Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome

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, 44, 45, 46

This page has archives. Sections older than 22 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 4.

Question about infoboxes

Hello! I am active at WP:WikiProject Books and I've noticed that a lot of ancient texts are using "infobox book" in ways that have silly results, like De Bello Africo and Commentarii de Bello Gallico trying to come up with something to go in the "publisher" parameter. I'd like to switch these kinds of articles to a more appropriate infobox template--Template:Infobox medieval text looks at least closer?-- and wanted to ask which one you all would suggest. Thanks! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds more like people are filling in the fields badly—presumably one that should not apply could just be left blank. But Infobox medieval text may well be a better choice. The one drawback there is that the title may suggest that it's the wrong template, even though it may cover all of the necessary fields. I suggest creating a new template based on "medieval text", and titling it "ancient text", and then making any adjustments to the fields in question to best suit the intended contents—certainly Greek and Roman texts, but potentially Byzantine, Egyptian, Babylonian, Hebrew, etc. (noting that in some cases—Byzantine in particular—the distinction between "ancient" and "medieval" may be a fine one, with some overlapping items—that should just mean that editors have a choice between two suitable templates). It would also mean minimal disruption to the articles currently using "medieval text". P Aculeius (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax article: Sophalexios?

Link Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Sophalexios

Sophalexios is looking like a hoax article to me. Can anyone find any sources supporting the existence of such a character? Paul August ☎ 15:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. There is is only one link to this article in the entire Wikipedia, after 15 years! T8612 (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the small library of "sources" at the bottom of the article doesn't mention him?

I'd say the fact that this article was created by an account with no other edits at all is fairly suspicious.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only URL in the small library of sources doesn't have the name in it at all. Nor does a Google Scholar search provide anything: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C9&q=%22sophalexios%22&btnG=. If this supposed character is real someone can re-create the article – I would lean immediate delete for now. Ifly6 (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I WP:PROD'd it. Ifly6 (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paul August ☎ 14:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the unsourced mention of Dardanus, son of Sophalexios at Dardanus (mythology) should be removed as well. TSventon (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per your notice, I just removed that entry. Ifly6 (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the PROD because it is nuanced, to me it doesn't appear to be a hoax but I left the {{hoax}} template on just in case. Sa ng jiinhwa (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangjiinhwa: can you explain why it doesn't appear to be a hoax? TSventon (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophalexios, all contributions welcome. TSventon (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One question, who first noticed that this is a hoax? Not that that's important, but Mclay1 has removed Dardanus from the DAB page about five hours before Paul August made their comment here, and I was wondering about the connection (if any) to uncovering the hoax. Renerpho (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no information about the article. I merely cleaned up the dab page because it was unnecessarily duplicating info from the set index, Dardanus (mythology), and I moved that possible hoax entry from the dab page to the set index. It's possible my edits are what caught Paul's attention. Mclay1 (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes exactly. Paul August ☎ 13:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I was the first person to discover the Hoax. I first noticed it when looking at this edit. Paul August ☎ 13:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, thank you! Renerpho (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Soaemias many many names

I'm currently trying to add information on the many attested name variations given for Soaemias, but the most in depth sources are in German, so I'm not sure if my attempts are the best. I'm using s:RE:Julius 596 and this book. I'd really appreciate any help. ★Trekker (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re your RE link, I expect you mean to refer to https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/RE:Iulius_596 ? Ifly6 (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whops, yes thank you that was what I was trying to link. 😅 ★Trekker (talk) 09:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juno Averna / Proserpina

Juno Averna, currently a redirect to Proserpina (where the term is not mentioned), has been nominated for discussion and possible deletion at RfD. The discussion would benefit from the input of those with relevant subject knowledge. Please comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 8#Juno Averna. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basilica Aemilia: Request for reassessment

The Basilica Aemilia article is currently rated as Start-class of mid-importance to this WikiProject. Since it has been significantly expanded with multiple new sections, an improved bibliography, and generally broader coverage of the subject, I believe it may now meet the criteria for C-class (or higher). I also believe its importance should also be reconsidered, given that it was marked as high-importance to the WikiProject Rome (which appears to be inactive).

Feedback from project members on whether an upgrade is appropriate, or general thoughts on the article, would be greatly appreciated. Full disclosure: I am the primary editor who rewrote this article. Gavingaebe (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]