Talk:Adrastus of Cyzicus

Comments

If you want to move this article, please discuss it with the people who are working on it first. It isn't a list.--Troikoalogo (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see that. If you'd left it for more than ten minutes I'd hopefully have been able to rework it into one, which would allow for it to eventually get beyond stub status. There is little point in having individual articles on people of whom practically nothing is known; aggregated, there might be some purpose to it. Unless you've uncovered some further detail on the subject's life and works, of course. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I disagree. This article may be short, but it is comprehensive (there is nothing more to say - as the individuals are not mentioned elsewhere. I can see little value in merging this to some disconnected list. Please don't go moving articles without discussion.--Troikoalogo (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

By de-stubbing it you've already indicated that you think an article containing less than a kilobyte of prose is a comprehensive treatment of the subject. This article as it stands has a single source. It is unlikely to gain more. The subject is a footnote in history. In the interests of making better articles, if this can be merged to a longer and more interesting subject then that's the correct course of action. I intend to re-do this action after discussion with user:Peter Damian, who previously created the article on Dion of Naples which now redirects here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as anyone who Googles the name can quickly find out that there are no other references (quite hard without Wikipedia) I have no objections whether they appear in a separate article or a list. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object - and certainly to moving them to an inaccurate list. What's the benefit of listing this along with a lot of unrelated others (and the list doesn't exist anyway). Please wait until we've had some other opinions. Anyway, if this needs merged to a list, then which list? You moved it to List of historians of antiquity, but they are NOT HISTORIANS!!!!! (at least that's not what the only source says - it calls them mathematicians!!! (so perhaps List of mathematicians of antiquity) But since they are only notable for an alleged astronomical calculation, perhaps List of astronomers of antiquity - but actually, since we've only got Augustine's (passing) word for it List of people mentioned by Augustine] might be better. Opinions?--Troikoalogo (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct - they were geometers or mathematicians Peter Damian (talk) 07:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe. We don't know for sure. All we know is that they are literary bit players in Augustine, and presumably Varro. They may be altogether UN-historical.--Troikoalogo (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Banners

I'd love to know what criteria makes this a start? Where do we go from here? I thought this was an exhaustive article, but I'm happy to be pointed to more information it could have. And will these wikiprojects which have now been templated here, now turn up and help?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I told you, the article has more than two or three sentences and also carries one source. Therefore, it is a "Start" class. If the article can be improved upon, then so be it. However, there is no policy against adding WikiProject banners to any article discussion page. Please do not delete the banners. Thank you. Deucalionite (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a wiki. The "start" rating is inaccurate. No more sources exist and there is no more to be said. The article is fairly complete. Some silly sum (sources+sentences*PI=Result) may say otherwise, but fortunately neither real-life, no wikipedia is a sum.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 08:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No policy currently exists that prohibits the placement of WikiProject banners. As long as that is the case, your arguments are largely baseless. Deucalionite (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. This article is NOT a start. Anyone who says it is should indicate how it might be developed. This is not about banners, it is about people who know nothing about the subject telling people who do that that the article should be expanded. I will remove any reference to this article as a "start", unless the person assessing it as such can give a statement on how it might be completed. There are no more sources, and to my knowledge no more to be said. If you can help improve this article, please do. If you are here only to put inaccurate and ill-informed boxes on it, please go away.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The issue is about banners. The correlation between my putting up a list of banners and the supposed "imposition of my will" upon erudite editors is a load of malarkey. Unless you've actually worked at a WikiProject, you are in no position to judge users who make efforts towards rating and organizing articles. Regardless if you deem WikiProject banners as "inaccurate", they are simply check-up tools. These check-up tools help inform different WikiProjects about the status of an article to which special task forces may be created towards enhancing it. I have been putting up WikiProject banners for years now and no one has ever complained about my efforts. You, unfortunately, have zero respect for user contributions that the community actually appreciates. Who knows? If you win this "debate", you might take things to the next level and reprimand me for making spelling corrections or putting up "cleanup" banners.

Oh, and who are you to state that "there are no more sources" regarding this particular topic? How do you know exactly that "there are no more sources"? Have you consulted every conceivable scholar in the known universe? Have you conducted some "special seance" and failed to contact Adrastus from beyond the grave? I hate to burst your bubble buddy, but you don't own the article (no one does). For all you know, there could be editors from different WikiProjects with plenty of knowledge regarding Adrastus. But have you ever bothered to contact the relevant WikiProjects I listed to see if anyone is interested in making contributions? No. All you're doing is taking out your frustrations on a bunch of tool-based signs. Cheers. Deucalionite (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't own the article. You or anyone else are welcome to work on it. However, I do know something about ancient literature, and I can assure you that there's nothing much more to say here. If someone knows otherwise, then they are welcome to contradict me, and to say this is a "start".--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Welcoming users to improve this article while making bold statements like "there are no more sources" sounds a bit contradictory if you ask me. Technically, you should be more focused on the actual article instead of a bunch of banners. I'll do you a big favor and change the article rating from "Start" to "C-class". Happy now? Deucalionite (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, you've rate it "C". I've never looked at the rating system before, but C seems to say "still missing important content". Can you please tell me what content you think it is missing? That would be a helpful assessment? If you can't I'll have to revert, since I don't think it is missing any important content. But if you think it is, I'm happy to be advised.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. In order for this article to reach B-class status it would have to fulfill the following criteria. Deucalionite (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in reaching any arbitrary standard. I'm interested in what content you think needs added, or specific improvements it requires. As you've set yourself up as qualified to assess this article, can you please tell me?--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's get something straight. Rating an article is not the same as improving it. Moreover, the criteria towards improving articles are not arbitrary. If it's advice you want, then I hope my suggestions compel you to improve the article and avoid removing the banners.

1) A visual aid needs to be added. Perhaps an image of Venus or the cover of Augustine's De Civitate Dei contra Paganos. Anything will do just as long as the image does not violate any copyright laws.

2) More secondary sources need to be incorporated. I find it hard to believe that modern scholars would avoid mentioning Adrastus despite the limited details on his background.

3) A "See also" category would be nice. You can populate the category with things and topics relevant to Adrastus.

4) A category of "External links" would also prove helpful. I would be flabbergasted if the World Wide Web didn't have so much as one website on Adrastus.

I pray that this helps. Deucalionite (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That is more useful. However, 1) I can't see what image would assist the reader. The images you suggest would not really. 2) Modern scholars do not mention him, all they mention is Augustine's argument. 3) All relavant topics are already hyperlinked. 4) Ha! Be flabbergasted. There is zero chance of such a website, because there is nothing to say.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there are no images of Adrastus, your best bet is to get a picture of Venus or get a cover picture of Augustine's work. Use modern scholars that mention Adrastus through Augustine. If there's nothing to populate a "See also" section, then forget it. 7500 Google hits for "Adrastus of Cyzicus". Get to it soldier. Deucalionite (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Showing the reader what Venus looks like, or a cover of a modern edition of Augustine's work would contribute nothing to an understanding of the article. 7500 hits on Google are all comments of Augustine - nothing useful. Google isn't that important.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. A visual aid is helpful just as long as the text-frame contains information that is topical to the article. Let's use the picture of Venus as an example. If a user decides to put the word "Venus" in the text-frame, then he/she would only end up stating the obvious. However, if a user were to include a sentence (example: "Adrastus was said to have been an authority on the planet Venus") that summarizes the relation of the picture with the article, then the value of the picture's purpose increases from the standpoint of the reader. As for Google, either keep searching or give up. You choose. Deucalionite (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I chose to stop, as Google has nothing. A "visual aid" is something that helps the reader "envisage" an aspect of the article. What Venus looks like is irrelevant to the article, and would simply be an image for image sake. Pretty perhaps, but useless.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. A picture of Venus (for example) would help a reader "envisage" the particular fact that Adrastus studied the planet. Even a picture of Augustine's work would also help in the "envisioning" process. It's all about relating the visual aid(s) with the article via data provided in the text-frame. The Herodotus article, for instance, has pictures of gold nuggets and animals all of which have nothing to do with the Greek historian himself except in the realm of his writings. So, I wouldn't mind having a picture of Venus for an article about a dead mathematician if I am informed about the relation between the two. Deucalionite (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that makes no sense. It's just a justification to put a meaningless image on an article for the sake of it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Like I said, look at the Herodotus article and you'll see what I'm talking about. Deucalionite (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)