A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hellenion, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Hellenion. --151.201.147.150 (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hellenion (USA), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://pagan.wikia.com/wiki/Hellenion. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remade it, but it still needs improvements. And its still lacks aesthetically. A bit better though, i am getting the old one deleted MigrationsMegistias (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been doing some minor tidying up of your recent articles -- please take a look at my changes as I think they will help you in future. I must admit that sometimes I really miss my days as a classics scholar! – ukexpat (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear user, I just came across your new article. By now you must have been well versed with wikipedia, so please have a look at the wikipedia guidelines. The editors themselves cannot assess the article on quality and importance scale. It is the work of the uninvolved editors. So kindly refrain from assessing articles that you edit. Looking for your co-operation sir. Nefirious (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I found your entry in the relationships article very interesting, but I am not sure this is an intergenerational love affair. Check out this account. It appears they were both pages, which would make them both adolescent. Have you seen anything to indicate they were a pederastic couple?Haiduc (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Glaucias, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All red links in Disambiguation, page unnecessary.
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Hi. With regards to this discussion, you should be aware (if you aren't already) that renaming the category in the middle of a formal discussion is inappropriate and can be disruptive. The reason is because it creates a very confusing situation for those who come to the discussion a few days after it has begun if the originally-nominated category has been emptied out and a new one created in its stead. You've done this at least twice on this category now and also once with the Alexander the Great historians one, so I and I think anyone else who might want to participate in those discussions would appreciate it if you would stop changing things mid-stream. Thanks, Good Ol’factory(talk)23:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I responded to your request, using my article time to do so. I would say, don't let the man of the good nose get you down. Hardly anyone ever agrees about anything on Wikipedia. If one does agree one says nothing so you never see it. Anyway the point of view I am taking is that categories are not articles and ought to be treated differently. As far as I'm concerned there are NEVER enough categories. More, more! So, it ought not to be a mutually exclusive situation. One person thinks one thing , another, another. They are both likely to be right. Do it both ways. Do it all ways, any ways! They are all likely to be useful. As far as invoking the wrath of the good nose is concerned, you just say, "of course, you are right. I'm still learning." I find that most arguing on Wikipedia is not really logical. I try not to get bogged down in extensive and illogical arguments. If someone has a legitimate point sooner or later that point will get across. We'd all like sooner but with this many editors later might have to be accepted. Deletions are notoriously hard to obtain. Even if you change your mind 5 minutes later, too late. It has to be nominated for deletion. The thing you have to look out for is language such as "don't do it again" or "do you intend to do this on other articles?" That language usually indicates that a system administrator is setting up to block you, as the main rationale for blocking is whether you are going to pursue methods deemed wrong in other articles. Wikipedia has a "secret police", administrators who do not identify themselves as such. Well this is about the best I can do for you. I'm not an administrator. I don't know about the nose and don't care. There are several levels of secret police. Just act in good faith and try not to lose your temper. Ciao.
Hello, Catalographer! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! ThemFromSpace08:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Thanks for starting Graecostasis. I had intended to get around to starting it after I realised it didn't even have a redirect.
I have expanded it a bit and will begin referencing and uploading a few images. At first I thought it maight be difficult to cite, but have run into many books while researching the Rostra and the Comitium. Your contributions to these pages would be welcome!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you want to nominate a page for deletion, it would be helpful to administrators reviewing your requests if you would look through the criteria for speedy deletion and use an appropriate template corresponding to the reason for your request, rather than simply using a generic {{db}} request. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Infantry and Cavalry units in Macedonian army categories
Hello. I was wondering what your definition of "Ottoman Greek Macedonia" is. This seems like a peculiar combination of terms, as though we had a category for, say, "Italian French Savoy" (referring to the French area of Savoie formerly ruled by the Italian House of Savoia) or "English French Normandy" or "Pakistani British India". --macrakis (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand your point. The current borders of modern Greek, Macedonian, and Bulgarian Macedonia have almost no relation to the administrative, cultural, linguistic, and religious situation under the Ottoman Empire, so it doesn't make sense to project them into the Ottoman period. Sure, the Ottoman administrative units changed over time, too, but they make more sense when discussing the Ottoman period than do modern state units. --macrakis (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So -> Category Medieval or Ottoman Macedonia by modern region borders and Category by Byzantine and Ottoman provinces. (Medieval and Ottoman history by country, by region , by medieval or Ottoman provinces). Catalographer (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have added subcategories for Ottoman Macedonia by modern region borders. That was clear from the beginning of this exchange. But you still haven't explained your rationale. It would help if you would write in complete English sentences. Thanks. --macrakis (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The one does not exclude the other. The only we can do is Category:Late Ottoman Macedonia with the sanjaks after 1864. Before 1864 it was part of Rumelia. Do you know the subdivisions of Rumelia? Catalographer (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Dimachae, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-dgra/0417.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For a series of interesting articles on medieval Greek inscriptions, and for a massive and impressive effort at categorization of Balkan-related articles. Congratulations! Constantine ✍ 13:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Aeinautae, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-dgra/0029.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These Category:Inscriptions in medieval Macedonia you've been working on, that is fascinating stuff. Are there more than those three four? Drmies (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, C. I don't have strong feelings about this at all, but I just noticed the category of Ancient Greek 'triumphal hymns.' Since I wasn't familiar with the term, I did a Google Books search and found the phrase mainly in 19th-century encyclopedias. I didn't see it used in any of the 20th–21st century books on ancient Greek literature (such as literary histories or genre topics) that I know to be on G-books. Don't know whether that's an issue for you, or whether there's a more current term; I was just curious about the phrase. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your searches aren't exact-searches on "triumphal hymn", so your results yield pages that simply contain the words "triumphal" and "hymn" in proximity. An exact-search (all books) of triumphal hymns does yield about 600 (filtered for duplicates to about 300), maybe 10 of which even pertain to ancient Greek literature. The top hit is The Cambridge Ancient History, but in reference to pre-Hellenistic Egyptian poetry. Of the few others, nearly all of them are 19th-century sources, and not necessarily the classic literary histories of that century. Similar results pertain to "triumphal hymn", exact-search in the singular. Among literary histories or genre/author studies of the 20th and 21st centuries, I find the phrase "triumphal hymn" only once, in Hornblower (an indisputably good source), but the phrase is a translation of a Pindaric fragment (the Greek doesn't use either the word "triumph" or "hymn" — at least I don't think so at first glance; apologies if I'm wrong, but my poor eyesight hampers me when I'm reading Greek these days), not used as a term of literary criticism.
I'm not saying that the paean isn't 'triumphal.' I'm not disputing that these genres are discussed in relation to the complicated notion of "triumph" and its often mystifying connection to Bacchus and the "East" (as discussed recently in Mary Beard's book on the triumphal procession, looking back from Rome; there is an unfortunately very limited preview of this section online). What I'm questioning is the validity of the terminology, whether it clarifies anything, whether it reflects current usage in the field, and thus whether or not it should be used as an encyclopedia category. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't call it an objection, even; just a quest for precision. The phrase may be as accurate as anything else, if it's valid to group these various genres … I know I sound argumentative when sometimes I'm just striving for my own clarity. I guess what would make me happy (ha, like this impossible task is your responsibility) is an introductory article on "Ancient Greek triumphal hymns," which would outline how the paean, dithryamb, epinicion, etc., are related as occasional poetry historically developed within Greek "song culture," as Leslie Kurke outlines it. I think I question both hymnos and "triumphal". Now, the relation of the paean to the hymnic tradition represented by the so-called Homeric Hymns makes sense, as does the dithyramb. But all hymnoi are not triumphal; is all triumphal poetry "hymnic"? Could be. (I don't know whether the victory odes are typically described in modern scholarship as "hymns"). But there wasn't a proper article on Greek 'melic' poetry last time I looked, either; what existed was just a look at the list of Nine Melic Poets. And there's no article on choral lyric (which I consider a significant gap in the coverage of ancient Greek literature, given its importance both in the development of Greek poetry and socially), a category within which all your triumphal hymns would fall. Didn't mean to be discouraging. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All thoughts are welcome. All hymnoi are not triumphal but Hymns to Dionysus (in the category) are triumphal (even the word triumph comes from Thriambus). About the Epinikion: If the word hymn has mainly religious connotations, Epinikion could easily be categorized as religious and athletic-related music or poetry, since the presence of Gods in Pindar is overwhelming. What about the wedding hymns of ancient Greece? . I personally distinguish between banquet songs like skolia and ritual songs like hymns. Catalographer (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, and I don't mean to sound as if I'm hounding you (our interests just happen to overlap), but what is your source for saying Telesarchus held the title phrourarch? I get that phrourarch means "commander of a garrison," and Telesarchus commanded a garrison, but that doesn't mean phrourarch was the military title he held. I would welcome any other sources on this obscure figure. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, thanks; I lazily didn't check the Greek for Pausanias because I so intensely dislike using Perseus. Close enough for jazz. You're keeping the phrourarch article, but changing the category, is that correct? That would seem a fine solution to me, since you can discuss the term in the article, including its problematic nature, while "garrison commander" might be easier to use as a category. My two cents, or maybe one-and-a-half. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for straightening out Cat:Mithras. Is there a way to change the name to Cat:'Mithraic Mysteries' and refile it under Cat:'Mystery religions' (which is where the other Greco-Roman Mysteries are)? Thanks again. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Hyperetes, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperetes. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
What the Hades does "Ancient Roman-writing philosophers" mean? If I may politely exclaim. Does that mean "ancient philosophers who wrote in Latin"? My friend, let us us reflect on this proliferation of categories. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a Classical archaeologist/art historian, I do not think that any of the scenes of the François Vase can be categorised as "Ancient Greek military art". I am therefore going to remove the category from the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.159.200 (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hedylus, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Bios/Hedylus.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a good place to put the link? I don't think it is quite appropriate in the "See also". You may want to add that to the top of some of the other articles, or maybe not.SADADS (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On October 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thracesian Theme, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On October 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thracesian Theme, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Macistus, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.mythindex.com/greek-mythology/M/Macistus.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you added a picture of the Empress on the Aelia Eudocia article. The inscription on the slab actually reads "Hagia Eudoxia", and Saint Eudocia has actually nothing to do with the Empress, who was never canonized. Are you sure about the identification? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I noticed that the River Lethe in popular culture was completely lacking an introduction. I added a tiny bit from the Lethe page but have no idea if this conforms to the right format since the article is about the popular culture occurences. The treatment of the concept itself is best left to the Lethe page, I agree but I also think it should see some basic level of treatment on the River Lethe in popular culture as well. Which is why I write to you now (someone who is better able to make those edits than I). Thanks catalographer! --Skychildandsonofthesun (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that since there are five related pages: Lethe (myth) River Lethe (actual river), River Lethe in popular culture, Altheia, Aletheia (mythology), we probably should have a See Also section at the bottom of these and maybe even a disambiguiation tag at the top. Your thoughts? --Skychildandsonofthesun (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, I ask you to look at the edition i´ve made in the Sea Peoples article, and see if it presents a good english redaction.
I´m spanishspeaker, and sometimes i have my doubts, like in this case.
Please, could you check? The edition is made upon the section "Reign of Ramesesses II", in its last paragraph, and it says: "There is a list of the peoples that conformed it, and they are mainly "land peoples", but there are also some "sea peoples" like the Lukka as well."
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The redirect Category:Dionysus in Greek mythology has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 6 § Category:Dionysus in Greek mythology until a consensus is reached. Mclay1 (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
