Talk:Praeneste fibula

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Shouldn't the title of the article be Præneste fibula? 68.81.231.127 03:52, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, ae is perfectly acceptable here (and anywhere really). Adam Bishop 03:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The article's title should probably match the name used in the text. 68.81.231.127 22:02, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Not a forgery?

Wait, so the fibula is not a forgery? Granted, I've been out of Classics for a few years now, but last I heard it was still considered a fake. Is there any source in English that goes into this? (I'd rather not try my luck with the Italian. Or the German.) --Patrick T. Wynne 20:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


Could we please get some description for the causal reader why it's considered a hoax? Fornadan (t) 19:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree - a proper encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia aspires to be and sometimes is, would have a brief summary of the pros and cons of it being a hoax. Providing titles, authors, and ISBNs of obscure and inaccessible articles doesn't help most of us who have no access to them. It is important to most people who have a nodding acquaintance with Latin to know whether this was a hoax, because most people with a nodding acquaintance with Latin have been exposed to this inscription, which shows several interesting linguistic features such as old forms of dative and reduplicative preterite. Somebody please write at least a paragraph on why it is/isn't a hoax!! Thanks. 69.237.154.39 20:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Viminal or Duenos

Is there any reason that the Duenos Inscription was linked as Viminal Vessel here? The actual artifact is the vessel, however, it is most often termed the "Duenos Inscription (Translation, Transcription, etc...)". Please revert if my change was made hastily. Pheonix2og 11:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] paranormal?

Why is this article part of a paranormal project? What is paranormal about it? Shouldn't that be in the article?