Talk:Swaddled infant votive

improvements
citations have been clarified with page numbers added WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Links were added by WikiTikiTavi63 so the 'Orphan status' from the template was removed.EtruscanMayhem (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC) EtruscanMayhem
 * , WP:Orphan means there are no links to this article from other articles. Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My bad! EtruscanMayhem (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, links now connect four other pages to Swaddled infant votive EtruscanMayhem (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Tag Removal
What must I do to get the tag removed? Editors who have placed the tags, please advise what else you would like to see happen. WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Your sandbox version was first copied here, and then moved to draft by User:Liz. Minutes after that move to draft, you moved the sandbox version here without any improvements. This action seemed not to be in the spirit of collaborative editing and WP:Consensus. User:Liz, would you care to comment on the current version? Wikishovel (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * minutes after I moved my article from my student sandbox. Liz had flagged it... I saw the comment that I had left a comment that I had left a tutorial sandbox box on it when I uploaded it. So, I removed it (cut it). I was not aware there were other problems at the time, and I posted the article again without nefarious intent. I have made improvements according to what was flagged and in good faith. WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't see in the page history where the draft discussion was. That said, I've added two inline tags to the obvious places, I haven't checked the apparently sourced information. In terms of best practice it is helpful if specific inline citations point to specific pages rather than an entire document, but that by itself isn't strong enough cause for the overarching tag. CMD (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you for your feedback I will work on the inline citations! WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Phrases like "This would presumably be when the votive would be offered" are not appropriate, because we don't need to know what the editor is presuming, we need a reliable source &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * ok. thanks WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have revisited this article and edited where necessary. Thank you. User:MSGJ WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. There are still a couple of uses of "presumably" and "seemingly". If these are quotes, they can be marked as such. Otherwise such editorial content is probably unwarranted. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Copyright concern
@Red-tailed hawk I assume you have access to the full article, because I can only see the abstract. Was that the only passage with copyright issues? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to address Red-Tail hawk's concerns. as well as deleted any text with the 'presumably and seemingly ' phrases WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red-tailed hawk did not note concerns, they identified blatant plagiarism and addressed it themselves. If a similar issue exists elsewhere in the article, it should be addressed with priority. CMD (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have deleted those revisions (taken on trust because I couldn't actually see the violation myself) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A version of the journal article is available on JSTOR, which you should be able to access through the Wikipedia library. —  Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 20:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Article removal
I am asking for this article to be removed. It appears I have have not been able to create a quality piece of work on this topic WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * There are processes for article deletion, but I don't think this is a good cause for it. Editing a wiki is a bumpy process with lots of inputs and all articles go through this. A few tags is not a big problem. CMD (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please don't be discouraged. It is a steep learning curve but you are doing well. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You have done a great job so far! There’s just the one problem that’s been identified—we can’t copy and past from academic journals onto Wikipedia, even if we use an inline citation. Please don’t be discouraged; the content itself is very interesting, and the article appears to be well-made aside from the one error, which has since been corrected. —  Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 20:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Title
I profoundly disagree with on switching the title. 'Infant votive' is far too vague. These particular votives are a specific type in a much larger group of votives representing babies and toddlers in Mediterranean antiquity (for example, this Etruscan example which you can see is a different type: https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/curiosities/roman-children-wore-bulla/; see also Chris Faraone's Transformation of Greek Amulets in the Roman World, Chapter 1 for similar examples wearing amulets; or Bobou's 2015 Children in the Hellenistic World: Statues and Representation, for more in depth discussion). The Swaddled Infant Votive entry covers one subset of Italian/Roman votive types representing children, in this case a very limited age range and following one representational schema (swaddling). Scholars are united in calling them 'Swaddled Infant Votives'; this is 100% the accepted term in the literature. 'Infant votives' (across the world and ages) certainly deserve their own entry, but that is a much larger project and well beyond the scope of this entry. These particular votive forms were incredibly popular in Roman/Italian antiquity and certainly deserve their own entry given their ubiquity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EtruscanMayhem (talk • contribs) 22:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to revert per WP:BRD and we can continue to discuss. My thought was that we don't have an article on infant votives, and a more general article would be of value to the project. The swaddling part seems neither here nor there, and all examples in commons:Category:Votive babies seem to be of the swaddled variety. But I am no expert in the subject &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I've undone the move.
 * Reading through the sources, I think that this is the WP:COMMONNAME; the content of this article seems to be about a particular sort of infant votive (the one with swaddling), rather than the general concept that was implied by the page title when it was moved. A more general article on infant votives across the globe may improve the encyclopedia, but I don't think that the way to do this is by merely changing this article's title. I think a standalone page on Swaddling infant votives is warranted; this subset of infant votives is itself notable and the source of direct academic study.
 * As such, I object to moving this page at this time, and I prefer the current title ("Swaddled infant votive") over the proposed title ("Infant votive") for an article with this one's scope.
 * — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 05:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay no problem. Just out of interest, why did you perform a round robin history swap instead of just moving it back?
 * I think generally, that if we have an article on a specialist subject but are lacking an article on the more general concept, then we are doing the reader a disservice and not acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia. I recognise that sometimes articles are created in the wrong order (and I would definitely rather have the artice than not!) but it might be better to advise a new editor that creating the general article first would be more helpful to the project. Just a thought &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * General topics are probably more helpful to the encyclopaedia, but they're harder to write! Experienced editors have developed niche articles to a much higher quality than more general ones, and it doesn't seem too fair to ask newer editors to fix this. CMD (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, student editors writing entries through a WikiEdu class are VERY unlikely to create new general entries on huge topics. The very nature of the program tends to direct them to more specific topics that they can explore in depth as they learn. For those classes specifically geared towards filling content gaps this is overwhelmingly the case. The Swaddled Infant Votives was created for a WikiEdu course directed at addressing missing information about Roman religion, and in this case content gaps related to women and children in Roman religion. So creating a general concept entry would have defeated the purpose. EtruscanMayhem (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point. I can create a stub or stub draft this weekend for a more general topic 'Baby Votives' or something, so that at least it will exist. I can do a *very* brief overview of some of the types. Do you think I need to go through the WP:NEWSTUB process since you all are already part of this discussion, or should I just go for it? EtruscanMayhem (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes please! Go for it &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Per CMD and EtruscanMayhem above, it's because general articles are harder to write well. One needs to have a much broader understanding of the subject writ large to write them, and that takes a lot of time to get. But I also don't think that adding knowledge on things like, say Repatriation tax avoidance (a GA) harm a reader's understanding of things like repatriation tax (an article that should be written, but currently does not exist). I think it's better for our encyclopedia to have these sorts of niche articles than to not, and I think that realizing the limitations of our content is a good thing for readers.
 * As for the round-robin swap, in hindsight I could have just overwritten the redirect when moving back. In any case, all roads lead to Rome. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 17:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)