Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:18, 10 February 2018 editAldrasto11 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,223 edits Flora: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:12, 29 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,381 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 45) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WPCGR/Tabs}} {{WPCGR/Tabs}}
{{Shortcut|WT:CGR}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 26 |counter = 45
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(22d) |algo = old(22d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2013-05-20/WikiProject report|writer= ]| ||day =20|month=May|year=2013}} {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2013-05-20/WikiProject report|writer= ]| ||day =20|month=May|year=2013}}
{{Archive box |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months |index=/Archive index | {{Archives |search=yes |auto=short |bot=MiszaBot I |age=22 |units=days }}__TOC__
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}__TOC__
== Media involving Rome + Greece? ==


== Classicists and Renaissance Classicists ==
Should movies, games, books, etc. (e.g. ], ]) be added to the wikiproject? ] '']'' 22:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
:At least some of them (], for example) are; I have no idea how consistently this is applied. There have been previous discussions on this talkpage about the scope of this project (e.g. ) but I can't see any which specifically address popular media. Personally, I suspect that members of WP:CGR are no more interested in Wonder Woman, or Rome Total War, than the average editor, and there is no point adding them to the project, but I don't care enough to try to change things either way. ] (]) 22:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


Hi there, can I ask to what extent you regard Classicists and in particular Renaissance and early Modern Classicists as within scope of this project? For example, ], or perhaps ]? I ask because there can be a need to bring people who know Latin into conversation about these Latinists, but of course, not all Latinists are primarily Classicists, or remembered as such. ] ] 17:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
: IMHO, in most of these movies & games, the attempt to be faithful to the facts of the ancient world as we know them range from poor to nonexistent. For novels & other fiction, it is often fairly good (for example Steven Saylor's "Roma sub Rosa" series), yet even the best known has otherwise little connection with Classical studies. By this I mean to say, none of it influences the study of ancient Greece & Rome in the way Science Fiction has influenced related fields in scientific rsearch & engineering. So I don't see any reason to add those works to the wikiproject as a general rule. -- ] (]) 17:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


:These topics come up in our article alerts (or at least some do), so I would imagine it's fine to include them. I can see no disadvantage to suggesting that any topic touching on classical Greece or Rome can be counted as part of this project; nobody is obliged to work on a particular article just because they're active in a related WikiProject. ] (]) 17:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
: It would appear that there's no firm rule. ] is in, but ] isn't (I think I'll fix that). My suggestion is that if antiquity is central to the work, than it belongs. So Gladiator would be in, but Wonder Woman wouldn't (only tangential to the story).] (]) 21:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
::Thanks! I'll do this where I notice, then, thank you. ] ] 23:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


== Mother of Lucan ==
:Personally, I see no problem adding these to the project if you feel they're worth it, and have some idea of how they fit in. And frankly I'm delighted that ''Wonder Woman'' is considered part of the project, even though I admit that the connection is less obvious than with most of the sword-and-sandal genre. I'm sure that's just sentimentality on my part, but I don't see any reason for it to go. Let's avoid contentious debates about whether to remove topics that have at least some justification for being in the project, and focus on adding those that ought to be in, and removing only those that have no obvious connection to our topic (for example, there's no reason to include ''Doctor Who'', even though there have been a few episodes involving or taking place in ancient Rome and its environs). ] (]) 22:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


A new article ] has been created, but I'm a bit uncertain on her name, some sources seem to refer to her as Acilia or Acilia Lucana instead of Atilla. Does anyone know which is prefered by modern scholard? ] (]) 20:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
== Capitalization: Pontifex Maximus RM (and others) ==


:You might already have this, but ''PW'' has her under "Acilius", No. 59, which reads:
For those of you who haven't got WP:Classical Greece and Rome Alerts on your watchlist, there's ] going on about whether to move ] to ''pontifex maximus'', on the grounds that some sources don't capitalize it, and the MOS requires lowercase titles except in the case of proper names. I think the case is rather ambiguous, since there are quite a lot of sources that go either way; and this is far from the only such title in our project. For example, we have ], although many sources do ''not'' capitalize "senate", and ], even though I usually treat this as a common noun. I think that the names of offices and institutions tend to be amphibious when it comes to capitalization; when addressing someone by their title, it's natural to capitalize, but when using the title as a description it seems more appropriate to use it as a common noun; I might write "Servius Tullius, the sixth King of Rome" or "the sixth Roman king"; here the way it's worded makes a difference to me.
:<blockquote>'''59)''' Acilia, Tochter von Nr. 48, Mutter des Dichters M. Annaeus Lucanus, vita Lucani bei Suet. ed. Reiff. 76. Bei der Verschwörung des Piso im J. 65 in den Process ihres Sohnes verwickelt. Tac. ann. XV 56. 71.</blockquote>
:Which Google Translate renders as:
:<blockquote>'''59)''' Acilia, daughter of No. 48, mother of the poet M. Annaeus Lucanus, vita Lucani in Suet. ed. Reiff. 76. Involved in the trial of her son during the conspiracy of Piso in 65. Tac. ann. XV 56. 71.</blockquote>
:As for Acilius No. 48: "'''48)''' Acilius Lucanus, Rhetor uns Sachwalter von Ruf in Corduba, Vater der Acilia (Nr. 59), vita Lucani bei Suet. ed. Reiff. 76.", which translates as "'''48)''' Acilius Lucanus, rhetorician and lawyer of repute in Corduba, father of Acilia (No. 59), vita Lucani in Suet. ed. Reiff. 76."
:So really just Suetonius and Tacitus, but evidently Suetonius does not give her name. The Loeb edition of ''Annales'' on Lacus Curtius gives her name as ''Acilia'' on both occurrences; this translation is from 1937.
:I also found an inscription that may have a bearing on it. From Corduba, dated to the reigns of Augustus or Tiberius, {{AE|2005|827}}: "Valeriae T(iti) f(iliae) / Luni / d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) // Aciliae L(uci) f(iliae) / P(ubli) Aemili Silonis / d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)". We can only speculate on whether these are relatives of Lucan's, but the fact that these names are found together at Corduba during this period seems to indicate that ''Acilia'' is probably the correct reading. I might also cite alternative forms, but I'd give ''Acilia'' first, and possibly footnote the others. ] (]) 23:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::I can't find any modern scholarship to call her "Atilla"; she is "Acilia" in e.g. Martindale 1984, "The Politician Lucan", WIlson 1990, "The Death of Lucan", and in Brill's Companion to Lucan. ], who is cited in the article and does call her Atilla, is neither an academic historian or a classicist by training. ] (]) 11:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


I have moved the article now and cleaned up links.] (]) 19:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Pontifex Maximus seems to me like one of these titles that seems less like a common noun, but I've probably written it both ways, and perhaps not even consistently. I don't see why we should try to enforce consistency in cases where something could be capitalized or not, as long as it's used logically and consistently within individual articles. But what do you think? Is it important to move this, if it's ''often'' capitalized? Or do we just go with whichever capitalization seems to be the most common? And if so, how do we determine this? The ngram suggests that usage has gone from majority capitalized to about even. Which books do we prioritize, and which exclude? Not sure this is an issue that can be easily resolved. ] (]) 22:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


== AfD for ] ==
: I don't know if I can be of much help in that discussion. Partly because I consider arguments over Misplaced Pages style issues to be an infertile swamp that ends up alienating good editors while encouraging useless ones. (They shouldn't be, but that's how things have evolved on Misplaced Pages.) Partly because I have no strong preference either way, something you also admit to in the discussion linked. And in part because I can't find an authority I acknowledge that makes a pronouncement on this matter. (My usual go-to authority, the ''MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers'', 6th edition, doesn't cover this issue.) FWIW, the 3rd edition of the ''Oxford Classical Dictionary'', which should otherwise serve as a reliable standard on style issues, doesn't capitalize this title, but they don't capitalize a lot of titles that I would, e.g. "Emperor"; I suspect that British English also deprecates capitalization of titles.<p>About the only statements I can make on the issue are: (1) it appears that there is a consensus to deprecate use of capitalization in titles as much as possible (which, IMHO, appears to be current British practice); & (2) I resent anyone who isn't part of this Wikiproject -- or has not demonstrated some expertise in this subject -- telling me whether or not how to use capitalization in articles on ancient history. And I admit point 2 isn't helpful in coming to a durable consensus on the matter. -- ] (]) 20:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


I saw this when looking about re a rewrite I've been planning for some time on the ].
== Proposed rewrite of '']'' ==


I've nominated ] at AfD: ]. It's far too specific a topic and reliant on original research. Some portions could probably be merged (evidently back into) ]. Also note that there was a ] in 2022. ] (]) 05:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Please see of '']''.


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
* Added detailed section on the history of the text
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 19:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
* Added list of those he thanks in book I
* Re-ordered quotes
* Separated "notes" from "references"
] (]) 22:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

:I think you should reconsider this rewrite. While the current article could still be improved, it's well-organized, concise, and the language flows reasonably well. The proposed rewrite seems to get bogged down in minutiae before it reaches the meat of the article: the "overview" section mixes together details of the contents in the first paragraph, followed by multiple short paragraphs on the structure, composition, history, purpose, and historical significance all jumbled together. Much of this is then repeated in subsequent sections.

:In the current article, there is a three-paragraph lead, covering much of what you've put in the "overview" section, but it reads more clearly and summarizes the topic nicely. It then progresses to the structure and themes of the work, treating the organization, style, purpose, and circumstances of its writing in one paragraph, and then using two more to discuss the themes and philosophy expressed in it. The proposed rewrite not only separates and disorganizes the lead, but then follows it with sixteen paragraphs broken into eight subsections on the history and speculations about the history of the work since the time of Marcus Aurelius, before it reaches the "structure and themes" section. Along the way, the original organization and title, or lack thereof, are mentioned or discussed multiple times in different places, and you've taken time to comment on the comments that other scholars had about the work at various points in time, which seems premature given that the contents of the ''Meditations'' have yet to be discussed.

:The "structure and themes" section as rewritten dwells primarily on the physical structure of the ''Meditations''; the lines, the line breaks, the titles, etc., and on the rhetorical devices used; metaphor, quotations, etc., all of which give us a rather vague picture of how Marcus Aurelius was writing, but not what his point was. The actual philosophical concepts and discussion from the original article have been replaced by descriptions of the way the emperor used language. There's then a summary of Book I, which suggests that it was written as an afterthought, although there's no summary of any of the other books; is a list of persons thanked and an explanation of why each of them is thanked really necessary detail for this article?

:The "reception and criticism" section in the original article could have stood more balance, as it comes out rather heavily weighted toward criticism; but the only changes you've proposed making are removing the sentence on Maxwell Staniforth (why? Is the opinion of a major translator of the work not relevant?), and excising all but the punctuation in the paragraph about the series of novels at the end (probably a good call). It might have benefited more from some additional positive points of view by modern scholars and philosophers, or perhaps some rehabilitation following the two long negative paragraphs.

:Under "quotations" you've retained all but three of those from the original; I can't tell why you threw those three out and added one rather convoluted new one at the end. I see you've arranged all of the quotations in sequence; I can only assume the original order wasn't random, so why is placing them in sequence an improvement?

:At the end of the original article was a section discussing the history of the ''Meditations''' printing, but in the rewrite, part of that has been broken off and added to another section much earlier in the article. Does it really make sense to have this type of information in different places, instead of all together at the end?

:In all the original article seems to be better organized, and it certainly reads more clearly. It goes into some specifics with respect to the underlying philosophy, which the rewrite does not; the proposed rewrite is drowning in details that aren't really necessary here, but could stand better organization and perhaps a more appropriate location in the article; useful and interesting material has been removed for no apparent reason; and there are other issues; for example, in the infobox you've confused the date of composition with the date of publication, and confused Richard Graves with Robert Graves.

:My suggestion would be to take the new material on the history or provenance of the work, and any detailed structural analysis of the contents, and either summarize them in one or two paragraphs that could form a section between the "quotations" and "editions" section, which should stay largely as they currently are, or make a separate article on just these details, and link to it from the existing article. ] (]) 05:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

::{{ping|P Aculeius}}your insights always find their way to the heart of the matter. I will take these suggestions and run with them. Thanks. ] (]) 16:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I don't mean to come across as harsh. But it looks like the present article is the product of a great deal of collaborative editing up to the present, and the product of this work looks pretty good, so I don't think a wholesale rewrite is a good idea. I think the best choice would be to create either additional sections to the existing article, covering the new information and insights you have, or create subsidiary articles linked to the main one in appropriate places. I'm not saying you're not doing good work, just that it probably shouldn't replace the existing article in these circumstances. ] (]) 16:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

== Sexuality in Italy listed at ] ==
]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Please participate in ] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 05:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

== Flora ==

What a shame, there is no article on the Roman deity....!

Latest revision as of 16:12, 29 December 2024

Project overviewTasksCurationGuidesAwardsOur classicistsTalk page
Shortcut

WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 20 May 2013.
Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45



This page has archives. Sections older than 22 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Classicists and Renaissance Classicists

Hi there, can I ask to what extent you regard Classicists and in particular Renaissance and early Modern Classicists as within scope of this project? For example, Petrarch, or perhaps Erasmus? I ask because there can be a need to bring people who know Latin into conversation about these Latinists, but of course, not all Latinists are primarily Classicists, or remembered as such. Jim Killock (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

These topics come up in our article alerts (or at least some do), so I would imagine it's fine to include them. I can see no disadvantage to suggesting that any topic touching on classical Greece or Rome can be counted as part of this project; nobody is obliged to work on a particular article just because they're active in a related WikiProject. P Aculeius (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll do this where I notice, then, thank you. Jim Killock (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Mother of Lucan

A new article Atilla (mother of Lucan) has been created, but I'm a bit uncertain on her name, some sources seem to refer to her as Acilia or Acilia Lucana instead of Atilla. Does anyone know which is prefered by modern scholard? ★Trekker (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You might already have this, but PW has her under "Acilius", No. 59, which reads:

59) Acilia, Tochter von Nr. 48, Mutter des Dichters M. Annaeus Lucanus, vita Lucani bei Suet. ed. Reiff. 76. Bei der Verschwörung des Piso im J. 65 in den Process ihres Sohnes verwickelt. Tac. ann. XV 56. 71.

Which Google Translate renders as:

59) Acilia, daughter of No. 48, mother of the poet M. Annaeus Lucanus, vita Lucani in Suet. ed. Reiff. 76. Involved in the trial of her son during the conspiracy of Piso in 65. Tac. ann. XV 56. 71.

As for Acilius No. 48: "48) Acilius Lucanus, Rhetor uns Sachwalter von Ruf in Corduba, Vater der Acilia (Nr. 59), vita Lucani bei Suet. ed. Reiff. 76.", which translates as "48) Acilius Lucanus, rhetorician and lawyer of repute in Corduba, father of Acilia (No. 59), vita Lucani in Suet. ed. Reiff. 76."
So really just Suetonius and Tacitus, but evidently Suetonius does not give her name. The Loeb edition of Annales on Lacus Curtius gives her name as Acilia on both occurrences; this translation is from 1937.
I also found an inscription that may have a bearing on it. From Corduba, dated to the reigns of Augustus or Tiberius, AE 2005, 827: "Valeriae T(iti) f(iliae) / Luni / d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) // Aciliae L(uci) f(iliae) / P(ubli) Aemili Silonis / d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)". We can only speculate on whether these are relatives of Lucan's, but the fact that these names are found together at Corduba during this period seems to indicate that Acilia is probably the correct reading. I might also cite alternative forms, but I'd give Acilia first, and possibly footnote the others. P Aculeius (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I can't find any modern scholarship to call her "Atilla"; she is "Acilia" in e.g. Martindale 1984, "The Politician Lucan", WIlson 1990, "The Death of Lucan", and in Brill's Companion to Lucan. Stephen Dando-Collins, who is cited in the article and does call her Atilla, is neither an academic historian or a classicist by training. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I have moved the article now and cleaned up links.★Trekker (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

AfD for Roman command structure during First Mithridatic War

I saw this when looking about re a rewrite I've been planning for some time on the First Mithridatic War.

I've nominated Roman command structure during First Mithridatic War at AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Roman command structure during First Mithridatic War. It's far too specific a topic and reliant on original research. Some portions could probably be merged (evidently back into) First Mithridatic War. Also note that there was a previous discussion here in 2022. Ifly6 (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Battle of Thermopylae

Battle of Thermopylae has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)