Talk:Roman Republic

Archive links to JSTOR and Google Books

@Billjones94 and UndercoverClassicist: Re the addition of these archive links. The following are two edit notes:

Rv good faith addition of archive links ; none of the sources are dead... adding them just crufts up the markup on an already overly long article
— User:Ifly6

Archive links have value even for non-dead sources: most notably, in ensuring that the linked material is as it was when cited, even if the website changes. They're also good to protect against future link rot. The problem with the article's length is its amount of readable prose: the markup in question is about 3% of the total size; not nothing, but a drop in the ocean versus what needs to be cut.
— User:UndercoverClassicist

I am profoundly unconvinced of the utility of these links. They do exceedingly little to ensure a stable mirror (content-wise or in terms of the link being active). These are print materials are hard copy; they are hosted on sites which are core parts of the academic Internet. It isn't going anywhere. For JSTOR frankly I don't think the |url= should even be populated given |jstor= exists.

Most of the archive links do not provide enough information to verify claims anyway: archive.org isn't scraping the whole of Google Books or Jstor. The first page of a paywalled site is basically useless. The archive links added for the semi-raw links to LacusCurtius are also appallingly difficult to parse; when the Julius Caesar article was packed with those bot-generated links it was practically impossible to edit the article (when I removed them the article shortened by 20k bytes). Ifly6 (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

URLs requiring login definitely shouldn't be archived, they don't typically work that way. For all journal links, rather than replicating identifiers in the |url= field (and subsequently in archivelinks), I'd propose using specific identifier fields and their associated access indicators (eg |jstor-access=. Use of {{GBurl}} should prevent the bot from triggering on those links. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

All fair points: I hadn't looked closely at exactly what had been archived, and agree with your points regarding Google Books and JSTOR (though "it isn't going anywhere" may be a little optimistic given the recent state of the online world!).

In terms of the article size, my impression is that we're more interested in readable prose size than the size of the code: I had some concern that cutting something possibly useful purely in order to reduce the article's number of bytes (with no corresponding effect on the reader's perception of the article's size) wasn't a good trade-off. However, if those archive links aren't doing any good anyway (see above), that isn't a real problem.

Looking again at the list of references, I think not including archive links is probably the right call here, so very happy with where we've ended up. Thanks for pinging and discussing. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The recent mass addition of archive links have been restored. Is there consensus here that they are of doubtful utility and should be removed? It will be potentially much harder to remove them when subsequent edits take place. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I think, if one centralised the discussion occurring both here and in the other page, there would be a consensus that these archive links are disruptive. I think that really ought to be a broader one and attention should be brought to the IA bot maintainers – viz don't generate links for Jstor and Google Books – but that would be a discussion over there. Ifly6 (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can see "disruptive" rather than "not needed", unless I'm missing something? What's the problem that they create: is it simply that they inflate the article's size? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

They give a false impression that the Jstor and Google Books materials are safely archived elsewhere. Article's size in bytes shouldn't be a major issue, but extended references can make source editing that bit harder while readers will find the references and sources padded with scraps of litter. NebY (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The extended links are disruptive because they make it more difficult (for humans) handle or parse the markup. The archive links in those instances are useless: the only impact remaining is the parsing cost. Ifly6 (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they'd be harder to remove than to restore with IABot, and we're in the D of WP:BRD. NebY (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Noting that further discussion is occurring at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Internet Archive bot cruft. Ifly6 (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Citation format

In addition to the IABot issue discussed above, I think it would be worthwhile to have a larger discussion on desired citation format. At the moment we have a mix of formats and of content: some CS1 templates and some handwritten sources, some sfns and some harvs and some untemplated short citations, some books with publication location and others without... any thoughts on what the preferred approach should be for this article? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer (highly predictably) an Sfn-style (Edit. Nb when I refer to this, I mean both {{sfn}} with substitution of {{harvnb}} for references with explanatory notes; {{sfn}} with |ps= does not work for notes): it would make the prose more easily parseable from the rest of the mark up. It also is, I think, least disruptive when CS1 templates are already present at the bottom. Ifly6 (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd also weigh in for sfn: it's by far the least cumbersome when dealing with a lot of references, especially where the same work is referenced multiple times. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The drawback to the sfn format is the inability to point to different online pages, within multi-page volumes, with changes in page number. Sfn have an admirable terseness, but I would like full citations to be allowed, as well. If visual clutter becomes a problem for me, due to the number of complex citations amongst text, I turn on a parser, which for me is wikEd. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

In what cases would you want full citations - just for the edge case you mention, or others as well? And full citations in what format? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I would want them for the edge cases. I prefer citations that use the CS1 templates (I assume the "cite" templates are what are being referred to), rather than roll-your-own formats, although I've encountered valued editors who prefer the latter. In short, flexibility, although when starting articles I tend toward the list-defined, sfn citations myself. In the back of my mind is the thought that citing should be handled at Wikidata, whose full citations would be accessed by identifiers at the articles. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

What kinds of issues with {{sfn}} / {{harvnb}} are you identifying? Ifly6 (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

If you have several citations that point to different sets of pages within the same compendious online volume, you can have direct URLs to those different sets using cite-book templates, but not easily using an sfn citation, which you would otherwise want to use (I've seen someone attempt a workaround, but it's ugly). Dhtwiki (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Could you give an example of what you're describing? I'm not sure I understand. Ifly6 (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

See the references section to Tuileries Palace, where both sfn and full citations pointing to online text are used. But, see following post and reply. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Is the workaround the method shown at "Article text" in {{sfn#Adding a URL for the page or location}} or is that a different method? NebY (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

No, the workaround I'm thinking of was kludgier. What you've found is interesting and may be the solution. However, I don't think we can't still have a flexible approach. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't say I entirely understand what you're pointing to on Tuileries Palace. I was thinking that you were referring to something like {{harvnb|Plut. ''Mar.''|loc=[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plut.%20Mar.%2025&lang=original 25]}} which would render as Plut. Mar., 25. I'm also unsure as to what you mean by "flexible approach"; would not just using {{harvnb}} with ref tags be sufficient? Ifly6 (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that you and NebY have found the way around the deficiency I perceived, by merely piping external links, although they could be seen as misplaced external links. At the Tuileries Palace article, there are sfn and full citations living side by side, as they do at many articles, and some of the full citations point to different places in the same online book. I don't know how to explain it better. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Do we want journal and web references to be inline, or to also use short cites inline and full cites at the end? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's considered a little archaic now to make a distinction, particularly for journals, and would favour short cites for all secondary sources (if we do use e.g. an ancient or epigraphic primary source, that should be cited in 'full' in the note, but I doubt that it would be appropriate to do so in such a high-level article). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Problem: a number of short citations currently present either don't correspond with a full citation at all, or could potentially correspond with more than one. Can anyone assist with that issue? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

There are two Lintott 1999s, one is Violence in republican Rome. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources, it should be marked with two further elements: (1) |orig-year=First published 1968 and (2) |edition=2nd. The other Lintott 1999 is Constitution of the Roman republic, which I think is the book being cited in much of the section on the constitution. Older revisions state it was Constitution. Ifly6 (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Preceded by La Tene culture - disputed

Why is this disputed? Ario1234 (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The extended list lacks citations and support in the article, and is largely meaningless. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

From the article:

"Rome defeated Carthage at the Battle of Zama in 202 BC, becoming the dominant power of the ancient Mediterranean world. It then embarked on a long series of difficult conquests, defeating Philip V and Perseus of Macedon, Antiochus III of the Seleucid Empire, the Lusitanian Viriathus, the Numidian Jugurtha, the Pontic king Mithridates VI, Vercingetorix of the Arverni tribe of Gaul, and the Egyptian queen Cleopatra. ...

Caesar sought cause to invade Gaul (modern France and Belgium), which would give him the dramatic military success he sought. When two local tribes began to migrate on a route that would take them near (not into) the Roman province of Transalpine Gaul, Caesar had the barely sufficient excuse he needed for his Gallic Wars, fought between 58 and 49.

Caesar defeated large armies at major battles 58 and 57. In 55 and 54 he made two expeditions into Britain, the first Roman to do so. Caesar then defeated a union of Gauls at the Battle of Alesia, completing the Roman conquest of Transalpine Gaul. By 50, all of Gaul lay in Roman hands." Ario1234 (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That section you quoted notably mentions the La Tene culture not at all. Ifly6 (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it's highly dubious (bordering on meaningless) to say that a state succeeded an archaeological culture: those two things function as explanatory/analytical tools on very different planes. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with this. Ifly6 (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

There's a whole other conversation that the question about "what happened to Celtic material culture when the Romans arrived?" has become extremely complicated in the last twenty years or so, but the answer definitely isn't simply "it got replaced by Roman material culture". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"I think it's highly dubious (bordering on meaningless) to say that a state succeeded an archaeological culture: those two things function as explanatory/analytical tools on very different planes"

So Dynastic Egypt wasn't preceded by the Naqada culture? Ario1234 (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"That section you quoted notably mentions the La Tene culture not at all."

There were multiple 'states' in Gaul prior to the Roman conquest, but listing them all would be excessive. Maybe 'Pre-Roman Gaul' would be better than 'La Tene culture'. Ario1234 (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The Roman Republic is a period in Rome's history during which Rome had a form of "republican" government and gained power over many peoples and places. That doesn't make those peoples or their power structures predecessors of the Roman Republic; it was preceded by the monarchy described in our Roman Kingdom article. NebY (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but in those places that were conquered by the Roman Republic, their states or cultures were succeeded by the Roman Republic. Ario1234 (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

When they were conquered by Rome they became Roman provinces. They were not part of Rome and they were not predecessors of the period in Rome's history during which it was a republic. NebY (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

To expand a little on what I meant, cultures and states are different things. To use an analogy, it's a bit like saying that the Roman people were succeeded by the Christian religion: a "culture" has quite a specific and technical meaning in archaeology and isn't a political unit, a racial group or really anything that anyone living at the time would probably have ascribed any meaning to. Moreover, since the concept of statehood didn't really exist in the way that we understand it today (certainly outside quite small parts of the Mediterranean coastline, Rome itself being one of them), the whole model of charting the "states" which pre-existed and were replaced by the Roman Republic is pretty incoherent. The best way to rescue the preceded/succeeded model would be to use the Roman Kingdom and the Roman Empire. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Was the Egyptian state preceded by the Naqada culture? Ario1234 (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"When they were conquered by Rome they became Roman provinces."

Yes they were provinces of the state known as the Roman Republic, hence the states or cultures that were conquered by the Roman Republic were succeeded by the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic was preceded by other states and cultures in those areas which it conquered. Ario1234 (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

No, the Roman Republic was a period. If there was a "state", it was Rome.

What's more, even if it was meaningful and factually accurate to say that La Tene culture preceded Rome or the Roman Republic, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE would still not be satisfied. The purpose of an infobox is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Not only does La Tene culture not figure in the article at all, but "La Tene culture preceded the Roman Republic", even if meaningful and accurate, would not be a key fact about the Roman Republic. NebY (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The Roman conquest of Gaul and other areas is a key fact, and should be reflected in the 'preceded by' section. Ario1234 (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That Rome defeated Gaul is not communicated at a glance or in any way clearly by listing La Tene culture as a predecessor of the Roman Republic, and even less so by listing Gaul as a predecessor, a patent absurdity that would only serve to baffle and delay the reader. NebY (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Ario1234, views here seem to be pretty strongly against your position. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This thread was about why you thought the inclusion of the La Tene culture in the 'preceded by' section was disputed. I changed it to Gaul. Why are you disputing that. Ario1234 (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

As above: "The extended list lacks citations and support in the article, and is largely meaningless". Simply "Roman Kingdom" is the appropriate entry. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"The extended list lacks citations and support in the article, and is largely meaningless"

It doesn't lack citations or support in the article. The Roman Republic conquered all of the places in the list. So in all those areas the Roman Republic was preceded by other states or cultures.

It's not meaningless, because it's about what actually happened historically. As such it is very useful for people who want to know about history and follow the sequence of events, states, cultures etc.

In contrast, saying that the only thing which preceded the Roman Republic was the Roman Kingdom is extremely uninformative and misleading, given that the Roman Republic ruled vast areas that were previously ruled or dominated by other states and cultures, and not by the Roman Kingdom. Leaving out those other states and cultures creates a confusing break or disconnection in the historical narrative which serves no constructive purpose (other than maybe to save space), and only leaves readers less informed than they could otherwise have been. Ario1234 (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

If you truly believe that including only the Roman Kingdom would be misleading, I would sooner support excluding the parameter entirely. The present list is more misleading because it equates conquered regions/cultures with predecessor states, and leaves out any nuances about what actually happened historically. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It does seem that this parameter might be beyond saving: that using it requires us to shove the narrative into its confines so aggressively and distortingly that we're better off leaving it out. "Whereof we cannot speak...", after all. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Lede section lacks inline citations

Greetings Wikipedians! The lede contains no citations to reliable sources. In my opinion that should be corrected, given the length and level of detail in the lede Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead sections are generally not required to include citations, per WP:LEADCITE. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I would venture that the OP above is aware of this, but believes that the level of detail and length therein would justify having citations regardless. Ifly6 (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

That would be an issue if (and only if) the lead contained material which either a) was a direct or near quotation from a source, b) was so controversial that it needs to be cited immediately, or c) didn't also appear later in the article with a citation. Otherwise, as Nikki points out, WP:LEADCITE says we shouldn't cite it in the lead, regardless of how long or detailed that lead is (incidentally, I don't think the lead is anything unusual in that regard, given the length of the article itself). Has anybody identified anything which falls into one of those categories? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I concur with all of the above; leads are not normally required to be cited except in certain situations noted above, and there's nothing here that meets that requirement. The information in the lead is, I believe, all cited in the body, which is sufficient. --Jayron32 15:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

July removals

@PericlesofAthens and T8612: Per

the amount of damage that this one editor inflicted back in July is monumental, ripping away vital context and without any warning, talk page discussion, or even edit summary just erasing and deleting tons of work, effort, and research into scholarly sources, wiping away cited material without any consensus, a truly shameful thing to happen, and quite frankly alarming how it has gone unopposed for so many months. An argument should be made for an immediate lock.

Can we start a discussion on these deletions and some examples on them? I can't say I reviewed them at the time. Not to assign blame – WP:AGF – who is this one editor and what are the content removals you are objecting to? Ifly6 (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think they were made in bad faith, but this editor didn't understand how Wikipedia works. It seems that any sentence that did not end with a reference was removed, as well as those with a "citation needed". T8612 (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to be generous and also assume these edits were not made in bad faith, we don't necessarily need to discuss the intentions of the editor, but we should sure discuss the alarming amount of material excised from the article, some of it clearly attached to cited scholarly sources (so that wasn't even enough to save it). Most of the content I restored were images as well as image caption descriptions removed with zero justification or even an edit summary explaining what was going on. Providing profoundly terse one-word edit summaries while removing 3,000 KB of text at a time including cited sources is not how anyone should behave or conduct themselves here on this site. The editor in question did some good work in systematically transforming the citation style of the article, but the very intentional bulldozing of other peoples' hard work was totally unwarranted. This is especially the case for the removal of descriptions that muddled the context and ruined the purpose of image placements in several sub-sections. We should be making things easier for general readers to understand, and this quite clearly achieved the opposite effect. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Without diffs or an identification, I have to guess that you mean edits carried out after this article and Roman Empire were tagged as too long. If so, the discussion at Talk:Roman Empire/Archive 11#Length may be relevant. That was followed by much copy-editing of Roman Empire which, at least in part and rather to my surprise, skillfully and beneficially trimmed some longwindedness. I don't know if the edits here were similar; it may also be that to some extent they removed material which was and still is also in linked main articles and may even have been copied here from them, and that all that work, effort and research into scholarly sources remains in those articles. NebY (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yea the length basis was the main one as to why I didn't review any of the deletions: the article was too long and has been known to be too long. While I appreciate – especially after writing piles of articles on obscure topics or figures like Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer, Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio, and the Marian reforms – that the detail that we could go into is near limitless, an article such as this really must be a WP:SUMMARY. Ifly6 (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Who is the mysterious editor at hand? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)