Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Recent templates

I am notifying you of recently-created templates {{Medea}}, {{Electra}} and {{Iphigenia}}. I also did {{Oedipus}} and {{Pygmalion navbox}} a few months ago. Feel free to comment, reorganize or revise. There are probably a few more forthcoming when I get a chance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

also feel free to help me determine proper categories for these templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

See also {{Dido and Aeneas}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Merging "First Latin War" into "Battle of Lake Regillus".

As recently discussed, another editor recently moved "Latin War" to "Second Latin War" and then created an article titled "First Latin War" consisting of a brief recapitulation of the Battle of Lake Regillus and the Foedus Cassianum, together with a pair of campaign boxes added to the battle and what's now entitled "Latin War (498 – 493 BC)." Now a proposal has been made to merge the two articles, which is opposed by said editor.

The "Latin War" article mentions no battles, campaigns, or actions other than the Battle of Lake Regillus, which would support the description of the period as some sort of extended war, but instead assumes that the treaty concluded by Cassius with the Latins several years later somehow marked its end. The campaign box names Cassius as the Roman "leader" in the war, although of course he held no more authority than any of the other consuls during the period, and doesn't seem to have led any campaigns or fought in any battles against the Latins. There are no citations in the article, and it contains no other material that isn't already included in "Battle of Lake Regillus" and "Foedus Cassianum."

The article is more-or-less a translation of an article from Spanish Wikipedia [1], and lists two sources: Herman Kinder y Werner Hilgemann (2003). Atlas histórico mundial. Tomo I. Madrid, Ediciones Istmo, S.A. pp. 79, and José Manuel Roldán (1987). Historia de Roma. Tomo I: La República Romana. Madrid: Ediciones Cátedra, S.A. pp. 90-91; 101-104. Having examined both sources I can understand how one could reasonably infer from the words, "498-493 Guerra latina" in Kinder & Hilgemann that there was "a war" during that period, but there isn't any detail there; the whole subsection contains only three sentences, two of which are concerned with subsequent alliances, and nowhere does it mention the Battle of Lake Regillus, the specific treaty concluded by Cassius, or any of the persons involved. So I don't believe that Kinder & Hilgemann can be called a significant source for the article. Roldán is even less supportive, since the single paragraph concerned with these events specifically states that (at least according to tradition) armed hostilities ended with the Battle of Lake Regillus; of the treaty it says only that it shows the battle to have been less decisive than tradition reports.

But neither of these sources seems to be good support for the assertion that a "state of war" existed from 498 to 493, or that the treaty of Cassius ended the war (the article on the treaty does mention ending a war, but no account of the treaty says that it did, and the article doesn't mention any conflicts occurring after the Battle of Lake Regillus). None of them describe Cassius as "the Roman leader" during the war. As far as I can tell, while it's perfectly reasonable to say that the Battle of Lake Regillus was part of the background for the treaty, there's no evidence that a war was carried on after the battle, or that Cassius played any role in it, or that war would have continued had the treaty not been made.

I don't see any support for the contention that there was a war between Rome and the Latin League consisting of anything other than the Battle of Lake Regillus, which provides a good background and pretty much everything about the conflict. Nor does there appear to be anything to connect the treaty with the battle, or any grounds to assert that the treaty was what ended a war beginning with the Battle of Lake Regillus. This being the case, I think that there doesn't need to be an article about this supposed war. I'm not sure whether a campaign box is appropriate, but I am sure that it makes no sense to describe Cassius as "the Roman leader." I'd like to see whether there's any agreement on these points before what might become a protracted conflict with the other editor. P Aculeius (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Colosseum

The Featured Picture of the day for 24th April is one of the Colosseum (see below). It can be expected that the article will get a lot of attention, but as it has been semi-protected since December 2010 there shouldn't be an increase in vandalism. With the increased attention I thought people here might want a heads up in case the project wants to give the article a once over. Nev1 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A panoramic view of the interior of the Colosseum in Rome, Italy. Built in the 1st century AD as a site for gladiatorial shows as well as a variety of other events, the Colosseum is now a major tourist attraction.Photo: Paolo Costa Baldi

Please help to improve the article "Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire"

I have left messages in various places around WP asking for help in a re-write of the (awful, in my opinion) article Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire and will be attempting a re-write over the next few weeks. I would appreciate any assistance from knowledgeable editors, it seems to me that working with others is a good way to achieve neutrality (but if I have to re-do it by myself, I will). Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Human–goat sexual intercourse - deletion discussion ongoing

• Human–goat sexual intercourse

Deletion discussion ongoing about whether or not this article page should exist.

Please see deletion discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human–goat sexual intercourse, if you wish to voice your opinion. — Cirt (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

WP Classical Greece and Rome in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Aesop

I have been contemplating creating {{Aesop}}, which would largely be a template about his fables. I am not sure about how to organize the template. Should I use Perry Index numbering or alphabetical? Should I include a section for Aesop's_Fables#Fables_wrongly_attributed_to_Aesop?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Being a grump, I suppose I would ask whether your questions might indicate a certain resistance of the material to disposition on a template. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Grumpington Bear! I think this would work and could be helpful, though it would be a very large template and I'd like to see how navigable it is once it includes all the pages Tony thinks it should. I would go with an alphabetical list because the Perry ordering reflects certain aspects of the fables' provenance that will likely not be the first concern of our audience. Alphabetical order, on the other hand, will naturally create stretches of the template that are thematically linked and allow the reader a better view of the corpus, at least what's on Wikipedia. The "apocryphal" items should definitely be in there: they're such a big part of the long story, and many readers who encounter your template on the bottom of the Aesop page will probably have been looking for an early modern fable and immediately see the tradition in which it was created and the fact that this tradition includes items that are nowhere near ancient.  davidiad { t } 15:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, if Mr. D is offering to help make these things happen in such good order, then that is all wonderful. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I have started building this template. How do I know when an article belongs in the "Apocrypha" category. E.g., many stories at Category:La Fontaine's Fables are on the list already. How can I confirm which other ones belong on the list.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

In the case of something like La Fontaine, I'd just stick a link to the article on the collection as you've done, though the "translations" section might be better titled "adaptations" and start with the ancient verse adapters of the fabulist's corpus, Babrius and Phaedrus. As for what would be included among the non-Aesopic or apocryphal fables, I think the only real way to go is what you're doing: finding pieces which have a Wikipedia article that states that the fable is often attributed to Aesop, but is unlikely or impossible to have belonged to the ancient corpus.  davidiad { t } 02:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, the writers mentioned in the second paragraph of this section should be in the template somewhere, as should the related Jataka and Panchatantra; I guess these last two belong in your "Related" section.  davidiad { t } 02:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Please step in and contribute your expertise to the template. Should Marcus Gheeraerts the Elder be in the template?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I am thinking that if we are going to include all of these other authors, then the template should be renamed {{Aesop's Fables}}. Comments?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That seems better, if it's about the fables and their tradition, and not the person. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur.  —Sowlos  13:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

O.K. so I have added a bunch of different translations and translators from this section and Aesop's Fables. This is why I was remiss about doing this template myself. How should this section be organized?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to think about this a bit this evening and tomorrow. I ran into similar issues when I decided to expand {{Homer}}—a project I abandoned this point. I probably can't do any deep thinking about this this evening, but will pop by the template to see where it is tomorrow.  davidiad { t } 22:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I am considering reverting this back to the version without all the extra authors and redlinked versions. Generally, I just use bluelinked topics for these types of templates. When articles are created they can be added back as blue links and I am not so sure all the authors belong.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:REDNOT suggests that redlinks not be placed in navboxes and most templates, since it defeats the purpose of providing gateways to other articles. You might keep a list of these somewhere, such as a user page, as articles you could create, or so you could add them to the template if they turn magically blue. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I'd go with your gut on going back to that prior state, Tony. There are ways to get the other related material in, but would require some thought since it deals with a variety of relationships (temporal, generic, medium etc.).  davidiad { t } 16:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted to the earlier version and deployed the template to all the linked articles except the apocryphal ones.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• I just noticed a few templates have a section for translators. I have added back all the translator blue links. How does it look?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it's a good idea to keep them (as blue links), and especially good because it brings in Phaedrus and Babrius. Also their numbers, as a separate register, don't detract from the template's navigability.  davidiad { t } 03:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Auto-assessing articles

(Citing a discussion on Cynwolfe's talkpage, any of your input is greatly appreciated.)

Hi Cynwolfe! As you know I am currently rating the unassessed articles in the Wikiproject Classical Greece & Rome. Following a number of additions from the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (see the bot log somewhere halfway down), I had the luminous idea of auto-assessing these "low importance" articles (as well as for example the "Legio ...", Milecastle, Classis, Cohors, "Battle of ..." and Lex articles). I think the TinucherianBot may be able to do this. The method could even be extended to articles in certain categories. What do you think about this? Bahnheckl (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I do know, and good for you. I don't do bots, though I adore luminous ideas. I can see why that list of papyri would wear a person down. I'm told somewhere above on this page that papyrologists, as it may be, are the most humane people on the planet, or at least superior to members of Congress, which is on second thought setting a very low bar. (Where was I?) So you're thinking that any individual legion, and especially all those bloody papyri, will automatically be low importance. Quite so. Don't tell Davidiad, though!

Joking aside: I thought that bot auto-assesses on the basis of preexisting ratings by other projects. What if there is no other banner? And doesn't the bot auto-rate quality on that basis as well? I'm ignorant of bots, so feel free to enlighten me. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually think most of those P.Oxy. articles should be deleted! Not notable and just dreadfully thrown together.  davidiad { t } 03:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest a merge as a list article, but that already exists, does it not? I turned a bunch of very stubby, poorly sources articles on Augustine's throng of little gods into lists and such. They made more sense in context, since most are just names he makes fun of (makes up in some cases?). Cynwolfe (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Merging (preserving information) is always preferable to deleting (destroying information).  —Sowlos  12:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Destroy! (exits stage left, pitchfork in one hand, torch in the other). I'll never formally try to delete them, or redirect them to a list, but they irk somethin' awful. davidiad { t } 22:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask the bot himself! Bahnheckl (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Being a Talk page stalker here, but as someone who's manually assessed nearly one-thousand articles (approximately 1/3 of my edit count), I would like to drop my two cents. It's very tedious work. So much so, I took a break from it for the past few months. Automation is a magnificent thing!
That being said, I believe Cynwolfe is right. I believe assessment bots tag articles based on other pre-existing assessments. Unfortunately, many banners over or under rate their articles' respective contents. Is TinucherianBot able to tag articles as bot-assessed or produce a list of the articles it assesses? Bot assessment would definitely help, but their work should be checked or at least sampled. :)  —Sowlos  23:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

As another stalker, I think most manual assessments are based almost entirely on article length, and without making any distinction between large & small topics. There is also a big question as to how much assessment produces useful results, ie does anyone act on the assessments to improve articles. In most projects I fear they do not. But it may be different round here. Johnbod (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

When the Women's History project started (which I've sadly neglected the last several months, thanks to getting sucked into the Roman Empire), we discussed auto-assessment at some length. One of the goals of the project was to integrate women's history into overview articles; one example at that time was the scarcity of women in American Old West, except for a passing reference to (of course) prostitutes. Some of us objected to auto-assessment for quality ratings especially, since an article might be well done otherwise while lacking relevant coverage of women—and identifying these deficiencies was the point. Since the only purpose of project importance ratings is to prioritize work (a C-class top-importance article is an embarrassment), those ratings need to be project-specific too. I fear I've infected Bahnheckl with one of my own concerns for most-visited articles. Although I don't think Spartacus is a more important topic than, oh, dozens of others I could name under the G&R aegis, last time I looked it had surpassed even Julius Caesar in popularity. So I do think we have an obligation to make sure these high-traffic articles aren't disasters, and traffic is one factor in prioritizing. I've been trying to concentrate on existing articles with more than 30,000 monthly visitors, though I find it more relaxing to write on obscure topics. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

How 'bout we move this to the project talk page... Bahnheckl (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a valid point. Though assessment should be based on fairly objective standards, the perspectives important to various WikiProjects are different. Therefore their ideas on what's complete coverage (a key concern in assessment) may be different. Also, many WikiProjects maintain their own varying standards for assessment.
I still think bot assessment can help. It can give us a general impression of the so far unassessed articles, which should still be confirmed by human observation.  —Sowlos  12:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

See also the related bot request. Bahnheckl (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Erm, ahem, didn't know my irrelevant jesting with the papyrologist would be moved to the project page. Couldn't we just have asked the question here? I'm not opposed to using the bot, and saw its utility with certain groups of articles. I'm unclear, however, about whether it can be deployed on just those categories, or whether it's unleashed on all unassessed articles with a G&R banner—for which I would not see much purpose, per Sowlos' last comment. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to follow one of B's links first: it seems the bot operator can customize it, so there's one obstacle out of the way. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

In response to the bot request, I'm thinking of adding the following:

Assess with "low importance" the articles that:

1. Are in WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome.

2. Currently missing importance rating.

3. Whose names begin with one of the following: "Papyrus Oxyrhynchus", "Legio " (that's with a space), "Milecastle", "Classis " (id.), "Cohors ", "Battle of ", "Lex ", "Arch of", "Pons "/"Pont "/"Ponte ", "Siege of " and "Aqua ". OR Names containing "bridge"/"Bridge" "fort"/"Fort" "villa"/"Villa" (as standalone words..)

4. It would be nice if the articles in this selection that exceed 10.000 pgviews/month would be rated "Mid", but this is optional. (I don't think there are any such articles in the set)"

What do you say? Bahnheckl (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't assume all battles are of low importance (Actium, Cannae, Carrhae, Milvian Bridge, Munda), though the ones that are of mid-importance are probably rated already. The same might be true of arches and leges. So that isn't an objection so much as a reservation. Wonder what would happen if we included "(mythology)"? I'm guessing the major deities are rated, and this would mainly effect Augustine's mob of little godlings and the million Greek nymphs. Via? Porta? May not be enough of those to matter. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

We could assume that, if these articles (Actium, etc.) hadn't been assessed yet, they would probably be on someone's watchlist (given their importance), in which case we would be likely to hear of our outrageous edits soon enough? Or we could put them there ourselves of course... About your suggestions: Porta has no entries and Via has only 1, but it was worth a shot. "(mythology)" however will do fine! See: List of all importance-unassessed articles. Do you think we're good to go? Bahnheckl (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Done! 430 articles assessed. Bahnheckl (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"I name myself the consul for 65 BC!"

This is an obvious anachronism, but the image of this is raised in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Catilinarian_Conspiracy by the following phrase: "Then they would name themselves the consuls for 65 BC". Could this be replaced by something closer to what somebody could actually have said? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.253.182 (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Possibly declare themselves consuls. But I don't see why you think it impossible; who voted for Marius' seventh consulship other than himself? (And the implied Latin verb is nominari) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing the objection is to the designation of the year 65BC instead of whatever AUC, i.e. that since "name themselves" sounds like it's going to introduce their own self-designation, 94.195.253.182 has found it jarring to find 1st c. BC Romans designating their service by our numbering of years. It reads correctly to me, though it would be equally clear if we wrote "for the year" there. Wareh (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Wareh, the objection is that the sentence reads as if Catiline were going to say, "I name myself consul for 65 BC!" apparently channeling Goscinny & Uderzo. Personally I'm not sure it should be read that way, but in any case it's easily remedied by rephrasing the sentence. But it's unlikely they would have referred to the year as anything "AUC", because while that designation did exist, most years were known by the names of their consuls (hence the phrase, "eponymous magistrates"). A bit like saying, "in the sixteenth year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth," or "during the first year of George Bush's second term." Actually, the Christian era works the same way; AD 30 is the thirtieth year in the era of Christ (which is why there's no "year 0"). I'm sure they used other methods of referring to years far enough back that nobody could remember who the consuls were without getting out the Almanaca Liber Mundi, but at least widespread use of "AUC" to designate the year is a modern fashion. I believe it would have been 689, but I'd check CIL to be sure. All that needs to be done is to rephrase the sentence so that it's clear that Catiline wasn't about to refer to "65 BC." P Aculeius (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Then for the following year If we're going to be itchy about such points, we should be sure that Varro had already invented AUC....(by our article he was 50, so probably.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Byzantine Empire#The intro sentence

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Byzantine Empire#The intro sentence.  —Sowlos  13:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the issue is opened at Talk:Byzantine Empire#Use/mention mismatch in title, again, which needs to be read first. DeCausa (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Really, this seems headed for the Lame Hall of Fame. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The National epics

I have just expanded {{Odyssey navbox}} and created {{Iliad navbox}} and {{Aeneid}}. I would love some help organizing and formatting these.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Odyssey navbox

An editor edited Template:Odyssey navbox by removing removing one book. I disagree with this edit. Opinions requested.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue is how inclusive this should be - should it include all fringe material relating to the Odyssey? Some? None? Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

My feeling is that a template becomes less useful if it contains too many links, and that this template has passed that point. Readers want quick links to the most important subtopics. This can include links to lists and index article pages that aim to be comprehensive. There are, for instance, way too many characters in the template (that could be reduced to major characters and a link to a list article that's more comprehensive). I would pull the Study section out of the middle of the fictional/creative reimaginings: from Film to Video games, I would greatly reduce all those by linking to list articles, even if the articles had to be created. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I asked for general feedback a few threads above. I have not studied either the Odyssey or the Iliad since the 1980s and never studied the Aeneid. I am still amazed that no one made a template for these before now. I am receptive to feedback that reflects consensus. If everyone wants to gut these templates, that is fine as long as it is consensus. The character list preexisted this template. If you look, you will see that I have transcluded Template:Characters in the Odyssey. Feel free to create lists. However, my purpose in creating a navbox is to create a single-glance single-click tool. Long list often require several glances (glance, scroll, repeat) and multiple clicks. Categories also require mulitple clicks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't feel that your efforts are being discouraged. I see what you're saying about the clicks, but my question is more whether anyone will read through all the links in order to click any one of them. There's no way to prove this one way or the other. I'm just trying to think through how a reader would use the template, and how best to serve that purpose. If I'm interested in looking at video games based on the Odyssey, I might not recognize all the individual games, nor want to focus on specific ones, nor know which one to click on unless I'm looking for a specific game. (If I'm looking for a specific game, then odds are I've typed the name of that game into the search field to find it.) I might benefit more in the template from a link that says Video games based on the Odyssey, where I get some kind of overview and a comprehensive list. The principle is stated at WP:NAVBOX: Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. I don't think your specific links fail the criteria that follow this statement—their number just raises issues of how the purpose of navboxes differs from lists or categories or indices. The creation of the templates is helpful. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

First, this discussion is suppose to be about a single link. You have ignored the topic and changed it to the topic above, which was general advice on this and two other similar templates. You have yet to answer the question for this discussion. Second, templates of list are not very common. I admit that this template may go a bit far afield from the main subject. Thus, there may be consensus to remove this link and similarly remote links. Feedback is welcome. I would prefer general comments in the discussion above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller posed the more general question of how inclusive the template was meant to be. I don't know how to exclude one link without understanding the general principles of inclusion. If you're aiming to be comprehensive rather than succinct, I'm not sure how to draw the line. Fringe theories have their own brand of notability, and if it doesn't meet notability requirements, the article shouldn't exist. So the question is ultimately whether a template should be comprehensive or limited. WP:NAVBOX suggests that nav templates aren't intended to be a comprehensive index of all possible related articles. This is where the question was posed, so this is where I attempted to learn how we can answer it. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I guess for that particular book it's a question of whether or not the navbox should include everything on Wikipedia related to the Odyssey or not. The book is only one of a gaggle of ridiculous "studies" that propose the Trojan saga and it's related myths are not Mediterranean. I wouldn't include it, but I think that it really does come down to the question of the template's scope, and I'm too busy right now to really give it significant thought. Though I will say that with these ancient epic navboxes it would be wise to clearly segregate the ancient and scholarly topics from modern adaptations and the like. Most readers who turn to Wikipedia for information about Homeric poetry will be trying to grasp a complex topic on its own terms, and sorting through the different registers of this template would not be the easiest process. Perhaps when I get the chance I'll sort out the Homer template as I'd envisioned last year and we can have a "Homeric poetry" navbox alongside "Reception of the Odyssey" and "Reception of the Iliad" navboxes that would include much of the material that you've organized.  davidiad { t } 17:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Having made hundreds of these cultural references templates for important works, this is the first time that an abundance of WP articles on related theories about the subject have showed up in my searches. Thus, I included them in the template. Yes it is highly unusual to see these in a template, but it is also highly unusual for articles to exist for them. If anyone wants to go through the templates and redesign them, I have no problem with that. What has happened is someone just yanked one academic/historical theory article out without resolving whether we should or should not be including them in these templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, welcome to classical studies: more than 2,000 years of stuff accumulating in the Attic. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on "Latin War (498–493 BC)"

Again, I appeal to the members of this project for some outside opinions on this article. As stated on the talk page for Latin War (498–493 BC), there is no evidence for an ongoing war between 498 and 493 BC. No ancient authority supports military operations beyond the Battle of Lake Regillus, which was a failed attempt by Lucius Tarquinius Superbus to regain the Roman kingdom, probably in 498, but according to some authorities in 496. There don't seem to have been any other battles, nor an expectation of other battles, nor is there any justification for describing Spurius Cassius Viscellinus as "the" Roman commander during this non-existent war, against unnamed Latin opponents, under unknown Latin commanders, with unknown results, not mentioned in any ancient histories. No ancient authorities state that the treaty between Rome and the Latins concluded by Cassius in 493 had anything to do with ending a war, or that Cassius led troops against the Latins then or at any other time.

This article simply infers the existence of a war from two events: the Battle of Lake Regillus, and the Foedus Cassianum. Evidently it's not the first time that's been done, but none of the increasingly large number of sources cited (most of them from web sites, and all of them giving only an overview of early Roman history) discuss how they arrived at such a conclusion or provide any evidence of additional engagements, military strategies, commanders, forces, or anything else. Without a single scholarly source that explains why the Battle of Lake Regillus is supposed to have been part of an ongoing war not mentioned by ancient historians, or why it concludes that the treaty of 493 marked the end of a war, I think we have to conclude that there isn't any evidence of such a war, and that this article shouldn't exist. P Aculeius (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I see two problems here. But as background, I do read the passage from Livy as implying a war: Consules Ser. Sulpicius M". Tullius; nihil dignum memoria actum; T. Aebutius deinde et C. Vetusius. His consulibus Fidenae obsessae, Crustumeria capta; Praeneste ab Latinis ad Romanos desciuit, nec ultra bellum Latinum, gliscens iam per aliquot annos, dilatum. A. Postumius dictator, T. Aebutius magister equitum, magnis copiis peditum equitumque profecti, ad lacum Regillum in agro Tusculano agmini hostium occurrerunt, et quia Tarquinios esse in exercitu Latinorum auditum est, sustineri ira non potuit quin extemplo confligerent. Ergo etiam proelium aliquanto quam cetera grauius atque atrocius fuit. Oatley2112, known for editorial sobriety, has pointed to Brill's New Pauly for validation (I can't actually see it online). So to me the two questions/problems are: (1) Is there sufficient info to differentiate Latin War (498–493 BC) and Battle of Lake Regillus? As they stand, the articles need to be merged, because they're nearly identical. Can Latin War (498–493 BC) be anything more than Battle of Lake Regillus + Foedus Cassianum? (2) Regardless of how one might read Livy, does the scholarship justify distinguishing this series of conflicts as a specific Latin War? I probably wouldn't be happy without CAH support for the term "First Latin War," and the relevant volume doesn't seem to use it. The current title gets around that problem somewhat. If the bit from Livy is really all we know of the series of conflicts, maybe it's just a paragraph of Background in the Battle of Lake Regillus article. Just structural thoughts. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

As usual, you see to the point much more clearly than I do. But from the Google Books snippet view of Brill's New Pauly, it doesn't appear that there are any other events, or even a starting date, as it begins the discussion immediately after the treaty with Carthage in 509 BC; and it also explicitly states that the Battle of Lake Regillus ended the war. Subsequent passages in Livy deny that open war existed in the aftermath of Lake Regillus, and the next mentions of the Latins, other than those which merely refer back to Lake Regillus, indicate that the Latins warned Rome about an impending Volscian invasion in 495, and appealed for Roman assistance against the Aequi in 494. Since both of these preceded the treaty of Cassius, I think it's impossible to state based on existing sources that the treaty ended a war between Rome and the Latins, or that there was an ongoing war at any point after Lake Regillus, and Brill's New Pauly agrees on that point, even if it suggests that war might have started at some uncertain time before the battle. For my part, I read the passage in Livy as distinguishing the other events of 499/498 from the Battle of Lake Regillus, which is all that he seems to refer to in a few later passages as the "Latin war." At least in the translation I looked at, the assertion that "war broke out with the Latins" followed the other events and directly preceded Lake Regillus. P Aculeius (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I posted a procedural proposal at the article talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ptolemy's Geography.British Islands: Alouion(Alwion? Alvion? Aljion?)&Iournia(Iwrnia? Ivrnia?) vs Albion&Ierne

See question-problem here. OK at the Albion and Hibernia articles one finds (don't know about the validity of these claims but I'm guessing they're valid, strong):
Q-Celtic name *Īweriū & Proto-Celtic * Alb-i̯en- .I.e. Glides w & j or anyway something like that;Greek usage of ου to stand for w- /enwiki/w/ (clasical Latin V)) is already known to me;but used also for Latin J (i.e glide-semivowel, consonantal I)?!?!? When at the same time as far as as I know Latin orthography-spelling of these words didn't have glides, i.e. Albion (ok i here might be a glide but the b isn't dropped), Hibernia (again the second i that might be a glide is irrelevant)?How about the H (-addition?) in the Latin spelling-form?Moreover are we sure that the ου in the two words in Greek isn't really just an ou, e.g. just a changed orthography & pronunciation? How about changes of β-b from sounding /b/ to sounding /v/? Etc etc etc.
So despite the Proto-, P-, Q- (or whatever) Celtic reconstruction above and all other stuff,I'm still not exactly sure what Ptolemy meant, if indeed this orthography is his and not of a later scribe-copist...Btw are there any other Geography editions that use in these words other letters-symbols instead of ουs? How about other writers of the period using ουs to spell these words?
You get the picture.So concluding and repeating the question(s):
what is the correct in this case transliteration of Ἰουρνία & Ἀλουίων? Is there in fact a correct one? And how would one exlpain in a article here these forms vs the Ablion-Ierne ones???Should one in fact even try to explain this or is it to hard or conjectural to do so?Are there any people here that really, really know their stuff on these issues??? Thanx! Thanatos|talk 23:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you restate the question more clearly, please? Are you asking for a method of rendering the Greek into Latin or into English? The Latin forms of these names are certainly Albion (or Albania) and Hibernia, although the Romans usually referred to the former as Britannia. If we assume that the Romans considered the Greek ου in these names as the equivalent of b, rather than uu, then I don't see the point of rendering them in Latin letters as Alouion and Iouernia. Just because i is the literal equivalent of iota doesn't mean that all words beginning with iota should be rendered with an i in Latin; context tells us that Greek script often ignored initial h in words and names, just as both we and the Romans usually transliterate ου as u. Here it's apparent that a different sound was being rendered, at least to Latin ears. Does rendering a "literal" version of the Greek risk confusing the reader? My thought would be simply to use the Greek and Latin forms as interchangeable, without presenting non-Latin transliterations of the Greek as if they were good Latin. P Aculeius (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you restate the question more clearly, please? Are you asking for a method of rendering the Greek into Latin or into English?
The case of ουs in this context is very special.If it were e.g. Latin names that we were dealing with, one might could as well transliterate using Vs.But that's not the case.It's a case of probable Celtic words getting into Greek, then into Latin, then possibly again entering Greek and/or Latin again from Celtic and interplaying between Greek and Latin and....
It would help to read the relevant articles to see what editors(including me) were trying to do in general.Warning: it's possibly a hot touchy issue(calling e.g. Ireland a British Island and claiming that it was also thus called in antiquity).

See for example here;

Earlier attested forms in Greek are Albion&Ierne while some (or at least 1) newer (in Ptolemy's Geography and at least in the edition I have before me on the screen) Alouion&Iournia (when tranliterating OYs as OUs).
At the same time as stated in the relative articles (Albion and Hibernia): Q-Celtic name *Īweriū & Proto-Celtic * Alb-i̯en-.
Does the Greek change (in Ptolemy's Geography) of forms reflect a change of Greek phonology or a retransmission of the more correct Celtic sounds-pronunciation of the words?If a retransmission how is it that other writers and especially Latin-Roman sources(at least as as I know) don't use them and don't change spelling to include the "more easily" available to them glides? Or how is then possible to possibly have a /enwiki/w/ in Alouion? How e.g. did the b get dropped?Based on cited Celtic forms how does the H in Latin Hibernia get justified? You said e.g. context tells us that Greek script often ignored initial h in words and names: it might be so but this is irrelevant cause in this case 1. it was the Romans that got the words from the Greeks (at least as per Pytheas' travels etc and at elast initially) 2.the Greeks at least initially as per sources didn't use a daseia 3. I don't see in the cited Celtic reconstruction-etymology of Ierne-Ireland an initial H.Simply no H there.

Trying to be more clear with the question(again please to read some of the relevant section in the linked to articles(go to the aforementioned talk page) to understand the issue(s) at hand;can' be more clear or analytic without repeating myself):
what do these specific ΟΥs in these two words represent(we could possibly go through all Geographias text and do the same for many other words but let's not do that... :) ; it's anyway 99.9999% Albion and Ierne that is being quoted here and of interest)? Real, simple OYs? Glides? If so which glide(s)? Something else? How should we then transliterate them?Just leave them as ΟΥs for example?How would we then justify it in the text when next to Albion&Ierne forms? How many different forms should there be used(moreover when one includes also Bs vs Ps, single vs double Ts, single vs double Ns)? During for example the last days while I was doing this work, I've encountered at the aforementioned articles Ws in Ierne-ia, Ierne without a W, I've encountered Ierne when the surviving text was Latin, Hibernia when the cited text was Greek, Albion when the cited text was the Geography (wherein I see OUs not Bs) etc etc etcThanatos|talk 01:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Could I ask what secondary sources you're working with? Both Albion and Hibernia are in desperate need of up-to-date sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources only (basically mostly what is and has been done about this topic, let's name it ancient toponymy of the British Islands(ATotBI), inside all these articles, is listing ancient sources and what they say about ATotBI) with just a snippet here and there of Snyder's The Britons pg.12 cause it's great,very handy as a synospis of most issues that are being covered;ancient Greek and Latin;added them en masse(mostly over the last few days), i.e provided references, with online links to books, texts etc, to the ancient authors that had already been mentioned, quoted, covered in the articles, added even more of them (authors) and corrected (as much as possible) errors, erroneous quotations, attributions, language etc...Thanatos|talk 03:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried Googling "snyper "the britons"" and I didn't find anything ...

Oh, it's OK, I saw a reference at Albion. It's "Snyder". No problem.

Coming to your questions, then, others can probably help you much more than I can, but I suggest keeping closely in mind the general Wikipedia policy: we only cite primary sources for what they say. We have to rely on secondary sources for all interpretation. That would include names found in ancient sources such as Ptolemy. We give the Greek: then we turn to secondary sources. Andrew Dalby 08:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

1.Snyper was obviously a typo;It's indeed Snyder.Sorry, mea culpa.

2.Yes I know about wikipedia's view on primary sources, though in this case one could argue that they really aresecondary or even tertiary...Yes I knew that someone would reply in this manner... :) To which I reply and close by 1.ok, so feel free to provide some; feel also free to fill all the relevant sections spread over many articles with content citing preferably 2ndary or 3ary modern sources on this arguably esoteric issue 2.by the phrase I used to close my initial entry here: Are there any people here that really, really know their stuff on these issues??? ;-) Thanatos|talk 10:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The secondary source I go to first (because I have it) is A. L. F. Rivet, Colin Smith, The Place-Names of Roman Britain (London: Batsford, 1979). On this specific issue, "Names for Britain" pp. 39-40; "Names for Ireland" (very brief) p. 40. One usual Wikipedia method, if there is dispute about the interpretation of the Greek in different secondary sources, would be to cite the Greek forms/transliterations given in one authoritative source, such as this one, and then to cite other serious secondary sources that disagree with it. Maybe Snyder is one such: I haven't seen that book. Andrew Dalby 11:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Don't have it , not available in Google Books or elsewhere online 2.OK so what does it say about Alouion vs Albion and Iouernia vs Ierne vs Hibernia? Or how it differs from Snyder's quoted passages etc? You have the book, why don't you tell us? 3.Since you want the articles to be based on this kind of sources then how about Prettanic vs Pretanic vs Brettanic vs Bretanic vs Bretannic vs Brettanike vs Britannia vs... Earliest attested date of the Graceo-Romans speaking about or knowing of the Br.Is. and the people thereon? How about Pytheas' travels? Orkas-Kantion-Belerion and triangular shape? 4.Feel free to do the work.It's only in minimum 10 articles (content&references).... :D 5.Ok I'm obviously kidding. If I were to guess I'd say that, chances are the content therein is like the one of Snyder's.Laconic, to the point but lacking in this topic and moving on to exploring other stuff.I'm guessing that in what it does say, it won't be that different from what has already been said and cited at the wikiarticles, and in what it doesn't, well...But would welcome anyone having my guess(-es) refuted and doing the rest of the very long hard work.Thanatos|talk 12:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I think what is perhaps confusing the OP is the spelling Iournia, which seems to be where the idea of a y glide is coming in. But most sources I've read have Iouernia, which would be transliterated into Latin as Ivernia. There's a theory that the influence of Latin hibernus, wintry, led from that to "Hibernia". Variation between w, v and b is not unsual, of course, and also explains the Alouion/Albion variation. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Checking this now.If so then certainly this would be my mistake that would require me fixing my edits and could be atribbuted to lack of sleep.Butanyway the biggest problem is as I've written before this: Alouion.Thanatos|talk 12:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

EDIT:MEA CULPA MEA CULPA MEA MAXIMA CULPA.You're correct!It's obviously Iouernia.As I myself had it edited in e.g. here!!!So please dirsegard this.Tracing back my steps this mistake-error seems to have entered my thoughts and writing whilst writing the initial call for expert help at the talk page here and henceforth followed along.P.S.But not a j-y glide:instead it's or it seems to be a V i.e. /enwiki/w/, at least as per cited Celtic at Hibernia.P.P.S.Yes I've also read about winter-wintry influencing the spelling.Thanatos|talk 12:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Contrinuing: OK now that my stupid mistake has been corrected let's return to the major problem; you've written:"and also explains w, v and b is not unsual, of course, and also explains the Alouion/Albion variation"

well sorry but the Celtic albion i.e. Alb-i̯en- seems to have a J glide (=consonantal Latin I) not a W(=consonantal Latin V) and these two glides differ.They're like or = to English glide y vs English glide w.P.S.Provided of course that the provided Celtic word-reconstructions-etymology at the relevant Wikipedia articles are correct.Have no idea if they indeed are.Not a linguist.Not a Celtist.Thanatos|talk 12:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If there's a y-glide in Albion, there's also one in Alouion, in the same position, represented by the same letter, i. The only difference between the two spellings is that one has a b where the other has a w, and as these are both labials it's not uncommon for them to vary, as I said. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

OK now I'm might be out of my league:The Iota in Greek (both modern and ancient) can be a semivowel i.e. = Latin J. Ok let's say that in ancient Greek and in Ptolemy's Geography the word was indeed pronounced Albi̯ōn (I hope I'm getting the symbolism right). No problem with that.What I can't understand is the transformation of the beta to a /enwiki/w/ (or the dropping of Beta and the interaddition of a W (or OY)), i.e. how did this Alwi̯ōn came to be(or anyway something like this, again don't know if I'm writting the symbolism right).E.g. Greek Beta sometime during the hellenistic-graeco-roman period changed from /b/ to /v/.Did it happen by passing first through /enwiki/w/??But even if it did happen, how come this, in Geography, "only" in this Celtic Word and why this Celtic word especially when in Celtic it didn't have a /enwiki/w/ glide but instead a J?Thanatos|talk 13:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

B, V and W are all labial consonants, and it is quite common for one to develop into another via a the processes like lenition (B softens to V, V softens to W), fortition (the exact opposite) and betacism (the specific form of lenition that affects the phoneme B). The Greek letter beta was pronounced like a B in ancient Greek, but like a V in modern Greek. The same process has happened in other languages. In Irish, when the letter b is mutatated to bh, it is pronounced like a V or a W. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Now you've messed up the linear flow... :) : Yes I know that it has happened to other languages too.But could you please provide ,if some other example of /b/ turning to /enwiki/w/ (or even /v/) in ancient Greek of this transitional period (and henceforth) specifically in Bs to OUs in the written form(so that it could be easily verified)? Still don't get the point? Basileus for example, may have had its sound changed to vasilefs (simplifying to total change to modern Greek and focusing only on important-relative parts) BUT it was then and is still written Basileus(again simplifying by not mentioning vasilias etc);can you provide an attested example of Basileus (or some other word) being written OYasileus during that period and onwards???? Bous -> Ouous? Boutyron -> Ououtyron?? Ballo -> OUallo? ProsBallo -> prosOUallo? Baino -> Ouaino? Barys to Ouarys... What you're invoking and claiming is a very general possibility, a very general phaenomenon which to my knowledge is, however well attested in the general sense, irrelevant and not attested in how words containing Bs in Greek since at least I'd say the archaic times are written.What I'm saying is that as far as as know, this special usage of OU in Greek in the (graeco-)roman period and onwards was strictly restricted to transliterations of Latin consonantal Vs!!E.g. Varus -> Ouaros. Do you get it? While what you're saying is that it was also used in writting words that previously had been spelled in Greek with a B because its sound changed(see the antiphasis??)!! Moreover that this may have happened not only(I've leaving a great deal of possibilities open as you can see) on e.g. epigraphical errors(wherein one usually finds attested in the orthographical errors the evidence of phonological change, e.g. using αι instead of ε and vice versa) but also in a famous work by a famous author!!!Thanatos|talk 17:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Neither Iouernia nor Alouion are Greek words - they are foreign words transliterated into Greek, just like Ouaros for Varus - so what you're asking for does not make sense. Ptolemy is not changing anything, he's doing his best to represent what these two foreign words sound like in Greek orthography. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

What you're claiming, as far as I know, makes no sense or is very far fetched in a really complex manner(and moreover based on it, I find it funny that some people would ascribe to me original research...;-)).The Celtic or "Celtic" word has a B.It had been written in Greek with a B.Also the glide in Celtic was a J not a V;the J glide in Greek was written as in Latin with a I(or (much) later as time passed by with a ΓΙ);Greek had symbols for both glides and used as far a I know ΟΥ only for transcribing V.

But I could or would gladly change my mind if some expert sources would be provided...

Imo what would make your case really plausible and make this whole discussion redundant is proving Latin sources (especially of this and older periods) spelling Albion as ALVION... ;-) Thanatos|talk 15:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I encourage Thanatos to review WP:OR, especially WP:PST. I dropped a note at the talk page of an editor who has solid expertise in Celtic studies and linguistics. I don't know that he'll choose to wade into this, but he is likely to have appropriate secondary sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

1.I have read them many times in the past thank you.The Celtist and his secondary sources can also certainly help, though it seems he may also need to be a Hellenist and also have secondary sources on this specific issue...
2.99.5% of the relevant work I've done is not original research;It's just correcting quotes, errors and creating references for already quoted ancient authors or after adding additional ancient authors and quoting them, following the exact same paradigm, adding again references in the same way.I would also strongly encourage you to read all ten linked to and edited by me articles on this issue.Even if 50% of what I have done were original research then it would be a 1000fold improvement on the state the (sections of the) articles were in...Go look at the edit history...Could you please tell me e.g. who this Isadorus Charactacenis is and why is there no reference (at Albion)? Or could you provide me a link to Massaliote Periplus that keeps (or kept) being directly quoted all over the place-articles? Citing-invoking supposed WP:OR,WP:PST or whatever when the state of some articles (or at least parts of them) is a clearly misleading or utterly wrong mess seems hardly justified to me...Having an abundance of referenced primary sources especially when one is just listing authors and how they called places and people seems 1000fold better to me than having no references at all and/or being full of half-truths or totally erroneous-wrong statements....Thanatos|talk 13:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Isidore of Charax. Andrew Dalby 13:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I know.Thank you.I've already written that it's probable him here.The question was of a higher order-level of abstraction, let's say rhetorical... ;-) P.S.I'm keep having these @%@#% edit conflicts!!!Could you people please allow me to express my thoughts in full before messing with my edits?!?!? :p Thanatos|talk 13:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been out buying a lawn-mower, came back, saw your question, answered it. The way to avoid that is not to ask questions :)

Now I'll ask one. What's the source for the form Ἀλουίων? Andrew Dalby 14:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

1.Ok then,since we're having fun,why did you answer the question when it hadn't been directed to you??? ;-)

2.Ptolemy's Geography.Must have said this 1000 times by now...See e.g. the one I've provided as a reference:

Claudius Ptolemy (1843). "index of book II". In Nobbe, Carolus Fridericus Augustus. Claudii Ptolemaei Geographia. vol.1. Leipzig: sumptibus et typis Caroli Tauchnitii. p. 59.Thanatos|talk 14:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If you post questions here at the project talk page, you can expect anybody who watches the page to answer. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You've missed the having fun part, the smilies part, the part that I've asked you may times to read the edits and the articles I've told you about and moreover replying yourself to the question.So could you please yourself reply?Again let me warn you, I already know the probable answer, it's a question of a higher level of abstraction, if you get what I mean... Or alternatively we can stop this and focus instead on the issue at hand... ;-) Thanatos|talk 15:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Albion is not a Celtic word, it belongs to the so called Mediterranean substrate. In fact this word is to be found in many parts of western Europe and beyond: its meaning is uncertain. It may have denoted mountains and valleys, then rivers, fortified places etc. at different times and places. Albion was the name of the highest mountain in the Eastern Alps (Strabo). Alp too may be just another form of Alb. in Spain there are forms such Alawa, Alawon, Alagon, Aragon, Alaba, Alba etc. Also we find many Albula mounts and rivers in Switzerland and Italy.

I have researched this topic a bit, using Italian and Spanish scholarship. Italian linguists were the first to study in depth place names and their distribution and possible origin. V. Bertoldi, F. Ribezzo, C. Battisti, G. Alessio etc. who studied with Austrian Meyer Lubke at the end of nineteenth cent. Many of Alessio's works are online and if you can read Italian you will find plenty of interesting material and new perspectives. In his article on the name of Brindisi he gives plenty of info about all the brent- of Europe, Britain included: simply from deer, i.e. deer's head and horns, for the shape. Not a Celtic word either. The most common Med. roots are mal-, mat/med-, vel-, tul-, garg-, kapr-/k(e)rp, penn-/pinn-, pal-/pol- all meaning rock or mount or ravine. E. g. in Belgium Malmedy, Montmedy, German Malmünd same. In Italian Magliana, Meduno, anc. Medullia Maleventum, etc. Spanish Medulas. In Belgium Sambre, in Italy Sambro, rivers (the so called ancient Eur. hydronymy), hundreds of cases.

For your topic it may be interesting: Ullapool where the first U is reflecting a spirant affricate, from Volas Sinus (Ουόλας κόλπος), precisely that of Latin volaemum, a species of pear (Cato Agr. 7; Verg. Georg. II 88), Volaminia (always Alessio's genius). Seen in the Carmen Saliare Lucia Volaminia (Varro LL IX 61)(in John the Lydian Βάρρος!). Probably meaning in the curved shape of a sickle, thence good, abundant, Latin vola.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC) I wish to add that I think the original form was probably a w, then it changed to v and v to b. This happened in Spain where the most anc. f. att. is Alawa. Then the a fell lw changed to v, then to b. So now in Basque we have albarico a steep slope in Italy Albaro place name of a hill. But in other areas and different times the process may be the opposite as in the instance of Ullapool.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC) It is an issue similar to that of the voiced aspirates in Italic. E.g. in Oscan and Umbrian one finds Tifernus = Lat. Tiberius. It is highly probable the Oscan "f" was not our voiceless spirant but it was voiced and sounded like our "v". See Stuart Mill's book online. The rules and problems of IE phonology though cannot apply to substrate words, at least in the stage in which they were not used by Indoeuropean speakers.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Au contraire. Though not uncontested, the dominant view is that Albion is most likely a Celtic word, as Wolfgang Meid has shown:[2] it's related to the Celtic name Albiorix. It's among the words, however, that show the close relationship of Celtic to the Italic languages. I'm away from my other source now, but it shares the PIE root of Latin albus. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Even if the word weren't Celtic per se, it would make no great difference;what's imo really significant is its original form which judging from most attested oldest Greek and Latin sources seems to me that to have been Albi̯ōn or Albiōn or something like that;BUT an expert's view on this would help greatly.

"(Varro LL IX 61) in John the Lydian Βάρρος!" doesn't also surpise me much cause it's from a much later period.In modern Greek for example we casually transcribe-transliterate Latin(and more) V with a Beta.In other words in later times I think that although OΥ for V still survived, B started being also increasingly used(I guess when both Beta and Latin V had wholly turned into sounding /v/??).P.S.As far as I know we don't have exact chronologies of the sound shifts.What is usually contrasted is Classic vs Late Antiquity,Medieval and Modern with Hellenistic (and Roman) times being a transitional period of great change;though of course this is a simplification cause all periods were or are thought of as transitional up to a point.... Thanatos|talk 15:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Albion was a Celtic n-stem (see "Nasal Stems" in the Proto-Celtic language wiki) and the Brittonic form of the name would have been nominative singular *Albiiū (whence Old Welsh elbid, Modern Welsh elfydd "world"), genitive singular *Albiionos. Celtic n-stems were normally Latinized and Hellenized in antiquity as their cognate 3rd declension –ō and -ών stems, respectively. Ptolemy's Αλουιων is likely due to a copyist's error (he probably utilized a Latin source in which the name was mistakenly written *Aluion; alternately, he - or his source - might have become accustomed to correcting Vulgar Latin -b- for -u- and committed a hypercorrection by thinking that Albion was a mistake for *Aluion). Cagwinn (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That would make great sense!!!Can a source-reference be provided for it?It would be great to have a source specifically on this exact word, specifically in Ptolemy's Geographia, so that people wouldn't object by invoking WP:OR-original research...

P.S.As I've said above(before realising that you had commented and hence before reading your comment Cagwinn), one thing that could instantly resolve this discussion is finding Latin (or even more Greek) sources reading ALVIO-N as the Romans were now ruling-controlling (access to and knowledge of) the West (along with the Hellenistic East).Thanatos|talk 16:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Kenneth Jackson, Language and history in early Britain, Edinburgh, 1953, p. 35: "The Greek β had become a bilabial [b] in pronunciation before Ptolemy's day, and consequently the Celtic [ṷ], a similar though not identical sound, is often spelt with β, as in Βερουβιουμ = Verubium, Κορναβιοι for Cornavii. In Άλουιων for Albion the reverse error is found."; Archibald Black Scott, The Pictish Nation, Its People & Its Church, T. N. Foulis, 1918, p. 6: "Ptolemy's spelling (c. 127) is Alouion, due, very likely, to a copyist's error." I'm sure Rivet & Smith, Place Names of Roman Britain, also discuss this, but I have misplaced my copy of the book. For the Celtic etymology of Albion, see: John T. Koch, 'New Thoughts on Albion, Iernē, and the Pretanic Isles (Part One)', Proceedings of the Harvard Celtic Colloquium, Vol. 6, (1986), pp. 1-28.Cagwinn (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I bow to you, ὦ Μέγιστε!!!
P.S.-EDIT-ADDENDUM: I have or could find no access, physical or online(e.g. at google books), the latter being the more important-grave, to these books.I could, in due time, just copy from you here and add an explanation & references of the Ἀλουίων-Alwion spelling at e.g. Britain_(placename)#The_record, but I really think that it would be much better and proper if you, or some other person with such direct access and knowledge(despite your claim at your talk page that you can't understand what the whole discussion here is about), would be the one who edits them in (also Iouernia; see e.g. Hibernia).Thanatos|talk 17:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, he's the best. Until you can look over the bibliography, you might in the meantime find some use (as succinct explanation or for citation) in the entries for Albion and Hibernia in the Celtic Culture encyclopedia, edited by the aforementioned Koch (the entries were contributed by Koch with Philip Freeman). Cynwolfe (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless and until Google Books and much more importantly the Internet Archive or Open Library (or other here to remain unnamed sites...) upload these books, I won't be able to look over this bibiliography, ever.But thanks for suggesting the Celtic Encyclopedia (though searching therein -using the Google Books search function- for the *****ου***** forms -accented or not, about either Abion or Ierne, etc- leads to "No results found in this book for...").Also thanks for bringing in the Celtic experts... :) We now have real modern references.Thanatos|talk 19:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Some quotes regarding the etymology of Albion from John T. Koch, 'New Thoughts on Albion, Iernē, and the Pretanic Isles (Part One)', Proceedings of the Harvard Celtic Colloquium, Vol. 6, (1986), pp. 1-28.

P. 1: '*Albiju: gives Welsh elfydd "the world," and may derive from an Indo-Eurpean root meaning "white". It survives in M[iddle]Ir[ish] as Albu, Alba, signifying both the whole of Britain and, more specifically, Pictland, later scotland -- i.e. Britain north of the Forth.'

P. 3-4: 'Plainly elfydd does not mean the whole of the universe, nor even what we would call the earth. It excludes...the lower atmospheric air or sky...wind,...sea, and it sits above the Un-world or Annwfyn (<*an-dubno-), which is clearly enough in the Welsh tradition, the subterranean realm of the old pagan gods. Elfydd is where the trees and flowers grow. It is that part to which dynion "human beings" belong, In all the old examples it is the surface of the dry land which is meant. Elfydd cannot be "white" ([Proto-Indo-European] *albho-) in contradistinction to the atmosphere or sky above, but surely so in contrast to the gloomy underworld below.' Cagwinn (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

In case it's still useful -- (1) Kenneth H. Jackson, Language and History in Early Britain has become available here at hathitrust. I'm not sure why -- I don't believe it can be PD -- but I'm not asking any questions. Thanks for making me search, Thanatos.

(2) I don't think Rivet & Smith, Place Names of Roman Britain, can be found on the Web. For what it's worth, I don't find any mention in that book of the form Alouion. Andrew Dalby 11:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course the general public and Indoeuropeanist academics are not happy when it is shown to them that their own ethnonym, place names etc. are not of IE origin. This is true in Spain and Italy too, where recently there is an attempt, already failed in my view, to prove that all place names are IE and Celtic. But this fact, though likely to stir up long controversies, is in my view proven beyond doubt. Among many other arguments the law of the greater area or of side areas (also known as Bartoli's law) leaves no chances that Albion, Britain etc. are a Celtic word. I have researched the topic of European toponymy and just reading Strabo, Ptolemy, the Itenerarium Antonini etc. will give everyone who is not prejudiced certainty thereof. It is very simple: when you find a word spread over an area greater than its synoyms of IE origin it means it is the more ancient form. Now Albion is to be found in Latium (Alba Longa) in Liguria (Albion Ingaunum, now Albenga, Albion Intemelium, now Ventimiglia), on the Alps (Albion Oros in the Julian Alps: Strabo). In the Balkans we have Albania, Albona-Labin in Histria (=in Latium Alba and Labicum). In Spain I have already written above one finds Alawa as the most ancient form, certainly Basque. Hubschmid ("Lenguas no indoeuropeas: testimonios romanicos" in Enciclopedia Linguistica Hispanica t. I Madrid 1960 p. 480) believes from Alaba which originated the province name of Alava and ancient Alauwna in the Basque Country. Corresondences in in Alava Oviedo and Alaveiro> Aveiro in Portugal and Alabos a river in Sicily and Alebus near Elche (Avienus) and Alagon formerly named Alavon. Cf. Liburni, Libarna all related to rock. Albula: there are 4 rivers in Italy named A. one of them being the anc. name of the Tiber. In Switzerland the Albula is a mountain massif and a river too. So the original meaning of this word was rock, mount, but in time it came to be associated with rivers too. To state that Albion is related to Lat. albus white looks plainly ridiculous. The same phenomenon we see in aran, valley, but also mountain, river etc. In Spain we have a valley named Aran Valley. Aran is one of the Hebrides too. Aranos>in Italy Arno. One would also benefit from a glance to Krahe's tables on the river names. Sometimes being confronted with a heavy amount of evidence of place names and of the nature of their suffixations, i.e. word formation, opens one's mind. Seeing them as IE looks purely phantastic. Vennemann has shown this language was agglutinative. In fact the problem of Indoeuropeanists is that they focus attention on the study of one word in a limited context and avoid taking into account whether this word is to be found elsewhere and what its history, phonetic changes, suffixations and lastly likely meaning could have been.

Coming to brendos, word denoting the deer (all are agreed on this as it is attested by ancient sources: Hesichios: brendon elaphos; Stephanos of Byz.: brention para' Messapiois ee tou elaphou kephalee'; Isid. Orig. XV I 49 ff.: Brundisium quod Brunda caput cervi dicitur, quod et cornua videantur et caput et lingua in positione ipsius urbis; Ennius: brunda caput cervi veteres dixere coloni) toponyms, ethnonyms and phytonyms from all over Europe and Asia Minor confirm that the word is not IE, (Alessio's examples) 1) for the frequent presence of Anarian suffixes (Brentesion/ Brundisium, Brintesia river of Veneto, now Brenta, Brentista, Cypr. brenthis/brentix a sort of lattuce, old Chiavennese brentallum with characteristic Ligurian genitive, Brentani, Frentānī, Prettanoi', Bruttātēs, Tusc. brentine; 2) most typical Medit. phonetical uncertainties found in relics, as the evolution of -nt to -nd or -nth in the Aegean area, the labial quality of the preconsonantic nasal (Brentioi/ Brettioi), the vicissitude of e/i (or the evolution of e into i, when followed by -nt, a marker of substrate in Albanian and Rumanian) whence the dark undistinguished vowel rendered as u (brendo/brunda) and morever the evolution voiced> voiceless> aspirate> spirant of the Tyrrhenic area (Frento, Frentani, frõns=fronda). Cf. also Tyrrhenic suffix -entum versus Aegean -inthos e.g. menta, minthē. The homophonous IE theme found in Greek brenthos, pride, brenthuomai , I sweel up, may have caused this fixation of the brenth- type in the Aegean area.

Derived ethnonyms: Brentioi (Dion. Perieg. 362, cf. Brentioi: ethnos en Italiai Hesichius) commonly known as Brettioi, Bruttioi, Brouttioi, in Lat. Bruttii, Brittii, Bruttiani or Bruttiates (Ennius) whence the name of the ager Brittius or Bruttium, Brettia (Polybius I 56), probably so named after a totem animal, the deer. To them correspond in Umbrain territory the Foro-brentani, in the Picenic area, to the north of the river Frento, now Fortore, the Frentani.

Same structure in the name of the Prettanoi' (Diod. V 21, 28; Strabo II 75, 117; IV 200) or Brettanoi', in Lat. Britanni or Brittanni, also as Brittones (Juv. XV 124) cf. Neoceltic Prytein, who gave their name to the Brettia (St. Byz.) or Brentia, Britannia or Brittannia. A tribe was named Carvetii (CIL VII 325) Celtic for deer from *carvos=Lat. cervus with suffix -etii like Helvetii.

In conclusion one can say that it is impossible to answer the questions posed by historical liguistics with a limited perspective. To render the idea of the issue at hands I shall use Alessio's own example: it is like saying that camelus is a Latin word. While this is correct it is also obviously wrong, since we know camelus derives from words of Near Eastern languages denoting the animal camel. Aldrasto11 (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

What risks getting totally lost here in a hurricane of possibly but not certainly related words, names, and hypothetical derivations scattered across more authors and works than you can shake a stick at, is that Albion and Hibernia are the usual names for these islands, as rendered in Latin, corresponding to the Greek forms of the names, which in some sources appear to have been hypercorrected by replacing β with ου to produce forms such as Αλουιων and Ιουερνια. And that's probably all the article needs to say, unless you want to note briefly that "Albion" may be connected with or influenced by the same root as Latin albus, meaning white, and that some early linguists connected "Hibernia" with the root of the word for "winter", which is probably a case of false etymology. Loading down the articles with numerous variations and hypothetical roots from other languages, proposed languages, proposed roots, and theories about pre-Indo-European linguistic substrata will simply confuse the reader, and if you want to discuss these in more detail, a separate article discussing each name might be a better choice; or at least, put these thoughts into a footnote that readers can access at will, and skim past if they don't want to get stuck in the minutiae, and want to get to the next section. P Aculeius (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur. Cagwinn (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to those who commented. I am aware of the need of being concise in an article. Just wish to remark two things. Meid , Koch etc. go for white, but in all likelihood the word did not mean white. It meant elevated place, mount etc. I think we can say it with certainty for two reasons.

1.The word has been used to denote places or objects which are not at all white. Alba Longa: the Alban hills are of a bluish grey colour. The Albula = Tiber is yellow (flavus). In Germany the Elbe too is not white. The Alps are not white (except the highest peaks when snowed).

2. Albona-Labin: this is one of the lucky cases in which we have a translation of the word we are investigating into another language. While Albona is a case of alb- + suffix denoting a town (Verona, Arona, Arrabona etc.), or more precisely a site on/above something else, its Croatian correspondent word is Labin. Now this is commonly acknowledged as a case of the lip/lib/lep/lap Med. word meaning rock. In Latium we have Alba Longa and not too far away Labicum, town destroyed by the Romans in 418 BC, gave its name to the Via Labicana: it was located on a steep hill (probably Montecompatri). We meet also the Lepini Montes, the Lipari Island, Libarna, a settlement located among steep mounts in Liguria and ethnonym Liburni, people who lived in a rocky region not far from Albona. Another way to prove that Labin means rocky place (it is in fact) is considering Lat. words lepis hare and French lapin rabbit: French received the substrate word through another medium than Lat., but the word is clearly the same, meaning animal who likes living among rocks.

A last remark from Giese's review of Hubschmid's book Sardische Studien Bern 1953: "A Celtic word can be considered of IE source only if it is known its parent word in other IE languages. Some Preceltic words have been diffused by means of Gallic. In the Celtic languages of the islands there are Preceltic elements taken up from the Preceltic dwellers (esp. in Irish); it is though important to acknowledge that the respective Celtic peoples may have borrowed words when they were still living on the continent, and that these may be common with Gallic."Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding Koch's etymology (also accepted by X. Delamarre, Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise, 2003, p. 37-38). The root is Proto-Indo-European "white", but semantically it has developed in Celtic into "clear, visible" in the Proto-Celtic derivative *albiio-, "that which is apparent/visible", i.e. the visible world (as opposed to the invisible world, i.e. the underworld, land of the dead/gods). You won't find many Celticists today who think that Albion is a non-Celtic word; its Celticity is widely accepted. We don't know how Alba Longa got it's name; ancient folk etymology accepts that it was a "long and white" town, but whose to say, really? Perhaps, as in the case of Celtic *windos "white", Latin alba could also, by extension, mean "fair, bright, holy"? Albus/alba definitely had a secondary meaning of propitious in Latin. Cagwinn (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am aware Celticists are trying to explain everything with Celtic and IE, in Spain and Italy too. As I wrote above I think they have already failed. And going on to the extreme conclusions the castle of their imaginations will crumble. Clearly philosophic and religious speculations do not belong in good linguistics. But that may have been a much later interpretation of a word inherited from earlier dwellers, which was no longer understood in its original meaning. The case of Britain was made more tangled because in fact it looks white to people coming by sea from the continent. On the other hand it is also true that it looks an elevated land, high above the sea. That said it is simple enough to pile up instances in which Albion does not mean white even in cases of words found in Celtic or celticized areas, such as the case of Ligurian Albion Ingaunum/Intemelium I cited. Here the word obviously means town, oppidum: the semantic shift from white to oppidum is difficult, while that from elevated place, mountain to oppidum is easy as in early times towns were usually built on such sites.

As for Alba Longa the easier/more logical explanation is that this is a plural neutre: in fact (as testified by archaelogy) it was made up by several settlements scattered along the summits of the Alban Hills as the attribute Longa implies too.

But as I said the lucky case of Albona/Labin allows us to arrive to a clear decision as it supports definitely the interpretation of alb- as elevated, mountainous area. So does Labicum as a parallel to Alba L. I would also add the case of Albania that agrees very well with the meaning of rocky, elevated area and not at all with that of white or clear, visible. Now many of these instances come from places outside areas settled by Celts. Is not this a furhter proof that in Celtic the word is a loanword? In time it may have been reinterpreted along the Celtic religious ideas, as contemporary Celticists still are doing. But saying this is the real story of the word is a petitio principii.Aldrasto11 (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

But this is an argument of the sort we call OR on Wikipedia. The weight of secondary sources presented so far supports the Celtic origin. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Cynwolf's usual and typical reaction when confronted with overwhelming evidence. Claim of OR. Nothing I have written here is OR. It is all published by highly authoritative scholars, even if they may no longer be so visible in fashionable academic circles. Please just read more carefully and attentively what I contribute. Also refer to the passage from Giese's review of Hubschmid's book which I made the effort of translating here above. Read it with more attention, please.

I will add this excerpt concerning hydronym Alagon (formerly Alavon, year 1118): "We are dealing with a very ancient toponym; with sufficient certainty we can put it back at the time of the last glaciation, 8000-9000 years ago, when in Europe a language previous to the appearence of the IE languages was spoken, as Sanchez Salor remarks (E. S. S. "Extremadua y los nombres de sus lugares" Boletin de la Real Academia de Extremadura de las Letras y las Artes t. X Caceres 1999 p. 109). Moreover the word integrates a Praeindoeur. root *AL-/*AR- which is compatible with the said antiquity and able to convey a double meaning to become a oronym-hydronym: at the same time it designates the highland in which the river originates,..., the proper name Alagon hints too to the flowing waters that crossed the lands of the ancient ethnos who first named it with this appellative: river of the highlands or river of the mountain." F. J. Casillas Antunez "Los hidronimos prerromanos Alagon y Arrago" Alcantara 65 2006 p. 65.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Before you start attacking some of our most experienced editors and telling them that they haven't been paying attention to your arguments, perhaps you should review precisely what constitutes original research. You're trying to take a bunch of sources that discuss words other than the two names at issue, and extrapolating the point you want to make about those names from what they have said about other words or names. Stated differently, you're synthesizing your own conclusions for this article. The article space needs to be limited to what can be reasonably derived from sources that actually discuss these names; it can't be turned into an extended debate over possible relationships to other hypothetical roots and their meanings, with editors giving their own opinions as to which ones are correct. That's the definition of original research. P Aculeius (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No I am not attacking anybody, the opposite is true. It is correct to give readers all the interpretations of a word etymology and certainly that Albion means elevated land etc. is soundly founded and widely supported in scholarship. Neither am I trying to use what has been written about (supposedly) other words. But to limit discussion only to albion, this is a word that is found as such in Strabo: Albion Intemelium where it means oppidum I. and Albion Oros, mount of the Eastern Alps (none of these can be interpreted as meaning white). Unless you wish to argue that the Albion that designates Britain is another word, which would be an assumption difficult to prove. Strabo also states that the Alps were formerly known as Alb-. Nowadays Alpe means highland in Italian and Portuguese.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You are completely ignoring the fact that Brittonic *albii- survives as a common noun in Modern Welsh elfydd meaning "world, earth, land, country, district, neighborhood" (with no connotation of "elevation"). Cagwinn (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Neither to white (unless the religious speculations are brought in). And the semantic shift from highland to world, earth, land, country...is easy in a mountainous place such as Wales.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Aldrasto11 says"I am aware Celticists are trying to explain everything with Celtic and IE, in Spain and Italy too", but of course this is a completely ridiculous statement without any basis in fact. Linguistics is a science and professional Celticists use the scientific method in determining the possible linguistic affiliation of place names. If a name appears non-Celtic and/or non-Indo-European (by the criteria used to make such an assessment), then it is labeled as such.Cagwinn (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. Celticists themselves have chosen to do so. I would love to see them being a bit less overbearing and more objective, but this is a trend. As such it will end. I will give two instances: F. Villar at Salamanca and M. Borghi at Genova. The last wrote a book in two volumes in which he explains all the toponyms of Lombardy with Celtic. How can one even consider a work of this sort? The toponyms of Lombardy have many cases of substrate words, some very typical too. But I do not wish to bring in another issue.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You can stand by it all you like, but your position is clearly based on ignorance. Lombardy was anciently settled by numerous Celtic tribes - that is not supposition, but a fact. The notion that these tribes gave names in their own language to the places in which they lived is not controversial in the slightest. Cagwinn (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Doctissimi, is this conversation still going on? It seems to have served much of its purpose and run much of its course.  davidiad { t } 23:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

My intention was and is to end this conversation here, and I accept Davidiad's advice. This being the Anglophone WK though, I owe it to readers: 1) at least a citation: G. Alessio "Sul nome di Brindisi" p. 219 n. 33: "The name of the Island, formerly known as Albion, from Medit. alba highland..." in Archivio Storico Pugliese 1955 VIII 3. p. 211-238. 2) I must reassure them that I do not ignore Lombardy was settled (also, and lastly, before the Romans) by Celtic tribes and these gave many names to the places they settled in their own language. I will not comment further on my last interlocutor's competence in the field of toponymy, what he wrote here above gives a fairly clear measure in and by itself.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, yes, it does: he's in possession of the scholarship and isn't using Wikipedia as a soapbox for constructing his own arguments. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)