Talk:Glossary of ancient Roman religion: Difference between revisions

Mythology Unassessed

This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I couldn't resist it! The list seems thorough - so many red-links! I think each entry should offer a brief summary and context. I'll be happy to help with expression, just to make things as clear and simple as possible for the benefit of the average reader (whoever she is); for example, what's a theonim? - it needs saying, but in English, this is theonym. You might check some of the redlinks using a different case - I seem to remember that Italian and English language scholarship can differ in this. I can't do so myself as I've no Latin (I'm learning, but in fits and starts, and slowly). I've put this page on my watch-list, so I'll respond (in time) to any queries here. Haploidavey (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A notice requesting the deletion of this article was speedily declined by an administrator. The deletion may have been requested because currently, templum redirects to Roman Temple; but a "templum" is not the same thing as "a Roman Temple". It's a sacred space, created by augur. Every Roman temple was once a templum; not every templum was a Roman Temple. Roman Temple should probably deal with this (and other matters), but doesn't. So the redirect is inappropriate and the Templum entry in this article serves a useful purpose. Haploidavey (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was indeed what caught me out. In which case, do you want to repoint Templum to here? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, I don't know how to do that; it would be much appreciated. Haploidavey (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so. You could do with putting the A-Z section into a table - it looks a bit of a dog the way it is currently displayed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll see if I can get some help with that; it's an unruly pup... Haploidavey (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sections seem to have been copied directly from other wikipedia articles. This violates the attribution rights of their contributors unless {{copied}} is used to indicate each such source article and the relevant edits. (Indeed in its current state the article is technically a copyvio.) DES ^(talk) 02:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the creator of this article (who's also by far its main contributor) has contributed similar material elsewhere: so I suppose I'm saying that I don't really see this as copy-vio. Much of it's far too detailed and technical for the single general-readership overview article Religion in ancient Rome, and is more usefully elaborated here than elsewhere – especially when there is no "elsewhere" but duplication is of course pointless. The current format's not right; DES' suggested merge might work. Dunno really. The material itself needs quite drastic tightening; and might benefit from reliance on less contentious scholarship but these are separate issues. Haploidavey (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick PS to DES: I might have misunderstood you: do you mean the entries are straight translations from a non-enwikipedia? Haploidavey (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I mean that at least some of the content is copied from other articels on en-wikipedia. That is fine if the copying is properly acknowledged -- the normal way is by using the {{copied}} template, although other ways are possible. But it is not acceptable to just copy text from another Wikipedia article with no indication of source. If there are copies from other projects, i don't know of them. DES ^(talk) 15:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had found direct copies of some of the sections from some of the articles linked in the upper list. But I can't confirm that now. I think i must have been mistaken. Perhaps i was fooled by a redirect sending me back to compare text with itself. In any case, what I said of this being a technical copyvio now seems to be incorrect. DES ^(talk) 15:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not taking part in the discussion til now. I have been busy editing. Nothing in the article is copied from Wikipedia. I created the article because I think Wikipedia does not deal with the topic I present and discuss it in a systematic way. I think I give here to the interested reader a thorough presentation of the topics while in existing Wikipedia articles they are unspecifically dealt with. In many instances: compare sacer, sanctus etc. I also quote always the sources and they are mostly Italian authors or Dumezil.Aldrasto (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you see, I thought it was all copied, which was why I tagged it for A10, but at least where Templum is concerned, that isn't true. DES could perhaps point to a couple - if you copy from one Wikipedia article to another, under the terms of the license, you must credit the other article so the history is traceable. The layout needs a serious think, but that's another problem. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that if a person does assemble content from multiple other articles into a co-ordinated larger summary article, or an article that treats the same content from a different poitn of view, i don't think WP:CSD#A10 applies. There was a recent discussion of this on WT:CSD. DES ^(talk) 15:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a survey article or annotated list, the discussions of the terms should probably be reduced to short summaries with links to the relevant articles where fuller information is given. Moreover, having two lists, one of bare links and one of content is confusing, thes should IMO be merged. DES ^(talk) 02:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An list of short summaries would be useful. Some terms (see my previous above) probably require new articles. Haploidavey (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've split this into two sections, as the attribution needs to be dealt with urgently and definitively, while the organisation is something to discuss. What I would do is

• structure the article as one list, so the table of contents covers the navigation
• have a couple of sentences on every topic, with a link to other articles if there is one
• split lengthy content out and either create a new article or else find an existing article that the content ought to be in.

So you would get

Aardvark

Desert animal sometimes thought to represent the deity Set.

Isis

Major Egyptian deity, wife of Osiris, mother of Horus. Famed in legend for searching for her husband's body after it had been dismembered by his brother Set. Also tutelary deity along with Neith Selkis and Nephthys, believed to protect the body of the deceased in the tomb.

Does this make sense? Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely, and thanks for the example. See my previous, near-edit-conflict response above. By the way, I've posted the various concerns expressed here (plus a couple more) on the article creator's talk. Haploidavey (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is more or less the sort of organization i had in mind. DES ^(talk) 15:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article needs a lead-in paragraph. DES, you seem to have removed even the one sentence that was there - is this because you don't think it needs a lede, or just because it got lost in the move round? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was not intentional on my part -- I'm not sure just how it happened. i have restored the previous lead section with the exception of the Wikipedia self-reference. Since many of the entries at present are not "brief" i have removed the statement that they are. DES ^(talk) 17:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear English reader, I am translating all the Latin quotations into English. I have almost finished. I apologize for the inconvenience. Of course some texts are almost impossible to translate because they are mutile or their meaning is still obscure, as in the case of the passage of Cicero De Legibus 2, 21. However I did my best to try and give an insight into its main meaning.

I also apologize for the repetitons and some inconsistence of the entry fas as I edited it in two differernt times/steps using two different sources which are not totally at odds but have some minor differences. I shall make an effort to overcome the problem.

Just a note from one of those English readers: not a problem. If you attribute different interpretations to their sources, you're doing just what a wikipedia editor ought to do. Haploidavey (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have translated almost everything and made alterations to the article on fas to make it readable without the impression of repetitions and changes in the line of thought. The section on signa and prodigia could be split into minor entries, I do not know. I hope the additions to libri augurales is welcome by the readers. I shall edit on the pontificales soon with a discussion of the indigitamenta.Aldrasto (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're breeding, and in triads! Aldrasto, I didn't want to remove any, as I don't know which is your most recent version. I've disambiguated elsewhere, and removed links that have no target article. (But have left red-links). Haploidavey (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry for not solving the problem myself, I am clumsy.

The first is the old version, the last two are identical. This incident was due to loss of session data.

Today I finished libri pontificales and wrote sacramentum.Aldrasto (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. I'll just remove the first templum and one of the duplicates. Haploidavey (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has now hit 153k, so is heading towards 'too long'. I can see five entries that are moving towards the 'long enough for an article of their own' category - in addition, Fas already has an article, so should not have the lengthy entry here. I'd move the content in Fas around, but I'm not confident in my knowledge of the subject.

At the same time, it would benefit the article if the topics that are just linked to a main article had a one or two sentence summary of their meaning, for the benefit of folks who start here looking for 'the right word for...', as well as those who have the word and are looking for its meaning. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]