Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

The Thessaly Sixty

This article made a brief appearance on Trojan War, but I removed it [1]. Since then the page is developing very oddly, with the insertion of random references that don't seem to support the material. Is there a knowledgeable editor who can assist, either to improve the piece or pronounce on its authenticity? --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks to project member Septentrionalis for taking this up: I came to the right place! --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"Nervan-Antonian" Dynasty

Just wondering who came up with the name for this dynasty?

I've never heard of such a title for the Emperors from Nerva to Commodus. Not once. Just to be sure, I checked it out over at Google books, and there's only 1 hit (which has no preview).

One problem is that "Antonian" derives from "Antonius", as in Marcus Antonius (the triumvir), not from "Antoninus", as in Antoninus Pius, the 2nd century CE emperor.

"Antonine" comes from "Antoninus", and apparently so does "Antoninian", but not "Antonian".

As such, I think there needs to be some sort of change in regards to the title of the dynasty of the emperors from Nerva to Commodus to something more generally used. Knobbishly (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The category name is Category:Nerva-Antonine Dynasty. That seems OK to me. Perhaps the page Nervan-Antonian dynasty should be moved to match. Andrew Dalby 13:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

My knowledge of Roman imperial history is not great, but it seems to me that the Antonine dynasty regularly includes Nerva, e.g. [2]. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Akhilleus, Britannica certainly seems to agree with you (re: Nerva being in the Antonine dynasty). Just checked in Google books, and there are at least a couple of books ('Emperors Don't Die in Bed' and 'Marcus Aurelius: A Biography' by Birley) that also agree with you.

My original question was designed to see whether anyone knew what the most common scholarly name for this dynasty is - I've seen 'Adoptive Emperors' (but I'm not sure that includes Commodus) and 'Five Good Emperors' (that definitely doesn't include Commodus), so there are problems with those two. I've also seen the 'Nervo-Trajanic' dynasty followed by the 'Antonine' dynasty a few times, but there might be problems with splitting apparently a single dynasty into two...

So does anyone know - what is the most common name for the period covering Nerva to Commodus? Knobbishly (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

requested move of Julian the Apostate to Flavius Claudius Julianus

Members of this Wikiproject may be interested in commenting upon this request to change the title of Julian the Apostate to Flavius Claudius Julianus. This request seems to come up every 6 months or so, and has never (yet) succeeded in changing the article's title. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

...due to not previously having reached anything other than 'no consensus'. Please help to achieve consensus this time. (And please don't use weasel wording when announcing the move). Clinkophonist (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Debate over redirects, input requested

An ongoing debate exists here: Talk:Dio#Dio or Dio (band) that I believe should have input from members of this project. The debate is over whether the Dio page should be owned by the band Dio or if it should re-direct to a dambiguation page because the word has other uses, some of which are under your area of interest, specificaly Cassius Dio. -J04n (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Confused

Hi, I hope someone here will be able to help me. I am a member of the Unreferenced articles project and have been looking for references for the Heraclea in Trachis article as it has been tagged with {{unreferenced}} since August 2006. As a result of my searching I have also come across the article on Trachis which Heraclea Trachinia redirects to. Now I am confused - are these two articles and the redirect all about the same place? The articles don't have much in common in terms of content. Any help in sorting out my confusion would be much appreciated, kind regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 20:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Trachis and Heraclea in Trachis overlap significantly, and should probably be merged. Trachis is about a region of ancient Greece and a settlement in that region (probably too small to be properly called a polis--which was colonized for a brief period by the Spartans, who called the settlement Heraclea. Heraclea Trachinia means "Heraclea in Trachis", and should stay as a redirect to Trachis. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful info. I've added a couple of refs to Heraclea in Trachis and made a couple of adjustments to reflect them (free to revert if the're wrong). I've also added this projects template to the talk pages of both articles. If I propose a merge of Heraclea in Trachis and Trachis would Trachis be the most appropriate target page? regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 22:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say Trachis is the best target. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:58, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

• How do I do this for this project? I can't find the "project banner". Pergamino (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Romulus Augustus?

A single editor moved Romulus Augustulus to Romulus Augustus, despite protests. I restored it, and he objects. If there is genuine consensus to undo the ancient and traditional name (which goes back to Jordanes and the chroniclers), that's fine; but if there is not, please come and discuss. Are we to move Caligula to Caius Caesar next? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not as easy as you proclaim (complain). The original title of the article was "Romulus Augustus". It was moved several times back and forth by a handful of users (this is not a simple case of "a single editor moved [the article], despite protests"). The ancient and traditional nickname (Romulus Augustulus) recorded by Jordanes seems currently to be as popular as Romulus Augustus. This makes any comparison whatsoever with Caligula a moot point. But all serious contributions to a honest discussion (without exaggeration and whining) are welcomed. Flamarande (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

See the title of Suetonius' fourth chapter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the Latin Wikipedia, but the English one (exactly because of that do we use Caligula and not Gaius Caesar). The talkpage of the relevant article is the best place to present evidence and arguments. Flamarande (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Reversions of Sextus Appuleius and Claudia Marcella

Hello.

I'm just wondering if anyone can help me - I've recently corrected the information under Sextus Appuleius and Claudia Marcella using Ronald Syme's Augustan Aristocracy.

However, there is a user named 211.30.3.126 who keeps undoing the changes and reverting back to the old incorrect information.

I've tried to ask them to stop, but they apparently just ignore me and revert the pages anyway.

As such, I'm wondering - is there any way I can stop this person from constantly doing this?

Thanks, Knobbishly (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The history of the history

Some arguments above interest me as touching on an aspect of Wiki's treatment of historical subjects. So little is known or even can be known about some subjects that the history relating to them becomes by default the history of the history itself. I'm not trained in history but I am aware that it is a process rather than a product, changing with the fashions or with the epochs and always in review and under revision. According to this view, the judgement of modern historians is not always more authoritative than that of past historians - it's just more up to date. Every article should feature not just a history of the subject but also a history of the history, just to remind the reader what history is all about. It's a dance between past and present. The dance floor gets pretty crowded sometimes and I ask for special consideration as I have two left feet. One, two, three...one two, three...one, two three... Lucretius (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, except that modern historians are expected to cite their sources (which ancient authors rarely do), and are subject to peer-review (which was wholly absent in antiquity). Modern history is still more authoritative in the sense that it is the product of a more rigorous scientific process, despite the fact that it is itself often based on ancient texts. Ancient history is authoritative only in the sense that it was written closer (or during) the actual events, which in some cases actually makes it less authoritative (it may biased due to the political climate of the time).

But history is indeed a proces. What was once considered secondary material may itself become primary material, which is more or less how we view ancient authors like Tacitus and Suetonius. In general, I do think it's good practice to add historiography sections to antiquity related articles. --Steerpike (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We live in a scientific age and a 'scientific' kind of history is fashionable. Tacitus lived in a forensic age and his approach was disputatious and rhetorical. Is a laboratory better than a court room as a venue for history? I don't think so. Lucretius (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Gladiator article

In a word, it's very long, with 57kb of readable prose and not much less in footnotes. After two months or so of obsessive editing, I'm too close to the material. The article still has some problems, not least its overall length.

While I'm here... if this were a vote-page, mine would be for Lucretius' point of view in the previous post above. Regards to all. Haploidavey (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oikos

I have been working on Oikos. Is that enough, or does it need more work? Pergamino (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Latin (language) and all-capitals

I have just added a section at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Latin (language) and all-capitals where readers here may wish to add their opinions. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is the page on "Collegiality" part of this project?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegiality has a sidebar declaring it to be part of this project. Surely some mistake? There's a lot in there about the Roman Catholic Church, which might explain it, but nothing to do with Ancient Rome... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hostile17 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it belongs to the series on Politics and government of Ancient Rome. Collegiality#Roman_collegiality Pergamino (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Etruscan articles

We have a new editor, Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs) extremely busy on these articles & templates, moving stuff around from one article to another without edit summaries, attributions to the old article (thus breaking the GFDL), adding uncited stuff, redirecting articles, etc. He's also just changed the 'importance' on a project template, I'm not sure who is supposed to be doing that. He doesn't respond on his talk page either (not just to me, to other editors on other issues). Could anyone else please take a look at a few of his edits and see what you think? I've reverted a bit of stuff already and am trying to tie up his new 'origins' article, which is a content fork in any case. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The new editor is adding a lot of uncited material. I can't speak for the rest (forks and GFDL), which I don't understand, but at the moment these contributions are making more work for others, not less. The lack of response to requests for discussion at the editor's talk-page is worrying. Haploidavey (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added more references, check for yourself! in total their were 5 references in the culture section in your revert now its over 10. Why is this? its because i'm adding references NB! I don't copy and paste from articles, but articles that are "badly written," "stubs," "un-referenced," and "needs serious attention from an editor" should either be merged or worked on! You can re-establish those articles if you want to!! This page needs its short badly referenced and lacks any meaningful information. Yes its a historu article, but compare to other history articles. Its not in "shape". I'm not merging articles because i "like it," but because their is no need for articles which are short enough to add in a section to the "mother page." As said before, you can re-establish the page when you expand it and add meaningful references to the page. Okay? --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Not ok, you simply cannot to mergers like that, as you've been told by several other editors. I'm undoing them, do them properly if you want them merged, but don't just revert me please because that will end up with you being blocked, something no one wants. Dougweller (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

merger propsal - sirin into siren

See talk:Siren#Merger proposal Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Fall of the Republic box

Forgive me if this has been discussed before, but I wonder what people feel about adding Cato the Younger (and possibly Marcus Junius Brutus and Cassius) to the box that lies at the top right of the pages on Mark Antony, Cleopatra VII, Assassination of Julius Caesar, Pompey, Theatre of Pompey, Cicero and First Triumvirate. Cato is certainly more deserving of a place there than Cleopatra. Ericoides (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Job done. Now they need to be put into A–Z order. Ericoides (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

New Featured Article for your WikiProject

Hi, you might be happy to hear that the Euclidean algorithm, an article assessed by your WikiProject, was promoted to Featured Article a few days ago. Much encouragement, Proteins (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice! Pergamino (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Marcus Favonius date of birth

• I can't find Marcus Favonius' dob anywhere. Anyone know it, and can give a ref? Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's because the year of his birth is not knowable from the existing sources. He was aedile in 53, praetor in 49 (cf. cursus honorum); he was probably born around 90 (very early 80's at the latest). Wareh (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Wareh; I received a similar answer at the Humanities Ref Desk, with the following ref: A History of Cynicism, p 120, in which the author says it was "around 90 BC". Whether he was a praetor in 49 BC is controversial (despite the assertion that he was a praetor in 49 being found in all the ref books); from my limited reading (F. X. Ryan, see the article) it appears he was not. May I ask how you know that "the year of his birth is not knowable from the existing sources"? Is there a book which lists whether or not someone's dob is or is not in the existing sources, or are you simply very well read? Ericoides (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The birth dates of most ancient figures aren't knowable from existing sources. So it's unsurprising that no one knows exactly when Favonius was born. The "around 90 BC" figure comes from working backwards from the date of his aedileship--you had to be at least 35 to be an aedile. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for explaining that, Akhilleus. Ericoides (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was the point of my link to cursus honorum - I should have spelled it out. I do not know all the sources; I just have faith that Roman prosopography is a well-enough-plowed field that the reference books would reflect any pertinent evidence. It's always possible to discover new evidence or for someone to make a subtle but cogent argument based on overlooked sources; in that unlikely event, the reference books do sometimes take a while to take notice. Wareh (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not being up to speed, I know little of Roman history or custom and did not read the cursus honorum link you supplied, being ignorant of its relevance. Does what I have written on the Favonius page about his praetorship (or not) make sense, or is it just a load of horlicks? [User:Ericoides|Ericoides]] (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You've done a good job. Anyone reading that sees at once that many scholars have happily inferred his praetorship, but that there is a reliable & clearly cited source giving the stated reasons for uncertainty. Wareh (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Illyrians

A debate is going in Talk:Illyrians#Sources, regarding how much weight should be given to connection between Illyrians and Albanians. Albanian editors are adamant that Albanians are direct, unbroken descendents of the Illyrians and that this should be mentioned in the lead. They mostly use modern Balkan history books to prove their point, rather than books that focus on the Illyrians themselves. Since the subject of the article is the Illyrians, however, I and a number of other editors maintain that the subject of the Albanians Illyrian origins is a) disputed, and b) peripheral to the subject of the Illyrians and is better discussed in the Origin of the Albanians article. A brief survey on expert sources on the Illyrians (Evans, Wilkes) confirms this. However, the debate has stalled because not enough neutral users are involved, and the Albanian editors are numerically superior and now resort to ridiculous wikilawyering arguments ("Bring sources that prove that Albanians are peripheral to the subject of the Illyrians") to stall the debate. I am thus posting in the relevant Wikiproject pages to try and get a meaningful debate started that is representative of the Wikipedia community as a whole, in the hope of achieving a stable consensus. --Athenean (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Dryads in popular culture into Dryad

Proposed merger of Dryads in popular culture into Dryad, discuss at Talk:Dryad#Merger proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Page move proposal

I plan to expand the article Plebs sometime in the near future when I get more time. I would though like to ask if it is possible to change the article name to Plebeians as I believe it to be a more precise title. I would be grateful for any opinions on this proposal. Thanks. Surtese (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sophocles GAR notice

Sophocles has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems to chiefly concern some details about the Theban plays. I suspect that an introduction to a translation would contain the necessary information. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of those plays. Anyone able to help?--Peter cohen (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have copies of these plays, what specifically do you need sourced? Paul August ☎ 22:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. The following is unsourced:

The Theban plays consist of three plays: Antigone, Oedipus the King (also called Oedipus Tyrannus or Oedipus Rex), and Oedipus at Colonus. All three plays concern the fate of Thebes during Greece's Mycenaean pre-history, during and after the reign of King Oedipus. They have often been published under a single cover. Sophocles, however, wrote the three plays for separate festival competitions, possibly over a duration of forty years or more. He also wrote other Theban plays, such as The Progeny, of which only fragments have survived. Not only are the Theban plays not a true trilogy (three plays presented as a continuous narrative) but they are not even an intentional series and contain some inconsistencies between them.

The "forty years or more" is contradicted in the following section, of which the middle para is unsourced.

The plays were written across thirty-six years of Sophocles' career and were not composed in chronological order, but instead were written in the order Antigone, Oedipus the King, and Oedipus at Colonus.[18]

As a result, there are some inconsistencies. Notably, Creon is the undisputed king at the end of Oedipus the King and, in consultation with Apollo, single-handedly makes the decision to expel Oedipus from Thebes. Creon is also instructed to look after Oedipus' daughters Antigone and Ismene at the end of Oedipus the King. By contrast, in the other plays there is some struggle with Oedipus' sons Eteocles and Polynices in regards to the succession.

In Oedipus at Colonus, Sophocles attempts to work these inconsistencies into a coherent whole: Ismene explains that, in light of their tainted family lineage, her brothers were at first willing to cede the throne to Creon. Nevertheless, they eventually decided to take charge of the monarchy, with each brother disputing the other's right to succeed. In addition to being in a clearly more powerful position in Oedipus at Colonus, Eteocles and Polynices are also culpable: they condemn their father to exile, which is one of his bitterest charges against them.[18]

BTW Source 18 is Sophocles. Sophocles I: Oedipus the King, Oedipus at Colonus, Antigone. 2nd ed. Grene, David and Lattimore, Richard, eds. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1991. --Peter cohen (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have Grene and Lattimore's Sophocles I. As to the dating of the plays, the first paragraph of the "Introduction" on page 1, says:

"The series of plays, Oedipus the King, Oedipus at Colonus, and Antigone, was written over a wide interval of years. The dating is only approximate, for reliable evidence is lacking; but the Antigone was produced in 441 B.C. when Sophocles was probably fifty-four, and Oedipus the King some fourteen or fifteen years later. Oedipus at Colonus was apparently produced the year after its author's death at the age of ninety in 405 B.C."

So this supports the "thirty-six years" from our article.

The paragraph on "inconsistencies" and the following, is also adequately supported by Grene, p. 1–2, which says, commenting on the order of composition, that:

"In view of this and the long interval between the composition of the individual plays, we would expect some inconsistencies between the three versions. And there are fairly serious inconsistencies—in facts, for instance. At the conclusion of Oedipus the King, Creon is in undisputed authority after the removal of Oedipus. Though he appeals to him to look after his daughters, Oedipus refrains from asking Creon to do anything for his sons, who he says, will be all right on their own (OK 1460). It is Creon who will succeed Oedipus in Thebes, and there is no question of any legitimate claim of Oedipus' descendants (OK 1418). But in Antigone, Creon tells the chorus that he has favorably observed their loyalty first to Oedipus and then to his sons, and so has hope of their devotion to himself. In Oedipus at Colonus—the last of the three plays he wrote—Sophocles makes one of his few clumsy efforts to patch the discrepancies together. In Oedipus at Colonus (II. 367 ff.), Ismene says that at first the two sons were willing to leave the throne to Creon in view of their fatal family heritage, but after a while they decided to take over the monarchy and the quarrel was only between themselves as to who should succeed. At this point Creon has vanished out of the picture altogether! Again, the responsibility for the decision to expel Oedipus from Thebes and keep him out rests, in Oedipus the King, entirely with Creon, who announces that he will consult with Apollo in the matter. In Oedipus at Colonus his sons' guilt in condemning their father to exile is one of the bitterest counts in Oedipus' indictment of them (OC 1360 ff.).

So, in my view, the three paragraphs of section "Composition and Inconsistencies" quoted above are adequately sourced. Based solely on Green — I don't know what other sources have to say — I would change "possibly over a duration of forty years or more" to something like "many years apart", or "over the span of more than three decades".

Paul August ☎ 18:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"Many years apart" is probably best, given the imprecision of the dates for each of the plays. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made this change. Paul August ☎ 13:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've copied the above discussion to Talk:Sophocles. Any continuation should probably occur there. Paul August ☎ 14:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Eyes needed: "Gratius Falsius" and the "Procurator Cynegii" in Roman Britain

It appears that there is a tradition of spicing up books about certain dog races with references to the pugnaces Britanniae that are being copied uncritically from writer to writer, in a telephone game that has been going on for more than 100 years. In spite of my complete lack of a background in dogs or antiquity, I could eventually identify the "historian Gratius Falsius" as the poet Grattius Faliscus.

The inaccuracies obviously cast doubt on the following claim, which comes with no attribution to an original source:

Procurator Cynegii (Latin for Steward of the Hunt) was a Roman government officer with the authority granted by the Imperium Romanum.

In Roman Britain a Procurator Cynegii, was stationed in Venta Belgarum, Britannia with the responsibility of selecting the best Pugnaces Britanniae dogs, which were exported to Rome for contests in the amphitheatre and for integration into the military of ancient Rome as war dogs. [3]

According to an 1886 book, History of the Mastiff, this is in fact a misconception caused by a certain Wolfgangus Lazius mistaking "the Imperial Linen Draper for a Canine Agent of the Emperors". [4] An editor disagrees and is apparently fighting for the honour of his idol, the German attack dog apologist Dr. Dieter Fleig who, it seems, cannot be wrong when he mentions "Gratius Falsius" et al. ("Through research supported with citations, he tells the whole truth about the ancient breeds as the progenitors of their modern era's counterparts, including their skills, temperaments and shortcomings." [5])

The other editor is prepared to edit war. I am not. I am not interested in dogs, not that interested in Roman/British history, and I seem to be getting the flu. And perhaps I am even wrong? It would be great if one or two experts could look at the histories of the following articles, do whatever is necessary, and watchlist them to prevent regressions:

• Pugnaces Britanniae
• Procurator Cynegii
• Dieter Fleig (optional)

Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. It's pseudohistory trying to balance on two pinheads of text.

1. At Venta Belgarum there was a procurator gynaecii (Notitia Dignitatum, Occ.11.60) and the gynaecium (literally approx. "women's workroom") was apparently a woollen mill. Whether it was Camden, or someone else, who reinterpreted this official into a procurator cynegii I don't know right now. [Added: -- Ah, I see now from Hans Adler's comments at Talk:Pugnaces Britanniae [and above too] that the originator of the fantasy was Wolfgangus Lazius, an Austrian physician and enthusiastic classicist, cited disbelievingly by Camden. That makes sense, then.]
2. pugnaces was applied as an adjective not to dogs but to the Britons, or at least to some of them. Tacitus (Agricola 17) used it of the Silures.
3. Gratius Falsius is really splendid. He ought to figure in Asterix. Andrew Dalby 08:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I gave more detail at [6]. Green Squares removed it, then mostly restored it, and apparently did his best trying to write a grammatical sentence introducing it. [7] My source, Wynn, History of the Mastiff (1885) goes into enormous detail. My version (not Green Squares') links to the archive.org page from which a complete version of Wynn can be downloaded. Green Squares' version links to the most relevant page on Google Books. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I found this source for the Procurator issue Procurator+Cynegi" which is by Montagu Sharpe, although the version at the link gave no author. Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Great! Your source (Sharpes's book seems to be from 1919) cites Notitia, "Mon. Hist. Brit.," xxiii. Does this mean Notitia Dignitatum cited after Monumenta Historica Britannica? --Hans Adler (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sharpe appears to have been an antiquarian of the old school, born in the wrong century.

For a more current text of the Notitia Dignitatum see this page. Search on it for procurator gynaecii and we find a list of several, including the British one. They are among procurators of other valuable stores items -- silver, dyestuffs, etc. -- so Lazius's guess about a procurator cynegii seems completely ruled out. The supposed word cynegium for a hunt, although imaginable as a loanword from Greek, is not recorded in any classical text so it isn't in classical Latin dictionaries.

I've checked the text of Grattius. It does not mention any "pugnaces", from Britannia or elsewhere.

So we currently have two pages under invented names, Procurator Cynegii and Pugnaces Britanniae.

1. It is a fact that there was a British breed of hunting dogs in Roman times, but what can we call them? Have we any real name to use instead of Pugnaces Britanniae? Grattius actually calls them catuli Britanni (British pups) because the word catuli fits his line. The logical page name would be Britanni (dog breed), I suggest.
2. As for Procurator Cynegii, the page version that Hans Adler links to is fine, but do we want an article on this imaginary office at all? Maybe the article should be at Procurator Gynaecii, with a section on how the name has been misunderstood? Andrew Dalby 12:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, maybe just redirect the article to Procurator Gynaecii? Meanwhile, after a serious search for RS on Dieter Fleig I've raised an AfD. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As for Pugnaces Britanniae, is there really enough reliable information in the historical sources to support an article (what ever name we use)? When you cut out all the fluff and erronious telephone game mistranslations, all we really have is: 1) Several classical sources mention that large dogs were exported from the province of Britania. 2) Modern dog breeders are of the opinion that this was a unique breed, and from it descends the Mastiff and possibly the Bulldog. That seems to be the extent of it. That isn't a lot on which to base an article. I am wondering if this isn't better placed as a "history" section within the article on Mastiff.

Certainly the sources don't seem to support, or often even mention, this 'Pugnaces Britannaiae' if I've read them correctly. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This issue has, in the past, attracted attention elsewhere, eg [8] and [9] Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've found a good reference for Procurator Gynaecii, so later today I will move Procurator Cynegii and remodel the article (unless someone else does it first!)

I see your point about "Mastiff", but the question is whether anyone really knows that this ancient breed is correctly classed as a mastiff (or a bulldog, or not quite either). Since there is sufficient evidence that there was a definite ancient breed of British dogs, I'd still be inclined to move-and-remodel Pugnaces Britanniae to Britanni (dog breed) (or else Catuli Britanni, the name used in Grattius's poem). Andrew Dalby 13:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the Procurator Cynegii article currently provides both sides of the argument. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to incorporating more cited information from either side of the arguments. I think if Hans Adler had placed a link to this discussion on articles talk page rather than sneaking around Wikipedia it would be better, so anyone interested in the article could participate. It seems Hans Adler and Dougweller are trying to drum up support for their version of the article, rather than unbiased discussion. They are both attempting to get another article I worked on deleted named Dieter Fleig. Green Squares (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a good idea to make personal attacks, and Hans Adler seems to think the article should be kept.

I've found another article related to this discussion, Canes pugnaces. It had a reference to an 'enthusiasts' website', which I've removed. There's a brand new Wiktionary entry with the same reference [10] and one for the singular form [11] also. I don't know what the guidelines and policies are there for using fansites, etc as sources. Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:V, supported by the guidance of WP:RS. The surviving Wiktionary page in question is sourced to a webpage which writes of the "Phoenician navigator Medacrito"; this is patent nonsense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't feel so sneaky when I left this message on Green Squares' talk page. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now moved to Procurator Gynaecii and remodelled the article there. Andrew Dalby 14:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Pages seem to breed like rabbits in this area. Is there a justification for both Molossus (dog) and Molosser? I suspect not. Molosser is surely just the German name for Molossus. Andrew Dalby 16:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

While we are talking about merging, I made a formal proposal to merge cynegeticon and cynegeticus. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we really have to get a merge for the two Molosser articles, I'm just not sure which to suggest as the main article/title. Anyone here have a suggestions? Except for OhnoitsJamie, I don't recognise the editors (Collieuk seems to be the most active one). Dougweller (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am not sure they need to be merged. Molossus (dog) is about an extinct breed, while molosser is about a bunch of breeds that may or may not be descended from the former. It's probably cleaner to keep them apart. I think the only problem is the inflated section Molosser#Origins. This should be merged into Molossus (dog) and then properly summarised in molosser in a few sentences, or in a short section with a "main article" link. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Guess who is suggesting I read the Welcome page and accusing me of stalking them? Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

On inquiry, I find only three sources (one is duplicated) for pugnaces Britanniae at all, and two are dog books. Can anybody suggest a better name for this article? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Raids of Hadrian's Wall

Total content:

"The Raids of Hadrian's Wall, were several attacks on Hadrian's Wall by the Picts. The wall was constructed to keep the picts out, but because of continued attack, though very few were succesful, in time, supposidly 50,000 Romans died. This is probably an exageration, but regardless, the Romans, because of the raids, fled Britain."

Plus an infobox:

Date 180-410

Location Hadrian's Wall, Scotland

Result Scottish Victory: Romans fled from Britain.

AfD I guess, unless there's a reason to speedy. Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wouldn't be better to do a redirect to Roman conquest of Britain? Pergamino (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably, although I doubt its creator would agree, that's the problem. Dougweller (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Eh. I'd delete, there's not enough substance for an article, and no reader will be searching for this exact title. Conflicts between Romans and Picts belong in other articles. (This isn't a speedy, though.) --Akhilleus (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you leave it for a while before deleting it? I found some sources that may be useful to build upon. Pergamino (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

With this title? Why not a redirect? Shouldn't this actually be in the Hadrian's Wall article? It looks like a content fork to me. Dougweller (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I can see that the page has been deleted and unfortunately I did not keep a copy of the sources I added there yesterday. Is there any way to resurrect the page temporarily so that I can retrieve these sources? I can then use them in the Hadrian's Wall page. Pergamino (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If no one else does in the next hour or so I'll try to, but I'm fixing dinner. Dougweller (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and bon appetit. Pergamino (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I forgot, but I've done it now, and its creator has been given a username block by another Admin. Hopefully they will get a new name and also start responding to talk page messages. Dougweller (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Greek love deletion, renaming or merge proposal

The article Greek love was found to have multiple problems. A proposal to delete the article was made and an IP editor came through and added two projects to the articles talk page, this project and WikiProject Greece.

Please take a moment to weigh in on this discussion here. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten most of the Menelaus article.

Better? Ifnkovhg (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. It could make clearer that Hyginus (probably) and Apollodorus (almost certainly) are summarizing older sources, which have not happened to survive, so Menelaus' youth is not a Hellenistic invention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Attalus I: Featured article review

Note that Attalus I is undergoing a Feature article review Wikipedia:Featured article review/Attalus I/archive1. Paul August ☎ 17:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Herodotus RfC

Please drop in at Talk:Herodotus#RfC and express an opinion. 20:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

New Egalitarian same-sex relationships in classical antiquity article

In response to a couple of interesting finds by another editor of Macedonian relationships between adolescent boys I have created this new article and would like to invite contributions. As this is not a mere list, a little background for each couple would be ideal, a couple of sentences or a paragraph or two would be ok. Thanks, Haiduc (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Did Archelaus II actually rule Macedon

I have gone carefully through the records on Wikipedia etc and cannot see how Archelaus II of Macedon fits into the Macedon line of succession of kings at the beginning of the 4th century BC. It seems more likely that the line of succession after Archelaus I's death in 399 BC is Orestes (with Aeropus II as his regent until 396 BC) then Aeropus II on his own until 393 BC, then Pausanias in 393 BC and then Amyntas III from 393 BC. Any thoughts?? --Chaleyer61 (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• The first thing to do is not use Sir Walter Raleigh as a source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Sakellariou gives Archelaus I, Orestes, Aeropos, Pausanias, and two Amyntases in the period (Amyntas the Little descended from Menelaos; Amyntas III from Amyntas, sons of Alexander I). There certainly is no time for Raleigh's seven-year reign, which may indicate a gap in the literary tradition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Megara

An editor has merged Megara (Disney character) into Megara (mythology). I don't think this is a good idea, since as the article now stands the content about the Disney character swamps the information about the mythological character. What do others think? Paul August ☎ 16:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any possibility that the Disney character is part of the topic of the Megara (mythology) article. So, while another editor had already reduced it to a stub section with a link, I converted this to a disambiguation header, which seems more appropriate. Wareh (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Massacre of Thessaloniki

Oops - sorry! I forgot to add new headline. Here we go: Hello, can someone here have a look at an article (Massacre_of_Thessaloniki) which I hopefully improved and by comparing it with its older versions tell me if I got it right? Thanks Eunapios (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

New articles

Instituto dos Arquivos Nacionais (talk · contribs) has recently added a spate of short articles on ancient Roman consuls, praetors, etc (see his contributions). The articles amount to little more than "so and so was a consul of Rome from xxx to yyy. He was the son of nnn. He married an unknown spouse and had a son ...". These entries are taken from a survey of genealogy entered at http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com, based on the research of a single person (Bernd Jansen). The articles' author claims the information comes from the works of historian Christian Settipani, but that he is unable to obtain a copy of said book, so he can't cite it. It seems to me that such articles, with such unreliable sources, do little to further the value of Wikipedia, but as I am not an expert in Roman history, I appeal for a third opinion to the members of this project. Do such articles deserve a spot? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Additions are also being made to existing articles, e.g. Publius Septimius Geta (brother of Septimius Severus). Settipani is cited here too.

The user has now become User talk:Dgarq and is pressing on. In some cases the subjects already have articles, based on reliable printed sources, on the German and Latin Wikipedias. I have made interwiki links, as an example, at Gaius Vipstanus Messalla Gallus. But Dgarq doesn't appear to know anything about this information. Jansen and Christian Settipani don't inspire confidence. Andrew Dalby 20:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Bestiarii

Hi guys. It looks to my untrained eye that Bestiarii is the same as Damnatio ad bestias. Can anyone please enlighten me? Cheers, GiantSnowman 14:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone has hitherto secret resources on the i's and t's of Roman Law, I doubt there's much to add to the second. It's a small and singular law (on second thoughts, simply a sentence) with a big context, covered in Bestiarii and elsewhere. I guess it could go into a category... or a list... like, um, a list of Roman laws... (that is, sentences)... Move along folks, no enlightenment here. Haploidavey (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Dead image on project template

Template:AncientRome-bio-stub appears to be broken, and only displays a redlink instead of the image formerly used for the template. Ford MF (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Character (arts)

This appears to be being dominated by a theatre arts major with a narrow range of books, and limited understanding of classical philosophy - but that may be my take. I think any description of characterization among the Greeks should cover Thespis - and Theophrastus - and have much less irrelevant Aristotle. More voices - and especially more civil voices - welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Cicero

Expert help needed to solve contradiction in Talk:Cicero#Executed_by_republic_or_empire.3F. Debresser (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Roman bio stub template

What's up with the Roman biography stub template? J.C.'s image is showing up as a redlink. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal of Roman deity infobox

I have a proposal for a Roman Deity infobox. All the other deities appear to have one, Template:Infobox Egyptian deity, Template:Infobox Greek deity etc. So I propose a Roman eqivalent currently on my sandbox, if people like it, then it can be implemented.--NeilEvans (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I happen to dislike most (all?) infoboxes. I prefer prose, to cookie cutter baseball like trading-cards. Paul August ☎ 16:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Paul. I really dislike {{infobox Greek deity}}, because as Paul says, it's like a trading card--all that's missing are the gods' strength, charisma, and intelligence scores. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. I have to agree with both of you. I've been trying to frame a polite argument against the proposal. Try to imagine an infobox on Jesus - you see where this is leading, I hope. Haploidavey (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And the difficulty here is compounded by "what is a Roman divinity?" Not the Etruscan Pales; not the Greek Athena; possibly not therefore Minerva (is she more than a translation?). Picus? Faunus? Terminus? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I kinda like the idea of Roman Deity trading-cards; can I get some for my daughter? Seriously, though, I come from a background in print journalism, and the purpose of an infobox was not to render the accompanying story otiose, but to provide the reader with multiple points of entry and a "snapshot" of information. Students, particularly younger students, might find a box more useful for quick reference than one of my long-winded discourses. If they want to print out the page and cut out the infoboxes to use as flash-card study aids, so much the better. Having taught mythology at the university level, I can say that even college students might fix a quick-reference box useful, if the box was well done. Some people come to Wikipedia knowing literally nothing about what they seek, and don't need TMI.

A Roman deity is a deity who had a cult under a Roman name, and not just a divine figure who appears in Hellenistic mythological narrative or a deity whose cult was imported wholesale. (Among living scholars, T.P. Wiseman does good work on the early 'history' of Roman deities and the nature of their conflation with the Greek.) This would exclude Isis, Cybele, Mithras, Serapis, and Apollo, unless separate articles exist for topics such as "Isis in Roman cult", "Mithras and the Roman army," or "Apollo in Augustan Rome." Roman religion is about cult, which is to be distinguished from the literary overlay of 'mythology'. The problem here is not that the Romans had no "real" gods, but how the articles are written on major Roman deities who underwent interpretatio graeca; last time I looked, the article on Diana (mythology) was pretty bad (blithely mixes Roman Diana and Neopagan Diana), while the article on Diana Nemorensis (distinctly Roman) was pretty good. The Minerva article in particular addresses the question of how to distinguish a Roman deity. I think 'minor' Roman deities like Picus and Angerona are fascinating and give a better picture of Roman religion than the amours of Zeus latinized; Ovid makes the point by writing the Fasti as well as the Metamorphoses.

As for irreverence and infoboxes, Jesus and Muhammad might present a special case (no, wait, Muhammad has one, sans image), but a Saints infobox exists. Which I think would also make great trading cards.

How 'bout, NeilEvans, adding "Epithets," because that's often what's distinctively Roman (Juno Moneta, for instance, and see one bountiful list at Venus). What to do about 'spheres of influence'? Like for Venus, "Love, luck, propagation". Again, these should be Roman-oriented, and not from a general handbook that treats Venus and Aphrodite as "the same." And shouldn't a Roman deity have a Roman image (coin, statue, wall painting)? Or at least clearly mark "15th-century interpretation of" or whatever when a later image seems traditional (Botticelli's Venus, for instance). Also, plural "Symbols," and give as many as three or four (Jove needs his Romanized eagle). Genealogies should be particular to the Roman construct. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a "Roman cult" infobox, with different entries for Jupiter Capitolinus and Jupiter Stator? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

'Cliens' and 'Client (ancient Rome)' merge proposal

In early July, a merge between Cliens and Client (ancient Rome) was proposed at Talk:Cliens, but not with a formal template (for the discussion, that is). This seems like a good idea to me too; I would add Clientela, which contains incorrect or historically-limited info in the first graf. I don't know the formal Merge procedure and at the moment don't have time to learn; anyone here at the Project interested and able? Cynwolfe (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You just add {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} tags to the articles, which will link to a section on the talk page of one of them, and then discuss until there is consensus on what to move where - or you just pitch in and do it; there's no equivalent of WP:RM, because admins aren't needed. Client (ancient Rome) may be the best of the three titles - I'll look at the articles later. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Translation request (German list of divi into English)

An anonymous contributor at Talk:Imperial cult (ancient Rome) left a useful link to the German Wikipedia list of divi [12]. Anyone care to translate it for en wiki? Haploidavey (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Dual dab pages

Orestes and Orestes (disambiguation) are both disambiguation pages for the same subject. I want to delete Orestes and move the named dab page over it, then hist merge it back in, but I figured I would let someone know I planned to do it first. Obviously I would change the scant links to Orestes (disambiguation) after doing so. Anyone forsee any problems with this? Protonk (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I would merge at the {disambiguation) page; then add in Orestes (name); then you csn move Orestes (mythology) to Orestes, where ir is primary usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a better idea. Barring some objections I'll do that. Protonk (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Please double check to make sure I haven't made some grievous error. Protonk (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreverted vandalism at Roman Emperor

I just reverted some very obvious section blanking vandalism from exactly a month ago. I'm surprised vandalism in such a high profile article could go undetected for so long. Maybe a few of the regulars here could put it on their watchlists? mgiganteus1 (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE. Request For Comment: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 01:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Don't be fooled. The proposed wording change is shown at the RFC linked in my post above. The removal of the "exceptions" phrase is a very significant change. The policy never stated that it consisted of "rules" before, and it still doesn't. However it remains policy. Simply stating a personal view that titling a section "principles" changes the status of the policy page, is one not even accepted by many editors on Hesperians side. There is already an attempt to use the principle of no exceptions to the "use common name" policy to radically change the Naming conflict page, and one of the proposers of this change has indicated that the guidance on flora is also targetted. The change is in my view an attempt to impose a rigid, top-down policy on naming which ignores what wikipedia editors on the ground find most useful. Xandar 03:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't import the conflict here. You've informed the readers of this noticeboard that there's a discussion going on; we can follow your links if we're curious. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability question

These aren't notable enough for wikipedia, right?

1. Apolloniades
2. Archeanassa
3. Archestratus of Phrearrhi
4. Demetrius of Athens
5. Philippus of Chollidae
6. Thrasippus

Pollinosisss (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're asking for opinions, I'd say this is a case where 'notability' = 'useful.' If this is all that can be said about these individuals, then there's not enough to sustain an article, even in single-paragraph form. Each would just be a sort of annotation, and if they're mentioned in other articles, it would probably be in a self-explanatory context. As a courtesy (since multiple hands have already touched the ones I checked the edit history for), I think you should do a Google Books search before speedily deleting. I GB-searched Thrasippus/Thrasippos and got over 600 hits, but these are not all the same guy. Don't know whether that says anything except that I have insomnia. Cynwolfe (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

For no. 2, checking the preferable spelling Archaeanassa on Google suggests that she has been mentioned quite often in later writings, and Plato is said to have written a poem to her. That probably takes her just above the "average college professor" test (or whatever would be more appropriate in the case of courtesans). Maybe I'll add a bit to that page this afternoon. Andrew Dalby 09:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

While encouraging Andrew to make the improvements to Archaeanassa, I have to agree with Pollinosisss and Cynwolfe that, as the articles stand, they present no indication of notability, and that a reasonable person must be skeptical about their prospects (while also doing the checks Cynwolfe advises, of course, before rushing to delete). The real question is whether these persons are mentioned if/where appropriate in Wikipedia articles on notable persons & subjects. Wareh (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done as promised. Not sure whether the article now passes the test ... As to the others listed, I agree that (for example) living next door to Plato does not make you notable. Andrew Dalby 12:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

How about living next door to Aeneas? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Very nostalgic, Septentrionalis: I remember Ucalegon, ablaze next door, from school Latin 45 years ago. Well, if he too were only mentioned in such estimable sources as Diogenes Laertius and Smith's dictionary, his notability might be questioned. But in Ucalegon's case, Vergil, Juvenal and Rabelais provide some solid backing ... Andrew Dalby 09:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)