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

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

Since maps provide information and don't just illustrate an article, shouldn't the information be verifiable somehow? Like listing the sources used to create it on the Commons page. I don't know enough about trade routes to challenge specific information presented on this one, but it seems misleading. Textiles are absent. Slaves are coming only from the Baltic region and sub-Saharan Africa, and the slave trade is shown only as external routes. "Grapes" are on there a couple of times, but no wine. I don't know about the pigs, though they sure do look happy. There are some other things I find confusing about it. But it's used on two English WP and several other language sites. Just wondering what the policy is. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is idiosyncratic! I'm not sure there's a policy that would require us to remove this map from articles, any more than we delete articles that lack sufficient sources and otherwise need a lot of work. Sources can be added to files as well as articles, and no map, however detailed, will be perfectly accurate. But we could certainly use a better map to illustrate commerce. The fact that this one has been around for fourteen years means that nobody has gotten around to making a better one, and that's an argument for leaving it for the time being.

I've always wanted to make my own historical maps, but haven't really had the graphic skills to do so. Maybe this will inspire me to work on that, though I can't say whether the results will justify replacing this map! But I know we have other people who could probably make a better map with identifiable sources for its claims. P Aculeius (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that maps should be verifiable somehow. I want to emphasise that this is also the same with diagrams. For example, File:Constitution of Rome.jpg and File:Principate.jpg have a number of typographical and factual errors. Ifly6 (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out those two. Apart from any questions about the quality of information, I would question whether such text-heavy graphics really accomplish the purpose of having a diagram to convey info spatially at a glance.

The map isn't fundamentally terrible in that it does convey the "busy-ness" of trade in the Empire. I have thoughts on my ideals for such a map or series of maps, but practically speaking for now, the difference between this and an article needing improvement is that we can easily label the article's deficiencies and flag where citations are needed. Thanks! Cynwolfe (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do have {{Image reference needed}}, demonstrated above (you put it with the caption text).

I see that at Roman commerce that map's captioned "Principal Roman trade routes, internal and external in 180 AD". That claim could be tagged {{cn}}, or edited to "Some Roman trade routes ...", "A few Roman trade routes ..." "Some of the Roman trade routes for selected commodities ..." and so on.

This map was in some articles. The details at Commons showed it was uploaded a few years after that 2018 appearance (which I don't think was the first) by someone claiming it was their own work, created just before uploading, and that they were the copyright holder. Commons has a more free-form system for breaches of copyright than en.wiki, and it works. But I hasten to add that quick checks on the above trade map and on File:Constitution of Rome.jpg haven't shown any such problems. NebY (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I asked at WT:V whether Wikipedia:verifiability should mention {{Image reference needed}} as well as {{citation needed}}, which started a bit of discussion about such images that might interest some of us. One recommendation is If those two images are doing their job of illustrating the article, then their contents ought to already be in the text of the article (in some form, not word for word),[1] maybe quite a high bar for historical maps. A more detailed one is

There are two types of images:

1. Images that are used to illustrate information that is stated in the article text

2. Images that are used to present information in an article.

In the first situation, the important thing is that information in the article is reliably sourced. Consensus can determine whether the illustration accurately depicts that verifiable information, and is captioned appropriately.

In the second situation, the caption needs to include a citation to a reliable source, to establish that the information being presented in the image is verifiable.

[2]

I've also found Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Avoid entering textual information as images, which would seem to apply to much of the File:Constitution of Rome.jpg infographic. NebY (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that for some maps it's too much; a lot of maps are also guesses as to, for example, where some borders end. For some diagrams on the other hand it's not horrid. For example, my diagram here is sourced to a number of different places which are also separately referenced in article text. Ifly6 (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artaxerxes III has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Requested move 9 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 04:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of New Testament minuscules (2001–)#Requested move 22 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading of Beans 06:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Athena, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. The title of the RfC is RfC Athena's Lake Tritonis origin. NebY (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]