Talk:Antinoöpolis

Why the woman's portrait?
Why is there an uncaptioned portrait of an Egyptian woman in the infobox for this city?--Jim10701 (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The mummy portrait in encaustic (ie pigments are in wax), Louvre collection, is from Antinoopolis (I have no idea why it also says Fayum, which is further north, and on the west bank, other than that a great quantity of such painted Greco-Roman portraits being found there); the info given in description states that its from the 2nd century, presumably as the sitter has a hairstyle 'in the manner of Sabina', wife of Hadrian. But yes, it does need that data added as a caption. Cheers, (Scott E Hill (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Even with the caption, it seems odd to illustrate an article on a city with an individual's portrait, unless maybe it was a particularly notable representative of the city. Also, the caption talks about the hairstyle, but uses an extremely tightly cropped version (another is available on Commons) in which we can't see the hairstyle. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Tradition vs History
The section 'Relevance to Christian History' offers no references in support at all and fails to meet even the most basic requirements for either history, or Wikipedia.

"...hundreds of thousands of Christians were tortured and killed in the third and fourth centuries..." - should not be claimed without supporting evidence.

Unless this section is brought up to standard soon, I intend to either delete, or edit it heavily. - Extramural —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC). Please do, it could really use a cleanup! Augustun84 (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Antinopolis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929132944/http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak/Francogallica/Divorce_fran.htm to http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak/Francogallica/Divorce_fran.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 19 January 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: move the page to Antinoöpolis at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 15:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Antinopolis → Antinoöpolis – Antinoöpolis makes better sense than "Antinopolis", which misses out two vowels and a whole syllable from the Greek's "Antinouopolis", and implies someone called "Antinus" is being comemorated, not Antinoös. This is dictionary style of the Oxford Classical Dictionary and all of the English-language citations on this page.

Antinoöpolis is the correct name of the city in English; named after the deified youth Antinoüs. The diaereses ö and ü are not foreign imports or archaisms but native English diacritics indicting that the second vowel is pronounced independently of the first, as in Greek, as in the names "Zoë" and "Chloë". "Antinopolis" appears to be a mistake, not spelled thus in any reliable source. GPinkerton (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as for reasons above. "Antinoöpolis" is definitely the correct form. I'm even prone to accept "Antinoopolis", but definitely not the current title. Strangely, no one has noticed that before. Khruner (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. The name certainly needs to be changed, but "Antinoopolis", without the diaeresis, seems to be the common name in the sources. Looking at major reference sources first, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (2000), The British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt (1995), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Egypt (2012), Egypt in Late Antiquity (1993), and The Cambridge History of Ancient Egypt (1998) all use "Antinoopolis", as does the online UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology (in progress since 2008). The only major reference work I can find that uses the diaeresis is The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2001). A. Parrot (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment In support of Antinoöpolis, as well as the The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2001), there is, as mentioned, The Oxford Classical Dictionary, (4th ed.)(2012), The Encyclopaedia Britannica (2010), The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (2005), Grove Dictionary of Art (2003), The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites (1976), and, where it is mentioned under a different heading, the great LSJ, standard-most reference on Ancient Greek. In addition, most of the older printed literature used Antinoöpolis. For "Antinoopolis" there is the New Pauly and the Barrington Atlas and the works cited above (and more); for "Antinoupolis" there is the newsletter of the most recent excavations (2010), the Antinoupolis Oracle. For "Antinooupolis" there are certain SEG articles on epigraphy. GPinkerton (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I really dislike "Antinoopolis" and "Antinooupolis" since they both suggest a rather silly pronunciation in English. While the diaeresis doesn't guarantee that people will pronounce it correctly, or at least differently than I fear these spellings will produce, at least it's a signal to readers that it might be pronounced differently.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Meroë is transliterated on the same principle; it guides the English-language reader to pronounce the "oe" as two separate syllables, not as a diphthong, as would be expected. The Wikipedia page uses the diaeresis. Another example is Boötes. GPinkerton (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The proposed name is certainly correct, although I'm not certain that the alternatives are technically incorrect.  As long as they're mentioned somewhere in the article (there may be too many for the lead, and some explanation might be expected), it seems fine to choose one as the primary form for the title and the article.  I tend to think that the reason some sources avoid diaeresis is because diacritical marks were difficult to type/altogether absent from typewriters for most of the twentieth century, and English speakers aren't used to seeing them, leading some editors to dismiss them unnecessarily as "fussy" or "confusing".  Owing to the availability of redirects in Wikipedia, I think we can risk that in favour of historical and technical spelling.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.