Choliamb

Welcome

Hello Choliamb! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ingratis (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Hope you don't mind the above - better late than never. Ingratis (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Isova

Thank you very much for your work on Isova - good to have, and I learnt a lot from it. I should mention that there's a huge focus on Wikipedia presently on removing content lacking inline citations, quite often (to be frank) well beyond common sense. If you could add one or two more inline references to the paragraph on St Nicolas, that should avoid any potential difficulties. Best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ingratis. Thanks for this. I'm not interested in spending too much time and effort on Wikipedia, for a number of reasons, but occasionally when I see a hole in an obscure area of coverage I will try to fill it, if I can do so quickly and easily. In this case, it was a site that I knew about and I was already familiar with the sources, so it didn't take long.

In the two paragraphs on Notre Dame and Saint Nicolas, I tried to indicate that all of the architectural description was based on the four sources listed in the first note in each paragraph (Traquair, Mitsopoulos, Bon, and Pangopoulos). That seemed more economical than providing one note for the dimensions, another for the plan, another for the windows, etc., especially since I would just be citing the same sources every single time. As far as I know, these four publications are the only independent architectural descriptions of the buildings. I'm not aware of any other discussion in the last 40 years, in guidebooks and other general works, that is not entirely derivative of one or more of them. Because the sources are fully cited and the relevant page numbers given, and all four of them are available online for free, without paywalls, anyone who wants to can go back and pull out individual page numbers for each element that I describe. I certainly don't mind if someone wants to do that and replace my single cumulative note with a series of separate notes on individual sentences. But it's not something that I'm particularly eager to do myself. I've made my contribution, such as it is, and I don't have the time or the interest to do a lot more. That said, I appreciate what you and other more dedicated editors are trying to accomplish here, and I'd hate to see the information I provided removed on a technicality, so I'll try to spend a few minutes on it this weekend and see if I can strip out one or two separate references for the St. Nicolas paragraph. It can probably be done easily enough for the sentences on the western rather than Orthodox character of the worship and the uncertain date. In any case, many thanks for the positive feedback. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your understanding. If you're not able to get to it I'll add the book refs again as above at the end of the para, which should be more than enough to fend off drive-by deletes. Wikipedia is sometimes extremely good at shooting itself in its foot, and we seem to be passing through an unusually literal-minded rules-driven phase which often backfires. All best, Ingratis (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Ingratis: OK, I've revised the descriptions and added a few more citations (in the paragraph on Notre Dame as well as that on Saint Nicolas). It's both more informative and more accurate now. Have a look and see what you think. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Wonderful - a standard to aspire to! It reads really nicely and clearly, and I think (hope) the refs are now idiot-proofed. Many thanks for all your trouble. All best, Ingratis (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Rostrilongitudequotient

The term was coined by a Norwegian "duckist", Jon Gisle, who wrote a book called "Donaldismen", which I read in 1974. I don't think it has been translated into English, but Google found a German translation when I checked. Best regards from a Finnish animator (retired) --Janke | Talk 21:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Ps: Check out Donaldism...

Thanks, Janke. Very pleased to meet you. I didn't know that Scandinavia was such a thriving center of international Donaldwissenschaften. Is there something about him that northern Europeans find particularly attractive? Here in the US, he doesn't get much respect any more: many casual fans of classic cartoons focus chiefly on Warner Bros and dismiss all things Disney as sentimental fluff, while contemporary Disney fans are more likely to be interested in The Little Mermaid and Frozen than the early features and shorts. It's a real shame, considering how technically gorgeous the work of the Disney studio was from the mid-30s to the mid-40s, and how funny some of the Donald cartoons from that period are. But I don't need to tell you that! Before you retired, did you do most of your animating by hand, or with a computer? Choliamb (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Per Capita, Finland is the top Disney-comics reading nation in the world! Aku Ankka was first published in December 1951, and in 2013 it rose to the most sold/subscribed magazine! Myself, I regard Barks' duck from 1949-1954 as the best. As you, I definitely don't care for the 60s version! Yes, I animated mostly by hand, but in the 1980s and 90s I did some computer animation, too. Here are some samples of the styles I used (mostly specified by the client): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C61comiFqWA Best, --Janke | Talk 08:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

That's quite a range of styles, Janke. Impressive. And I'm happy to know about Aku Ankka, although to American ears it sounds like the name of a Tiki cocktail, like the Aku Aku Lapu, which was named after the Aku Aku restaurant in the Stardust Hotel in Las Vegas, which was in turn named after the Aku Aku spirits of Easter Island. You can chalk this up to my very poor knowledge of Finnish and Finland, which is sadly limited to Sibelius and the Kalevala. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you perchance notice the link on the Aku Ankka page: The Quest for Kalevala? There' a strong mix for you! PS: Found it in entirety with a search: [1] Janke | Talk 17:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I read it last night. Not at all what I expected from a Donald Duck comic book! Got to give Rosa credit for going all in on the mythology. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

May I suggets you look at the top frame of Rosa's page 20, and compare it with this Gallen-Kallela painting: The_Defense_of_the_Sampo ... --Janke | Talk 17:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

A nice easter egg for Finnish readers. Gallen-Kallela seems like an interesting fellow. The work in Kenya and New Mexico gives him more range (both geographic and stylistic) than one would expect from an artist chiefly associated with nationalist subjects. Choliamb (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he's an icon in Finnish art. I live just a few minute's walk from the Gallen-Kallela Museum, so I've seen quite a lot of his paintings... Janke | Talk 09:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Wolves

As for cracking eggs: Momma wolf and daddy wolf never had egg cups, so I was deprived of that knowledge during childhood... We usually ate chickens whole and uncooked, and didn't bother with eggs. Now I know what the expression means, though! David10244 (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@David10244: Unlike eggs, I don't think there are any strong doctrinal disputes over which is the proper end for cracking open a chicken. You're free to start at the head or the tail or anywhere in between without raising any eyebrows.

Re eggs: if you've never read it, the fourth chapter of Gulliver's Travels is the locus classicus.

Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look at that. David10244 (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

All true believers should break their eggs at the convenient end, right? And that end should be left up to personal conscience... David10244 (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your corrections to The Exaltation of the Flower. They are much appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Lovatelli urn

Your gracious assistance is requested on Lovatelli urn, particularly with the dates. Could you also verify the dating of the object? Thank you in advance. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas. Thanks for the barnstar. I've replied to your questions about the date of the Lovatelli urn on the article's talk page. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

If you have a moment...

I've just put Beulé Gate up for peer review here, with a view to taking it forward to FAC at some point in the future. Would be most grateful for your eyes on the article and your suggestions, if you have the opportunity. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, although my time will be limited now that the holidays are over. I have a long manuscript (not mine!) on the LH pottery from Lerna to copyedit, and a health problem that I hope will turn out to be minor but could be something more serious (CAT scan of the head on Friday, keep your fingers crossed). But I will give it a look when I need some diversion. Knowing you, I'm sure it's in great shape already. Choliamb (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated -- good luck with all of that (will be keeping my fingers very much crossed). Likewise on the relatively limited time, so please don't feel that there's any rush. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: OK, it took a while, for which I apologize, but I finally had a chance to look over the Beulé Gate article. I've let loose my usual torrent of carping and nitpicking on the peer review page. Choliamb (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Compiègne

Hi – hope you are doing well!

I noticed your recent edit to Hypereides, which caught my attention because I've been giving Phryne a bit of a going over, so it's an incredibly specific question, but: I don't suppose somewhere in your 40 years of archaeological slides you have anything from the Musée Vivenel yet to be put on Commons? In particular either the Hypereides/Phryne double head or a colour image of the Corinna statuette? I'm sure the answer is no because unless you are specifically interested in obscure ancient Greek women poets there isn't much reason to go, but I thought I'd ask just in case... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I've never been to Compiègne. The double herm would probably be disappointing in any case, because the woman's face is almost entirely destroyed ("le visage de la femme a été mutilé à tel point que le front même fait défaut sous les cheveux, seuls conservés" is Poulsen's description; cf. the photo on p. 48 of his article). His argument regarding the identifications, while ingenious, seems to me pretty far-fetched (which of course does not necessarily mean that he is wrong). Although I edited the image caption in the Hypereides article, I see that the Phryne article still states as if it were fact that the head in the Glyptotek is a portrait of Hypereides; perhaps consider changing the wording to something that acknowledges the uncertainty? I also see that not one but two new books entirely devoted to Phryne have been published this year. She's certainly having her moment! Choliamb (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see you already uploaded the photo from the Poulsen article to the Commons earlier today, so you're a step ahead of me. I also notice from the history of the Hypereides article that you changed the lead image only a few days before I added my comments about the portraits, so I wanted to assure you that I did not make that edit in response to anything that you did. I just happened to be uploading my photos of the other so-called Hypereides portrait in Copenhagen (this one, in the National Museum rather than the Glyptotek), and that's what prompted me to look into the evidence for the identification. Choliamb (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is all rather what I had suspected. There's a clearer reproduction of the Poulsen photograph in Richter's The Portraits of the Greeks, so I can scan that so we have an actually reasonable-quality image. And yes, having read your section on the portraits of Hypereides and checked Richter I've slightly changed the caption to allow for the uncertainty. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, well, on scanning the Richter image at high resolution it becomes clear that it's actually a different photograph to the Poulsen one. So much for that brilliant plan. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Lending of a bargepole...

I know you said that you couldn't be paid to touch it, but could I persuade you to take an unpaid look at Draft:Dorian invasion? I think I've got the text to just about where I can, and there's quite a lot of tracing particular ideas back to their sources and trying to work out who is the most important advocate for a certain (usually barmy) point of view. As you can imagine, I'm keen to get this as close to "right" as possible before shifting it to mainspace.

An even more niche question, but I don't suppose you've got any photographs of Handmade burnished ware (probably displayed among late-dated pottery from Tiryns?) in your collection? No great shakes if not: there are a couple of images here for which I imagine we could make a good FUR if no free one exists. The only ones that come up on Google Images under CC licences are Roman Black Burnished Ware, and I don't think there are many people with the ceramic expertise to comb through unlabelled photographs to identify any from those. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No photos of the handmade pottery from Tiryns, I'm afraid. As for the article, I don't think I can be of much help. While I may be a font of nitpickery when it comes to subjects that I know something about, the Bronze Age and early Iron Age, with the exception of a few special topics, are mostly outside my competence, and I have only the most cursory familiarity with recent scholarship on the end of the BA. You are, I'm sure, much better informed about this than I am, and your knowledge is certainly more up-to-date. Like anyone in the field, I have my own poorly informed ideas about the strengths and weaknesses of some of the arguments, but none that I care to share publicly. The line between "sharing one's knowledge" and "being a blowhard" is a thin one; I try to stay on the right side of that line by commenting only when I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.

While I don't have anything to say about the content, I do have a couple of minor editorial observations based on a very quick and superficial reading of the article:

• "became, in the words of Édouard Will, 'a quasi-permanent temptation' in German intellectual culture". This is a memorable phrase, and when I read it, I immediately turned to the footnotes to see where Will said it. When I found that the note contains a reference not to Will but to someone else reporting Will's words, I was disappointed, and I can't believe I'm the only one who feels this way. Why should I have to jump through extra hoops to get my hands on Schnapp-Gourbeillon's article (the original publication in L'Histoire is behind a paywall; the reprint in Mossé's volume is not available online, as far as I can tell) when the quotation I care about is Will's? If he's important enough to namecheck, he should be important enough to cite. I see that note 80, another reference to Schnapp-Gourbeillon, cites both her essay and the man whose views she reports (De Sanctis). Can the same be done for Will here? (In the text, the full stop after Will's name should be a comma.)
• I'm not keen on the heading "Scholarly decline". I can think of a couple of different ways to understand those words, of which the most natural is "decline in [the quality of one's] scholarship" (e.g., "His three masterful volumes on ancient beehives, published in the 1930s and 40s, were revolutionary and justly praised, but his work after the war, coinciding with a period of ill health, showed signs of an unmistakable scholarly decline.") But the meaning in this article is something like "diminishing support among scholars", which is not, at least to me, a natural way to understand the phrase. Can a better heading be devised?
• In the first sentence of the section "Current views of the Late Bronze Age collapse", some words have dropped out after "from" (presumably northern or central Greece).

On a different topic, did you receive the email I sent you last week (Friday, 25 Oct) regarding the non-WP matter we discussed? Choliamb (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

All most wise -- would that we all would stay on the same side of the same line. I've made those changes (Schnapp-Gourbeillon didn't actually cite Will directly, but she included his book in a further reading section, and it was easy enough to source the quotation).

I did receive your email -- the reply had managed to get stuck in my Outbox! I've just sent it from another account: let me know if that hasn't got through and I'll try something else. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)