Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 20

Berobreo
An inscription form Galicia J. J. Moralejo cites reads: "Reve lari Berobreo". He eskews commments; it looks to be interesting apart from theonym Berobreo, which may have Celtic comparisons as in Italy toponyms like Mondovi' Breo, for the epithet lari for possible Roman alliances.Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, "DEO LARI BEREBREO" is the correct reading.Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"Tasks" on project page
Would it be all right if I deleted the current "Tasks" list on the project page, while asking project members to add some things we ought to be looking at improving, or encouraging others to improve? It's caused some confusion in the past because it's outdated. It was last updated in July 2012, and some entries are quite old. I'd like to add an "articles for improvement" list, and encourage everyone to add links to it as you see articles from mid- to top-importance that make you cringe. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me.  davidiad { t } 21:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of Saturn
May/Is somebody able/willing to help me to find the origin of the story here below? This would perhaps lead us to the true etymology of the theonym.

The Latin WK article Neptunus carries a piece of info which is of high interest about Saturn (unfortunately unreferenced): Cronus was forced to vomit his children by Zeus using a potion made with satureia a herb/plant said to be poisonous. Though in fact the herb we call satureia is not toxic, but only mildly aphrodisiac. In the antiquity it was considered to be the herb of the satyrs, whence its name. But this find is a possibly decisive step about the etymology of theonyms Saturn, Satre, as it BTW confirms the intuition of the scholar Giovanni Alessio: he lists as cognates Etr. Satre, Latin personal name Satrius, Oscan Sadiiris, Paelignan Sadries, from the name of the ancient town of Latium Satria, and of the Saturae palus a marsh also in Latium, theonym Sāturnus/ Saeturnus ( the last form attested in CIL I 449). All these names are to be considered strictly related to Latin satureia the herb in question. Cf. also Horace Sat. I 6, 59 Satureianus adjective from toponym.

So all this seems to prove that Saturn got this name because he had been deprived of his powers by Jupiter who poisoned him with a potion made with satureia. Question: what authority narrates this story? Thanks to all for the attention.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't comment on the rest, but there is a confusion between two plants here. Satureia is savory (Satureja hortensis), an aromatic herb which is not in the least aphrodisiac (at least, not in my experience -- what more can one say?), and is used every day in cookery. Satyrion is "Orchis mascula", an orchid bulb, which definitely has had the reputation of being aphrodisiac or "strengthening", and is used in hot drinks (the modern name of the product is salep). Some academic commentators on Latin texts have confused these two, so, where Wikipedia depends on such reliable sources, Wikipedia may well confuse them also. Let's hope no disappointment is caused :)
 * FWIW, the Latin name of the aphrodisiac was a linguistic borrowing from Greek. It appears to be (and surely is) linked with satyrs, oversexed mythological beings. It surely can't have a close connection with Saturnus, which is not a Greek but a Latin name. But I'm no etymologist. Andrew Dalby 12:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that if there's no universally-agreed upon etymology, the most that we can present is some possible explanations. It's not our job as Wikipedians to analyze the possibilities and arrive at the "correct" answer.  That definitely falls under the heading of original research, and in any case I'm sure we wouldn't have complete agreement on the answer within the community, even if the result seemed more likely than not.  I understand that it's difficult to present logical or convincing arguments in a neutral manner.  I believe there's some leeway when it comes to just how possible explanations are presented.  But as long as there's some reasonable uncertainty as to the etymology of a word or name, any potential derivations need to be presented so that it's clear to readers that they're merely possibilities, and not established certainties.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with P Aculeius about a balanced presentation, and am utterly entranced by Andrew Dalby's explanation (my most sage-laden meal is Thanksgiving, with noticeably anaphrodisiac effects). There's also the matter of ancient vs. modern etymology. Even if modern scholars agree on the correct etymology of a word in terms of scientific linguistics, particularly with a divine name the ancient etymology is informative as to how the ancient sources themselves thought of meaning. As in Ovid's Fasti, the antiquarian collection of possibilities has its own significance (not to sound postmodernist, but with Ovid under Augustus it does seem to be about the instability of meaning). I'd love to have an article on ancient etymology to link to, with sections on Stoic and Varronian etymology in particular. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot to everybody and particularly to Andrew Dalby for the very informative and useful info. My insight is that satyrion is perhaps the herb in question: as it looks like a male sex organs, the bulbs the testicles and the stem an erect penis, it seems to me that the story of the potion hides an equivalent of castration. But the name may have been confused already in ancient Italy with that of satureia. Or perhaps some of the names Alessio connects to satureia may in fact be related to satyrion: it was usual to render ypsilon with v in Latin or Italic languages.


 * If somebody can help me find the authority who narrates this version of the story of the dethronement of Cronus  by Zeus I think we may have made a great step forward. Of course I agree that this would be just a possible etymology, but it looks very strongly corroborated both by modern linguistic studies and by ancient myth.Aldrasto11 (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I found an ancient Lat. equivalent for satyrion: sature, cited in the glosses; as I had supposed and it might have been at the basis of those toponyms related by Alessio to satureia.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Aldrasto, I'm joining this discussion very late, was going through the page searching for something else when this caught my eye(oh god, so much time wasted...): 1.Just for the record, repeating what Andrew said with sources: savory or satureia in Greek is thymbra; satyrion on the other hand is something different. 2.The most relevant text and passage I've managed to find is this 2.12-15; no satyrion or satureia there; only pharmakon. So I don't know where the Latin-wikipedians got this from; unfortunately satureia is already there at that article's creation, at the first edit, which was done by an anonymous user 70.177.162.116... P.S.In no source e.g. 1, 2, 3, have I managed to find such a result. But at least, I have confirmed that both satyrion and satureia were considered aphrodisiacs. So Andrew I think you have to try again; try harder; try more... :p :D Thanatos|talk 17:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Matrilinearity in Roman Kingdom
Numa was Tatius' son in law, Ancus Marcius was Numa's. Servius Tullius was Tarquinius's son in law, Lucius Tarquinius was certainly Servius's son in law, unclear his relation to the first Tarquin. I wonder whether there was a matriarchal heritage in Italy. Years ago I mentioned this issue concerning Caeculus' family from an anthropological viewpoint on Latium's early society (and was silenced by an administrator). I think this has good chances of being true: D. Sabbatucci must have written about this phenomenon, though probably in regard to clan alliances in the early republic.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither Livy nor Dionysius report the name of Numa's wife; that detail comes from Plutarch. All three sources, however, agree that Ancus Marcius was his grandson, not his son-in-law.  Although Dionysius reports that Servius Tullius married a daughter of Tarquin the elder, and all sources agree that the younger Tarquin was his son-in-law, we shouldn't forget that Tarquin seized power by overthrowing his predecessor; his relationship might have been a good pretext, but the throne didn't simply pass to him because he was the son-in-law of Servius Tullius.  The fact that he was the son, or perhaps more probably the grandson of the elder Tarquin seems more significant.


 * So we only have two cases of the throne passing to a son-in-law without violence, and there's reason to doubt one of those, since A) it was through Tanaquil's machinations that Servius succeeded the elder Tarquin, and B) in a minority tradition, imperfectly known, he may have had to fight and defeat Tarquin's son(s) before obtaining the throne (I refer here to the Etruscan tradition that Servius, known as "Macstarna" [Magistrate] and his companions slew Gnaeus Tarquinius of Rome, the latter possibly being the son of the elder Tarquin and father of the younger).


 * That leaves only one clear case of a son-in-law succeeding to the throne without deception or violence, and that depends on Plutarch's account of Numa marrying a daughter of Titus Tatius, which is not mentioned in the other authorities. I think this example is insufficient basis to conclude that there was a tradition of matrilineal descent; such a tradition is unmentioned by any of the ancient historians, and I believe what may be happening here is that political marriages to an heiress of the preceding generation may have been a means of providing the appearance of continuity after the succession, rather than the reason for the succession.  P Aculeius (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You are right that Ancus Martius was Numa's grandson. It is a mistake of mine, I was very careless in writing. Ancus Marcius was the son of Numa Marcius, the first Roman pontiff, who in his turn was king Numa's son in law: and it may be argued that Numa's choice was not casual, he made pontiff the son of his teacher Marcius, i.e. his choice had a political impact. But my meaning is clear enough: power was inherited through a matrilinear descent line, at least in the Sabine dynasty. The case of Caeculus clearly points to a matriarchal society: no known father, mother impregnated by a god through the hearth, son raised by two uncles. This complex will be readily recognised as belonging to a matriarachal society by anthropogists. And it is interesting to note it reappears in the case of Servius Tullius.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that's a pretty clear case of original research. It's not supported by any of the original sources, or as far as I know, any modern scholarship.  All of the original sources clearly indicate that the Roman kingship was primarily elective.  The Sabine portion of the early Roman populace wanted a Sabine to follow Romulus, since Titus Tatius had been dead for a number of years.  The fact that Numa may have been Titus' son-in-law would simply have provided a link between the two, helping to justify the selection.  But only Plutarch mentions that detail, and it's by no means certain that it's accurate (many scholars doubt whether any of these are truly historical figures).  Then a Latin king followed Numa, and a Sabine followed Tullus Hostilius; the fact that he was Numa's grandson was used to justify that, just as Tullus Hostilius being the grandson of Hostus Hostilius was seen as important.  Not one source indicates that there was any connection between this and matrilineal descent.


 * Tarquinius Priscus didn't succeed his father-in-law, and while Servius Tullius may have married one of Tarquin's daughters, that's also not certain or uniformly reported; there's no evidence of whether he did so before or after Tarquin's death; there is however evidence that Tarquin's sons expected to succeed him, just as the sons of Ancus Marcius expected to succeed him, and so made trouble for Tarquin. That's evidence against matrilineal descent.  And Tarquinius Superbus certainly obtained the throne through violence.  So it's entirely irrelevant that his wife was the daughter of Servius.  All we have here is a collection of events that aren't clearly connected by any authority, ancient or modern.  And that's the only evidence in favor of matrilineal descent in a society where pretty much everything else was patrilineal.  It's an intriguing hypothesis, but that's all it is, and Wikipedia isn't a forum for original research.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate image
This has just come to my attention:

Classical greece and rome

The picture that is being used within this template is entirely inappropriate.
 * In the discipline of Art History, the art historian studies the history of art, but also utilises the artworks themselves as tools in the understanding of history. They are the primary sources of art history and one of the primary sources of History, in the most general sense.
 * The picture that is used here is taken completely out of its real context. It is a 19th century romanticised view of an imaginary event set within a Classical context. What the illustration informs us, (historically speaking) is that within the mid 19th century, there was a fashion for classically-inspired imagery, and that artists like the renowned Lawrence Alma-Tadema could grow rich on creating images like these.  The image says nothing factual or even reliable about the Classical era.
 * Classical Greece and Rome left behind a wealth of significant images, many of which would be very suitable as a banner picture to this project. Ideally the image should be one that looks good thumbnail size.  This one does not even achieve that end.
 * The best sort of image for a banner is the so-called "iconic" image - one that instantaneously conjures the context of the Classical world. The present image fails in that context as well.

Amandajm (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Surely the question of how best to illustrate a template about a subject is a matter of opinion. Many scholars find it perfectly appropriate to use modern images to breathe life into a subject that might otherwise be illustrated chiefly by broken statuary, pottery, or ruined buildings.  All of these things and others are useful and appropriate as illustrations within this project.  Nowhere in the project does it state that only period artwork should be used as illustration for articles; many important articles feature Renaissance paintings and later depictions, which are just as relevant in that they reflect the influence of classical subjects on the development of western culture, and modern perception of ancient history.  I don't see why the template would be any different.  I don't see any need to sneer at "Victorian painters getting rich" in order to justify impoverishing our own visual library of classical subjects.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The current image is quite complex in its implications. It's a 19th century artist responding to a 5th century BC artist (who was even more successful than himself). It's a 19th-century student of the reception of art (much of his work deals with that theme) studying how 5th century BC art was seen by and received by its audience. And here's the Parthenon frieze, re-imagined in its proper place, in re-imagined technicolor. We don't have to keep the same picture for ever, but it is a good one. Andrew Dalby 13:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with P Aculeius and Andrew that the image encapsulates something about the classical tradition. I also like its emphasis on human interaction, rather than a dead object or hegemonic architecture. My main concern has been that it's hard to "read" well at banner size, because of its detail. (For some reason, I thought that we used to have a modern-era painting, perhaps Neoclassical, of the trial of Socrates. Is that my imagination?) Cynwolfe (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree - I have no problem with modern images, but what it shows is far from obvious because it is so small. Indeed, in that particular image, it isn't immediately obvious when it is enlarged unless you know the title and a little bit of the history. Personally, I would change it just for that reason alone. Personally, I'd favour the Parthenon as a recognizable icon...---Brigade Piron (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The argument posited here was that the image was "entirely inappropriate" precisely because it was a modern painting, and not because the detail was too small. The counter-argument was that the project illustrations shouldn't be limited to photographs of ruined buildings, pottery, or broken statues.  And you agree with that point.  So if the detail is too small, perhaps we should look for a painting that would be more recognizable at the size required for that thumbnail... a challenge, I think, seeing as it's going to be small no matter what.  The leading painters of classical subjects in recent history were men like Lawrence Alma-Tadema, John William Waterhouse, John Reinhard Weguelin, and others of that period.  But as Mr. Dalby points out, it's going to be hard to find many illustrations more poignant than the sculptor of the Parthenon frieze proudly displaying his work to leading citizens of his day.  P Aculeius (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Siege of sparta.jpg
image:The Siege of sparta.jpg has been proposed for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat confused about why, since it's a 2D work long in public domain. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Things have changed there. Paul August &#9742; 09:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Sparta, Greek military history buffs might want to keep an eye on Battle of Artemisium and Battle of Salamis, which are supposedly the basis for 300: Rise of an Empire. Artemisia I of Caria is a character, and her article has been getting attention, though it seems to be entirely a "reading" of Herodotus that I'm about to tag as based on primary sources. Would anyone be interested in collaborating on this one? And maybe see if there's interest in a dual collaboration with the Women's History project? I'm not so good on Greek history, but I'd be willing to work on content flow, structure, and all that if some Hellenists and military historians were on board. Check out the spike in the traffic stats: she's gotten more than 67,000 hits already this month. It would be fun if we could bring it to FA level to coincide with the release of the movie (early March 2014). Cynwolfe (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To Cynwolfe: After seeing this and following some minor edits at the Artemisia article, the latter is now on my watchlist; the Battle of Salamis article was already there and I've now also put on watch as per your request the one of Artemision. Don't have much time(in fact I have no time, it's very stupid of me to be editing wikipedia now...), but I'll try to keep an eye on them; no promises though... P.S. Offtopic on top of an offtopic: Has anyone else noticed a strange behaviour lately at the Perseus Project?? E.g. adding a reference at the aforementioned article and doublechecking the added Perseus Project link, I had to reload cause at first try it seemed dead,wrong, despite being in reality OK. Over the last days the whole site seems even worse than before. Are they having -worsening- bandwidth-processing-whatever problems?? Does anybody know? Thanatos|talk 13:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had a problem with Perseus yesterday. My favored shortcut to Servius's commentary on the Aeneid is to use the external link to Perseus at the bottom of the article. It didn't work the first time yesterday. I forget what I did to retry it, and then it was OK. I used to avoid Perseus whenever possible, because of slow loading and various tics. But it's improved a lot over the last two or three years, and that's such a handy way to get your Servius soundbites. Yesterday's incident was puzzling. Report back if you learn anything. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm getting intermittent errors with Perseus texts today. Sometimes the railway tracks work, sometimes they don't -- why, I can't see. Andrew Dalby 12:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Horrible Histories
Hi. We're having a discussion on the fate of Horrible Histories TV show at: Horrible Histories (2009 TV series). As a relevant Wikiproject, we would greatly appreciate it if you would voice your opinion on the talk page, or to have a crack at editing and improving it. Thankyou for your time. :)--Coin945 (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Aethiopia
We're having a bit of a problem here: Talk:Aethiopia.

We could really use some views. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Gosh. That looks fun.  davidiad { t } 21:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try to pop over there later, but does anyone own Black Athena? I can't tell whether the new editor is saying that Bernal states (with or without evidence) that "Aethiopian" antiquity considered Perseus and Andromeda their progenitors or if this is a case of heated argument which has led to Black Athena being brought out as a synthy totem.  davidiad { t } 21:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Which specific book-chapter-passage-page of the 3 volumes of absolute BS are you interested in?? Going through the whole 3 books rolls of toilet paper searching for such a specific detail would be a hellish nightmare...Thanatos|talk|contributions 08:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Charybdis.PNG
image:Charybdis.PNG has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, so it's a woodcut, and presumably at least a hundred years old; either an original or a copy of another work, perhaps as late as the 19th Century. I found four copies of it in various Internet locations, none of which identified a source, although all seemed to identify it as Charbydis.


 * I don't know if it's an illustration of The Odyssey since Odysseus' men didn't get out of the boat and fight Charybdis; I think they preferred taking on Scylla (who was grateful for the snack). Of course it's possible that the subject isn't Charybdis, but Scylla, or some other "monster" from Greek mythology.  Does this look familiar to anyone?  Given the age of the image, it seems pretty obvious that it must be in the public domain, but without an attribution it'll probably be deleted anyway.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Sassanid Empire name
There is a move discussion on the Sassanid Empire talk page. Any interested editors are invited to comment and/or vote. --Constantine  ✍  08:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Marcus Lollius (father of Marcus Lollius consul 21 BC) has been nominated for deletion
I've nominated Marcus Lollius (father of Marcus Lollius consul 21 BC) for deletion. The subject clearly fails notability criteria, as far as I can tell. He's only known from a single inscription naming his son as "Marcus Lollius M. f.", and the only sources cited are an article from the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, which doesn't mention or discuss him (although it does include said inscription), and a guide to Roman inscriptions that can be seen on a walking tour. Per Notability (people), relationships do not confer notability.

The article provides two other assertions that aren't supported by this inscription: that Lollius was a "nobleman," which I suppose has been inferred from the fact that his son held the consulship; in that case we would have to describe almost all important Romans as "noblemen;" and that his wife may have been named "Paulina." The latter claim is based on his son's probable surname, "Paulinus." But as the DGRBM article makes clear, the son's name isn't given as "Paulinus" in any ancient source; it's only inferred from the fact that a grandson was named "Paulinus" and a great-granddaughter "Paulina." The DGRBM plainly states that these descendants could have obtained that surname in some other way; it's no more than speculation that the son was named "Paulinus", and this article stretches that so far as to infer without any additional sources that the subject's wife might have been named "Paulina." Piling speculation on speculation doesn't make the subject notable. P Aculeius (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I need advice on resolving this situation. After I nominated the article for deletion, Anriz deleted the AfD tag from the article, and posted an argument against the nomination on my talk page, ignoring the AfD topic.  The AfD tag was restored by a bot edit, and I moved Anriz' comments to the AfD topic, to which I added my reply.


 * Subsequently, Anriz blanked the AfD topic, including comments by another editor, removed the AfD tag from the article again, and moved his own argument, sans my reply, back onto my talk page, to which he's referred any other editors using the edit summary. So, Anriz clearly wants any debate over the article to take place on my talk page, and isn't going to allow his article to be deleted, or even a proper debate over the article.  I'm reasonably sure that, as the nominator and someone with whom Anriz has locked horns before, I shouldn't be deciding what to do about the situation.  Is there an appropriate procedure to shepherd the AfD debate to a proper conclusion?  And should this debate be taking place on my talk page?  P Aculeius (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry this is turning into a bit of a headache. In this case a third party is needed, and that third party should be an administrator. Your issue is obviously not about the deletion discussion itself, so a host of classicists interested in the outcome will not help. is a very sensible, diplomatic and kind admin. Perhaps the newly minted mopper Anna Frodesiak could help out if she/he's not overburdened with similar assumptions. No matter what, you nominated the article for deletion, and that discussion must run its course where it belongs, at the deletion discussion. I've thus reverted his deletions of tag and discussion page, but the issue of behavior and interaction will likely need to be addressed.  Just stay cool and disengage to the best of your ability.  davidiad { t } 00:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c)The editor also removed a bot warning for AfD tag removal from his page... and my very brief comment on the AfD, which peeves me a little. I've reverted the blanking of the AfD discussion, and will restore the article's AfD tag. No-one likes their article being put up for deletion; but no-one's entitled to remove the AfD notices or tags until matters have run their proper course. Haploidavey (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You ain't slow, Davey. You and I are editconflicting each other all over the place. Next I'll try to feed my cats and there'll already be food in the bowl.  davidiad { t }
 * Dennis is busy, so maybe can help if not overrun.  With other users reverting, this might be over, otherwise a notice board will be the best option if the problem persists.  davidiad { t } 00:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I posted at his talk and am watching the pages. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Tiber
The article says king Tiberinus urinated in the Tiber is the origin of the name. I did not remember this story, but that he drowned in        the Tiber. Moreover I found an article which supports my hypothesis about the link with the name of the typha angustifolia, which attributes this opinion nothing less than to G. Alessio (though without giving details, I suppose probably from the "Dizionario Etimologico Italiano"). He says Alessio gives as supporting a preindoeuropean mediterranean origin Hiberian toponyms Tibilis, Tebro and Aquae Tibilitanae in Numidia. Me too I did find equivalents in Romania such as Tibru, Tifan.Aldrasto11 (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That was vandalism, added in last November. It's fixed now.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you very much. Alessio in one of his articles wrote the Sicel-Sicanians (he thinks the two were related as the Sicanians were the not yet indoeuropeanized Sicels) named it "*dubri water whence Θύβρις>Tiberis", but he does not elaborate on the implied phonetic changes and the possibility of the existence of such a word in Sicel on phonetic grounds, only cites the well known glossa by Asclepiades in the Scholia Theocritea I 118 "δύβρις = θάλασσα".Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Genealogy of the Valerii
How was Manius Valerius Maximus Volesi f. augur and dictator related to Publicola? and to Marcus Valerius consul? It looks they were all brothers, but I am not sure.Aldrasto11 (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is at the top of of the members section: "Volesus Valerius [...] was the father of Publius Valerius Poplicola, Marcus Valerius Volusus, and Manius Valerius Volusus Maximus." Until today it erroneously read "Potitus" instead of "Poplicola," but that was my mistake.  As the following sections make reasonably clear, the Potiti were apparently descended from Marcus.  I note that there wasn't a published genealogy of the family in Roman times; our understanding comes from what authors such as Livy and Dionysius said about some of the members, and from their filiations in those and other records.  So there's a degree of uncertainty about relationships, although this seems to be the generally-accepted version of the family.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, I must read again Livy and Dionysius...Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

FA nom
Law School of Beirut—about the ancient school of Roman law—has been nominated as an FA. Hoping we get some additional eyes on this, as I seem to have neglected to banner it for the project till today. I've had some problems in the past with its understanding of Roman government structures, though I was delighted to see that it was created. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Very interesting page. A tangential query: I don't find any category that would link this in with ancient (higher) education -- something like la:Categoria:Scholae superiores antiquae. Is there one? Should there be one? Andrew Dalby 14:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be more useful than some recent categorization I've seen going on. What would you want to call it in English? And what other articles would go there? (I've been dropping a link to the law school article every chance I get, because it's one of those things that clears out cobwebs of preconceptions about the Imperial world.) Cynwolfe (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the Lyceum would be one: at present its nearest approach is "Category:Defunct schools in Greece", which sets it alongside just one other, a secondary school that closed in 1913. And Platonic Academy, whose categories don't link it with education at all. Then again there's the University of Constantinople so called, which is the sole Greek-Roman-Byzantine institution categorized at "Category:Defunct universities and colleges". I see there already is Category:Ancient universities, but "ancient" is being used in various senses there and it doesn't at present contain any Graeco-Roman ones. It seems to me some sorting out is wanted. Might one try Category:Greek and Roman higher education and see what gravitates to it? Is there a better name? Andrew Dalby 13:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe Category:Education in classical antiquity, with subcat for higher education if that should prove necessary?  Fornadan (t) 14:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Iuppiter and Tinia
I'm seeking a third opinion on the identification of the Etruscan Tinia and Roman Iuppiter, pertaining to this edit. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion
Through this way, I inform there is a discussion at WT:Disambiguation about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D affects articles in this WikiProject, some examples can be found at WP:NCRN. There you can give ideas or thoughts about what to do with this guideline. Note this discussion is not to modify any aspect of NCRN. Thanks. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  00:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Valerius Volesus nominated for Deletion
I've nominated Valerius Volesus for deletion. The main issue with this article is lack of notability, although the article is also mistitled (it should be "Volesus Valerius"; the editor who created the article mistook the subject's praenomen for a cognomen, presumably because his children assumed it as a cognomen; but they were the ones who assumed it, in their father's honor; he didn't have a cognomen).

The only ancient sources that mention Volesus Valerius relate to his sons, and only mention him in passing; they describe each of the sons, leading figures at the beginning of the Roman republic, as "the son of Volesus." Since the Valerii also claimed to be descended from a Volesus who came to Rome in the time of Romulus, we may presume that the father of the Valerii was also descended from this legendary Volesus, although I don't know of any source that explicitly states that, or any source that tells us anything about Volesus Valerius other than that he was the father of three brothers. Wikipedia's guidelines for notability make clear that relationships do not confer notability. Although he was related to three notable people (or four, if you include his legendary ancestor), no independent traditions relate to him, or anything he's supposed to have said or done; the entire article merely states that he was the father of the other three. As such, I think it doesn't need to exist. The article's deletion discussion can be found HERE. P Aculeius (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I wish people would stop creating these stubs based on names they pull out of primary sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The Ape and the Fox
At talk:The Ape and the Fox we are having a discussion on the applicability of Japanese art in an Aesop's fable -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Luceres
It is some time I met with this issue and I invite opinions. According to Briquel ("Le problème des Dauniens" MEFRA 1974) it is likely that the Luceres, one of the three tribes of Rome, were Daunians from Ardea, as well as the characters of the Aeneis Mezentius, Messapus and Metabus who show a Daunian origin. Pasqualini agrees on the presence of a Daunian connection in the towns of Latium claiming Diomedean descent. Moreover it would seems that there is a sizable presence of Daunians in Latium and Campania (Liternum, Nola). Festus 106 L records a king Lucerus who helped Romulus ag. Tatius. Moreover Oscan epithet Leucesius (carmen saliare) and Lucetius (Servius Aen. IX 570 "a luce") should be interpreted as related to the Luceres. He also lists Leucaria mother of Romos (Dion. Hal. I 72), Jupiter Lucetius, toponyms Leucasia /Leucaria (Pliny III 8 (13) 85; Dion. Hal. I 53) near Paestum, the ethnonym Lucani. Though Briquel is unaware that the etymology of both "Luceres" Lucera etc. and  Dauni is wolves and therefore different from that of Leucesius/ Lucetius, i.e. from IE leuk light different from louk (wolf). But for Leucaria and Leuca in Apulia as well as the Lucani the etymology is not from light but from wolf: compare also Hirpini, Dauni. Daûnos according to Walde Hoffmann (LEW third ed. I p. 468, as cited by Alessio) is from IE root *dhau to strangle, meaning the strangler, epithet of the wolf: cfr. Greek thaûnos, thērion Hes., Phrygian dáos, lýkos Hes., Latin F(f)aunus. According to Alessio Latins and Umbrians both did not name the wolf because of a religious taboo, thence their use of loanwords such as lupus in Latin which is Sabine (instead of the expected lucus) and the Umbrians hirpos (cfr. Hirpini) originally goat instead of *lupos.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Naming gens articles
Although P Aculeius, the primary engine for articles on the Roman gentes, may be away at the moment, an issue came up for which I'd like to get some input. It involves the naming of the gentes articles; see Category:Roman gentes (there are more than 200 articles in the series). A few years ago, P Ac set out as a new editor to provide a set of comprehensive articles on the gentes. The project, as one might imagine, is ongoing. There was a discussion at the time on how to name these articles for the sake of consistency. and I participated (perhaps others), and as some of you old-timers may recognize, it is a sign of how carefully he had thought through this system that P Aculeius got both of us to withdraw our objections to his titling preference, as represented by Afrania (gens).

The problem is that the parenthesis these days is used almost always for disambiguation; other uses seem to be special cases, as for song titles that have a parenthetical phrase. Annaea (gens) was moved to Annaea on the grounds that no disambiguation was required; therefore, the article title for the gens Annaea is now anomalous. There are many other gens articles for which this would also be true. (I see only one other gens article that doesn't conform to the system of naming instituted by P Aculeius, but I'll get to that one in a minute).

In my view, the crucial thing for these titles is that they all follow the same style; Roman nomenclature is confusing enough. Since I see no benefit to readers or editors if only those gens articles that have a title "ambiguity" are allowed to have the parenthetical explanation, I would like to reexamine titling options, in the hope of finding one we could apply consistently.

I don't recall where the original titling discussion took place, so let me summarize the options to the best of my ability:


 * Nomen, masculine singular. The article could be titled by the nomen of the gens used for its male members: Licinius, Afranius, and so on. The nomen already redirects to the gens article when there is no other clear primary topic, or when there is no article on the nomen itself nor other prosopographical list of those who share the name. Problem: there are instances where the nomen would not be the clear primary topic, and would require disambiguation. Here I'll point out that Pompeius is the other gens article title that is anomalous; it should really be a redirect to Pompey the Great, as Syme and some routinely call him by his Latin nomen Pompeius, and he's either the clear PT or there is none.
 * Nomen, masculine plural. This is possible, but not really accurate, as the article isn't about individuals, but rather the gens itself. Also potentially ambiguous: Licinii, Afranii, … Pompeii.
 * Nomen, feminine singular. The word gens is understood, as in the example of the moved Annaea. But when women of the gens are notable, this would produce a sea of ambiguity. And some of these are already dabs (Aemilia or Cornelia, for instance) or prosopographical lists.
 * The word gens + nomen (fem.). This would be the Latin form that would be clearest: gens Licinia, gens Afrania, gens Pompeia. No ambiguities. Drawback (a serious one, in my view): it's more useful when the nomen comes first in the search string. Readers are quite unlikely to be typing in the word gens. They're looking for a name.
 *  (inserting a point here) In indices to scholarly works, a gens is often given as Afrania, gens, in alphabetical listings. Alphabetization of Roman names by the nomen is pretty standard in scholarly works that list a lot of names, even when a figure (such as "the" Crassus) is known more commonly by his cognomen (which would generate a cross-reference that functions like our redirects). This goes with what P Aculeius points out below about the utility of the gens name appearing first rather than the word gens itself, which would produce a hard-to-navigate drop-down menu if Latin word order were to be used. WP doesn't use this form of alphabetizing for article titles, so I don't see Afrania, gens as an option.
 * Nomen (fem.) + gens. Not really standard Latin to say Licinia gens, Afrania gens, Pompeia gens, but conforms to English expectations: "the Licinia family".
 * Nomen + (gens). This is the style P Aculeius arrived at in order to avoid bad Latin. But as we see with the move from Annaea (gens) (now a redirect) to Annaea, this system of naming is vulnerable to dab enforcement, and potentially results in a confusing lack of consistency for the gentes article titles. That's why I've brought the issue here.

Thoughts? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I added a note on existing practice to the bottom of WP:ROMANS, with a link to this discussion. If existing practice is backed by consensus, or if we can come up with another naming scheme, then I think that guideline page should codify the style point. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not actually away, just hadn't had time to respond, being busy. I can't claim to be unbiased, since I established the style currently in use.  I could have argued with the move of Annaea from "Annaea (gens)" but chose not to because I didn't want to get involved in a war over MOS issues involving disambiguation.  I'll briefly comment on the different options:
 * Nomen, masculine singular. I don't like this option, because it would be completely foreign to the Romans, isn't used by the most widely-available sources on the topic, and would certainly be problematic where some the gens wouldn't be the primary topic (and this would probably be the case with many important families).
 * Nomen, masculine plural. Also not a good choice in my opinion, for the reasons Cynwolfe gave above.  And probably nobody would look for an article using this format.
 * Nomen, feminine singular. Ambiguous, especially where there are articles about women of the gentes (individually or collectively).
 * The word gens + nomen (fem.). Technically correct, for which reason I would recommend it if the word gens were ignored like "a" or "the."  But it's not.  If we use this, the search window will have far too many results to display, all beginning with the same word.  A bit like filing things such as "a letter from Cicero to Licinius" and "a will belonging to Caesar" under A.
 * Nomen (fem.) + gens. I think this would work.  It would mean redirecting a lot of articles, but some of that might be done by bots.  It avoids the issue of the parenthesis conflicting with disambiguation policies.  I doubt there would be many conflicts with other pages, since the word gens isn't that widely used outside of classical studies; it's also used in biology, but the two (related) meanings aren't used in the same context, so conflicts with existing articles should be rare.  As for the objection that it's not standard in Latin, that's true.  But the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, which is about as good a source as can be expected for general topics about gentes and their members, does use this form in a high percentage of articles.  So I think we can say it's good English.  And while I strongly prefer Latin forms for some purposes ("Pompey" for "Pompeius" drives me nuts), English forms have their place in English-language articles, and this seems like a good example.
 * Nomen + (gens). Sticking with this ought to be fine, although the non-parenthetical version above might be just as good.  I don't think that the disambiguation policy should apply here, since in this case uniformity of titles is more important.  But if the preceding suggestion would avoid difficulties arising from disambiguation policies, then that seems acceptable also.  P Aculeius (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I say give it a week from the time I first started inquiring, and if we get no further input, we should just maintain the status quo, make it part of WP:ROMANS, and fix the anomalies. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Gens Flavia vs "Flavius" as a title
I see that Category:Flavii has been added to most Byzantine emperors, as well as late imperial consuls, etc. who bore the honorific name "Flavius". I don't know if this been discussed before here, and whether the category in question is supposed to include them, but IMO, this is a mistake. Practically all of the high officialdom of the later Empire had the name "Flavius", including not a few client kings like al-Harith ibn Jabalah, without having any relation whatsoever to the gens Flavia. Constantine  ✍  11:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of the other gentes track down the transmission of names rather that genetic heritage. And yes the client kings with namrs such as Iulii, Claudii, etc. are also listed within them. The distinction between the original Flavii and the later day examples is already made in the article Flavia (gens) which explains that "The name became so ubiquitous" and that "one cannot even determine with certainty whether it is a nomen or a cognomen. However, because it is impossible to determine which of these persons used Flavius as a gentile name, they have been listed below."

Personally, I don't see a reason to limit the category to only the earliest examples. Any other opinions? Dimadick (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I too was confused by what to do with this. It isn't something I know anything about. It seems like an expansion of the traditional practice of marking freedmen as part of the extended familia/gens in their taking of their patron's praenomen and nomen, and the assumption of a patron's name in the later Republic by men granted citizenship by an individual governor (for instance) in territories that didn't have general citizenship rights—which shifts with Julius Caesar and Augustus (Gaii Iulii being ubiquitous particularly in Gaul, resulting in wonderful names such as Gaius Julius Vercondaridubnus)) to Imperial names proliferating. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, IIRC, the late imperial practice of granting the name "Flavius" to senior officials (and similarly with the "Aelia" for empresses) had nothing to do with traditional Roman naming practices. It was essentially a "prestige name" or even an indication of rank, hearkening to the Neo-Flavians of the Constantinian dynasty rather than anything related to the Republican period. I remember several cases, especially in consul articles, where users interpreted the formal titles, including the "Flavius", as the regular names so that we had e.g. Flavius Armatus. These were always moved to the "simple" form, which is also how these people are usually known, including the relevant litearture, e.g. the PLRE. Given the radically different use of this particular name in the Dominate, we cannot simply lump them together in one category. Constantine   ✍  14:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it should be divided into multiple categories then. —  Sowlos  06:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Though I would not object to a subcategory for late users, where do we draw the line? Dimadick (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally I fail to see the need to even have a category for these latter "Flavii", seeing as the name went automatically with any senior title or appointment, and is not in itself a criterion for distinguishing them from anyone else. If anyone has access to this, it might be interesting to see how the issue is presented. Constantine  ✍  11:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I must say that I have to agree to agree with Constantine. Using such a category seems to me utterly pointless and could easily generate confusion.Aldux (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

"The goal of getting most ... articles above B-class"
I just starting reading the Signpost interview and saw "When did the project set the goal of getting most of the project's articles above B-class? When do you predict the project might accomplish this goal?"

LMAO; woops! Amadscientist did his homework, though. "The B class assessment totals seem to have been added recently on 8 April 2013 by Sowlos. I don't believe this is a goal to raise all to this point as much as a visual way of monitoring how low our B class assessments are over all."

I thought a visualization of the full G&R article-space quality in the assessment box would be a good idea (and B-class seemed like a reasonable dividing line). — Sowlos 13:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * One reason our quality assessments are low is that I've been doing a certain amount of bannering, and habitually mark everything as "start" class. I used to be unconcerned with planting the flag, and then we got that wonderful "article alerts" tool. Since many Roman politician stubs get targeted for deletion (sometimes because they were pulled out of an unattributed public domain source wholesale), I wanted to make sure we had more of our biographies bannered. I was horrified to see, for instance, that the multiconsular Cinna wasn't even bannered. I'm not so concerned with quality ratings, unless they're meaningful. I have a particular revulsion for the GA process, which seems to count punctuation and minor points of style as weightier concerns than whether appropriate sources are used, and which is at times conducted by editors who know nothing whatever about the subject. It's about time we got some FAs, though. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, no need to justify– I completely agree with what you've done. (A) We should plant flags where ever appropriate. It's an efficient way to keep track of articles within the G&R scope. (B) It's better to underrate articles than overrate them. I certainly hope others here treat ratings as meaningful. It's very hard to prioritize without knowing the state of the article-space. Perhaps the GA process focuses grammar because—in practice—articles receive most of the requisite content during the B-Class level? ...the official guidelines for GAs at WP:1.0/A seems to provide heavier weight to substance than form. However, if the GA process is truly too problematic, perhaps a solution can be found in A-Class articles. They are more broadly defined with WikiProjects specifically given much latitude in formalizing their criteria and evaluation process. If consensus favours it, we (in the WikiProject) could focus on our own internal A-Class process (largely skipping the more variable GA process) as we work them towards FA status. The Military History Wikiproject's A-Class criteria is often cited as model for others. — Sowlos  18:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out Military History's A-class criteria. Would that most GA articles met these. I've been passing time by trying to do some importance ratings, with the goal of looking at top- and high-importance articles that need improvement urgently. What I'd like to see is a project goal of having all top- and high-importance articles reach at least B-class status within a given period of time. Trouble is, some articles rated of "High" importance really aren't, and some articles that are of high importance may not even have the project banner (Platonic Academy was one I bannered just today). Cynwolfe (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Vergina Sun
This falls within CG&R's scope, doesn't it? It overlaps with the Hellenistic period. It's desperately needing of attention from neutral editors. It appears to be the subject of a slow fringe POV war. Unlike disputes over who has a right to call themselves Macedonian, this mostly deals with history and archaeology (verifiable facts). In my experience, this sort of situation is encouraged by a lack of quality content. In other words, we can fix this! Can we get some volunteers to clean it up a bit and keep it on their watchlists? I'm over there alone at the moment, probably asking to be mauled. — Sowlos  07:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the Modern usage section is a slightly different category. —  Sowlos
 * When mauled, wear your scars with pride. I'm always puzzled when an ancient object, let alone an etymology or symbol or "birth" of a mythological figure, becomes a magnet for nationalist sentiment, but maybe this is because I'm a rootless American who can't trace her lineage past her great-grandfather. I really don't know what to do about such things, other than demanding RS, and keeping the crap out of sections that seek merely to describe the ancient motif. Even then, the articles tend to devolve into unreadability, like most articles on Christianity, because they become tightly packed with "he said, she said" argumentation, where the voice of a scholar serves as a proxy for the editor's POV. Then one moves from the "citation needed" mode to "undue weight", which is far more difficult to demonstrate.


 * The gallery, however, raises one of my pet concerns: that images can indeed constitute OR, a view often greeted with indignation. That doesn't mean that the inclusion of every image has to be justified by a secondary source, but an image can certainly advance a POV or synthesis. In this case, unless the motif is identified as a "Vergina Sun" by an RS, the amassing of images with starbursts is a sort of argument that each of these is a "Vergina Sun", with dire consequences for the nationalists. The interpretation of ancient imagery is not self-evident. I'm pretty sure I've seen these symbols identified as stars or star-like, especially when sprinkled on cloaks in vase paintings (where they're sometimes indistinguishable from flowers), and although we know the Sun is a star, a sprinkling of stars is not necessarily a Vergina Sun. The gallery consists of ancient images, so these images should be next to the text that supports them. (That would be right after "Overview".) I don't know why we need three different representations of the "stele of Aristion", which predates the use of the image at Vergina, if the stele goes undiscussed. The numismatic icon is ubiquitous; Celtic mercenaries who served under Philip introduced it to Gaul, where the soldiers' pay famously mutated into Celtic coinage, and it continues to show up in the 1st century AD on coins issued by, for instance, the Atrebates of southern Britannia, where John Creighton saw it as a reference to the Divine Julius's comet. I suppose all of this is coherently "Macedonian", since Pompey and Caesar both emulated Alexander, but sometimes a star is just a star. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Supplementary question
I tried to follow up Cynwolfe's note about coins of the Atrebates. Having made that attempt, I can find the odd illustration but only two sentences of text about British pre-Roman coinage, here. Do we really have no more than that? (It's relevant to this project, I'd say, because the whole coinage grew up under Greek and Roman influence.) Andrew Dalby 08:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm finding a bit more by searching for the title of Creighton's book -- thanks for that hint! -- but very scattered. Andrew Dalby 09:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As I recall (been many years), Creighton (in Coins and Power) says that the so-called "Commian dynasty" (the various "sons" of Commius) uses a star-like symbol that probably appropriates Caesar's comet. He may say something broader, but at the time I was researching Commius so that's what stuck (Creighton has an interesting view of the role of young "hostages" educated at Rome who then returned home to rule—with the idea that their coinage reflects Augustan iconography). Cynwolfe (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I see it now. All very interesting. Caesar's comet certainly has a resemblance to the Vergina Sun (if sun it is). I have the impression that if the Atrebates moneyers were trying to copy either of these symbols, they weren't trying very hard! Andrew Dalby 14:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I also recall Creighton imagining a, uh, psychotropic genesis for that trippin' look to Celtic coins. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Roman-era poets
Does anybody know what this category is supposed to mean? For comparison, I offer Category:Roman-era biographers, which includes Plutarch, and the non-existent Category:Latin poets (though we have Category:Latin historians). It seems as if Category:Latin poets might have useful subcategories such as Category:Latin poets of the Classical era, Category:Latin poets of late antiquity, Category:Medieval Latin poets, Category:Renaissance Latin poets, and Category:Neolatin poets, only one of which exists. Does Category:Roman-era poets mean "all poets writing under Roman rule, regardless of language"? Cynwolfe (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently, it's a direct sub-category of Category:Latin-language writers and Category:Latin poetry, but not at all of Category:Ancient Greek poets or any other Greek category. Judging by that (and the overwhelming presence of Latin poets in the category) I'd defintely conclude it's probably meant to be a Latin only category.Aldux (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you know why it would offend the MOS gods to name it "Latin poets", then? Presumably the reason we have the awkward "Latin-language writers"—which nevertheless should yield "Latin-language poets", not "Roman-era poets" unless we mean "poets writing under Roman rule", in which case a historical periodization such as "Poets of the Roman Empire" might be better. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, I must state that I have always given very little thought to categorization, and thus my opinion shouldn't be given much weight. That said In my opinion, there are probably indeed some difficulties with the current term. As for the "MOS gods" ;-) we can only hope we do not generate their ires while we invoke their mercy for rather following common sense and a less cumbersome English with, as you said, Category:Latin poets ;-); after all, we've already got Category:Medieval Latin poets, and, to use a comparison, we haven't got Category:Ancient Greek poets with it's sub-category Category:Hellenistic poets. I believe that foremost Greek and Latin poets should be kept separate, so maybe "Latin poets of the Roman Empire" and "Latin poets of the Roman Repubblic" would be best, and they would avoid the confusion that the current Category:Roman-era poets (a "Greek poets of the Roman Empire", may be helpful too). I'm not very persuaded that creating Category:Latin poets of the Classical era and Category:Latin poets of late antiquity; the classical era has an all too easy tendency to include Late Antiquity: to make an example, Claudian is from a historical point of view lived in Late Antiquity put he can very easily all the same called part of classical literature. Oh, and let me excuse myself for my prolixity. :-(Aldux (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are not alone in finding Claudian classical. I find Prudentius "classical", but because he and Ausonius were Christians (though I'm not convinced Ausonius's heart was in it; he seems to have physically converted his lararium into a Christian shrine), they are often treated as part of medieval lit. I wasn't into categorizing until I started seeing categorization that I found misleading. I was just thinking in terms of our literature articles needing improvement, so I was looking over categories without any immediate intention of action. Thanks for your thoughts; they were helpful. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

PLRE
Can anyone answer this question at Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Chelidonis
Hi, this article contains some non-encyclopedic information since it refers to a fantasy novel instead of primary or academic sources (see also the talk page). I can rewrite it in the next days (see for example de:Chilonis (Tochter des Leotychidas) for some primary sources), but if somebody from the Project wants to do it now, or at least add some templates, please proceed. --Nungalpiriggal (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the article is truly appalling. She seems to be known more often as Chilonis, so a move might be in order too. Pomeroy, Spartan Women, has her, though there's more than one Chilonis. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the article moving it to a different name as you suggested: Chilonis (daughter of Leotychidas), having prepared a disambiguation page for the other Chilonis. If you can, please review the article for eventual mistakes, since I am not a native English speaker. Thanks! --Nungalpiriggal (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not have known that from the article. Thank you for improving it and taking out the silly stuff. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page
I have updated Missing topics about Ancient Rome - Skysmith (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know this existed. Thanks. At a glance, I'd say a few of these articles don't exist because the topic doesn't. Some are misspellings of topics that do exist. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I see this is a user page, not a project page, so let me copy the Religion section here with my annotations. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd strongly recommend that Skysmith revise their list and check its spelling. It red-links to Bruccina, trumpet but we already have an article on Buccina. Likewise, for Maurus Servius Honoratus, the grammarian - though that's a name-order isssue. Haploidavey (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Abundita, agricultural goddess - : might Abundantia be meant?
 * Acacetus –
 * One online reference to "Acacetus" as an epithet of Hermes, "for his eloquence"; no independent RS given. Haploidavey (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comus Regia -
 * Copia (goddess), Roman goddess of plenty -
 * A mistaken reading of "Copia cornu" in the Carmen Saeculare? (see also Cornucopia). Some online results for a goddess "Copia", but none in google scholar. There's Ops, though. Haploidavey (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Dil Penates, household god - : misspelling of Dii Penates
 * Diuturna, Juterna, goddess of healing springs - : misspellling of Juturna (with alternate name)
 * Fomal, goddess of baking - : misspelling of Fornas; see Fornacalia
 * Luperca, goddess of pregnancy - : unfamiliar to me, despite List of Roman birth and childhood deities; has been researching the Lupercalia, so may have some info
 * Hm, not much, I fear; but iirc, she may have been a totem animal; cf the various literary fictions, conflations and confusions attached to Romulus and Remus' "nursing wolf" (Arnobius and Varro). I can't find anything on her cult; so she might be better explained at Lupa (mythology) (for Lupa, we've only a disambiguation page that points back to Romulus and Remus). Haploidavey (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Maglus, minor god - : Gaulish?
 * Necessitates (goddess), goddess of destiny - : see Necessitas (sg.), but that's only a redirect to the Greek equivalent
 * Roman mysteries - : see Greco-Roman mysteries
 * Unxia (god), god of wedding anointments - : Unxia is feminine in form, and would be a goddess; see List of Roman deities
 * Venus pudica - : should be proper noun, Venus Pudica
 * Verplace, Virplace, goddess of family harmony - : this name makes no sense to me as Latin, so I'm not sure what's meant misspelling for Viriplaca
 * Temple of Isis and Serapis - ; see Serapeum
 * Temple of Rome and Augustus, Athens, Greece - ; more like to be found as Temple of Roma and Augustus, referring to Dea Roma, but we don't have an article on any of these (there was more than one)
 * Temple of Siriaco -

Library of Alexandria
What do people think of recent edits, especially this one, removing 17,000 b.? The article was not tagged for this project btw, now done. Ok, I now see most was moved (without the edit summary saying so) to Destruction of the Library of Alexandria, but both could do with an expert view. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm continually amazed at what hasn't been bannered for the project. I only bannered Greek mythology in June of this year. Sorting out the many "destructions" of the Library would certainly be a worthy task, because it's one of those topics that recur in popular media. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Palatini, Comitatenses, Pseudocomitatenses
See WT:MILHIST where these three articles have been brought up for discussion and possible merger -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Domain or Kingdom of Soissons
There is a move discussion on the Domain of Soissons talk page. Any input that any willing editors could give there would be greatly appreciated. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing and apparent sockpuppetry
I've noticed three accounts, 1man2you, JohanBaten and HenrickPetersson, which seem to exist solely to insert claims of Albanian/Illyrian origins for the Iliad, Odysseus, Achilles, Latin and a few other articles. 1man2you and JohanBaten's edit summaries are in identical style, while HenrickPetersson's are more belligerent. They appear to be sockpuppets, and their edits are disruptive. Alert for any admin reading. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Here on the same mission, as I'm not really up to the technicalities of an SPI, and would be on 3R if I reverted further on some of these. Sure looks like a sock-farm to me, and as Nicknack009 points out, it's increasingly belligerent; HenrickPetersson's the latest incarnation. Haploidavey (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do keep us posted if the user resumes, or a fourth account turns up. The earliest of these was created Sept. 11, with edits again today. The other two were created today. Admins seem spread pretty thin these days, but I agree that this seems like an obvious case. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Artemisia I of Caria
Does anyone know whether Artemisia was or is called Anahita in Persian (old or modern)? Some anonymous IP, probably Iranian, editors, have been pushing, in a minorish edit war, at the aforementioned article for such a name and,as far as I can tell, for the certainty of etymology of Artemis from Persian. I've already asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran but noone has replied; I've also tried to reason with them in my edit summaries and at the article talk page; no comment by them. Help anyone?? Thanatos|talk|contributions 03:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's possible this is a confusion between Artemis the goddess and Artemisia. Artemis was identified with Persian Anahita; see The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia. The Greek tradition associates Artemisia of Caria with certain religious practices that may have contributed to this: "Polyaenus tells a similar story [similar to Midas's drawing on the cult of the Phrygian Mother for his power] of Artemisa, queen of Caria in the time of Xerxes, who captured the city of Latmus by deploying the musical and enthusiastic rites of a procession of the Mother of the Gods" (p. 89). Just as the name Artemisia would allude to Artemis, if Anahita had been interpreted as equivalent to Artemis or the Mother of the Gods, the queen's name could have been "translated" as alluding to Anahita. Or something like that: I'm not making a specific argument, only pointing to the kinds of questions that could be raised. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've also made these or similar thoughts. That's why I have been searching for Persophones to answer whether indeed such most importantly name conflation is indeed true in old or modern Persian... P.S.The internet seems to disagree :), apart from probably or mostly the effect of those editors edits, that is; e.g. no such conflation here...Thanatos|talk|contributions 15:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Some more thoughts and/or thoughtful actions...: آناهيتا‎ : what the IP editor(s) has been adding to the English wikiarticle on Artemisia in the Persian script. آرتمیس : deducted-deduced from the Persian article, by copying the title to google translate and by removal-trials-experimentation of parts to find out what each parts means whence one gets the equivalent of Artemisia in Persian; see below. Notes: in the Artemisia article there are no sources in Persian; all in English including the Encyclopaedia Iranica article I've already linked to before. Anahita is conflated with Venus (at least as per google translation) and Ishtar in the Persian wikipedia. No Anahita in Persian articles on Artemis or Artemisia. Same word for the two latter, different for the former. The word in Persian scirpt that the editor(s) has been adding here is the same to the title of the Anahita article in the Persian wikipedia, not the one on Artemis or Artemisia. Conclusion: it seems to me by means of this googlewiki decyphering& detective work and in the absence of personal knowledge of Persian -again if I'm wrong, apologies to Persians, Persophones in general and also to the IP editor(s)- that in -at least modern- Persian they do conflate the names Artemis & Artemisia but that the Persian word for both differs from the word for Anahita (symbolically); moreover they don't seem to note -at least in these articles- a semantic-pragmatic conflation-relation between Anahita on the one hand and Artemis or Artemisia on the other in the relevant Persian wikiarticles. So the IP editor(s) seems to be pushing here -again, still- for the semantic equivalence of Anahita and Artemis through the false or least unjustified -as per the above argument and evidence or "evidence"- symbolical conflation of their names; i.e. he-she-tehy is doing what he-she-they had been similarly doing before by pushing for a certain etymological -and I guess indirectly semantic and pragmatic- derivation of Artemis from Persian; the same seems to be true for the conflation of Anahita and Artemisia, i.e. he-she-they seems to be pushing for Artemisia of Caria being essentially Persian. Don't know which of the two is the most important to him-her-them; if one were to judge from the absence -at least recently; haven't checked more in the past- of analogous edits in the article on Artemis, then one could deduce that it's Artemisia being Persian that is the main target, objective... Any thoughts, objections, etc?????? P.S.This miniwar is not recent; one could go back at least some months in the edit history and see this line of thought and edits. EDIT Checked again: in fact one sees the same pattern going way back... It seems that there has been a silent revival of the Persian Wars during the last years! Damn, how could have I missed this?!?!? I'm going to get my hoplon and go practise phalanx formations with my fellow hoplitai and then my triereis to practise embole with my nautiloi mates; next step the sarisai and hippoi with my hetairoi... :D P.P.S.Copied-pasted to word processor, changed language to Farsi, broke up words into letters (they radically change form), used this; what I get, still using prior knowledge-guess of what it is supposed to read, is Anahita on آناهيتا‎ and Artmys on آرتمیس. Thanatos|talk|contributions 17:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * google translation of both words whence we get Anahita for the first and Artemis for the second,
 * google translation of wikiarticle on Artemisia I of Caria in the Persian wikipedia and original Persian wikiarticle thereof,
 * google translation of wikiarticle on Artemis in Persian and original Persian wikiarticle thereof,
 * google translation of wikiarticle on Anahita in Persian and original page thereof,
 * google translation of Persian wikiaricle about list of Iranian-Persian deities; in relevant essence, the same as the last above.
 * On a similar note: could someone please comment on the etymology of Artemis at the Artemis talk page, on its supposedly most likely etymology from arktos? Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Created 'Classical Greece and Rome' page as a redirect
Many of this project's tag on talk pages were linking to the unmade page 'Classical Greece and Rome', I made the page redirect to Classical antiquity, I hope that is ok :) GrassHopHer (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but redirecting Classical Greece and Rome to Classical antiquity seems OK to me. At the top of talk pages, however, evokes the project banner, and so I hope Classical Greece and Rome was not a typo for that. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The redlink GrassHopHer is talking about was in the lil blurb within the project banner, I believe, unless I'm missing something, too.  davidiad { t } 00:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I meant GrassHopHer (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment
A request has been posted at Proposed mergers for the merging of Palatini (Roman military) and Comitatenses to Palatini and Comitatenses. Both subject articles are currently stubs, and the target does not yet exist. Further input welcome at Talk:Comitatenses. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 15:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Request more eyes on the Herodotus article
The Herodotus article, which I noticed only yesterday is actually very poor, is now being revised by an editor who has expressed disdain for Herodotus' writing and methods on another article's talk page - see section "more Herodotus" especially. I don't have time right now to devote to work on that article and am not especially expert in the subject but request more eyes on the way the article is being revised. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC).
 * That's funny - Herodotus is also getting a kicking from an ISP at Talk:Celts. How he connects with Historicity_of_Jesus heaven only knows. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I brought him up as an example of a source that contains supernatural events but still provides valuable historical material, and in response got a long screed about his description of Egypt. It ended up not helping the discussion... --Akhilleus (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

images at Bibliotheca Teubneriana
Perhaps members of this project who are interested in the history of Greek typography and printed classical editions would care to take a look at a dispute about the fair use status of the images on Bibliotheca Teubneriana. An editor has tried to remove all the images from the article on the grounds that they violate Wikipedia's fair use policy (WP:NFCC); he has also argued that the images are "purely decorative" (which I take to mean that they add no substantial information to the article). It's also been argued that these images can be easily replaced by using lorem ipsum (i.e., gibberish), in place of the actual Greek text in the images. The discussion is at Non-free_content_review. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion: Delectare
Members of this project may be interested in discussion at Articles for deletion/Delectare. Cnilep (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin
The List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin article has been proposed for deletion. Your opinions are welcomed. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * AFD closed as no consensus. AGK  [•] 19:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Lykaia (origins)
I left a note on the Egyptian religion talk page. As I am examining parallels to this mythical complex I was drawn to Asia first (Altheim, Alfoeldi, Salomon Reinach all think of a shamanistic-totemic cult from Asia, cfr. Asena of the Turks etc.) but I came across the intriguing Egyptian connexion through this Lykabas, the wolf of the sun said by Greeks to be Egyptian for year. But it looks in Egypt they had only Anubi pulling the sun barge during the night. And the dog eating the sun is also of Asian folklore. I also found that Lykabas is represented as a radiant headed male holding a horse on a coin by Maximinus Th. Artemidoros about the wolf is on the string like wise of crossing rivers of this animal, comparable to the succession of the seasons, maybe a Greek interpretation mixed with folk etymology. A certain Martin Bernal wrote that Lykabettos the hill to the NE of Athens is from an Egyptian word meaning luminous region in the E., dawn. Moreover the story of Danaus at Argos is obviously directly related to Egypt, the wolf and the sun.

Is somebody interested or has suggestions? Thank you for the attention!Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A certain Martin Bernal did indeed write that.  davidiad { t } 06:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am factual, not ideological. I compare myths and rites. Let alone that it is evident that there are no boundaries in religion, mythology and philosophy. Eliade wrote that Hesiod's cosmology is from Phoenician Sanchoniaton's (Hurrito-Hittite and of Mesopotamian origin). The myths in question are to be found not only in Africa! Long ago some European people (having read the Upanisads) have seen that the ideas of Pythagoras and Plato look Indian, but if were Indian or from another source is difficult to ascertain. I.e. the same ideas are very widespread.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Confusion between the "Ancient Agora" and "Roman Agora"
Our article Ancient Agora of Athens is a bit of a mess. There has been -- and probably continues to be -- confusion there between two different locations in Athens, the ancient agora, and the later Roman agora (e.g. see these recent edits:, , ). The same confusion exists with respect to the Common categories: Ancient Agora of Athens and Ancient Roman Agora (Athens), And I assume elsewhere throughout the encyclopedia. We should try to sort this out. Paul August &#9742; 14:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Is the best way to differentiate not to identify whether a specific agora is planned (regular shape) or unplanned (irregular shape)? I understand that is the most common difference between the two types of public space. In terms of preventing the existing content from being corrupted again in the future, the liberal use of in-line  and edit notices might be effective.  AGK  [•] 18:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The most important difference between the Athenian Agora and the Roman Agora is that they are physically separate locations. To make things more exciting, there was another agora in Athens, known in archaeological literature as the archaic Agora, which probably lay to the east of the Acropolis (it's only known through literary and epigraphic evidence, so its location hasn't been precisely determined). Right now, it looks like we don't have an article on the archaic agora, only a poorly developed one on the agora proper (in spite of its having been continuously excavated and published for at least a century), and what material we've got on the Roman agora is a list of buildings in the Ancient Agora of Athens article. Ideally there would be separate articles on each agora, and they would consist of more than lists. There are excellent resources for each agora. For the archaic agora, Noel Robertson's 1998 article "The City Center of ArchaicAthens" is a good starting point: . For the classical agora, John Camp's The Athenian Agora is the book to start with--it's by the director of the excavations. For the Roman Agora, another book by John Camp, The Archaeology of Athens, is a good place to start. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Useful summary, thanks. I took a peek at Paul's contributions to see if he was making progress on a new draft of the article. I see he's actually started one in his userspace, which I don't want to touch, but I do have a copy of The Archaeology of Athens (Camp, 2001). I'm sure I could find enough for a short overview of the Roman Agora, though I don't think I could secure enough data to write an extended survey of the site. AGK  [•] 23:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I've simple moved the section on the Roman Agora from Ancient Agora of Athens to a new article: Roman Agora. Please expand as appropriate. Paul August &#9742; 12:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Super. I've added a couple of paragraphs, and will add some more when I get time. AGK  [•] 22:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

SALVETE, Y'ALL
If anyone's around and has time, we could use a few more voices over at this move request. — Llywelyn II   16:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I, like, totally made a comment. AGK  [•] 02:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

New Plato Perseus Project template
I've put together a script on Wikimedia Tool Labs and a new template which helps in linking to the Perseus Project texts of Plato: Template:citeplato.

I've tried to make it so that it is easy to use with current practices: You should just have to cite with Stephanus pagination mainly as you normally do, but just wrap it with the template, with a couple dividers. All the documentation with usage examples is at Template:citeplato.

So for example, writing produces Republic 400c. Ranges of pages work fine too. And so do common alternative names and shortforms for titles. You can specify Greek by adding a "|greek" or even just a "|g" parameter at the end. You can't link just a book right now, you need to specify a Stephanus page (maybe I'll fix that).

Here's a diff of me converting a few cites on Atlantis to show how it can work with current practices:. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Impressive! I don't think I've ever cited Rep., or ever will, but I'm sure this will save time for a lot of editors. AGK  [•] 02:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)