User talk:Choliamb

More information Getting Started, Getting Help ...

Hello Choliamb! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ingratis (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Close

Hope you don't mind the above - better late than never. Ingratis (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your work on Isova - good to have, and I learnt a lot from it. I should mention that there's a huge focus on Wikipedia presently on removing content lacking inline citations, quite often (to be frank) well beyond common sense. If you could add one or two more inline references to the paragraph on St Nicolas, that should avoid any potential difficulties. Best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ingratis. Thanks for this. I'm not interested in spending too much time and effort on Wikipedia, for a number of reasons, but occasionally when I see a hole in an obscure area of coverage I will try to fill it, if I can do so quickly and easily. In this case, it was a site that I knew about and I was already familiar with the sources, so it didn't take long.

In the two paragraphs on Notre Dame and Saint Nicolas, I tried to indicate that all of the architectural description was based on the four sources listed in the first note in each paragraph (Traquair, Mitsopoulos, Bon, and Pangopoulos). That seemed more economical than providing one note for the dimensions, another for the plan, another for the windows, etc., especially since I would just be citing the same sources every single time. As far as I know, these four publications are the only independent architectural descriptions of the buildings. I'm not aware of any other discussion in the last 40 years, in guidebooks and other general works, that is not entirely derivative of one or more of them. Because the sources are fully cited and the relevant page numbers given, and all four of them are available online for free, without paywalls, anyone who wants to can go back and pull out individual page numbers for each element that I describe. I certainly don't mind if someone wants to do that and replace my single cumulative note with a series of separate notes on individual sentences. But it's not something that I'm particularly eager to do myself. I've made my contribution, such as it is, and I don't have the time or the interest to do a lot more. That said, I appreciate what you and other more dedicated editors are trying to accomplish here, and I'd hate to see the information I provided removed on a technicality, so I'll try to spend a few minutes on it this weekend and see if I can strip out one or two separate references for the St. Nicolas paragraph. It can probably be done easily enough for the sentences on the western rather than Orthodox character of the worship and the uncertain date. In any case, many thanks for the positive feedback. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your understanding. If you're not able to get to it I'll add the book refs again as above at the end of the para, which should be more than enough to fend off drive-by deletes. Wikipedia is sometimes extremely good at shooting itself in its foot, and we seem to be passing through an unusually literal-minded rules-driven phase which often backfires. All best, Ingratis (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Ingratis: OK, I've revised the descriptions and added a few more citations (in the paragraph on Notre Dame as well as that on Saint Nicolas). It's both more informative and more accurate now. Have a look and see what you think. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Wonderful - a standard to aspire to! It reads really nicely and clearly, and I think (hope) the refs are now idiot-proofed. Many thanks for all your trouble. All best, Ingratis (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The term was coined by a Norwegian "duckist", Jon Gisle, who wrote a book called "Donaldismen", which I read in 1974. I don't think it has been translated into English, but Google found a German translation when I checked. Best regards from a Finnish animator (retired) --Janke | Talk 21:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Ps: Check out Donaldism...

Thanks, Janke. Very pleased to meet you. I didn't know that Scandinavia was such a thriving center of international Donaldwissenschaften. Is there something about him that northern Europeans find particularly attractive? Here in the US, he doesn't get much respect any more: many casual fans of classic cartoons focus chiefly on Warner Bros and dismiss all things Disney as sentimental fluff, while contemporary Disney fans are more likely to be interested in The Little Mermaid and Frozen than the early features and shorts. It's a real shame, considering how technically gorgeous the work of the Disney studio was from the mid-30s to the mid-40s, and how funny some of the Donald cartoons from that period are. But I don't need to tell you that! Before you retired, did you do most of your animating by hand, or with a computer? Choliamb (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Per Capita, Finland is the top Disney-comics reading nation in the world! Aku Ankka was first published in December 1951, and in 2013 it rose to the most sold/subscribed magazine! Myself, I regard Barks' duck from 1949-1954 as the best. As you, I definitely don't care for the 60s version! Yes, I animated mostly by hand, but in the 1980s and 90s I did some computer animation, too. Here are some samples of the styles I used (mostly specified by the client): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C61comiFqWA Best, --Janke | Talk 08:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

That's quite a range of styles, Janke. Impressive. And I'm happy to know about Aku Ankka, although to American ears it sounds like the name of a Tiki cocktail, like the Aku Aku Lapu, which was named after the Aku Aku restaurant in the Stardust Hotel in Las Vegas, which was in turn named after the Aku Aku spirits of Easter Island. You can chalk this up to my very poor knowledge of Finnish and Finland, which is sadly limited to Sibelius and the Kalevala. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you perchance notice the link on the Aku Ankka page: The Quest for Kalevala? There' a strong mix for you! PS: Found it in entirety with a search: Janke | Talk 17:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I read it last night. Not at all what I expected from a Donald Duck comic book! Got to give Rosa credit for going all in on the mythology. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

May I suggets you look at the top frame of Rosa's page 20, and compare it with this Gallen-Kallela painting: The_Defense_of_the_Sampo ... --Janke | Talk 17:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

A nice easter egg for Finnish readers. Gallen-Kallela seems like an interesting fellow. The work in Kenya and New Mexico gives him more range (both geographic and stylistic) than one would expect from an artist chiefly associated with nationalist subjects. Choliamb (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he's an icon in Finnish art. I live just a few minute's walk from the Gallen-Kallela Museum, so I've seen quite a lot of his paintings... Janke | Talk 09:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

As for cracking eggs: Momma wolf and daddy wolf never had egg cups, so I was deprived of that knowledge during childhood... We usually ate chickens whole and uncooked, and didn't bother with eggs. Now I know what the expression means, though! David10244 (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@David10244: Unlike eggs, I don't think there are any strong doctrinal disputes over which is the proper end for cracking open a chicken. You're free to start at the head or the tail or anywhere in between without raising any eyebrows.

Re eggs: if you've never read it, the fourth chapter of Gulliver's Travels is the locus classicus.

Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look at that. David10244 (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

All true believers should break their eggs at the convenient end, right? And that end should be left up to personal conscience... David10244 (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Your gracious assistance is requested on Lovatelli urn, particularly with the dates. Could you also verify the dating of the object? Thank you in advance. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas. Thanks for the barnstar. I've replied to your questions about the date of the Lovatelli urn on the article's talk page. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I've just put Beulé Gate up for peer review here, with a view to taking it forward to FAC at some point in the future. Would be most grateful for your eyes on the article and your suggestions, if you have the opportunity. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, although my time will be limited now that the holidays are over. I have a long manuscript (not mine!) on the LH pottery from Lerna to copyedit, and a health problem that I hope will turn out to be minor but could be something more serious (CAT scan of the head on Friday, keep your fingers crossed). But I will give it a look when I need some diversion. Knowing you, I'm sure it's in great shape already. Choliamb (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated -- good luck with all of that (will be keeping my fingers very much crossed). Likewise on the relatively limited time, so please don't feel that there's any rush. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: OK, it took a while, for which I apologize, but I finally had a chance to look over the Beulé Gate article. I've let loose my usual torrent of carping and nitpicking on the peer review page. Choliamb (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi – hope you are doing well!

I noticed your recent edit to Hypereides, which caught my attention because I've been giving Phryne a bit of a going over, so it's an incredibly specific question, but: I don't suppose somewhere in your 40 years of archaeological slides you have anything from the Musée Vivenel yet to be put on Commons? In particular either the Hypereides/Phryne double head or a colour image of the Corinna statuette? I'm sure the answer is no because unless you are specifically interested in obscure ancient Greek women poets there isn't much reason to go, but I thought I'd ask just in case... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I've never been to Compiègne. The double herm would probably be disappointing in any case, because the woman's face is almost entirely destroyed ("le visage de la femme a été mutilé à tel point que le front même fait défaut sous les cheveux, seuls conservés" is Poulsen's description; cf. the photo on p. 48 of his article). His argument regarding the identifications, while ingenious, seems to me pretty far-fetched (which of course does not necessarily mean that he is wrong). Although I edited the image caption in the Hypereides article, I see that the Phryne article still states as if it were fact that the head in the Glyptotek is a portrait of Hypereides; perhaps consider changing the wording to something that acknowledges the uncertainty? I also see that not one but two new books entirely devoted to Phryne have been published this year. She's certainly having her moment! Choliamb (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see you already uploaded the photo from the Poulsen article to the Commons earlier today, so you're a step ahead of me. I also notice from the history of the Hypereides article that you changed the lead image only a few days before I added my comments about the portraits, so I wanted to assure you that I did not make that edit in response to anything that you did. I just happened to be uploading my photos of the other so-called Hypereides portrait in Copenhagen (this one, in the National Museum rather than the Glyptotek), and that's what prompted me to look into the evidence for the identification. Choliamb (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is all rather what I had suspected. There's a clearer reproduction of the Poulsen photograph in Richter's The Portraits of the Greeks, so I can scan that so we have an actually reasonable-quality image. And yes, having read your section on the portraits of Hypereides and checked Richter I've slightly changed the caption to allow for the uncertainty. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, well, on scanning the Richter image at high resolution it becomes clear that it's actually a different photograph to the Poulsen one. So much for that brilliant plan. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I know you said that you couldn't be paid to touch it, but could I persuade you to take an unpaid look at Draft:Dorian invasion? I think I've got the text to just about where I can, and there's quite a lot of tracing particular ideas back to their sources and trying to work out who is the most important advocate for a certain (usually barmy) point of view. As you can imagine, I'm keen to get this as close to "right" as possible before shifting it to mainspace.

An even more niche question, but I don't suppose you've got any photographs of Handmade burnished ware (probably displayed among late-dated pottery from Tiryns?) in your collection? No great shakes if not: there are a couple of images here for which I imagine we could make a good FUR if no free one exists. The only ones that come up on Google Images under CC licences are Roman Black Burnished Ware, and I don't think there are many people with the ceramic expertise to comb through unlabelled photographs to identify any from those. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No photos of the handmade pottery from Tiryns, I'm afraid. As for the article, I don't think I can be of much help. While I may be a font of nitpickery when it comes to subjects that I know something about, the Bronze Age and early Iron Age, with the exception of a few special topics, are mostly outside my competence, and I have only the most cursory familiarity with recent scholarship on the end of the BA. You are, I'm sure, much better informed about this than I am, and your knowledge is certainly more up-to-date. Like anyone in the field, I have my own poorly informed ideas about the strengths and weaknesses of some of the arguments, but none that I care to share publicly. The line between "sharing one's knowledge" and "being a blowhard" is a thin one; I try to stay on the right side of that line by commenting only when I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.

While I don't have anything to say about the content, I do have a couple of minor editorial observations based on a very quick and superficial reading of the article:

• "became, in the words of Édouard Will, 'a quasi-permanent temptation' in German intellectual culture". This is a memorable phrase, and when I read it, I immediately turned to the footnotes to see where Will said it. When I found that the note contains a reference not to Will but to someone else reporting Will's words, I was disappointed, and I can't believe I'm the only one who feels this way. Why should I have to jump through extra hoops to get my hands on Schnapp-Gourbeillon's article (the original publication in L'Histoire is behind a paywall; the reprint in Mossé's volume is not available online, as far as I can tell) when the quotation I care about is Will's? If he's important enough to namecheck, he should be important enough to cite. I see that note 80, another reference to Schnapp-Gourbeillon, cites both her essay and the man whose views she reports (De Sanctis). Can the same be done for Will here? (In the text, the full stop after Will's name should be a comma.)
• I'm not keen on the heading "Scholarly decline". I can think of a couple of different ways to understand those words, of which the most natural is "decline in [the quality of one's] scholarship" (e.g., "His three masterful volumes on ancient beehives, published in the 1930s and 40s, were revolutionary and justly praised, but his work after the war, coinciding with a period of ill health, showed signs of an unmistakable scholarly decline.") But the meaning in this article is something like "diminishing support among scholars", which is not, at least to me, a natural way to understand the phrase. Can a better heading be devised?
• In the first sentence of the section "Current views of the Late Bronze Age collapse", some words have dropped out after "from" (presumably northern or central Greece).

On a different topic, did you receive the email I sent you last week (Friday, 25 Oct) regarding the non-WP matter we discussed? Choliamb (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

All most wise -- would that we all would stay on the same side of the same line. I've made those changes (Schnapp-Gourbeillon didn't actually cite Will directly, but she included his book in a further reading section, and it was easy enough to source the quotation).

I did receive your email -- the reply had managed to get stuck in my Outbox! I've just sent it from another account: let me know if that hasn't got through and I'll try something else. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Choliamb. I was wondering if you would be able to review a recent FAC nom of mine, namely Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Mycale/archive1. Your comments at the Galatian War peer review were very helpful, and I would be much obliged if you could help out here too, because the article is from the classical period and you have an encyclopedic and masterly understanding of the classics. No problem if you can't. Many thanks in advance. Matarisvan (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Matarisvan. Thanks for the invitation, but I'm afraid I'll have to pass on this one. I don't spend much time on Wikipedia in general, and I'm busy with real life work at the moment. I made an exception for Alison Frantz because I have a history with UC and it's an article that I had previously contributed to, albeit in a very small way. But I don't have the time or energy to do justice to something as long and complicated as Mykale, especially since (as you know) the scholarly bibliography on every aspect of the Persian Wars is enormous. With apologies and best wishes, Choliamb (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The Archaeological Sourcing Barnstar Thank you for 'digging' for those sources! I really appreciate the help — and your top-tier sourcing skills! AmazingAce123 (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, AmazingAce123. I've moved this here to my talk page, since I try to keep my user page as uncluttered as possible. I'm glad you found the images useful. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Following your discoveries about Robertson and Boardman: to write one article about one art historian who was unwittingly best mates with a Soviet spy might be regarded as a misfortune. To write about two looks like carelessness. There was obviously a lot of it around in those days. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, your Stalinist sympathies were one of the first things I noticed about you, along with your poorly concealed hostility toward the Danes and your Victorian antipathy toward gender-neutral Latin adjectives.

I went back to look again at Robertson, since I had missed the bits about Philby (or else my delight in discovering the connection with Thomas Dolby had knocked everything else out of my head). The article, following the Sparkes obituary, describes Robertson and Philby as "childhood friends", but how does that work, exactly? They were at university together, but if Robertson was born in Berkshire and attended the Leys School in Cambridge, while Philby was born in India and educated in Surrey and at the Westminster School in London, when and where did they meet and become friends as children, before they both went up to Trinity? Sparkes was presumably relying on something that Robertson told him in connection with his time in Thessaloniki during the war, and I'm in no position to say that he's wrong about this, but perhaps he misunderstood. It's certainly hard to reconcile with the other known facts about the early lives of the two men, at least as sketched in their WP articles. If there's no other evidence that their acquaintance extended back to childhood, perhaps it would be better to drop the description "childhood friend" and simply call Philby his "Cambridge contemporary", as you do in the following paragraph, since that much is incontestable. However old the relationship was, Sparkes doesn't (to my mind) necessarily imply that were very close, in the way that Golding and Blunt apparently still were in 1979. (By the way, I've added to the list of works in the article Robertson's keynote address at the Getty colloquium on the Amasis Painter in 1986. If you haven't seen it, it's a good read: modest, gracefully written, and with thoughtful reflections on Beazley, vase-painting as fine art, and Archaic chronology (in response to Francis and Vickers).)

The Golding is up to your usual fine standards, and I enjoyed reading it, since he was previously only a name to me. But I had to laugh at the illustrations: you've got a Picasso, a Braque, and a Cezanne, but no Golding, which seems a little like deliberately trolling the reader, considering how much space is devoted to the discussion and description of his art in the final section of the article. Does WP policy really forbid you from using a single low-resolution photograph of a painting by Golding himself on a fair-use basis, the way you use photos of people? Or is it that you've already used a non-free image of the man himself, and the limit is one per article? In either case, the fact that none of his paintings will emerge from copyright until 2083 effectively means that the article will never include one, since by that time Wikipedia will have lapsed into the digital tar pits along with other creatures of the prehistoric internet, like MySpace, Napster, and AOL. Choliamb (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Hah -- not sure I've got a whole lot of sympathy for Blunt and Philby, but I did end up with quite a bit for Golding. His story seemed to get sadder as the research went on.

On Robertson: I think on balance I'm persuaded here, though it's a very dangerous game to second-guess what's in reliable sources. I suppose in theory the families might have known each other, and the English intelligentsia can't have been that big a social circle, but for now I've hedged and shifted Philby's introduction to Cambridge. I enjoyed the lecture you linked -- he makes interesting observations about a remarkable number of different areas in an impressively short space of time.

On Golding -- I'm always more gun-shy than is probably right on fair-use images. As a Commons native, you'll know more about the rules here than I do. As I understand it, the bar in theory is really quite low -- only that using the image would add encyclopaedic value which we can't get from any free-use alternative. I would imagine we can bring in some of the pieces discussed in the article -- Torso early on and one of the big, bright abstract ones (you can see reproductions in the External Links section) -- without upsetting anyone; as far as I know there's no quota on how many non-free images can be used as long as the rationale for each is watertight. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Now added. Part of my worry was that the downsizing from the bot would wreck them, but I think they'll still be OK at thumbnail size at least. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

That's much better, in my opinion. The images are out of the question for the Commons, of course, since he died in 2012 and the copyright is ironclad for another 60 years. But to me the case for fair use is clear, although WP standards for "non-free content" are rather different from what is legally required for fair use in the US, so that may mean nothing here. In any case, I agree that the thing to do is put them in and let someone argue for deletion if they're not convinced. It certainly helps the reader (this reader, at any rate) understand the discussion of his art in the article.

On Robertson, it wouldn't offend me if you continued to follow Sparkes. As you know from my querulous comments on similar topics (Did the statue of Apollo in the Palatine temple have anything at all to do with Rhamnous? Was Alison Frantz literally a fellow of the ASCSA during that year when she worked in the library?), my own WP policy, if I have one at all, is "first do no harm" -- by which I mean "avoid stating as a fact something that may not be true, even if you find it reported in an otherwise reliable source". All articles are selective, so pick your way delicately around the questionable spots when there are reasonable doubts, especially if they are incidental details and omitting them doesn't weaken the article in any significant way (something I think is true both here and in the examples listed above). But I understand your reluctance to go against the sources and I don't think any the less of you for it. You're a much better judge of what will and will not pass muster among the Wikiscenti, which is why I usually pass along my doubts for you to do with as you will, rather than editing the articles myself.

Since we're talking about images: the picture currently in the Robertson article makes him look like a bit of a doofus (as we say on this side of the water). When I called up the Sparkes obit, I saw that the British Academy used a much more decorous photo. Since both of them are non-free, does it matter which one you appropriate? If so, I vote for the one that makes him look more like an academic and less like a crazy uncle or a cartoon character. But if you have a sneaking fondness for the goofy one, feel free to ignore this suggestion. Choliamb (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Not sure I'd call the Robertson photo "goofy" -- it was dignified enough for the AJA! I suppose none of us look at our best when we're laughing, but then he looks rather (artistically?) miserable in the PBA one. Mind you, the latter probably has a better crop and is generally a bit clearer: I never met Robertson, so can't vouch for which, if either, is a better likeness. I'll swap them and see how it looks. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Every family needs a designated Goofy Uncle™, and as someone who has served in that capacity with distinction for decades, I do not consider it a term of opprobrium. I prefer the new photo, which seems to me more contemplative than miserable, but since you went to the trouble to write the article, you should choose the illustration, per WP:YOUHAVETOTHROWTHEDOGABONEFROMTIMETOTIME. Choliamb (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's growing on me. It's certainly more "arty", which feels like a nice posthumous riposte to whoever banned him from growing a beard while at UCL (I'm not sure if history records, though there must be likely suspects). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Choliamb, I hope you're doing well! I just wanted to follow up regarding the First Jewish–Roman War FA nomination. I'd love to know if you have any further thoughts on whether you can support or oppose the nomination. Your input would be invaluable as we work towards finalizing the discussion. Thanks again for your help, and I look forward to hearing from you!

Best, Mariamnei (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mariamnei. I'm surprised your article hasn't gained more traction, since my impression is that a lot of military history people hang around FAC, and that articles on wars and battles are nominated with some frequency. Unfortunately, I'm not able to help beyond the few specific comments I have already made on the arches of Titus. I don't spend a lot of time on Wikipedia, I have little interest in the GA and FA processes per se, and I am almost entirely ignorant of the requirements for promoting an article to FA status. When I do comment at greater length on a nomination, it is always on content alone, and only in areas where I know (or think I know) enough about the subject to point out errors of fact, omissions, or other problems. The topography and monuments of the city of Rome is one of those areas, but Roman military history (except for a few tangentially related archaeological topics) is not. And since my comments in this case addressed only a couple of small and ultimately unimportant slips in a single paragraph of a long and complex article, I don't think it's appropriate for me to formally vote to support or oppose. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful. Perhaps some of the other editors you pinged will be able to do what I cannot. Good luck, Choliamb (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh, got it. I totally understand. No worries at all, and thanks again for your help so far! Mariamnei (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi again, Mariamnei. To make up for the fact that I couldn't provide any further help with your FAC nomination, I've made a small contribution to your article on the Zoninus collar. The existing photo was rather dark and out-of-focus, so I have just uploaded a photo I took some years ago (File:Inscribed bronze slave collar (Rome MNR 65043; CIL XV 7194).jpg), which, while not perfect, is quite a bit clearer and makes it easier to read the inscription. I've taken the liberty of adding it to the article in place of the old one. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much! the new photo looks great,. it really helps bring out the inscription! I really appreciate you taking the time to do it. Also, if you don't mind, could you drop a quick note about the image on the recently accepted DYK nomination? That way we'll have the opportunity to show it on the home page when the time comes.

Cheers, and thanks again! 😊 Mariamnei (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Following up a reader's question on Martin Robertson got a little out of hand, and led me to dig into the whole sorry story around his demotion at the BM. It seems like the sort of article that might be up your alley? I suspect I've slipped up once or twice when trying to synchronise the different narratives of what was cleaned when and by whom -- on which nobody seems to fully agree, and it doesn't help that the works involved are sometimes known by different names to different people. Thoughts gratefully received, if you have them.

Alternatively, if you fancy getting your trowel dirty, Saxe–Goldstein hypothesis is currently sitting in drydock at FAC. At the moment it's got a source review in progress, so there's no real rush, but it's had a lot of wise people help out with making the prose more friendly to those few readers who don't read archaeological-theoretical treatises for fun. Again, I'd much welcome any oars you have to put in there, particularly if/where the precision of the archaeology has been blurred out in the editing and clarifying process. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

The article on the cleaning of the Elgin marbles seems excellent to me. I was unfamiliar with most of the details in your blow-by-blow account of events, but you laid them out very clearly, and I was delighted to learn that it can all be blamed on Pryce's sinusitis. I corrected a couple of typos, and made a hash of several consecutive prematurely aborted edit summaries splitting hairs over the question of whether it would be better to say that "most" ancient marble sculptures were painted or that "many" of them were. (I would probably write "many" in that sentence, just to be safe, and I can elaborate in a more coherent fashion if you're interested, but it doesn't really matter for the general reader, and it's completely unimportant for the article.) I didn't see anything that looked obviously hinky to me in the text, but I do have a few comments about figures and captions, which I will put on the article talk page, since that seems like the most appropriate place for them.

As for Saxe-Goldstein: yes, I saw it at FAC, but it's not really my cup of tea. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)