Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 43

Supposed son of Pomponius Atticus?

The article Attica (wife of Agrippa) claims that she had an older brother, and the section for her aunt here Pomponia#Pomponia, sister of Titus Pomponius Atticus names some nephew named "Titus Servilius Pomponianus". These claims seem to have been on Wikipedia for over a decade, but I can find no evidence that Atticus ever had a son.★Trekker (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The article on Atticus in the DGRBM says that Attica was the only child of Atticus and his wife, and I see no entries for a Servilius Pomponianus under any likely heading. We don't have any corresponding person listed in either Pomponia gens or Servilia gens, nor do I see one in PIR. I looked in PW and found Atticus in one of the supplements, but it is a lengthy article, and my German is not good enough to search it properly. I found no inscriptions for a person by this name in the C-S Datenbank. A Google search showed no results except for Wikipedia in a couple of languages, and one or two sites that might be based on Wikipedia. I can't rule out a legitimate reason for the claim, but at this stage my impression is that it's either a hoax or a misunderstanding of some kind. P Aculeius (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking through DPRR, there doesn't seem to be any indication as to those claims either. [Edit. A search through for anyone called "Titus Servilius" yields 0 results.] Ifly6 (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I feel like if Atticus had had a son it would be impossible for him to have escaped mention in any of Ciceros letters unless he was born/adopted after Ciceros death. Where the name "Servilius" for the son came from I have a hard time even guessing. Atticus was a close friend of Servilia and she lived with him after the Second Triumvirates proscriptions, but to infer that he had adopted a relative of hers, or his son adopted by her relations, seems pure genealogical fiction to me.★Trekker (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi again @Ifly6 and P Aculeius:, unless there are any objections I think I will delete any info on this soon.★Trekker (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to object—prompted by this reminder, I looked in PW under "Servilius" and was unable to locate any Pomponianus, either in the main volume covering the gens or in any of the supplements. A search of the Perseus Greek and Roman materials for "Pomponianus" showed no Servilii. I think you're on safe ground deleting it—if anything turns up later it can always be re-added. P Aculeius (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

It appears to me to be fictitious. If it existed, it would show up in DPRR or, failing that, anywhere else. I'd go for removal. Ifly6 (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Lysippides and Lysippides Painter

The articles Lysippides and Lysippides Painter are both abouth the same vase painter, the Lysippides Painter. The article Lysippides has some issues, so the impression, a Lysippides would be a potter or vase painter (no, the Lysippides Painter was names after a Kalos inscription on a vase). Redirect or combination, both possible (but not for me, I'm not fluent enough in english to write articles) - this issue must get fixed, it causes problems on Wikidata. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. Since the painter wasn't actually called Lysippides, I think it makes sense to merge to Lysippides Painter and turn Lysippides into a redirect (or a disambig if other Lysippidai show up). Furius (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with both; I have done a quick merge to Lysippides Painter (diff) leaving Lysippides as {{R from merge}}. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

GAR for Battle of Lechaeum

Battle of Lechaeum has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 18:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Clarissimus vir

Clarissimus vir is a redirect to Senate of the Roman Republic, a page which does not mention the term at any point. Is there a better target? On first look, we don't seem to have a page that deals with this directly, despite having pages for Vir illustris and Vir gloriosus. Furius (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Constitution of the Late Roman Empire (section header "Counts") is at least within the relevant time-frame, and thus a marginally better target, though woefully undersourced. The earliest attestation seems to be in AD 160. It was introduced as an honorific title for senators, so maybe that's why whoever-it-was linked it to the Republican senate article. Haploidavey (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

vir clarissimus and clarissimus both already redirect to Constitution of the Late Roman Empire#Counts (having previously targetted Senate of the Roman Republic); I have retargetted clarissimus vir to match them. If someone finds a better target, or writes a standalone article, probably all three redirects should be changed. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Vir clarissimus was the courtesy style of Roman senators from the second century onward. It seems to have been official from this time, although senators were informally described as clarissimi from at least the time of Cicero, who uses the term in a similar fashion, although probably just descriptively. In the latter part of the fourth century, the most prominent senators seem to have begun acquiring additional titles, some of which I listed, with descriptions, along with equestrian titles and some related material, in my sandbox, as it occasionally helps me understand inscriptions concerning prominent Romans. P Aculeius (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know this. What are you suggesting should be done? Furius (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Makes no sense at the present target; would be better discussed at Roman senate, or perhaps a stand-alone article about Roman titles—either senatorial, or senatorial and equestrian. I've considered writing about them before, but never had the time to search for the sources necessary to support such an article. What I have is quite skimpy, or summarized from sources I don't have full access to—which is why it's just part of my sandbox. P Aculeius (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Request for comments at Talk:Astrology

There is a RfC about how to word the first sentences of the lead at Talk:Astrology#Request for comments: Lead paragraph which may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Spartan naval art: Ivory plaque

The title of this article is weird and should be changed, but I don't know how. I'm not even sure it's notable enough; it could be merged into Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia. Any idea? T8612 (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that it looks very strange (Might it be a student assignment?). Concerning that it has apparently been around for so long! The existence of the Pridemore article/note and the various sources it cites make it likely that the item is notable. According to that piece it is "by far" the largest ivory item found in the sanctuary of Orthia and is important as an early Greek depiction of a sea-going vessel. Commons has an image of the object here [1]... but I can't seem to find any common name for this object, so something like "Ivory plaque depicting a ship (NAMA ####)" might be best (where #### is whatever its National Archaeological Museum inventory number is - Pridemore doesn't give it).The other references on the wiki page are all taken over from the Pridemoore article. The relevant page numbers are: Casson p. 50-53 [May not actually be relevant], Dawkins 1929, pp. 203-215, Morrison & Williams, p. 83. The original publication is in Dawkins "Excavations at Sparta, 1907" BSA 13 (1906-1907) 1-136, but Pridemore doesn't give a page reference. Furius (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Certainly notable. Spartan ivory plaque with ship would be better - it was the only one found at the site. It could be merged - there's a section on votive offerings. Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the topic appears to be notable. Lots of individual archaeological artefacts are, even ones which like this are sufficiently obscure that they don't really have a common name. I agree that the current article name isn't great, and think Johnbod's suggestion of Spartan ivory plaque with ship would be an improvement. An alternative would be to use whatever the NAMA catalogue number is, which has the disadvantage of being obscure to lay readers, but the advantage of unambiguously identifying what we're talking about to experts.

My concern with merging this to Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia would be due weight. Currently that page has only 373 words in the entire section on votive offerings, and doesn't discuss any specific objects, but rather broad classes of object; adding 250 words on a single specific object would significantly skew the coverage. For all of the problems with having bitty little articles on individual objects, I don't see in this case that a merger doesn't create more problems than it solves. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Fine. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I suggest the title Artemis Orthia Sanctuary naval plaque, because the object seems strongly associated with the sanctuary, so it's probably better to add it in the title. We can perhaps add the NAMA number too. T8612 (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"ship" is better than "naval", but neither is good for searching. Absent similar objects with articles, we should not put the number in the title. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Would merging to Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia really unbalance an article that's about 2,400 words long, excluding references etc? To put it another way, if everything was already in the votive objects section there, would we think the sanctuary article improved by moving the plaque content to its own article, or would we see that as diminishing the significance of the sanctuary and prefer keep its finest item? Also, at first glance, the Sanctuary article much more clearly passes the generic WP:GNG test by having a number of sources specifically focused on the subject, while the plaque only seems to have one. NebY (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

At least 2, as it gets good coverage in excavation report. I'm neutral on merging. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it does make sense as a separate article - Morrison & Williams' piece (and Pridemore's) supports the claim that it's an important object for naval historians, not just for people interested in the Orthia sanctuary. It also appears in Hampe and Simon 1980 Birth of Greek Art, 223 fig. 358 as "The Abduction of Helen" and in Maringou Lakonische Elfenbein- und Beinschnitzereien (1969), but I cannot find the page. Since it doesn't seem to have a standard name, I think the two neutral suggestions: "Spartan ivory plaque with ship" and "Artemis Orthia Sanctuary naval plaque" are good. The former seems slightly preferable. Furius (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'll let this run for a day or two, then move it. Actually I'll copy all this to the article page - all further comments there please. Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Niskus,‎ Rincaleus, Sianna and Vesunna

User:Dgeorgieff created articles on Romano-Celtic/Thracian deities Niskus,‎ Rincaleus, Sianna and‎ Vesunna using papers on Researchgate written by ‎Dimitar Georgieff. Would anyone like to look at the articles as the papers may not be reliable sources for Wikipedia? TSventon (talk) 05:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the articles are fine stubs - at the moment, very few points are sourced solely from the Georgieff articles and these mostly seem to be uncontroversial factual matters. The Researchgate articles do not seem to be advancing fringe theories. I accept that the lack of peer review makes them less than ideal as sources and of course the editor is also the author of the articles. But at the same time, he has access to scholarly material in Bulgarian that others don't and is clearly knowledgeable on the topic. So, hopefully, we can collaborate! Furius (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Furius, thank you, I just wanted somebody else to have a look. I have done some language edits to the Niskus article. TSventon (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

issue about a page

this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_education_among_Illyrians that was previously called Illyrian Education after my change presents just ancient greek scholarship and nothing Illyrian as their language is not even codified, article full of original research articles and the utter use of a single albanian source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Admn19190123 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Ancestry of Trajan

Hi, I have been researching this topic recently and I have found some sources that I would like to get input on, this one which I think is in Spanish, and these 2, 3 and 4. I'm unsure of the reliability of the first and last ones. ★Trekker (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Disputed inscription at Artoria gens

There's a very vigorous dispute over the interpretation of an inscription at Artoria gens concerning a second- or third-century soldier named Lucius Artorius Castus (whose article is also involved in the dispute), and it really needs input from some of our classicists who aren't already involved. The specific issues go beyond my level of expertise, but as I understand it, one side is arguing that Castus was a Severan-dynasty general in command of three entire legions, while the other side maintains that the more likely interpretation is that he was an Antonine general in charge of detachments from three legions. This side argues that their opponents are (1) motivated by their desire to prove that Castus was one inspiration—perhaps the primary one—for King Arthur, (2) that they themselves are the authors of books or articles promoting this theory, and (3) that this is a fringe theory that has been dismissed or discredited by all serious scholars. The other side argues that the theory is published in peer-reviewed journals and ought to be included—and a third party who joined one of the disputes (it's spread across several pages, including the talk pages of some participants, as well as my own talk page) agreed that the author of a published work could technically cite it in an article, as long as the potential conflict of interest was disclosed.

The personal arguments are probably beyond untangling. But the interpretation of the inscription, and whether a link between Castus and Arthur is plausible, or the publications represent only a fringe theory, should be things that the classicists here can form an opinion about in order to resolve the underlying dispute. As I said, my own understanding of military inscriptions is limited—mostly to what published sources make of them, if they're not perfectly transparent. So I'd really appreciate some help with this, or the current edit war is going to continue (and it might even with help, but at least then we can say we tried)! P Aculeius (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: Oh my, sounds like a complicated but interesting dispute.★Trekker (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so it seems to me that the user Emryswledig seems to be exhibiting very strong POV pushing vibes to me, even if his interpretation is plausible (I don't know if it actually is).★Trekker (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I came here to notify this WikiProject of this exact dispute, too (which actually seems to center around the here: Talk:Lucius Artorius Castus#Edit War instigated by Linda Malcor and her co-authors and other sections of that talk page. It's very clear that the editors involved have some sort of specialist background and unfortunately are also having a hard time grasping issues with WP:OR and such. It does seem, based on my very lay understanding, that the current state of the article might be extremely fringe, but someone with more expertise and time to sort through the arguments would be super helpful. I'll give you a barnstar for patience or something for it if you do, I insist... WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 14:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure just how many people are really involved—and like I said, this goes beyond my expertise, although clearly private e-mails from an author fail any measure of reliability—although I think where the interpretation of something is ambiguous, it's really hard to disregard what an author actually says he or she meant—but then we have no way of verifying that it's the author's e-mail, which is part of the reason we can't go by it. Anyway, I had hoped someone else in the project could help settle the argument between these people. For the time being, it only affects one entry at Artoria gens, and that only partially. The other article I have no involvement with, but I curate all articles on Roman gentes, and the back-and-forth warring over one entry was getting worrisome. The rest of the article should be fine, unless something about Castus has worked itself elsewhere in the article without my noticing. P Aculeius (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

GA reassessment for First Macedonian War

First Macedonian War has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 15:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

War of Mutina?

What do people think is the correct title for the conflict in 43 BC between the senate led by Cicero and Antony? I see here and there "War of Mutina" but haven't really done much looking on alternatives. I mention it because Template:Campaignbox Roman Republican civil wars and Template:Ancient Roman Wars include links for "Mutina" but only to the battle. There doesn't appear to be an overarching campaign or war page (where a lot of the background material from Mutina and Forum Gallorum probably ought to be moved). Ifly6 (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

From my perspective, these battles form part of (or at the very least, the prelude to) the Liberators' civil war. Antony's action at this point was driven, in part, to remove Decimus Junius Brutus from his posting in revenge for Brutus's involvement in Caesar's assassination. It makes sense to me to include it under that overarching umbrella, even though that title is generally used for events after the formation of the second triumvirat. Oatley2112 (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

While I agree that the LCW is related to this conflict, I'm not sure whether they are part and one of the same. Antony's motivations seem more to be enforcement of his (illegal) law granting him the provinces of Cis- and Transalpine Gaul. Decimus (and Plancus, in Transalpine Gaul) were simply there. Ifly6 (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

A search on google books brings up a number of references to the War of Mutina or the Mutina War. Most of these date from the 19th century, but see [2] and (if Pen & Sword counts as an RS) [3]. "Battle of Mutina" is much more common, so I guess the question is whether the battle really has to be considered part of a specific war, rather than just being a standalone battle within the broader period of civil war from 45-30. Furius (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I found "War of Mutina" and "Mutina war" in Morstein-Marx, Julius Caesar and the Roman people (Camb UP, 2021) pp. 330, 421. I think that's perhaps enough to go with? But I agree that Battle of Mutina is much more common, but that may also be because that battle was one of the turning points in Octavian's career. I'm not sure as to whether the conflict, which is not perfectly captured as Caesarians vs Liberators (Hirtius and Pansa especially) should be put alongside the LCW and would trend against. Ifly6 (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Also found similar terminology in the OCD. I'm going to go with it. Ifly6 (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I point out that in Latin the words for "battle" and "war" are somewhat interchangeable. That probably accounts for the discrepancy—that and the English-speaking historian's point of view as to whether it was a distinct campaign or part of a larger conflict. P Aculeius (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Roman command structure during First Mithridatic War

Does anybody know what we could do about this article: Roman command structure during First Mithridatic War? It's almost entirely original research, with some huge Greek citations and personal opinions. Other editors have taken issues with it on the talk page, but no action was taken. Personally, I don't think that the subject is notable enough to deserve an article. It could be dealt with in First Mithridatic War. T8612 (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It reads like someone's undergraduate/MA dissertation, so I wonder whether we should check that it's not a copyvio. There's also loads of irrelevant material, especially the general introduction to inscriptions & the history of the Roman navy. As you say, most of the rest is original research. Furius (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The history of the article shows that it was written incrementally over the course of six months and nearly 500 edits; based purely on that I think it unlikely that it is a copyvio. Earwig also doesn't find anything concerning on that front. On the other hand, it is clearly {{essay-like}} and {{overly detailed}}; it looks like original research looks to also be a concern. I'm not at all sure if the topic is notable at all: certainly the sources cited don't seem to demonstrate meeting GNG. Looking at the history, it seems as though the article was originally part of First Mithridatic War but was spun out due to length; whether it is notable enough to merit being a standalone article doesn't seem to have been discussed ever. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, right @Botteville:, then, as the one who seems to have worked on this at greatest length (though it seems initial creation on First Mithridatic War is due to the inactive Appietas?). Furius (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah right, Furius, full of sound and fury signifying nothing. Why is anyone asking us here what to do about this article? Why aren't you doing it if you find things contrary to the policy? There's nothing I know of stopping you. Are you unfamiliar with the editing tags? Is there something needing a consensus? I don't believe you need anyone's permission to go to work. WP encourages us to be aggressive. Is this discussion the sum of your aggression? Too bad. Instead of fixing or trying to fix what is wrong you go to a lot of trouble to ferret out a name which you gang up to castigate, asking each other's permission to do so. I'm supposed to take this seriously? But I do. I find there is nothing here to take seriously. A few people state some opinions without any specifics. I can think of several tags you could put on. Is it experience you lack here? As I recall, though, it does sound a bit like a classics department (not a compliment). Well, sonny, when you get your courage screwed up enough to make an adult edit, you have my permission to have at it, as if you needed it. So "we" are doing something about this reportedly awful article. "We" are setting you upon it, and hopefully all your companions. Surely with so many working on it, it should come out right. For myself, frankly, I bow out. I can't remember it anyway and I'm not getting tangled up in your web. Don't yank my chain again. I would recommend, however, that you follow the rules in your editing, as you never know who might be following you.Botteville (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a rather extreme reaction, considering that Furius seems to have pinged you as a courtesy in case you had something to say about the article. Have the editors above been overly critical? Perhaps, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion—but all you have to do is explain the reasons for the article's structure, or that you think it could be fixed up with a little work (and they might be perfectly willing to help with that if you ask). Or maybe with the passage of time, it might seem to you better folded back in with the original source article, or combined with some other article. Despite his homonymity, I've generally found Furius to be quite reasonable, and I think everyone in this discussion would be willing to listen if you want to make your case for the article either as it stands, or with some plan of modification. Why not take a deep breath, and approach the question from a fresh perspective? It might be as simple as clarifying the purpose of the article to justify having it, shoring up the statements with more sources, and revising the language to attribute opinions to historical or scholarly sources, and avoid the impression that they're those of Wikipedia editors. It's no stain on your reputation to find that something you've written or contributed to a while ago is in need of revision. P Aculeius (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I was too brief and I see how that message would have come across poorly, but I really didn't mean it to be. I just thought that you might have thought about this more than us and might want to have a say. If not, that's fine! :) Furius (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Maecia Faustina vs Antonia Gordiana

Is there any good reason to have the article on Gordian I's daughter at "Antonia Gordiana"? While the name "Maecia Faustina" is disputed due to the Historia Augusta's unreliablity, the name "Antonia Gordiana" doesn't seem to have actually been used by any reliable souces whatsoever based on a Google search. ★Trekker (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

A lot of names, it seems, were created out of thin air for Wikipedia. If there are actually no sources corroborating, I think you should rename the page. Ifly6 (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@StarTrekker: The Sources of the Historia Augusta by Timothy David Barnes in 1978, from Latomus journal has it; not sure if there's a lot of others but there's at least some RS for it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ifly6 and Iazyges:Interesting, he states The Historia Augusta furnishes the fictitious name ' Maecia Faustina. In any event , the mother deserved to be registered in prosopographical manuals as a presumed Antonia Gordiana. As I understand it all the backround given on Gordianus' family in the AH was assumed to be false for a while (such as his father being named Maecius Marullus), but since then an inscription attesting to a Maecius Marullus who was the son of a Maecius Faustinus has cropped up, so some recent historians seem to have rethought this a little. Not sure what to do.★Trekker (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If you've got access to the sources (and are willing to do this), the best way forward might be to bring the article up to date first, by which time it might be clearer what the current mainstream practice is. If there isn't a obvious current practice, then I think we should go with Maecia Faustina (since that's the name found in the primary source and it's used by e.g. Syme as a name of convenience), with a note explaining the situation. Furius (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Furius: I will try to improve the article and see what comes of it.★Trekker (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Prima Porta Augustus

Is the current assessment of start-class still valid considering the length of the article? I am perhaps thinking of bringing it up to GA-status & I just want a ballpark as to how much I have to add. Cheers X-750 _{List of articles that I have screwed over} 23:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

At a glance, it looks like it's probably more of a B-class article than a start class one. In general, ratings other than GA and FA tend to be pretty meaningless – it's very common for articles to be significantly improved without being re-rated. In this case, the article was rated start class in 2009, and despite more than 400 edits since, has not been re-assessed.

To get it up to GA, you will certainly need to fix the two {{citation needed}} tags, and it's likely that at least the three paragraphs without a single inline citation will also be challenged. At 2,700 words on a single object, generally I would be more concerned with polishing up what's already there than expanding the article unless there are aspects which are obviously missing. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Caeciliusinhorto-public. X-750 _{List of articles that I have screwed over} 20:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

List of condemned Roman emperors article?

Came across this article, List of condemned Roman emperors, which has been hiding since 2006 with no more than ~50 edits. Not sure if the topic is appropriate or relevant enough for its own page, so I seek the insight of others better versed in this topic. Aza24 (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:LISTN gives guidance on when lists are appropriate, the primary guideline being One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. This article is so badly in sourced that there's absolutely no evidence currently in the article that it meets this bar, though I could certainly believe that it might. I would also be concerned about the title: does "condemned Roman emperors" really mean the same thing as "emperors who suffered damnatio memoriae"? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Brought to AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of condemned Roman emperors. Aza24 (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:Ancient Greek and Roman wars

What to do with Template:Ancient Greek and Roman wars? It seems redundant with both Template:Ancient Greek wars and Template:Ancient Roman Wars. It's only used in 15 articles, so I think a deletion is doable. T8612 (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. They're really two different subjects, with a small period of overlap—a few wars that should appear in both categories—but I see no real advantage to a template that combines both of them. P Aculeius (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

In several of the (few!) cases where we use {{Ancient Greek and Roman Wars}}, one or other of {{Ancient Greek wars}} and {{Ancient Roman Wars}} seems obviously the more appropriate template – Classical Athens should probably just use {{Ancient Greek wars}}, for instance. I can only see a few cases where the joint navbox is even plausibly useful, and I suspect in those cases either the navbox isn't needed at all (Classical antiquity doesn't need such a specific navbox when it already has {{Ancient Greece topics}} and {{Ancient Rome topics}}) or we could just use both the Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman wars navboxes – as we already do at Achaean War and Aetolian War, the two most obvious cases where a joint navbox might be justifiable! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Taking a look, I think Caeciliusinhorto's alternative is probably the best option. I'd support deletion of the joined template (or perhaps redirect to a page telling the user to use both the templates for Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman wars. Ifly6 (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I removed the template from the mainspace, but the prod template doesn't work. Anybody knows how to delete a template? T8612 (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@T8612: I've brought it to TFD. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Rape and mythological subjects: potential issue

Another editor has opened a discussion at Talk:Endymion (mythology) concerning his intention to describe Endymion as a "rape victim" and the goddess Selene as a "rapist", adding them to corresponding categories. The argument is that since Endymion was asleep, he could not give his consent and therefore was "raped" each night by the goddess. To me this seems like a jarring confusion between modern social concepts and classical mythology, and is both inappropriate and unencyclopedic. But in order to build consensus for or against this argument, the input of other editors is necessary. I hope some other members of this project will take a minute to weigh in, and help build consensus one way or the other. P Aculeius (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I think in these cases we shouldn't go beyond the sources and impose our own judgement. If modern scholarly literary commentators describe it as a rape, be it under the modern definition or not, that is how it should be described. I did a cursory search and found nothing of the sort. Ifly6 (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Is "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography" reliable source

Is Dictionary of Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography by William Smith considered a reliable source in wikipedia. Gre regiment (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, very much so. Although it's an older source, it's very comprehensive, written by the best scholars of their time, and cites Greek and Roman sources, as well as later scholarship. And of course it's in English—the only more comprehensive source for many geographical topics will be Pauly-Wissowa, which is in German—and can be a bit difficult to navigate, although you can find copies online if you look. Because it's an older source, I suggest supplementing it with more recent scholarship where you can find it. There probably won't be a lot of conflicts; basic facts don't usually go out of date, although interpretations of uncertain evidence or social matters may. But a good article ought to cite multiple scholarly sources—and should probably also include citations to the original Greek, Roman, Byzantine, medieval, and modern sources that the secondary sources use. You may find that the Greek and Roman ones in particular mention interesting details that the encyclopedias have omitted. P Aculeius (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Depends on what you're discussing. I would say on matters related to the early Roman republic, not really. A lot of scholarship is rather critical of literary sources (Wiseman, inter alia, most so) related to Rome's archaic period. Those literary sources are what makes up a substantial portion of the narratives given by Smith et al. Views of the reliability of sources even in the early late republic also have changed in the intervening 170 years. For example, archaeological evidence has disproven many literary claims related to the state of Italian agriculture and depopulation in the Gracchan period, which undermines the narratives in Appian and Plutarch on those characters. Appian's narrative of the Social War also is well criticised by, among others, Mouritsen Italian Unification (1998).

In many cases, the literary sources are not so doubted. Consequently, Smith is "still surprisingly useful over factual matters that depend more or less exclusively on ancient literary sources, where its entries tend to be both thorough and accurate". There have however been substantial changes in the way the literary sources are received in current scholarship; I would keep pace with the current scholarship, which is not that difficult given Wikipedia Library gives us all access to the Oxford Classical Dictionary (praised already in its first edition as "new Smith") and Oxford Bibliographies. If you are going to use Smith, to be responsible, you should also look it up in the OCD and OxBib. By the point you did that though, you could just skip Smith and just cite the OCD and OxBib results. Ifly6 (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I find the claim that the Oxford Classical Dictionary could be so described rather absurd, however. I have the second edition, and used it widely for research before I had regular access to the DGRBM and DGRG, and was quite frequently frustrated by how brief and cursory articles on various topics were, and how many subjects were skipped altogether. Between them these two encyclopedias include five volumes, each of which is more substantial than the entire OCD. The OCD is more up-to-date, but its coverage is comparatively skimpy, even being generous. PW is your comprehensive source on some topics—but finding them is sometimes a pain, and translating them burdensome if you don't speak German—and, as my father complained when I asked him to translate an article for me years ago—a particularly dense and impenetrable academic German, at times—although I find that Google Translate does a passable job, if you can accurately type long passages filled with citations that you have to excise in order for GT to have a chance—even though this makes it much more difficult to figure out which citations go with what passages. If you're dealing with an article many pages long, this simply isn't practical, unless it's vital to your work and time is of secondary importance. But any of these sources can be a good starting point (to which I would add the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, a one-volume encyclopedia by the same core of scholars, and Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities, which covers much of the same ground, but with less detail in some areas and more in others). Yes, they are older sources, but for a general framework around which you can build using both ancient and recent sources that might provide more detail and different perspectives, they will all do very well. P Aculeius (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Some of the time, if you're using RE, you don't need to type it out. The German Wikisource RE team did it already. Eg Cornelius 106 (L Cinna). Even so, the RE entries are also not always reflective of current scholarship. Cornelius 106 was written in 1900; models of Roman republican politics have changed substantially in the last 122 years. How we view Cinna's "dominatio" has changed substantially. OCD also lives in a world where there are other specialised sources. Broughton is always helpful on offices, Zmeskal 2009 is really helpful on genealogies. It is in German, but it's so formulaic you don't really need know any. Crawford's RRC also deserves mention. Ifly6 (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Rereading the above, I recommend the OCD (4th Edition) review by Peter Green, linked in the notes to this discussion. It points out the strengths and weaknesses of older and newer sources. In some places archaeology has uncovered new and important details, and revealed new insights into ancient cities and other sites. So in these instances older sources, such as those readily available in the public domain, will be inadequate. However, newer sources frequently focus on narrow topics, or present relatively brief synopses of broader ones. For these, the depth of scholarship in older sources, particularly analyzing the literary record (i.e. ancient and medieval historians, philosophers, etc.) can provide significantly greater coverage. In some instances one type of source will be more helpful than the other. I still recommend beginning with older sources, if they have significant coverage, and working your way forward to the most recent. But in some cases they won't have much to say—you may do better starting with the OCD or a specialist publication and working your way back. In few cases will any source cover everything there is to say, or provide every perspective. P Aculeius (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I would tend to recommend the opposite – if good modern sources exist, we should start with them, and only if there is no recent in-depth coverage of a topic should we go to Smith. If Smith agrees with the best modern sources, then he's redundant. If Smith disagrees with the best modern sources, then what he says may be of interest for the evolution of views on a topic, in which case we should cite a historiographically-minded modern source. If Smith includes details which high-quality modern sources don't mention, then we should question whether or not it is due weight to include them. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Caecilius, especially with If Smith agrees with the best modern sources, then he's redundant. If Smith conflicts with the best modern sources (something you won't know unless you read them), then he's wrong and shouldn't be included. This creates something of a Morton's fork. He is, however, an authoritative source as to 19th century views. When it comes to the OCD, the bibliographies at the bottom of each entry should be looked into first when coverage is sparse. OxBib is exceptionally helpful unless there is no corresponding bibliographical essay. The OCD also has moved online after OCD⁴. We have access to the online version in its whole. It is updated regularly. For example, new articles on optimates and populares, Cicero (split into life, letters, speeches, etc), the dictatorship, etc were published recently by Yakobson, Tempest, Vervaet (respectively) replacing entries in OCD⁴. And because abandoning print also means the length limitations fell away, these updated articles are also much more complete. Ifly6 (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

As to Green's review (see refs below), it is no defence of Smith. Green's criticism of OCD⁴ is incompatible with a Smith defence when it revolves around OCD⁴ not including things that he thinks are important:

• "The number of articles replaced, rather than revised, in OCD⁴ is a striking testimony to the rapid advance of innovative scholarship, methodologies, and archaeological or related discoveries during that period ... with some it is primarily a new way of looking at familiar material".
• "It is as though the historical background [of Troy and Homer] was off-limits for literary theorists. Professor Latacz's brilliant synthesis of recent key discoveries [in 2004]... may be cited under 'Criticism' in the bibliography... but it's findings and basic topic are carefully ignored".
• "Parsons' measured and happily unadventurous article on Callimachus is repeated unchanged from OCD³... why then do both editions studiously ignore Frank Nisetich's useful and comprehensive [2001 book] which provides the reader (and others) with what has for long been a prime desiderandum, ie a complete annotated and reasonably up-to-date translation of all available Callimachean material".
• "Each print edition of OCD gets a little heavier... without ever managing to stay ahead of the game for more than a year or two, if that". (The concluding sentence, amid an argument that printed dictionaries like OCD⁴ are inherently flawed because they cannot rapidly incorporate new research.)

That criticism does not exonerate Smith. What Green remarks upon is how certain portions of Smith have stood the test of time ("research primarily dependent on unchanging ancient sources"). He then immediately contrasts this with research that "seeks to chart the course of evolving intellectual thought". Green says Graves' Greek Myths is "a standing reminder and awful warning of the traps [Smith's dictionaries] contain" for "the non-professional reader". He concludes by saying that OCD⁴ should, as a print book, try to play to certain strengths which are shown in certain portions of Smith. Green does not defend Smith's dictionaries as much as he uses them as illustrative ("there is, surely, a lesson to be learnt here") of where OCD ought to go from 2012. Ifly6 (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

No. Obsolete 19th-century source, not cited in modern works. Copying DGR public domain entries into wikipedia articles is a forgivable beginner's mistake, but in the age of freely available information in the internet it's time to outgrow it. Avilich (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Notes

References

RE numbers

Would it be possible for us to get some kind of template or parameter added which we can use to link biographical articles to RE numbers? Eg, if it were possible to get something added (probably module in an info box?) where L Cornelius Cinna is Cornelius 106. Or, if we have it already, could someone point it out to me? Ifly6 (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ifly6: That might be something that would be good to contact Wikidata for.★Trekker (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you clarify? Ifly6 (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ifly6: As I understand it Wikidata can help add such things automatically globaly on infoboxes/other templates, The {{Professional wrestling profiles}} template extracts info from Wikidata when its posted in a wrestlers article.★Trekker (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't that require either

• adding a wikidata RE parameter to {{infobox person}} (currently "used on approximately 444,000 pages, or roughly 1% of all pages") or creating a new eg {{infobox person in ancient history}}

and preferably encouraging editors to turn on watchlisting of Wikidata changes in case of over-enthusiastic additions of RE numbers to Wikidata items based on, for example, similarities in names?

On the plus side, there's already been some work done adding RE numbers to wikidata, so that [this entry] refers to both Cornelius 106 and Cornelius 105. I don't know if an infobox template could conveniently access those. NebY (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

There should be a link to the RE on Wikisource. T8612 (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that Wikidata should have such a link? I couldn't see it in [this entry], but I don't look at Wikidata often. NebY (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Or that we should use {{Wikisourcehas}}? Something like this? {{Template:Wikisourcehas|1=the relevant RE entry|2=[[s:de:RE:Cornelius_106|RE:Cornelius 106]]}} NebY (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean if a code for an infobox link to the RE is created, it should link to the entry on Wikisource. T8612 (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes. It looks like a new embeddable module template could do it, but I've no experience in that. I've just now discovered that {{Wikisourcehas}} can be embedded in {{infobox person}} per this demo, maybe I'd better leave it at that and hope someone else steps in! NebY (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Lucius Cornelius Cinna
Died	84 BC
Nationality	Roman Republic
Occupation	Statesman
Office	Consul (87–84 BC)
Spouse	Annia
Children	Cornelia (1), Cornelia (wife of Caesar) and L. Cornelius Cinna

I don't feel as if we really want to link specifically to Wikisource (also note that sometimes the DE Wikisouce people haven't digitised – or manually entered, oof, – the specific entry; I think this was the case with Vatinius or Curio). Just having the right indexing number would be great to put just at the bottom of the infobox or something like that. Maybe something like Draft:Template:Infobox Realencyclopadie? Ifly6 (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@StarTrekker: Do you know anything about how to contact Wikidata on this? Ifly6 (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ifly6: Yes, we just need to go to Wikidata talk:WikiProject Ancient Rome and type out {{ping project|Ancient Rome}} for all participants to be notified.★Trekker (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Per this discussion, apparently some Roman characters already have RE numbers in WikiData. This is great news! That said, I have no idea about how we would extract that WikiData information into info box templates or something of the like on en-wiki side; does anyone on the board know anything about that? (I imagine it's script based; although I'm a programmer, en-wiki's backend is way out of my scope.) Ifly6 (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Sulla's Proscriptions and ban on remarriage

Hello - I was commenting on Talk:Mucia Tertia about Mucia's possible first marriage to Gaius Marius the Younger (as per Plutarch), but have noted that on the article page there is a query on the supposed ban on the wives of the proscribed, with them being unable to remarry after their husband's death under the Sullan Proscription laws. I cannot find any source that backs that statement, and in fact the only place I am aware of where this is stated in in Colleen McCullough's Fortune's Favourites. This statement also exists on the Proscription page as well.

I have gone through the major primary sources (Plutarch, Appian, Dio, Cicero's Pro Roscio Amerino), and none of these nor the secondary sources I've checked (Keaveney Sulla: The Last Republican; Santangelo Sulla, the Elites and the Empire: A Study of Roman Policies in Italy and the Greek East; Telford Sulla: A Dictator Reconsidered) explicitly state this. Does anyone know of a source that confirms this Sullan ban on remarriage? Oatley2112 (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm writing a draft on Sulla's proscription after Hinard, the reference source on the subject, and he never speaks of such a ban. You can safely remove this part. The number of people who have used McCullough's books as source on Wikipedia is quite shocking. T8612 (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Oatley2112 (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Ai-Khanoum now at FAC

Hi there - I have nominated Ai-Khanoum at FAC here. This is my first FA nomination, so any comments would be greatly appreciated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Great Fire of Rome, 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, 14 November 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Infoboxes for Roman office-holders

There's a discussion at Talk:Julius Caesar#Infobox about whether its current infobox (using Template:Infobox office holder) is appropriate. Other articles have also been switched to this infobox (eg Mark Antony,[4] Lucius Junius Brutus,[5](reverted) Gaius Marius,[6](reverted) Sulla.[7], Pompey, Marcus Licinius Crassus, Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo(reverted), Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (son of Pompey), Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus and Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus((reverted)). Should discussion continue at Talk:Julius Caesar or would editors like a more general discussion here? NebY (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer a more general discussion here. All the relevant editors should be tagged to be aware of this discussion as well. In general, we ought to be consistent with Roman republican politicians, especially because their nature of office-holding is similar within their group but also not similar to modern office-holding. Ifly6 (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the officeholder infobox takes up too much space for no extra benefit, and that the Nationality, Allegiance and Branch/service parameters are useless and as a rule of thumb should never be used. Listing every single battle is also a bad idea. Avilich (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, these are absurdly long, and inappropriate. Nobody likes them except those who enjoy filling them. Johnbod (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the difference with modern office-holding is immense. Broadly speaking, in the Roman republic and principate, a change of magistrate doesn't represent a change of government or policy. The consulship was weaponised in the late republic but that reflected a reduction in its importance, as the magistracies could no longer contain the ambitions of the most powerful. Not only is it thus misleading, but the separation of offices, the repeated text "in office" and the mixture of colours and fonts hampers any attempt to see the subject's career. The nationality, allegiance and branch/service of Romans are not in question or key facts, nor are all the battles on which we happen to have articles; to a reader who wants a brief introduction to Julius Caesar, the names of his battles in Gaul are noise and clutter.

As Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose (aka MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE) puts it, "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." For our Romans, {{infobox person}} achieves this but {{infobox officeholder}} frustrates that purpose, and even embedding it is too much if too many fields are filled or filled with too much detail, a continual temptation especially for new editors. NebY (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

As Ifly6 suggested, pinging all editors who engaged at Talk:Julius Caesar#Infobox that haven't already commented here: @Digital Herodotus, T8612, Carlstak, and P Aculeius:. NebY (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC) I've also posted on the talk pages of the above articles, linking to Talk:Julius Caesar#Infobox and now here. I saw Digital Herodotus had often re-reverted to their version. NebY (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I see no point in dragging the argument there over here. It would be absurd to force editors to use one type of infobox instead of another across the entire project, based solely on generalizations that can't possibly apply equally well to all Roman biographical articles; at best it's bad policy, and at worst an unwarranted demonstration of power over dissenting editors. If infoboxes are cluttered, then declutter them. They don't need to contain every notable fact about someone with a well-documented career. Infoboxes about prominent persons will inevitably be longer than those about persons of minimal record. But insisting that categorizing the information in infoboxes makes them unreadable and unnavigable is absurd. Editors should be expected to use discretion and good judgment in choosing how to format articles; they shouldn't have that discretion taken away merely because they sometimes include too much. P Aculeius (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I saw some of the long dreadful run-up to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes (WP:ARBINFOBOX). When an editor embarks on systematic changes across articles on this level, a centralised discussion can resolve issues without protracted article-by-article conflict and escalation to blocks and Arbcom, especially when an editor is not prepared to follow WP:BRD or otherwise accept the status quo as the default pending consensus. "Discretion and good judgement" vary as much as common sense. To DH it's obvious that we should use the office-holder infobox for anyone who's held office, that readers want to know about battles, that extensive infoboxes add value. These are general questions better dealt with once here rather than on each article talk page. NebY (talk)

I think that this insistence is very pedantic. Of course a prominent figure like Caesar should have a longer Infobox and I don’t see how removing something very important to him as a person, like his military career, is helpful. I think some of your are looking at this from this strict adherence to Wikipedia guidelines instead of an average reader who maybe just getting into this topic. It seems very reasonable that someone for example who goes to the Julius Caesar article would be interested in a list of the wars and battles he fought in and wouldn’t at all think of that list as some unnecessary clutter. Digital Herodotus (talk)

While I agree that the officeholder infobox is acceptable, or even desirable in many instances, I have to disagree with including a list of wars and battles—if there were only a handful and they were Caesar's primary source of notability, that would be one thing. But I glimpsed the size of the deletion earlier, and can't see how that much detail could be justified in any infobox. Infoboxes, whatever template they use, should be summaries of the most important points—not exhaustive lists. I'm not saying that we can't have extensive lists of battles or wars, either in articles such as the one in question, or as stand-alone articles dedicated solely to a military career. But they don't belong in an infobox. P Aculeius (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

My argument against the long list is to look up the articles on Plato or Aristotle. Both of their info boxes are very long and included an extensive listings of their philosophies. I think stuff like this is needed because it works as a great way to make a well rounded list of the main reason people would be interested in them. Also, it acts as a good reference point to give the readers of idea of what they did and in what order. The average person uses the Infobox as a reference point and it should include all key bullet points of info, the point of them should not be to make them as short as possible at the expensive of taking out key info. Digital Herodotus (talk)

Having looked at the infoboxes for Plato and Aristotle I can't understand how you can see those as examples of good practice to follow! After uncollapsing all of the collapsed information in the infobox for Aristotle, it fills nearly three screens of vertical space for me on my 1080p monitor, going into excessive detail in some areas (the "notable ideas" section links to 46 separate articles – have fun as a general reader parsing that to find out what Aristotle's key ideas were!) and not nearly enough in others (his notable works were... the works of Aristotle. Helpful.)

You say we shouldn't make infoboxes short at the expense of taking out key information, which is a fine principle but rather fails to address the key question of what the key information about the life of Julius Caesar actually is – it is not at all obvious that every single minor engagement he fought in is sufficiently key information to be worth including in the infobox. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Some people will read Julius Caesar with an interest in his battles, and perhaps those in Gaul, but many won't. Even those who come for the conquest of Gaul and expedition into Britain will gain little from leaping straight into the Battle of Bibracte rather than the Gallic Wars. Military history is a niche (look in an ordinary bookshop) and even Suetonius's biography of Caesar zooms through the Gallic war mentioning fewer battles than you listed in the infobox, most in no more detail. Caesar's place in history and literature is greater than that, people come here for more than that. How did he rise, what are those scurrilous rumours, what was his part in the triumvirate, did he destroy the Republic or was it doomed anyway, who was he, what was he like? Pupils made to read Shakespeare come here, people come here to find out more about Caesar's wife having to be above suspicion, about crossing the Rubicon, veni vidi vici, the Ides of March, et tu Brute. These are the "average readers" that Wikipedia's guidelines cater for, guidelines which have emerged not in some top-down theoretical manner but developed from the direct experience of building an encyclopedia for our readers. NebY (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I basically entirely agree with NebY's position here. It's pretty clear that the offices held are both very different from modern offices. This focus on consulships is blinding to the reality of proconsular command's importance. Caesar's consulship in 59 was important politically, but his consulship in 48 was – frankly – irrelevant in comparison to the civil war and the personal loyalty of his men. The current infobox on Sulla (focusing on dictatorship between 82–79, which is erroneous as well, and consulships in 88 and 80) should really include the office, if we can call it one, that he actually did most of his fighting and mass murdering in, a legally-dubious proconsular appointment against Mithridates. Just saying "the consulship was the highest ordinary office" is focusing on the form of magistracy rather than its substance. Ifly6 (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

List of bibliographies of works on Catullus

Hi, I just submitted the article List of bibliographies of works on Catullus which I'm pretty happy with. At the moment it's unannotated, I couldn't quite figure out the best way to have annotations while not breaking the list formatting or what would be the most important information to have about each item. That said I hope it will still be a useful resource for Wikipedia editors who wish to do more work on Catullus. I know this is perhaps a bit unorthodox for Wikipedia; I don't quite think I've seen other metabibliographies as articles, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies shows that topic bibliographies are welcome on Wikipedia, and I certainly think this article has well-defined inclusion criteria and is well-sourced. I know the logical step would have just been to write Bibliography of works on Catullus but I found this task to be much less overwhelming, however I still think the list of bibliographies is useful for Wikipedia and falls under its purview.

I'm thinking about perhaps submitting it to Wikipedia:Featured lists at some point in the future, would definitely appreciate any feedback! I know there isn't much precedent for lists of bibliographies, but I think that's also largely because WP:BIB hasn't been super active as of late. Thanks in advance for any advice/thoughts! Umimmak (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I’ve gone ahead and nominated it, would definitely appreciate feedback/reviews! Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of bibliographies of works on Catullus/archive1 Umimmak (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone have online access to l'Année philologique's database? [Request for a search]

Heya, does anyone happen to have electronic database access to l'Année philologique? I've been trying to find any kind of secondary or tertiary source to provide a summary of Horváth István Károly (1959). "Korszakok és irányok a Catullus-filológia történetében". Antik Tanulmányok: Studia Antiqua (in Hungarian). 6: 123–135. for List of bibliographies of works on Catullus (see above) and was sort of hoping I could cite APh for the brief summary it usually provides.

The article's title in French is Époques et tendances dans l'histoire des recherches sur Catulle and its title in German is Epochen und Richtungen in der Geschichte der Catull-Philologie. I had access to the print volumes for Vol 30 for the year 1959 and Vol 31 for the year 1960 but neither seems to include this particular article by Horváth. I'm guessing perhaps it just slipped by, but Horváth (1960) Chronologica catulliana: AAntHung VIII 1960 335–338 is mentioned in APh 31, and that article cites the 1959 article I'm looking for.

If any of you have access to the digital database for l'Année philologique I'd appreciate it if you looked up this Horváth 1959 paper and told me which print volume it is indexed in and what summary is provided if any. Thank you very much!

Umimmak (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

someone in WP:RX was able to confirm it never got indexed. Umimmak (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Sponsianus, hoax or not?

Might be good to get more eyes on this subject as it is in the news right now. ★Trekker (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the article gives too much place to news articles, which are not reliable sources on this subject. Moreover, it is way too early to tell with such confidence that Sponsianus did exist. I reworded the lede. T8612 (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

If it's a hoax, it would have to be a very old hoax, executed with a level of expertise that seems to have been altogether unknown at the time the coins were discovered and catalogued: the hoaxer would have to have been expert enough to fabricate extensive wear marks consistent with circulated coins, although the science to examine and evaluate these was unknown at the time, and yet been naïve enough to execute a design so odd that it would be cited as evidence that the coins were modern forgeries. The name Sponsianus is clearly not made up, as I find three examples of it in epigraphy dating from roughly the reign of Tiberius; but these are very obscure and unimportant, and as far as I know the name occurs nowhere in Roman history. Moreover there appear to have been no Sponsii—or at least there is no trace of them in known epigraphy—so it isn't the kind of name that would be chosen to sound credible. And then, after using all this skill to create forgeries that look like forgeries, but which under microscopic examination bear the hallmarks of authenticity, the forger would have to have hidden his work in a hoard of genuine Roman gold coins! Of course, it's theoretically possible that the numismatists who claim to have found wear marks on the coins are simply making it up, or that they dramatically overestimate the certainty that these are in fact genuine wear marks from circulation. But that would still require a forger with a bizarre mix of scholarship and naïvité, brilliance and and ineptitude, and access to a hoard of genuine Roman gold coins. Perhaps this could still be proved a hoax, but it would require a great deal of explanation. P Aculeius (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The actual source is a Plos One article, ie peer reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the authors appear to have expertise in earth science and heritage preservation, not in numismatics or ancient history (apart from the curator of the museum). Therefore, the article only supports the view that the coins are ancient and not modern forgeries; I am uneasy with using it for biographical reference. T8612 (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

As the article is being actively edited and Talk:Sponsianus is being engaged with, probably specific discussion of the article content is better placed there. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Ligures

The Ligures article is in need of attention. If you look at the edit history and the talk page, you'll see that an editor and their sockpuppets has been POV-pushing and edit-warring here since November 2019, repeatedly adding unsourced claims and their own interpretations of primary sources. They began editing as Julio189red and then as Julienor94. Both accounts have been banned for sockpuppetry, but now another new editor has appeared to restore their edits. – Asarrlaí ^(talk) 10:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Brill Online (including Brill's New Pauly) now available through the Wikipedia library

Courtesy notice for anyone who, like me, has ever lamented that not being on a university network has put access to Brill's New Pauly out of reach: in the last couple of months Brill Online seems to have quietly appeared on the Wikipedia Library as part of the standard bundle, which means that they are freely accessible to anyone with a wikipedia account of more than 6 months tenure and 500 edits across the WMF ecosystem. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I had looked up the basilica Porcia earlier this year and it did not appear to be available, which was very disappointing. This is excellent news! Very glad to hear it. Ifly6 (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Etymology of Mundus (magister militum)

There is a discussion about whether the etymology of the name Mundus (magister militum) proposed by Omeljan Pritsak should be attributed to that scholar or not at Talk:Mundus (magister militum)#Content removed from article.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Augustus visiting the tomb of Scipio Africanus

Hello - I'm trying to find a primary source which states that Augustus went to visit the supposed tomb of Scipio Africanus at Liternum, as per his article. I found one source that I linked to the statement [8]https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/The_Closure_of_Space_in_Roman_Poetics/fkyqCQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=The+Closure+of+Space+in+Roman+Poetics+augustus+Liternum&pg=PA179&printsec=frontcover but I am concerned that this secondary source has confused Augustus with Livy who certainly did visit the tomb (38.56.4). It is not mentioned by Suetonius or Dio, so can anyone confirm this visit by Augustus? Thanks. Oatley2112 (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, s.v. Liternum mentions Augustus settling a colony there, but does not say that he visited the place; concerning the tomb, I checked all of the cited sources that I could, and did not see any mention of Augustus going to see it—although I was not able to locate the relevant passages in Valerius Maximus or Strabo, owing at least in part to Perseus' weird text chunking structure, which really makes it hard to locate anything when there are alternative numbering systems for various works (and the search feature doesn't work very well). My Latin isn't great, but I didn't see Augustus mentioned in Seneca's epistle 86, and Livy doesn't mention Augustus in connection with the tomb, nor does Pliny. Not sure whether any other sources might mention it—perhaps the articles on Liternum or Scipio Africanus in Pauly-Wissowa would. I can view them if you can't, but I can't speak German, so my scan would be very poor, especially with Scipio. P Aculeius (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks P Aculeius, yes, that is what I thought. I am copying this thread over to the Talk:Scipio_Africanus page to discuss the specific issue further.

Merger proposal of interest

It has been proposed to merge the article Eskam's daughter to Eskam. Please discuss here.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Diocletian Featured article review

I have nominated Diocletian for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

PoV pushing at Sponsianus

Since November's hubbub about the Sponsian coins supposedly showing authentic signs of wear, this article has had a remarkable amount of attention—much of it incremental improvement, but unfortunately much of it from editors who absolutely will not stand for it to say anything other than exactly what they want it to. Currently there is a one-man edit war pushing his way through section by section trying to undermine both the credibility of the article—which was, until this morning, reasonably well-sourced, clear, and neutral—and un-neutralizing it with vague and occasionally ridiculous wording, and just a few minutes ago tag spamming it. The user—who really is quite new to Wikipedia, having only a couple of hundred small edits on just three or four articles, and no user or talk page—seems to be unfamiliar with the definitions of words like "evidence", "implies", "supposes", and soforth, and wants to keep changing fairly neutral wording into very skeptical wording. Attempts to engage him on the article's talk page seem to produce only rambling about how something isn't "evidence" unless it's true. I can see no hope of achieving consensus as long as this editor ignores whatever is said, and insists on applying his own idiosyncratic definitions of ordinary words, and attempting to slant the article toward one point of view. Perhaps other members of this project will be more persuasive than I have been—or if I'm the one who doesn't get it, perhaps a third opinion will convince me that his edits are justified. P Aculeius (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The latest edits from User:Advancingreturns are a kind of "goodbye", and the user has been blocked, so maybe no other comments will help now. @P Aculeius:'s last comment on the user's talk page was reasonable enough, in my view.

If it's read ten years from now (which is pretty unlikely :) it will be seen, I think, that nobody comes very well out of the discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard. I'm not saying how it could be done better -- because I don't know -- but potentially we lose contributors that way. Andrew Dalby 14:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

My comments on his talk page were intended to de-escalate the situation, as it was clear he was feeling persecuted. That wasn't the objective of any of this—but for obvious reasons this particular article has attracted a number of relatively inexperienced editors, some of whom focus entirely on establishing a particular viewpoint and objecting to wording for highly-technical reasons—such as the word "theory", which has become a flashpoint multiple times in this article. In future I'll have to bear in mind how quickly these disputes can spiral out of control. This isn't the first time and it won't be the last, but maybe I can improve my approach situations like it. I certainly don't want to be driving enthusiastic contributors off Wikipedia! P Aculeius (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, the unlucky thing was that User:Advancingreturns lit on Sponsianus. I wasn't aiming at any one Wikipedian, certainly not you, @P Aculeius:, but one can see in that discussion how we focus on words and actions that we've agreed to consider unacceptable and how our logic can appear obscure and one-sided to others.

The blanking of talk pages was odd, you know. In the forums I frequented when the world was young, you couldn't do that, and I wonder if he or she had any idea it would happen here. Andrew Dalby 15:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Coming at this late, for what it's worth (and it's not intended as criticism against any one editor), there is always merit in seeking alternative phrases and reworked sentences when two parties cannot agree over specific words and their definitions. You want 'X', I want 'Y', what about 'Z'? I acknowledge it is difficult to do once you've entered an edit war, and/or a party is particularly intransigent, but English is blessed with significant synonymical strength, and in many cases an alternative form of words can be found. My reading of the discussions suggests that User:Advancingreturns was seeking to strengthen the article's position re: skepticism of the November 2022 findings, and was perhaps pushing too much towards an outright dismissal of the findings. I personally agree with that user, the coin is clearly a fake, and that all the November 2022 findings can unequivocally demonstrate is that the coin is old. Most eminent scholars reject its genuineness outright, and that position is clear in the article as it stands. I personally hold that it is an ancient fake, and that Sponsian is the person who cast the coin, but that is only my supposition. The page will need a cleanup once all of the current hullabaloo dies down and classical scholars can write papers responding to the Nov 2022 paper, so perhaps by Dec 2023 it will generate less heat. Interestingly, the New Pauly article on the emperor Philip mentions Sponsianus as a real usurper - New Pauly Philip the Arab. It shows how quickly Wikipedia can move compared to other more scholarly encyclopedias, for good or for ill. Oatley2112 (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

List of Roman emperors

Some recent changes to this list need to be vetted. Srnec (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

A Roman numeral notation

Modern editions sometimes show Roman numerals with parenthetical vertical lines as a multiplier, even with a vinculum as a further multiplier (e.g. X, M and XIII XXXII). Does anyone here know if there's a particular term for that multiplier (or those parenthetical lines)? And is its value consistent? Pietro Bongo's Numerorum Mysteria (1591) shows |X| as 1000[9] and |M| as 10000[10], multiplying X by 100 but M by 10. The question's arisen while editing Roman numerals#vinculum. NebY (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

References

• This is a very interesting question, I would like to know as well.★Trekker (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
• <add> I've found a snippet "the multiplicative (vinculum) bar for 1000 used in classical antiquity continued to be used under a new name, the titulus, but the three-sided box symbol for multiplying by 100,000 was no longer used (Menninger 1969:281)"(Stephen Chrisomalis, Numerical Notation: A Comparative History) which suggests multiplication by 100 in combination with the vinculum's 1000. NebY (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Roman-era

According to Brandmeister (talk · contribs):

• 2023-01-18 13:46:26 Roman era ‎ Roman era may also refer to the Republic and previous periods. Roman-era redirect made consistent
• 2023-01-18 13:44:32 Roman-era ‎ ←Changed redirect target from Roman Empire to Ancient Rome

That is, the Roman era begins circa 8th century BCE, while the Hellenistic era begins circa 4th century BCE.

Once upon a time, we were taught in secondary school that the Hellenistic era ended with the rise of Augustus in Rome in 31 BCE followed by the Roman era (31 BCE – 476 CE).

Many of our category definitions are dependent upon the Roman-era covering only the Roman Empire, not "the Roman Republic and previous periods." Changing the link is confusing to editors.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• In part, it depends on the location. We have Greece in the Roman era, Switzerland in the Roman era, Serbia in the Roman era, Wales in the Roman era, Georgia in the Roman era, Netherlands in the Roman era, Crimea in the Roman era, Libya in the Roman era, Architecture of Scotland in the Roman era, Slovakia in the Roman era and a whole bunch of redirects too (including Roman era and Roman Era with different destinations), and they all have different start dates depending on their contact with Romans.[11] We may not be totally consistent in our use of Roman Empire either. For some, it begins with Caesars, for some it begins with Roman domination (just as the British Empire predates Victoria being called Empress of India), so that it's appropriate to say Greece and Spain were part of Rome's empire long before the post-republican period. NebY (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• Until recently, Roman-era (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Roman era (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) matched Roman Era (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), all pointing to Roman Empire since 2007. It would be best to revert them. Plenty of categories are prefixed "Roman-era", so changing the redirect is causing havok. Otherwise, we'll have to rename them all.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• Roman Empire and ancient Rome are not mutually exclusive, so the redirect is not factually incorrect. But narrowing Roman era exclusively to just empire may be incorrect in some contexts where things and persons may be related to periods preceding Empire (for example, a Roman era sculpture coming from the Republic era). Brandmeister^talk 08:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)