User talk:Catalographer

Hellenion
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hellenion, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Hellenion. --151.201.147.150 (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hellenion (USA)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hellenion (USA), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://pagan.wikia.com/wiki/Hellenion. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * the opposite: Pagan wiki includes a substantial copy from wikipedian Hellenion 2005,2007 Catalographer (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Map Northern Migrations 1000 bc up to Roman conquest

 * What do you think?Usable anywhere? Not much for aesthetics though.

Megistias (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Depressing Grey colour.
 * The most important: It lacks dates for every group inside the map. Catalographer (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah it looks awful & You are right about the dates.But it really looks nightmarish now that i think about it again.Bliahh.Megistias (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I remade it, but it still needs improvements. And its still lacks aesthetically. A bit better though, i am getting the old one deleted 1000BC Migrations Europe.pngtias (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent articles
I have been doing some minor tidying up of your recent articles -- please take a look at my changes as I think they will help you in future. I must admit that sometimes I really miss my days as a classics scholar! – ukexpat (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tag {{otherpersons2| Catalographer (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Assesment
Dear user, I just came across your new article. By now you must have been well versed with wikipedia, so please have a look at the wikipedia guidelines. The editors themselves cannot assess the article on quality and importance scale. It is the work of the uninvolved editors. So kindly refrain from assessing articles that you edit. Looking for your co-operation sir. Nefirious (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

OK It reverts back to blank talk page Catalographer (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hermolaus and Sostratus
Hello, I found your entry in the relationships article very interesting, but I am not sure this is an intergenerational love affair. Check out this account. It appears they were both pages, which would make them both adolescent. Have you seen anything to indicate they were a pederastic couple?Haiduc (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You have right. I remove it. It suits in Homosexual relationships in antiquity Catalographer (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have created a new article, Egalitarian same-sex relationships in classical antiquity, precisely for this purpose. Please place the text there, or I can do it, if you like. Haiduc (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Glaucias
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Glaucias, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * All red links in Disambiguation, page unnecessary.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 18:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion
Hi. With regards to this discussion, you should be aware (if you aren't already) that renaming the category in the middle of a formal discussion is inappropriate and can be disruptive. The reason is because it creates a very confusing situation for those who come to the discussion a few days after it has begun if the originally-nominated category has been emptied out and a new one created in its stead. You've done this at least twice on this category now and also once with the Alexander the Great historians one, so I and I think anyone else who might want to participate in those discussions would appreciate it if you would stop changing things mid-stream. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my mistakeCatalographer (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's OK—we all have to learn how these things work at some point, and it can be confusing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. I responded to your request, using my article time to do so. I would say, don't let the man of the good nose get you down. Hardly anyone ever agrees about anything on Wikipedia. If one does agree one says nothing so you never see it. Anyway the point of view I am taking is that categories are not articles and ought to be treated differently. As far as I'm concerned there are NEVER enough categories. More, more! So, it ought not to be a mutually exclusive situation. One person thinks one thing, another, another. They are both likely to be right. Do it both ways. Do it all ways, any ways! They are all likely to be useful. As far as invoking the wrath of the good nose is concerned, you just say, "of course, you are right. I'm still learning." I find that most arguing on Wikipedia is not really logical. I try not to get bogged down in extensive and illogical arguments. If someone has a legitimate point sooner or later that point will get across. We'd all like sooner but with this many editors later might have to be accepted. Deletions are notoriously hard to obtain. Even if you change your mind 5 minutes later, too late. It has to be nominated for deletion. The thing you have to look out for is language such as "don't do it again" or "do you intend to do this on other articles?" That language usually indicates that a system administrator is setting up to block you, as the main rationale for blocking is whether you are going to pursue methods deemed wrong in other articles. Wikipedia has a "secret police", administrators who do not identify themselves as such. Well this is about the best I can do for you. I'm not an administrator. I don't know about the nose and don't care. There are several levels of secret police. Just act in good faith and try not to lose your temper. Ciao.

Welcome!

 * This is several years overdue, but I like the start on Sources on Alexander the Great and it would be great if you would contribute more to Wikipedia!  Them From  Space  08:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Aw....you beat me to it!
LOL! Thanks for starting Graecostasis. I had intended to get around to starting it after I realised it didn't even have a redirect.

I have expanded it a bit and will begin referencing and uploading a few images. At first I thought it maight be difficult to cite, but have run into many books while researching the Rostra and the Comitium. Your contributions to these pages would be welcome!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you want to nominate a page for deletion, it would be helpful to administrators reviewing your requests if you would look through the criteria for speedy deletion and use an appropriate template corresponding to the reason for your request, rather than simply using a generic db request. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Infantry and Cavalry units in Macedonian army categories
Why are these two categories a subcategory of the ranks for the Ancient Macedonian army?SADADS (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I will fix it Catalographer (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Ottoman Greek Macedonia
Hello. I was wondering what your definition of "Ottoman Greek Macedonia" is. This seems like a peculiar combination of terms, as though we had a category for, say, "Italian French Savoy" (referring to the French area of Savoie formerly ruled by the Italian House of Savoia) or "English French Normandy" or "Pakistani British India". --macrakis (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ottoman era Greek Macedonia or Macedonia (Greece)  Catalographer (talk) 07:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it makes sense to project the modern boundaries back to the Ottoman period: all three of Category:Ottoman Blagoevgrad Province, Category:Ottoman-era Macedonia (Greece), and Category:Ottoman-era Republic of Macedonia should be unified under Category:Ottoman Macedonia. After all, we don't have separate articles for Category:Roman-era Gaul (France), Category:Roman-era Gaul (Belgium), etc. --macrakis (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

and Category:Medieval Macedonia. The same applies to Thrace (region) Catalographer (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure I understand what you're saying. --macrakis (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is enough history for divided regions (e.g. Roman-era Gaul), there categories exist. Catalographer (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

and Roman Gaul, Gallia existed as separate region; unlike Ottoman Macedonia which was part of Rumelia and then divided between Salonika,Monastir and Kosovo sanjaks. Catalographer (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the slow response -- I haven't been on-line much lately. I agree entirely that narrower regions are often appropriate.  However, the regions should be historically meaningful -- using the modern borders to distinguish different parts of Ottoman Rumelia is peculiar.  It would make much more sense to have, e.g. Category:Sanjak of Selanik, Category:Sanjak of Monastir, etc. rather than Category:Ottoman Blagoevgrad Province, etc. --macrakis (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Like the Byzantine provinces in the region of Macedonia (Diocese of Macedonia and later Byzantine themes), the Ottoman provinces had no chronological and geographical stability. Sanjaks of Selanik, Monastir and Kosova ,with Ushkub capital, existed after 1864. Catalographer (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure I understand your point. The current borders of modern Greek, Macedonian, and Bulgarian Macedonia have almost no relation to the administrative, cultural, linguistic, and religious situation under the Ottoman Empire, so it doesn't make sense to project them into the Ottoman period. Sure, the Ottoman administrative units changed over time, too, but they make more sense when discussing the Ottoman period than do modern state units. --macrakis (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So -> Category Medieval or Ottoman Macedonia by modern region borders and Category by Byzantine and Ottoman provinces. (Medieval and Ottoman history by country, by region, by medieval or Ottoman provinces). Catalographer (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have added subcategories for Ottoman Macedonia by modern region borders. That was clear from the beginning of this exchange. But you still haven't explained your rationale.  It would help if you would write in complete English sentences.  Thanks. --macrakis (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The one does not exclude the other. The only we can do is Category:Late Ottoman Macedonia with the sanjaks after 1864. Before 1864 it was part of Rumelia. Do you know the subdivisions of Rumelia? Catalographer (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Dimachae
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Dimachae, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-dgra/0417.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Aeinautae
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Aeinautae, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-dgra/0029.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ancient theatre, Ohrid
Hello, I wonder why you moved Ancient theatre, Ohrid to Ancient Theatre of Ohrid? This page has been moved about more often than I care to remember, but "ancient theatre" is still just a descriptive common noun phrase, not a proper name. Why the capitalization? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For reasons of emphasis but do what you think is more appropriate Catalographer (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding exciting content
These Category:Inscriptions in medieval Macedonia you've been working on, that is fascinating stuff. Are there more than those three four? Drmies (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't know the exact number. When I detect something new, I will include it. Catalographer (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

'Triumphal hymns'
Hi, C. I don't have strong feelings about this at all, but I just noticed the category of Ancient Greek 'triumphal hymns.' Since I wasn't familiar with the term, I did a Google Books search and found the phrase mainly in 19th-century encyclopedias. I didn't see it used in any of the 20th–21st century books on ancient Greek literature (such as literary histories or genre topics) that I know to be on G-books. Don't know whether that's an issue for you, or whether there's a more current term; I was just curious about the phrase. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, let's see triumphal hymn epinikion, ( or triumphal ode epinikion, trumphal song, epinikion ), trumphal hymn paean, (or triumphal song paean)  and books of 21st  century: The fragments of Timotheus of Miletus By Timotheus, James H. Hordern  2002   the paean was a triumphal song to Apollo,   Plague and the Athenian imagination: drama, history and the cult of Asclepius By Robin Mitchell-Boyask celebratory or triumphal paean, Pindar's poetry, patrons, and festivals: from archaic Greece to the Roman Empire By Simon Hornblower, Catherine Morgan  Page 145 triumphal hymn  Catalographer (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your searches aren't exact-searches on "triumphal hymn", so your results yield pages that simply contain the words "triumphal" and "hymn" in proximity. An exact-search (all books) of triumphal hymns does yield about 600 (filtered for duplicates to about 300), maybe 10 of which even pertain to ancient Greek literature. The top hit is The Cambridge Ancient History, but in reference to pre-Hellenistic Egyptian poetry. Of the few others, nearly all of them are 19th-century sources, and not necessarily the classic literary histories of that century. Similar results pertain to "triumphal hymn", exact-search in the singular. Among literary histories or genre/author studies of the 20th and 21st centuries, I find the phrase "triumphal hymn" only once, in Hornblower (an indisputably good source), but the phrase is a translation of a Pindaric fragment (the Greek doesn't use either the word "triumph" or "hymn" — at least I don't think so at first glance; apologies if I'm wrong, but my poor eyesight hampers me when I'm reading Greek these days), not used as a term of literary criticism.


 * The word used by Pindar  is melosCatalographer (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that the paean isn't 'triumphal.' I'm not disputing that these genres are discussed in relation to the complicated notion of "triumph" and its often mystifying connection to Bacchus and the "East" (as discussed recently in Mary Beard's book on the triumphal procession, looking back from Rome; there is an unfortunately very limited preview of this section online). What I'm questioning is the validity of the terminology, whether it clarifies anything, whether it reflects current usage in the field, and thus whether or not it should be used as an encyclopedia category. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

and what are the alternative names? celebratory praising songs? or hymns?Catalographer (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your objection is against the adjective triumphal and not the noun hymn, isn't it? Catalographer (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I wouldn't call it an objection, even; just a quest for precision. The phrase may be as accurate as anything else, if it's valid to group these various genres … I know I sound argumentative when sometimes I'm just striving for my own clarity. I guess what would make me happy (ha, like this impossible task is your responsibility) is an introductory article on "Ancient Greek triumphal hymns," which would outline how the paean, dithryamb, epinicion, etc., are related as occasional poetry historically developed within Greek "song culture," as Leslie Kurke outlines it. I think I question both hymnos and "triumphal". Now, the relation of the paean to the hymnic tradition represented by the so-called Homeric Hymns makes sense, as does the dithyramb. But all hymnoi are not triumphal; is all triumphal poetry "hymnic"? Could be. (I don't know whether the victory odes are typically described in modern scholarship as "hymns"). But there wasn't a proper article on Greek 'melic' poetry last time I looked, either; what existed was just a look at the list of Nine Melic Poets. And there's no article on choral lyric (which I consider a significant gap in the coverage of ancient Greek literature, given its importance both in the development of Greek poetry and socially), a category within which all your triumphal hymns would fall. Didn't mean to be discouraging. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * All thoughts are welcome. All hymnoi are not triumphal but Hymns to Dionysus (in the category) are triumphal (even the word triumph comes from Thriambus). About the Epinikion: If the word hymn has mainly religious connotations, Epinikion could easily be categorized as religious  and athletic-related music or poetry, since the presence of Gods in Pindar is overwhelming. What about the wedding hymns of ancient Greece? . I personally distinguish between banquet songs like skolia and ritual songs like hymns. Catalographer (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Phrourarch
Also, and I don't mean to sound as if I'm hounding you (our interests just happen to overlap), but what is your source for saying Telesarchus held the title phrourarch? I get that phrourarch means "commander of a garrison," and Telesarchus commanded a garrison, but that doesn't mean phrourarch was the military title he held. I would welcome any other sources on this obscure figure. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * tên phrouran oiomenou Telesarchôi ( Pausanias 10.22.1) [ http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0159&layout=&loc=10.22\.1 ] Catalographer (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ...garrison, a phrourarch in Seleucid terminology phrourarch' is available as a generic term for a garrison- commander  Catalographer (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, I change it to garrison commanders, because of the Spartan obscurity on the term.Catalographer (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, thanks; I lazily didn't check the Greek for Pausanias because I so intensely dislike using Perseus. Close enough for jazz. You're keeping the phrourarch article, but changing the category, is that correct? That would seem a fine solution to me, since you can discuss the term in the article, including its problematic nature, while "garrison commander" might be easier to use as a category. My two cents, or maybe one-and-a-half. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for straightening out Cat:Mithras. Is there a way to change the name to Cat:'Mithraic Mysteries' and refile it under Cat:'Mystery religions' (which is where the other Greco-Roman Mysteries are)? Thanks again. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hyperetes


The article Hyperetes has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Copied to Wiktionary, no need for this word definition to have an encyclopaedia entry.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ash (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Hyperetes
I have nominated Hyperetes, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Hyperetes. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ash (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

'Roman-writing'
What the Hades does "Ancient Roman-writing philosophers" mean? If I may politely exclaim. Does that mean "ancient philosophers who wrote in Latin"? My friend, let us us reflect on this proliferation of categories. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There are also medieval and Renaissance Latin-writing philosophers. What is your proposal? Catalographer (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What about just Latin-writing philosophers?Catalographer (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Latin-writing philosophers

with subcats Medieval Latin-writing etc..Catalographer (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop deleting Category:Operas from opera articles
Please do not delete or alter Category:Operas in articles about individual operas. It is there for a purpose. Please read the note at the top of that category page. Thank you. --Voceditenore (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to add additional categories fine, but please add them separately. Do not turn Category:Operas into Category:Operas based on Classical mythology, for example. Note also that this new category has the wrong punctuation. All edits removing category operas from articles will be reverted. --Voceditenore (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks for clarificationCatalographer (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the same subject, why are you including operas in "popular culture" categories? --Folantin (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Further discussion here Catalographer (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hello! Is there any way to ask for a massive movement of all the articles of one category to another? Thank you! - Sthenel (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * post it in Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion Catalographer (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

François Vase
As a Classical archaeologist/art historian, I do not think that any of the scenes of the François Vase can be categorised as "Ancient Greek military art". I am therefore going to remove the category from the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.159.200 (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hedylus
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hedylus, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Bios/Hedylus.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Companion Cavalry
Is that a good place to put the link? I don't think it is quite appropriate in the "See also". You may want to add that to the top of some of the other articles, or maybe not.SADADS (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You have right. However it has also the meaning of Companions in the other cases Catalographer (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Bianor (mythology)
Hello. Would you be interested in merging Bianor (mythology) to Bianor (disambiguation)? Happy to help with this if you like. I had no idea there were three, by the way. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Macistus
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Macistus, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.mythindex.com/greek-mythology/M/Macistus.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Aelia Eudocia
Hallo Catalographer,

I saw that you added a picture of the Empress on the Aelia Eudocia article. The inscription on the slab actually reads "Hagia Eudoxia", and Saint Eudocia has actually nothing to do with the Empress, who was never canonized. Are you sure about the identification? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I only added categories. User:Uxbona added the image through User:Shakko's wiki-upload and addition by User:Testus to Aelia Eudocia in commons    Catalographer (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Historical people
Hello Catalographer. I am at a loss to see if we need to get as pedantic as that for categorization purposes by dividing people from the same locality under different time frames, city names and rules and I will appreciate if you could leave a comment here:. Are we prepared to extend the approach to cover, just citing as examples, Category:Qing Dynasty people from Peking, Category:Ming Dynasty people from Peking and Category:People from Republican Peking and a still distinct one for Category:People from Beijing. If the approach is based on considerations of stressing ethnicity, just to cite another example, note that J.G.Ballard is categorized simply under Category:People from Shanghai and not under Category:British people from Shanghai and not even under Shanghailanders although that could stand on much firmer ground. Just to cite another example, some could argue that Burhan Özfatura could fit better into the category Category:Historical people of İzmir rather than just Category:People from İzmir and differences in view wouldn't stop. Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think that they should be merged into one, post the request in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion Catalographer (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I suggest you do it, having started the categories and since there is no similar example apart from the three cities. Cretanforever (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But I don't agree to the merge proposal. I support a Category:Historical people by city. What about Category:Ancient Athenians or Category:Ancient Alexandrians? Catalographer (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I posted it in the Categories for discussion Catalographer (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Lack of introduction to River of Lethe
Hello. I noticed that the River Lethe in popular culture was completely lacking an introduction. I added a tiny bit from the Lethe page but have no idea if this conforms to the right format since the article is about the popular culture occurences. The treatment of the concept itself is best left to the Lethe page, I agree but I also think it should see some basic level of treatment on the River Lethe in popular culture as well. Which is why I write to you now (someone who is better able to make those edits than I). Thanks catalographer! --Skychildandsonofthesun (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I also think that since there are five related pages: Lethe (myth)  River Lethe (actual river), River Lethe in popular culture, Altheia, Aletheia (mythology), we probably should have a See Also section at the bottom of these and maybe even a disambiguiation tag at the top. Your thoughts? --Skychildandsonofthesun (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Epicurus' hero cult
In your discussion of Epicurus' hero cult, you give his birthday as being 10th Gamelion. However, Diogenes writes that Apollodorus gave his birthday as "the seventh day of the month Gamelion, seven years after the death of Plato". What is Diskin Clay's source for the date of 10th Gamelion? -- pmj (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Parembole
Hello, just to let you know that this dab has been nominated for deletion using Template:db-disambig as the two entries weren't mentioned on any blue links on it. Best wishes, Boleyn3 (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Hazlitt
Just wanted to alert you that you gave the wrong Hazlitt as author of Hazlitt (Classical Gazetteer). I fixed it, but it pays to be alert for similarly named writers. Languagehat (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Xenophon (son of Euripides)
Hi, I came across Xenophon (son of Euripides) and did not understand your references. They may be clear to an insider or expert. Maybe you can clarify these for other readers? Superp (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm argentinian, and i need your help as an english native speaker.
Please, I ask you to look at the edition i´ve made in the Sea Peoples article, and see if it presents a good english redaction.

I´m spanishspeaker, and sometimes i have my doubts, like in this case.

Please, could you check? The edition is made upon the section "Reign of Ramesesses II", in its last paragraph, and it says: "There is a list of the peoples that conformed it, and they are mainly "land peoples", but there are also some "sea peoples" like the Lukka as well."

I'll aprecciate your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolemaikos (talk • contribs) 22:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Scholars of Greek language has been nominated for renaming
Category:Scholars of Greek language has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. NLeeuw (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of List of sports team names and symbols derived from Greek and Roman antiquity for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of sports team names and symbols derived from Greek and Roman antiquity is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of sports team names and symbols derived from Greek and Roman antiquity until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Let&#39;srun (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Battles involving the Seljuk Turks in Anatolia has been nominated for deletion
Category:Battles involving the Seljuk Turks in Anatolia has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. NLeeuw (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Battles of the Byzantine–Bulgarian Wars in Thrace has been nominated for merging
Category:Battles of the Byzantine–Bulgarian Wars in Thrace has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. NLeeuw (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)