User talk:Davidiad/2011

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some baklava for you![edit]

Always have some on hand when editing articles about Greek poets. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your question at the Classical Greece & Rome project and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pinakes (Callimachus)[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Pinakes (Callimachus), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Pinakes (tables). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Pinakes (Callimachus)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Pinakes (Callimachus). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Pinakes (tables). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Pinakes (tables) - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Eeekster (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From these two warnings it looks as though I messed up. I'm trying to rename the poorly titled Pinakes (tables) to Pinakes (Callimachus) because the headword refers to a work attributed to Callimachus, not a general term and certainly not one meaning (tables). Please let me know the right way to go about what I'm doing. Thank you, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was my fault: Eeekster tells me that as a new user I can't move pages (and I didn't do it correctly, anyway) and that he will complete my move. Sorry for any confusion. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed by Eeekster. Thanks! The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Public Library[edit]

Internet Public Library is an excellent source for all kinds of information (i.e. Callimachus, Pinakes, Library of Alexander, etc). Perhaps you already know of them: http://www.ipl.org/

I use their Ask A Librarian service often. Tell them you are working on a new Wikipedia article or improving an existing article and looking for excellent sources for that item or subject or person. You'll be surprised what they come up with. Takes sometimes up to 3 days for a complicated question, otherwise maybe 2 days for a normal question.--Doug Coldwell talk 11:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much—I'd never heard of this. Finding reliable, accessible online stuff for Callimachus is especially hard since, unlike most of these guys, our knowledge of his work has just exploded in the last 75 years. So useful, up-to-date sources like the www.greece.org article you used are few and far between. Thanks again, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another great source is the Library of Congress Ask A Librarian service. When asking them ask for good reliable book sources that can be used to improve a particular Wikipedia article. The LoC is good for book sources and the IPL is good for Internet services (subcription and non-subscription). Are you a high school student or a college student? State?--Doug Coldwell talk 23:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I had no idea the Library of Congress provided services like that (I've actually never been there, which is kind of ridiculous). For Classics related topics we have a great bibliographical publication, l'Année philologique, which also produces a pretty up-to-date (unfortunately subscription) database that you can search by keyword, ancient author or modern scholar. It helps a lot, but the most valuable stuff for obscure topics like the Pinakes is often hard to come by. (I'm still not sure how I feel about adding content that only people with the luxury of being by a major library can verify.) I'm a Classics graduate student in Connecticut: hence my youthful willingness to offer overblown original research on talk pages. Are you a student, too? The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retired! Nothing else to do but write Wikipedia articles. The way you made that reference I suggested is a method I have been doing for years and there seems to be no objection to that method. So, IF you can find it in a subsription only database or it it otherwise hard to get for other people (i.e. something mailed directly to you), just copy the exact words in a reference and that seems to solve the problem. It can be found by another person, IF they really want it. One method is to locate another Wikipedia editor that has that subscription -OR- ask the Library of Congress real nice. IF they are in a good mood that day, they will send it in a PDF file. Sometimes certain Universities will also send something in a PDF file. A Classical type editor is User:Wetman (one of the smartest editors on Wikipedia). If you get stumped, ask him - he will definitely have some good hints!--Doug Coldwell talk 13:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is me:
* Front Page
* Page 2 additional
* writing Wikipedia articles
* By the way, you do know Flickr is an excellent source for pictures for Wikipedia articles - oui?--Doug Coldwell talk 13:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's fantastic—both being retired and the Wikipedia stuff! I wish that my hometown had as much going on as Ludington. I'm almost able to upload scans, and that will be a real challenge: I think Wikipedia has a different idea about copyright than the sorts of publications that I deal with (i.e. say its your own work and anything goes). But after reading your message I poked around and found details about Flikr here with some pretty straight forward (for once) rules, so that should really help. If you ever find yourself needing something that is on one of the major periodical distribution sites (like JSTOR, Chadwickonline etc.), just let me know. My school has good subscription services and I'm generally on one of their computers. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for offer on help on JSTOR. On Flickr Creative Commons in Advance Search "Find content to use commercially" and you will get this. Now IF you find a photo that is marked "All Rights Reserved" and you like it, I have a possible way around that. Ask me when you get to that point. This technique works 80% of the time. I have a pretty good handle on copyright, so if you want you can run a questionable picture by me and I'll give you an idea. Also of course, you can use the Help Desk, especially in Wikipedia Commons, and of course they will have the best answer. There is also Fair Use .--Doug Coldwell talk 22:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll definitely contact you if I run into a problem. I have a few images that I scanned from clearly public domain works, but am still navigating the assorted policy pages. I just became the sort of user who can upload images, but I think I really need to read these things first. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aetia[edit]

Simply put your article at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aetia&redirect=no, and add above the text a disambiguation note -- "For the plant genus, see Combretum." or something.

As a rule, if it's -- like here -- a synonym (redirects to other genus; see also infobox or "Taxonomy"/"Nomenclature" section if there is any), the term is free to use for any article.

If it's a valid taxon, it depends on the usual rules (which term is more widely known) who has to disambiguate.

All the best for your Aetia article! 01:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Assessment[edit]

I just noticed what you said about assessment in your recent query at WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. I've noticed that there are still quite a number of articles within our project scope that lack a banner and thus won't be included in assessment roundups. Please do banner the talk page as you find these. Here's the template: {{Classical greece and rome|importance=|class=}}. Thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I really understand the assessment process enough to rate articles for the project yet. If I just put the template on the page without the "importance" and "class" filled in, will it give ???, and is it okay if I do this? Thank you, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's quite OK. It will just cause the article to show up among the project's "unassessed" articles, but at least it will be marked as under the project's aegis. You shouldn't rate the quality of articles you've mostly or entirely written yourself, anyway. If you want to, you could fill in importance (top, high, mid, low). There are criteria, but really, you could probably trust your instincts on importance. If an article is marked as a stub, you can fill in "stub" for the class. I never used to place the project banner until I realized how many relevant articles were without it. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Petrarch[edit]

Petrarch is an interesting character to me, as is Boccaccio and Chaucer. I have heavily edited Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus and Petrarch's Africa. If you have studied Petrarch, do you have a feel which he may have considered a better source; Cassius Dio's Roman History or Suetonius's The Lives of Twelve Caesars? Does that sound like a class assignment or what....

Can you get the complete JSTOR document for History and Theory > Vol. 13, No. 2, May, 1974 and send to me in a PDF file via e-mail. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sent along an email. I haven't studied Petrarch, but I know that we would consider Cassius Dio more reliable than Suetonius. I don't know that Petrarch would have had access to a translation of Cassius Dio, so he might have by default had to turn to Suetonius for certain topics. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., thanks. Didn't know Cassius Dio is considered more reliable than Suetonius. Live and learn. No wonder I came to you on a Classics question. --Doug Coldwell talk 17:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a good chance that a Roman historian would view my unqualified statement as too bold, though. As best I can tell, the real Roman history maven around here is User:Pmanderson, who could take great issue with my verdict. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just got from the library a book that verified what you indicated. The Twelve Caesars (ISBN 978-0-140-45516-8) translated by Robert Graves on page xxxvii of the introduction says: But with the advent of humanism interest in Suetonius increased exponentially, "The Twelve Caesars" was one of Petrarch's favourite books; he owned two copies, one of which he commissioned himself, while his younger contemporary Boccccio made extensive extracts in his own hand.--Doug Coldwell talk 23:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good read, I'll definitely give Petrarch that. I like Suetonius for a lot of the details of emperors' foibles. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article[edit]

A standard you can use is Good Articles to develop a good article. I have contributed to 2 Good Articles. One I started and brought to Good Article status is Conclusion of the American Civil War and another, while I did not start, I helped bring to Good Article status is Australia and the American Civil War. Hope these hints help when you start to write up articles.--Doug Coldwell talk 14:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much ... I hope to be able to get to actually writing soon (instead of just doing little things), but the end of the summer is turning into a mire. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pinacography[edit]

If you're thinking about more dimensions for pinakes, I'd like to point out that when I wrote Ptolemy-el-Garib I called him a "Hellenistic pinacographer" (as in the title of Marian Plezia's article cited there) and linked pinakes for explanation. It would be nice if such usage for later library-indexing literary activity were at least pointed to in pinakes, even if it's getting technically beyond the subject of "Pinakes (Callimachus)." Wareh (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'd like to expand the "history" section to include background on not only the Library, but forbears of the work (stuff like Asclepiades of Tragilus' work on tragedy and the Aristotelian stuff) and, then, to expand upon its place in contemporary Hellenistic scholarship. I know nothing of Ptolemy's catalogic work on Aristotle, though, so any help with that (it's content, structure, nature) would be greatly appreciated. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr[edit]

Here is a hint on how to get the correct license for Wikipedia from a picture on Flickr:

Hi, I do a lot of work for wikipedia and at present we don't have any photographs of _________.
I was wondering if you could kindly change the license of several of your related images to a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ so they can used in the encyclopedia?
Please let me know as it would be a great help and improvement!
Best regards,
Dave

If you ask a few there is almost always at least one who will respond...
Good luck, --Doug Coldwell talk 11:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coronis[edit]

You: good point--but you undid more than one word.

Me: Oops. Sorry. VIWS talk 10:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No biggie :) Thanks for catching my over simplification. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info boxes[edit]

When you do begin to write up articles, keep in mind that an Info box makes an article much more attractive. These example articles I started below are where I have applied various InfoBoxes:

Perhaps you can use one of these for an idea for a future article.--Doug Coldwell talk 18:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch, Doug. I'll play around with it for some poems I hope to write on. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Pfeiffer[edit]

You asked me to take a look at your new article, but first let me say what an asset you are to Wikipedia. You provide good, clean content, you are unfailing congenial and collegial even though this can be a very nasty place, and you aren't driven by some barely hidden agenda like so many. Hope this is not an embarrassing effusion. But really, it's been a while since I saw a new editor who can contribute so effectively to the area of classical studies.

You have excellent sources for the Pfeiffer article, and it actually reads like a bio. (Many of my articles on scholars don't; most of the time I toss them off as stubs because I cite the scholar often, and feel there needs to be some central way of confirming the person's gravitas.) There's really only one comment I'd make, and I do so here because changes would be better made by someone who's thought it through, not someone who drops in and says "oh, that doesn't sound right, I'll just make it sound the way I think it should."

There are a few (very very few) points at which I wondered about the "encyclopedic" tone. Search for the word "surely" and you'll find the main one. "Surely" is a bit of a weasel word: if it is indeed "sure," then the adverb is unneeded; if this is the "surely" of supposition, it needs to be worded differently for WP. It raises the question of who's asserting that the appointment resulted from W's endorsement: the writer of the WP article, or one of the sources? Or can we just say he was appointed with W's endorsement? Sometimes a particularly interpretive phrase needs its own footnote. There was a "profound" somewhere that struck me the same way, and maybe one or two other points.

That's really the only thing I'd say as an overall comment. As I said, tiny.

There's one sentence I'd rewrite, probably breaking it into two, and that's the first sentence under "Early Life" about his parents. When I hit the comma after "Carl," I found myself thinking "he was born to Carl?" You might permit yourself to write something as third-graderish as "Pfeiffer was born in Augsburg on September 20, 1889. His parents were Carl Pfeiffer, the proprietor" etc. I think that kind of simplicity is OK for stating bare facts.

But would that all scholars had articles so nicely done.

Two formatting/mechanical things.

You probably want a simpler quote style. No one's ever made it clear to me what the cquote's for, but they reformat mine whenever I use one. I pretty much stick with <blockquote></blockquote> for straightforwardly informational quotes. (Footnotes can be inserted within any type of quote, so since you've already introduced your quotation by saying where it's from, attribution within the body text is probably unneeded; just footnote it.) I've been told that cquote is for what in journalism we called a pullquote, but I've never seen it actually used that way: in print journalism, the pullquote is an encapsulating or attention-grabbing quote that's duplicated from the body copy, pulled out (that is, highlighted) to attract the reader with another point of entry. On very rare occasions I've used a quote like this one from Lucretius (I'm looking for a better translation, however), which I think of as a parallel block of text, since it illuminates the body copy (where it might be too long and distracting from the argument) in lieu of an image. I like the look of the graphic quotation marks with cquote, but as I said, I remain unclear about where they're supposed to be used.

As for footnotes: an article like this one is a good place to use php. I find the php footnotes extremely cumbersome most of the time, because (A) if you're supporting a single sentence with seven scholars who all agree, I don't like to see seven footnotes lined up, but rather all the scholarship collated; (B) scholars sometimes need to "talk" to each within the footnotes; and (C) it really pisses me off when I click on a footnote number to read it, find abcdef, and don't know which letter to click on to find my place in the text again. My footnotes tend to be discursive, so I use <ref></ref>. In simple-to-develop articles that have repetitive footnotes, I welcome reformatting to php by other editors. I say that because your article would work well with php footnotes. To me they're a disaster in long articles.

I'm sure you feel quite inundated by all these comments, none of which are on the content of the article. Please read them as "I'm so happy to see your work." Cynwolfe (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking the time to look over the piece and pass along these helpful comments, Cynwolfe. I've cleaned up the two stylistic points you mention, though I'm sure there are still points at which it's a head short of encyclopedic. The main source for it is a really sweet obit by his student Winfired Bühler, and I think that I might have internalized his tone a bit. (The "surely ... Wilamowitz" phrase is his parenthetical "(zweifellos auf Befürwortung von Wilamowitz)", but we can probably do without the qualifier.) I'll read up on php footnotes and try to implement them. Thanks again for the notes and kind words. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding article! I just added the Persondata box that is normally added to biographies. See above for examples.--Doug Coldwell talk 18:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good looking out, as always, Doug! I saw all that stuff at the base of another article that I was using as my basic model, but didn't want to touch it without reading the associated link—I never did. Thanks again. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the world[edit]

If you ever get to Mars in your lifetime you might see a satyr play performed there, so I'm not quite sure what you mean when you edit "world" out of "the world's only extant satyr play" at Euripides. Widen your horizons. McCronion (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, I'm a humanoid chauvinist pig. Should you make it to Mars before me and catch one, please revert me. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cyprus. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. You and 213.7.217.192 both appear to have reverted each other three times in the last 8-9 hours. Please read (or re-read) WP:3RR and calm down. You are not supposed to engage in a revert war even if you believe you are right and other editors are wrong. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I misinterpreted one of the exchanges between you and Cardiffchestnut as a revert. The point still stands that the two of you appear to be edit-warring, which is an issue even if you haven't reached the 3RR limit. Note that even though the other editor appears to be edit-warring, he still arguably seems to be acting in good faith, so I don't think you could get away with claiming the exemption from 3RR for "reverting obvious vandalism" here. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I realized after the IP actually updated a little info on the page (instead of just adding the word "illegal" to any mention of Turkey) that is was probably a bit of high-spirited POVing mixed with good faith: hence my adding a citation for one of the IP's unreferenced additions. I think I'll keep my attention on the ancient bits. But if anyone calls Aphrodite's dominion over Cyprus an "illegal occupation" ... :) The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oxyrhynchus papyri[edit]

It is task for years. I do not know how many I can create. 500? 1000? Currently I do not know. Thanks. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doxographical papyrus[edit]

I'm no papyrologist, but I'd be interested to hear more and have a look. Email me; I may also be able to refer you to someone whose alley this is really right up. Wareh (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otium[edit]

This is my latest article. Feel free to make any improvements. --Doug Coldwell talk 18:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, otium—it's been a while since I've had the chance to indulge in it, but, then, I think most people would say that it's the default state for the graduate student's life. If Cicero's daily routine counted as negotium, so does mine! The article looks good, and it also looks like a gaggle of interested editors are already adding their two cents and refinements. I might pop by and help out when I get the chance: the Aristotle info might be better used in some sort of "Background" section that incorporates Hellenistic Stoic and Epicurean views on the Greek side of the coin. I might be too chronologically minded, but seeing Aristotle's name after Cicero and Seneca makes his presence feel like a non sequitur. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for input. Recently I have expanded the article.--Doug Coldwell talk 11:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately I'm on the flip side of your coin.--Doug Coldwell talk 15:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Front Page story. The contemplative life gave me the motivation to produce 200 DYKs on various subjects.
I have found the Law of attraction to be most beneficial (excuse the philosophy) . --Doug Coldwell talk 23:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's the DYK hook going to be for otium? The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't thought of one. Any suggestions?--Doug Coldwell talk 10:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any tweeks for DYK idea: ...according to Cicero otium with dignity is the one that stands first and is most to be desired by all happy, honest, and healthy-minded men? --Doug Coldwell talk 12:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a parenthetical (leisure) after otium? The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Great idea! I have added it to the hook line. Also I now have an ALT1:
...that Otium, a Latin term, has a variety of meanings including leisure time in which a person can enjoy eating, playing, resting, and academic endeavors?
The hook lines have already been approved by administrator Leszek Jańczuk.--Doug Coldwell talk 12:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Archive
Archives
2011

Article development[edit]

The development of the Otium article is an application of the Law of Attraction.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, what number DYK is this for you? The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think 210, if I add one or two to my list I last forgot. I forgot to add my last DYK of Mutiny at Sucro. I'll have to do that after Otium becomes a DYK, to make a total of 210.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rad. I'm working on a new article now, but I doubt it'll be my first DYK. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is where the Law of Attraction comes into play. Think positively, like the new article you have will be your first DYK.
Thinking this way sets up positive "vibrations" and events occur in such a manner that the new article becomes a Did You Know.
Do you think that each time I wrote up an article I had the attitude that it probably would not become a DYK. No - I thought it will become a DYK and practically every time it did become a Did You Know.
Change your attitude - think positively and constructively. Whatever your mind can conceive and believe, it can achieve (Napoleon Hill).
Be optimistic. All it takes is 1500 characters - a small article. Make sure its well referenced and you have a good "catchy" hook line. Also make sure the hook line has an excellent inline reference. I go out of my way to make sure they find this and even go to the point of placing the exact words right into that particular inline reference, word for word, with its exact location (usually Google Books) so they can easily find it. Its very important that they find the reference that covers your hook line. If possible, give an ALT1 and ALT2, then this way the chances of it becoming a DYK is very good. I would work the draft offline first as all you have is 5 days to develop the article - offline has no limit. Nice little hint.--Doug Coldwell talk 23:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tips. Right now I'm mostly expanding existing articles, but maybe on of the entries I have planned will have something of a hook. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. Let me reword your reply a bit to show optimism: One of the entries I have planned will have something of a hook. - see, positive.
Hint: Take a stab at it and submit a hook no matter what! I have found if you make an "attempt", there are experts at DYK that will come across your "attempt" and fix it for you or give you an alternative. Happens to me all the time. I would say that I have somehow managed to get a hook line using this method 99 and 44/100's per cent of the time. I have never not had a DYK not go through, if I made an "attempt". In other words: the odds are in your favor.--Doug Coldwell talk 22:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hint: Make sure your new article links from at least 3 other articles.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another Hint: If you want to get many people viewing your article - make sure it becomes a DYK. Here are some articles I created that received some large numbers on the day they became a Did You Know
Benson raft



Hint to get high numbers on your views: Make sure that your article is the first in the queue and your picture that mainly represents the article is shown in that day's DYK when the administrator lines up the queue. Most of the time when I just asked for this and had a very interesting picture (like Benson raft picture) they would accommodate me.--Doug Coldwell talk 23:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you get some exceptionally high numbers, then they list you in the Hall of Fame stats as they did for my article on the plague doctor and related articles for the 2010 Holloween DYK hook line.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where it gets a little challenging is to have 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, or 16 articles in the same hook line (articles 87-133). You start pulling hair right out of your head. I have only a few hairs left.--Doug Coldwell talk 23:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Since you're now canvassing the corners of ancient philosophical movements for your otium article, your last comment compels me to recommend that you read this. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cute.--Doug Coldwell talk 12:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above ideas come from what I see as the Law of Life. A sub-category is the Law of Attraction. Another is common sense. And still another is reasoning and another is logic (excuse the psychology).--Doug Coldwell talk 11:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more ideas[edit]

  1. If you get stumped on being able to develop out an artice, seek the services of Ask A Librarian. One in particular that gives some excellent answers on queries is Internet Public Library. I found that the Library of Congress also has such a service and they also come up with excellent answers. Put in Google: "Ask a Librarian" for URLs.
  2. Don't forget when writing up an article make sure you have at least 3 categories for it. You can get an idea for categories from similar articles.
Good luck on your new articles, that will of course be DYKs.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch for the tips, Doug. Hopefully I'll actually finish an article sometime soon. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, you can see the activity and "hits" of your article under "History" and then "Page view statistics". Otium is receiving about 300 "hits" per day and I suspect will jump 10 times that on the day of the DYK (about a week from now).--Doug Coldwell talk 18:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tidbits:

  • You probably already know that "What links here" shows what articles link to your article. You should have at least 3, as less than that they consider an "orphan" article and it could be deleted. Only real articles count, not Talk pages, etc. See Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 85, Papyrus 50, and Otium.
  • Add a picture (or group of pictures) to an article, as that enhances it quite a bit. For examples see these articles I created:
Good Luck on your new articles.--Doug Coldwell talk 14:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tips and links, Doug. Amadscientist listed Otium as the Classics Project's current collaboration, so it should probably start getting more views from Latinists. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 17:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great! This would be the Law of Attraction in action.--Doug Coldwell talk 19:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another little tidbit:
IF you happen to expand an article and you want it to become a DYK, it must be 5 times larger within 5 days from when you started increasing its size to be able to qualify. Use this tool to measure before and after character count. This is a good tool also to count hook line characters, as that must be under 200 (with multiple article hooks an exception).--Doug Coldwell talk 15:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doug. Good to know. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 22:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tidbits for a DYK[edit]

Usually doing items in 3s gives you a real good chance of getting a DYK. Looking at my latest article of Red Cross stove you will notice that it has 3000 characters. Only 1500 is needed, however IF someone objects to a sentence or even a paragraph and you have to remove, you STILL have plenty to qualify for a DYK. There are 3 other articles that link to this article (See "What links here" on left panel). This way it is NOT classified as an orphaned article. It has 3 Categories - then it has plenty without any objections. It has 3 reference sources - which is good for a starter article.

These items are good to know because when you do DYKs you will get the first 5 "free", then you will have to review others' DYKs before yours is approved. You have to be pretty familiar with the qualifications of DYKs to be able to approve another's DYK. Hope to see a list of your DYKs soon.--Doug Coldwell talk 21:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Papyri[edit]

Perhaps it is a time to stop – P. Oxy. 85. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe it's not worth continuing with those until that discussion is sorted out. I just posted a semi-ambivalent note there, but I don't really know what the WP policy would be for things like papyri, so a bunch of these stubs might actually be deleted. I'm sure you'd have an easier time defending all your biblical pieces if they came into question, since their part of a defined (and more fleshed out) series of articles, but once you got into documentary P.Oxy. pieces, deletion proposals were probably inevitable. People might have no qualms with new fragments of Sappho or even Homeric papyri, but arguing for "Declarations by Guilds of Workmen" might be an uphill battle. Not that I agree with that--I'm actually working on a paper on the place of guild and social association in the economy of Graeco-Roman Egypt right now, but not even my cats have the patience to listen to me go on about it. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be quite sad not to have articles for all of these. I think they're lovely. It seems at least plausible to me that each of them meets the GNG on the basis of Grenfell and Hunt and another discussion somewhere.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to have them all, and I think that the General Notability Guidelines that you pointed me toward do suffice to defend this particular piece. After trying to find a specifically relevant guideline, I also think that papyri in general are not a sort of topic for which the guidelines provide much, err, guidance. I'll pop by the deletion discussion and add my two cents, but I think that Leszek and I and any other interested editors might need to powwow and pool our resources/skills/energy to figure out the best way to approach these things. A WikiProject:Papyrology might be in order. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Papyrus 50 (Gregory-Aland)[edit]

Egypt exploration Fund was sponsored by several American institutions, in result many of Oxyrhynchus papyri were transferred to America. I did not explain that in every transferred manuscript article, because of sources (unreferenced speculations). Many of authors do not explain these details. Thanks for your help. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. This is one that actually never went through the Egypt Exploration Fund. A Yale Professor actually bought it from Maurice Nahmann, who was something of a clearinghouse for privately held papyri. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is not Oxyrhynchus. The better idea in all of these articles is to expand them so much as possible. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For any pieces that are held at Yale, you can get the acquisition details by going to the Beinecke database and searching the inventory number. The entry will then give you an acquisition year. In the case of Papyrus 50 it's 1933. Then if you go back to the search screen and click on "(explanation)" next to "Acquisition", it will give the details for each purchase. I don't know just how many other Biblical papyri we have, but I though this might help with your work. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks for participating in the Otium article. Every contribution counts. Doug Coldwell talk 23:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Doug. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homeric task[edit]

Just saw your edit summary at Trojan Battle Order. Agree. But is there a section or article on Wikipedia that tabulates the numbering/lettering systems? If not, it would wonderful if you wanted to provide one as a reference with an explanation, maybe at the tiny stub Homeric epics. I have so many things on my to-do list, I'd never get to it. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done at Homeric epics. Feel free to clean/pretty-up the description and table: I just woke up and am probably not in an ideal numbers-and-tables-and-englishing mode. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 13:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That rocks. I'm never in an ideal numbers-and-tables mode, so I can't believe how fast you did that. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the little victories. Good idea to have a table somewhere, anywhere. I remember being frustrated when I ran into these references when first starting out. It's not as though anyone says, "this really reminds me of that passage in ζ". — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 00:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogia Deorum Gentilium[edit]

Do you have access to the first volume of a projected three-volume set titled Genealogy of the Pagan Gods, translated into English by Jon Solomon, published in May, 2011, by Harvard University Press under the I Tatti Renaissance Library?--Doug Coldwell talk 22:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, just got my hands on it. It is absolutely nuts! If there are any specific passages you've been after (this volume only has books one through five), shoot me an email. I should be able to scan a few pages tomorrow night. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 23:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for offer. Let me think about what I am interested in and I will send you an e-mail. Sounds pretty crazy! I am mostly interested in what ANY of it shows.
Here's another question: I created the article De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch), however last I heard there was no English translation on this. Do you know IF there is currently an English version of this and how I might get my hands on it (i.e. I.L.L.)?--Doug Coldwell talk 16:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right that there's no trans. of De Viris illustribus, but the university is on break right now so I can't talk to people who would know better than me. I'll keep an eye out though. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 03:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar![edit]

Thank you for the barnstar. I did not even know that such a barnstar existed. It's sad that so many of these plays are just fragments, if that, but anything written by Sophocles or Aeschylus is worth preserving and writing about. Rlendog (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ugh[edit]

Hi Nut! I've added a poem to Prosody (Latin), in Iambic distich, but I have no idea how to format the text. I spend a lot of time jiggling letters about and previewing the result to see if the scansion fits the verse. It does at the moment but it needs some computer nous that I ain't got. Could you fix the bastard please? Thanks. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the pre-tag so that the enormous box disappears. Happy prosoding. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 07:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In Catalogue of Women, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Catalogue and Atalante (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Disiecta membra poetae barnstar
For your work on Ichneutae and especially Achilleis (trilogy), you have certainly earned this barnstar. — Rlendog (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch! Your work has reminded me that those articles still aren't done (hopefully I'll return to them soon, but right now my wikipediing is confined to a never-ending edit of another fragmentary text). Feel free to flesh them out if you wish. Your new play pages look great, by the way. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 04:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Davidiad/2011&oldid=1136195376"