Wikidata talk:WikiProject Ancient Greece

How to indicate Ancient Greece (Q11772)[edit]

User:EncycloPetey pointed out to me that I shouldn't use time period (P2348)Ancient Greece (Q11772) because time period (P2348) indicates a period, while Ancient Greece (Q11772) indicates a civilization. I had already created 813 time period (P2348)Ancient Greece (Q11772) (this query). Before that, in the past months I had removed country of citizenship (P27)Ancient Greece (Q11772), because country of citizenship (P27) indicates a country, not a civilization.

Please note that I have also created 803 time period (P2348)Hellenistic period (Q428995), which seems to indicate both a period and a civilization.

So I have four proposals:

@ValterVB: advised me to create a new item for "ancient Greece as a period" and then to use it with time period (P2348).
Otherwise we may propose a new property like "civilization", but it may be used only in this case.
Otherwise we may simply replace time period (P2348)Ancient Greece (Q11772) with native language (P103)Ancient Greek (Q35497) (languages spoken, written or signed (P1412)Ancient Greek (Q35497) for non-native speakers), but I think it wouldn't be enough.
Finally, we can consider Ancient Greece (Q11772) both a civilization and a period: in this case time period (P2348)Ancient Greece (Q11772) would be correct.

Please, comment! --Epìdosis 20:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC) I'd want to hear @B20180:, who subscribed to this project today, and @Jura1:, who spread time period (P2348) in ancient Roman people items.[reply]

I recommend time period (P2348)classical antiquity (Q486761). The Hellenistic period comes later. It is generally considered to begin with the conquests of Alexander. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Epìdosis: I agreed with Epìdosis's proposals and EncycloPetey's recommend. Maybe; We will add some these details in Wikidata:WikiProject Ancient Greece page. --B20180 (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey: In my opinion time period (P2348)classical antiquity (Q486761) is too generic: it contains also ancient Roman people. Maybe it would need another statement precising it. --Epìdosis 13:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Period is a word concerning time, not the place or the people. It does not matter which people are included, if it is the right time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For Romans, I started using P2348 as I found P27 problematic. Someone had added P31=periodization (Q816829) to the values being used with P2348.
--- Jura 13:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't any objection, I can replace all time period (P2348)Ancient Greece (Q11772) with time period (P2348)classical antiquity (Q486761), while time period (P2348)Hellenistic period (Q428995) will remain. --Epìdosis 12:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer if you wont to the same with the Roman-related period values.
--- Jura 13:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1: Excuse me, I don't understand what you mean. Could you explain better? --Epìdosis 11:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Classical antiquity" could apply to items where we currently use "Roman Republic", etc.
--- Jura 07:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. --Epìdosis 08:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done and I've updated instructions here. Thank you all, --Epìdosis 13:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greek Olympic winners[edit]

I'd want to know your opinions about this discussion, which is stalling in the last days. --Epìdosis 20:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Index pages about Greek mythology[edit]

I resume here this discussion, which was recently archived before consensus was reached. The participants were @Jura1, Melderick, Innocent bystander, Jane023, Infovarius, TomT0m: and me.

The problem is that many Wikipedias (en.wiki, but also it.wiki and other smaller ones) have articles dealing with more than one Greek mythological character at once (i.e. en:Icarius) or in some cases characters and epithets (i.e. en:Macistus). Connecting this articles to Wikidata is often problematic: they are often in single items, but in some cases they are mixed with non-content disambiguation pages (i.e. Meliboea (Q1919352)) or with articles about a single mythological character. Most of the items containing these articles have instance of (P31)Wikimedia set index article (Q15623926).

We agreed about hoping that most of these indexes will be split in the future, but we didn't reach a solution for items on Wikidata. The proposals were:

I think that instance of (P31)set of mythological Greek characters (Q26214208) is the best, but I need consensus before using it extensively. Please comment! --Epìdosis 13:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you change the label from "class" to "set"? Otherwise it seems like you might want to be using P279.
--- Jura 13:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It can be done as well, with a statement

⟨ subject ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ mythological Greek character (Q22988604)  

 ⟩

. set of mythological Greek characters (Q26214208)  

is a metaclass of fictional characters. author TomT0m / talk page 13:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+1 for class and P279 property. --Infovarius (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1:

Done "set". --Epìdosis 18:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Q26214208 seems fine to me. Keep Set index when a page also includes a non-character topic. How you link each element to its set ? With has parts/part of ? --Melderick (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are mainly interested in convincing the local wikis to split them up (at least, I am). Building items for each person on our side could help. "has part" should be sufficient.
--- Jura 22:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't any objection, I will use for these items instance of (P31)set of mythological Greek characters (Q26214208) (+ instance of (P31)Wikimedia set index article (Q15623926) where they include a non-character topic) and has part(s) (P527) to indicate the items about single characters. --Epìdosis 11:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Infovarius (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done and I've updated instructions here. Thank you all, --Epìdosis 13:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Period vs culture[edit]

I noticed we actually have:

time period (P2348): classical antiquity (Q486761) (882) and Hellenistic period (Q428995) (868), but also Ancient Greece (Q11772) (234!: we decided against it, but some users are spreading it)
culture (P2596): Ancient Greece (Q11772) (53: is it correct?)

The users which took part in the first discussion: @B20180, Jura1, EncycloPetey: what's your opinion about the best use of these properties? --Epìdosis 10:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That proposal looks fine to me. Restricting "Ancient Greece" to a culture instead of a period makes sense. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed. --B20180 (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mythical/mythological[edit]

Some labels seemingly randomly use either of those two terms. Would it be controversial to add aliases using the alternative term to the items that still don't have these? At least when I last checked there were still some; I can't seem to find any where the alias is missing at the moment. --Azertus (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. --Epìdosis 21:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, add mythic as well to everything? ;-)

ETA: Oh, and what about legendary? I removed myth(olog)ic(al) from fictional location (Q3895768), since we don't want to use "fictional" items for mythology, but I also removed legendary, which is debatable. I've seen legendary as alias on some mythology items. Should its use be expanded? --Azertus (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Greek mythology[edit]

2016[edit]

@FocalPoint: and I are spreading position held (P39) with specific kingdoms (e.g. Lycus (Q17381988)): in my opinion position held (P39) + instance of (P31)king in Greek mythology (Q24434794) is pleonastic, so I have replaced it with instance of (P31)mythological Greek character (Q22988604). Is there any objection? --Epìdosis 16:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Small comment: if some person is a king of several kingdoms but there are items not for every kingdom, then this replacement is a loss of information (by too strong restriction). --Infovarius (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Infovarius, what you say is in principle true. So it is better to put first the relevant position held (P39) to all 220 or so items which have king in Greek mythology (Q24434794). Then, after all possible position held (P39) have been placed, we can replace the instance of (P31)king in Greek mythology (Q24434794) with instance of (P31)mythological Greek character (Q22988604). Unless this is done one-by-one by hand, checking the relevant articles, which is an excellent, even if slow, way to do it. --FocalPoint (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2024[edit]

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Greece

Hello @Epìdosis, FocalPoint, Infovarius: and other, I'm seeking some input regarding the use of king in Greek mythology (Q24434794). As of now it is mostly used as instance of (P31) (196 uses); 47 uses are for subclass of (P279), 2 uses as position held (P39), 1 use as occupation (P106). On the items modelled as subclass, a random check points toward a use mainly as position held (P39). If I'm understanding correctly the 2016 discussion above, there was some consensus in moving the use of king in Greek mythology (Q24434794) from instance of (P31) to position held (P39), but that seems to have been lost over the years. I'm very much in favor of this move, as it would make the modelling of Greek mythological characters more consistent regardless of their role, but perhaps there is some arguments for the current use that I didn't think of. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jahl de Vautban: I support instance of (P31)mythological Greek character (Q22988604) + position held (P39)king in Greek mythology (Q24434794); still better would be having as value of P39 something more specific, i.e. an item being subclass of (P279)king in Greek mythology (Q24434794), but this could well be done in a second phase. Thanks very much for the cleaning! Epìdosis 08:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC) P.S. I fixed now the only case of P106, moving it to P39. --Epìdosis 08:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jahl de Vautban:, I agree with @Epìdosis:. instance of (P31)mythological Greek character (Q22988604) + position held (P39)king in Greek mythology (Q24434794) makes sense. --FocalPoint (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement done as of today. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worshipped by Greek mythology[edit]

@Kareyac: has added to some characters and deities of Greek mythology worshipped by (P1049)Greek mythology (Q34726). In my opinion it is incorrect because

worshipped by (P1049) should only be added to deities, not to mythological characters;
Greek mythology (Q34726) is a mythology, not a religion.

What's your opinion? --Epìdosis 11:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! Cf. Property talk:P1049#Scope.

Questions like this should be managed by property constraints (here type and value type) and the classification (P31 and P279).

These currently determine (see Property talk:P1049):

deity (Q178885) and God (Q190) are allowed as subject types -> "characters of Greek mythology" should probably not have these types and are not allowed as subject by the constraint then.
world view (Q49447) is allowed as object type -> Greek mythology (Q34726) is allowed as object because:

Greek mythology (Q34726)instance of (P31)mythology (Q9134)

mythology (Q9134)subclass of (P279)world view (Q49447)

I think "characters of Greek mythology" should definitely be somehow linked to the mythology they belong to. Now this is done in different ways:

by classification, e.g. instance of (P31)mythological Greek character (Q22988604),
with part of (P361).
with worshipped by (P1049),

Perhaps one way of linking them is enough. I don't know which is the best though. --Marsupium (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marsupium: I definitely prefer by instance of (P31). --Epìdosis 14:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modelling of epithets[edit]

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Greece

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome

Notified participants of WikiProject Names

At the moment we have two modelling schemes for epithets:

e.g.
⟨ Aganippides (Q21548091)    ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ group of Greek mythical characters (Q28061975)    ⟩

⟨ Aganippides (Q21548091)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Greek deity (Q22989102)    ⟩

⟨ Aganippides (Q21548091)    ⟩ said to be the same as (P460) ⟨ Muse (Q66016)    ⟩

used here by User:Harmonia Amanda

SPARQL:

SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?itemLabel ?ofItem ?ofItemLabel
{
    ?item p:P31 ?instanceOfStatement .
    ?instanceOfStatement ps:P31 wd:Q207869 .
    ?instanceOfStatement pq:P642 ?ofItem .
	SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" }
}

Try it!

e.g.

⟨ Ilissides (Q30068908)  

 ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ epithet (Q207869)  

 ⟩
of (P642) ⟨ Muse (Q66016)  

 ⟩

SPARQL:

SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?itemLabel ?partOfItem ?partOfItemLabel
{
	?item wdt:P31 wd:Q207869 .
    ?item wdt:P361 ?partOfItem .
	SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" }
}

Try it!

e.g.

⟨ Mnemonides (Q19609985)  

 ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ epithet (Q207869)  

 ⟩

⟨ Mnemonides (Q19609985)  

 ⟩ part of (P361) ⟨ Muse (Q66016)  

 ⟩

used here by User:Jonathan Groß

Which one shall be used or in which case is which one preferable? --Marsupium (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I always use the second, so that's the one I would use as a standard. --Epìdosis 19:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second. Simple.

said to be the same as (P460) used in the first means that "the statement is disputed" which is not always the case.

part of (P361) used in the third is the inverse property of "has part" (P527), and for the used example it would mean (for some applications/queries) that this epithet is equivalent to the individual Muses Q66016#P527.

-Geraki (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you! That is what I'd prefer, too! Perhaps this should be stated e.g. at Wikidata:WikiProject Ancient Greece#Ancient Greek mythology (and perhaps a reference to that from Wikidata:WikiProject Ancient Rome#Properties) for easy reference then? Good luck to all of us in cleaning the existing mess! --Marsupium (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done for Ancient Greece. For Ancient Rome I think it's nearly unnecessary. --Epìdosis 13:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Granularity for clusters of mythological characters, deities, creatures etc.[edit]

@Kolja21, Gymel: because of this
Which granularity or precision of items that are instance of (P31) or subclass of (P279) of mythical humanoid race (Q24533670), mythological Greek character (Q22988604), mythical creature (Q2239243) etc. do we want? I stumbled upon this question when solving "single value" constraint violations of Sandrart.net person ID (P1422).
Sandrart.net (Q17298559) has some quite specific entries for which Wikidata has only one entry each as far as I see, e.g.:

Cupid (Q5011) has discriminable forms, names, stresses of a character (cluster):
- Cupido, GND: 118677500, VIAF: 25396366
- Amor, GND: 11850262X, VIAF: 35247458
Erinyes (Q180262) has discriminable forms, names, culture areas (Greek/Roman) of a character class (cluster):
- Erinnyen, GND: 118685163, VIAF: 35250656
- Furiae, GND: 118694332, VIAF: 59878509
Hyllus (Q847268) has discriminable forms with different genealogies of a character (cluster):
- Hyllos (Sohn von Deianeira): son of Deianira (Q272000)
- Hyllos (Sohn von Melite): son of Melite (Q16933131)
- Hyllos: sort of disambiguation record for both
cyclops (Q128430) has discriminable subclasses of a class (cluster):
- Kyklopen, equating to de:Kyklop#Dämonen and es:Cíclope#Primera generación
- Kyklopen (Homer), equating to de:Kyklop#Homerische_Kyklopen and es:Cíclope#Segunda generación
- Kyklopen (Mythische Baumeister), equating to de:Kyklop#Baumeister and es:Cíclope#Murallas «ciclópeas»

How many items for what cases? If more than one what properties to describes the links between them? Thanks in advance, --Marsupium (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC), 13:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In all cases except last I'd say "maximum". I.e. 2, 2 and 3 items correspondingly. May be also 3 in the last, it depends on how deep they can be discriminated. --Infovarius (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Infovarius. --Epìdosis 13:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm fine with that, too. And for Cupid (Q5011) and Erinyes (Q180262) leave the sitelinks probably on the current item at least those dealing with both forms? --Marsupium (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

River gods[edit]

Need suggestions on how to link a river god to its river. For example Achelous (Q391379) and Achelous River (Q203923) --Melderick (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked it with domain of saint or deity (P2925) as I've done for others so far, see Q391379#P2925. Best, --Marsupium (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah nice, thanks ! --Melderick (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mythological characters and humans who may be fictional[edit]

Hi! Today I noticed that @Hercule: added a lot of instance of (P31)human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568) to Greek mythological characters (e.g. Odysseus (Q47231)); in some cases they are correct (e.g. Pygmalion of Tyre (Q1879787)), but in many cases I can't see any doubt about the fact that the character is mythological (e.g. Cynortas (Q1466824)), so I think a source would be needed to state that the character is a "human who may be fictional". What do you think? --Epìdosis 13:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

instance of (P31)human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568) is for human who may be fictionnal. So it also may be real, by not sure. --Hercule (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greek persons[edit]

I'm interested in showing various historical persons from Ancient Greece (e.g. philosophers, politicians) on timelines. Since there is no statement that consistently marks this out, I want to add it where needed, but I'm not sure what statement is suitable.

culture (P2596): Ancient Greece (Q11772)

One of the two most used statements today, but breaks a constraint saying that culture should not be used for humans.

ethnic group (P172): Greeks (Q539051)

The other often-used statement, but requires at least one reference with "strong proof" and has been questioned a lot. Also not ideal because I would prefer to include immigrants living and acting in Ancient Greece.

country of citizenship (P27):

The most consistently used statements for Ancient Romans, but hard to use for Ancient Greece since it has a myriad of independent city states.

For Ancient Egyptians, the most often used statement seems to be country of citizenship (P27): Ancient Egypt (Q11768), but that breaks a constraint since Ancient Egypt doesn't count as a "state, country in a fiction work, nation, or dependent territory". – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pelle (talk • contribs). Copied from Wikidata:Project chat (oldid)

Hi @Pelle:! The problem you pose is very interesting: of course country of citizenship (P27)Ancient Greece (Q11772) is wrong, as you say; ethnic group (P172)Greeks (Q539051) requires sources and can be used only in some cases (e.g. Pericles (Q80398), but not Lucian of Samosata (Q177847)); culture (P2596)Ancient Greece (Q11772) has the problem of the constraint. Personally I think we can use time period (P2348)Ancient Greece (Q11772), but I would like to hear other opinions. Bye, --Epìdosis 17:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For ancient cultures I would not see this "state" as "state" in a modern meaning. For me this always meaned, a person depend to this political/geographical entity. For ancient Greece, this is always the poleis they live OR they have civil and polical rights. Escpecially for some "wanderers" this could be not that easy. But mostly it's not a big problem. Pericles was always an Athenian. Socrates too. Aristotle not. He was from Stageira. Had he the civil rights there for his wholoe life? This is the question. On the other hand, even metics and definetly slaves depend to the poleis. If we're not clear what to do, maybe we should let it blanc or create a helping system, f.e. "ionian, achaean, dorian" or something like that. Or just refer to the place were they lived residence (P551). How much I had to fight here, should be visible in my editing mask for ancient potters and vase painters. Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcus Cyron: I agree in toto about "state" not in a modern meaning. But how about indicating the belonging to Ancient Greece (Q11772)? Would you agree about culture (P2596)Ancient Greece (Q11772) or do you prefer another option? --Epìdosis 22:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ID of Arachne database[edit]

Arachne (Q624540) is an interesting database, do you think we could have links to metadata and description pages such as this one or that one. Those are too detailed maybe but there should be something that we have already as item here.

User:Marcus Cyron since this is in German, can ask your opinion? I can prepare the request for a property if necessary.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Due to there's a concrete ID-Number, I thinl this is definetly possible and should be done. If it's of interest, I could make a contact to the mastermind of Arachne, Reinhard Förtsch, whom I know personally. Btw, the German Archaeological Institute would be in general very likely interested in connecting with us. If there's something, I could make a contact (or even do it). -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok let's wait for some additional feedbacks and than I will present a proposal for the authority control property here. I still have to find the right examples for the proposal. As soon as it is here to be used, this will speed up future connections. I am more focused on manual import however, so I have no clue about massive import on wikidata, I select Identifiers mostly used for wikidata literacy event and everyday workflow.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid database (of objects, but also buildings and places), with great pictures: at university our professor of Greek Archeology advised us to use it. Some examples: Heraion (Q1057440) = http://arachne.uni-koeln.de/item/bauwerk/2100029; Athena Varvakeios statue (Q25535224) = http://arachne.uni-koeln.de/item/objekt/991; Gortyn (Q1136193) = http://arachne.uni-koeln.de/item/topographie/8003321. Probably different identifiers should be created for different formatter URL: bauwerk, bauwerksteil, objekt, topographie, inschrift; I would skip the other types at the moment. --Epìdosis 10:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for checking. I would start with "Bauwerk" as a proposal. It looks likes the one we have no problem to use immediately, buildings are covered in many language editions on wikipedia, certainly more than objects where the Arachne database can be much more detailed than our current coverage here on wikidata. It s always wise to go step by step before promoting massive import. Than after a while, we see the work log and we can start to focus on that database. The "Topographie" class of metadata pages could be also sufficiently interesting to insert as a second one, I don't expect a loto of items of places compared to those of objects, I just hope there won't be any ambiguity. Defining a building is much more clear than a place, I suppose we have to encourge the separation of items for the concept of a modern and ancient areas, for example, to minimize confusion and sloppy unions of items.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexmar983: I strongly agree with your reasoning, the problem of separing modern from ancient cities and modern administrative regions from historical regions is widespread on Wikipedias and consequently here on Wikidata. Bauwerk, maybe also Bauwerksteil, is a good startpoint. --Epìdosis 19:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikidata:Property proposal/Arachne Bauwerk ID (I hope the ping works)--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Alexmar983, Epìdosis, Marcus Cyron: I wanted to link Arachne ID of my museum and sculptures of his collection but I discover threw this discussion that the Arachne property only concerns buildings (thank you for that!). Do you think we could now also ask for properties for the collections (http://arachne.uni-koeln.de/item/sammlungen/) and for the objects (http://arachne.uni-koeln.de/item/objekt/) ? --Christelle Molinié (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Christelle Molinié: Yes, OK, thank you! --Epìdosis 08:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Alexmar983, Epìdosis, Marcus Cyron: I asked for the creation of Wikidata:Property proposal/Arachne collection ID and Wikidata:Property proposal/Arachne object ID. I hope they will be validated. If so, we will need CSV files for each to upload on Mix N'Match. I'm not sure we can edit it directly with the Arachne platform, maybe @Marcus Cyron: we will need the help of your contact. --Christelle Molinié (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Christelle Molinié: (and others who would want to integrate in this contact), could you give me an E-Mail adress, so I can do it directly with one contact making mail?! -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Alexmar983, Epìdosis, Marcus Cyron: Thanks to Marcus, we have contacted the Arachne producers. They are interested in the project but it's a very busy period for them, so they asked us to contact them in early 2020 to provide list of ID. Anyway, once the properties are created we can start the alignments manually.--Christelle Molinié (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Christelle Molinié , I think I will cite this interaction in the "successes" of this project for the annual report. Improving the quality of wikidata IDs interacting with third parties is defenetly somthing we are doing better as a group.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient History Encyclopedia ID[edit]

What about an ID from World History Encyclopedia (Q54817642)? this one can be shortened without the string to just the number, like this.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexmar983: Definitely useful! You can propose it. --Epìdosis 18:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check import[edit]

Hi

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Greece! This morning I've started an import of statements about 3428 ancient places from ToposText (Q87068904). There may be some wrong matches (i.e. statements going in the wrong item, e.g. Esquilina (Q3538789) instead of correct Esquiline Hill (Q211233)). If you notice something strange, please not revert, but report the case in my user talk page. Thank you all in advance, --Epìdosis 11:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epìdosis! Check this. Also check Eleusinian Mysteries (Q26314) (the correct is Elefsina (Q204905)), and Harmodius and Aristogeiton (Q19178) is about the couple (persons) not the statues. -Geraki (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: after some deep reflection, I decided to entirely revert the part of the import I had already done because the percentage of imprecise matches (especially ancient city with modern city) was too high; in the next days a Mix'n'match catalog of ToposText place ID (P8068) will be imported and you will be able to contribute to a more precise match. Thank you all for the patience. Good night, --Epìdosis 22:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Q18945073[edit]

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Greece

Hi! Can someone help me with Autolycus (Q18945073)? It seems to be a conflation between Autolycus of Pitane (Q451390), but with life dates off by half a century (!), and the Autolycos who is the addressee of Theophilus of Antioch (Q220787)'s book. I'm especially confuse with the life dates, which correspond to neither. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jahl de Vautban: It was effectively a conflation, now I've solved it, thanks for reporting. --Epìdosis 15:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC) P.S. In such cases you can write directly in the talk page of the problematic item, pinging the project[reply]

My bad, I didn't even thought about it. In the meantime I also pinpointed the reason of the strange life dates: it's a confusion with Arcesilaus (Q73527). Anyway, thanks @Epìdosis:! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Q75459 and Q17652439[edit]

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Greece

Hi everyone,

Could someone better informed than I am on practices regarding archaeological sites looks at those two items Delphi (Q75459) and Delphi archaeological site (Q17652439) to see if they should be merged? The ITWP link on the latter is a redirection to the former.

Also, if someone could quickly explain to me how we should model ancient polis vs modern archaeological sites/modern cities, it would be very much appreciated. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jahl de Vautban: As of now, no standard has been defined, but I think this is the best moment for elaborating one. I would pose as starting point that we need three different items: ancient city, archaeological site, modern city. How to connect them should be established; we have to think on the best properties for this, all suggestions are welcome. I will try to think about something in these days. Thanks for raising the problem, --Epìdosis 12:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. Old City, modern City and archaeological site/museum are the needed categories here. As for example for the Kerameikos in Athens we need an item for the ancient Demos, the ancient graveyard (even it is part of the demos), the modern quarter of Athens and the archaeological site. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1 DerHexer (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A very good question. Delphi is a problem. The modern town is separate from and should be a separate item from the archaeological site. The archaeological site overlaps with both the ancient polis of Delphi and the sanctuary of Apollo, and the latter should ideally be a separate item, but separating the sanctuary from the polis is a delicate judgment when annotating texts. As I work through Pausanias and try to mark up the text with Wikidata items, the user-friendly solution has been to accept that an item is both an ancient city/polis and a modern archaeological site. [the approach I usually take in ToposText]. The modern city of Argos Argos (Q189901) is distinct from ancient Argos Argos (Q13533353), and replaces it, P1365 I suppose. A complicating factor is that in the city of Argos are several distinct archaeological sites, with fence, legal identity, etc. If we separated the concept of the fenced site from the concept of the ancient sanctuary supposedly unearthed there, we double the work load. This leads to an equally knotty issue, the distinction between an excavation (an activity carried out by a team over a give period) and the things uncovered and ideally left exposed in an excavation. There are thousands of rescue excavations in Greece, for example, and I'm not sure it's useful to users to separate the excavation from the Roman bath uncovered during it. Thoughts? JBradyK (ToposText) (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Epìdosis, Marcus Cyron, DerHexer, JBradyK: To be honest I wonder if thinking in terms of ancient city, archaeological site and modern town is the best way to think about what is going on at a given location over time. If we can more or less determine when an ancient settlement became uninhabited and a de facto archaeological site (but we could ask : what is really a archaeological site (Q839954)?), what happen for those location which have been inhabited since Antiquity? When does a settlement stop being « ancient » and become « modern »? More, what if it had multiple occupation phases over time? Before the Greek city there was perhaps the Bronze Age village, itself replacing the Neolithic camp, leaving aside the fact the perhaps since Antiquity there were multiple abandons and reinstallations. Do we need separate items to model these changes? For me there are all part of the history of a single human settlement (Q486972), defined not by its chronology or current inhabited/ruinous state but by its geographical position, which is (relatively) static over time. It can be defined as « the place (nowadays) called X were humans live or have lived ». In this approach, Delphi (Q75459) is the settlement, both ancient and modern; Delphi archaeological site (Q17652439) correspond to the archaeological site, defined as the continuous physical area where are the ruins, from a modern point of view — in the case of Argos, it would result in multiple archaeological sites, all parts of Argos (Q189901) as a settlement. What is missing is a new QID on Delphi as a state (i.e. politically independant and encompassing more than its eponymous settlement) and eventually another item for the sanctuary (if we decide to threat it as separate from the settlement). --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jahl de Vautban: Very interesting thoughts. So I can try extrapolating a first definition of the three entities: archaeological site as "the continuous physical area where are the ruins"; ancient city as "as a state (i.e. politically independant and encompassing more than its eponymous settlement)", so the independent polis in the Archaic and Classical age; modern city as the contemporary administrative unit. Would you agree? --Epìdosis 10:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Epìdosis: yes for the archaeological site ; someone above mentionned modern neighborhoods, which in my opinion are a great parallel: both are physical manifestations of a settlement, with delimited boundaries and structures (compare Exarcheia (Q531602) with Acropolis (neighborhood) (Q2336187)). Yes also for states. But I am not sure that I agree with "modern city" = "contemporary administrative unit", or at least we should make clear that is only the last step of a settlement's evolution. Inevitably the issues raised go way beyond the scope of our little project and apply to virtually every human settlement. I don’t expect the problem to be fully dealt with without a say on the common project chat. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New project Epigraphy[edit]

Dear all, I am drafting a new (sub)project, namely Wikidata:WikiProject Epigraphy. We need it to fix some standards for the future, since we can predict there will be a lot of items of these objects over the next years. The topic is important because of the massive import related to cultural heritage.

Specifically, I am starting a massive creation of items of inscriptions in Latin, so this is the first thread that I have opened in the talk page, but feel free to open any new discussion there. --Alexmar983 (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archontes[edit]

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Greece @Tomukas: Hi! We have items about the eponymous archonships (example: Q108823421) but not about most eponymous archons themselves. In addition, not even the archons we do have (example) link to their respective eponymous archonships (Q108823438). It would be great to have items about all archons, extracted from the archonship items. This would make it possible to link them to the respective RE articles (most of whom are by Johannes Kirchner, whose articles have already been created on Wikisource, example: s:de:RE:Agathokles 2a) and other resources. Would someone like to write a (semi)automated script to do this? Best, --Tolanor (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be great, but unfortunately I haven't the technical competence to write a script for doing it. --Epìdosis 21:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support the idea, but I am too dumb to doing it. Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great! User:Tomukas is on it. However, we need to figure out which statement to use to link the archon items to their respective archonship years. Any ideas? --Tolanor (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to do something about it for quite a some time now, glad someone is on it. Also we have already a few position held (P39)eponymous archon (Q357829) to check in making the list, if we can avoid creating some duplicates it is always a good thing.

Anyway I'm still wondering what should we do with all those years. Do we have a property for which they could be useful ? I can only think about hijacking parliamentary term (P2937). --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we should at least link them to and from the respective Christian years... but probably not like this? --Tolanor (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tolanor: I'd say partially coincident with (P1382) is a better property for this. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely. Do you also have an idea for a property linking the archontes to their respective years? Do we need a new one for this? --Tolanor (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A very good initiative. I created the archonship items to use as a chronological marker when tagging ancient texts (in ToposText and a Pausanias spinoff). I hesitated to create items for individual archons because there is a huge and rather bewildering increase in online ancient prosopographies (e.g. Trismegistos the Athenian Onomasticon at http://www.seangb.org/ and we should exploit them (as well as Kirchner and RE), but that requires research I didn't have time for. Before launching this, it might be useful to consult a specialist, like one of the authors of the SNAP project https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/dco/article/view/37975 Gabriel Bodard Gabriel.bodard@sas.ac.uk might have advice. JBradyK (ToposText) (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P17 and P27[edit]

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Greece

Hi all, just to let you know that I have added none-of constraint about the use of Ancient Greece (Q11772) in country (P17) and country of citizenship (P27). Hopefully this will prevent the addition of too many of those declarations. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this seems to make sense to me. DerHexer (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New property P12011[edit]

I have created tribe (P12011) (love that number) and I just wanted to let you all know.

I believe we can use it for mythical tribes as well, like Penthesilea (Q379828)tribe (P12011)Amazons (Q134154)

If someone has any concerns, please come forward. Jonathan Groß (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Names of mythological characters[edit]

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Greece: I would like your opinion on the question of what to do with different names for the same people. For example, Alkimede has its own lemma in Pauly-Wissowa (s:de:RE:Alkimede 2) as an alternative name for Hippodamia (Q120197406) (the wife of Amyntor). In my opinion there is two ways to go about this:

Treat the alternative names as alias(es) for the corresponding item.
Create dedicated items for the alternative name with a statement Alkimedesaid to be the same as (P460)Hippodamia (Q120197406)

I am greatly in favor of the latter (solution no. 2), as there are lots of cases where it is unclear what the preferred name should be.

What do you think, fellow mythmaniacs? Jonathan Groß (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 2 being preferrable, mainly because as you say many identifications can be (a lot, or a bit) controversial; I would make an exception just for small phonetic variants (like Clytaemnestra/Clytaemestra). --Epìdosis 16:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We could opt for #1 in all cases where the alternative name is a minor phonetic variant (or a deprecated mss. reading / conjecture). Where and how could we document this practice? Jonathan Groß (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2) as well, especially if both names aren't part of the same narrative. However on case where they are, like Paris/Alexander, I'm more skeptical if the separation in two items is really meaningful. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per above. DerHexer (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about data items for names, or data items for characters that contain information about their name? The response will be very different, depending on what you mean to do. Names are treated differently from data items about topics. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidating/Splitting characters is a big question, one I'm reminded of currently in a doomed effort to disambiguate 11000-odd name and place mentions in a ChatGTP translation of Tzetzes' scholia ad Lycophronem for ToposText. For ToposText purposes it is much more useful to have the competing names of a single character under the same ID, so you can extract a more complete picture of a given myth from the text snippets. So I favor the alias solution. That said, I am happy to see also a said-to-be-the-same-as alternative ID that points to other sources with a different philosophy. With Tzetzes, as with Lycophron and many others, characters with similar names sometimes get blended, and names get used metaphorically. I just bumped into "Typhon", used, in addition to the conventional monster, as a name for the Egyptian god Set (with Osiris as Dionysus) and also as an allegorical name for Achilles. So my current project is a horrific task, once that also implies going back and reannotating the Alexandra with the unnamed but implied persons. Different IDs for different name variants facilitates machine tagging but complicates the disambiguation afterwards, to I prefer to lump rather than split here... JBradyK (ToposText) (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments. I've tried the split method for the triplet Antinoe (Q122827979), Cleophile (Q58023450), Eurynome (Q61046105), the three names for the wife of Lycurgus of Arcadia (Q609650). I think this solution is satisfactory, especially in combination with said to be the same as (P460) and set indices. Jonathan Groß (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So now we have 4 wives for Lycurgus of Arcadia (Q609650) without any explanation. Is it what was intended? --Infovarius (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata talk:WikiProject Ancient Greece

Contents

How to indicate Ancient Greece (Q11772)[edit]

Ancient Greek Olympic winners[edit]

Index pages about Greek mythology[edit]

Period vs culture[edit]

Mythical/mythological[edit]

Kings of Greek mythology[edit]

2016[edit]

2024[edit]

Worshipped by Greek mythology[edit]

Modelling of epithets[edit]

Granularity for clusters of mythological characters, deities, creatures etc.[edit]

River gods[edit]

Mythological characters and humans who may be fictional[edit]

Ancient Greek persons[edit]

ID of Arachne database[edit]

Ancient History Encyclopedia ID[edit]

Check import[edit]

Q18945073[edit]

Q75459 and Q17652439[edit]

New project Epigraphy[edit]

Archontes[edit]

P17 and P27[edit]

New property P12011[edit]

Names of mythological characters[edit]

Navigation menu

Wikidata talk:WikiProject Ancient Greece

How to indicate Ancient Greece (Q11772)[edit]

Ancient Greek Olympic winners[edit]

Index pages about Greek mythology[edit]

Period vs culture[edit]

Mythical/mythological[edit]

Kings of Greek mythology[edit]

2016[edit]

2024[edit]

Worshipped by Greek mythology[edit]

Modelling of epithets[edit]

Granularity for clusters of mythological characters, deities, creatures etc.[edit]

River gods[edit]

Mythological characters and humans who may be fictional[edit]

Ancient Greek persons[edit]

ID of Arachne database[edit]

Ancient History Encyclopedia ID[edit]

Check import[edit]

Q18945073[edit]

Q75459 and Q17652439[edit]

New project Epigraphy[edit]

Archontes[edit]

P17 and P27[edit]

New property P12011[edit]

Names of mythological characters[edit]

Navigation menu

Search