Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 1

WikiProject Template
As you can see I have created this template. I think it would be good if people put it on Classics related pages that you come across so that we get more interest in this Project! Feel free to make the template better.

Pjmc 10:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Played around with the stylistic elements trying to get the image better vertically centered (nice choice on the image, by the way). Not too sure I like how far to the right it somehow ended up, but eh. What I wanted to bring up though was if we should use the quality/importance assessment system some other wikiprojects have adopted. It does take a bit more effort in that the quality and importance of the article have to be gauged for the system to be useful, but it seems to find good use with the projects using it, allowing them to quickly sort through and find articles in desperate need of attention. PoptartKing 15:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah - that sounds good about the assessment stuff... how do we go about doing that? Pjmc 15:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just stole reused some code from another template to implement it. I'll document it on the template's talk page in a moment and get a couple examples to make a CGR rating chart. PoptartKing 17:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Greek Bio stub?
First off, yay for the establishment of this WikiProject. Hopefully things go well here. Anyways, I was considering proposing a stub for Ancient Greek biographical articles. Assuming it goes forward, would any others be willing to help go through Category:Greek people stubs and Category:Ancient Greece stubs to restub appropriate articles (and improve them if you are able)? It's rather tedious work, admittedly, but it can help with stub improvement in the long run.-PoptartKing 05:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Template's made at Template:Ancient-Greek-bio-stub. Done with Category:Ancient Greece stubs, still going over Category:Greek people stubs. Help would be greatly appreciated! PoptartKing 11:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Do I have to be invited to join?
Because I know a lot about these topics, and I'd like to help out. Please advise.

Insane99 23:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I too know quite a bit about Classics, as I have a recent degree in it. I would really like to be involved in this project. Let me know how I can be involved. --User:Pjmc 17:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for, but generally joining a wikiproject involves simply appending your name to the list and participating. Unfortunately at the moment there isn't much to participate in at this wikiproject; hopefully Covington will show up again or someone will start being bold.  Perhaps in a couple weeks a related Collaberation of the Week/Month/Olympiad/Whatever can be thrown together, probably the most effective thing to start up this project. PoptartKing 02:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I, too, will join if members are wanted. Andrew Dalby 13:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I decided unilaterally to become a member ... Andrew Dalby 16:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I will join too, but I have very little experience using Wikipedia, and learn about Classical civilizations only on the History Channel. AndonicO 11:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please be careful to doublecheck all information you get from the History Channel with work in the actual academic field. Much of the information on HC is quite specious. CaveatLectorTalk 07:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to join! I am a classical studies major and know lots of random stuff. And enjoy learning more :) and helping out. should I just sign the list as with the other wikiprojects? -Elizabennet 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I had joined in August, but resigned because of inexperience. I think I can rejoin now. | A ndonic O  Talk 22:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

How far do we go in each direction?
What are we going to consider as classical? At the far end, is the archaeology of the shaft graves at Mycenae within our scope? If yes, what about the House of Tiles? and so on, back to where? Franchthi?

Similarly, at the near end, is the fall of Rome in or not? What about Justinian's law codes? Belisarius? The end of New Rome in 1453?

I realise there is no real consensus, and that university courses in classics have been known to cover both Franchthi archaeologically and the fall of Constantiople linguistically (development of the Greek language from Alexander to the fall of Constantinople).

A very limited definition whould have us sprucing up the artiles covering the fifth CBC in Athens and the first CBC in Rome (possibly to the death of Augustus).

Any thoughts? --5telios 11:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know what you mean by there being no real consensus. There seems to be an academic movement, in my experience, to distance the prehistory of Greece from the Classics.  "Classical Prehistory" has traditionally been a backward discipline, and in the leap forward in this field the Palaeolithic, Minoan and Mycenaean cultures of Greece seem to be more and more linked with Archaeology than Classics, even if the Aegean Prehistory is taught within a Classics faculty (as I was...).  Perhaps this is because of Colin Renfrew.  In light of this, although it may not be popular with prehistorians, perhaps we could set a limit of "Homer" on the project?  Traditionally Homer is seen as the start of Classical civilization, and it could work here too...


 * If we were to do this, then perhaps a project linked to this one of "Aegean Prehistory" or similar could work?


 * As for where we end? I don't really know enough about the later Roman Empire to comment.  --Pjmc 14:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need an exact definition of scope - there is bound to be a gray area both at the beginning and at the end of our timeframe, and I don't think it would make much sense to say that everything that happened before January 1st, 476 (or whatever) is within our scope while everything that happened afterwards is not. I don't know enough about the beginnings of Greek culture to comment on the beginning, but the fall of the Roman Empire is certainly within the scope of a classics project - however, since there is no real consensus among scholars as to when exactly that fall occured (and since it was basically an ongoing process rather than a catastrophic failure that can be pinpointed chronologically), we'll just have to live with a bit of a grey area where certain topics may or may not be within the scope of this project.
 * The same holds true, I suppose, for a spatial definition of the project's scope: the history of Carthage, or the history of Ancient Persia, are so closely intertwined with the histories of Greece and Rome that we will probably also include those topics; India is questionable since it only had some relatively minor contact with Greek culture during Alexander's time, but it could still be argued that certain articles on Indian history might fall within the scope of this project.
 * On the whole, though, I don't even think it matters that much - a Wikiproject is more of an informal meetingplace where people with similar interests can come together and discuss their work, it's not like we're publishing a book on Classical Greece where we have to decide what goes into the book and what does not. If a member of this project wants to work on Mycenae or Attila the hun, it does not really matter whether everyone agrees that those articles are within our scope or not :P -- Ferkelparade &pi; 10:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I must admit I was a bit surpised when I note how big the field covered was; this wikiproject has an immense scope, maybe it would have been better to create distinct wikiprojects for ancient Greece and ancient Rome, as the French wikipedia did. But Ferkelparade's right, we shouldn't be rigid, what counts is that it's more or less between Minos and Heraclius.--Aldux 10:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ferkelparade's comment is eminently reasonable; I would just add that the average college course on the history/culture of ancient Greece begins with the Minoans and Mycenaeans, so many contributors will probably feel that the Bronze Age falls within the scope of this project. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree --5telios 14:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Template
Since I'm a re-editor of articles such as Pericles, Alcibiades and Demosthenes, I'm wondering if I can add the wiki-project template to these articles. I think they belong to the scope of the poject, although some of them are already watched by other wiki-projects.--Yannismarou 10:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say certainly. I've always thought that pages can be marked by more than one project (please correct me if I'm wrong), and I'd say that those three apply to Classics more than anything else.  :) -Elizabennet 15:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality in Ancient Greece
Could I please call the community's attention to the following discussions: Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece and Articles_for_deletion/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece. It seems as though a small group of people motivated by a very apparent personal prejudice want to erase all references to homosexual practices in Ancient Greece from Wikipedia. (Citing some sort of conspiracy theory that would have historians 'shame' the ancient Greeks). Please lend your input to the AfD discussion, as well as working to improve the article (which is admittedly not quality). CaveatLectorTalk 22:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The "small group" is roughly two people I think: not enough to carry a deletion vote. But, yes, let's improve the article. Andrew Dalby 12:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The 'small group' turned out to be one person using a variety of sockpuppets and meatpuppets, and has been trying to push his POV in the article for the better part of a month now using these puppets. I'm trying my best to maintain the article. Sort of cutting into research time.  Anyone mind adding some good research citations to the article? CaveatLectorTalk 01:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I just changed the colors of the userbox...
...I hope nobody feels I acted too rashly, just revert me if you think I did :) I think the original yellow-on-purple color scheme was a bit hard on the eye, and the very wide image of the Forum looked a bit out of place in a userbox. I changed the colors to something I felt looked a bit more professional and exchanged the image to one with a more-or-less square aspect ratio. I hope you like the change -- Ferkelparade &pi; 14:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple more subpages?
I think this project could do with a couple more subpages to organize our work, here's what I have in mind:


 * a "new articles"-list where we can add recently created articles within the project's scope
 * a list of books/references, not with the goal of creating an exhaustive bibliography, but rather as a place to recommend books on Greece and Rome we found useful in our research
 * maybe some sort of "outside discussion"-like talk page where we can discuss things related to antiquity but not directly related to the project, (stuff like travel itineraries in Greece and Rome, bashing hollywood's latest butchering of ancient history, etc - this would be great for community building and would in my opinion not go against Wikipedia policy as long as we kept discussion to antiquity-related topics)

I'd go ahead and set up some subpages right now, but I have to go and spend the evening away from my computer...any thoughts on these subpages? -- Ferkelparade &pi; 15:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Phallus ranking
I have changed the ranking of importance for the Phallus article to 'High' once again. I feel as though the symbol of the phallus is a predominant and highly important element of ancient culture. Would anymore mind discussing? CaveatLectorTalk 14:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Social class in Rome
The article Social class in ancient Rome needs serious attention. I've corrected its worst misapprehensions but it still needs proper sourcing and verification. --Nicknack009 00:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
I'd like to say thanks to all who have helped with the project since I started in May. I am finally better and able to type again, so you'll see me here more often.

Thanks again. (^'-')^ Covington 01:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright and Royalties on Archeological Objects and Sites and images of them
I would like to ask for your help. I have published some photos from archeological sites and museum objects but later discovered that this is contrary to the domestic law in various countries. Please see the request of deletion of images of archaelogical sites and museum objects from Greece I started in the commons: []. Could you contribute in this? Does anyone know if there is copyright on archeological discovery, excavation, restoration and exhibition? Is there such thing as royalties stemming from cultural property? Many users deny such questions, arguing that if they accept the domestic laws of states and practices of museums as legitimate, then Wikipedia will be stripped of much of its content. Do you agree? --Conudrum 23:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a non-expert opinion only.
 * There's a big difference between copyright and the rules made by museums and libraries. For their own purposes these institutions often forbid photography of the objects they possess, but such rules are not backed by international law (and usually not by domestic law either). That's why the worst a museum will do, if it catches you making photographs, is to throw you out. The Greek ministerial decision cited on the page to which you refer doesn't appear to have the full force of law: the Minister is responsible for museums, and he is asserting one of those museum rules on a national scale.
 * Archaeological discoveries are often restricted (sometimes for decades) in advance of the official publication by the discoverers. This, too, is not normally backed by law. If someone gets a photograph or copy (e.g. of a papyrus) and publishes it in advance of the official publication, normally no law has been broken.
 * However, exhibition, to the extent that it contains original design of any kind, really is subject to copyright. So if you publish a photograph of an object in a museum display, and the display is evident in any way, you could be said to have breached the museum's copyright. I suppose that might include lighting, as is claimed on the same page.
 * As to restoration, I don't feel certain. The aim of restoration, normally, is not to be original; therefore, on what would one claim copyright? I wonder if there has ever been a test case. Andrew Dalby 12:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Greece
One of the goals of the group is to support any other group with similar or the same goals. Hence, I thought I should notify the members of the group about the creation of the WikiProject History of Greece and kindly ask them to participate and contribute. I believe that the two projects share in some domains the same goals.--Yannismarou 16:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Am I right here?
See this talk page: Talk:Martian (Roman Emperor)

I get the feeling that this page is a ghost reference based on a single source who was under a misapprehension. Should the article be redirected to Marcian? JulesH 11:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're probably right. I understand that t and c had the same sound before i and e in medieval Latin so they were easily confused in manuscripts - e.g. Sulpicius/Sulpitius Severus - so this looks like a matter of variant spelling and should probably be redirected. --Nicknack009 12:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings on classical works
Recently, someone put spoiler tags on the Iliad and Odyssey pages. This seems, on the face of it, absurd to me and to most of the editors discussing the matter at Talk:Iliad. Is there a consensus that spoiler tags are inappropriate for works of classical literature? And if not, can we develop one? (I've crossposted this at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning; for the sake of keeping the conversation in one place, let's talk over there.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Greek pederasty and Alexander the Great
There's an ongoing dispute/edit war about whether the category Greek pederasty should be included in Alexander the Great. Would anyone care to offer their opinion at Talk:Alexander the Great? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Tagging talk pages and assessing articles
Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:
 * Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
 * Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:
 * About the plugin
 * About support for "generic" WikiProject templates
 * User guide
 * About AWB (AutoWikiBrowser)

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 12:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Project Cross-over?
Greetings all.

I just discovered your project, much to my delight, and would like to invite anyone here with an interest to take a look at the Classical warfare task force of the Military history WikiProject.

I realize that the interests of the Classical Greece and Rome Wikiproject are broader than the military history of Greece and Rome, but I think there is a lot of potential for inter-project cooperation on some aspects of classical history. - Vedexent 20:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Article feedback?
Does anyone have any comments on the current state of the Third Servile War article? It is a fairly obscure little episode in the late history of the Roman Republic, but it (arguably) had far reaching contributing effects to the transition of the Republic into the Empire. - Vedexent 20:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Obscure? Stanley Kubrick made a film about it. But as for the article, I'm impressed. Very exhaustive and well referenced, with note taken of the nature of the sources - could be used as a model for Roman history articles. I've taken the liberty of linking as many of the the footnotes as I can to the relevant passages in online translations. The only ones I haven't found an online translation of are Sallust's Histories, which may have to be my next project on Wikisource (I've already put Florus's Epitome online there), and Orosius's History Against the Pagans, which I don't think exists in a public domain translation. Excellent work. --Nicknack009 23:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words :) I had played with direct linking in my work on the Mercenary War of Carthage, but I was unsure about making the article footnote dependant on external websites. Still - it is an approach I prefer, as you can get to the relavant passages instantly. Thanks again :) - Vedexent 00:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Your collaboration
As I maintain my own, I would suggest you guys put your Greek collaboration onto the Community Portal to show everyone what your current article is. This would boost numbers & get better Greek/Roman articles. Contact me if you need more info... Spawn Man 04:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for a new category: Homosexuality in ancient Greece
As I noted above, there's been a dispute about whether Category:LGBT people from Greece and Category:Greek Pederasty should be in Alexander the Great. Consensus seems to be no, so I've proposed creating the category Category:Homosexuality in ancient Greece and adding it to the article. Obviously, the proposed category would be relevant to many articles covered by this wikiproject. Would people care to express their opinion at Talk:Alexander the Great? Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * See my comment in Alexander's talk page. To make a summary, I think Category:Greek Pederasty would be fine if we had concrete evidence that Alexander had an erastis-eromenos (paidikos eros, pederastic relation in the ancient meaning of the term) relation. He must have had, but are there any specific references in ancient sources? And do we have to put in this category every ancient Greek male? I'm not sure!--Yannismarou 07:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a real issue. And, don't forget, they would all (including Alexander) have to have "Category:Greek heterosexuality" as well. Got to be fair. Andrew Dalby 09:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think of categories like entries in the index of a book: if you're interested in a particular topic, see these pages. Putting Alexander in Category:Greek Pederasty (or whatever) would simply be saying: "If you're interested in the topic of Greek Pederasty, you might want to read the pertinent section of Alexander the Great." It would not be saying that Alexander was involved in a pederastic relationship; in fact, the "Personal life" section of the Alexander article is written in such a way that most readers will come away doubting that Alexander had sexual relationships with men.


 * Only articles that had significant content related to the topic would get the category. Articles like Thucydides, Polybius and Herodotus don't say anything relevant to this topic; therefore, Category:Greek Pederasty wouldn't belong. So we certainly wouldn't have to put every ancient Greek male in this category.


 * Now, I know that Andrew is having a bit of fun with the proposal of Category:Greek heterosexuality, but it seems to me that there's not a whole lot of material on male-female relationships in ancient Greece on Wikipedia. If, however, there were several articles with relevant material on the topic, that would justify the category. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Attila the Hun
Attila the Hun is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments on Odyssey
There's a dispute on Talk:Odyssey whether Iman Wilkens' book Where Troy Once Stood is a suitable source for Wikipedia. Would anyone care to comment? Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried to insert thye word pseudoarchaeological into the description of the book on the book's page, but someone there does not seem to think it kooky enough to keep the description in. I would think it is definitely not a suitable source. I have not read it but the etymology repeated in the wikipaedia article for the book: Odysseus -> Odos Zeus "the route to god" is just too wrong in so many ways that the rest of the book probably does not even deserve opening. --5telios 14:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a sample chapter on the author's website, which is a pretty amusing/horrifying way to kill time. If you check out pages linked to "Iman Wilkens" you'll see that someone has inserted Wilkens' dubious etymologies into a bunch of pages on English geography, which is probably not a good thing. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Clever, in a way. On some of these pages, random innocuous statements irrelevant to Troy (e.g. the number of users of Shippea Hill railway station) are referenced to Iman Wilkens. Perhaps the book really does include this information. Andrew Dalby 19:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It has struck me that there is a logical problem with the argument at Talk:Odyssey, currently concluded with the removal of all mention of Iman Wilkens. There can be no reliable source on the geography of Odysseus's travels (unless the Odyssey itself is one: discuss) because these travels are fantasy. Wilkens is, however, a reliable source on Wilkens's theory (which is certainly off the wall, but appears on evidence available to me to be close in many ways to Cailleux's theory, which currently remains in the article). I think to exclude all reference to Wilkens, in an article which links to Tank Girl and what not, is going slightly too far. I am wondering whether to do a bit of rewriting of the geography section of Odyssey and to put Cailleux and Wilkens in a footnote.
 * However, in my view, removing Wilkens from articles like Thrinacia is quite reasonable. He is not a reliable source on the identification of these individual places, which does not depend solely on the Odyssey. Andrew Dalby 19:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, the definition of a reliable source is spelled out by Wikipedia policy. By that definition, there are plenty of reliable sources that discuss the geography of Odysseus' travels; to name a few, Victor Bérard, Les Navigations d'Ulysse, A. and H.-H. Wolf, Die wirkliche Reise des Odysseus, and Alain Ballabriga, ''Les fictions d'Homere. L'invention mythologique et cosmographique dans l'Odyssee''. These works are reliable sources either because they are peer-reviewed works by established classicists, or because, like Berard, who was working before peer review became established practice in the humanities, they are well-established as part of the scholarly conversation. This does not mean that the works are correct, or even widely believed, just that they're works scholars refer to when discussing the issue. In contrast, Wilkens is barely mentioned in academic discourse, and then only as an example of how wrong one can get. I can't see how one can interpret him as a reliable source.

As far as Cailleux goes, I'd be happy to remove him as well. I haven't read Bérard, but my impression is that he'd be a better source than Cailleux for the view that Odysseus' travels can be placed on the map.

By the way, an interesting webpage catalogues modern attempts to map Odysseus' voyage here; the website may not qualify as a reliable source (though it was created by Jonathan Burgess, prof. of classics at U. of Toronto), but the references it supplies could be helpful. There's no question that most academic sources are going to echo Erastosthenes' comment "You will find the scene of the wanderings of Odysseus when you find the cobbler who sewed up the bag of the winds." --Akhilleus (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Toronto website is definitely a helpful reference; the Eratosthenes quotation is even more helpful! Andrew Dalby 01:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Counter-Earth and Antichthon
User:Mrwuggs is proposing to merge Counter-Earth and Antichthon together. Previously, it appears he merged both into the Antichthon article. This would be wrong, since the Counter-Earth article is not mainly involved with the Antichthon concept of antiquity. 132.205.44.134 02:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is Alexander in the front page?
Alexander the Great is presented in the front page of the project as a FA article. But it is not! As a matter of fact, it is not even GA and recently it failed an A-Class nomination in the Military Group. I think it should be replaced by other FAs which do exist: Epaminondas, Pericles, Aspasia, Thrasybulus could be some choices. Do I have the permission of the members of the project to remove Alexander and replace it with a real FA?--Yannismarou 10:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Carausian Revolt
Having borrowed a copy of the Panegyrici Latini from the Library, I've had a go at rewriting and referencing the article on the Carausian Revolt. I've tried to do it from first principles, direct from the sources (with occasional reference to Frere for the archaeology), but unfortunately Aurelius Victor and Orosius are only on the web in Latin, I haven't been able to consult translations of either, and my Latin is pretty shaky, so I'd appreciate the input of others. Once we're happy with the article the information can be "rolled out" to the articles on the individuals involved. --Nicknack009 22:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Cretan War
Can some rated the Cretan War if it is considered in this WP. Kyriakos 08:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Apollo and Daphne
I think this shouls be considered to be taken off the list of stubs. But, maybe not. Please consider.

Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/October/13
Know I've majorly boo-booed on this, but could I have some advice, help or even support on this issue? See also my talk page. User&#124;Neddyseagoon 21:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Military history of Italy
Hello, I'm not a member of the project, but would anyone here be available and willing to write the Rome section for the Military history of Italy article? No one seems to have noticed our need for that section and pledged that they will eventually write it. It doesn't need to be done immediately, I just need someone to say that they will help out. Multiple people could of course collaborate on the section as well. Thank you for any help. -KingPenguin 14:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move: Gymnasium (ancient Greece)
Recently someone moved the gymnasium article to Gymnasium (Ancient Greece). I think the page should be at Gymnasium (ancient Greece), because "ancient" isn't usually capitalized in this phrase. Would anyone care to offer their opinion at Talk:Gymnasium (Ancient Greece)? This issue could pop up on many pages, e.g. Homosexuality in ancient Greece or Art in Ancient Greece. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Mythical chronology of Greece nominated for deletion
I have nominated Mythical chronology of Greece for deletion. Since this article falls within the scope of the WikiProject, I thought I'd see if anyone wanted to comment; the discussion is here. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 17:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Symposium (Plato)
This is currently getting a thorough rewrite, the purpose of which seems to be to add sensuality throughout. Personally, I don't think the result is a good or balanced Wikipedia article, but I'd like to know what others think. Andrew Dalby 09:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 3
Please back a template of mine that could be useful for this project. User&#124;Neddyseagoon 14:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark Antony
Mark Antony is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 23:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Category for literature?
Greetings! I've been wading through the literature stubs and categories. I would like to create a sub-category of as  or. This would include not only Greek and Latin literature, but Egyptian, Persian, etc. Would this be more appropriate as, under as a parent category, do you think? Just wondering...Her Pegship 20:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

 * Is there a reason why the userbox for this Wikiproject is purple? I created a new userbox with the Dark Red colors on the main Wikiproject page. Here's a link to it; please tell me if you like it, or make suggestions. | A ndonic O  Talk 23:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hersile
Can anyone source this? Looks like a made-up thing to me, as can't find it anywhere in the single cited source (the Aeneid). Neddyseagoon - talk 22:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)