Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your contributions relating to the topic of Rome, commendable for both their quality and quantity. Avilich (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Ifly6 (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick, congrats on the GA for Catilinarian consp. Avilich (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ifly6 (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For bringing Catilinarian conspiracy to GA, at long-last. Great work! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Here is the award you deserve for doing the most detailed GAN review by a new reviewer in the last month, in my view, at Talk:Battle of New Carthage/GA1. (t · c) buidhe 22:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a broader issue at Demography of the Roman Empire#Sepulchary inscriptions which you might be able to help with. It was[1] and still is based only on Tenney Frank's 1916 paper Race Mixture in the Roman Empire. I corrected some details (columbaria aren't burials, and so on) and made Frank's stance more clear, but maybe that's not for the best. Any thoughts, ways forward? NebY (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought is to check for anything relevant in A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean. There's also the possibility that one might just want to rewrite the whole thing because people now use archaeological remains to do this sort of thing instead of hoping beyond hope that names (a proxy) inscribed on tombs, graves, etc (expensive and selective) reflect actual population (not observed). Just by way of example, this PhD dissertation I found in like 20 seconds uses a variety of modern skeletal and dental methods to assess human mobility. https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/concern/dissertations/qn59q476k. Ifly6 (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems I have access to the Companion via the Wikipedia Library, so that can go on the list. Nice point about the selective nature of inscriptions. We do have Demography of the Roman Empire#Genetic studies which has suffered a lot of edit-warring and is I think still based entirely on primary sources that don't pay much attention to whether their finds are representative - one of the questions I raised at Talk:Demography of the Roman Empire#Genetic studies, unanswered as yet. That dental study looks very much like, may actually be the one, that was being used in some WP articles a few years ago to state that the great majority of the population of post-Republican Rome were ethnically Italian, based on dentition found in two cemeteries. NebY (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Russian Civil War on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Emir Abdelkader on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Publius Clodius Pulcher, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cato and Gaius Cato.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Ifly6 (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lycurgus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Numa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Ifly6 (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ifly6,

I saw you’ve been doing a lot of work to clean up the Quintus Sertorius wiki page. First off, thank you for that. I’m really enjoying the improvements.

I did have one question for you. I saw that you removed The Sertorius Scrolls from the fiction section for “obscure in fiction”. I am the author, and wouldn’t have noticed had I not looked to see if anyone had added my latest book in the series.

I’m curious about your criteria for deciding what’s obscure and what isn’t. I’ve sold over 200,000 copies in the series thus far, and I’ve achieved placement on numerous best sellers lists for each book in the series.

I wasn’t the one who added the citation and I’m not offended that it was removed, just curious what the criteria wiki editors might be looking at in terms of sales or cultural relevance.

Thank you again for your work on the page. As someone who has dedicated his career to the legacy of Quintus Sertorius it means a lot to me. If you would ever be willing to offer feedback or historical insight to an author, I would be happy to share my email. Thank you.

Vincent B. Davis II Author of The Sertorius Scrolls Vincentbdavisii (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you added back mention of your book, it would likely be WP:COI. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia's COI policies and guidelines on this exact topic but I believe per WP:COIE any edits you make on the topic must cite independent reliable sources. As to the content itself, which I am more familiar with, I side with MOS:POPCULT:

A Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources (e.g., a dictionary or encyclopedia). A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item.

See also WP:POPCULTURE:

Although some references may be plainly verified by primary sources, this does not demonstrate the significance of the reference. Furthermore, when the primary source in question only presents the reference, interpretation of this may constitute original research where the reference itself is ambiguous. If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources.

My interpretation of that is that here, a high quality reliable source (WP:HQRS) should mention your series. The best such source would be a discussion in a journal of classical reception or chapter in a biography on the topic of how Sertorius has been seen in following centuries. See eg Marcus Junius Brutus § Legacy which is based largely on the discussion of Brutus' legacy and reception thereof in Tempest Brutus: the noble conspirator (2017). The works that are mentioned in such a source would be the ones worth including.

(edit) I also recognise that there could be the prima facie appearance that I had it out for your specific series alone, since the other fictional entries. Deletion of the sentence emerged from citation clean up and not anything directed to your work specifically. I think the way to resolve that is to remove the uncited section Quintus Sertorius § In fiction. I will do that shortly. Ifly6 (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the clarification. I didn’t add anything or make any changes. Someone originally added it years ago, and someone else(Newfoundland Guy) clarified and cited it in April I believe. I’m just now creating an account (to speak with you) and have never made Wikipedia edits.

I have received reviews from credible institutions like Publishers Weekly, but I’m not sure that’s what you’re referring to.

That makes sense about the citation, though I’m a bit confused. Fiction authors are unlikely to be mentioned in scholarly texts outside of the extremely rare study of cultural depictions. Fiction titles should have a different burden of sources than nonfiction, and that seems to be the case on similar pages.

For example, see (Cultural depictions of Julius Caesar. Under “modern works” there are several works of fiction listed without citation from scholarly sources. With a cursory glance, it appears most similar pages contain fiction (film, books, games, etc) titles that have never been included in historical papers, but performed well enough (sales, reviews, etc) to still be included.

I may be misunderstanding, but it appears the guidelines you shared are laying out best practices for citing the cultural impact of a work, rather than rules about mentioning the work itself, which doesn’t appear to have the same requirements on the other pages I’ve looked at.

Thank you again for your work on the page and for any clarification you can offer.

Vincent B. Davis II Vincentbdavisii (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer for their existence is rather simple: there are many bad policy-violating articles from the Wikipedia stone ages. They should be re-worked or deleted but few people have the time or courage, respectively, to do it. Many Wikipedia articles on major historical figures or events are plagued by reliance on unreliable or obsolete sources (eg the old Marian reforms or current centuriate assembly articles), reliance on original research with the primary sources (the old Lycurgus article), or simply entirely unsourced. Standards on Wikipedia about what should be included have generally risen over the last 15 years; but that has not been the same as a mass revision of existing material. Ifly6 (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you’re saying. I agree some of these lists don’t seem to fit properly with the rules outlined in the resources you shared. However, reading through them, a few things stick out to me.

From When fictional characters are modeled after notable people or celebrities, they can be mentioned in the article about the person when the connection is identified in the primary source or attributed by a secondary source.

This seems to clearly apply to titles like my own and the other two which were listed previously, as the fictional character bears the name of the subject. In the case of my series, the entire narrative is based around the life of Quintus Sertorius.

The second thing which caught my attention was the paragraph immediately proceeding the second source you originally shared:

“Passing mentions of the subject in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when the significance of that mention is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. For example, a brief reference in film dialogue may be appropriate if the subject responds to it in a public fashion—such as a celebrity or official quoted as expressing pleasure or displeasure at the reference. As well, a brief reference in film or TV dialogue may be appropriate if secondary sources (film critics) write about the significance of this reference to the city.”

This clarifies that this portion is about REFERENCES to the subject, as in a passing line of dialogue in a movie or a verse in a song. For this, cultural relevance needs to be established.

The first section I mentioned above was when they specifically addressed fictional characters who are a major part of the book, or especially the titular character.

There is also another section which addresses the importance of a fictional work required for inclusion. There they explain it is based on the popularity of the subject. The example stated is that listing out every novel depiction of Julius Caesar would be superfluous. Lesser known entities have less of a burden. I’m happy to send this section if you’d like to read it further.

Sertorius has received very, very few fictional depictions over the past 2,000 years. According to the pop culture guidelines, I believe the first popular fictional series exploring his life and times meets the burden of requirement stated clearly in the article. The other two books did also, as they are relevant for being the first few fictional books to bring Quintus Sertorius into the modern world.

I’m not simply trying to convince you to add my reference back. I will leave that up to you and the other editors. But I do believe the material you shared was specifically focused on REFERENCES to the subject of a page rather than works of art dedicated to them in entirety. And the burden of citations seems to be focused on nonfiction or scholarly text as stated here: “Wikipedia requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.” But stating the existence of a work of fiction (when it is culturally relevant for the reasons listed above) is not able to be challenged. After reading the articles in their entirety, I feel confident it is suggesting works of fiction don’t required scholarly sources, but only that they are important (rather than being one of many books on the subject) and are sufficiently focused on the subject (ie, a main character rather than a passing reference, as the latter would require a secondary source to establish the importance of the reference).

I appreciate your responses and your consideration.

Vincent Vincentbdavisii (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I just wanted to ensure you received my previous reply. Vincentbdavisii (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. I disagree with your reply's interpretation of policy. A discussion at Talk:Quintus Sertorius may be warranted. Ifly6 (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reading. I understand. If others feel the same way, I’ll happily accept the outcome. Would you like the start the discussion as editor-in-chief, or would you like me to do so? Vincentbdavisii (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quintus_Sertorius#Cultural_references_etc. I didn't want to paraphrase your statements here into the OP so left it open for you. Ifly6 (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I just added to the discussion. Regardless of outcome, I'm sure you're very busy, so I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my very long replies. Vincentbdavisii (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]