Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Roll v. Scroll: Should we care?

I keep seeing articles that refer to papyrus "scrolls". At scroll there's a distinction between scroll (permanent) and roll (disposable) that is utter nonsense. No papyrologist or, for that matter, classicist, refers to a papyrus as a scroll because this carries with it adopted connotations that have nothing to do with ancient readership. We call them "rolls". In the current handbooks this usage is not addressed because it's been a non-issue for decades. My questions are: should I care, should I edit this, should I actually try to find a source that says "papyrus manuscripts are called rolls"? I understand that this might require my doing some heavy lifting. Thank you, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You've run into a mediaevalist who is thinking of the Chancery Rolls. Take out the sentence in the lead (which is misleading anyway; the Chancery Rolls are records rather than texts, but that doesn't mean they're disposable, merely that they're not intended for daily use as a breviary might be) and add a paragraph on papyrus rolls. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the confusion. I'll delete now and add a bit on papyrus rolls derived from sources dealing with the ancient "book culture" tomorrow. But I'm concerned about the many other pages that speak of scrolls, like the new Posidippus. Does this look like a project that I'd need to nurture or one where I can simply change usage in classics related articles and hope for the best? Thanl you, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 02:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd simply edit "scroll" to "roll" where I liked & give the edit summary "more common terminology in current WP:RS." Our papyrology articles, as I'm sure you've noticed, have a heavy slant towards attention to Biblical papyri; that and simple datedness have probably created this situation. I can't be sure you won't encounter opposition, but I'd hope a polite explanation would disarm it. Wareh (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the Oxyrhynchus Papyri page curiously has a list dedicated to 3% of the published pieces. There's also the issue of rotulus, which repeats the problematic scroll v. roll distinction and was formerly linked to in scroll. I'll tread lightly and just change appropriately when I come across individual uses on classics pages for now. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll bring this up on the scroll talk page tomorrow. It looks like a big usage problem that will require some diplomacy on topics that I don't understand. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Domain of Moor

The section above has led me to this article, about a supposed Roman successor state in Mauretania in the 480s. I don't believe it, not least because neither source given supports it; the area was conquered by the Vandals half a century before.

I've prodded it; if anybody can find a fact behind this figment, do deprod and rewrite. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No real scholarly effort, but nothing on that page shows up in the OCD. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A state called the "Roman-Moor Kingdom" shows up on the map that can be found on the dissolution article's talk page. DCI2026 (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source; and it shows an imperial spot in Numidia (even less likely). It also seems to show Marcus Aurelius' empire extendiong to the Main, which is also news to me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion here. Come tell me I'm wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Julius Nepos

Hello there. I'm trying to start bringing to decent standards an article on the last/second-to-last western emperor, but I'm having to face an editor that insists on keeping an unsourced "overview" section, which includes also quite a few factual errors, the most egregious being Nepos' rule over the phantomatic "Domain of Moor". Could you please share your input so that this dispute can be ended? Please, pretty please? :-))) Ciao, Aldux (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Christians killed during the Diocletianic Persecution

Diligent editors turned Diocletianic Persecution into a neutral, well-balanced FA. Input is now needed at Talk:List of Christians killed during the Diocletianic Persecution, which I thought was an article-naming dispute and which may be turning into a question of POV forking. I may not be understanding or representing the issues accurately, so I hope others will give their views. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be more or less resolved: the list has been moved to List of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

TMI at Moneyer

Could we get some views at Talk:Moneyer on what to do with the highly detailed tables under Moneyer#Roman Republican moneyers? To me this sort of tabular material is not an unusual way to approach numismatics, but it is all rather dense, as an editor who wishes to delete it en masse has observed. I'm not well versed in numismatics, but I do notice that the tables uses Babelon numbers, not Crawford, for instance. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Reorganizing articles on quantitative meters: iambic/trochaic

If you're interested in this subject, have a look at the proposal at the bottom of User talk:Wareh (also musings at User talk:McCronion). In short my idea is (1) to rename trochaic septenarius as trochaic verse (quantitative) & to move the section iambic trimeter#Greek to iambic verse (quantitative), (2) to follow the German Wikipedia example so that the actual articles on the feet iamb & trochee are very short, whereas most of the content would go under the name trochaic verse (accentual-syllabic) and iambic verse (accentual-syllabic). Wareh (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think I added hasty content to trochaic septenarius because there was so little, or it was unsourced, or something, when I found it. Instead of just treating the verse-line as a mathematical thing, "trochaic verse" would permit a better treatment of how meter relates to genre, performance, occasion, and so on. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your thought there is why I even thought of iambic and trochaic verse at McCronion's talk page. But I'm afraid the burden of synthesizing at that level needs to be deferred, just in order to come up with some rational disposition of what we already have (and make room for more immediate minor growth). Wareh (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, prudent. I think trochaic septenarius already has some nods toward the aspects I mentioned, as was the case for another little piece on metrics which I dashed off for the sake of having and you developed a little more thoughtfully. Of course if I really wanted to be helpful I'd actually address some of those glaring gaps in classical literature topics that you and I have discussed. But one thing at a time. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Iambic and trochaic verse would also avoid the implication that septenarius is the normal term for Greek verse; I suppose Trochaic tetrameter (quantitative) may be the way to go until then. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Rating of Vettius Agorius Praetextatus

Since the article about Vettius Agorius Praetextatus is under evaluation in the Italian Wikipedia in order to become a good quality article, after comparing the article in English and Italian we noticed that the English article is almost identical with the Italian. The author of the Italian article confirmed that he translated the article in English but on the talk page of the English article we couldn’t find any evidence, so we wanted to confirm that. Furthermore although both articles are identical the English article was rated only as stub and was only recently modified as B-class article by an Italian user (Roberto). So we wanted to know if someone of the Classical Greece and Rome project could check the rating and eventually correct it or give any useful advises.--Anacleto 00 (talk) 09:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed the rating to a C primarily because it's in need of copyediting. I also changed the importance rating from high to low, since this is a relatively minor figure. Unfortunately I don't have time to do more (like the needed copyediting) or address the other questions raised here. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Marseilles and Justin

The question of the foundation of Marseilles has come up again; it was last discussed on the talk page. (The text hasn't changed.) It has arisen again at this conduct discussion; it's mentioned in the very last subsection of the page, here. Rather than weight down a Wikipedia page with footnotes, could one of you discuss whether Justin is reliable and whether Sabine Baring-Gould is an ideal source for Greek colonization? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean, a new discussion at Talk:Marseille? Dear old Sabine Baring-Gould doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article right now. I certainly agree the sentences on the founding of Marseille are not satisfactory. Andrew Dalby 09:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No, unfortunately, a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson#Discussion_of_the_closure_motion; as long as Mathsci insists that a founding date of 600 is uncontroversial, it seems pointless to raise it there. Eventually, it will be ready for publication. The present footnote is "Marius Dubois, Paul Gaffarel et J.-B. Samat, Histoire de Marseille, Librairie P. Ruat, Marseille, 1913"; that at least has changed. I'm not sure a local history is much if any improvement on Baring-Gould (who was a charming man, and learned in his field). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I last came across him on the topic of Uncle Tom Cobley and all.

I much regret not coming back to this and not venturing into the incident room. I was trying to sell a book (now sold, I think) and my WP time was taken up with the WP:GLAM/Derby/Multilingual Challenge; I just couldn't manage to read all that stuff as well ... I doubt if my contribution would have made the slightest difference, but very sorry anyway. Andrew Dalby 09:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Kefalonia#Requested_move

A discussion of whether to move the article to Cephalonia; Hellenists will be useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"Civil religion" in Greece and Rome

So this morning I was reading "Omitting Clergy at 9/11 Ceremony Prompts Protest" in the New York Times[1] and came upon this sentence:

"In a nation of unprecedented religious diversity, the United States once managed to navigate religion in public life with relatively generic acknowledgments of the sacred — a tradition often referred to as civil religion."

So, I wondered, what might the WP article on civil religion look like? Well, it's pretty sad altogether, but the two paragraphs on ancient Greece and Rome under the "History" section really staggered me. Not a single source is cited, but here we learn that "The Athenian religion was a secular polytheism. … Atheism and the introduction of foreign gods were forbidden in Athens and punishable by death." I'm particularly struck by "secular polytheism."

Anyway, I was hoping that someone could do even some hasty surgery on the Greek paragraph, and I'll try to do something about the Roman one, where "Augustus officially attempted to revive the dutiful practice of Classical paganism." The problem is I'm getting very few hits "civil religion" in my Google library, as the term isn't often used in connection with Roman religion. "Civic religion" is used fairly often, however, and civic religion for good or ill is a redirect to civil religion. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

In recent times (see, for example, the collection Pagan Priests) it seems it is very modish among scholars to say that Greek and Roman religion were departments of the state superintended by bureaucrats, without any special creeds, traditions, etc. Personally I'd sooner subscribe to the Fustel de Coulanges' inverse romantic idea of political life as imbued with religion. Sorry if this is not a very helpful reply; my real point is to convey my worry that someone could properly source the very same (mistaken IMO) sentiment expressed in that Greek paragraph. I know that not everyone subsumes everything under "polis religion" but I'm also not instantly sure of where to turn for the alternative view I'd like to include (Nilsson?). Wareh (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a helpful reply, because it points to the complexity of how religion related to the civil/civic realm. One of the problems lies, I think, in setting up a dichotomy between belief and ritual actions, which is a bias in religious studies informed by Protestantism. Although accused of being atheists, the Epicureans seem not to have denied the existence of gods, for instance; they just thought the gods didn't care who won the game between the Sox and the Yankees, so to speak. Epicurus specifically said that his followers should take part in the public religion and perform sacrifices, which of course begs the question of why, if such things don't matter to the gods. It's also been pointed out that the religious skepticism of Cicero should not be taken as representative of the average person's religious views, and moreover as an augur Cicero would've taken regular part in ceremonies he evidently found, um, implausible as a belief system—which probably gets at the matter of civil/civic religion quite well. I think a first effort would be to correct anything blatantly wrong or misleading at civil religion. So all I'm going to take time to do is a paragraph that perhaps does no harm, and leave to future generations of WP editors the task of writing one that's accurate and nuanced. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "a polytheism without a church" (except for Julian). Roman and Athenian priests were state officials; a statement on which Fustel and the moderns would agree, I think, and which will not be known or obvious to our readers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Era convention

Since WP:ERA has been discussed here on more than one occasion, I just wanted to point out that the wording seems to have changed fairly recently, or at least since I last read it. It now says Do not arbitrarily change from one style to the other on any given article. Instead, attempt to establish a consensus for change at the talk page, instead of advising that the article's original convention be preserved unless there is "substantial" reason for the change. I would be interested in what others think of this. Though I must regretfully remind a certain PMA that he is not allowed to express his opinion on this matter, even if we'd like to hear it. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That's OK; you'll find my opinions in the archives, and as I recall, they are applicable to this; although "attempt" is novel; the intention can be found in the edit summary for the change. I encourage others to express theirs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see now that the change seems intended to further the aim (which I share) of avoiding endless discussion. I've proposed a wording at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Era convention, but I doubt that I'm understanding the issue in its entirety. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You will find the original context at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/jguk_2. There were a number of editors who did the same thing, going through Wikipedia installing the Right Method (some in each direction); this was held to be s public nuisance. I see you've found links to discussions; there were lots more, with about the same ratio of heat to light. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Cythera

This article could use much more about the cultural notion of Cythera, as seen in Watteau and elsewhere. I was led here by the naming discussion, still pending, at Talk:Kythira#Requested move; but the article needs work whatever it's called; also the history has much unsourced material about a pirate treasure and nothing about the Athenian occupation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Move proposal for Symposium

It has been proposed that Symposium be moved to Symposium (Ancient Greek). See Talk:Symposium#Move? to comment. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to let members of the project know that this discussion is continuing. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"Arab"

Does anyone have a suggestion about the best link when referring to "Arabs" in classical sources from the 1st century BC to the 2nd century AD? Like the "Arabs" in Pompey's triumph. The choices I've found are Pre-Islamic Arabia, Arabia Petraea (to which Arabia (Roman province) redirects), and Romans in Arabia, which gives some background from a Roman perspective. I'm looking for the best explanatory content, not necessary the closest article title. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Add Nabataean kingdom, which may be the best link for Pompey. For Augustus, you probably want Pre-Islamic Arabia; too much of it is off topic for most of the Romans. For Trajan, Arabia Petraea seems best. (I'm using the rule of "which Arabs?") Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If you've looked at the articles, you'll have seen that some have more problems than others. I recall at least one (Romans in Arabia, I think) needs copyediting. I continue in a state of confused ignorance regarding the Nabataeans. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Nabataeans lived in the space between present Aqaba and Amman; they formed an organized kingdom in Seleucid times, presumably off the trade routes to Mecca and Babylonia; they built Petra. Trajan conquered them, and created Arabia Petraea; unlike much of Trajan's conquests, Hadrian kept it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Eromenos

I don't know whether I've done the right thing[2][3] or not; my explanation is at Talk:Alexander the Great#Eromenos Link. I veered toward this subject because I've been doing some corrections on Roman-related articles such as Lex Scantinia, which in various LGBT articles had been construed as ordering the death penalty for all homosexual activity in ancient Rome. As John Boswell noted, Cicero and his peers would've been surprised to learn of this.

I did, however, turn erastes into a dab; was that simply panic on my part? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Might be better to copy that to erastes (disambiguation); after all, if we had any other common noun and three relatively obscure fictional allusions to it, what would we do? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I believe I mentioned some kind of panic on my part, having to do habitual accommodation. I rue the day I got involved with this topic. If you look at the edit history, erastes was once an article. It seems to have been turned into a redirect because it was based on primary sources. So too eromenos. I don't trust my judgment at the moment, because I just permitted myself to read the intro to the article on Ovid for the first time; we learn that he is best known as the author of the Heroides. "Carrying water in a sieve" comes to mind. Too much to fix. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

So it does. "Oh God! Oh Montreal!" (although that was the opposite problem). If fixing things is beginning to feel like Tartarus, feel free to go do something else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Stigma

I'm involved in a so-far-unproductive discussion at Talk:Stigma (letter) of whether the encyclopedia should offer a unified answer to the question "What is ϛ?" The opposing side of the discussion holds that ϛ is properly considered to be a subset of the topic digamma, so that the present article on ϛ (whatever its faults) should disappear in favor of a redirect to digamma. In the Greek texts I use, ϛ (and never ϝ) can represent στ, and ϛʹ is more commonly used for the numeral six than ϝʹ. So the idea that "the varied history, forms, and uses of ϛ" is not a topic worth treating under the name "stigma" simply boggles my mind, though it is a good-faith editor who disagrees with me, and one whose merit I have been glad to recognize elsewhere.

So, please feel free to speak on the side of common sense and truth, whether it is with me or against me (or perhaps in some new direction of compromise that Fut. Perf. and I are not seeing), at Talk:Stigma (letter). I have expressed my most considered and current opinion about this in my latest comment there. Wareh (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion has revived. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Through no deliberate avoidance, I've found myself away from Wikipedia while this has simmered. I've tried another statement there now but can't follow all the quibbles with care. Wareh (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've looked this over, and while my gut feeling is that it should be left unmerged (and there's no harm if some elements repeat in both articles), I lack the knowledge to argue this effectively. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Cynewolfe could be most helpful in answering one question as an intelligent but unknowledgable reader: if you wanted to find out about the Greek stigma (say you'd run across it in a book somewhere): would the article at stigma (letter), which concentrates on it, or the article on digamma, which contains virtually the same information in a wider context, be the most helpful place to begin?

This seems to be the real issue; all else is commentary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Consul designates who died or were disgraced before term in office began

Hi. I have turned my eye to the List of Roman consuls page, and I am seeking some advice / opinions on what to do with those individuals, such as Aulus Terentius Varro Murena (Consul-elect 23 BC) and Lucius Postumius Albinus (consul 234 BC) (Consul elect 215 BC) who were designated as consul for an upcoming year, but did not live to take office. It is my understanding that whilst these individuals are included in the Fasti Capitolini, they are not included in the municipial and collegial fasti. So should the list be limited to only those who were "sworn in", so to speak, or include all those who were elected by the people? Oatley2112 (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I responded at the talk page for the list, but here are further thoughts. Broughton lists Albinus as consul for 215, with a paragraph-long footnote about the circumstances, which are particularly muddled. But if you don't list the consuls as elected, the designation cons. suff. makes no sense. I'd think MRR would be the model to follow, for the Republic; in fact, I'd think that one way to check List of Roman consuls would simply be to sit down with all three volumes of MRR and go through year by year. For us to create our own list based on our interpretations of the fasti (or on our own criteria of selection) would be OR, in my view, since as you point out these don't always accord with each other. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's also the question of Caesar's and Caligula's selections in advance, which were certainly designations, but which never happened. We do not wish to include Incitatus in the list of consuls, do we? Somewhere we will want list of consuls designate.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ho ho. Or heigh-ho? I think rather that the division is between consuls of the Republic and consuls not. I still say suff. makes no sense unless you list also the person who caused the vacancy, and that Broughton should be followed for the period he covers. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

<headache>Remind me; what year did the Republic end? (And some people, like historical novelists, will want the consuls for 133 AD, both the eponyms and the suffects, as background.) I agree on suffects and MRR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Broughton ends at 31 BC. (I myself go with T.P. Wiseman, and lose my republican nostalgia only when Lucan slashes his wrists.) I only meant that Broughton is the best single source for magistracies up to the time he chooses to end, and he gives the elected consuls at the top of the year followed by suffecti. What you say about historical novelists points to why I think designates need not be omitted: for the completeness of the record, and a snapshot of the politics of the time. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. In normal circumstances, Broughton would be the way to go, as his work is quite comprehensive, but in the case of the Consul designates, he is not always consistent. Case in point MRR Vol II - 66 BC: P. Cornelius and P. Autronius - clearly labeled as Consul designates, not consuls, and their successors are not titled suffecti. What is the difference between them and the condemned Q. Hortensius (Consul Designate 108 BC) who was replaced prior to assuming office by M. Aurelius Scaurus, or even Albinus (aside from the fact that Albinus was not condemned but died in Gallia Cisalpina)? Also, following Broughton won't help with Varro Murena, as his designation falls outside of Broughton's scope (23 BC). Further, this approach tends to fly against the logic of giving someone the title of Consul without them ever having served in the office. Following this through, if an individual won the vote for US President but died before taking office, would they be listed among US Presidents? No, because technically their predecessor is still the President until the swearing in ceremony. Shouldn't we simply create a list of consul designates as Septentrionalis suggests, perhaps at the end of the page and keep the core list to those who actually served as consuls? Oatley2112 (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Astacus in Bithynia

Can someone from this project please have a look at the above named new article. I suspect the subject may be the same as Nicomedia under an older name. However, as I'm not certain that is the case, I'm reluctant to simply redirect it. It may be a case of someone confusing and combining information about two entirely different places. Thank you, ClaretAsh (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not finding anything indicating they aren't the same city. The new stub seems to contain founding myth not in Nicomedia. So technically this should be a merge. What would you think of leaving a note on the creator's talk page, suggesting that (s)he incorporate material into the existing article and convert the new page to a redirect? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly the same city; Astacus was destroyed in 301 BC, and Nicomedes founded a new city "opposite" it, some years later. The foundation story is from Strabo, as I would have expected; the myth is from Stephanus of Byzamtium, and ois presumably classical, since its sole function is to explain why one town has two names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I still think Nicomedia would benefit from better reference to its predecessor, Astacus can probably stand on its own. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

First Peloponnesian War?

Is there a better title than this for the Athenian war of the 450s, not the 430s, BC? I can't think of one, but this title seems sub-optimal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh

Can anybody suggest something to be done about edits like this, which "corrects" ηγεμόνα (nominative) to ηγεμόνας. How can we persuade these poeple that articles on the first-century BC need neither Demotic nor Katharevsa, but ancient Greek?

This is a Spartan; I suspect that Doric would still be an anachronism; but if not, do change it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Rating for Odoacer's deposition of Romulus Augustulus/discussion of articles

I noticed that the mentioned article does not have a rating or importance level set yet. DCItalk 15:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't say anything about the rating or importance of the article, but looking at it carefully, I'm not sure whether there should be a page under this title. The actual deposition seems to require only one sentence, since hardly any details are known, and is adequately dealt with under Romulus Augustus and Odoacer. The rest of the article consists of other historical events relating to the collapse of imperial authority, Odoacer's reign, and post-imperial Italy. The subheadings are:

• Rome is sacked twice (three paragraphs, A.D. 410-455)

• Ricimer and other generals dominate (two paragraphs, A.D. 455-476)

• Death of Orestes and overthrow of his son (four paragraphs, in which the deposition is described by a single sentence)

• The Kingdom of Italy is established and overrun (two paragraphs, A.D. 476-493)

• Temporary reestablishment of Roman control over Italy (one long paragraph, A.D. 535)

In other words, nearly the entire article consists of background and sequelae to the deposition (covering more than a century), each of which should already be treated in other articles. The former title of this page was, Final dissolution of the Western Roman Empire, which was debated here in July before being moved to its present location (the debate is in Archive 13). That seems to be the actual subject matter of the page, rather than what's implied by its current title. Assuming that the article is justified as a stand-alone topic, I think it might make more sense to return it to the former title. P Aculeius (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I am open to any rename. Could a phrase you used in your comments, "collapse of imperial authority," be a better and less bulky term? Ex: Collapse of Western Roman imperial authority? DCItalk 16:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

An earlier discussion of this can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 13#Dissolution of the Western Roman Empire. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did mention that. But looking at the article for the first time the other day, I was struck by how most of the material in it seemed to be related to other topics, and it occurred to me that perhaps the article itself was redundant, with the material being more properly treated in other articles.

My first impression is that nearly all of the material would be properly treated in a general article on the history of Imperial Rome, since most or all of it is rather general, and the few portions that are more specific than that would make more sense to me placed under the appropriate personages (Orestes, Odoacer, Romulus Augustus). I don't think that it makes much sense to have separate articles with titles such as "Establishment of Imperial Authority," "Development of Imperial Authority following Diocletian," "Decline of Imperial Authority during the Later Fourth Century," and "Collapse of Imperial Authority."

I don't think it matters what you call it; whether you refer to the deposition of Romulus Augustus, or the rise of Odoacer, or the Collapse of Imperial Authority, or the Dissolution of the Western Empire. Any of these describes at least part of the action, but all of them would be better as subheadings in a more general article on the history of the Roman Empire.

So my answer to DCI2026 is that the article probably can't have a simple name that accurately reflects its subject matter; thinking about what to call it simply forces me to conclude that the subject matter really needs to be incorporated into a more general article on Roman history. Perhaps it just took some time for others to consider the article, and its title, as it stands now, in order to reach this conclusion. P Aculeius (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Difficulty in titling an article does usually indicate a problem with the topic. The idea here is probably to go into greater depth or detail than the broadest articles could tolerate. You can sum this up for Roman Empire in a concise paragraph, but those who would like a more blow-by-blow account might be interested in a main article. But that just returns us to the question, doesn't it? I don't really have an opinion I would argue strongly. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel as if there should be a long, detailed article that follows the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Unlike Decline of the Roman Empire, it would be focused on the last century of the Western Empire's history (380-480), and would not delve in to lead poisoning and the like. Then, this article could be merged with the larger one (or even deleted, if necessary). DCItalk 23:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The word "Odoacer's" does not seem necessary in the title. Within the next few minutes, I shall move the article to Deposition of Romulus Augustulus. DCItalk 23:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Roman arithmetic

I'm looking for experts to take a look at Roman arithmetic. Members of Wikiproject Mathematics agree that one can add and sub tract these numerals, but if that's notable it probably would be appropriate to move to Arithmetic with Roman numerals. I don't believe that Romans did math with these numerals; I'm hoping someone here can weigh in there about the topic.--~T P W 22:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You can add and subtract Roman numerals, especially without the Renaissance refinement of subtractive numerals. But the Romans did math with the abacus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Fall of the (western) Roman Empire?

I wrote this comment above:

"I feel as if there should be a long, detailed article that follows the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Unlike Decline of the Roman Empire, it would be focused on the last century of the Western Empire's history (380-480), and would not delve in to lead poisoning and the like."

Although I am working on other projects right now, I am wondering what other editors feel about this. Should there be a blanket article that discusses these topics, or is the current coverage considered adequate? DCItalk 22:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks DCI. The present coverage is far from adequate and I'd applaud, maybe even help with, attempts to improve it. Not that I'm at liberty for the immediate future. I'd break down the fall into two aspects: the narrative of what happened, and why. The narrative is somewhat covered at [4], very inadequately I'd suggest, and Decline of the Roman Empire has a collection of theories about The Cause (including some vaguer / more holistic ideas, but currently missing quite a lot of good recent work, such as Ramsay MacMullen's "Corruption and the Decline of Rome"). I think it should be kept and improved.

I agree that this new article you suggest - Fall of the Western Roman Empire would be a good title, presently a redirect - should cover the narrative to 480. I appreciate the advantage of covering a neat hundred years, but I'd like to suggest two other possibilities: Adrianople must be an obvious starting point, and Julian's fiasco against Persia might even be better, on the grounds that his reign saw the last major offensive operations by Western Roman troops outside the Western Empire, a definite high point of power and my personal choice for that reason. Apart from a straight description of events, I'd emphasize the narrative of fall by mentioning last and first times that specific aspects of power or its loss are noted, and I'd make particular note of contemporary descriptions of the phenomena which may have led to the fall. I hope this helps. I look forward to further ideas. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Mime

I'm starting an article on the theatrical form known in Rome as "mime" (mimus). Although I'll have a short section on the Greek background and South Italian precedents, it focuses on mime as performed in Rome, its influence on or appearance in literature (such as love elegy and the Satyricon), the writer-directors, and the performers, including those who became "stars". What should I call it? Here are some possibilities:

Thanks for any guidance. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess Mime (Roman theatre) makes the most sense to me, but that's probably just because "Mime of ancient Rome" sounds like a bad interpretive dance diversion at the APA. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Now trying to get that picture out of my head … Cynwolfe (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Mime of Ancient Rome? Isn't that a really bad historical fantasy, about the Norse gods visiting the decadent Romans of Philip the Arab's time? (He was reincarnated as Goethe.) ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

^{Ah! got it at last (channeling Wagner). Haploidavey (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)}

Seriously, I would use Ancient Roman mime, because I don't like parentheses. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Roman mime would appear to be the least problematic. Oatley2112 (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Ancient Roman mime seems straightforward. Haploidavey (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The article in draft actually begins "Ancient Roman mime (Latin mimus) yadda yadda." I'll use that, and create at least some of the others as redirects, as one of my concerns was "which word is the reader likely to type first in the search box?" I find myself becoming paralyzed by details these days, anticipating objections and exhausted by countering them before I even begin. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Missed this topic the first time. I think that Mimus (Ancient Rome) or Mimus (Roman theatre) or perhaps even Mimus (Roman) would be better choices. I doubt anybody is going to look for Mime and expect an article concentrating on Roman theatre, and if Mimus is the subject then I'd prefer to lead with that name instead of "Ancient Roman . . ." which could (if used consistently) be the title of hundreds of articles. Anyway, I've rarely come across Mimus in any context, and never seen it rendered as Mime outside of our modern definition, so in this case I think that Mimus would be less confusing. P Aculeius (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have to contradict you there: the scholarship on Roman theatre regularly refers to this genre as "mime." Unfortunately. What's even trickier, however, is their use of the words "ballet" and "pantomime." I might post the draft on a user page before creating the article, because it's becoming unwieldy to work with offline, and you can take a look. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Is Ronald Syme sufficiently serious to be considered? Yet he uses mime; as far as a cursory search goes, he uses mimus only in quoting Suetonius - in Latin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Mime, I've learned, has been a growth industry of 21st-century classical studies, after not getting much attention since the 19th century greats. And they tend to call it "mime," despite its modern resonances and despite a preference among classicists to use Greek or Latin terms for the utmost precision. Maybe because mimus sounds like it ought to be your pet monkey's name. I had thought to toss off four or five paragraphs on mime and call it a day, but I can see this will consume me for a while. Actually, I had thought first to write an article for Cytheris, who was one of Antony's lovers, aka Volumnia, aka Gallus's Lycoris, and then got distracted by her career as a mima. I don't know what to call her article, either, since Cytheris directs to the orchid. (Suggestions?) I've long been promising myself an article on Roman satire, which is a greater deficiency in the encyclopedia, but so far have been daunted at the prospect. I've been sprinkling red links about, but now see that it should be Ancient Roman satire. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

On Cytheris: I ran into a similar issue (with the Aetia article that I still haven't written), and a botanically minded editor told me to write over the redirect, including a disambiguation note: "For the plant genus, see Cytheris." I quote User:Dysmorodrepanis (named after the Achilles of finches: "As a rule, if it's -- like here [and Cytheris] -- a synonym (redirects to other genus; see also infobox or "Taxonomy"/"Nomenclature" section if there is any), the term is free to use for any article." The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I am tempted to take that suggestion, since you're right, Cytheris is only an alternative name for the orchid, and is only mentioned once in the article; Cytheris (orchid) would seem to do just fine. I may have seen her referred to as Cytheris Volumnia, but I'd have to persuaded of that. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that scholarship doesn't use the term; I just meant I hadn't encountered it in this context, even though I was familiar with the word mimus meaning "actor." The only use of mime that I'm familiar with is the sort that calls to mind Marcel Marceau, and I thought that might be misleading. Perhaps the word "pantomime" might be less-associated with the 20th century; the article on mimes certainly implies that this is the origin of the term, which is still in use but not so closely associated with modern street performers. In any case, I still think the article needs to begin with the term to be used, rather than "Ancient Roman . . ." P Aculeius (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that mimus can mean both the genre and a male performer of the genre also complicates naming matters. In the article, I think I'll end up using "mime" for the performance, and "mime performer" or "mime actor/dancer/acrobat" or mimus/mima for the personnel. What I've found so far is that "pantomime" is mainly an Imperial development, and the reason it means "all-mime" is that unlike earlier mimus there was little or no dialogue. Hence you get your writers of mime who achieved a literary status, like Decimus Laberius and Publilius Syrus, at the end of the Republic. Although I haven't seen a scholar say this specifically yet, they've implied that the diminishing importance of the comedy sketches that depended on verbal humor has to do with increasingly large venues and the Imperial preference for spectacle: some of these later mimus acts opened the "shows" in the arena. In the Republic, the mimes were more intimate in their staging, which could be in dining rooms or street corners or temple plazas. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, public speech became dangerous under the Empire; not having a book was safer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes! That's one reason the topic has unexpectedly captured my fancy: the shift from political satire and verbal witticism (valued in a free-speech environment, but see Laberius) to spectacle—one of those characteristics of the transition from Republic to Empire. Not that I find any contemporary relevance whatever in that. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, but I think there is a convention that articles are titled "X in/of ancient Rome" rather than "ancient Roman X". So it's quite possible that an article called Ancient Roman mime (which is the best title) will be moved to Mime in ancient Rome... --Akhilleus (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Reassessment of article

How do I go about getting Otium reassessed to possible B-Class and getting an assessment of "importance"?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

To start with, write a better article. Anything that treats negotium and otium as near-synonyms needs work; neg- < nec "not". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Time for a restructure

I have been thinking about this, and I feel like some changes should me made in regard to this topic. Below are my proposals:

The article Decline of the Roman Empire, should remain intact, but still be restricted to coverage of theories and opinions on the empire's collapse.

Currently, this says that descriptions of historical events are found on Roman Empire. I do not believe that this should be the case, as the events merit their own article. So:

There should be an article titled Fall of the Western Roman Empire.
- That article would cover events in the western empire from about 390 to 480.
- Coverage of the western empire's fall on Roman Empire should be reduced slightly, as the new article would have the details.
- The new article would not delve in to theories, such as lead poisoning and the like. It would be restricted to proven-factual coverage of the actual events.
- The new article could be a moved and expanded Deposition of Romulus Augustulus. If necessary, this article could be merged or deleted.

I have already opened a discussion on this at Talk:Decline of the Roman Empire, but this may be a better place for it. DCItalk 01:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

A very general comment: You make a good point when you observe that Decline of the Roman Empire deals with historiography, and given the rather vast scope of Roman Empire (everything), a section there can't go into the kind of depth on the chronology of events that an independent article could. But I'm slightly unclear about the form of article you propose, if it isn't a mere chronology or narrative timeline. You'll still be using modern secondary scholarship, right? And not compiling your own annals directly from ancient sources? And if you're using the work of 20th–21st century historians, how will you be able to keep their theories out of it? Just thinking out loud here. You've been sticking with this, and we haven't been giving you a lot of feedback or help, so it's great you haven't gotten discouraged. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding; when working with recent secondary sources, I'd prefer to stick just to the events described in them. If it becomes necessary to include theories, it could be listed like this: "..., according to historian John Doe..." or something similar. DCItalk 00:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on a draft in userspace, not fit for your eyes yet but yes, modern secondary scholarship is the basis, it's approximately chronological, and the headings are markers of power and of its loss. Modern theories will always be a matter of judgement and consensus, but what I'll be trying to do is mention agreed facts that are relevant to the various theories, but not go into the theories themselves. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Allaying doubts

To allay some fears and doubts that I am sure will come up, I will say this.

It is safe to say that the Western Roman Empire, or more specifically its separate status, ceased to exist at some point in the later fifth century CE. Thus, the Roman Empire did fall, after a long, arduous cycle of events. DCItalk 00:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You have allayed my greatest fear: that the Western Roman Empire might still exist in some form. Cute little Augustulus! — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 02:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've always been amused by the argument that after Honorius told the British to take care of their own affairs, all subsequent political arrangements are merely caretaking a detached part of the empire until a legitimate emperor/SPQR reassert authority. However, perhaps that's best left in the realm of dreams. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

This has always been a very passionate area of debate, and I must admit that I tend to follow the view that the empire was one and indivisble, regardless of whether there was an emperor ruling in Rome and or Constantinople, and that there was no Western Roman Empire that came into being with the accession of Honorius. Does this mean I am still a victim of my doubts and fears??? With regards to Britain after 410, two things to mention. Firstly, although Honorius withdrew the legions, that does not necessarily mean that there were no provincial gubernatorial appointments, especially as the provincial governors had no jurisdiction over the military after Diocletian/Constantine's reforms. Until the 440s, such a system could still have been in operation. Secondly, even if the central empire considered Britain to be a lost province and no longer part of the empire (which I think was highly unlikely) the Romano-British still considered themselves as part of the Roman Empire for at least two generations after the withdrawal of the legions - why else the delegation to Aetius almost 40 years later? Add to that the resistance to the Saxons led by Ambrosius Aurelianus, and it can be argued that from the point of view of the Romano-British, Britain was still a part of the empire until sometime before the end of the fifth century, and still holding allegiance to Rome and Constantinople. IMO, obviously! Oatley2112 (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Otium class and importance reassessment

It has been suggested that the class and importance of the article Otium be reassessed. Currently it is C class with low importance. I believe the importance rating should be medium and made the bold edit to raise that myself. Please feel free to change that if consensus is against.

But to raise the article from C class I believe it needs some basic clean up at the very least. Too many very small sections that could be formatted into each other as subsections and perhaps just a quick over view of references for reliable sources etc.. I will do some work on the article and if I can get the needed fixes within consensus and MOS I would like to raise it to B and possibly see it nominated as GA.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Added to collaboration section on project page.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it really that important? Other mid-importance articles are Obol (coin), Oceanids, Orestes; an intellectual one is Neoplatonism, the whole movement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. I started to change it to low, but the link on the project page to our supposed "Importance scale" goes elsewhere. Wasn't sure what grounds to cite for the rating. For some reason I'm just noticing that we were invited to collaborate on Otium as a project. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the apparent letter of the law makes this "mid" importance, which I'm actually fine with. But, really, enough with the haste for evaluation upgrades on this. The article needs to develop for a while so that people connected to this project or with experience in the topic can participate if indeed this is the current collaboration. Most of what has happened since the campaign began is the shifting of content and additions of the results from Google Book searches for "otium"—right now there are 10 images and far fewer logical transitions in the text. This is a promising topic, as can be gleaned from the suggestions that have already been given. The concept is rich enough that it could even develop into a FA, but that's after it's been written, which hasn't really happened yet: it's more a compilation, a "C". I remember reading Pro Archia in baby Latin and getting an earful about otium from my instructor, then, in baby Latin 2, I read elegy: more of the same. Years later, even though I try to read only Greek, I still have to hear about how impressed Romans were with their proficiency in sitting around. It's a big topic. If the concerned editors want the article to improve, they should chill out like otiosi and read and think and write and rinse and repeat. The article will get as good as it's going to get. Then, when it's stable, it will be reevaluated. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 02:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

See here.— the cardiff chestnut | talk — 04:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, after your saying how impressed Romans were with their proficiency in sitting around, I would have to agree with anything you said, were I not giggling in my tea, but in fact I do think this is sane and wise. It's a very complex conceptual topic, and not something you can dash off like the biography of some praetor in the Second Punic War. I spent some time yesterday looking for better images. Pompeiian landscape paintings and certain mythological scenes are often discussed as embodying the otium of the countryside, for contemplation while within walls, but damned if I can find any examples at Commons of any I can attach to such discussion. Naturally, however, when I was refurbishing the article on sex in ancient Rome I found every single image I looked for there. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

And it requires much more about the reflexes of otium in the modern world, written from sources, and not from Google, especially by a non-Latinist. The first motto of Virginia was Deus haec otia fecit, which Jefferson found bizarre for a state at war; the author in which I found this sees this as one sign of a differentiation between Virginian slave-holding liberty and New England freedom, but that may well be only his view. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, a friend of mine has been into Lucan and the South lately, but that would be just an incredible situation if your author is on to something. What's the reference?

The opening passage of the Satyricon popped into my head while thinking about this article today, and I wonder if there's some modern scholarly strain that might be brought in via the passage. I'm thinking of the schoolboys who descend into the forum (grand negotium central) as though into a strange other world, because they lack the knowledge of the ages before the proverbial umbraticus doctor ingenia deleverat. Might this, specifically through the connotation of umbraticus, be in dialogue with views expressed by Seneca,

De Beneficiis 4.2.1. opens: in hac parte nobis pugna est cum Epicureis, delicata et umbratica turba in conuiuio suo philosophantium, apud quos uirtus uoluptatum ministra est, illis paret, illis deseruit, illas supra se uidet. Compare also Gellius 3.1.10: negotiis enim se plerumque umbraticis et sellulariis quaestibus intentos habent, in quibus omnis eorum uigor animi corporisque elanguescit et, quod Sallustius ait, 'effeminatur'. Is this all me, Latinists, or can we broaden our horizons of the Roman otium–negotium discourse though scholarship on Encolpius' opening screed? — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 02:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

David Hackett Fischer - and he continues throughout. Those of us who have to live with the reheated republicanism of John Catiline Calhoun are not so flip.

But does the world really need any more of broadening and Encolpius? Haven't we just left that party? ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That party is apparently over for now. If anyone defines otium as the free-time to victimize choir boys or as a modern conspiracy in furtherance of that goal, I'll happily revert until I'm blocked blue in in the face. But I'm saddened at the loss of someone with a passion of Greek poetry who when he contributed content only contributed productive and enthusiastic content. It's a shame he was so ridiculously acritica. I don't quite understand who has been "flip": I am a Yankee in genealogy, birth and rearing, so I might easily have crossed without credential one of our few American Checkpoint Charlies's.

By flip I meant Fischer, who is a tad reductive about his newly discovered cultural differential. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I found a lot of what was said here to be worth little to the discussion on reassessment. This is a bite issue, where some seem to feel that a certain level or degree of standard in the article is a question if people are "connected to this project or with experience in the topic can participate". Why exactly are you questioning the current collaboration? It is indeed the current collaboration. I'm the only one in the "project" that has changed the collaboration section on the main page for the past year and a half. I think there has been a dragging of feet on this article and think it meets B class.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No disrespect intended by my comment on the collaboration: I simply didn't understand how that worked, and only after reading this post have I figured out exactly how one even changes the collaboration. As for my statement that's been quoted, that means exactly what it says: not that an article can't by definition achieve a certain rating within this project without the participation of the project's members, but that for this particular article to improve it clearly needs the input of people with experience in the topic, i.e. Latinists (Churchfatherists are another ist that would really help). I still just have to disagree about the B rating according to the extended criteria. There are also a bunch of points in the article right now where I have no idea what is going. Here's one:

"He [Cicero] shows in his works that he has a sense of duty to justify otium as he didn't want to portray himself as a hypocrite or a schizophrenic."

Follow the citation on this and you'll see one major reason why it's in the article's best interest for it to incubate long enough for people with experience in the topic to sort through all the good material that's been compiled. (I'll just excise this charming example from the article.) — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 11:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not a B class article, and no one who is well-read in the subject can possibly think so. I think the main editor is working hard on a complex topic that requires great erudition to pull together. It is no criticism of his efforts to say that the article isn't there yet. For instance, is there a source that discusses Rodin's Thinker as an artistic exploration of otium, actually using the word otium to elucidate the work? If not, it's unsuitable as an illustration, because there are other works of art that are discussed in relation to the concept. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It does not need the opinion of those well read on the subject to agree it's a B class article. It needs consensus and if more then that, it needs help. It needs collaboration on the actual page and not a chat of the discussion on the project page. Please keep comments on this page to the relevent topic of improving the article and the collaboration. Wikipedia is not an exclusive project. It's an inclusive collaboration. The article simple needs some work, but GA standards are not FA standards. It takes far less to be considered a Good Article and even less to be a simple B class article in the eyes of the average reader.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken about the nature of project ratings, which are based on criteria that each project establishes (or adopts from the general standards recommended for projects). Project ratings allow members to determine which articles require attention: a top or high importance article that is only start class would mean that the project should consider prioritizing its efforts to improve such a high-profile article. It's certainly appropriate to discuss project ratings on the project talk page. Project ratings are not the same as the ratings box at the bottom of the article page itself: that box is intended to gather feedback from all readers. In my view, the article merits a C rating because according to this project's quality criteria it is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; it is useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study; and Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content. Content gaps may not be apparent without knowledge of the topic. Cardiff Chestnut and Pmanderson have discussed some gaps or infelicities above. I think the main editor is working hard on a conceptually difficult topic and has made every effort to respond to suggestions. I see no reason to think that such a complex topic would spring fully formed as a B-class article from the brow of Zeus. I'm afraid I'm not understanding your tone. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This entire article is an instance of some Wikipedia's worst writing; what we get when an editor, having found a source, does not understand it, and cannot convey what it says:

Let us compare this passage from Vickers:

The first recorded use of the term is in a fragment from a soldiers' chorus in Ennius' Iphigenia (c. 190 BC), whose preservation we owe to that philologian's ragbag, the Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius (c. 150 AD) - he cites it as an example of the usage of the word praeterpropter (19.10.12). The soldiers are unoccupied, resting and bored, wanting to return home. They distinguish between otium negotiosum, leisure with a satisfying occupation, which takes place in the city, around the hearth, and otium otiosum, unoccupied and pointless leisure, such as their prolonged stay in the countryside, which they find disorientating. Andre argues that otium originally had military, not pastoral associations, referring to the enforced inactivity that coincided each year with the dead months of winter (especially January and February), unsuitable for war, farming or fishing

with what the article made of it:

The earliest extant appearance of the word in Latin literature occurs in a fragment from the soldiers' chorus in the Iphigenia of Ennius, where it is contrasted to negotium.[B] Researches have determined the etymological and semantic use of otium was never a direct translation of the Greek word "schole", but derived from specifically Roman contexts. Otium is an example of the usage of the term "praeter propter", meaning more or less of leisure. It was first used in military terms related to inactivity of war.

Vickers' text is grammatical, coherent, and accurate; it is only from reading him that I have any idea what "military terms related to inactivity of war" was supposed to mean: it referrred to the cessation of military activity in winter; Ennius, however, used it for the boredom of inactive service.

This foggy writing has introduced a positive error: Otium is not an "example of the usage of the term praeterpropter"; that would be meaningless; the whole extract which Gellius quotes is such an example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Culture of ancient Rome

There's a problem at Culture of ancient Rome I don't know how to deal with. There's an IP evidently reading a single book from the 1950s who refuses to stop and discuss his edits. One edit identified Augustus as the brother of Julius Caesar. There are no edit summaries being provided at all. I'm not sure what the proper procedure is for addressing the situation. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I welcomed the IP. Saw there were references after a couple of edits and assumed no issue. This has been going on for three hours, so presumably there will be a pause soon. If the IP doesn't respond to you messages, why not wait until s/he's pooped out, compare the first and last diff's and decide whether or not there's enough damage to simply rollback? A single source expansion is insidious, though. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 23:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually looked a bit much, so I just reverted. Not really sure what the deal is here either. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 23:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd tried reverting twice, and left three messages before the person stopped when you intervened as well. Pmanderson has provided a cogent assessment of the source on the talk page. I didn't want to discourage someone who seemed to want to contribute positively, but couldn't get the editor to engage in discussion or leave edit summaries at all. Not being able to explain what correction you think you're making, while committing demonstrable errors, seemed like the work of an editor who needed to slow down and proceed point-by-point more thoughtfully. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Consul suffectus of uncertain date

Looking through the List of Roman consuls article, it appears to be missing the list of individuals who were suffect consul at some point, but the exact date is unknown - eg, Virius Lupus (consul 278) who was suffect consul sometime before 275. So should we add these individuals to the end of this (quite long) article, or do we create a new article, something like List of undated Roman suffect consuls? Any thoughts? Oatley2112 (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have an estimate of how many there are? — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 12:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The PLRE Vol I lists 41 individuals (pages 1046-1047). Volumes 2 and 3 only list honorary consuls (which are a separate issue altogether). Oatley2112 (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

People who know way more about this topic than I do aren't saying anything, so I'll give my two cents. If there are 41 dateless suffects in PLRE i, then there are probably at least 200 overall, right? (I don't have access to that volume this week, but my understanding is that it covers a late and limited period.) My gut would say that these people should be spun out into there own list since more commentary will be necessary for each entry. Do proper Roman historians have any thoughts? — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 02:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Salvage Roman Dacia

We need everyones help to salvage Roman Dacia article. Please take a look at Talk:Roman Dacia#Copyright violations / plagiarism for the issues. It is a pity to lose all the work since it went through a GA already --Codrin.B (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. But wait, I'm confused. It went through a GA review before, and the plagiarism wasn't uncovered then? Looking at this diff, which is supposed to highlight the violations that date mainly to a single expansion, I'd say that the problem is that some passages are lifted verbatim; they do seem, however, to have citations to the source. So do you see the task as checking it clause by clause, and then perhaps paraphrasing/rewording the directly lifted material? If some phrases are particularly vivid, they could be placed in quotation marks. Is that what you're wanting help with? On the "Salvage Roman Dacia" page? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That was my was my first question too. How did it go to WP:GA like that? I already started to ~~mark with red~~ the known plagiarisms. User:Daizus, who identified the issues, is doing more searches as we speak and marking the copyright violations. Once we know what's a WP:COPYVIO, we indeed need a lot of work to reword this or just remove those sections. We should preserve the structure, images, bibliography, templates etc. It would be a pity to lose them all. And thanks for looking into this!--Codrin.B (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan, especially preserving the structure. If the verbatim passages are marked, I would try to help with rewording. This is not quite as hard as it might be in some cases, since there seem to be citations in place. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that rewording is probably the best way to salvage this article. I have tackled the first paragraph marked in red as a trial - see what you think. Oatley2112 (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Good article criteria are purely formal requirements; footnotes must exist, but nobody has to check them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Oatley! That paragraph looks ok to me. I wonder to want extent a phrase has to be different than the source?... --Codrin.B (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a fine line to tread, and in many cases it's in the eye of the beholder - it's got to be close enough to convey the meaning of the source, without using the exact phrasing of the source. But the replication of names of people and places is unavoidable. Oatley2112 (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I made the mistake of trying to work on the religion section last night while not wearing my corrective lenses, and my head soon exploded. Also, I either did an extraordinarily bad job, or there were portions not marked in red last night that are today. Sorry to have muddled matters. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You did a great job, only that there were portions not marked in red initially. I browsed almost all citations but from a handful of books I don't have and I couldn't find online. Daizus (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys! Really great work on Roman Dacia draft! Looks like we are getting closer to salvage it. I spent some good time cleaning all references, adding more detail to each and standardizing on {{sfn}}, {{cite book}} and so on. Many of the plagiarized phrases don't have references to pages and it would be great if you could help adding the missing info, using the {{sfn|Goldsworthy|2003|p=76}} format. Thanks and regards.--Codrin.B (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

OK - I have just finished all that I am able to do with the Roman Dacia article. It has been completely reworded, and all citations now have page numbers associated with them. What remains are some itmes which have been flagged as dubious which need to be reviewed by someone with greater knowledge of this area than me. Thanks to everyone who helped identify which parts needed rewording and for those who helped clean up the formatting, etc. Oatley2112 (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the help! The article is back on the main space! And happy holidays! --Codrin.B (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Jupiter (mythology)

An erudite editor has added a great deal of content to Jupiter (mythology) over the last several weeks. It's in need of copyediting, and the editor is very upfront about English not being his first language. (I worked on a couple of sections early in the article, and if I'm not mistaken the intro was given a nice polishing by Haploidavey.) The article has also just been tagged for excessive detail, an assessment with which I agree.

My feeling is that an article on such a major figure needs to be accessible to beginners, such as high school students pursuing a personal interest or class project. I've made a couple of suggestions (here), but hey, I have a Thanksgiving feast to prepare and a Christmas tree to put up, so while I'm willing to help, my time is limited for the next month or so. I'm sure that all suggestions would be welcome; please do feel free to drop a "drive-by" comment that others might act on. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There's an official RfC for this article now. I ended up having an unexpected amount of time over the weekend when some plans fell through, so the changes between this earlier version and the current one have become controversial. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Roman emperor?

The members of this project may be interested in the proposal to move Roman Emperor to Roman emperor; see Talk:Roman_Emperor#Requested_move. Some other Wikiprojects have a bot to inform them of pending move requests in their field of interest; maybe we should too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right that such a bot would be good: I've run into a few wrongheaded moves already which I'm sure would have been quashed had they shown up here. As for this one, I went through the first 200 results in a JSTOR search limited to Classical Studies for "roman emperor" and it seems as though the scholarship is agnostic on capitalization when this is a term for the office and not an individual emperor, so I don't know that WP policy on capitalization shouldn't just be followed here. (It seems that that's the way the voting is going.) — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 02:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The supporters are the same small clique who decided on the guideline. My question is whether anybody who knows the subject finds this movement useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This one doesn't. (Not that I can be bothered to comment on the change, I really don't care.) But a bot would be good. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking for editor/s with good understanding of the subject matter to review the page on Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos

It would be very helpful if an editor (or editors) from this project would be willing to review the article on Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos. The article has had a lot of time and attention given to it in the hope of providing a good, reliable, and informative overview of the content of this book and its historical significance. I have proposed the article for FA status, and would appreciate any feedback that will help the review team establish whether this subject has been covered reliably and to the appropriate standard. Thanks -- Zac Δ ^talk! 19:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe the article to be written from the POV that judicial astrology is accurate; this is defended at the FAC, if I read correctly, on the grounds that this is Ptolemy's POV. (As it was; it is the middle term, that if so we should adopt Ptolemy's POV, that I dispute.) Come and tell me I'm wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have just seen this note Septentrionalis. It's an old note now, of course, but having seen this I thought I should add that I clarified some time back that the the onus in the article is to explain the ideas used by Ptolemy objectively, and to avoid any indication of support for, or prejudice against, his ideas. If you or others feels there is an indication of astrology being accurate in the article please specify so that the text can be amended. In reference to your comment on 'judicial astrology' - Ptolemy's style of astrology is in the other bracket: 'natural astrology' and he himself shows no interest in the notions of judicial astrology. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 04:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he did so explain; after this note was written. I am not wholly convinced that the new explanation describes the article; other eyes would be genuinely helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This is true. The article is no longer in the FA review process but I am still working on some of the points raised and hope to present it for peer review for this project after the current overhaul. But now or at anytime it would be good to get more editors involved who understand the subject matter, the philosophical principles involved, or its place in the classical (as well as other periods of) history. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

De Beneficiis

For the Latinists: an article on Seneca's De Beneficiis is kind of occurring and could use a look. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 22:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I see what you mean by "kind of occurring." I'm not sure this was the best way of going about creating an English article on this work. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

At the moment the article looks like it ended when someone got called away to take a phone call. I made a copy edit but I hope it gets a bit of further development -- Zac Δ ^talk! 05:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Augustan History

There are a bajillion tags on the article Augustan History, if anyone has time to look. It's my impression that this is a case where the Latin title is more common, but that is only one of several tags. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

None of them are explained, and most of them appear to be aimed at the consensus understanding of the HA. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Julian the Apostate

There's a rattlebag of unsourced material in the "Church Martyrs" section of Julian's article. Could somebody who knows more about the history of the Church in the Roman Empire help figure out what can be sourced, and what should just be pitched? --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Petreius Hyphantes

A sharp-eyed IP made this edit to Thucydides which caught my attention. As the edit summary says, "Hyphantes is a fake". There is a German "translation" by Peter Weber, apparently related to Karl Jakob Weber, of otherwise unknown rolls from Herculaneum which contain Iubae Petreii Hyphantis Δημαγωγοι tria (sic) tragoediae unaque satira (p. 8). (See the learned footnote 2 for this usage of satira.) A critical edition is promised (p. 9). No such promise has been made to those of us awaiting a proper text of the Petronian Morazla "Scrolls". Could someone who knows the process get Petreius Hyphantes deleted? The German article has already been deleted as a likely hoax. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 04:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete or rewrite? We have pages on famous hoaxes; and this looks more like a historical novel than a serious hoax. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the right way to go. This one isn't famous, aside from the discussion at de, since the book came out last year. If a rewrite were in order, I assume it would be about the book and be moved to Die Demagogen (book), but I don't think that an unknown, self-published thought game warrants an article. You're right that the book does not carry through the hoax: after the purely "in universe" introduction and the plays, the rambling Nachwort basically shows the author's hand, though the fiction is occasionally maintained. (The "author's" back story is cute, though.) — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 21:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I "prodded" the article (without having seen the above discussion). If anyone objects please feel free to remove the template. Paul August ☎ 21:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Please give "Latin" spelling of this modern Greek word: φθόριος

I know the translation of "φθόριος". It is fluorine. But could you please give "what the Greek word would look like in Latin spelling"? I just want an English reader to be able to understand what it sounds like. And no, I don't want some IPA heiroglyphs (!) for the sounds, just "ftorine" or whatever. THANKS!!!TCO (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The closest equivalent is phthorius. But as a disclaimer, I note that the Romans didn't always transliterate Greek the same way, any more than the Greeks transliterated Latin into Greek the same way. You could simplify the spelling by making it pthorius (likely) or phtorius (less likely) or even omit the phi entirely, since it'd be difficult to pronounce both, and the natural tendency is to elide the phi, in which case you come up with thorius (incidentally, the name of a Roman gens).

You could argue that the phi should be rendered "f" in Latin, but since the Greeks would probably have pronounced a hard "p" in this case I'm not sure whether the Romans would have done that.

The ending is literally -os, but in classical Latin this becomes -us. Old Latin used an -os ending where -us later became standard, and the Romans recognized -us as a direct equivalent of Greek -os in the nominative, so they simply converted Greek endings to Latin (and the Greeks did the opposite with Latin words). P Aculeius (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

But if you want a transliteration of the sounds for English speakers, that should be phthorios; Latin does work differently than English. Modern Greek is pronounced differently than Ancient Greek, but those who know the difference will make the adjustment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you guys!TCO (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Advice wanted regarding organization of articles on early Roman wars

I've begun working on expanding Wikipedia's coverage of the Roman wars and conflicts eventually leading up to her conquest of Italy. See User:Fornadan/temp with sub pages for fact gathering & drafting. As you will see my preferred working method is to start out fairly expansively with summaries of the ancient sources followed by the views of the modern historians I have available, to be followed by more concise overviews once I finish with each time period. I've chosen 389 BC as my starting point since the ancient sources are generally considered more reliable for the 4th century than the 5th, and also because I own Oakley's detailed commentary on Livy's books VI-X. However I'm running into problems when I try to add this stuff into main space, there is no existing overview article on the Roman conquest of Italy that I can find, and what material exist appear to be spread across multiple overlapping pages (and often lacking modern views). There are several navigation boxes, but I haven't been able to figure out how these are supposed to fit together. So far I have added sections to Roman-Etruscan Wars and Latin League (which already had material of a similar level of detail for the royal and very early republican times but without any references) a paragraph to Aequi, and if nothing better present itself, will eventually start expanding Volsci as well. However I'm not too happy with this as the latter three really have different/more generally scope than what I'm adding. Where to add information on Rome's Gallic wars between the Allia and Sentium I have no idea.

What I would like to see is a more hierarchial article organization that would link it all together in a more logical way that would make them easy to navigate

Main article Roman conquest of Italy (very brief description of the legendary wars of the royal era and the early 5th century, main focus on late 5th century - 264 BC)

Sub pages dealing with Roman conflicts with a specific people

Roman-Etruscan wars
Roman-Latin wars
Roman-Volscian wars
Roman-Gallic wars 390 - 282 BC (or thereabouts)
and so on

Articles for some regional conflicts, such as The Latin War and the Pyrrhic War would exist somewhat in parallel

- Articles on single battles and episodes etc as desired

Yes this division by people would be somewhat artificial, but I think overall the most convenient one, shared at least in part by the modern authors I've been consulting, (and also to some degree reflect the nature of the ancient sources who often failed to exactly which Etruscan/Latin/Volscian town the Romans were fighting a specific year)

What do you guys think? Fornadan (t) 01:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. The intermediate articles will provide a nice place to put the significant argument that some of Livy's wars are duplicates of each other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have now created Roman conquest of Italy, currently no inline citations, to be added later when I expand coverage of each time period. Fornadan (t) 00:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)