Talk:Outline of classical studies/Archive 1

Merge issue

Why create this list?

Not a month ago List of basic classics topics was merged into Classics: 09 Feb 2007 to be exact. The reason: both articles were - in essence - duplicates of each other. Now we have [[List of basic topics in classical studies] with the info easily place in a properly expanded Classics article. Is this not simplify divided effort? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Because as you just mentioned, this is a list, not an article. Articles don't belong on lists of lists, and this list is intended to be an entry on the page Lists of basic topics. That page is regularly purged of articles whenever they are listed there. I've tried including articles, but they always get removed, because they don't fit the selection criteria defined in the title of the page. The Transhumanist   02:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The previous merger was in essence a deletion, and because it was also a deletion of an item from a set, should have been handled as an AfD. There was no discussion to delete the Lists of basic topics, yet one of its member lists was replaced by a redirect to an article. The Transhumanist   02:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not true: the previous merger was a merger and handled via the proper WP policies for a full merger. The content was cut and pasted into the destination. The source page was redirected. An AfD proposal is just that: deletion of the article/list. This means the loss of the content. There was a full and proper discussion of the merger at the Classics talk page. I invited 59 users of both source and destination pages to make a comment. I placed a notice on the individual talk pages of 59 users! I received 10 comments recorded on the Classics in accordance with WP policy. All 10 either agreed with the former merger or wanted the list deleted out right. So, The Transhumanist    you are quite wrong to say that there was no discussion. There was a discussion and it was held at Classics where it should be. Please, click on the Discuss link on the merge banner and see where it takes you. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say there was no discussion. I said there was no discussion of deleting the set known as the Lists of basic topics. You were essentially initiating the dismantling of that set of lists. The discussion took place in the wrong place. Because it dealt with the structure of the set of Lists of basic topics it should have been discussed on that level - on that project's talk page, or on the village pump. By merging the page and redirecting it, a hole was put in the coverage of the basic topics list set, which is a set of lists of lists, not lists of articles. The Transhumanist (AWB) 04:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What? When and why would I propose to delete the Lists of basic topics? I have no idea what has given you that idea. Very weird red herring. In fact, it is nonsense. I was as clear as clear can be: a proposed merger of List of basic topics in classical studies to Classics because it adds nothing and creates divided effort. There is very little new content being added to Classics. It would be best to focus efforts there. Cheers!Wassupwestcoast 05:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You didn't. You deleted one of its member lists, thus initiating the dismantling of the set -- you partially dismantled it by permanently removing one of its lists (by making it an article and no longer eligible for inclusion). The set then had a hole in its topic coverage. You never even addressed the issue of the damage it would do to the set of lists. Once a list is merged into and becomes an article, it becomes effectively removed (that is, deleted) from the [[Lists of basic topics), creating a hole in that set. There was no proposal on the project-level of the deletion of any of its lists. The article Classics leads with 15 article-style paragraphs, making it unsuitable to be on a list of lists. The Transhumanist (AWB) 06:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Lists of basic topics is part of Wikipedia's contents navigation system, and is displayed on this navbar:

Those are all top-level pages. When a link is removed from any of those pages, a chunk of the navigation system is taken with it. The Transhumanist (AWB) 06:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And no, it's not divided effort, because the list serves a different purpose than the article, as do all the lists which correspond to an article name (for example List of basic architecture topics). The lists of basic topics are overviews of topics using a standard list format familar to users of the lists. They are for browsing and reviewing subjects. As structured lists, they afford a survey or review of a topic much faster than articles or categories. They also serve as "related changes" watchlists for the respective subjects. The Transhumanist   03:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The set of Lists of basic topics is a central component of Wikipedia's contents navigation system, and therefore is very stable -- it hasn't been prone to the list deletion syndrome. The Transhumanist (AWB) 03:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is useful and a great finding aid. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

I would like to make the following suggestions:

1. Move the Ancient theater section up to the classical literature section.
2. Move classical metres up to the classical literature section.
3. Move the link to the list of architectural terms up to the classical architecture section.
4. Move the Classical Greek culture and Classical Roman culture sections up to the Ancient history section. It contains stuff like, the Roman army, Roman Law etc. which is properly studied within Ancient History.

There's also a section for classical studies scholars, but the section does not contain anything. Should we put together a list of notable scolars of classical studies? --D. Webb 01:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! In the future, please feel free to improve the list in any way you feel best. For the sake of completeness, I plan to copy the lists from the list section to the relevant sections, using pipes for contextual fit. The Transhumanist (AWB) 16:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Classical Scholars

Since there was a section for classical scholars, I added a list of 59 very notable classical scholars. I have avoided to some extent to include living people, although some certainly do deserve to be included (e.g. Nagy, West). I hope everyone agrees that this is not the place to add the name of one's favorite professor, even if they just got tenured and have a new book out and maybe even deserve Wikipedia article. I think this ought to be a list of truly notable scholars of great importance. Otherwise, let's not have it. --D. Webb 20:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I like your list. The Transhumanist   10:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)