Talk:Arles bust

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image placement affects text flow[edit]

both on right
right then left - broken flow

I moved the lefthand image right because it was always disrupting the text flow.

both on right narrow window
right then left narrow - broken flow

Here are snapshots that show the problem (some are low resolution, others are for widescreen displays).

I thought about adding a {{Clr}} template after each image but I believe it will still fail on the left.

There is a Template:ImageStackRight that may help here - it keeps two images together vertically aligned so that they do not get separated. -84user (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC) (added more snapshots -84user (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I have now put a {{Clr}} before Notes, and then moved second image back to the left (so it looks like right then left but with no broken section flow). It seems to work but at cost of white space (until more text appears) - is this better? -84user (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common/Christian era[edit]

It has come to my attention that this article uses a mix of BC and BCE for year notation identifiers. Per WP:MOS, only one should be used throughout any given article, but Wikipedia holds no prefererence as to which. I will put "BC/BCE" for now, and if no discussion ensues as to which should be used, I will switch to the one that was first used in the article. Thank you. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 13:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I first wrote this article, I did inadvertently omit a single E in the caption to the illustration, but otherwise used the convention BCE perfectly consistently throughout. This is not a specifically Christian subject, where the convention 'BCE/CE would be tactless. I have now restored my original format.--Wetman (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT! >>>[edit]

This Wikipedia article is really not honnest... There is nothing else about all the studies of specialists in 2008 (and they are not only french specialists!... but also italian, danish, belgian...) since this statue was discovered... Existing now more and more confirmations that this statue is really a representation of Caesar !... PLEASE UPDATE!!!... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.109.52 (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources and they will be included (or better, include them yourself ;) )--Thomas Arelatensis (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

where's this stand now?[edit]

Thanks to Wetman for starting this page. For some reason, Cultural depictions of Julius Caesar (whatever the heck "cultural depictions" means) is quite certain this is Caesar. I was just wondering where this has all led.

It seems to be what we're calling the lists of references to X in popular culture nowadays. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be keenly interested in depictions of Caesar that exist outside culture. Was there a discussion of this nonsensical phrase somewhere? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What, the woman in Winnetonka who found a pebble shaped like Caesar's profile? ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was playing tennis with Jesus. Actually, being the big-hearted expansionist that I am, I don't mind such lists, if people are happy making them, as long as they're not cluttering up the main article, because contrary to the perceptions of some I don't stomp on puppies unless they're biting me. Trivia is not harmful; the failure to distinguish between trivial and non-trivial is scary. But I digress obscurely, as if I've not been properly edified. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. This is a multistep Wikiprocess.
  • Any article about someone prominent enough to be looked at by high-schoolers will accumulate "cruft": gee: he was in the movie I saw last night.
  • Some editors remove these on sight; others put them into "X in popular culture" articles.
  • The removers opened a campaign to delete all the popular culture articles, and many of the articles were renamed "Cultural depictions of X", so that they'd be harder to find.
I trust you are duly edified. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, the reasoning by the French archaeologist Luc Long is plain silly: "I suspect the bust was thrown in the river after he was assassinated because it would not have been good at that time to be considered a follower of his." Buckets of silly. All of Southern Gaul except Marseilles was strongly pro-Caesarian from the outbreak of the Gallic Wars in 58 BC and throughout the Civil Wars of the 40s; Ronald Syme conjectured that Caesar may even have added second-generation Narbonese Gauls to the Roman senate. By the time he died, a certain number of leading Gauls even in just-conquered Celtica (particularly the Aedui) may have already acquired the tria nomina, with a Gaulish name tacked onto "Gaius Julius", according to Drinkwater. Throwing a portrait bust in the river wouldn't have gotten you very far in disavowing him, and besides, Romans would've been eager to placate and accommodate pro-Caesarian Gauls because they didn't need them making trouble (ask Decimus Brutus, who was offed by a Gaul, probably with pleasure because of Decimus's betrayal). Romans were not that clumsy as diplomats; Gallic loyalty to Caesar meant Gallic loyalty to Rome, as Antony, the Bruti, and Augustus knew.

Anyway, that's just my rant, but I can't believe there hasn't been more sober discussion since that initial publicity-seeking unveiling. I don't know where to find it. Somebody at the time, can't remember who, said it looked more like Claudius (I have to agree), and there are good reasons to have a bust of Claudius in Gaul, where he was born. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Its on the comments to the Mary Beard article, if that helps....188.74.102.164 (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arles bust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arles_bust&oldid=1205334059"