This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Quiddity (talk | contribs) at 06:12, 7 August 2012 (→Glossary templates: update). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:12, 7 August 2012 by Quiddity (talk | contribs) (→Glossary templates: update)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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 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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): ]
For help fixing these links, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page. Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem |  |
 | 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 |
Bellum pium et iustum
I looked at the link ius ad bellum and bellum iustum but they have nothing to do with Roman religion. I edited a bit this entry and I think the link should be deleted.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)09:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Agree that the entry can benefit from development. However, the links should stay, because they point to related concepts that the reader might want to look at. Doesn't have to pertain to Roman religion; it's just a way for someone to look at related material, or even at material that seems at first glance to be related but isn't (some articles have a note at the top saying "Not to be confused with" plus a link). Cynwolfe (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Deus and Theos are not cognates!
Zeus: supreme god of the ancient Greeks, 1706, from Gk., from PIE *dewos- "god" (cf. L. deus "god," O. Pers. daiva- "demon, evil god," O.C.S. deivai, Skt. deva-),from base *dyeu- "to gleam, to shine;" also the root of words for "sky" and "day" from: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Zeus & Thea: fem. proper name, from Gk. thea "goddess," fem. equivalent of theos "god," from PIE base *dhes-, root of words applied to various religious concepts, e.g. L. feriae "holidays," festus "festive," fanum "temple." http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=thea&searchmode=none Böri (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know what your point is, but you need to provide scholarly sources, not links to websites. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Theos and Deus both mean "God" but etymologically these words didn't come from the same root! Böri (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Got it. I meant more specifically what you wanted the entry to say. For now I've just pointed out that the Romans translated theos as deus. Thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Correct remark from Bori (sory I cannot type dieresis). Theos has not the same root of deus and is cognate with fas, Themis, festus etc. from IE stemroot *dhes- as I mantianed for a long time to no avail here.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Why didn't you just correct the statement? What matters to the entry is that the Romans translated theos with deus; it's a matter of usage, not etymology. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Correct remark from Bori (sory I cannot type dieresis). Theos has not the same root of deus and is cognate with fas, Themis, festus etc. from IE stemroot *dhes- as I mantianed for a long time to no avail here.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- because I wanted to show that why I changed it. Böri (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, Böri, I should've been clearer that I was talking to Aldrasto, who is a longtime contributor to the article. Wasn't criticizing anything you'd done. I hadn't recalled Aldrasto briniging this up before. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- because I wanted to show that why I changed it. Böri (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Entries on pontifical jargon from Macrobius book III
There are perhaps 2 or 3 other terms that could be considered for admission. One is averruncare to avert cf. god Averruncus.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think that would be a fine addition, especially since it relates to a preexisting article. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- I realised my memory tricked me, it looks Macrobius III does not mention Averruncus. After reading the WP article and Gellius's quotation I found some support of the hypothesis that this theonym has something to do with the Aurunci. Of course the most obvious etymology is from verra as also for deliverers's and newborn's protecting goddess Deverra.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- I was just looking up something in the glossary, and the entry on averruncare caught my attention again. I'm having trouble verifying the following references: Paulus excerpta Festi p. 511 M; Cicero Ad Atticum IX 21 1. Müller's edition of Festus (available in full here and here) has no p. 511. The 9th book of Cicero's letters to Atticus has no epistula 21. I rewrote the entry so that it summarized rather than interpreted the primary sources cited (though a secondary source is still needed) and for wordiness. If the citations of Paulus and Cicero can be corrected, by all means restore them. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Article tags
User dab has added two tags to the Glossary. One describes it as synthesis, and points to a talk-page discussion; but I see no such discussion here. Another suggests the content be moved to Wiktionary. Why? The article's a Glossary, dedicated to a specialist subject area. It's a service to readers. We have many similar Glossaries. Please discuss. Haploidavey (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think this is considered drive-by tagging. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- I reworded the lede a bit, though I'm still flummoxed as to how anyone could regard these entries as dictionary definitions. I don't see how "synthesis" applies to a list article on the non-controversial topic of ancient Roman religious terminology; I'm not seeing what argument is implied, or what conclusions the collocation of material points to that are not explicit in the secondary scholarship. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
delubrum
I was trying to do some copyediting but don't know what this is trying to say:
the delubrum was the oldest form of an aedes with an ambiguous term valid both for the building and the surrounding area ubi aqua currit, according to the etymology of the antiquarian L. Cincius.<ref>Servius ''ad Aen.'' II 225</ref> It was used even to denote the fetish accommodated in it, the stripped stake.
"With" needs to connect something to something; the "ambiguous term" is with something, but I don't know syntactically what that is. And are we just saying that the word delubrum could refer to both the building and a surrounding area that had a freshwater source (ubi aqua currit)"? Again, Latin must be translated, since phrases that will be evident to a speaker of a Romance language are not necessarily so in English.
I'm assuming the citation means it's Servius who preserves Cincius.
Last sentence, with two instances of "it": The first "it" seems to have as its antecedent the word delubrum, whereas the second it seems to refer to the thing delubrum, since the stake was not housed in the word.
The stake leads to another question: where the heck did that come from? What "stripped stake"? Why are we to expect to find a stripped stake in a Roman shrine? I mean, if I spend some time and look outside the article, I can figure this out, but the WP reader needs not to have to do this. (I hope Aldrasto knows by now that I value his contributions and am only trying to make them accessible to readers.) Cynwolfe (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Glossary templates
First off, feel free to revert, after contemplation. (before, after)
I reformatted this page to use {{term}} and {{defn}} templates. Their main benefits are structured markup (the content is semantically laden now, and a computer will be able to parse them as glossary entries), and they add anchor links (so every entry can now be linked, without adding any code. Just a # , eg Glossary of ancient Roman religion#calator). The main drawback is increased editmode complexity. Hopefully you agree that the pros outweigh the cons!
The next level beyond this, for a large and full-featured page such as this, would be to create your own template similar to {{cuegloss}} (as used in Glossary of cue sports terms) to clarify when a bluelink is a within-the-page link, vs a link to another article. If you want that, it's up to you! (I haven't used them yet, but might be able to advise/assist).
HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll look at this. I am somewhat concerned by the greater edit mode complexity, and the inability to edit only one entry at a time, though I'm willing to chalk that up to unfamiliarity. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, you can only edit by letter, which is kind of a pain in the fundament. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have a feeling that my notion of 'semantically laden' (like Finnegan's Wake is semantically laden?) is unlikely to be what the delightfully named Quiddity means, so I cheerfully admit to being dumb about such things. I always did link to an entry as ], for instance, or internally as ], so I will need to hear the pros explained as if to a child. As for the cons, it is somewhat cumbersome not to edit a single entry at a time, and I'm not sure that every editor will be comfortable with the increased complexity. But as I said, I'm willing to give it a go, if there's consensus that this is for the best. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- The semantic ladeness is on the HTML side, in that the new format exploits the <dl> ("definition list") system of HTML elements which carry with them semantically significant identities within the HTML document. This is good and sound web presentation, but really should not mean that we can't enable section editing with a definition list. That is, what is really keeping use from presenting a simple alphabet table of contents, but still allow section editing?
See what I just did with ===={{term|term= abominari }}==== as an example. (Please feel free to revert me if this is uberoutofbounds.)Actually, that gives two elements with the id as the entry term, so that won't do. There must be a way around this not being able to edit entries separately. .: 00:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)- @davidiad: Unfortunately any additional tags do break the semantic structure, as you saw. (I'm typing just as you're reverting ;)
- @Cynwolfe: Understood. I'll nudge the creator of the templates, SMcCandlish, and see if he can advise. I'm not overly hopeful that it will be possible, and he appears to be busy this week, so I'll revert to the old format in the meantime. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Update: He answered, that it doesn't seem easily-possible to mix section-edit links into each {{term}}. So, what you saw would be the final result, with section-editing at an alphabetical level. I'll delegate the decision to you, as primary maintainer(s), as to whether you wish to continue with the templates, or not. As a glossary wikiproject participant, I'll stick around either way :) -- Quiddity (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- The semantic ladeness is on the HTML side, in that the new format exploits the <dl> ("definition list") system of HTML elements which carry with them semantically significant identities within the HTML document. This is good and sound web presentation, but really should not mean that we can't enable section editing with a definition list. That is, what is really keeping use from presenting a simple alphabet table of contents, but still allow section editing?
- I have a feeling that my notion of 'semantically laden' (like Finnegan's Wake is semantically laden?) is unlikely to be what the delightfully named Quiddity means, so I cheerfully admit to being dumb about such things. I always did link to an entry as ], for instance, or internally as ], so I will need to hear the pros explained as if to a child. As for the cons, it is somewhat cumbersome not to edit a single entry at a time, and I'm not sure that every editor will be comfortable with the increased complexity. But as I said, I'm willing to give it a go, if there's consensus that this is for the best. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, you can only edit by letter, which is kind of a pain in the fundament. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)