Talk:Third circle of hell

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Dante, Virgil, and Cerberus, illustrated by Stradanus

• ... that Dante used the third circle of hell (illustrated) to discuss contemporary Florentine politics rather than the sin of gluttony? Source: Refs 17, 18, and 19 as of this revision
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The French Suicide

Created by Grapple X (talk). Self-nominated at 01:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC).

• New article is 6,371 characters long and nominated one day after creation. No copyvios detected (AGF all refs re. any close paraphrasing issues, since none can go through Dup detector). Article is well-sourced. Hook is 131 characters long (under 200 character max.) and is interesting. Refs 17–19 (verifying the hook) are reliable sources (AGF offline refs). QPQ done. Image is free and in the public domain. Looks good to go! —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P5

Requested move 17 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

---

• First circle of hell → First Circle of Hell
• Second circle of hell → Second Circle of HellSecond Circle of Hell
• Third circle of hell → Third Circle of HellThird Circle of Hell

– The individual circles are all proper nouns, which are capitalized this way in most reliable sources that review Dante's work. I think that WP:COMMONNAME would compel us to capitalize two additional letters in each of these titles compared to their current place. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose—In writing these articles I haven't found this to be true, in that sources tend not to treat them as proper nouns. "Hell" is a mixed bag in that some do capitalise it and some don't, but the "circle" part tends not to be capitalised. Would be entirely neutral on a move to a capital H however as that seems to go either way (although, that being the case, stylevar likely applies). ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 04:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, generally per ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ. This is a descriptive title, not the name of a proper noun. BD2412 T 00:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: From WP:AT, WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS refer. Per MOS:CAPS: only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. Looking at ngram evidence: first circle of hellsecond circle of hellthird circle of hell and a google scholar search, we are seeing mixed usage in sources for the uncapped form, the title case form and capitalising "hell". This is particularly so, if we consider the more recent usage. Actual evidence does not bear out the assertion by the OP. Either capitalised forms fall well short of the threshold in the guidance by which we would cap them. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed, however, I might support "Hell" which is a proper name in the Christian context.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Third circle of hell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gabriel Yuji (talk · contribs) 21:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Just for the sake of record, I've read through Talk:First circle of hell/GA1 and Talk:Second circle of hell/GA1 to have a starting point. Like those reviews, I wasn't able to find major errors in the article. I do have some minor questions, however; they are:

• Link "heaven" to Heaven in Christianity for the sake of consistency with the other two articles (this one being the only point from the aforementioned reviews)

  Linked.

• I didn't understand the part "left blind and empty" of the sentence "Dante and Virgil walk further through the third circle, stepping upon the prostrate bodies of the gluttonous, who are being punished by lying face-first in the icy mud, left blind and empty". As far as I understood, it's saying that the gluttonous are left blind and empty, right? I mean, I do understand that probably it's telling us that the gluttonous were turned blind, but what does it mean to be turned empty? I could only think it's talking about a soul, but I'm not sure, and I think the text doesn't make it clear.

  It's empty in the sense that they're gluttons who will never be "full", but I've changed it to "unfulfilled" to hopefully make that seem clearer.

• In the sentence "Ciacco asks Dante to speak kindly of him when he returns to earth", I think "Earth" is referring to the planet, right? If so, it should be capitalized. If not, forget it.

  Changed to "the mortal world". Hell is depicted in Inferno as the centre of the planet so I think it's technically not "returning to planet earth", should hopefully skirt the issue here.

• In "Background", it is said that Cerberus's portrayal in Commedia is repurposed; for me, it's not clear how. Maybe could it be expanded?

  "Repurposed" here was meant to mean that character/concept was taken from an existing work or works and reused by Dante, it's a character he created but one he has repurposed from elsewhere. I can reword this; is there a phrasing you feel would convey this more clearly?

So that's it. It's an excellent article overall. No copyvios found. It's well-sourced and uses academic sources so no questions here. Please me ping after you've already solved the problems or replied to the ones you don't think are issues at all. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Gabriel Yuji, thank you for your review here. I hope I have covered or responded to your points; would like to hear your thoughts regarding the last point above. Thanks again. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time; I think the last point is okay – it was merely a suggestion that could be done or not. I'm passing it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)