" without them.

Let me quote from the MoS: "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that the Manual of Style is not binding, that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." As I said, of taste there is no disputing, and normally I woudn't quibble over a change in layout where it added clarity or there was a significant addition of new information. This is not the case here. To treat User:Julia_Rossi's drive-by edit as if it were a canonical text is absurd enough, but to further claim that every paragraph in a 700 word article needs to be explained in advance is simply intellectually insulting to the reader.

Yes I am proprietorial about about this article in that I put some effort into writing it, I care about the subject and I want it to be presented with as much clarity and detail as possible. It is clear to me that neither of you have anything of substance to contribute to this article and that your edits are solely to do with your egotism. I sincerely wish you would understand how trivializing, self-indulgent and destructive what you are doing is. I am going to treat any more attempts at reversion as vandalism. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 00:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So, to begin, let it be known immediately that you've entirely fabricated the claim that we said headlines are an MOS requirement. Neither of us ever referred to the MOS, nor used the term requirement. What we said is that it is a consistency issue and a style convention issue. These are not identical with the MOS, which of course never has "requirements" anyway as it isn't policy. Everything in your first paragraph as such doesn't apply to this discussion at all.

Second, only you have taken insult to the addition of headlines. You're the only person in the article's history who doesn't like them. Only you have been "insulted" by a good faith edit. I only ask you one thing, that you take a moment to ask yourself why you're "insulted" about the addition of helpful headlines that everyone else agrees is a good contribution.

Third, your claim that I have "nothing to contribute" is pathetic. Of course I didn't write the paragraphs but my restoration of the headlines is meaningful to

1) Number36

2) Julia Rossi

3) 149.254.200.222

4) MisfitToys

5) me

... who have all added headlines. Perhaps it's "nothing" to you. But I recommend that you take a moment and look outside the comfort of your personal bubble to see that this isn't quibbling. You're not only the minority opinion, which is fine, but you also have posed no real argument against the headlines other than that you're personally insulted, which is borderline madness.

Finally, if you were so concerned about the presentation of the article, you would be willing to let others improve it. Instead you revert the identical work of at least five different individuals and claim it is "trivializing, self-indulgent and destructive". How can three separate editors be acting like this? We're simply trying to improve the article. Rather, I truly wish you undertsood how "trivializing, self-indulgent and destructive" you're inability to have a civil discussion and your unthinking hatred of headlines that consensus has agreed upon is. Our work isn't vandalism, so you cannot revert it as such. It's consensus. Blue Danube (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This entire fruitless discussion has only been about layout and style, not content. As the major contributor the decision is mine to take per the MoS guidelines; there will be no headlines until there is significantly more content. If you disagree feel free to take it to arbcom. You're only wasting your own time. Otherwise this discussion is closed. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 14:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's "fruitless" because you refuse to address the paramount issue of consensus, and your contradictory appeal to the MOS is nonsensical. You don't have the authority to close discussions, and you don't have the authority to call consensus "vandalism". Sorry man. Blue Danube (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Provenance

Is there any information on the vase's provenance, such as the time/place of its excavation? In some brief searching I've been unable to find anything about where it was prior to Hamburg. --Delirium (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080324235953/http://www.mkg-hamburg.de:80/mkg.php/en/sammlungen/antike/~P7/ to http://www.mkg-hamburg.de/mkg.php/en/sammlungen/antike/~P7/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)