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. ETA the article did have a 'main article = Fas' tag, but that just pointed to a dab page that doesn't list an entry on the topic, so I've removed the template.

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]

Agreed on all counts. Haploidavey (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comfortable doing the add-ins, but I'm reluctant to start shifting another author's content out to its own article.

Me too. I'll post Aldrasto a message. Haploidavey (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to agree in general with the comments of Elen and Davey. I think this could be an extremely valuable page, but should be more like an index or survey. That is, each entry should only be a paragraph, very clear and basic, linking to main articles. If the term is usefully and adequately dealt with in a single paragraph, however, then this page will serve as a reference for those that don't need a separate article — but might also cause digressions in other articles to explain them fully. In other words, I see these as functioning somewhat in the manner of Bill Thayer's SMIGRA index pages; for an example, see here — except that even the linked terms would each get a paragraph summarizing the main article. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned that some potentially good articles, such as mundus (one I've had my eye on), will get off to an irretrievably chaotic start if simply hurled out of a hastily done entry. Maybe I just think this because I know it would take me a month of focused work to produce even a modestly thorough and well-organized article on mundus. I'm not convinced of the value of throwing out a bunch of undigested ingredients just to say 'there, I did that.' I think it's better to have a clear and simple stub of a couple of paragraphs than too much confusing text that represents a collection of information rather than a clearly structure overview. I find the longer entries here to be hard to read and follow, even though I know the subject matter; how then will they appear to the casual visitor? Also, foreign language sources (to which I am not at all opposed!) are relied on too often when English sources are widely available on the topic, even online. I do think that English Wikipedia has an obligation to present the state of Anglophone scholarship, with intelligent reference of course to international scholarship. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we all agree on Cyn's observations here. The longer articles in the list (and some others to which it links) will benefit from thorough attention to their structure and readability, rather than the addition of more material. That might be less intrusively done elsewhere (perhaps on a user-page); we all seem to agree on the development of the list itself as a clutch of stubs. Aldrasto acknowledges difficulties with his organisation of material and is OK with its rewriting. That's a positive and collegial attitude. But I've never yet been able to re-write anything using sources not available to me. It can be utterly exhausting and lately - life being short and all that - I find myself less willing to try. Instead, I do the research and represent the scholarship as best I can. I'm willing to do what I can with the presentation and re-organisation, but like Cyn, "I do think that English Wikipedia has an obligation to present the state of Anglophone scholarship, with intelligent reference of course to international scholarship." (Unlike her, I'm a shameless plagiarist of well-constructed comments). Haploidavey (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think the aim here has to be to produce a summary - no more than a couple of paragraphs. If it starts exceeding that, then it's time to start building an article in someone's sandbox. And I know what you mean about the rewrite thing - and I agree with Cyn about Anglophone sources. There's enough English language information out there that could be added, not to have to rely on Italian sources.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to everybody for the interest in the article I started and the critical observations.

I am a very inexperienced editor and I did this work basing it on some material that looked practically usable and at the same scientifically sound and well referenced.

The fact the sources I used are in some entries mainly Italian is casual: as I said I found these works, which are available on google pdf, to be handy and fitting to write part of this vocabulary.

Moreover I decided to use them because they are largely based on primary sources and I believe the work of a lexicopgrapher cannot leave aside the most exhaustive analysis of such sources. I think I do a service to readers by providing relevant quotations. However this job must strike a balance between presentation of sources and readability. I appreciate that the fact I did not use Anglophone sources seems unappropriate to Wiki.en, also for the convenience of readers. Everybody is welcome to contribute to the article directly or indirectly. I would also appreciate that the editors who have suggested the use and stated the availabilty of English language sources leave me a note: til now I have not found works that deal with the specific lexical items or issues to be treated here, apart from A.S. Berger dictionary of Roman law and A. A. Schiller's book on 'Mechanisms of development of Roman Law'. There are very good works such as the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, the etymological dictionaries of Scheid and Ernout but they are not available on line. When possible I quote Skeat's Etymological dictionary which was a very good work of Victorian Britain, as the dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquitites, which has many very good entries, although sometimes outdated in details.Aldrasto (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need the following? It seemed to be hanging (in augurales libri) with no context and for no particular reason:

'Everything unjust, nefas, faulty might the augur say, it shall be non-ritual and impure; everyone who will not appear (in court) shall be liable of a capital crime'. Haploidavey (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Have re-instated the above as summary as per Aldrasto's message on my talk. Haploidavey (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Also the following: we're English wikipedia. We can assume that most readers come here to read about these particular Latin words - namely, those offered in the alphabetical order list - in clear and concise English. Can we please keep the Latin to a useful minimum in the main body of text? Haploidavey (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and shall do my best to be more concise. I thought of quotations as a help to illustrate the matter, but I aknowledge I have been too longwinded in some entries.

Lexicography is perhaps one of the most difficult tasks as you are confronted with a quantity of information you must select and of course you are afraid of leaving important information out.

At the end of all the discussion I decided I shall stop editing til I have found better tools by myself or by other editors's contribution.Aldrasto (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't stop editing! I don't think anyone wants that. But editing is not the same as merely placing undigested content on a page. I wonder whether you would consider the following steps:

1. Add content to this page only on a need-to-know basis for now; that is, if an article elsewhere uses a term that could benefit from a lexicographical entry here, provide it in the form of a single succinct summary paragraph.
2. Treat this page as a kind of index or list page; Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so your use of the word "lexicography" raises questions for me. You can't expect to turn this article into what would be a book-length "Dictionary of Terminology of Ancient Roman Religion." The value of this article (to my mind) is the capacity for cross-referencing to other articles, and for defining terms that wouldn't sustain development as a separate article, or terms that lack an article at present.
3. Use your editing time in a focused way. Choose one preexisting entry here to work with according to the suggestions on this talk page. It may take one or two weeks just to have an entry on templum that serves the purpose — because you'd probably need concurrently to develop an independent article on templum as well; the vocabulary item here should only be a paragraph. An article on templum would require at least six English sources to do properly; by "English sources," I don't mean English translations of primary sources. I mean you need to read more Anglophone scholarship as a model for how to present the subject matter.
4. My concern finally is that you're taking on too much at once. The article Leges regiae, for instance, still needs major work. (Since the structural and methodological problems of that article infect this one as well, my comments apply to both.) Most paragraphs in Leges regiae consist of a single sentence. This is a sure sign that an article is a mere accumulation of data, and not an organized presentation as a series of developed topics. It still doesn't incorporate enough English sources; if you have command of the subject matter primarily from reading Italian sources, it should be a fairly easy matter to use Google Books to look for Anglophone scholarship that deals with the same subject matter. For leges regiae, you can start here; in particular, look for anything titled Cambridge Ancient History. I also recommend Lintott's Constitution of the Roman Republic as a good model for how to write clear English on these arcane topics.

Speaking of which, a more focused, slow, methodical approach might improve sentences like the following (from leges regiae):

According to the content of fragments found in Pomponius and other authors on the subject, they were deliberation both of the curiae and of the senate which were approved by the rex with the support of the pontiff.

I have no idea what this means — and it's the first sentence of a subheaded section. There's no antecedent for "they". And how can "they" plural, whatever they are, = "deliberation," a singular abstract noun? "According to the content of fragments" seems to mean simply "According to fragments", but these are "found" in Pomponius et al., so are they fragments of other legal authorities? Fragments of the leges themselves? These "authors on the subject" — what "subject" are we talking about? There's an awful lot of this kind of writing. I can't follow it. I don't know what it's trying to say. That's why I'm advocating focus and quality, rather than mere quantity.

Most Wikipedia articles on Roman law suffer from archaic diction and tortuous syntax, as they seem to have been lifted from some 19th-century source, and the subject matter not that well understood by the editor. So at a quick glance, I haven't found one to recommend as a model. Nexum is not bad, though, so you might take a look at that. Best wishes, Cynwolfe (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and the links. I think I would have to do a lot of reading. It is fine if the works are available pdf, but frankly spending hours reading on the screen and writing down notes will be a very tiring and time consuming job.

As for the sentence you mention I agree there is a mistake as it should read deliberations in the plural, or 'a' deliberation, ie an act of deliberation however its meaning is clear enough. It is obvious the sentence refers to the leges regiae, that we are talking about them, that the fragments are fragments that directly or not contain their statuitions and since the quality of the sources is left undefinite they may come from souces of whatsoever kind. If one reads the article he shall see that many of these fragments are to be found in historians such as Plutarch, Dionysius of Hal., Livy...

I agree that the writing style is poor however it is a big improvement in comparison to the Italian version I translated.

As for the single sentences and the apparent disorganisation I can agree only in part. The author has to make a choice whether writing an essay by choosing instances that he includes into a structured exposition or giving the reader the complete set of information available. As I said above for this article too I believe it is best first to give readers all the primary sources available compatibly with the length allowed here, and leave the interpretations afterwards. But I do not know whether this is accepted in wikipedia. If we just write on the interpretations of scholars, without giving readers the basic information on which every serious scholar must work I do not know whether we do the reader the best service.

Since I am straying too much from the topic here I would just like to hint to the fact that as scholarly works are countless every nutty idea may find its way to these pages on such grounds.

I do not wish to sound polemic but just pose a question for which me too I have no a clear answer.Aldrasto (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here, I think, is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Its content - for a scholarly article - is intended to be a summary of the present state of scholarship. The difficulty here is the inclusion of a great deal of primary material without much interpretive text which is sourced to good secondary sources. Might I suggest as a model some of the excellent featured articles of the Military History project such as Battle of Cannae and Third Servile War which face the same issue of presenting information for which the primary sources are fragmentary, non-English, and open to multiple and disputed interpretation. You are right about the risk of nutty ideas - the solution is to amass reliable scholarship.

According to the content of fragments found in Pomponius and other authors on the subject, they were deliberation both of the curiae and of the senate which were approved by the rex with the support of the pontiff.

...Should probably be rewritten as (delete where appropriate)

A few/several/numerous Roman authors, chiefly/most notably Pomponius,include fragments of the Leges Regiae in their own writing. Examination of these shows that they includethe deliberations of both the curia and the senate, and that these deliberations were approved by the rex with the support of the pontiff(add secondary source which supports this assertion) Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]