Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/Latin literature

Latin literature

 * Nominated on 15:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC); needs 3 votes by January 2.

Three sentences and some lists! An encyclopedia should have more on this topic.

Support:
 * 1) Fenice 15:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) NeoJustin 17:43, January 2, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * We do have more on this topic: pages and pages on it. It's just all been moved to the subpages of this article (Old Latin, Classical Latin, Vulgar Latin, Medieval Latin, Humanist Latin, New Latin, etc.) and no one's taken the time to summarize it appropriately on the main page yet (though it is summarized quite well on Culture of ancient Rome, which you could certainly use as a nice starting place for the Literature article).
 * Personally, I just started working on the "Latin literature" series of articles a few days ago, and planned to tackle this article very soon. But despite that, I don't think this article is a very good choice at all for CotW: there are dozens of other Ancient Rome-related Wikipedia articles that are much worse off than this one, like Roman bridge (compare it to its remarkably complete sister article, Roman road), Roman art, Roman music (linked to in several places, but doesn't exist yet), Roman architecture, and Rome itself! (Yes, Rome is a stub. Don't let the bloated lists, stub sections, and pretty pictures fool you.) The whole Roman mythology series could also use a heck of a lot of tidying up to bring it up to par with its Greek counterpart, as could History of Rome, and, hell, Latin could use a little expansion too, though not on CotW since it's no stub. I may support this article in a few days, but I still feel it isn't the ideal choice and picking it out of all the Rome-related articles was a very hasty move. Ancient Rome was the CotW only a few weeks ago and is still quite lacking in dozens of areas itself: for example, no discussion of Roman numerals, the Roman calendar, the status of women, Roman games and festivals, nomina, etc. But oh well. -Silence 15:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Lots of subarticles already exist, as your listing above shows. And that is exactly why I think it is doable as a COTW - much of the work is writing summaries. All the other topics you are mentioning are worthy projects too, but shouldn't an encyclopedia have (good) articles on the most important Classical education topics first?--Fenice 22:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Not enough votes.--Urthogie 19:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)