Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2024 June 28

= June 28 =

Talos period
I am proofing a presentation that makes reference to Talos. It doesn't give any form of time period. This is for a general audience, not historians. What time period should be used? I don't like any ideas I've had such as: "Around 300 BC..." is boring. "In the third century BC..." is confusing. "In Hellenistic Greece..." only makes sense if you have heard of "Hellenistic" before. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * What is this "Talos period" you speak of? AFAIK, there is no period associated with the mythological Talos you've linked to. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You can say, "In 2024, I prepared a presentation that makes reference to Talos." If you want us to tie spme statement to a time period, you need to indicate what the statement is. The earliest known references to the myth, by Simonides of Ceos, date from the Lyric Age of Greece – which unfortunately will only make sense to people who have heard of "the Lyric Age of Greece" before. But I guess this is true for all terms, from Bronze Age to Hellenistic Greece to Anthropocene. --Lambiam 19:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just as a reference, I asked on Reddit as well. The answer on Reddit was simple: "Use Circa 300BCE because most people will understand that." You can see the answers here are baseically "We are going to be as pedantic as possible and refuse to provide any answer that might be considered useful." 75.136.148.8 (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I would have answered the 300BCE stuff as well but just did not consider that was a good idea. Some will like their coffee sweet and other won't, and we're taking care of your welfare too. You will not shine the same in your presentation depending on the pot you're taking your sugar from. --Askedonty (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Copping an attitude is not likely to improve your chances of getting what you're after. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They had the same attitude in reference to a question about cities in the Arctic back in April. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In the previous question, instead of any attempt at an answer, I received arguments that anything and everything is a city from New York City to an outhouse sitting next to a gravel road. In this question, instead of any attempt at an answer, I received arguments that Talos is still guarding Crete "In 2024", so it is impossible to refer to a time period when Talos, according to Myth, existed. Long ago, the reference desk attempted to provide references. Now, I attempt to give references and links to supporting information when I answer questions, but when I ask a question, I get pedantic arguments about one word, ignoring the question. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no way to answer a question about "which city" if you do not give us a standard for what you will accept as a city. In the current question there is no way to refer to a time frame for a mythical event. If you can't give us actual, answerable questions, then we cannot give you answers. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That is my point. Here, you cannot give answers because you get tied up pedantic minutia which does not actually have to do with the answer. On Reddit, they simpy give an answer. The original question was not about cities. It was about limiting the labels on a map to those with higher populations. There is no harm in stating that OpenStreetMap tends to show more populated areas. This question is not about if or if not Talos truly existed and exactly when did he exist. It is about the general time period referenced in the mythology. There is no harm in stating the "Circa" looks better than "About." It gives the impression that the purpose of "answering" is to rationalize reasons why an answer cannot be given, often stating it is "impossible" to answer... unless you ask on Reddit. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems you're looking for a definitive stylistic opinion, which Reference Deskers are less keen on offering than Redditors might be. In any case, as a general audience non-historian, "around 300 BC" sounds perfectly fine to me. "Circa 300 BCE" works too, I don't think it's any more specific per se but I guess it has aesthetic flair. GalacticShoe (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd say "Use circa 300BC because more people will understand that (unless your intended audience are all college-educated Americans under say 35, or academics)." Johnbod (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You told us that "Around 300 BC" is boring. Indeed, "Circa 300BCE" is much more exciting! But what does this period refer to? "Circa 300BCE, Talos toured thrice a day around Crete?". --Lambiam 00:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Look at the article (which boringly uses BC). Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)