This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eponymous-Archon (talk | contribs) at 21:08, 16 March 2016 (→Suggestion: Refs and notes?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:08, 16 March 2016 by Eponymous-Archon (talk | contribs) (→Suggestion: Refs and notes?: new section)(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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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 |
Lead
I believe the first sentence-period of the lead should be as neutral as possible, i.e. fully centred on the topic in itself, Roman religion. Stating in the same sentence that the language of anc. Rom. rel. influenced later religious traditions and especially the language of the Western Christian Church is clearly a fact that does not belong to the topic in itself. In aristotelian language this is an accident and not the substance. Hope I made my thought understandable...Aldrasto11 (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
broken or misdirected links
in feria is Latinae really a species of fish ? was there no page for paganalia ? DaiSaw (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. That should go to Feriae Latinae, and I'll fix that. Paganalia redirects to Sementivae, for reasons that are mentioned there—but I've been meaning to look at that more closely, since the treatment seems inadequate. Will fix the links, and thanks again. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
point of this page
"glossaries", or rather non-lists, non-articles, non-glossaries, non-dictdefs such as this one are a disaster, or they would be if they were not almost entirely unknown and unlinked. I stumbled upon this because somebody linked exta "entrails" to this page. Now exta, like all the other terms in this "glossary" are encycylopedic topics, or subtopics under the general topic of "ancient Roman religion". Either exta is a topic notable and substantial enough for a standalone article, or it should be treated as a sub-topic, section or paragraph organised topically, i.e. under "animal sacrifice in ancient Roman religion", and not alphbetical in some forgotten "glossary". The reason is that topical coverage is supposed to evolve and develop in topical context, including merging and splitting of topically related pages, not some strange "alphabetical" approach to a heap of loosely related terms. I will try to fix the "exta" problem, but I really don't see any non-harmful potential for this page as a whole. --dab (𒁳) 14:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please see list of incoming links to the article. The benefit is that technical terms of Roman religion can be explained without offering a digression in the main articles. I've written many many articles on Roman religion, and found this glossary an invaluable resource to link to. The introduction suggests why terminology is a particular problem of ancient Roman religion. On your personal preference that such list articles not exist, please see MOS:GLOSSARIES. Or take it to WikiProject Glossaries. Tagging doesn't do anything to reduce article clutter. However, this glossary has indeed served as an incubator for independent articles: votum began that way, for instance. Obviously others could be created. A disambiguation page is most certainly not what's needed: perhaps you mean a set index article? Cynwolfe (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
No entry for numen or genius?
These are both extremely significant concepts in roman religion and should have sections.173.56.79.75 (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
They both have their own articles, and mainly this is a glossary of technical priestly vocabulary, but readers should probably be directed to these topics. Last time I looked, though, neither numen nor genius was satisfying as a treatment of these concepts in Roman religion. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
Categories: