| Revision as of 01:13, 11 March 2010 editDESiegel (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users50,971 edits Classical Greece and Rome← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:18, 10 October 2024 edit undoCynwolfe (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers39,017 edits →"Arbores fanatici": I'll just fix itTag: Reply | ||
| (772 intermediate revisions by 43 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header|search=yes}} | |||
| {{Wikiproject_mythology}} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| ⚫ | {{Classical Greece and Rome} | ||
| |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |||
| {{User:WildBot/msg|1=Gaius, Festus, Victim, Macedonia, Cato}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| |counter = 5 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |||
| |algo = old(90d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:Glossary of ancient Roman religion/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Mythology|importance=Low}} | |||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome|importance=Mid}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Glossaries}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{tmbox | text = | |||
| '''Resources'''</br> | |||
| The following subpages contain information from the article, mainly primary sources and translations, preserved here to facilitate the creation of articles on some of the subjects | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *]}} | |||
| <!-- Do not implement auto-archiving, read Talk:Glossary_of_ancient_Roman_religion#Talk_page_length --> | |||
| {{Broken anchors|links= | |||
| * <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Late Republic) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Late Republic","appear":{"revid":3825745,"parentid":3825551,"timestamp":"2004-06-01T17:09:27Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":374238565,"parentid":374225885,"timestamp":"2010-07-19T02:45:47Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> | |||
| * <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Late Republic) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Late Republic","appear":{"revid":3825745,"parentid":3825551,"timestamp":"2004-06-01T17:09:27Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":374238565,"parentid":374225885,"timestamp":"2010-07-19T02:45:47Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> | |||
| * <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Supremacy of the New Nobility (287–133 BC)) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Supremacy of the New Nobility (287–133 BC)","appear":{"revid":429238491,"parentid":429211984,"timestamp":"2011-05-15T14:36:44Z","replaced_anchors":{"The Patrician Era (509–367 BC)":"Patrician Era (509–367 BC)","The Conflict of the Orders (367–287 BC)":"Conflict of the Orders (367–287 BC)","The Supremacy of the New Nobility (287–133 BC)":"Supremacy of the New Nobility (287–133 BC)","The populares party and the optimates party":"The populares and the optimates","Pompey, Crassus, and the Catilinarian Conspiracy":"Pompey, Crassus and the Catilinarian Conspiracy","The First Triumvirate":"First Triumvirate"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":844597666,"parentid":844588573,"timestamp":"2018-06-05T22:02:06Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"very_different":"42≥42","rename_to":"Plebeian nobles and commoners (287–133 BC)"} --> | |||
| }} | |||
| == structure into concepts == | |||
| ==Suggestions== | |||
| I am about to translate the article into French. I find it (sorry for the criticism) ''messy''. I would reorganize it into concepts (as promised in the introductory chapter), for example ''abominari'' goes under ''omen'', ''exauguratio'' under ''augur'', ''effatio'' , putting ''arbor, lucus'' and ''nemus'' under the same concept of "wood". --] (]) 09:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I couldn't resist it! The list seems thorough - ''so'' many red-links! I think each entry should offer a brief summary and context. I'll be happy to help with expression, just to make things as clear and simple as possible for the benefit of the average reader (whoever she is); for example, what's a theonim? - it needs saying, but in English, this is ]. You might check some of the redlinks using a different case - I seem to remember that Italian and English language scholarship can differ in this. I can't do so myself as I've no Latin (I'm learning, but in fits and starts, and slowly). I've put this page on my watch-list, so I'll respond (in time) to any queries here. ] (]) 13:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Suggestion: Refs and notes? == | |||
| ==''Templum'' as a technical term of Roman religion== | |||
| Looks like the ref section might benefit from the more scholarly approach of having notes and references be separate. There are lots of repeated refs to different pages in a limited number of sources (e.g., Lintott). Lots o' work though. - ] (]) 21:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| A notice requesting the deletion of this article was speedily declined by an administrator. The deletion may have been requested because currently, ] redirects to ]; but a "templum" is not the same thing as "a Roman Temple". It's a sacred space, created by augur. Every Roman temple was once a templum; not every templum was a Roman Temple. ] should probably deal with this (and other matters), but doesn't. So the redirect is inappropriate and the ] serves a useful purpose. ] (]) 00:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :That was indeed what caught me out. In which case, do you want to repoint Templum to here? --] (]) 00:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Elen, I don't know how to do that; it would be much appreciated. ] (]) 00:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have done so. You could do with putting the A-Z section into a table - it looks a bit of a dog the way it is currently displayed. --] (]) 00:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks. I'll see if I can get some help with that; it's an unruly pup... ] (]) 00:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==fastus, nefastus, and festus definitions== | |||
| == Attributions == | |||
| According to Agnes Kirsopp Michels' book "The Calendar of the Roman Republic", the official calendrical classification was between ''dies fasti'' (days when the courts are open), ordinary ''dies nefasti'' (when the courts are not open), and special ''dies nefasti'' (marked "NP" on ancient calendar charts) which were more commonly known as ''feriae'' or ''dies feriati'' (i.e. reserved for public religious ceremonies). The words ''festus'' and ''profestus'' don't actually fit into that classification scheme, but refer to "cheerful days which should be enjoyed" and the opposite. Ordinary ancient Romans were often not fully aware of abstruse calendar technicalities, so there was already a little confusion in ancient times, and some people used the phrase ''dies nefasti'' to refer to unlucky days of ill omen etc. (and other people, such as Gellius, considered them ignorant for doing so). I'm not sure that all this is very well explained in the article as it now stands... ] (]) 06:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. In the above remarks, I wasn't distinguishing ''dies comitiales'' from ''dies fasti'' (another issue discussed in the Agnes Kirsopp Michels book)... ] (]) 09:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| <s>Many of the sections seem to have been copied directly from other wikipedia articles. This violates the attribution rights of their contributors unless {{tl|copied}} is used to indicate each such source article and the relevant edits. (Indeed in its current state the article is technically a copyvio.) ] ] 02:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)</s> | |||
| == Nero's dies imperii/decennalia Oct. 13, 64 AD == | |||
| :As far as I can tell, the creator of this article (who's also by far its main contributor) ''has'' contributed similar material elsewhere: so I suppose I'm saying that I don't really see this as copy-vio. Much of it's far too detailed and technical for the single general-readership overview article ], and is more usefully elaborated here than elsewhere – especially when there ''is'' no "elsewhere" but duplication is of course pointless. The current format's not right; DES' suggested merge might work. Dunno really. The material itself needs quite drastic tightening; and might benefit from reliance on less contentious scholarship but these are separate issues. ] (]) 12:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <nowiki>Nero observed his dies imperii/decennalia - the 10-year anniversary of being emperor on October 13, 64 AD.<ref>https://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/PETEMART.HTM </ref></nowiki> ] (]) 18:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Funny you should mention that. I just removed that from the article and came here to explain why. | |||
| :'''A''') There's no reason to provide {{sc|]}} attention to Nero's decennalia out of all the other ones under the empire aside from dating a particular saint's supposed death as in the original source. It doesn't belong in this article even if it were an accurate date. | |||
| :A quick PS to DES: I might have misunderstood you: do you mean the entries are straight translations from a non-enwikipedia? ] (]) 12:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::<s>No I mean that at least some of the content is copied from other articels on en-wikipedia. That is fine '''if''' the copying is properly acknowledged -- the normal way is by using the {{tl|copied}} template, although other ways are possible. But it is not acceptable to just copy text from another Misplaced Pages article with no indication of source. If there are copies from other projects, i don't know of them. ] ] 15:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :::I thought I had found direct copies of some of the sections from some of the articles linked in the upper list. But I can't confirm that now. I think i must have been mistaken. Perhaps i was fooled by a redirect sending me back to compare text with itself. In any case, what I said of this being a technical copyvio now seems to be incorrect. ] ] 15:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :'''B''') A ] and a {{lang|la|dies imperii}} weren't the same thing. People think they generally aligned but they frequently didn't. A decennial date has no business in the {{lang|la|dies imperii}} entry. | |||
| Sorry for not taking part in the discussion til now. I have been busy editing. '''Nothing''' in the article is copied from Misplaced Pages. I created the article because I think Misplaced Pages does not deal with the topic I present and discuss it in a systematic way. I think I give here to the interested reader a thorough presentation of the topics while in existing Misplaced Pages articles they are unspecifically dealt with. In many instances: compare sacer, sanctus etc. I also quote always the sources and they are mostly Italian authors or Dumezil.] (]) 13:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :'''C''') The source is a random (dead) webpage about one guy's conjectural retro history based on early Christian hagiography and the guy provides no further sourcing of any of his claims. In the absence of more context about how famous this guy is for his renown and cautious scholarship, it's closer to something written on a bathroom wall than to reliable sourcing. | |||
| Now, you see, I thought it was all copied, which was why I tagged it for A10, but at least where ] is concerned, that isn't true. DES could perhaps point to a couple - if you copy from one Misplaced Pages article to another, under the terms of the license, you must credit the other article so the history is traceable. The layout needs a serious think, but that's another problem. ] (]) 14:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I would add that if a person does assemble content from multiple other articles into a co-ordinated larger summary article, or an article that treats the same content from a different poitn of view, i don't think ] applies. There was a recent discussion of this on ]. ] ] 15:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :'''D''') On the basis of his own account, the rando hagiographer seems to have simply assumed that Nero's decennalia must have been on his {{lang|la|dies imperii}} just cuz, meaning the date is entirely conjectural on his authority even if he had any (which he doesn't) and even if it belonged in the article (which it doesn't). | |||
| ==Organisation == | |||
| Also, as a survey article or annotated list, the discussions of the terms should probably be reduced to short summaries with links to the relevant articles where fuller information is given. Moreover, having two lists, one of bare links and one of content is confusing, thes should IMO be merged. ] ] 02:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :'''E''') If someone stops by and has reliable sourcing for Nero's decennalia, add it to Nero's article and to the Decennalia article and to the 13 October and 64 AD articles but don't restore it here to the entry on a separate topic. — ] 09:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :An list of short summaries would be useful. Some terms (see my previous above) probably require new articles. ] (]) 14:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == "Arbores fanatici" == | |||
| I've split this into two sections, as the attribution needs to be dealt with urgently and definitively, while the organisation is something to discuss. What I would do is | |||
| *structure the article as one list, so the table of contents covers the navigation | |||
| *have a couple of sentences on every topic, with a link to other articles if there is one | |||
| *split lengthy content out and either create a new article or else find an existing article that the content ought to be in. | |||
| Why not "arbores fanaticae"? Is it non-classical usage? ] (]) 19:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| So you would get | |||
| :Good question. That is how it appears in the secondary source (Filotas, ''Pagan Survivals''). I will try to track down the Latin reference in Caesarius of Arles. ] (]) 12:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Aardvark=== | |||
| ::So far I've failed to track down the Latin text of this sermon (53). However, I feel fairly confident that the secondary source was misled by the ''-or'' suffix into thinking the word is masculine like agent nouns in ''-or''. In other sermons by Caesarius I've found in Latin, he knows that ''arbor'' is feminine as reflected by 1st/2nd-declension adjectives modifying ''arbores''. I'll fix this, while hoping to live long enough to go through and improve the references in the whole glossary … ] (]) 14:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Desert animal sometimes thought to represent the deity ]. | |||
| ===Isis=== | |||
| {{Main|Isis}} | |||
| Major Egyptian deity, wife of ], mother of ]. Famed in legend for searching for her husband's body after it had been dismembered by his brother ]. Also tutelary deity along with ] ] and ], believed to protect the body of the deceased in the tomb. | |||
| Does this make sense? ] (]) 14:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Completely, and thanks for the example. See my previous, near-edit-conflict response above. By the way, I've posted the various concerns expressed here (plus a couple more) on the article creator's talk. ] (]) 14:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes that is more or less the sort of organization i had in mind. ] ] 15:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Lede == | |||
| I think the article needs a lead-in paragraph. DES, you seem to have removed even the one sentence that was there - is this because you don't think it needs a lede, or just because it got lost in the move round? --] (]) 12:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :That was not intentional on my part -- I'm not sure just how it happened. i have restored the previous lead section with the exception of the Misplaced Pages self-reference. Since many of the entries at present are '''not''' "brief" i have removed the statement that they are. ] ] 17:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:18, 10 October 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Glossary of ancient Roman religion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is rated List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Resources The following subpages contain information from the article, mainly primary sources and translations, preserved here to facilitate the creation of articles on some of the subjects |
 |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
|
structure into concepts
I am about to translate the article into French. I find it (sorry for the criticism) messy. I would reorganize it into concepts (as promised in the introductory chapter), for example abominari goes under omen, exauguratio under augur, effatio , putting arbor, lucus and nemus under the same concept of "wood". --Diligent (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion: Refs and notes?
Looks like the ref section might benefit from the more scholarly approach of having notes and references be separate. There are lots of repeated refs to different pages in a limited number of sources (e.g., Lintott). Lots o' work though. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
fastus, nefastus, and festus definitions
According to Agnes Kirsopp Michels' book "The Calendar of the Roman Republic", the official calendrical classification was between dies fasti (days when the courts are open), ordinary dies nefasti (when the courts are not open), and special dies nefasti (marked "NP" on ancient calendar charts) which were more commonly known as feriae or dies feriati (i.e. reserved for public religious ceremonies). The words festus and profestus don't actually fit into that classification scheme, but refer to "cheerful days which should be enjoyed" and the opposite. Ordinary ancient Romans were often not fully aware of abstruse calendar technicalities, so there was already a little confusion in ancient times, and some people used the phrase dies nefasti to refer to unlucky days of ill omen etc. (and other people, such as Gellius, considered them ignorant for doing so). I'm not sure that all this is very well explained in the article as it now stands... AnonMoos (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
P.S. In the above remarks, I wasn't distinguishing dies comitiales from dies fasti (another issue discussed in the Agnes Kirsopp Michels book)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Nero's dies imperii/decennalia Oct. 13, 64 AD
Nero observed his dies imperii/decennalia - the 10-year anniversary of being emperor on October 13, 64 AD.<ref>https://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/PETEMART.HTM </ref> 2601:580:109:FFC7:3045:DC70:7800:8964 (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- Funny you should mention that. I just removed that from the article and came here to explain why.
- A) There's no reason to provide WP:UNDUE attention to Nero's decennalia out of all the other ones under the empire aside from dating a particular saint's supposed death as in the original source. It doesn't belong in this article even if it were an accurate date.
- B) A decennalia and a dies imperii weren't the same thing. People think they generally aligned but they frequently didn't. A decennial date has no business in the dies imperii entry.
- C) The source is a random (dead) webpage about one guy's conjectural retro history based on early Christian hagiography and the guy provides no further sourcing of any of his claims. In the absence of more context about how famous this guy is for his renown and cautious scholarship, it's closer to something written on a bathroom wall than to reliable sourcing.
- D) On the basis of his own account, the rando hagiographer seems to have simply assumed that Nero's decennalia must have been on his dies imperii just cuz, meaning the date is entirely conjectural on his authority even if he had any (which he doesn't) and even if it belonged in the article (which it doesn't).
- E) If someone stops by and has reliable sourcing for Nero's decennalia, add it to Nero's article and to the Decennalia article and to the 13 October and 64 AD articles but don't restore it here to the entry on a separate topic. — LlywelynII 09:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
"Arbores fanatici"
Why not "arbores fanaticae"? Is it non-classical usage? 195.187.108.130 (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Good question. That is how it appears in the secondary source (Filotas, Pagan Survivals). I will try to track down the Latin reference in Caesarius of Arles. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- So far I've failed to track down the Latin text of this sermon (53). However, I feel fairly confident that the secondary source was misled by the -or suffix into thinking the word is masculine like agent nouns in -or. In other sermons by Caesarius I've found in Latin, he knows that arbor is feminine as reflected by 1st/2nd-declension adjectives modifying arbores. I'll fix this, while hoping to live long enough to go through and improve the references in the whole glossary … Cynwolfe (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)