| Revision as of 14:09, 1 March 2010 editElen of the Roads (talk | contribs)16,638 edits →Attributions and organization: re declined A10← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:27, 1 March 2010 edit undoElen of the Roads (talk | contribs)16,638 edits →Attributions and organization: split to two topicsNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| ::::Thanks. I'll see if I can get some help with that; it's an unruly pup... ] (]) 00:56, 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) | ||
| == Attributions |
== Attributions == | ||
| 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 articel and the relevant edits. (Indeed in its current state the article is technically a copyvio.) ] ] 02:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | 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 articel and the relevant edits. (Indeed in its current state the article is technically a copyvio.) ] ] 02:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | 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) | ||
| :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) | :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) | ||
| Line 28: | Line 26: | ||
| 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) | 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) | ||
| ==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) | ||
Revision as of 14:27, 1 March 2010
 | Mythology Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): Rex, Felix, Roman religion, Gaius, Fas, Castus, Pius, Festus, Victim, Signum, Sacer
For help fixing these links, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page. Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem |  |
Suggestions
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 theonym. 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. Haploidavey (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Templum as a technical term of Roman religion
A notice requesting the deletion of this article was speedily declined by an administrator. The deletion may have been requested because currently, templum redirects to Roman Temple; 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. Roman Temple should probably deal with this (and other matters), but doesn't. So the redirect is inappropriate and the Templum entry in this article serves a useful purpose. Haploidavey (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- That was indeed what caught me out. In which case, do you want to repoint Templum to here? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Elen, I don't know how to do that; it would be much appreciated. Haploidavey (talk) 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. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll see if I can get some help with that; it's an unruly pup... Haploidavey (talk) 00:56, 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. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Elen, I don't know how to do that; it would be much appreciated. Haploidavey (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Attributions
Many of the sections seem to have been copied directly from other wikipedia articles. This violates the attribution rights of their contributors unless {{copied}} is used to indicate each such source articel and the relevant edits. (Indeed in its current state the article is technically a copyvio.) DES 02:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- 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 Religion in ancient Rome, 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. Haploidavey (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- A quick PS to DES: I might have misunderstood you: do you mean the entries are straight translations from a non-enwikipedia? Haploidavey (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
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.Aldrasto (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Now, you see, I thought it was all copied, which was why I tagged it for A10, but at least where Templum 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. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
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. DES 02:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Categories: