Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome

WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 20 May 2013.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45

This page has archives. Sections older than 22 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Remove "____ equivalent" fields from Template:Infobox deity?

What do editors think of the idea of removing the "____ equivalent" fields (eg. "Greek_equivalent", "Norse_equivalent", "Hinduism_equivalent", etc.) from Template:Infobox deity? Input at Template talk:Infobox deity would be appreciated. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Zagreus § Source for "In popular culture" section

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Zagreus § Source for "In popular culture" section. This is a follow up to the 2021 RfC which established sources used in the subsection & is focused on if these sources should be replaced. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interested?

Greetings everyone!

I noticed that WikiProject Rome has been marked as inactive. Is anyone interested in reviving this project? If interested - please leave a notice on my talk page so we can contribute to it together. Cheers The AP (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it's inactive because most editors who work on Roman topics also contribute at least occasionally to Greek topics, and vice-versa, so this is where you'll find the most activity by classical scholars/enthusiasts. P Aculeius (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do the volunteers of this WikiProject cover the Roman Republic and Empire? Because as far as I can see, only Ancient Rome is covered. The AP (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was conceived as covering the whole history of the city up to modern times, but never really took off. It's redundant to this here and the Wikiproject Italy. We have far too many Wikiprojects, & successful revivals are vanishingly rare. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you're using "ancient Rome" here, but editors here work on Roman topics from prehistory to Byzantine times, taking in history, geography, literature, mythology, etc. Some of us have specific focuses; for instance I mainly work on Roman gentes, with a secondary interest in onomastics, but I contribute to history, biographical, and mythological articles (mainly Greek) and weigh in other topics that appear in this project's article alerts. And occasionally I dabble in other areas of Wikipedia that interest me for one reason or another. What would make things more difficult is if they only appeared in article alerts for Greece or Rome, but not for this project; and following all three might become tedious. But perhaps that's how other editors work best. P Aculeius (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm not so happy about how the projects are set up here, for example does this Classical Greece and Rome project also include Byzantine history which is often way into the Middle Ages? Does it include the Minoan civilization which certainly wasn't "classic" history and arguably not really "Greek"/"Hellenic"? What about other bronze age civilisations in the Mediterranean? Does this project include stuff on the pre-history of the city of Rome? What about the city of Rome during the Middle Ages and modern times?★Trekker (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not - certainly these hardly ever come up here. Some have their own projects - Ancient Egypt for example. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The community of people who work on the topic of ancient/classical Greece and Rome is small. Further subdivision would make it difficult to collaborate, form consensus, etc. If this was 19th century Germany or something and we had 100 editors patrolling this page whose entire lives are devoted to researching just Roman republican prosopography, further subdivision would probably be justifiable (if not necessary). Ifly6 (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Siege of Gythium

Siege of Gythium has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 18:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classicists and Renaissance Classicists

Hi there, can I ask to what extent you regard Classicists and in particular Renaissance and early Modern Classicists as within scope of this project? For example, Petrarch, or perhaps Erasmus? I ask because there can be a need to bring people who know Latin into conversation about these Latinists, but of course, not all Latinists are primarily Classicists, or remembered as such. Jim Killock (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These topics come up in our article alerts (or at least some do), so I would imagine it's fine to include them. I can see no disadvantage to suggesting that any topic touching on classical Greece or Rome can be counted as part of this project; nobody is obliged to work on a particular article just because they're active in a related WikiProject. P Aculeius (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll do this where I notice, then, thank you. Jim Killock (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mother of Lucan

A new article Atilla (mother of Lucan) has been created, but I'm a bit uncertain on her name, some sources seem to refer to her as Acilia or Acilia Lucana instead of Atilla. Does anyone know which is prefered by modern scholard? ★Trekker (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might already have this, but PW has her under "Acilius", No. 59, which reads:

59) Acilia, Tochter von Nr. 48, Mutter des Dichters M. Annaeus Lucanus, vita Lucani bei Suet. ed. Reiff. 76. Bei der Verschwörung des Piso im J. 65 in den Process ihres Sohnes verwickelt. Tac. ann. XV 56. 71.

Which Google Translate renders as:

59) Acilia, daughter of No. 48, mother of the poet M. Annaeus Lucanus, vita Lucani in Suet. ed. Reiff. 76. Involved in the trial of her son during the conspiracy of Piso in 65. Tac. ann. XV 56. 71.

As for Acilius No. 48: "48) Acilius Lucanus, Rhetor uns Sachwalter von Ruf in Corduba, Vater der Acilia (Nr. 59), vita Lucani bei Suet. ed. Reiff. 76.", which translates as "48) Acilius Lucanus, rhetorician and lawyer of repute in Corduba, father of Acilia (No. 59), vita Lucani in Suet. ed. Reiff. 76."

So really just Suetonius and Tacitus, but evidently Suetonius does not give her name. The Loeb edition of Annales on Lacus Curtius gives her name as Acilia on both occurrences; this translation is from 1937.

I also found an inscription that may have a bearing on it. From Corduba, dated to the reigns of Augustus or Tiberius, AE 2005, 827: "Valeriae T(iti) f(iliae) / Lu[ca]ni / d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) // Aciliae L(uci) f(iliae) / P(ubli) Aemili Silonis / d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)". We can only speculate on whether these are relatives of Lucan's, but the fact that these names are found together at Corduba during this period seems to indicate that Acilia is probably the correct reading. I might also cite alternative forms, but I'd give Acilia first, and possibly footnote the others. P Aculeius (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any modern scholarship to call her "Atilla"; she is "Acilia" in e.g. Martindale 1984, "The Politician Lucan", WIlson 1990, "The Death of Lucan", and in Brill's Companion to Lucan. Stephen Dando-Collins, who is cited in the article and does call her Atilla, is neither an academic historian or a classicist by training. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article now and cleaned up links.★Trekker (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Roman command structure during First Mithridatic War

I saw this when looking about re a rewrite I've been planning for some time on the First Mithridatic War.

I've nominated Roman command structure during First Mithridatic War at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman command structure during First Mithridatic War. It's far too specific a topic and reliant on original research. Some portions could probably be merged (evidently back into) First Mithridatic War. Also note that there was a previous discussion here in 2022. Ifly6 (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Battle of Thermopylae

Battle of Thermopylae has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]