Talk:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology

Progress

1. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 1.djvu ‎[1,120 pages]
2. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 2.djvu ‎[1,240 pages]
3. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 3.djvu ‎[1,426 pages]
4. Smith Dictionary GreekRomanBiographyAndMythology.pdf ‎[1,103 pages]

Possible sources

Although there is no ID of the currently existing text, here are 2 possible source links:

• The full OCR'ed text and engravings at University of Michigan Library
• Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology at Ancient Library

~ Alcmaeonid 15:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Another source link:

• Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology at Perseus - Schuppi (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Entries and sub-entries

Even if suggested in the current structure of the list of entries, in my opinion it is not appropriate to create Main ns pages dividing the same entry into sub-entries, e.g.:

• Dictionary_of_Greek_and_Roman_Biography_and_Mythology/Pandion_1.
• Dictionary_of_Greek_and_Roman_Biography_and_Mythology/Pandion_2.

when in the text they are kept under the same heading (see Page:Dictionary_of_Greek_and_Roman_Biography_and_Mythology_(1870)_-_Volume_3.djvu/123).

What is the added value in dividing into Pandion 1. and Pandion 2. when the "1" and "2" give no clue to the reader of what they mean?

I see only drawbacks:

1. higher number of pages generated and to be maintained, with only a few words per page
2. the greek text for the entry is displayed only in the first instance and then it is lost

Much better to keep everything together.--Mpaa (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Only the lead terms should be used as articles in the Mainspace. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The pages as they are now, are meaningless. — Ineuw talk 20:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The spirit of a dictionary is entries; a page per article, like now, should be the preferred method, as having other terms on the same page serves no purpose. Ithinkicahn (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is an example of why all the sub-entries for each article need to be kept together in a single article. Page:Ante-Nicene Christian Library Vol 2.djvu/46 refers to Antinous in this Dictionary. If there are three sub-pages formed for Antinous, then this link will remain red, even once the relevant article is present. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I created Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology/Aburia gens and Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology/C. Aburius just because I found the links in Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology/Volume 1. I agree there is no point in breaking the entries. I suppose there is a consensus to move them in one now.Ah3kal (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Presentation of this work

As there are so many short articles in this work, the current presentation is pretty much unnavigable. I see there being two useful ways of presenting it.

1. In the same way as DNB00

# In the same way as fr:Biographie universelle ancienne et moderne - Index Tome 1

My own preference would be the second way. It requires proofreaders to add section markers to each article, but a bot is used for transclusion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Templates

Use {{DGRBM link}} in the author namespace to refer to articles written within this work. - DutchTreat (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Standardise header, and the Future

I noticed several mainspace pages have "William Smith" as author, while several others have "Several Authors, edited by William Smith". I was meaning to request for comments on finding a consensus, but if the other topics are any indication of a merger of pages to happen soon, I'm unsure of how to proceed. I'd like to create items, but don't know if all the work would be undone by a format change eventually. Any thoughts on future work in this book? I'd love to see it completed. YuriNikolai (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Splitting articles

We would like to create the article for the historians named Eutychianus, but I am not familiar with this project. Should we split the article in two Eutychianus, or should we leave it as one single article despite the fact it treats two different people? The assignation for 3 different Eutychianus articles suggests the former, but I am not sure. Thank you. Joan Gené (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)