Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome

Project overviewTasksCurationGuidesAwardsOur classicistsTalk page

New scans of Magistrates of the Roman Republic

I spent some time over the holidays getting, scanning, and processing the scans for MRR 1 and 2. It's my impression that both are in the public domain: they were published between 1930 and 1963 and to my knowledge there was no copyright renewal. See Cornell public domain table. Google and HathiTrust evidently thinks MRR 1 is PD at least, since they digitised and host (respectively) scans thereof with that tag.

Although there have been previous scans online, I can't say I'm at all happy with the OCR quality from some of those scans (especially with Greek letters) or the particular quality of them (duplicate or sometimes unreadable pages); others also have large portions missing, eg the preface and chronological note, or are wildly oversized relative to the state-of-the-art.

Anyway, I think it's worth while at least to put up a notice given how MRR remains widely consulted in the field. You can find the scan PDFs on my GitHub: https://github.com/ifly6/broughton-mrr/releases/tag/mrr20250111. If you find any errors please tell me. I also have and scanned MRR 3 but because that is still in copyright it is impermissible to distribute; nor is it clear to me, because of Broughton's death, who even holds that copyright. Ifly6 (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pedanius Dioscorides#Requested move 20 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pedanius Dioscorides#Requested move 20 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

16th Century pictures

I removed a series of 16th century images of Roman empresses from List of Roman and Byzantine empresses. @StarTrekker reverted the edits and asked me to raise it here.

I think that these anachronstic and imaginary images of obscure Empresses hold no value in either the list or the individual articles. For example there are two entirely fanciful images of used for Orestilla who was married to Caligula for precisely one day.

Article - File:Livia_Orestilla.jpg

List - File:Orestilla,_wife_of_Caligula.png

Clearly these images bear no relation either to each other or to the real Orestilla - their presence in the articles and lists is simply decorative. Given the importance of the iconography and representation of Empresses to the Roman it seems wrong to represesent these images as actually being of the Empresses involved. The very lack of ancient imagery of them speaks to either their minor siginficance, or the specifics of thair tenure as Empress through usurpation etc. The fact that we don't have statuary or coins representing them is itself significant.

Most of these images are entirely made up 1200-1500 years after the lives of the subjects, and they're a mix of the jumbled ideas of what a Roman woman should look like to a Renaissance man. Things like hairstyles etc, very important in the way the imperial image and message was conveyed, are completely misrepresented by these omages - for example that of file:Thermantia,_wife_of_Honorius.png bears no rememblance ot the iconography, dress or hairstyles to any other Empress of the Theodosian dynasty.

It gets even more extreme when we get into the Empresses from the Historia Augusta where all of a sudden we have fictionalimages of fictional empresses Nonia Celsa - admittedly that image is tagged as imaginary in the infobox. Golikom (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Images, regardless of when they're from, aid memory for readers and are therefore helpful. Historical depictions of notable persons are also relevant to their legacy, so having them in the infobox and mentioning where they are from is perfectly apt. Your information about Orestilla supposedly only being married to Caligula for one day is probably neither accurate nor relevant. The "decorative" argument is only really relevant when images aren't free, when fair use is a question.★Trekker (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Inaccurate represntations don't improve the value of any article, and series of almost identical images from a 16th centry catalogue don't aid memory - if anything they're actively confusing to the reader since htey all look basically the same. And in the list we don't mention where the images are from, and have images that look extremely different to those in the articles. That does not aid the reader in anyway.

My point about Ortestilla is that the brevity of her tenure (be it a party stunt or one day or not) is exactly relevent to the absence of any imagery of her and her legacy.

Free use or not has nothing to do with whether images are decorative. Golikom (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Literally any image improves reader memory retention. And the simple fact that she has depictions made over a thousand years later is clearly evidence that she does have a legacy.★Trekker (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Are these the types of images used in high quality reference works? Almost certainly not. These are fictitous placeholders and are completely interchangeable, forgettable, and ahistorical. This isn't about reader memory retention - there isn't a test here for readers - it's about accuracy. Fiction doesn't belong on wikipedia and these are very inauthentic. Golikom (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does depict fiction and cultural depictions fairly often. See for example Assassination of Julius Caesar.★Trekker (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not a like for like example. Illiustrating an event, particularly one that's well described and extensively depicted is very different to using a poor image that's essentially indistiguishable from any other equally imaginary image in the same speculum. Golikom (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

As far as I see it that is just your POV.★Trekker (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can see your claim that these images are useful is just your POV. Any how, we're clearly not going to agree, so let's see what others think on the inclusion of these images. In the meantinme would you agree that the images on the lists and the articles should at least be matched so that we're at least consistent? Which set of images should we use?

Golikom (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

An image appearing in some published source—particularly a historic or notable one, whether drawing, painting, or sculpture—is a valid depiction of someone, even if it's not contemporary with the subject and probably doesn't represent an accurate depiction. When we have accurate depictions, those can be preferable, though a Renaissance illustration is probably better for an article lead than a crudely-executed coin from antiquity. There are countless figures from antiquity for whom no contemporary depictions exist, and the Greeks and Romans themselves had no issues with "filling in the gaps" by depicting figures from their history or mythology the way that they imagined—centuries later, with different fashions—they might have looked. For nearly all of human history, that's how illustration worked, and was accepted.

Now that anybody—with the aid of AI or just the internet—can publish crude depictions without any artistic merit, we can place higher standards on recently generated images. If a noted illustrator fills in a gap for us, we might be inclined to accept it, while rejecting a random scribble by someone. But when we're talking about say, well-known sixteenth century woodcuts, we're in another realm of authenticity. These illustrations serve a useful purpose, even though it's highly unlikely that they resemble the actual persons whom they represent. And when they're the only illustration—at least, the only ones that particularly resemble people, thinking of some really lousy coins from late antiquity—they're fine to use as is typically done on Wikipedia.

The argument that "there isn't a test here for readers" cuts both ways: not only don't we expect readers to detect an accurate depiction that doesn't exist; we don't ask them to reject a later interpretation that does. That the images are "interchangeable" would be relevant when we have a choice, but when we have two images of similar quality then they're both usable, the same as any other depictions. I happen to like some modern-ish sculptures of Caesar, but I don't go around replacing all of his other imagery wherever it's found, and there's no reason to reduce our illustrations to a handful out of a large number of images. The claim that the lack of images says something about the obscurity of the persons depicted (namely, that they should not be depicted at all) seems like a kind of meta-argument that does not really benefit the reader.

I find the images useful, as I think do many of our readers. I don't think they're "forgettable", at least not if you regularly engage with a particular subject. If you don't think they're worth remembering, or you don't like them simply because you're aware that the actual person probably looked different, you don't need to look at them. But please don't try to purge them from articles or lists depicting the subject, which would otherwise feature even poorer illustrations, or none at all. P Aculeius (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

You say you find them useful, but I'm curious as to how? What's the benefit to the reader beyond decoration and a bit of passing visual interest while reading the article? The reader is no better informed about the subject than they were before. Generally with the statuary or coins you discuss there is a degree of scholarly rigour and discussion around the identification with the individual. The coins might be poor images but they are contemporary and they do either represent the subjects and an individual or their role as empress. The depictions from the speculum Romanae at least are exactly "crude depictions without artistic merit". They just happen to have been done some time ago. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Speculum_Romanae_Magnificentiae-_Po

These go all the way through to Isabella of Portugal in the 1530 and they're all indistinguishable. They aren't in any meaningful way attempt s to illustrate the individuals, they're decoration for a list from their very inception. Golikom (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Like Trekker, I disagree with you. I think they are useful aside from being merely "decorative", which after all is the nature of all illustrations—the most useful chart that doesn't appeal to the eye doesn't add any more than a picture that illustrates how some artist at some period of time chose to portray a person. And when there are no significantly better illustrations, those are the ones that should be used. I don't see what purpose is served by being indignant at the lack of realism in sixteenth-century woodcuts. P Aculeius (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• We shouldn't have clearly inaccurate or fictitious depictions. I support removing them. The exception for inaccurate depictions are those which are regularly used in high quality reference works. The assassination of Caesar can be depicted by various neoclassical paintings because reference works do that. Reference works do not do the same for many of these figures. The specific images used are interchangeable. (Something purposeful given how many were created at once.) Beyond the core interesting in factual accuracy, the figures without statuary are generally so obscure that readers won't remember them whether the fictitious images are included or not. Ifly6 (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  By that logic, virtually no articles on figures from antiquity would contain illustrations, because very few contemporary portraits or sculptures survive with certain identification. Even many of the most famous busts of ancient Greeks and Romans depend on either the sculptor's imagination for how some revered figure might have looked, or worse, the imagination of post-Renaissance scholars identifying otherwise unlabeled busts with figures who seem to evoke the spirit of the depiction. And yet, they do serve a purpose just as paintings or woodcuts from any period do, especially when the identification is one of long standing and widespread use.

  Substituting coins for sculptures or paintings is a dubious practice, because we often have little basis for believing that the engraver made a realistic depiction of someone in a difficult and unforgiving medium; the results are often poor, the examples in the public domain often badly worn, and in the later period coins frequently become cartoonish—late Roman and Byzantine emperors frequently look little better than stick figures on coins. Given that, they're not necessarily an improvement on sixteenth-century woodcuts. Unless a better depiction exists, these should stay; and unless there's no room, they can both go in an article. P Aculeius (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  In ledes, and lede-like purposes such as these lists, we should only use images which are of the sort used in high quality reference works. For ledes this is policy. For the latter it ought to be; they serve essentially the same purpose of attempting to summarise the article at a glance.

  The admission that this standard probably means all the images have to go seems also to be an admission that those high quality reference works wouldn't use these arbitrary woodblocks. To the latter factual question, I agree: an illustrated history wouldn't use any of them; if anything they are just the renaissance version of having AI generate images and then randomly assigning them to names. Ifly6 (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hyginus

(For context, see the discussion between Paul August, Natg 19, and myself at Talk:Gaius Julius Hyginus#Hyginus.) Recently, a page on the Fabulae was split out from Gaius Julius Hyginus, with the latter article being reworked in line with the more common view among scholars that the Fabulae and De astronomia were authored by a separate Hyginus to Gaius Julius Hyginus (for sources on this, see the comment in the linked discussion which starts with By the way, regarding which Hyginus wrote what, and the one below it). Alongside these changes, Hyginus (disambiguation) was moved to Hyginus (as I think that Gaius Julius Hyginus wouldn't be the primary topic if we are treating the two authors as separate). This left numerous links pointing to the DAB page, however, and these links have been treated somewhat inconsistently – in different articles we have the name linked as [[Hyginus]], [[Gaius Julius Hyginus|Hyginus]], [[Fabulae|Hyginus]], and Hyginus (ie., someone removed the link). The above-linked discussion has left a few questions:

• Should the DAB page remain at Hyginus rather than Hyginus (disambiguation)? And, if not, where should the redirect go?
• How should the name "Hyginus" be linked when in reference to the author of the Fabulae or De astronomia, in citations and in prose?
• Should we resolve the previous question by creating a separate article for their author, Hyginus (mythographer)?

Any input on these points would be appreciated. (My views on these three questions are (1) yes, (2) as suggested here, and (3) no, as I'm not sure there's anything on him that can't be covered more effectively at Fabulae or De astronomia.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

As the discussion at Talk:Gaius Julius Hyginus#Hyginus will show, I've gone back and forth on all of this. My current opinion is that (1) the DAB page should remain at "Hyginus", that (2) links of "Hyginus" should be "[[Gaius Julius Hyginus|Hyginus]]" and should be accompanied by a linked reference to the work being considered (i.e. the Fabulae or the De astronomia), and that (3) no separate article for the mythographer is needed. My reasoning regarding (1) is that it's not clear to me that there is a primary topic, and for (2), that for any linked mention of "Hyginus", although linking both to Gaius Julius Hyginus and to the relevant work might seem somewhat redundant, since each of the articles will have relevant information about the author that the other article will not have, having links to both seems preferable to me. Paul August ☎ 14:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I'm in agreement with all of that. We also have the question of how the DAB links ought to be dealt with. Disambiguating all of them to Gaius Julius Hyginus would probably be an acceptable solution, though it would leave a number of instances where we link to the author but not the work. That said, I suppose such cases could just sit there until someone comes along to fix them; we're not creating any new problems, only retaining old ones (from before the move), I guess ... – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes Paul August ☎ 15:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

All links now fixed. [1] – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Great! Paul August ☎ 12:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

List of your articles that are in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, 2025

Currently, this project has about ~117 30 26 23 14 9 articles in need of some reference cleanup. Basically, some short references created via {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} and similar templates have missing full citations or have some other problems. This is usually caused by templates misuse or by copy-pasting a short reference from another article without adding the full reference, or because a full reference is not making use of citation templates like {{cite book}} (see Help:CS1) or {{citation}} (see Help:CS2). To easily see which citation is in need of cleanup, you can check these instructions to enable error messages (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist the monk's script is a bit more refined if you're interested in doing deeper cleanup). See also how to resolve issues.

These could use some of your attention

To do as of 22:43 31 Jan 2025

Bruno Gentili (fixed: Ifly6) Campaign history of the Roman military (talk page tagged) Hector (fixed: Andy02124) Herodian coinage (fixed: Andy02124) Ligurian language (ancient) (fixed: Ifly6) Melite (ancient city) (fixed: Ifly6) Migration Period (fixed: Ifly6) Mithridates II of Parthia (fixed: Ifly6) Modern influence of Ancient Greece (many require fixing) Mérida, Spain (fixed: Ifly6) Names of the Scythians (fixed: Ifly6) Naumachia Vaticana (no clues; perhaps rewrite instead?) (fixed: TSventon) (citations copied from San Pellegrino in Vaticano, page numbers are the same) Neoclassicism Nero (fixed: Ifly6) Nicene Creed (fixed: Ifly6) Numerius (praenomen) (fixed: Ifly6) Numerus Batavorum (fixed: Ifly6) Nundinae October Horse (fixed: Ifly6) Odaenathus' Sasanian Campaigns (fixed: Ifly6) Ogygia (fixed: Michael Aurel) Old Smyrna (fixed: Ifly6) Olympia, Greece (fixed: Ifly6) Omphale (fixed: Michael Aurel) Ostrogoths (fixed: Ifly6) Ottoman claim to Roman succession (citation to Harper 2021 is somewhat mysterious; other citation fixed, Ifly6) (Harper 2021 fixed: TSventon) Paedagogus (occupation) (talk page tagged) Paeonia (kingdom) (fixed: Ifly6) (citations copied from Dardani) Palladium (protective image) (fixed: Ifly6) (citation copied from London Stone) Paphos (citation to NOAA data) Parmenides (somewhat insane custom citation format by assigned IDs like "DK A5") Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (fixed: Michael Aurel) Phaedrus (fabulist) (fixed: Michael Aurel) Pherecydes of Syros (fixed: Michael Aurel) Philebus Philip V of Macedon (fixed: Michael Aurel) Philo (fixed: Ifly6) Phlegon of Tralles (fixed: Michael Aurel) Phoenician–Punic Sardinia (partial fix: Ifly6; Brigaglia 1995, p. 70 fixed: TSventon) Phrygia (fixed except for "Olbrycht 2000a": Michael Aurel) (fixed: Ifly6) Piazza del Campidoglio (fixed: Ifly6) Picentes (fixed: Ifly6) Pistis (fixed: Michael Aurel) Plato (mythology) (fixed: Michael Aurel) Polyphemus (fixed: Michael Bednarek) Polytheism (fixed except for four in "Modern Paganism" section: Michael Aurel) Pontia gens (fixed: Michael Aurel) Pontius Pilate's wife (fixed: Ifly6) Porolissum (fixed: Michael Aurel) Pottery for oil (fixed: Michael Aurel) Pre-Greek substrate (fixed: Ifly6) Prizren ("Elsie 2004, p. 144" remains) Proclus of Constantinople (fixed: Ifly6) Procne and Itys (sculpture) (fixed: Michael Aurel) Proscription (fixed: Ifly6) Proserpina Dam (fixed: Michael Aurel) Ptolemy III Euergetes (fixed: Michael Aurel) Ptolemy V Epiphanes (seemingly 1977 work at Ludwig Koenen#Selected works) Ptolemy VIII Physcon ("Grainger 2011" left) Ptolemy XII Auletes (fixed: Ifly6) (citations copied from Cleopatra without source anchors) Punic people Pythagoreanism Pythia (fixed: Michael Aurel) Saka (fixed: Michael Aurel) Sasanian Empire (fixed: Michael Aurel) Saturnalia (Beard, North & Price 2004 probably actually that of 1998: ifly6) Sayyed Ahmad Alavi (removed: Michael Aurel) Scythian culture (fixed: Ifly6) (citations copied from Melanchlaeni) Seleucus IV Philopator (fixed: Ifly6) Septuagint (fixed: Michael Aurel) Siege of Constantinople (626) (fixed: Michael Aurel) Skudra (fixed: Ifly6) Socratic method Soluntum (fixed: Michael Aurel) Souliotes (fixed: Michael Aurel) Stele of Quintus Aemilius Secundus (fixed: Michael Aurel) Stele (fixed: Michael Aurel) Structural history of the Roman military (fixed: Ifly6) (tons of citations copied from Marian reforms) Succession of the Roman Empire (fixed: Michael Aurel) Sulpicia (wife of Quintus Fulvius Flaccus) (fixed: Michael Aurel) Sybaris (fixed: Michael Aurel) Tabula patronatus (fixed: Michael Aurel) Tacitus on Jesus (fixed: Ifly6) Tangier (fixed: Michael Aurel) Tarquitius Priscus (fixed: Michael Aurel) Teia Temple of Ares (fixed: Michael Aurel) Temple of Minerva (Marano di Valpolicella) (fixed: Michael Aurel) Textual criticism (fixed: Michael Aurel) The True Word (fixed: Ifly6) (citation rescued from history) Theodotus of Amida (no issue, wrongly identified: Michael Aurel, Ifly6) Thracian language (removed by Revolution Saga) Tigranes the Great (fixed: Michael Aurel) Timeline of Cluj-Napoca Triballi (fixed: Michael Aurel) Troy Tusculanae Disputationes (fixed: Ifly6) Umbrian language (fixed: Michael Aurel) Upper Macedonia (fixed: Michael Aurel) Vaballathus (fixed: Ifly6) Valens (fixed: Ifly6) Vallis Murcia (fixed: Michael Aurel) Vandal Kingdom (fixed: Ifly6) Vandal Sardinia (fixed: Ifly6) Vandal War (461–468) (some anchors fixed: Ifly6) (fixed all except for "Bury 1958, p. 337" & "Heather 2006, p. 406": Michael Aurel) (fixed: Caeciliusinhorto) Velchanos Venus Obsequens (some anchors fixed: Ifly6) (fixed: Michael Aurel) Venus Verticordia (fixed: Caeciliusinhorto) Vestal Virgin (fixed: Ifly6) Vestalia (fixed: Ifly6) Vesunna (fixed: Ifly6) Villa Poppaea (fixed: Michael Aurel) Villa of Augustus (fixed: Ifly6) Vindicius (fixed: Michael Aurel) Vlorë (fixed: Michael Aurel) Vulgar Latin War of Radagaisus (fixed: Michael Aurel)

If you could add the full references to those article/fix the problem references, that would be great. Again, the easiest way to deal with those is to install Svick's script per these instructions. If after installing the script, you do not see an error, that means it was either taken care of, or was a false positive, and you don't need to do anything else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Progress report. 117 – 87 = 30. Ifly6 (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Now just 26 remaining. Ifly6 (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Now just 3 left: Nundinae, Timeline of Cluj-Napoca, and Troy. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

These are the now 23 remaining:

1. Campaign history of the Roman military (talk page tagged) (fixed: Mariamnei, Michael Aurel)
2. Modern influence of Ancient Greece (many require fixing: full citations can be found in the "main article"/"see also" hatnote) (fixed: TSventon)
3. Neoclassicism (fixed: XabqEfdg)
4. Nundinae (all fixed except for "Graev., Thesaur., viii, p. 7" and "Göttling, Gesch. der Röm. Staatstv., p. 183", seemingly works by Johann Georg Graevius and Karl Wilhelm Göttling: Michael Aurel) (Note on talk page TSventon)
5. Paedagogus (occupation) (talk page tagged) (fixed: Michael Aurel)
6. Paphos (citation to NOAA data) (fixed: Michael Aurel)
7. Parmenides (somewhat insane custom citation format by assigned IDs like "DK A5") (fixed, though the odd citation method remains: Michael Aurel)
8. Philebus (fixed: XabqEfdg)
9. Polytheism (fixed except for four in "Modern Paganism" section: Michael Aurel, last four fixed: TSventon)
10. Prizren ("Elsie 2004, p. 144" remains) (fixed: XabqEfdg)
11. Ptolemy V Epiphanes (seemingly 1977 work at Ludwig Koenen#Selected works; now all fixed: Michael Aurel)
12. Ptolemy VIII Physcon ("Grainger 2011" left; now all fixed: Michael Aurel)
13. Punic people (fixed: XabqEfdg)
14. Pythagoreanism (fixed: XabqEfdg)
15. Saka (fixed: Michael Aurel)
16. Saturnalia (Beard, North & Price 2004 probably actually that of 1998: ifly6) (was 1998 work, fixed: Michael Aurel)
17. Socratic method (fixed: XabqEfdg)
18. Teia (fixed: Michael Aurel)
19. Timeline of Cluj-Napoca (2 of 4 fixed: TSventon) (remainder fixed: XabqEfdg)
20. Troy (fixed: XabqEfdg; for some reason, the of the article at revision 944002222 from 2020 seems (at a glance) more complete and well formatted)
21. Vandal War (461–468) (some anchors fixed: Ifly6) (fixed all except for "Bury 1958, p. 337" & "Heather 2006, p. 406": Michael Aurel) (fixed: Caeciliusinhorto)
22. Velchanos (raised on talk page) (fixed: Caeciliusinhorto)
23. Vulgar Latin (fixed: XabqEfdg)

Making a new list because the last one has so many strike-outs its not very useful to look at. Ifly6 (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The final remaining source (in Nundinae) presumably refers to Johann Georg Graevius' Thesaurus antiquatum romanarum. However at least the edition on archive.org does not have numbered pages and column 7 does not verify any of the cited text (though it is at least about the Roman calendar!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! We'd narrowed it down to that location in Graevius' work, but (as XabqEfdg pointed out) the citation was lifted from Smith, and the citations in his dictionaries often contain errors in my experience. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm absolutely shocked that we're essentially done with the whole list. Huge appreciation to the other contributors: Michael Aurel, TSventon, Caeciliusinhorto, XabqEfdg, Mariamnei. Our list might have been a bit shorter than others' (just take a look at WP:MILHIST's list!) but the fact we sorted it all out in just a few days is astonishing. This is some really excellent collaboration. (In part only possible because of the tools that have been built up around {{sfn}} and the citation template ecosystem; I want to thank Headbomb for making this possible too.) You should all be proud of yourselves for pitching in. Ifly6 (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Anyone who has got a taste for fixing tagged issues, you can find a weekly report of all cleanup tags on CGR articles here. Currently we're a little over 10,000 issues on 6,000 articles – some are straightforward if time consuming to fix (most of the CS1 errors); others can be trickier (nearly 2,500 articles with {{citation needed}} tags). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Have we a centralised list of {{primary sources}} tags? Ifly6 (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ifly6: I believe they're grouped under §Cites unreliable sources, but not differentiated from the other cleanup tags which categorise an article into Category:Articles lacking reliable references (e.g. {{Unreliable source}} Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I think I solved the two Harv and Sfn multiple-target errors identified on that list. Ifly6 (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I also want to note that there seem to be a lot of textual short citations (ie non-template ones) that have similar "anchor" and "multiple-target" errors. More prosaically, stuff like Doe and Roe 1950 has no corresponding bibliographic entry or Suetonius, 1 being insufficiently clear. The lack of templates means there isn't any easy way to find them centrally like Headbomb just did. I think that if we combed through our articles we would find many more issues than just ~117 (on equites I just found three seven). Ifly6 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Castra

The fairly highly-viewed (over 200 a day) article Castra has been subject for years to complaints that the usages, especially regarding castrum and castra are/are not well explained or distinguished. The lead look too short too. Could people take a look? Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)