From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


An auspice is very odd usage, even in the relentlessly singular Wikipedia. A bit like Pant. Wetman 07:19, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. The word auspice as it is usually used in English is plural because it is being used in certain figurative locutions that use the plural. But here the topics is the literal meaning of the word, and when it is used in that sense, it is as often singular as is any other noun.
... and sometimes Wikipedia article titles are plural and appropriately so. E.g., Beatles is plural for obvious reasons; Joint Chiefs of Staff similarly, and orthogonal polynomials is plural because there's no such thing as an orthogonal polynomial but there is such a thing as orthogonal polynomials, i.e., two polynomials can be orthogonal to each other. Michael Hardy 01:23, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why is the reference to Werewolf : The Apocalypse the *first* thing on the page?

new category for some content[edit]

I have recently added to the second half of this stubb. however, I feel that this part does not really fit into the "ancient Rome" category any longer, i do not know how to change this, or add a disambiguation page, as this is my fist attempt at expanding an article. I would be happy to do this if someone in the know was to provide instructions, or point me in the direction of them. (anonymous)

No problem here: there'd be no reason to disassemble an article to force the fit into a category such as "ancient Rome".--Wetman (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unclear intro paragraph[edit]

The introductory paragraph is pretty much impenetrable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this article is confused and inconsistent with the augury article. I wouldn't say it's impenetrable, I'd say it's wrong. (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I did a bit of research. this seems useful (sorry for no italics and such): Servius's commentary on Virgil's Aeneid I.398: "The difference between an augury and an auspice is that the augury is both requested and announced by quite specific birds, whereas the auspice can be announced by any kind of bird and is not requested" That came from Foundation, Dedication and Consecration in Early Modern Europe edited by M. Delbeke, M. Schraven which I found in Google books. Also the [ Nova Roma article] on the topic seems informed, and has footnotes. (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
confirmed here (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

interpretation of "tripudium"[edit]

The 1890 Elementary Lewis & Short Latin Dictionary makes a connection between "tripudium" used as a word for a sacred dance, and as used in connection with auspices or auguries - namely, that in the latter connection, it means, not the dropping of food from the mouths of chickens (in a favorable augury, where the chickens eat), but instead the excited stamping of their feet when they eat. I realize this contradicts the Cicero citation and others, as well as the 1879 Lewis & Short (unabridged?) Latin Dictionary, but I suspect there must be a reason for the more recent Elementary L&S lexicography. I'm not a classical scholar but just stumbled on this oddity in another connection. It might be worth looking into. Ken M Quirici 01:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

auspicious should not redirect here[edit]

"auspicious" redirects here. That's not right. For example, it has a particular meaning to the Chinese (see the article on the Chinese New Year), and needs its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alicam (talkcontribs) 08:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point. Actually, I'd say "auspicious" is a wiktionary entry. I'll try to look into this. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've changed the redirect to a disambiguation page; please check to see whether Auspicious now addresses your concerns. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Augur vs Auspice[edit]

Reading these two articles as someone unfamiliar with the subjects, I am left with complete confusion about these two terms. And based on the comments above (#Unclear intro paragraph), it seems like the difference is fairly minor. Did someone with this role consult both augury and auspices, or were these two completely independent practices, however related they may be by subject matter? In any case, once that distinction is made, I would think that it would make sense to merge the two articles into one. —Akrabbimtalk 15:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems like augur is the religious official, and auspice is the prophetic sign. Therefore, the augur read the auspices. Maybe somebody else will know whether the two articles should be merged. AGK [•] 22:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AGK is right - an augur is a person, an auspice is a sign. There is no need to merge these articles. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay I see the difference between the two terms now, but why wouldn't it make sense to have one article on Augury? That would cover the people, the signs, and the practices. As it is we have two articles about parts of the same system without any good overview. —Akrabbimtalk 13:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have both, but both are far from complete, and a conjoined version would become rather unwieldy in the writing, not to say rather hard reading. Augurs were influential in governmental and military decision making, which made the position of augur much sought after. Most if not all Roman generals and leading statesmen were augurs, and some interpreted the signs in wonderfully creative ways; there must be a quite lengthy article in that. The craft of augury, or taking the auspices, was complex, certainly worth an article in itself. Each of these should briefly summarise its partner-article. I don't think merging's the way to go. Haploidavey (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, that makes sense. I think part of the confusion is that the lede to this article and Auspex (disambiguation) say that an 'auspice' is the person, which seems to be according to the 1728 Cyclopaedia ("They are ordinarily confounded with Augures, 'tho in strictness there be a Difference.") The Cyclopaedia doesn't explain that difference, of course. Perhaps to avoid confusion, Auspice should be moved to Augury (and edited appropriately), and Augur can remain as the article about the office/position. —Akrabbimtalk 21:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A creature from Harry Potter is named after this practice, and because of its major role in The Cursed Child I think there should be a link to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:541:D901:4D4E:CC9A:D3B4:B2C6 (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think you'd find much agreement for that; for this article, it seems a rather trivial connection (see WP:TRIVIA). But I can't think of any reason not to link to this article from the name "Augurey" in the book's synopsis, as long as you've a citation to offer. Haploidavey (talk) 21 00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The Kayan people and augury[edit]

The Kayan people practice augury and consult chicken bones. After perusing this page I don't feel like it does a good job of representing groups other than Romans. For example, Types of Auspices does not discuss the Kayan people reading chicken bones.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]