User talk:Cynwolfe/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

First greeting of the almost new year

Thank you for sharing the picture of Gaia, Chronos, Janus and Victory. Yes, I well recall the experiences we had with the Mithraic articles in 2011. I don't blame you for finding it dispiriting. However, I think your own role in that matter was a very positive one. It's to your credit that you were willing to listen to all the parties involved in an open-minded, constructively critical way. I'm glad you were there then, and I'm glad that you're still around now. Happy new year. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings

I am not. Merry belated Christmas and I wish you a happy new year. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Et ...

... tu Paul August ☎ 19:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

All the very best for 2013

Hi Cynwolfe,

Thanks for the good wishes, and I hope 2013 is a great year for you and yours. Take care. Oatley2112 (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Encore

My first and last opportunity to thank you for your greets and apprecionados, in these few fading hours of a most peculiar year. And to wish you and yours the same, in bucket-loads. Haploidavey (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy new year!

To show my appreciation, no pix of zombie ants. — kwami (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

New Year's loaf

In Rome this would portend drought, in the New Testament, the second coming.

Since you haven't been around and I've already archived my response to your kind New Year's note, I drop this festive Catloaf here, too. Put it in the back of the fridge and re-gift it next year. Best wishes, Dave  ^davidiad_.:τ 17:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

And, by the way, I totally want to get into my first edit war by clearing out the images that I don't think fit the rule or spirit of Catloaf. You, Cynwolfe, did after all edit kitten in a moment of weakness.  ^davidiad_.:τ 01:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the Season Greetings, same to you. I have not been editing on RR recently. This is mainly because I started researching the topic of old Latium. Since sources are so scarce and scattered it is a subject that even though it has draw the attention of many, is always new. I have been mostly following the toponimic approach, which seems to point to a Mediterranean, Ligurian and perhaps even Celtic? substrate. Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of ...

Labours do you have any thoughts about classical republic? Paul August ☎ 21:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't come as a shock, but in fact I don't have any thoughts. Isn't that rare? I do find Flowers' book Roman Republics interesting, though I've done nothing more than glance at it. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fortuna Huiusce Diei (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tholos

Largo di Torre Argentina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tholos

Mithras in comparison with other belief systems (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Orphism

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the lovely image. A happy new year to you too, both on and (more importantly) off Wikipedia. I'm glad you're around this place. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Amphitrite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Roman Africa and Onesimos

List of Greek mythological figures (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Kylix and Phiale

Fortuna Huiusce Diei (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hellenism

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Stokers and snuffers

You've probably already seen this, but if you haven't, try the last line of para 2, before it's "corrected". Marvellous! Haploidavey (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm picturing Theodosius as a producer of snuff films, and the Vestals as the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders, though this hardly speaks well of my imagination. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Just saw your note. An email arrived this morning from your address, and I clicked the link because I thought it might be about goats. Looks like a desperate viral spam-bot job to sell raspberry-based slimming aids . No harm done. Haploidavey (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Help needed

See User talk:Moonriddengirl#User Mondigomo and massive copyvio -some editor here have been involved in some of the articles this editor has left full of copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

How did you come to notice that it violated copyright? At a glance, it seems better footnoted than 70% of contributions I see on a daily basis, so I'm assuming it was lifted verbatim? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's what he did (as I recall his writing isn't that good). The articles are now at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Mondigomo. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that is some list. I'll try to help, but had some unexpected personal stuff come up in the last couple of days that's put me behind everything I meant to be doing right now. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Re your recent edit summary

Noticed your comment. This is the part of the MOS that addresses imperative editorial comments: MOS:NOTED. Looked it up before while I was cleaning up an article full of them. The Interior (Talk) 00:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Silenus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Die (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I read your report. I sincerely apologize if you have felt uncomfortable with my discussion. However, if you recall, it was you who initiated a personal attack calling me "ignorant". I made no such personal attack directed toward you when I entered this discussion (at your invitation). Maybe we got off to an inauspicious start. So if you accept this, let's start with a clean, fresh slate. I understand honesty and sincerity. I don't like feeling uncomfortable either. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I would rather not discuss this with you. You entered the discussion with this rant belittling other editors, and I responded by saying that you were showing your own ignorance if you were unaware that ancient sources sometimes provide evidence of a time frame through astrological references. You're quite right that I should've simply stated what scholars do without reference to you, since the implication was obvious. But I don't want to have any further personal interaction with you. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Februarius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terminalia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Epic Barnstar
		The Epic Barnstar is awarded to editors who make particularly fine History and Event-related contributions. This is being awarded to Cynwolfe for her tireless efforts to provide appropriate sourcing for the dies natalis of Marcus Antonius, in the face of relentless opposition, up to and including a research trip to the library and review of a German-language treatise. Endless patience and determination led to a successful outcome, in spite of the most frustrating of tasks! P Aculeius (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Tre grazie, piccolomini

Much appreciated. Eheu, quam dignitas et gratiae mihi minimae! Cynwolfe (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment

Hey Cynwolfe - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Weird stuff

Dealt with it and warned editor. We assume copyright and the editor said they found it on the net. Dougweller (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Lucius Valerius Flaccus (princeps senatus 86 BC)

I think this article, as currently written, may have confused two different men, but I'm having a little trouble disentangling them myself, and thought I would ask you for your thoughts before making any changes (and, as you've worked on it before, perhaps you'd prefer to do it yourself). In the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, s.v. Flaccus, Valerius, number 11, Lucius Valerius Flaccus, is described as "probably a son of No. 10" (i.e. Lucius Valerius Flaccus, the consul of 131 BC; Broughton describes both as L. f. L. n., and under 131 and 100 describes them as probably father and son). Number 11 is said to have been the colleague of Marius in 100 BC, censor in 97, and consul suffectus in the place of Marius in 86 (Lucius Valerius Flaccus (suffect consul 86 BC)). He went to Asia with Gaius Flavius Fimbria, who had him murdered.

Number 12 is identified as the one appointed interrex in 82, and magister equitum under Sulla, after he himself had proposed investing Sulla with the dictatorship for an indefinite number of years. I don't have volume 2 of Broughton, so I can't check his identification or filiation. But it seems unlikely that a former colleague of Marius who was described as "more a servant than a colleague" would have been the one appointed interrex in obedience to Sulla's demand of the senate after his enemies were defeated; or that he would have suggested that Sulla be granted power of an unprecedented scope, and then been appointed Sulla's magister equitum. Especially if the consul of 100 and the consul suffectus of 86 were the same person, since the latter appointment would seem to suggest that he was still acting as a partisan against Sulla in the same year.

In any case, the consul of 100 is assumed to have been flamen Martialis, following his father, the consul of 131, who had been flamen before him. As I said, the DGRBM distinguishes the flamen, consular, and colleague/partisan of Marius from the interrex and magister equitum under Sulla, and this seems logical to me. I don't know what Broughton's solution to this is, but I believe you might be able to check. Would you have a look at the articles/sources and tell me your opinion? P Aculeius (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been a while since I worked on the Lucii Valerii Flacci, but I did so with excruciating care, using Broughton at the time. (I have outside research interests in this family.) The suffect consul of 86 and the consul of 100 are cousins.

My take on the Valerii Flacci in this period is that they were moderates, originally with a popularist bent, trying to negotiate increasing partisanship—survivors, or in the eyes of some perhaps sellouts. Don't forget to factor in Gaius Valerius Flaccus (consul), the brother of the LVF who was suffect in 86 (see especially his role in the civil war): he seems to have managed to end his career peacefully. His considerable if quietly managed power in Spain and Gaul (and the troops that would've come with his unusually long command in the area) seems to have been a balancing force in the region. As I recall, it was E. Badian who made the most sense of what these three were doing at the time, politically. Other men who at times worked with Marius resented being in his all-devouring shadow, and took opportunities later to assert themselves (like Catulus). There were certain procedures governing who could be interrex, and Sulla (like Augustus later) did cast his actions in power as a return to the proper way of doing things, including reestablishing patrician prerogatives (after all, he pardoned young Julius Caesar, who clearly made a deal to be a good boy, saving face with a declaration of love for his bride and refusal to put her aside: he later married Sulla's granddaughter).

I think it was Badian who pointed out that when the LVF who was suffect consul was murdered on campaign in the East by Fimbria, a rabid Marius-Cinna partisan, the family seems to have grown disenchanted with the populares and to have become willing to serve as a bridge to Sulla, mainly through the elder LVF (consul 100, and now princeps senatus, who would not be the one sent with a military command to the East). The son of the suffect LVF fled when his father was murdered, and took refuge with his uncle in Gaul. A retired editor has a draft on a user page for the younger LVF User:Appietas/Lucius Valerius Flaccus (praetor 63 BC), which is kinda the sequel. The family had a strong diplomatic tradition, and LVF the praetor was one of three men sent on a diplomatic mission in an attempt to quiet the troubles among the Gauls (the Aedui, Allobroges, and maybe Sequani) that eventually led to Caesar's entry into independent Gaul. They clearly liked to position themselves as brokers in the background. So although it all looks very complicated to me when I glance back at it, and it was hard to figure out at the time, a plausible narrative emerged. It was the older cousin who had been consul in 100 who stayed in Rome and had the prestigious roles of flamen, princeps senatus, and interrex. Inscriptions are involved in the identifications of the brothers (his younger cousins), and the inscription that names the brothers Gaius and Lucius may not have been known at the time of the older filiation, thereby providing a clariying link. (That's just a guess.) I also have vol. 3 of Broughton, in which he considers any new evidence. I'll double-check that, because I may not have had it in hand at the time. I hope this is all properly confusing, since I feel that I've rambled and not been clear. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I must've used Broughton vol. 3 for the Valerii Flacci articles at the time, because his review of the evidence is largely based on Badian and that's probably where I got Badian as a source in the first place. Broughton definitely has the consul of 100 as the interrex and magister equitum. These kinds of unholy alliances are not unknown in modern American politics; I can think of a couple of examples over the last decade. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's annoying, because I still find it hard to believe. But I suppose it's not impossible. Unless some other source contradicts Badian, I think this means that DGRBM No. 12 is the son of No. 10, and No. 11 is not. No. 11 is the consul of 86, but not 100. Do you have his filiation? I hope it's not L. f., since that would imply that his father and No. 12's had the same praenomen, although they were brothers; source of headaches for me. P Aculeius (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I did respond to this last night, and then suffered a mysterious failure that caused me to lose my well-composed answer. To recap while being too lazy to go dig out the book again: the name of the father and grandfather of the consul of 100 was Lucius. Grandpa Lucius had two sons, Lucius and Gaius, Lucius (as I recall, consul 131) being the father of the consul of 100, and Gaius being the father of GVF (consul 93) and LVF (suffect 86). I myself don't find anything surprising about a political moderate (as described by Cicero) coming to the realization that it was better to negotiate with Sulla than have your head displayed in the forum. Cicero's intention seems to be (being Cicero) to explain how LVF consul 100 could be so misguided as to have ever sided with Marius or Cinna, so he's trying to redeem that connection, not his concordia with Sulla. Lucius the consul of 100 and princeps senatus in 86 seems to have found that he could do little for "the cause", but quite a lot for himself and the general peace if he played ball (interrex, magister). The death of the suffect of 86 at the hands of Fimbria seems like a perfectly plausible turning point that fits with the timeline as Badian has pieced it together. From Sulla's perspective, having the Valerii Flacci defect to his camp, or even having them agree to mutual toleration, was a plum of great symbolic value, since proscribing the flamen Martialis would be a delicate and potentially polluting business that one might wish to avoid even if one lacked personal pietas—and since Sulla claimed to enjoy very special divine favor, he would not wish to seem impius. Politically, if you're positioning yourself as the champion of senatorial prerogatives, you would do well not to execute, condemn, exile or otherwise ruin the princeps senatus who had come to you with offers of "peace". There are plenty of surprising defections and fallings-out in the late Republic: Labienus turning on Julius Caesar; Antony and Decimus Brutus becoming enemies; and most of all, Antony and Octavian becoming enemies when their ties to Caesar should've made them allies. Or earlier the on-again, off-again relationship of Crassus and Pompeius, even before Caesar was in the equation. At any rate, the career of LVF (praetor 63, son of the suffect), who as a teen escaped the scene of his father's murder and fled to Uncle Gaius in Gaul, seems full of disenchantment, and a deliciously late-Republican mixture of duty and self-interest; with his pedigree, he ought to have risen to the consulship, and didn't, perhaps because Cicero kept him from being convicted but couldn't quite get the grime off his reputation, earned or not. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Cynwolfe, that does make sense. Even though it's conjectural, it seems like the simplest explanation, assuming that Badian is right about the identification. I'll update the Valeria page when I get a chance. P Aculeius (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's how I recall it coming together, anyway. The family tree is the one Broughton accepts; the piecing together of the politics is Badian's, mainly. But I was using other books at the time to make sure the pieces fit with everybody else's larger narrative of the period, so it wasn't just some appealing but idiosyncratic tale. If you need more specific MRR references and don't have access, let me know. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cynwolfe. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 15:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cynwolfe. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 16:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cynwolfe. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 21:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep them marshmallows warm

Actually I've no information on what's going on. My guess is that there has been a bit of kite flying in all this. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

All smoke and no fire. One wishes not to rile those in high places, but really, that isn't the way to exercise authority. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amburbium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vopiscus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

New topic

I came across a new deity, named Virae Querquetulanae and did some editing. Little is known about them, you may be interested in the issue. A German archaeologist has written a paper in which she says the remnant of the oakwood was in Mecaenates's gardens.Aldrasto11 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes I would change to Roman religion. There are issues concerning topography, as far as the location of the place is concerned, and the meaning of the word virae. Platner hints that the question of whether the Querquetulanum was the ancient name of the Caelius (or not), which is based only on Tacit and seems not in agreement with Varro LL V 49 (sacellum of the Lares Q. set on the Esquiline) and Festus who writes only of the supposed location of the wood within the gate, is irrelevant to the location of the Porta Q. and consequently of the existence of such a place in the area. I have read someone understands virae as virgines. I found that vira means simply woman in Paul, it looks cognate with vir. However the mention of the coin recurs in many places, it may well be that the virae had some relationship to Diana Nemorensis...?Aldrasto11 (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I followed Platner in writing that the Porta Q. Was between P. Caelicolana and P. Capena, though it is likely he was mistaken and the P. Q. should have been between the Caelicolana and the Esquilina (this would agre with Varro on the Lares Q.). Wiki article on the Servian walls too shares this view adding it originated the Via Tusculana, unfortunately not giving any authority!Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the interest and the link. I had a glance at it but it looks Richardson too is not very clear about its location and simply follows the sources: he places the P. Q. where our wiki article puts the P. Caelimontana (arch of Dolabella and Silanus) and does not seem to mention the road to Tusculum.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC) I found the PDF with the work by Hauber and Schtz (in Bollettino di Archeologia) interesting: you can get it by googling virae Q.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for a very good cotribution. The Querquetulani one of the 30 Alban P. cannot be confused with Rome as they went to war ag. Rome along with Ariccia, but possibly there was a curia in R.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cynwolfe. You have new messages at African Romance's talk page.
Message added 11:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug. I had forgotten about that little article. If I ever get around to doing an article on "Languages of the Roman Empire," I'll want to include that. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

pma

It's been a year. Do you communicate with Pmanderson? It's a shame how few editors are actually keeping an eye on the classics corner of the place, and I ain't really one of them.  davidiad { t } 15:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't, though I'm a little ashamed that I did not. I did leave a couple of messages on his talk page. His absence is why I don't want to take an active role in moving Julian the Apostate to something more reasonable; it would feel dishonorable to me to do so while he wasn't here to argue against me. I recall vaguely having reasons at the time for staying at a distance; perhaps I was thinking of cutting back my involvement with all things WP, feeling disillusioned. Well, that, and it involved secret proceedings, including what seems to have been a non-public SPI, so I don't like to blather when I don't know the facts. And I am very self-rightous about SP, though I would be sympathetic in this case given the animus he faced. He was constantly getting blocked for stuff that other people get away with, because his enemies were always just waiting for him to slip. I was reviewing the time frame recently, and although I had been under the impression that the exile began Feb. 9, this seems to have been his last (and characteristic) post, dated March 21. However, a blocked editor is allowed for purposes of appeal to post to his own talk page, at least for a time. So I'm unclear when the year is up. You might ask Elen, who handled the case. I for one would wish him to police content, where his storehouse of knowledge is irreplaceable, and to stay away from MOS and what should be its non-fatal irritations. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The block's certainly expired—I use Popups which says whether or not an editor is blocked in the system when the username is hovered over. Hopefully he cares to come back at some point.  davidiad { t } 15:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The block expired a couple of days ago. I do hope he comes back and manages to edit without further dramah - he is maddening (I was bloody furious with him over the socking business), but extremely erudite and a significant contributor. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

And rightly so, though of course the choice of sock was amusingly and typically learned. Cynwolfe (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Amburbium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Vestal

Querquetulanae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aricia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

O dear

How did I miss all this Mary Beard nonsense? Unbelievable. Makes me wish Enoch Powell were still around so I could photoshop his face onto some baboons doin' it. That's the mature reaction to this, right?  davidiad { t } 14:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't followed it closely and wish not to see the images (as my teen daughter would exclaim, "thanks for scarring me for life!"), but read some of the Guardian coverage. For some reason I never put her article on my watchlist, so I'm glad to see somebody's been keeping up, even if I don't know what the phrase "to present herself in public in an authentic way" means. I assume it refers to the audacity of homeliness, though I find her an attractive person, beauty being often repulsive (who's more repulsive than Kim Kardashian? And yet as Tina Fey has famously pointed out, KK possesses each ingredient of culturally-specific contemporary beauty). I was reared by two creatures of astonishing physical beauty, and having had my fill of it as a child, I tend to think of these things differently, as one gift among many with which one might be graced. I recall a classics prof I assisted as a grad student—someone with books, and who contributes entries to things like The Classical Tradition—getting a student comment once that went "wear some makeup." Those of us who loved her found her lovely, with lively eyes and cheekbones that indicated beauty in youth, but yes, she was (dare I say it?) getting old and didn't color her hair. I live in a town that aspires to be a miniature Portland, Oregon, and has a significant population of old rich hippies, so the Seattle-Portland style of long gray hair is unremarkable and perhaps even admirable. But as usual I digress.

I of course would never discourage the photoshopping of OBE/MBE-faces onto scenes of simian sex.

I have complicated feelings about MB. As a woman who experienced a rather nasty incident of gender power relations that contributed to my leaving classics, I say "you go girl". As someone who likes to see classical antiquity made accessible while clearing away Hollywood distortions, I say "you go girl". But I must confess that I find her contributions as a classicist per se to be somewhat overrated. Several years ago, I spent a month researching the Roman triumph, particularly Pompey's, as background for a non-scholarly project, and then her book promptly came out and I thought "well, why did I go to all that trouble? Here it all is prepackaged for me." But I found I didn't actually learn that much or get a new perspective, or not in the way that I did when I read T.P. Wiseman's Remus and felt that my head had spun around several times, or even Wiseman in his book on Roman mythology, meant for a non-specialist readership. Or any piece by Wiseman I've ever read. I suppose for me skepticism can eventually lead to know-nothingism, and I don't find her "subversive". Daring interpretations, by contrast, are revelatory even when in some aspects they are blazingly wrong. So from the feminist perspective, there's something dispiriting for me about MB because, unlike her icon Jane Ellen Harrison, I don't find her that intellectually daring or challenging, but rather demonstrably smart and competent. And ultimately, what a certain kind of woman wants is to be taken seriously even at moments when she fails big. I become somewhat uneasy at the thought that we're supposed to be excited by MB as a pioneer because she dares to exist without American-style dental artistry, when, say, Martha Nussbaum throws down these intellectual challenges but elegantly coifs. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

If ever I've read anything by her, I've stored it in that corner of my handsome, TV-ready head where I keep nonsense about Rome. I am uncontrollably distrustful of rockstar classicists, and my notion of a rockstar classicist is a backpage want-ad compared to Beard. The nastiness just shocked me, and I'm an American.  davidiad { t } 03:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Poor cupid

The little bugger had lice ... look at the shame on his face.  davidiad { t } 17:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh god … yes, daughter with very long hair, shared wizard hats at Harry Potter science camp … revivified nightmares. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Cupid and Psyche

Hi Cynwolfe, this made me laugh when I saw it! I'd noticed the edits but not actually looked at the page and was appalled to see what had happened there. You're doing a really nice job of restructuring, which, let's face it, needed to be done anyway. It's a page I keep trying to get to, have sources and am ready to go, but haven't quite found the energy. I might add a bit though, once you're done with the work you've been doing. I like how you're actually matching the images to the events in the story. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops, forgot I wasn't painting a ceiling mural

How nice to get your message! I've had this on my to-do list for almost five years, I realized to my horror when I saw its most recent disastrous form. When I saw you watched the page, I wrote a long explanation of what I was planning to do to post to your talk page, and then accidentally deleted it and was too lazy to write all three paragraphs again. I don't normally give long plot summaries, and in fact don't think I ever have, but when I was looking over Commons for images, it occurred to me that the best way to include a variety of images would be to match them to the story. So I tried to pick different periods and styles for that.

I'm planning to finish the plot summary, and post a short section between the intro and the plot on how the tale fits into the narrative structure of the Metamorphoses as a whole. That may include some notes on elements pertaining to Platonism and the mystery religions, but nothing extensive. As you saw, I tried to reorganize the trivia section into something more coherent; however, my feeling is that this section might be more meaningful organized by period. I base that mainly, though, on the Pre-Raphaelites and the interactions among poets and painters. I also see sections on the various analytical approaches. It's unlikely I'll do any of that. I'll remove the "under construction" tag sometime today or tomorrow, and wouldn't plan to add anything after that. I'm also not wedded to most of the images, though I admit to being entranced by the inexplicable gymnastics at left. When I get to the wedding, I'll be adding a scene from the Loggia di Psiche by the school of Raphael. Then I'll be getting back to Cupid. Maybe. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh god, don't rush. I agree in regards to short plot summaries, and it least the page had a fairly good trimming recently and now this work you're doing is great. I have at least one, perhaps more, lengthy articles about the piece. Mostly about thematic stuff if I have any memory at all, but I printed them out well over a year ago and need to dig them out of the pile. And I'm in the middle of the winter blues so not motivated to spring into action yet. The pic is interesting; I noticed there was a similar one but not quite in such a contortionist style of gymnastics. The second task is quite something too! Anyway, nice work after someone had a bit of fun there on Valentine's day. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cupid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Procurator

Eros (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mysteries

Palm branch (symbol) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Phiale

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Roman calendar

Re your note on my talk page: I am retired but I made the mistake of looking at an article I had put quite a bit of work into (Julian calendar), thinking that several large changes made in the last few months were either wrong or misguided, and seeing that no-one else was doing anything about it.

The material you queried was copied and adapted from very similar tutorial material which had been added to the Julian calendar page. The person who added this mixed up pre-Julian and Julian months. He was also clearly not a native English speaker. Further, the basic structure of the months was carried over from the pre-Julian calendar and was hardly affected by the Julian reform, so the Julian calendar article is not an appropriate place to explain it in such detail.

In the spirit of "assuming good faith", and wishing to avoid creating a provocation to an editor who, judging by his track record, holds very strong opinions on these topics, I felt that the safest thing to do was to move this material to the article on Roman calendar in more-or-less the same form, strip it down to cover pre-Julian months only, and clean up the English. In the Julian calendar article, I added a note to say that the fundamental structure of the month was not changed by the Julian reform, but that the date of the day after the Ides changed in lengthened months, and detailed what that effect was. I also included a link to the discussion I had just moved and adapted to the Roman calendar article.

Now, my personal opinion is that it should not be necessary for WP to include a day-by-day tutorial on these matters, it should be enough to lay out the principles with a few examples, which is what the previous text in Roman calendar did. But evidently another editor does think that a tutorial in this form is necessary and useful. I'm not arguing the point. I only think that the Julian calendar article is clearly the wrong place for it, and the Roman calendar is a better one; perhaps it's not the perfect choice either. I also agree with you that the approach this editor chose is not the clearest. Per my note, IMO a clearer approach would be to present an actual fasti and work through it, which I think is more in line with your views, though you are doing it month by month instead of presenting an annual fasti.

I'm not going to touch this further. But if you decide to rework what I did feel free. I only ask that you make sure that the Julian calendar contains a link to whatever you replace it with.

As to sourcing, any decent book on the Roman calendar will do if you think it necessary to add one, but Michels would be the best. AFAIK, the only point that is at all uncertain is the numbering of days between Id. Feb. and Kal. Int. in intercalary years. --Chris Bennett (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I do think I agree with you. It was precisely what you call the day-by-day tutorial that I found confusing and unnecessary. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW I looked at the Ianuarius article, and this question is actually relevant to what you have inserted there. You have dated 14th and 15th January as a.d. XIX and XVIII Kal. Feb, which is correct for the Julian calendar but not for the pre-Julian calendar: these days were dated as a.d. XVII and a.d. XVI Kal. Feb. respectively, with knock-on effects for the rest of the interval to Kal. Feb. Likewise, at the end you have dated the 30th and 31st days as a.d. III Kal. Feb. and prid. Feb, with the annotation that these days were added in the Julian reform, but the dates already existed in the pre-Julian calendar, as the dates of the 28th and 29th days of the month. Perhaps you should create separate columns for the pre-Julian and Julian calendars?

Also, it's not quite correct that it was the 30th and 31st days that were added. According to Macrobius, it was actually the 29th and 30th (a.d. IV and III Kal. Feb.)-- et Ianuario quidem dies quos dicimus quartum et tertium Kalendas Februarias dedit, Aprili sextum Kalendas Maias, Iunio tertium Kalendas Iulias, Augusto quartum et tertium Kalendas Septembres, Septembri tertium Kalendas Octobres, Novembri tertium Kalendas Decembres, Decembri vero quartum et tertium Kalendas Ianuarias. These added days were mostly characterized as dies fasti -- F -- in Julian fasti, in what is otherwise mostly a sea of dies comitiales at the end of the month, though January 30th is N or NP for some reason. --Chris Bennett (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid my interests lie with the cultural aspects. For me, the labeling of the days is just a frame on which to hang the observances. I started with Scullard, but wanted to note that during the Imperial era commemorations of the emperor and his family are added to the traditional festival days. Some religious holidays were expanded to make sure they hit the "right" day under the new calendar. That is, the Romans themselves were aware of fudging. Most of what's known about archaic holidays comes from post-reform Augustan sources. My purpose is to present what the Romans did throughout the month as related to the calendar, how they conceived of the month as a set of activities, from a humanistic perspective. So if you want to create a dual column for the two calendars, please do so. It wouldn't be a good use of my time. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's also not the best use of my time -- I've done my duty by bringing the point to your attention! At this point I propose to tweak the Julian calendar article a little more and then disappear back into retirement. --Chris Bennett (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Then we'll at least have a place to point to that explains this accurately. I'll try to clarify this as I can. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Indigitamenta

I read the article and would like to point out that Bona Dea is the indigitation of Maia (according to Macrobius) and not the reverse: i.e. I do not know what Roscher wrote but suspect he is not saying that Maia is an indigitation of Bona Dea with good reason.

Last year I read a review of a work by an Italian woman scholar on the issue of the I. and she too made comparisons with Chinese folk religion, however with questionable instances. In fact the issue gives great scope for research but unfortunately western scholars tend to be classicists and very ignorant about Asian, especially the non IE, subjects. Clearly (to me) Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Mongol, Tibetan ancient and folk religions are originally identical with the IE religions as all are reflections of the prehistoric cosmic religion, of which one can find something in Plato and Heraclitus, as BTW was maintained by Eliade (not that I particularly overesteem him but on this he saw right). If anybody happens to travel to E. Asia e.g. Hong Kong, Beijing, Bangkok etc. he may get good insights into ancient IE religion, especially the Roman: the lares, the gods of thresholds, of soil, of the city, of birth, of the Sky or Earth and so on.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks it is the same custom as the Chinese one, only in China is no longer observed. The Thai spirits of the earth, their altars etc. look to me similar to the Roman lares.Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cupid and Psyche (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Balsam and Erich Neumann

Ambrosia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Majolica

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Potential

This topic could easily be developed into one of our finest and most broadly engaging literature articles. Would that I still lived in a land with libraries.  davidiad { t } 23:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

To which Pastoral didn't even link till a few minutes ago, though the figure of Corydon was named. Most of our literature articles are sad. I've become aware of only one editor outside classical studies who devotes herself mainly to literature in a way that's both skilled and 'literary' (her name appears just above on this page). And a few editors who certainly have the chops for literature (like veterans of the Shakespeare authorship battle) contribute without making literature their primary focus. One problem as I see it is that the encyclopedic presentation of literature and its history has as one of its main elements 'scholarly questions': what questions have been brought to this work? how (in other jargon) have scholars 'interrogated' it? and what questions were its creators wrestling with? Too many Wikipedia editors want to decide the 'right' answers, and to present these as an assemblage of information. But it's the posing of the questions that's at issue; the whole point of literature is to not have a final answer. (Ending of the Aeneid, anyone?)

Anyway, I stay away from literature articles after I was chased off "To Helen" when I felt that the massively quoted "glory that was" line ought to be in the intro (that's why I was linking to it). Instead, we have a "citation needed" assertion about whom the poem was written to, as if that accounts for why the poem is notable. So we have an introduction that in no way reflects the several aspects of why the poem is significant. Too many editors don't seem to know what it means to represent the critical perspectives on a work neutrally, which doesn't mean excluding critical perspectives (aka opinions). Then you get bogged down in "he said, she said" dissertation first-chapter clutter that doesn't serve the reader, who in most cases just doesn't need to have the secondary names getting in the way. That's what footnotes are for. And you can't say something as bloody obvious as "the poem has been quoted widely for …". I've never dared to look at "Sailing to Byzantium", my favorite poem. Once out of nature I shall never take / My bodily form from any natural thing is a thought often in my head. It would be a perfect poem if he hadn't gummed it up with "perne in a gyre", requiring a footnote that reveals his most embarrassing preoccupations.

That is my rant about why I don't contribute in the area I actually know the most about. (Other incidents could be cited.) I haven't even fixed the impression we give at Ovid that the Heroides are his most important work, though PMA and I once shared a rueful groan about it.

More to your point. In the early years of Wikipedia, there was sort of a bias against representing what one loosely calls "reception" or the "classical tradition" because that initial exuberance for the project caused users to throw in stuff willy-nilly from websites and such. So we got ourselves in a ridiculous position with mythology articles in particular of presenting a deity as the object of veneration in the 5th century BCE, and utterly ignoring his ubiquity in, say, Baroque art.

And check out the tag at the top of Pastoral: what exactly reads like a personal essay in this? I find this tag often on humanities articles, apparently because they don't read like science articles. It reads like an essay in patches in ways that should be reframed, because it attempts to represent the literary critical mode, but not as a personal essay in which the writer is expressing a singular, internalized response. (Like my remark above about "Sailing to Byzantium"—that was personal.) So there you go: you have a knack for getting me to ramble. Short answer: Corydon could be a lovely article, and could be made more so even without moving one's posterior from the chair. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I stay away from papyrology for a different reason: I'm a prescriptive dick who can't stomach the adulteration the topic endures—sometimes necessarily, sometimes not so—on Wikipedia. Though I rarely move my posterior from my chair, I won't be writing Corydon anytime soon. I've barely written 500 words on or off Wiki since I moved and don't know that that will change anytime soon.  davidiad { t } 17:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

A Roman proverb

Any idea the source for "Money is like sea water. The more you drink the thirstier you get" proverb? Yt95 (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't track this to anyone but Schopenhauer. I thought maybe it would be Plautus (the rhythmic feel it might have in Latin reminded me of quasi piscis, itidem est amator lenae: nequam est nisi recens from the Asinaria), or Petronius, but alas, I find nothing. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for trying Cynwolfe. Yt95 (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm now wondering whether the context gave rise to the notion that it's a Roman proverb (or maybe it will still turn out to be): in this edition, there's a footnote at the bottom of the page to Cicero, along with Diogenes Laertius. Although the reference goes with definitions of Epicureanism, it's possible that someone along the way got the impression that S. had lifted what sounds plausible as an ancient proverb from a Roman source. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. The context in the source I had used was Phocylides, Democritus, Seneca and Philo on the dangers asscociated with the love of money (as the background to Saint Pauls writing "Love of money is the root of all evil". I like to pin down ancient sources, hence the question. Thanks again. Yt95 (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Mithras Liturgy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Iao and Asp

Cupid and Psyche (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Volumen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Jaś Elsner

Doesn't this busy fellow deserve an article? Not yet in the dictionary of art historians unfortunately, but this etc, and a bio on de:wp. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Very much so. I know I've used him. I suppose the quickest way to get an article would be to translate the German, though the one time I tried to "cheat" (in my view of things) by translating a French article it seemed like it was more trouble than compiling one from scratch. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

A lot of that one will go very easily, though it has no inline citations. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Started now, but (like the Germans) I can't find much beyond his faculty profiles. Any additions welcome. Johnbod (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Will keep my eyes open. I have lots on my plate right now, so sorry I couldn't be of help. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion

Do you think Sebastos should be merged into Augustus (honorific)? I am not very familiar with Classical Greek, but it appears to simply be a translation of the Latin with no notability of its own. One must consider WP:NAD. Also, it is little more than a stub and could do more good contributing to augustus rather than standing on its own.

What your oppinion? —Sowlos 19:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I'd keep the two articles as is, though Sebastos could benefit from a summary section on Augustus. I don't see either one as taking a merely lexicographical approach (so I don't see NAD as applying), and the Greek title seems to have a great deal of material that wouldn't be so useful and relevant to Augustus (honorific). I'm vaguely imagining/recalling uses of the Greek title that don't represent a mere translation of Augustus, and perhaps even predating Octavian's title. There may be some Christian usages that weren't translated into Latin as Augustus. I'm not so keen as many to regard what is customarily known as the Byzantine Empire as a mere continuation of ancient Rome. It's completely out of keeping with the ancient reverence of place, and with the Augustinian conception of eternal Rome, and with the conceptual Rome of medieval Western Europe. But I digress.

The editor who knows the Augustan part of this best is User:Haploidavey, who has made vast contributions to Imperial cult (ancient Rome) and related topics. He seems to be away at present.

What I do think is that it's a bad idea to have Augusta (honorific) as a separate article. That makes no sense to me at all. However, it would be legitimate to have a separate list article for women known to have carried the title, though I have no idea what such a thing might be called: List of women with the title Augusta would be rather cumbersome. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I believe you are right about sebastos taking on somewhat different connotations in later eras. Continued usage decoupled from a language tends to entourage drift.

On the matter of Augusta (honorific), I cannot believe I missed that. You have successfully redirected my disapprobation!

—Sowlos 21:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Cynwolfe; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Food and dining in the Roman Empire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Insula and Blood pudding

14 regions of Augustan Rome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Baths of Constantine

Assassination of Julius Caesar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Copperplate

Pignora imperii (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alan Cameron

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

How dare you ...

... doubt the would-be hairybarrelchested heroics of Antony! He surely would have thugged up the assassins somethin' proper.  davidiad { t } 01:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

In reality, they set him up with a six-pack of Heineken and a couple of Hooters waitresses. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Like--Amadscientist (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Vesta

Thanks for your question and sorry for the delay. I must acknowledge I have no specific competence in Roman numismatics and their iconography, so my opinion is worthless, but yes I suppose one could say it is... If so other details of the image, such as the frame and shape of the burner and the flying eaves on the round roof look noteworthy.Aldrasto11 (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC) The burner really looks to be round?!Aldrasto11 (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Amburbium

I glanced at your post and I can solve this doubt negatively. The Amburbium and the Ambarvalia are two completely different ceremonies, held for different reasons at different times and by different authorities. It is a common feature of ancient rituals to require walking around a space which is for whatever reason considered sacred. Cybele is mentioned in a parenthesis by Lucan, clearly his words do not imply he assumes that the goddess has any relation to the Amburbium, which btw is a very primitive ceremony, probably from the regal period.Aldrasto11 (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and I'm sure it won't surprise you if I respond by saying that as a mere Wikipedia editor I must reflect the sources as they present a range of views and doubts. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I know wiki editors should give a balanced reflection of scholarship. Though I feel the article gives excessive weight to views which support the idea of a identity or similarity. I will not comment on Cybele...Aldrasto11 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I value your opinion, as you know. The passage from Lucan is translated as is, and before and after the passage it's noted that it's likely a composite. I think the article is pretty clear that: the two ceremonies are confused/connected even in ancient sources; one is for the city and the other the country; they are both lustrations that involve circumambulation; they are not however the same ceremony. But I'll look at it again to see what I can do. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks.Aldrasto11 (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

GAN: Catalogue of Women

Hi! I noticed you nominated this article for GA status. I won't be reviewing it, but I left a few suggestions at Talk:Catalogue of Women.Michael! (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Curia

Hello, Cynwolfe. After nobody replied to my post about Curia yesterday, I gave the issue some more thought, and decided to attempt a revision myself. I'm not sure how successful my efforts are; they're woefully insufficient as regards medieval, modern, and ecclesiastical usage, which I hardly tampered with; but these should be easy to expand. If you have the time, tell me what you think of the overall structure, and what else you think might be lacking. I wish I knew another picture or two to add, but I was pleased by the one of the Curia Julia that I found. P Aculeius (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was in broad agreement with what you said, and will try to help when I can. The fervor for dismantling an overview article in favor of a dab strikes me as an ahistorical tendency to fragment topics in ways that don't allow continuities to emerge. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Janus and the janitrices

I looked at Janus and realised it has been nominated for GA and failed. While I do not care about articles' ratings, I acknowledge it has been a great deal of work for me and seems of interest to many, improvements at various levels, starting with orthography and style would be beneficial. I already did some work.

The issue of the janitrices might be of interest to you. Indeed I found this an irrelevant detail at first in Gage' s sprawling excursus and was only confirmed in its irrelevance to the topic of the god when I chanced upon a Sanskrit text in which they appear in almost the same form and with the same meaning. As it were this word is the same and denotes the same relation. Now on second thoughts on the contrary I find this fact interesting as a key to the etymology of the theonym..., i. e. if this same word expresses this concept of relation in the two languages its etymology may throw definitive light on the theonym.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were unaware of the GA review, or I would've pointed it out to you. Did you read the comments? In general, the quality of information impressed the reviewer, but he saw issues pertaining to editing and reader-friendly presentation. So I think you should feel good about your contribution. Jupiter (mythology) is currently up for GA review, and it may pass, because we tried to address those issues, though there is still more to be done in organizing what should be a series of articles on Jupiter (including for instance the existing articles on his temples and so on). I've seen an article that offers a ready-made "book" at the end (as we offer a link to a related Commons gallery)—that is, a collection of related articles formatted as a single pdf. This might be something to do in future with all the Jupiter-related articles, or eventually a collection on Roman deities or even Roman religion as a whole. Very time-consuming, though, when some major existing articles such as Social class in ancient Rome languish in neglect.

I appreciate your pointing out the janitrices; this does sound like something I would be interested in learning more about. I've also been trying recently to find more about Icona loiminna in Iberia. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. I must once again blame myself for my sloppiness since at the time of my fortuitous dicovery I felt dismayed and somewhat irritated by the fact the word is identitcal in form and meaning in Sanskrit as I then thought this was not what I wished since it looked to exclude Janus, so that I did not note down the citation. What a shame!

No I am wrong and very sorry, De Vaan gives ianitrices as a different word with different etymology, I thought right first, no relationship with ianitrix or Janus. I think one should delete that section as misleading, Gage' did not research the issue well!

On Iccona I would like to point out that the town of Hippona bore a name clearly due to the goddess well before the rise of the Gallo-Roman religion and in an area never settled by Gauls.Aldrasto11 (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

As for Jupiter in my view that article needs much more work still than Janus...Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Eagle (Roman military standard)#Second survey

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Eagle (Roman military standard)#Second survey. —Sowlos 09:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Coin image on Roman Empire

I don't know who put that there but I wanted to know your thoughts on it. It seems a little confusing and I am not sure if it is the best image to represent the subject in the infobox. This came to my attention when the long standing vexilloid image was replaced in the link at Roman Republic. If you support this I will not worry about it.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There's an archived discussion on this. I'll look for the link if you're interested, but let's see if I can summarize the thinking (which I do agree with, whether or not I'm confident that this is the best image to express it). Your question is of course legitimate, so pardon me if I take some time to answer it as thoroughly as I can.

The vexilloid is a modern fabrication. It's a military symbol, and not representative of the kind of symbols the Romans themselves actually used to represent the state as a whole. I know there's a tendency to conceive of the Roman Empire as this militaristic reich, but in fact that isn't how they thought of the res publica. We represent a modern country with a symbol chosen internally, so we were looking at how the Romans (or at least the elite who decided such things) represented the idea of "Rome". In Roman iconography, a civitas or polis or what we think of as a "country/state/nation" was embodied as a woman (for example, the Tyche of Antioch). When I was looking for images of the goddess or personification of Roma, I realized that the most pervasive form of self-identifying imagery was numismatic. So I rounded up some coin images for consideration: icons the Romans generated themselves that were meant to be "read" in a discrete, compact form.

The individual depictions of Roma that we have on Commons were uninspiring. Based on what we had to work with, I personally wanted to represent the Empire with an image of Victoria, who was the last divinity (in the guise of a "personification") to appear on Roman coinage under the Christian emperors, and who as I'm guessing you know was the focus of one of the last gasps of resistance to Christian "monoculture" (Symmachus and the Altar of Victory), thereby indicating what an important embodiment of the old Imperium Romanum she was.

I try very hard, however, to recognize my biases, one of which is that an empire with its capital in Greek-speaking Constantinople under the rule of a Christian is no longer "Roman" in a way that would mean anything to Trajan or Marcus Aurelius, let alone Cicero or the elder Cato. Not a radical fringe view, but perhaps not the majority perspective. So consensus seemed to be that Rome and Constantinople clasping hands was an image that joined classical and late antiquity. I love the current image and find it evocative; I just think it gives undue weight to Constantinople as if it contributed equally to Roman identity throughout the period we call the "Roman Empire".

Although a Victoria would've been surprising, I think it would've been surprising in a good way, given that most people have such a one-dimensional view of ancient Roman culture. And again, the idea was to choose an image that was a Roman expression of the res publica, not a modern imposition. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You expressed yourself well and the argument makes clear sense especially noting: "The vexilloid is a modern fabrication. It's a military symbol, and not representative of the kind of symbols the Romans themselves actually used to represent the state as a whole" I have wondered about this for some time. Thanks for the clarification.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ho, I could've and should've stopped there! Verbosity is my vice. Best, Cynwolfe (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Jupiter

Dear Cynwolf, as I supposed the article cannot pass in the present state. I am aware we have different views on what info should be included in it, so I cannot nor am I willing to contribute to an article which has been substantially altered by yourself. I would turn to reverting to my previous version...But I can and am willing to discuss how to address the issue raised by the reviewer.Aldrasto11 (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think if you look at the attributes on the checklist, you'll see a couple of familiar points. Citations of primary sources without sufficient secondary sources to support them will be read as OR, whether or not it really is. There are also incomplete citations. These points came up in the copyediting process when I tried to explain the requirements for Wikipedia citations. (To fail the article on spelling and grammar because of the inconsistency of British/American spelling of a single word in a single section seems to me excessive.) As I recall, two people from the guild of copyeditors worked on the article after I did, so my optimism was based on assuming that the copyediting issues had been addressed more thoroughly than they apparently were. You could ask the reviewer to look at your last version before I restructured it (this seems to be it), if you think the problems noted weren't in the article before it was edited by others. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"To fail the article on spelling and grammar because of the inconsistency of British/American spelling of a single word in a single section seems to me excessive" I agree but technically its an MOS issue. I would have just fixed it myself if I was the reviewer, but then I would not have taken the review myself because of the huge amount of references needing to be checked and I try to check them all.

When I get a chance I'll try to help out a bit on that.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hope I didn't upset you

I won't interfere with the Jupiter article (although as a pagan I soooo want to help on it). I hope you understood that I was only commenting on the technical aspect of the spelling issue. I am not one who supports a US spelling version over UK but I can understand wanting to be consistent...but the reviewer really should have just fixed that. _{(you may delete this after reading)}--Amadscientist (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary! I would very much like you to help. I was upset about something else. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

About the British/American thing, I'm sure there are quite a few articles on ancient Roman religion that have this problem, because Haploidavey and I have both contributed to them. Although we try to contribute clean copy, I've noticed that we tend to be undisturbed by the Anglo-thing. I don't deliberately impose Americanisms, but mostly just don't notice: I spent years corresponding with a British friend, my husband is Irish, I actually prefer the spelling "plough" and treating human collectives as plurals ("the faculty are planning" understood as "the multiple members of the faculty" makes much more sense to me, and a similar thing in reverse happens often in Latin, where compound subjects or neuter plurals are treated as singular), and I'm given to exclaiming "bloody hell", though that is the least of my profanities, which I've tried to keep off Wikipedia since an, ahem, unfortunate incident. And since I'm in a foul mood because I'm fighting off the dementors anyway, only amateurs who don't really love and crave the art of writing want a stylebook to be straitjacket instead of a Vergil. Sometimes you have to perform the stunt without a net.

Just letting off steam. But I would very sincerely appreciate you helping with Jupiter. Cynwolfe (talk)

Jupiter

Thank you for your attention and reply. I agree the problems raised by the reviewer are for the main part not directly related to your restructuring of the article, nonetheless I feel it would be inappropriate for me to deal with something I did not write in the first place and I find strange to me. But I am ready to discuss how to address these problems as I said above.

As for your suggestion of asking the reviewer to assess my earlier version(s) of the article I do not think this would be acceptable under WK rules nor seems appropriate to me under these circumstances.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

(Stalker comment)It would not be inappropriate. It would be appropriate. That's what a collaboration is.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to copy these comments and move the discussion to Aldrasto's page, because when I stop sulking in my tent I have some things I want to do out of personal interest in the topics, and perhaps should be done for a while with my brief altruistic campaign to pay more attention to high-traffic articles in the G&R area. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)