WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 20 May 2013.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43

This page has archives. Sections older than 22 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

There are other articles on obscure or minor battles with minimal descriptions:

• Battle off Carteia (46 BC) nq
• Siege of Apamea
• Battle of Tauris (for disclosure I was involved in the draft → article stage; when it was moved to mainspace I objected but did nothing)

These all suffer from similarly shoddy sourcing, exceptionally long introductions etc for a battle with a description no more than a paragraph in ancient sources, and I think should all be stubified. I recently moved them all to draft but was, on consideration of the explanation, rightfully reverted. I seek a consensus that stubification should be done. Ifly6 (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors here may be interested in the RFC discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes. The proposed MOS text begins The use of infoboxes is recommended for articles on specific biological classifications, chemical elements and compounds, events, people, settlements, and similar topics with a narrow and well-defined scope. NebY (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an AfD on several dozen similar lists, including Latin exonyms, a list of the Roman names of various places that existed in Roman times and today. Looking over the Latin list, it seems to have a decent rationale for existing, although I cannot say the same about the Greek list, which seems to consist mostly of modern places that did not exist as part of the Hellenistic world, or even in Roman times, and so is a list of Modern Greek names, not Ancient Greek names of places that have since been renamed or transformed in modern languages. I don't have the knowledge to give an opinion about any of the other lists, but I think the Latin list should be kept. Members of this project might want to give their opinions, pro or con, regarding whether to keep the Latin list. P Aculeius (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three articles partially deal with the same subject: Porta Caelimontana, Porta Caelimontana and Porta Querquetulana, and Porta Querquetulana. I don't know what to do with the second one. T8612 (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand the rationale for the existence of the joint article. Looks like I created both Porta Caelimontana (2010), which someone has now confidently illustrated with the Arch of Dolabella though that identification is not certain, and Porta Querquetulana (2013). I don't see a huge amount of actual information in the joint article that could be extracted and digested encyclopedically; it's more a loose review of the history of the scholarship. I admit, though, that I don't love articles that read like a research paper or the dreaded first chapter of a dissertation. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a brief perusal of the three (and some small tweaks), my first thought is to merge the contents of the joint article into the two separate ones. There should be some overlap. Overly technical details about the scholarship could be turned into electronic footnotes (I use ((efn-lr|text)) and ((notelist-lr)) to avoid confusion with references, with which I don't usually include explanatory notes, but any format should work). Some of the language could probably be simplified. As the joint article has very few contributors, has gone largely untouched since its creation, and its primary author doesn't appear to be active on Wikipedia anymore, I suggest being bold rather than proposing a merge first; merge discussions on short articles in CGR don't seem to attract much participation. P Aculeius (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]