This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cemeteries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cemeteries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CemeteriesWikipedia:WikiProject CemeteriesTemplate:WikiProject CemeteriesCemeteries articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge on the grounds that the association between the pages is contested and the sarcophagus is independently notable as a work of art; best discussed separately. Klbrain (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rococo1700 proposed merging this article into Stilicho, but didn't initiate a merger discussion. It seems like a reasonable proposal, but it bears discussion before a decision is reached, since neither that editor nor I seem to be comfortable carrying out the merger without hearing from experts on Stilicho. That said, if merger is appropriate, it looks like it should be pretty easy, given how short this article is. It would probably form a section toward the end of Stilicho's article, and include the gallery, although I'm not sure whether the gallery would go in the same section, or following the last text section of the article—it would make more sense as part of the same section, IMO. Thoughts, anyone? P Aculeius (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any actual evidence that this artifact had anything to do with Stilicho, apart from a name wishfully bestowed in modern times? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources I found say that the sarcophagus may contain the corpse of Stilicho. Nothing definitive, however the article on Stilicho should still talk about his possible burial location. Since the article on the Sarcophagus is so short, there is no reason to just summarize it. Ewf9h-bg (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You would need reliable - i.e. academically respectable - sources that say it might possibly have anything to do with Stilicho. The only such source we have at present says that it doesn't.[1] I also note that Stilicho died in Ravenna and the coffin is 360km away from Ravenna even on modern roads. The default supposition is that it is nothing to do with Stilicho. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One source in Flavius Aetius seems to think this other great general may have had something to do with the sarcophagus as well, though this is followed by a citation to the abovementioned Beckwith et al. which disputes this. Unless good evidence emerges that the sarcophagus has anything to do with either, I think it can remain as it is. It could be merged instead to Basilica of Sant'Ambrogio, though as a piece of art it's probably already notable in its own right. Avis11 (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose any merge. Are we also going to merge the Mona Lisa with the Louvre or with Leonardo da Vinci? These are different things and deserve different articles. GPinkerton (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose merging. The sarcophagus is a permanent and notable piece of art and deserves its own article. The current stub already shows reasonable coverage of the subject, and still has potential for expansion. Avilich (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
