Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Mythology categories

Participants here may be interested in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style; the thread is currently titled Should we generally prefer romanizations over non-Latin script in running text?. NebY (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mark Antony#Requested move 30 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

== Greco-Roman world vs Classical antiquity ==

I am considering proposing merging :Category:Greco-Roman world to :Category:Classical antiquity, as they seem to have largely overlapping scope, both contain :Category:Ancient Greece + :Category:Ancient Rome as their key components. Do you have any thoughts on this? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC) (signed later)

:{{ping|Marcocapelle}} you didn't sign your post. For background, Marcocapelle proposed this in 2016 and it was agreed, however :Category:Greco-Roman world was recreated from redirect in 2022. TSventon (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:* Thank you for refreshing my memory. Then I'll put it on WP:CFD right away. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

A move request has been opened to rename the article Latium Adjectum to Latium adiectum to reflect Wikipedia's style guidelines for Latin terms and scholarly usage. Input from members of this project would be appreciated:

See discussion here: Requested move 7 April 2025 Vineviz (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassius Longinus may be of interest. PamD 08:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

A Talk:Church Fathers#Requested move 11 April 2025 to lowercase Church Fathers is in progress and may be of interest to editors of this WikiProject. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated Augustus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I occasionally see editors changing our orthography in the hope of making it more authentic, e.g. from Senatus Populusque Romanus to Senatvs Popvlvsqve Romanvs or even SENATVS POPVLVSQVE ROMANVS. Do we have a clear guideline somewhere to which I can refer them? MOS:LATINORTHOGRAPHY doesn't work yet. NebY (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not aware of one, but I think there's a strong consensus in this project against treating Latin in Wikipedia as though it were literally carved in stone. Monumental inscriptions may choose to emulate authentic Roman practice, but nobody else does, unless perhaps possibly in transcriptions, and even those usually follow modern conventions for distinguishing 'u' and 'v'. The use of all caps seems as unnecessary as leaving out spaces. I'm loath to tell people what they must do, much less create a rule from which exceptions might be rare or difficult to justify, but the example you describe seems pointlessly formalistic, even pedantic. It's not how Latin, even Classical Latin, is normally written today. I would revert such changes unless there's some obvious reason why they might be helpful to readers. P Aculeius (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Writing about art, I always follow the normal practice in art history of just copying the forms inscriptions use, then translating (as in Montalto Reliquary, on DYK today - though I see I have a "U"). Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::I note you're giving a literal transcription there, not turning a common Latin phrase into an inscription. That would be an obvious reason for typing it as-is—that's the whole point of doing it. And at least in the example, nobody's changed the u's into v's. P Aculeius (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::It's only been in mainspace for a few days! I see the actual inscription does use "V" rather than "U", but I cut'n paste from an RS that didn't. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think it's fine as-is. The policy Caecilius pointed to makes an explicit point of mentioning this situation. Giving the literal inscription from the object is different from turning non-epigraphic Latin into something resembling epigraphy on Wikipedia. Even though a well-known phrase may occur in epigraphy, if no particular inscription is being quoted or described when someone puts it in an article or an infobox, there's no reason to use all caps or merge v and u into a single letter just because the Romans didn't distinguish them typographically. P Aculeius (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::MOS:ALLCAPS is relevant: it permits reproducing inscriptions verbatim {{tq|when it is contextually useful}} but generally recommends "transliterating" into standard English orthography. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::That's a good spot, the clearest relevant policy for the original poster (or anyone else) to refer to when this occurs. Although in the case mentioned by Johnbod, the transcription is used to describe an "artifact" that uses this convention for a relatively short inscription, and that's one of the exceptions mentioned. So in that instance the use seems justified. P Aculeius (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Ah good, MOS:ALLCAPS even includes guidance on v->u too, besides pointing to {{section link|WP:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Non-English language terms}}. Most recently, reverting "Vrbe", "imperivm" and others,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SPQR&diff=prev&oldid=1286440347] I'd resorted to an edit summary of "we use Latin phonology and orthography#Modern conventions", which is only partly true but maybe has satisfied that one editor. Thanks, all! NebY (talk) 12:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, {{U|Lucas J. Goodwin}} has been adding highly questionable and unsourced infoboxes to numerous articles related to Greece and Rome (see e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quintus_Pompeius_Falco&diff=1287021137&oldid=1286950557] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pontius_Pilate&diff=1286946538&oldid=1286945425]). I don't have time to go through and figure out if any of them are in fact supported by the articles in question, but I encourage others to do so.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:An admin report should be made. I would also raise the possibility of a sock puppet, since {{u|Edgenut}} used to do this exact thing of inserting imputed birth and death dates all the time. Ifly6 (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Old Latium#Requested move 31 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)