User talk:Caeciliusinhorto

Archives (Index)

1 2 3

Your GA nomination of Midnight poem

The article Midnight poem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Midnight poem for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your message! I haven't finished yet - there's quite a lot more to add, but it's a start! I was actually editing (but failed to tag appropriately) as part of the WCC project on improving representation of Women Classical Scholars (project here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Women's_Classical_Committee) - it sounds like you might be interested in what we've been doing, so if you ever fancy joining us, we have monthly online sessions at which you'd be very welcome! KateCook (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Theoris of Lemnos

On 26 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Theoris of Lemnos, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the prosecution of Theoris of Lemnos is the most detailed account of a witch trial to survive from Classical Greece? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Theoris of Lemnos. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Theoris of Lemnos), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Redirect linking

You are correct.

While previously I had directly linked to the section that spoke of the authorship of the work that the article was speaking about. This link was changed by another editor.

When I linked to go past the redirect I failed to have it go directly to the section. Therefore, it is not covered by the standard I was thinking of which is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Piped_links_and_redirects_to_sections_of_articles .

Upon review, as the section on authorship of the linked article is at the top. I concede that there is no need for the section to be directly linked to. --Wowaconia (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

In light of the above, I have reversed my link edit on the article about the 411 coup. --Wowaconia (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sappho 16

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sappho 16 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sappho 16

The article Sappho 16 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sappho 16 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Astronomica FAN

Hello! I hope everything is well. Several months ago, you provided some helpful suggestions to improve the article Astronomica that I was working on. Well, since then, I've put in a lot of work into it and am currently nominating it at FAC. I was wondering if you would be willing to look over the article as it is and maybe leave some comments on the FA nomination page? I would really appreciate it. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Pluto

Okay, Caeciliusinhorto, if that’s your real name, so the reference to Plato has nothing to do with the development of the story of Sappho-as-what-ever-you-said, but the section is, after all, titled “ancient reputation”, and Plato is “celebrity casting”, and he’s willing to add some star power to your paragraph and he won’t charge you a penny. I’m not saying that Dioscorides, and Antipater of Sidon are anything to sneeze at, but … you get my point. So okay, I confess! I was the one that stuck the Plato non sequitur in there, thinking you could figure out what to do with it. You coulda just hit the paragraph button and given him a paragraph all to his own. Voila! Problem solved! Actually … don’t. Ignore all of the above, and do what you want. You’re doing a great job with the article, and I enjoy following your edits, I hope you don’t mind. And I’ll keep my two cents to myself from now on. So there. Yours truly, Handthrown (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Handthrown: I don't mind at all, and I certainly don't want you to keep your two cents to yourself! Though I am by far the most active editor on the various articles on Sappho and her works, I don't own them, and I'm certainly not infalliable: I always appreciate seeing what others think should and shouldn't be in the articles I watch, even when I disagree with them.

I absolutely agree that Plato has name-recognition amongst non-classicists that makes him a valuable person to reference in discussions on the ancient reception of Sappho (and, indeed, pretty much anything else in ancient Greece). However, he doesn't quite seem to fit where you put him, and I haven't quite worked out where he does fit. Looking into it, I see that Dimitrios Yatromanolakis has a little to say about Plato and the Phaedrus in Sappho in the Making; the line is also mentioned by Ellen Greene in "Sappho, Foucault, and Women's Erotics". Perhaps the answer is to try to work up another paragraph on Sappho's influence on ancient conceptions of love, but apart from that Plato quote I don't think that I have any material off-hand that fits in it. Any ideas? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Caeciliusinhorto, for the thoughtful response. I may not just now have any ideas about what to do with Plato, just non sequiturs. But if I come up with something I will let you know. It means a lot that Plato mentioned her, though would it've killed him to give us little more than he did? I don't think so. The story in this article is astounding, and it’s so good that it’s getting such great attention from you. There is one edit I’d be tempted to make: The lead section ends with “three epigrams attributed to her are preserved, but these are in fact Hellenistic imitations.”, but I think it should instead end with something like: “three epigrams attributed to her are preserved, but these epigrams are in fact not by Sappho, but are later Hellenistic imitations of her”. I don’t know. I have to think about it. Handthrown (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It means a lot that Plato mentioned her, though would it've killed him to give us little more than he did? the eternal curse of the classicist! we never know as much as we would like.

three epigrams attributed to her are preserved, but these are in fact Hellenistic imitations I bet that's my wording; I have a bad habit of writing excessively compressed sentences. I'm sure it could be improved. Something like "though three epigrams attributed to Sappho are preserved, they are later Hellenistic imitations of her style rather than authentic poems by her", perhaps? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes! The edit you suggest is excellent. Handthrown (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

women in Classical Athens
... you were recipient no. 1440 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Sappho

It does discuss Sappho if you scroll down to the bottom of the page and the next page. Garfield7380 (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I see now that it does discuss Sappho. Given that its only mention of Sappho is to say that she was a lesbian, which a) has historically been a major question in studies of Sappho, and consequently there are an abundance of works by actual specialists addressing the question, b) given that it predates Wilamowitz, is essentially irrelevant to modern scholarship on the issue, and c) modern scholarship is increasingly tending towards "this is the Wrong Question", I don't see that the article is missing anything by not citing it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Your help desk response

It is actually possible for people not logged in to create articles either through The Article Wizard or Draft Space.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Athena Promachos

The reference #9 is too vague (couldn't find any related publication). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowprophet (talk • contribs) 07:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cowprophet: the paper is "A Methodological Inquiry: The Great Bronze Athena by Pheidias" which is already cited at n.2. Giving the full citation on first occurence and a shortened citation thereafter is perfectly common as a citation practice in the classics. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

In that case, and if you would like, please fix the reference to point to #2 instead.