Talk:LacusCurtius

Untitled
I found a lemma "LacusCurtius", so assumed it was there for it to be filled out. On the other hand I do realize I'm not supposed to be promoting a website, so I gave the most neutrally useful info I could; I hope it's alright.

BT


 * That's cool, thanks! I tweaked it into more of a WP style. To atone for the self-promotion :-), please fill in the red links to the dictionaries :-), since we see references to them regularly, but don't know much about them - what they cover, who Smith or Platner are, etc. Stan 05:32, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * CamelCase, eh? The word was totally new to me! Would never have said boo about Lacus had there not been a lemma already set up for it, I couldn't imagine what else it was for. Am working on Platner and Smith as per instructions.

--- Surprised to notice just now that this article is listed in Category: Ancient Rome. Taxonomically, it shouldn't be, I don't think: unless it gets listed instead in some subcategory like "writers on ancient Rome" (like Gibbon, Bury, Gregorovius, etc.: not a bad idea to have such a category, maybe). At any rate, "LacusCurtius" belongs as little under "Ancient Rome" as "Patton" (the movie) belongs under "American military history"?


 * The category system is still pretty new, and usage is evolving by trial and error (some would say mostly the latter :-) ) A couple emerging practices are to have higher-level categories, such as [:Category:Ancient Rome], be defined "as everything relating to topic X", which would include websites and the like, and the other is to develop subcategories incrementally, so while I personally think there is plenty of fodder for a sub category of "modern books and websites about ancient Rome", it hasn't yet risen to the point of prompting anybody to name the category, create, and fill it. We are in desperate need of a "classical scholars" category, lots of "orphan" bios hanging around, been thinking about how to name and delineate precisely enough for other people to add to it usefully. Stan 12:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Any info on why LacusCurtius has been down for the past several weeks?
It was a great resource, and knowing what's happened, and whether it's going to be back up or is down permanently, would be very helpful. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really know what the deal is: I've had no problem using the site lately (hence my removing the dead link notices). I don't know why you would have trouble alone. Does the connection just time out when you try to access the site? Has anyone else has problems? davidiad.: 14:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've had no problems, but the site does load quite slowly for me. I can't find it, but Bill Thayer left a link somewhere on a talk page about where to get info if the site was down. The link probably pointed to the What's New at LacusCurtius and Livius.org. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It just times out. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Jeez ... that's odd. I don't know why it would cause such a problem for you. You're on a major ISP, and however slowly it might be loading for some people, it should still not cause you to get a time out. Sorry. davidiad.:τ 01:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the problem, judging from several tries with traceroute on different days, is that from here LacusCurtius is behind Cogentco. And judging by their talk page but not their article page, they have a reputation for breaking the net. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there an internet archive backup [I can't find one] or a mirror site? 96.231.17.131 (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Closed down again?
It appears that LacusCurtius is not working once more, and not even available on Wayback Machine. Anyone know why this is the case? KnightofFaerië (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)