Talk:Bibliotheca historica
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Lloyd, p 47
editJust "Lloyd, p 47" is not much of a reference. There's nothing to say who Lloyd is, never mind what his book is called, or which edition has that quote on page 47. 9 October 2008 P Ingerson
- Well, better late than never, I guess. Added refs, including Lloyd 1975, for the record. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Why is historica not capitalized throughout? Please fix!
editI saw in Brazen bull that historica was not capitalized, and I thought this was an error, came here, and discovered that page was following this one's usage! The HORROR!!!
If there is a good reason, then please post it here. Maybe this article was based on that of another language? That would not be a good reason to keep it this way, though.
You see, linked to in this article, Natural History (Latin: Naturalis Historia) is capitalized the way I would expect. Based on this fact, I would simply change the article instead of posting here, but I don't have the wherewithal to do so at this time. Would someone please fix this throughout and on the title for me and the greater good? Thank you very much! Sincerely, —71.212.139.106 (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC) aka User:Geekdiva, who is too tired to look up her new password.
- I think the rationale is that Bibliotheca historica is Latin, which is generally less capitalisation-happy than English... Quite why we give this Greek work's title in Latin, I don't know. Furius (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)