Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boukephala and Nikaia/archive1

Boukephala and Nikaia

 * Nominator(s): AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

From the adventures of Genghis Khan, we move to the life of another Asiatic conqueror, Alexander the Great. Two cities, founded either side of the river where he took one of his most famous victories—one named for the battle, the other for his horse. Alexander died only a couple of years afterwards but the Alexandrias live long in the memory of men. I took the main topic article to FL status in February, after taking the related city of Ai-Khanoum to FA last November. This particular article was reviewed at GA level by in late April. I now set it before you and hope you enjoy. This submission will be used for WikiCup points. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Image review—pass
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

 * "The cities, two of many founded by the Macedonian king, were founded shortly after" -- to avoid repetition, could you change the second "founded" to "established" or something similar?
 * Done


 * I'm confused by the use of italics in "Nikaia"...
 * So am I, actually. Removed.


 * "in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea and on the Tabula Peutingeriana" - I might try to concisely mention that these are written works. I was initally confused.
 * Done.


 * "The cities' location is unknown" --> "The cities' locations are unknown" unless we have a Dallas/Fort Worth situation
 * Well, we sort of do, but changed anyway for clarity.


 * "Alexander the Great, king of Macedon, had invaded the Achaemenid Empire in 334 BC" -- Is the "had" needed?
 * Removed


 * "to confront Bessus, who had declared himself Artaxerxes V, and soon defeated his enemy's forces" -- I would clarify who "defeated his enemy's forces"
 * Clarified.


 * "a task he had performed previously at Arigaion" -- "previously" is redundant
 * Removed.


 * "a gymnastic and horse contest" - Was this a single, combined event or two separate ones?
 * Single, hence the singular "contest"


 * "N. G. L. Hammond theorises" -- Hammond is dead, so I would make that past tense.
 * Ditto Albert Brian Bosworth, Arrian. You do it right with A. K. Narain and Tarn.
 * Done, with others too.


 * "Arrian separates the clauses detailing the location and naming of the cities, so that although the reader knows that of the two cities, one was founded on the battlefield on the eastern bank of the Hydaspes, one was established on the western bank where Alexander began to cross, one was called Nikaia, and one named Boukephala, it is unclear which name corresponds to which city." Although I understand this sentence, I might reword it. I'm not sure it's grammatical as is.
 * I'm not sure what I would reword it to...


 * Reword "in the area would have helped it to survive" per WP:WOULDCHUCK - maybe "in the area likely helped it survive"
 * Done


 * On a tangential note, the bit about Bucephalus possibly emerging in Hindu and Buddhist traditions is fascinating (and quasi-amusing).
 * Was a surprise for me when I wrote the article!

That's all I got. Short but well done. I like seeing the classics get their share of love. ~ HAL  333  01:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks ; responses above. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. ~ HAL  333  13:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments from a455bcd9

 * It may be because I'm colorblind but I'm struggling to read File:AlexanderIndiaMap.jpg (for instance "Eschate"). Without clicking on the map, it's hard to know where these two cities are located. (Compare to Carthage, Nineveh, Ugarit, or Palmyra [FA]) Also, the map shows "Bucephala" and "Nicaea", terms that appear nowhere in the article. Besides, the legend mentions "Alexandria Boukephala and Alexandria Nikaia", names that appear neither on the map nor in the article. (The article only says: "Ancient sources are generally consistent in the naming of the cities. Boukephala is less frequently named "Boukephalia", or "Alexandria Boukephalos" in the Byzantine period."). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Second. ~ HAL  333  14:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I was considering removing it; this has encouraged me. Replaced with the Pella mosaic; and included a very nice photo of the Jhelum River in the article. Hal, I'll get to your comments shortly. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we still need a map. Can we use Infobox ancient site with two coordinates (see Palmyra for one location)? Otherwise Location map many should work. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I second that as well. If you end up moving the mosaic back down, you might want to consider making it into a horizontal double image template along one of Bucephalus (maybe the classis mosaic of him and Alexander). Although feel free to disregard the latter - I'll (eventually) support regardless. ~ HAL  333  17:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've done something—see what you think. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, thanks! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Likewise. ~ HAL  333  15:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Support from Unlimitedlead

 * "...mentioned by Pliny the Elder and Ptolemy, it appears in..." The comma would also make sense as a semicolon.
 * I think I prefer it this way.


 * Adding reign templates for the rulers mentioned in the article would be prudent, giving the reader a stronger grasp on the article's chronology.
 * Added for Alexander and Darius. As the reigns of Menander and Porus are sort of unknown, I think that's good enough?


 * "...who had declared himself Artaxerxes V..." Artaxerxes V of what place?
 * Persia, I guess, but he didn't really get around to defining specifics. Added nonetheless.


 * Why is Hydaspes not linked in the body?
 * I did through Jhelum (I didn't particularly want two links to the same article four words apart).


 * Are there really only five chronicles of Alexander? The five mentioned all date to antiquity, but besides that, what made these five in particular significant?
 * Five major ones, yes—added "primary" to represent that—see Historiography of Alexander the Great. They are broadly the only ones to discuss Alexander's campaigns in detail.


 * Why are there scare quotes around "a gymnastic and horse contest"? Is this a quotation from someone?
 * Arrian. Attributed.


 * Introduce N. G. L. Hammond.
 * Done


 * "...so that although the reader knows that of the two cities, one was founded on the battlefield on the eastern bank of the Hydaspes, one was established on the western bank where Alexander began to cross, one was called Nikaia, and one named Boukephala, it is unclear which name corresponds to which city..." I do not understand what this is saying.
 * Neither do historians ;) simplified.


 * Introduce Bucephalus.
 * This paragraph does not make it clear that Boukephala was named after Bucephalus, methinks.
 * That is very true, don't know how I missed that. Fixed that and his introduction.


 * Introduce Aurel Stein.
 * Done.


 * "exact location of Boukephala and Nikaia was already a matter of dispute in antiquity. The same is true today."[20] : The comma should be outside the quotation mark.
 * Stein "concluded it was impossible to indicate the site of Nikaia."[24]: The comma should be outside the quotation mark.
 * Assuming you mean period, done both.


 * "Although the Buddha connected these cities to the mythical king Mahāsammata, it is possible that they were in reality the cities of Boukephala and Nikaia" : What is the reasoning for this?
 * Eggermont doesn't provide his reasoning in usable detail, but I would think that "two cities across river, one named after horse" is probably the long and the short of it.

That is all from me at this time. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, responses above. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support from UndercoverClassicist
A few comments, mostly on MOS, grammar and clarity:


 * The article makes quite a lot of use of elegant variation "two cities founded by Alexander the Great .... two of many founded by the Macedonian king. This isn't great for encyclopaedic writing and can be unclear, particularly to those with less subject knowledge or a weaker grasp of English.
 * Removed that instance, let me know if there's anything else you find troublesome.


 * There's now a small MOS:SANDWICH between the battle map and the infobox on my display. Moving the map to the right (better for accessibility anyway) would fix.
 * "spring 326 BC": MOS:SEASON advises against using seasons to indicate parts of the year, as they're not the same across the world.
 * I sort of dislike that MOS guideline, but removed. Can't replace as don't know the exact month.
 * "Early in 326 BC", or "in the first half of..."? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Done early, not sure if I like it to describe May. In the first half makes it sound irritatingly like a football match. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * "Built on the battlefield": suggest a rephrase here, as "on the battlefield" has a common metaphorical meaning of "during the battle". Grammatically, I'm not sure this clause quite fits with the sentence that follows. Suggest "The city on the eastern bank, where the fighting of the battle took place, was most likely called Nikaia ("city of victory")...". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't quite make it clear that the city was located on the site of the battlefield, merely that the fighting and the city were both on the eastern bank. I've added "the site of" to the article—see what you think.
 * Works well. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * "...Alexander's famous horse...": suggest omitting "famous" as WP:PUFFERY.
 * Done.


 * "Supervised during construction by Craterus...": would rephrase (generally, I don't think these kind of fronted clauses work too well): presumably it was the construction itself that Craterus supervised, rather than the cities themselves.
 * Good catch. Separated the clauses.


 * "mentioned by Pliny the Elder and Ptolemy, it appears in the Periplus Maris Erythraei manuscript and on the Tabula Peutingeriana map": I'd give a (rough) timeframe for these, as they're quite far apart.
 * I mean, I can give the Periplus as 1st-century AD, but I don't feel confident giving even a rough date of composition for the TP (see Tabula Peutingeriana).


 * Yes, I appreciate that it's a tricky one, especially as the Tabula isn't itself consistent as to which time period it depicts. We could call it the Roman T.P. map, or give the terminus post quem ("the T.P., a Roman map made sometime after the turn of the 1st century AD"). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've just gone for "later"; I don't really want to get into a digression on the T.P. in the lead. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * "The cities' location are unknown": grammar wonky here: either the city's location is or the cities' locations are.
 * Wonkier than Willy Wonka. Fixed.


 * Suggest saying which country Jalalpur and Mong are in, per WP:POPE.
 * Added in first sentence.


 * I'm not sure I like "city of victory" as a straightforward gloss for Nikaia: I'd err on the side of saying that the name is from nike (victory).
 * Done, I think


 * Is the word Persian consciously avoided in relation to the Achaemenids? It's the name by which most people would know that state and its (dominant) people.
 * Not consciously.


 * "Within a few years he defeated the Achaemenid armies, first at Issus...": Issus was the first time he defeated Darius, but not Darius' armies.
 * "Within a few years he defeated the Achaemenid armies, first at Issus and then at Gaugamela, while his enemy Darius III was murdered in 330 BC by Bessus,": the phrasing here implies that Darius was murdered while Alexander was fighting at Issus and Gaugamela.
 * Rephrased paragraph.


 * Suggest giving a bit more of a clue as to where the various places mentioned from the Persian empire are. A map would be extremely helpful.
 * See a455bcd9's comments above. I'm trying to get it to work.
 * I see the rather nice one of India in the infobox. Is there a broader one of the Persian Empire/Alexander's Empire in the pipeline? Given how many of the various places mentioned here are location-unknown, it might not be as game-changing as I thought. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like something like I had at Ai-Khanoum, but either their information/sourcing is dubious or they're not easy to read (see above). AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * "the Hydaspes river (the modern-day Jhelum River)": suggest making the capitalisation consistent here.
 * Done.


 * "Alexander, forced to return a few months later after his troops had mutinied at the Hyphasis (modern-day Beas River), ordered them to help repair damage caused by the monsoon": because the troops are only mentioned in a parenthetical clause, them seems to refer to the builders, which I don't think is intended. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * True. Hopefully fixed now? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the title "Alexander's chroniclers" for the five historians. Alexander did bring chroniclers with him; we just don't have their accounts. There were also a great deal more ancient historians who wrote about Alexander; the only thing that these five have in common is their (somewhat coincidental) survival. Suggest "all five surviving ancient accounts of Alexander's life" or similar.
 * I agree with the sentiment, but the primary WP:RS used in the article are rather unsentimental. Fraser outright uses the phrase "Alexander-historians" in the first sentence of the book, while Cohen refers to the five as "the major narrative accounts of Alexander's life".


 * I'd go closer to Cohen: Alexander's chroniclers, to me, suggests the people who actually travelled with him and wrote the "raw data" of his campaigns. Perhaps "the five major surviving accounts...", unless Cohen has taken a time machine back to Alexandria. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * "naming one Nikaia and the other Boukephala": italicise names per MOS:WORDSASWORDS.
 * Done.


 * "a task he had performed at Arigaion.": tell us where and when.
 * Where is unknown, and when is uncertain. Done my best.
 * "Another city, called Arigaion..."? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * "Diodorus additionally recorded...": we usually refer to writers in the present tense; the past tense here creates the implication that Diodorus was an exact contemporary.
 * See 's comments above; I prefer your way.


 * "Alexander celebrated his victory and foundations with "a gymnastic and horse contest" near the western city": attribute this quotation.
 * "when Alexander returned a few months later after his troops had mutinied at the Hyphasis (modern-day Beas River), his troops were ordered to help repair damage caused by the monsoon.": the passive voice for the second part reads oddly, as if someone else ordered them. Suggest doing away with the repetition of his troops if possible. It might also help to break down the steps in this narrative, and explain a little about how the mutiny connects to Alexander's return.
 * Introduce N. G. L. Hammond.
 * All done.


 * "According to Arrian, Alexander may have initially established the port at Boukephala, although Curtius Rufus implies otherwise": what does Curtius Rufus imply, exactly?
 * Actually, he states, not implies. Put in article.


 * "Arrian separated the clauses detailing the location and naming of the cities, so that although the reader knows that of the two cities, one was founded on the battlefield on the eastern bank of the Hydaspes, one was established on the western bank where Alexander began to cross, one was called Nikaia, and one named Boukephala, it is unclear which name corresponds to which city.": suggest trimming and clarifying this sentence.
 * Done.


 * "this conclusion is quite tentative due to the grammatical uncertainties": quite can have different meanings depending on your dialect: is this somewhat tentative or extremely tentative?
 * Somewhere in the middle ;)


 * "Arrian also noted...": noted implies an indisputable fact, so doesn't work here when we're dealing with debated information. See also the tenses on these authors.
 * Done
 * As with Pliny, something like "wrote" or "stated" would be better; "recorded" still comes down on Arrian's side, to me. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * " it was probably under the rule of the Mauryan Empire (c. 320–185 BC)": putting this date range (and the later one) in brackets is a little unclear: are those the dates for the empire's "lifespan" or its rule over the city?
 * Clarified.


 * I'd give some idea of the dates behind the scholarly debate as to Boukephala's endurance.
 * Done my best. Let me know if there needs to be more.


 * I'm not sure I was very clear here: I meant for the debate itself, not the ancient history. I've gone and made a bold edit giving more context to the two scholars. I've also swapped them round, as Tarn was much older than Narain; my hunch from their book titles is that we're talking about the 1950s for both, but I don't want to be more specific without evidence. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's perfectly fine, many thanks. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * "the presence of a symbol on his coinage which could only have been minted at a Greek city": this sounds odd: there might have been Greek symbols on the coinage, but I don't think non-Greeks are struck down when they attempt to draw them (see the many "Alexander" coins made in the northern Balkans, for a comparison, and the pseudo-Arabic found on early medieval English coins.)
 * It's Tarn, he's given to slightly wacky conclusions. Made it clearer that it's his claim, not a fact.
 * Well clarified.


 * "Pliny the Elder, who notes that the city was the chief of three controlled by the Asini tribe": notes here gives Pliny a little too much credit for factual accuracy.
 * Very true.
 * I think records does much the same (that is, implies credence). Ancient ethnography, as a rule, wasn't exactly scrupulous about fact-checking. How about "who names the city as the chief of three controlled by the Asini tribe"? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Good catch. done.


 * ".. to the east of Paropamisadae.": where's that?
 * How annoyed will you be if I say we don't really know?
 * See later on as to how we might communicate that in the phrasing.


 * Cohen's quotation is, I think, better paraphrased: we don't generally want to quote directly unless the specific phrasing is important.
 * Trimmed.


 * "as proposed by Aurel Stein": a rough date here would be helpful.
 * Finally, something I can provide a definite answer to!


 * "A monument ... the building": was the monument definitely a building? We don't generally use that word unless it's got walls and doors, and most monuments don't.
 * It's a building. It's got walls and doors and windows and even a room with computers in it. See the archive link in the source.
 * The 'missing link' Lane Fox provides is that part of the monument is a study centre, and indeed refers to the whole thing as a "centre" ("Built from 1998 to 2011, the “centre” was declared open by ambassadors from the EU: now it is padlocked and festooned in barbed wire. The white paint is peeling off the big Greek pillars on the platform and the study rooms and lone computer have gone mouldy."). I'd use the same terminology. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Or I could avoid any readers' confusion ("centre? centre of what?") by just using an it. That good? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * "located 10km east": "10km east of it" or "10km to the east". Suggest using a convert template here.
 * Done.


 * "Others have suggested that the settlement was located in the vicinity of Sukchainpur.": clarity on the location would help, especially as it's a redlink.
 * Stares vaguely into the middle distance, whistling tunelessly and hoping to be ignored. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * On this: something like "in the vicinity of a city called Sukchainpur" would, I think, do enough to say that we don't know where that city was. Perhaps "Indian city", going only by the name, if you're feeling brave. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems I have been even more unclear than I thought. I'm blaming the sources. See what you think now. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I like the quote on Nikaia: to me, "the village of Sukchainpur" implies that we do know where it was. Perhaps "the now-lost village..." or, as before, "a village called...", both of which imply or state that we don't. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the issue with Sukchainpur is that it's a modern village which exists, and some people know where it is but I don't know, and there isn't an article on it. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you put "Sukchainpur, Pakistan" into Google you get this place: possibly a bit close to OR, but it's just over the river from Jhelum... that's got to be it, surely? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ooh good find! I mean, it's unlikely that there's another village with the same name near the same river ... probably? I still feel a little uncomfortable, tbh AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Introduce Alexander Cunningham (he's obviously connected with the British survey, but good to know exactly how and when).
 * Dates would be helpful in the Buddhism passage.
 * Also somewhat unknown. Being a semi-mythical prophet who lived 2,500 years ago will do that.


 * Our own article gives the composition of the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya as the early C1st AD, happily with a nice source and quotation, so I'd include that at least. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Added. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Why are long vowels marked for Ādirājya, Bhadrāśva and Vitastā but not elsewhere?
 * Because they're Sanskrit transliterations, and I have no clue whether removing them makes their meaning dramatically different. Any help would be appreciated.
 * Good enough for me; I'm not about to go smashing up Sanskrit in the name of Wiki-consistency! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * "an old Hindu tradition": can we be more specific?
 * Sadly not.


 * "above Jalalpur": suggest rephrasing to be clearer on what "above" means (a compass direction would be better).
 * Source says "on the hill above Jalalpur". Looking at a map, it probably means the high ground to the northwest of the town. However, I'm fairly certain that a recent MOS RfC stated that looking at maps to decide such things is WP:OR.


 * The image [:File:River Jhelum at Jhelum City from Old Railway bridge at Jhelum City.jpg] seems, to my eyes, pretty huge: I see the logic for up-scaling the map and mosaic, where there's a lot of fine detail, but this one compresses the text quite a lot on the Vector 2022 skin. For accessibility, images should be on the right unless there's a good reason otherwise (a consistent left margin is much easier to follow): is there one here?
 * Nope, just looked nice and I don't use Vector 2022; size decreased and moved rightwards.


 * Link to the specific editions of ancient sources used. I would also give the dates of the editions.
 * I've provided links, but I find it weird when ancient sources are given dates like "1919" or "2008", as there's no |translation-date parameter.
 * Yeah, that's true. Could cheat and give the translator's name as e.g. "John Smith (2009)"?
 * I'm going to plead nominator's preference on that one. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Why is Berkeley linked but Oxford not?
 * I think I thought Oxford is more likely to fall under BLUESKY. I remember being chastised for that at Ai-Khanoum.


 * Be consistent on whether publishers and places are given, and on ISBN formatting (dashes or no dashes?). this tool helps to convert between formats.
 * Done. I think I generally go for: locations and publishers with books, publishers only with journals, and no dashes in ISBNS.

Thanks for an extremely keen set of comments,. Responses above. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to support; there's still one or two bits to pick through here, but nothing that will substantially change my view of the article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks exceedingly, . I think I've responded to your remaining comments above. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Source review
Sources are reliable. Links all work. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * For the ancient texts, I think we should have full citation information for the translations used, for consistency with the modern sources.
 * You're inconsistent about using publisher locations -- they're optional but should be consistent.
 * You give an ISBN for Tarn (1948), so I assume you're using a more recent edition. Suggest using the orig-year parameter.
 * Can you confirm the 1986 Lane Fox edition you're using really has a 978 ISBN? The 13-digit ISBNs weren't introduced until 2007.  I know ISBN-10s can be converted, and if that's what you've done that's OK, though personally I think it's a bad idea as a reader might want to use the ISBN to check against a physical copy, which they can't do if the number has been converted.  But I see you haven't done that with a couple of other ISBN-10s so I thought I'd check.
 * I'll check the ISBNs used when I get home; I use locations for books but not journals; and as for the ancient texts (remember our similar discussion at my last FAC?) I've tried incorporating date information in the link. Is that good enough ? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't understand your position on these texts -- can you clarify? In my mind the way it works is that you find a copy of e.g. Arrian, either online or on your bookshelves, and cite it; then add the citation information for the book you cited to the list of sources.  Why wouldn't you mention that the publisher is Hodder & Stoughton, or that the publisher location is London?  I know from citing translations of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that the particular translation one cites can be important, particularly for older translations which may have since been corrected.  I've often cited Swanton's 1996 translation, but would be cautious about citing Gibson's 1692 edition -- but either way I'd want the reader to have the citation information for the version I used.  What's different here? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Mostly it's that the online versions I'm citing doesn't have the information (publisher, location) you want. I know they can be considered reliable, because they're from reliable repositories, but I don't have the ability to put anything more from the source. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think what's bothering me is that formatting as you have done is neither fish nor fowl. If it's a citation to a book we should have the bibliographic details.  If it's a citation to a website we should format it as such, and evaluate reliability on that basis (e.g. is attalus.org a reliable source?).  We already have the bibliographic data for Arrian, since the Gutenberg transcription gives all the necessary details.  For Plutarch, this page links to a facsimile of the relevant biography (L099).  This is a blog but the author is an academic organization.  That leaves Justin; I'll see if I can find something online for that with the right details.  Or if you happen to have a physical copy of Justin, you could cite that and use the link in the citation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And here is a link to an online copy of Watson's translation of Justin that has the requisite bibliographic data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean. I've done the locations + publisher ; better? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but why use the orig-date instead of the year? These editions were really published in those years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Because then the sfns would say "Arrian 1883" or whatever, which just feels wrong. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Jumping in here: in classical scholarship, it's completely unheard of to cite an ancient text by its date of publication (modern or ancient): you invariably use author-title-location (so "Arrian, Anabasis, 1.23") We had this problem with the FAC for Panagiotis Kavvadias, and the solution arrived at there was to use a secondary-source citation for the verification, followed by a primary-source citation for more information: so e.g. "Rosenzweig 2004, p. 56. For Pausanias's description of the route, see Pausanias, Description of Greece 1.27.3." We can of course simply use ref= to use SFN without any date at all. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, that standard does make sense to me -- I can see why Arrian 1883 would look wrong to a classicist. I think we need a complete citation for the edition actually consulted, so a citation in the form you describe would work.  Any solution that provides a full secondary source citation is fine; e.g. using the existing citation and changing the title to "Arrian: The Anabasis of Alexander" would seem OK, and would remove "Arrian" from the author field, meaning it would be Chinnock (1883).  Or would you be OK with something like "Arrian. The Anabasis of Alexander. Translation: Chinnock, Edward James (1883). London: Hodder & Stoughton." with the citations going to "Arrian" with no date? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are we including works under "Sources" which are not cited. Surely, if they are are mentioned outside the main article at all - and I see no reason why they should be - it should be under further reading or similar? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we are, ? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies. You are quite right, you don't. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No Harvard errors come up for me, and they're all in citation templates, so I think they're all used. A small observation, though: Lane Fox's FT article (note 22) is cited in full and not in the biblio, but everything else is SFN and bibliography. I know some style guides treat newspapers etc differently, but it reads a little odd when that puts a single citation out on a limb, especially when we have an author and date for it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I regret to say that I am one of those oddities; I prefer to have online/newspaper sources cited inline. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

, starting again as the conversation above digressed a bit. If you just add the dates to the translation sources, but don't add them to the citations, I think that takes care of that issue. Other than that it's just the questions about the ISBNs above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Damn, I forgot about the ISBNs. I've added the dates. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , I've corrected the ISBNs for Lane Fox and Tarn, and added the reissue date for the latter. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Hog Farm Talk 22:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)