Talk:Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "Message box". Script error: No such module "Banner shell". User:WAvegetarian/OBproject
Should be merged
Why is this fragment separated from its site on the Capitoline Hill? Its fragmentary nature is underscored by the fact that Rome is not identified in the heading or in the opening sentence. There are other Temples of Jupiter... When the entry has settled down, Capitoline Triad (caps aren't required) should be merged with it. Context counts! --Wetman 04:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
An omission
Nothing about the clavum fingere? Not only was it one of the more distinctive rituals observed in ancient Rome, some modern scholars argue that with a passage in Pliny's Natural History (33.18) the year that Horatius dedicated the temple can be fixed to 506 BC. So it is worth a mention. -- llywrch (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Era
This article gave dates as BC rather than BCE when the first date was added in March 2005 and that remained stable until 2022. Since then it's been swapped to and fro repeatedly. MOS:ERA stipulates that we should seek consensus on the talk page before changing an article's established style, and that reasons specific to its content are required. Which should we use? NebY (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would go with BCE here -- if pressed to give a context-specific reason, I'd say that this article is religious in nature and covers non-Christian religion, so a (more) secular dating system is preferable. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
- We should continue to use "BC", for several reasons. It was the first style used, and stable for over 15 years, and we should follow WP:ERA and keep it. Agreed changes of era style for "reasons specific to its content" are thank God vanishingly rare, and all of us with big watchlists should pray it remains that way, or we will be involved in endless arguments initiated by students whose professors have told them BCE is the way to go. Most Greco-Roman articles use BC, regardless of the subject. I completely reject User talk:UndercoverClassicist's argument - Jewish-related subjects usually use CE, but the risk of offending neo-pagans is minimal. Americans I think tend not to realize this, but readers from outside the Anglosphere often just don't understand CE. This is perhaps especially the case with Indian readers. Perhaps for this reason, the British Museum uses BC for everything, and its Canadian equivalent, having switched to BCE some years ago, reverted to BC in material directed at the general public, keeping BCE for stuff for an academic audience (see Common Era). Which kind of publication are we? Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
- If Wikipedia had a default principle that dating should be BCE/CE for non-Christian religious subjects including buildings, this would be a simple case, not even later repurposed as a church. But we don't. Right now on 14 June 2025, this article has twenty-one instances of BC excluding refs, no BCE, one AD and five CE; it's a mess that should be cleaned up, and not an "established style". With no consensus here either and the only established style the 2005–2022 one, switching those five CEs to AD is all that's compliant and simpler too. I'll do it. Thanks, both. NebY (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)