Talk:Periplus

Initial commentary

I visited this page because it was tagged as needing wikification and sources. However, I conclude that the full complement of links to other WP pages makes separate external references superfluous. I was going to insert references to external documents, but found that these are quoted on the linked articles for each periplus. I have removed the wikify and sources tag - I'm willing to do what is necessary, but can't work out what needs doing. If you disagree with my removal of these, please explain on this talk page, and I will do the needed changes. Hebrides 14:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its just a matter of opinion from my perception but it almost looks like a well populated disambig page - and might confuse some - I still think an appropriate ref for the first paragraph is needed - and at least a see also to something underneath - and it wouldnt look so odd! SatuSuro 14:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A clear explanation of what a periplus was, with the clear etymology explaining the word, followed by a series of examples, each of which has been given its own, sourced Wikipedia page: the Wikipedia reader who enters "periplus" is well serve here. For the "some" who might be confused even by that, there is Simple Wikipedia. Surely fingers aren't itching to delete information here? --Wetman 14:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK you have misunderstood - I'll populate my abbreviation - I think an appropriate reference - is a justifiable position to take on any article that does not have one? SatuSuro 14:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You must have a strange perception of the point that I was trying to make - I have well over a thousand stubs that I have a strange relationship with I live in trepidation of some dead head deletionists finding justifications to get stuck into! To me a lack of a ref does show up - regardless of yours or any others justification of the appearance or format - is what I was suggesting. Anyways - trust you understand me now! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SatuSuro (talk • contribs) 14:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC). Oops! SatuSuro 14:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)" (Copied here from User talk:Wetman).

I'm sure we can all re-edit this article in such a way that it will even better satisfy the Wikipedia reader's normal expectations. --Wetman 15:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that should read - complying with basic wikipedia policy of refrerences or sources would be a better way to put it SatuSuro 15:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visit by Dave

There is a certain resemblance to a disambig page and maybe this is on the borderline. I think the explanation goes beyond however so I believe the judgement to keep it as an article was more correct. The reader is in fact well-served on this one and I will se if I can add to it as I am trying to fix Pytheas. I do have itchy fingers on one point however and I think I will scratch. Periplus is not in any way, even roughly, the equivalent of navigatio. I looked them both up, navigation in an unabridged Latin dictionary, and navigation never translates periplous. A navigation is a "ship going" or voyage. The key word in periplus is peri, "around". It is never just a going. You could make a navigatio across the Med but it would not be a periplus as it does not go around. The naval maneuver shows that. You could sail all day but unless you went around the other ship it would not be a periplous. But of course, what is happening is that the meanings of the English words derived from those words or the English translations of those words are being projected anachronistically. En guarde.Dave (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]