Hosta

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 22 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Move good/featured article topicons next to article name

There is an interesting discussion on the Village Pump about moving GA/FA icons next to article name here. T8612 (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talasius

Could use an expert eye - rather iffy-looking ref doesn't support text, which is at variance with the de.wiki text (god or citizen?), etc. PamD 15:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Talasio" (spelt with T- or Th-, -s- or -ss-, and -io or -ius) was a wedding cry and therefore equivalent to "Hymen," whose name was called out at Greek weddings.Plutarch's story (actually Life of Romulus 15) that the Sabine women agreed to go only if they were being married to Talasius (a particularly attractive Roman man) is also in Livy 1.9.12 (as "Thalassius"), Plut. Pomp. 4, and Plut. Roman Questions 31 (where the parallel with hymen as a wedding cry is noted). In the Romulus passage Plutarch cites other conjectures: that it was a watchword for the rapists of the Sabine women, that it is a corruption of the Greek ταλασία, talasia (wool-spinning) and thus a guarantee to the women that they would not be required to do other servile tasks for their husband. L.C. Watson Mnemosyne 61 (2008) 253-4 says the word could be used as a metonym for heterosexual intercourse, when discussing its use in Catullus 61.134 "to serve Talasius" (doesn't seem to have much ancient evidence...). These seem to be the only ancient sources, so it seems the Greeks and Romans weren't sure what it meant. Several scholars, including Lewis and Short sv. think that Talasius was "probably the name of the god of marriage", but there seems to be no ancient evidence for that and on a preliminary search I don't find any current scholar claiming it. Furius (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do. See:

Fordyce, C. J., ed. (1961). Catullus: A Commentary. Oxford University Press. pp. 35, n. 127. doi:10.1093/actrade/9780198721475.book.1. ISBN 978-0-19-872147-5. Talasio or Talassio was a ritual cry at the deductio, of unknown origin. The ancients knew two accounts of it, an historical one explaining it as the dative of a proper noun and connecting it with the rape of the Sabine women (Livy i. 9, Plut. Q.R. 31, Rom.' 15), and an etymological one connecting it with τάλαρος‎, and interpreting it as an indication that the bride was passing to the duty of lanificium in her husband's house (Varro ap. Fest. 478 L.). Whatever its origin, a marriage-god was made out of it—Talas(s)ius (or Talassus, Mart. xii. 42. 4), a Roman counterpart of Hymenaeus. Here Talasio must be dative: 'your master now chooses to take Talasius as his master'.
Panoussi, Vassiliki (2007), Skinner, Marilyn B. (ed.), "Sexuality and Ritual: Catullus' Wedding Poems", A Companion to Catullus, Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 276–292, doi:10.1002/9780470751565.ch15, ISBN 978-0-470-75156-5, retrieved 2020-10-10, The husband's attachment to the concubinus is the main theme of this portion of the poem; he must give up his male partner in order to effect a successful transition to married life. The chorus also calls on the concubinus himself to accept this event, asking him to recognize the marriage god (Talasius) as his master (126–7). Like the husband, the concubinus needs to enter the world of adulthood, his transition ritually symbolized in the giving of the nuts to the chorus and the cutting of his hair.
Lorenz, Sven (2007), Skinner, Marilyn B. (ed.), "Catullus and Martial", A Companion to Catullus, Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 418–438, doi:10.1002/9780470751565.ch22, ISBN 978-0-470-75156-5, retrieved 2020-10-10, In fact, Martial may even criticize Catullus' longer poems (2.86.4–5). However, in 1.35, Martial does mention thalassiones ("wedding-songs") and may thus allude to Catullus' long and learned wedding-songs, where the term Talasius is actually used …
Wasdin, Katherine (2009). "The reluctant bride: Greek and Roman wedding poems -". ProQuest. Ann Arbor: Yale University. p. 23. Retrieved 2020-10-10. Roman literary sources comfortably use the Greek word hymen in wedding songs, refer to the god to whom it gave birth as Hymenaeus, and in later periods also adopt the Greek term epithalamium. Roman authors also mention a uniquely Latin wedding cry, talassio, sometimes also spelled talasio. Livy explains the cry by identifying Talasius as an early Roman, the winner of one of the Sabine women, a story that conveniently ties together two Roman themes: the snatching of women, and the traditional wedding cry. The existence of a parallel, Latin expression shows that the use of hymen by Roman poets is a Hellenizing, literary feature, and serves as a salutary reminder that many of our sources are permeated with erudite Greek features not necessarily representative of the native Roman ceremony{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Still, the most note-worthy thing seems to be that the Romans had a wedding-invocation separate from but equivalent to hymen, at least in Hellenizing literature. Perhaps that should be the focus of the article, with aetiological speculation and mythologizing following from what we know. GPinkerton (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bust of Hadrian

Does this project have a deletion-sorting page? Couldn't see one. Anyway this one raises important issues for classical art, & any expertise would be welcome. Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RM for Antinous

Please see Talk:Antinous#Requested_move_13_October_2020 for a request move on Antinous(/Antinoös). GPinkerton (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gelae (Scythian tribe)

This might be making a mountain out of a molehill. The article is clearly written by someone with limited familiarity with certain conventions of English scholarly writing, and perhaps insufficient care and attention to citation formatting—but articles don't have to be created perfectly, and we don't have to have immediate access to the sources. Verifiability means that there are either sources that we could consult (whether or not we're able to access them—sources don't have to be available on-line in order to be valid), or that reliable sources could be located with reasonable diligence (i.e. they don't technically have to be in the article already in order for the article to survive deletion, so long as it appears likely that such sources exist, and might be identified at some point—even if they're presently not). I see Strabo cited, although in Greek, and an older printing (really, we don't care which edition is consulted unless there are significant differences in the manuscripts, or a particular translation is being quoted; what we want is the citation to book and chapter—not necessary to give the line, really, if the chapter is only a few paragraphs—so that the relevant passage can easily be located), but presumptively valid. It should be easy enough to reformat the other sources into a more comprehensible format, just by Googling them. Nothing urgent about this article that can't be fixed in a few minutes, from the looks of it. If it's a hoax, that should be pretty easy to determine. I'll see if I can clean it up a bit, and we can go from there. P Aculeius (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a crack at it, and it looks more like a decent article now, but I could use some help with some of the sources. Specifically, "Onomastics and Epigraphy of Medieval Eastern Europe and Byzantium" and "Naturkunde: Lateinisch-Deutsch, Buch VI". Are these articles in journals, or volumes of something? Who wrote them? And what were they meant to be cited for? The only thing left in the article that isn't clearly attributed are the writings of Vasily Bartold and E.A. Grantovsky, but I can't tell what this should be cited to. Do they match up with these mysterious sources somehow? Can anyone help me figure this out? Everything else I think is good—although I don't know which edition of Strabo the pagination in DGRG refers to, and it would be useful to add to the bibliography. Presumably an old one. P Aculeius (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial dynasty navboxes

Does anyone else feel that sidebar navboxes of Roman imperial dynasties, like Template:Valentinian dynasty, are useless and disruptive? Look at this, it takes up a massive amount of space and adds nothing of value to the article itself. I propose that all navboxes of the sort, from Template:Julio-Claudian dynasty onward, should be deleted, on the reasoning that they are totally useless, take up space that could be filled with more pertinent images (like coins or statues), and just pollute the article in general. Probably at this point many of them already are unused, so nothing will change if they're deleted. Avis11 (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like the reason Template:Valentinian dynasty isn't used on any pages anymore is because someone has removed it from pages, not because they were never in use.★Trekker (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They were removed b/c they are useless, why else? Avis11 (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction "someone removed them because that someone thought they were useless." Its like emptying out a category and then putting a speedy deletion notice on it because its empty.★Trekker (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that someone was right. Template creators tend to be drive-by types who just love creating templates, probably because they don't like or feel confident writing text. They then usually slap these at the top of the article, regardless of what they push lower down. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some pretty huge generalizations. Not to mention unnecessarily condescending towards those who mostly edit tempates.★Trekker (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I don't like how they look and I think they take up too much space. If navboxes are needed, an alternative to these big boxes would be to use smaller navboxes at the bottom of relevant articles; such as the ones that exist for the Komnenid dynasty (Byzantine Empire) or the Sargonid dynasty (Neo-Assyrian Empire). They're considerably less disruptive and offer the possibility of including members of these dynasties that were not rulers, perhaps making them more useful as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for a vertical template they are far too large, and too little use. In a compact horizontal form they might be fine, or harmless. Template:Theodosian dynasty is at least relatively short, & Template:Julio-Claudian dynasty would be fine if trimmed. At least the main Julio-Claudians have long articles. The Valentinian is just hopeless - much too long, confusing, & inappropriate for what are rather short articles, with just room for a bust & a coin or two as illustrations. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All infoboxes of Julio-CLaudian emperors already have a link to 'Julio-Claudian dynasty' in the 'dynasty' parameter, so I don't see how a large Julio-Claudian-themed navbox almost the size of the infobox itself adds anything of importance to the article. Avis11 (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That link is rather hard to find - you have to wade through all the other cruft in the infobox (which is of course far too long). The one in the text is probably easier. I was suggesting trimming the two lowest sections, making it about half the present size. But whatever. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I too prefer the horizontal examples adduced above: the Sargonid one is simplest layout, but I like that the Comnenai are included with their menfolk. I don't see any point in a Template:Constantinian dynasty that omits the two Helenae Augustae, Constantina Augusta, Constantia Augusta, etc. The Valentinian(ic) one, in addition to being misnamed, is misleading in its claim to have been succeeded but the Theodosian dynasty, since their reigns overlapped in time and blood, and the last of the Theodosians to rule was himself a Valentinian of that ilk. There's also something to be said for including members of the dynasty after the dynasty lost the purple. Where is Anicia Juliana in all this? She was the offspring of a non-dynastic emperor and of the Valentinianic-Theodosian dynasty, and her son married into the family of an emperor who was himself married into the ruling Leonid dynasty. Perhaps since the Sargonids were dealt with by Ichthyovenator we can use that as a, well, template. GPinkerton (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal appears to be aimed at me - guilty as charged as creator in 2012, but most certainly not fly-by. The proposer certainly seems to feel strongly about this issue. I have added my thoughts on the proposal for deletion page. It would be a pity to lose them rather than improve them. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 22:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to criticism about size - I have collapsed the two sections - I believe that solves the issue for those who find it too long. I have also merged it with the existing image, to demonstrate usefulness and fit wrt other proposals --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 21:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would not the inclusion of other people be better served in the family trees? Also I think the text addresses the overlapping dynasties. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 17:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wreaths and crowns

The state of our coverage of classical headgear could use a review. At present, there is some coverage at Wreath, some more at Wreath (attire) (the Roman section of which I rewrote recently, aghast), but then also as Chaplet (headgear), Corolla (headgear), Laurel wreath, Garland, Olive wreath, Mural crown, Grass Crown, Civic Crown, Naval crown, while the closely related, Diadem, Tainia (costume), Fillet (clothing) are all very brief and rather overlapping. For the subject of crowns/wreaths in ancient Greece and Rome, I think we could probably use a new article, and collapse some of those into it, or else the existing articles need regularizing in some way and some new ones created for such things as the wreaths of ivy and vines worn for various reasons, or the different ones awarded at the Crown Games (i.e., the Pythian, Isthmian, Nemean, and Olympic games). Ideally I'd favour an omnibus article on ancient head-worn wreaths of all kinds, with redirects to sections. That way we can also deal with the full sweep of classical civilization, (inc. e.g. the symbolism of the crown of thorns) and the deprecation of wreaths and the promotion of the diadem in Late Antiquity. (I'd don't see Tertullian's De corona mentioned anywhere.) After that the Wreath (attire) page could probably be deleted as extraneous. A celery crown for the best suggestion! GPinkerton (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally a good idea, but I think those with significant pre- and post- classical uses should not be merged: Wreath (attire), Chaplet (headgear) (not really a proper term in modern classical studies, is it?), Garland, Diadem, Fillet (clothing), maybe others. Then there's crown, and Radiate crown. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be misspelled as "Radiant crown", which sounds repulsive. Chaplet is a synonym either for Wreath or Wreath (attire), which I say are synonymous with one another. The only non-classical thing shown in Chaplet (headgear) is the Cheyenne man wearing what the caption describes as a "wreath". Garland is obviously separate, but three articles on rings of vegetation worn on the head is too much: (wreath, wreath (attire), and chaplet (headgear)) These ought to be merged, with brief summary of "Wreaths and crowns in the ancient world" in a section pointing to main article on that subject, with which all or most of the different vegetation crowns should be merged. GPinkerton (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wreaths are for coffins, front doors & war memorials, as well as heads, and for most readers the non-worn wreaths are the most obvious meaning, so I'd say having two articles is correct. Chaplet could well go to Wreath (attire), or a unified article on rings of vegetation worn on the head under any name, but garlands are more worn round the neck, or not worn at all, I'd say. "Radiant crown" does seem to be a respectable alternative term, but I agree the article should be at "radiate", as far more usual. Johnbod (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delving deeper, it seems as though the very existence of Wreath (attire) is an artefact of a kind of mistake in about 2007. Originally it was created as "Vinok", and moved around until settled at the present name, but the original content and subject of the article was spun off again into Ukrainian wreath in an attempt to keep a separate article for the eastern European vegetation headdress of the present day. Wreath (attire) should probably be scrapped. The entire talk page is people saying it should be merged, where is the Roman bit, etc. GPinkerton (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A problem with many substandard articles -- & this is not unique to those concerning Classical topics -- is that they remain in that state due to the difficulty of researching the topic. The more commonplace a subject, the harder it can be to find acceptable sources to use. (IMHO, the most challenging topics would be clothing, furniture, & food. I've found that even experts when faced with these topics sometimes resort to handwaving. And yet, these are often the articles most in need of writing.) It's hard to write on topics where one does not know where to start, & even if one does it can take months to get up to speed. So if anyone wants to tackle the articles Johnbod mentions above, you have my admiration & thanks. (And if one were to successfully tackle one of these topics, I think it would make for an interesting Signpost article. We need more encouragement to tackle difficult topics like these.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coin inscriptions

Coin of Constantine II as caesar, marked: d·n· fl· cl· constantinus nob· c· ("Our Lord Flavius Claudius Constantine, Noblest Caesar")

Julian on a bronze coin from Antioch minted in 361–363, inscribed
d·n·fl·cl·iulianus p·f· aug·

Coins can be captioned like these two examples:

Avis11 objects to this format, and has been replacing it with a parenthetical version which does not take advantage of the benefits of 21st-century technology and which looks unpleasant and over-long (to me). Indeed, the advantages of having a digital abbreviation with mouse-over functionality is actually the same as the advantages of the abbreviated format discovered by the minters ages ago. Which is better: the one in Julian's infobox here: option 1 or here: option 2? GPinkerton (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude here, but I must point out that your custom to baldly revert entire edits of mine without any attempt at filtering content or compromise, or to outright ignore messages of mine on your talk page, is annoying and outside common standards of politeness.

With regards to the matter at hand, part of me prefers to omit the coin legend from the caption altogether (per the reverted edit on Gallus): interested readers are always free to click on the image and visit the Wikimedia entry for more information. If you insist on showing it, then using parentheses rather than the abbreviation template allows the reader to already see what the text means just by batting an eye. I don't have any strong feelings for this, so you're free to undo the edits I've made on this regard. Avis11 (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no-one is ever going to go through all the coins on Commons and write out their inscriptions, expand the abbreviation, and translations properly. We should decipher the text that is hard to read and supply a translation for the reader of this project. The reader can can already see the meaning if an English version is available, while leaving the abbreviated form gives a sense of the Romans' practices in this regard (and how it distantly influences modern use), as well as showing their Latin name in a suitably recognizable form. GPinkerton (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is much benefit in adding the inscription, unless the coin is used to illustrate a section on the emperor's titles and names. It is more useful to tell about the people/scene depicted and the reason behind the strike. For example the current caption of Julian's solidus in his article is too long. See my caption on the side. T8612 (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well format is especially useful for infoboxes, but I think in other cases too the idea is to get as much informative information into the caption as cannot be gleaned by looking quickly at the image, in as concise a way as possible. Here's the thing: we can see already that this is a picture of someone dragging a captive. The caption needs to tell the reader what is more difficult to see - the writing around the coin which is written in circle in an abbreviated form of a dead language. My point is, one could have, for that example: "the mint-mark sirm shows that it was issued at Sirmium." But what is more opaque, and what the coins were designed to express, is the nature and identity of the figures, which is lost without the inscription, which is why they included it originally. Still, the question I'm asking is whether abbreviations written on coins should be rendered sirm or as SIRM(ium). GPinkerton (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think option 1 looks much nicer and is more economical with space, but the Template:Abbr page seems to indicate that there are some ongoing accessibility and mobile display issues with this template. If that is the case, then option 2 is -unfortunately- the only way to go. Furius (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Massive duplication in Late Antiquity

We have two articles with apparently identical subjects but diverging contents. There is Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire and Anti-paganism policies of the early Byzantine Empire. There's also Decline of Graeco-Roman polytheism. (Oddly, there's no article on Graeco-Roman polytheism itself, which oddly redirects to Hellenistic religion.) GPinkerton (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you mean Decline of Greco-Roman polytheism rather than "Decline of Graeco-Roman polytheism": the latter (which you listed above) confusingly redirects to the persecution-of-pagans article. Anyway, yes, I've noticed that problem too. The Late-Empire-persecution article's contents seem more in line with the subject of Decline of Greco-Roman polytheism, which itself is currently heavily reliant on primary sources. There's an abeyant suggestion from one year ago to merge the late Empire and early Byzantine persecution articles, which I agree with.

As the articles currently stand, I think a good idea would be to merge the two Persecutions and the Decline of Greco-Roman polytheism into one Decline of paganism in the Roman Empire (well, looks like someone has already claimed this as a redirect), or perhaps Decline and persecution of paganism in the Roman Empire. Greco-Roman polytheism definitely sounds like it should have its own article, but I haven't really been involved in the subject. Avis11 (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a merger is long overdue. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything said on the main issue seems reasonable. I'm not in favour of having a Graeco-Roman polytheism article, because I think it would be awkward to write and would end up duplicating much of Ancient Greek religion and Religion in ancient Rome. Some scholars do use Hellenistic religion as a term for Graeco-Roman religion from the 300s BC through to the rise of Christianity - e.g. L. H. Martin, Hellenistic Religions: An Introduction (1987) - which might be the reason for the redirect. This terminology is deprecated in A. Tripolitis, Religions of the Hellenistic-Roman Age (2002) p. 11 (explaining her book's title). Furius (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Emperor (Principate)

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Emperor (Principate) for the deletion of this and related pages. Avis11 (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: see also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 17#Template:Valentinian dynasty. Avis11 (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Received a request to merge Caecilii Metelli family tree into Caecilius Metellus; Proposer's Rationale: Same information / redundant. Discussion has introduced other options. Your opinions are requested. Discuss it >>>HERE<<<. Thanks, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 14:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 * [[/Archive 30|Archive 30 (Jan 2020 – )]]
 }}__TOC__
-== Legion Numbers and Descriptions ==
-I've noticed there's a fair degree of inconsistency about how Roman legions are described at the start of their articles.
-e.g.
-*[[Legio_I_Parthica|Legio prima Parthica]]
-*[[Legio I Minervia]]
-*[[Legio XXI Rapax|Legio vigesima prima rapax]]
-*[[Legio IV Flavia Felix|Legio quarta Flavia Felix]]
-In  particular the names with the numbers in Latin words rather than numerals seem strange to me. Is it accurate to use these, in the sense that reliable sources use prima, secunda etc? I ''feel'' like Roman numerals are more appropriate, used more commonly  and better tied to epigraphic evidence, and that the use of the Latin words is somehow a sort of neologism. Now clearly what I feel doesn't  matter(!),  but there a fishy smack of original research to me about numbering and naming the legions in this way when I don't think the titles were in all cases used like this. looking through the history's
-At the very least there seems like an opportunity to tidy up and make consistent. Most of these articles look to have originally been in numerals, and subsequently bold edited to words by a couple of busy editors in short order about a decade ago. As lead changes there are never any sources cited for these changes, just someone with a working knowledge of Latin changing numeral into words.
-There're also issues around italicisation and upper lowercase for the unit nicknames.
-[[User:FlaccusVarus|FlaccusVarus]] ([[User talk:FlaccusVarus|talk]]) 13:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
-:Consistency is a desirable goal, but bear in mind that there are two conflicting purposes here, and neither involves neologism.  The Romans used numerals as a convenient shorthand—and they were very fond of doing this, since writing was a more laborious process than it is today, and space was frequently at a premium.  But they would certainly have ''said'' "prima", "secunda", "vigesima", etc.  And in good English writing, we write out numerals in running text, unless they are so large as to become unwieldy—and in speaking we pronounce Roman numerals as if they were English cardinal or ordinal numbers, even though in context the Latin would be more appropriate in this instance.  Of course, I don't mean to suggest that it's incorrect to refer to the "first legion" (however you choose to capitalize it) or the "twentieth legion" in running text—provided that it's clear which one you mean, since there were many legions sharing numbers at various points in time—but the question here is how to give the name in the lead sentence.  And while using Roman numerals is certainly authentic, I also worry that we lose something if we don't write out the number, since non-Latinists won't readily know what word the numeral stands for, except in English.  I'd like to know if any of our more experienced members can suggest a viable way to do both without adding awkward parentheticals to the bold part of the lead.  [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 14:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
-:: For clarity, I’m not suggesting removing anything in English, certainly we should write it out in English,  it’s the I vs Prima issue that I’m querying. I can’t think of a single good secondary source on the legions that uses, for example, Legio Prima Parthica. It’s always in my experience Legio I Parthica, with numerals.
-:: For the non-Latinists the Roman numerals are going to be better than the Latin numbers in some cases.  Legio XVIII is probably more clear than Legio duodevigesima.  Taking that, I can’t find any examples of Use of Legio Duodevigesima that aren’t clearly derived from the wiki page, and that goes back to someone showing off their knowledge of Latin a decade ago and changing all the numerals to words.[[ across every legion the could find. User:FlaccusVarus|FlaccusVarus]] ([[User talk:FlaccusVarus|talk]]) 17:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
-:::(edit conflict) After further consideration, I agree with using numerals for the bold lead.  I also think that as proper nouns, they should be capitalized (note that nicknames are considered "proper" nouns).  I disagree with G. Pinkerton's suggestion of anglicizing the names—a translation following the name in Latin is strongly preferable.  [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 18:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
-::::For what it's worth, it's rare to refer to more modern military formations with with their ordinals written out in full. "Seventeenth/Twenty-first Lancers" looks very wrong. Some even have cardinal numbers and are still always written numerically: [[40 Commando]]. I suggest that the English language name should use "legion" instead of "legio" break with the MOS and use the style "Ist", "IInd", "IIIrd", "XIXth", etc., perhaps with a further daring superscript. That way the Latin can be written out in full the first time, unbolded, with the Roman numerals then free to be used throughout as a short form, to be read as either English or Latin as the reader prefers. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 17:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
-:::::{{Re|P Aculeius}} I have ''not'' suggested Anglicizing the names. On the contrary, I propose ''Romanizing'' the ''numerals''. That way the Roman and standard academic abbreviations can be employed throughout and the English translation supplied in the first instance, allowing a variety of It would read like this:
-:::::*{{Talk quote block|The '''Legio I Parthica''' ({{Lang-la|legio prima parthica|lit=1st Parthian Legion}}) was a [[Roman legion|legion]] of the [[Imperial Roman army]] founded in AD 197 by the emperor [[Septimius Severus]] (r. 193–211) for his forthcoming war against the [[Parthian Empire]]. The Ist ''Parthica'' was ... The Ist, IInd and IIIrd ''Parthica'' legions were ... While the IInd and IIIrd Legions were despatched to ... the Ist ''Parthica'' Legion garrisoned at ... etc }}
-:::::We should avoid a style that requires the overuse of "''legio''", "''legiones''", in the article body, since we already have perfectly good words for this in English, just as we can read of "centurions" rather than labouring the prose with "''centuriones''". So there ought to be a shorthand version that fits idiomatically in English and which is instantly recognizable as a legion's proper name without being overlong. The forms "First ''Parthica''", "Third ''Parthica''" are to be avoided.  [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 19:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
-:::::::I agree that in the ''body'' of the article we would use the English "legion" and "centurion" rather than treating these as Latin words.  But the bold lead gives the ''proper name'' of the legion, which is, for example, "Legio I Parthica" or "Legio Prima Parthica".  However, having considered the matter for several days, I think that "Legio I Parthica" is preferable to "Legio Prima Parthica".  That wasn't my first impression, but whereas both are ''technically'' acceptable, and we normally write out numerals in running text, this ''is'' a proper name, and it's traditionally written with the numeral.  I'm not sure how or whether it's important to spell it out for readers who won't know how to pronounce 'I', but I will state uncategorically my opposition to macaronic forms like "Ist", "IInd", or "IIIrd".  These aren't normal orthographies in English; I don't remember seeing them in older sources, and I certainly haven't seen them in newer ones.  We ''may'' say "the First Legion" for pragmatic reasons, but we don't say "the Legio First Parthica".  [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 23:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
-::::: that sound like a slippery slope to calling Centurions captains and majors! I may try editing a few as per [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] and if anyone objects send them here to discuss further.[[User:FlaccusVarus|FlaccusVarus]] ([[User talk:FlaccusVarus|talk]]) 04:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
-::::::I haven't suggested anything like that! I am just saying the English names for words should be ''avoided'' except where giving the translation of the Latin name in the first sentence. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 19:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
-:::For me, "Legio" over "Legion"; Roman numerals over Arabic numerals or numbers written out, either in English or Latin. So [[Legio I Minervia]] is how I think we should standardise this. [[User:Oatley2112|Oatley2112]] ([[User talk:Oatley2112|talk]]) 05:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
-:::: I think this is correct - it is definitely the version in most common use. Doing a google books search for "Legio I Parthica" brings up lots of recent scholarly works Pat Southern, ''The Roman Army: A Social and Institutional History'', Paul Erdkamp ''A Companion to the Roman Army''; doing a search for "Legio Prima Parthica" brings up mostly books written before 1800 and generally they are glossing the abbreviated form. The lead should probably give the name spelled out in full, as [[Legio I Parthica]] currently does, so that readers have that information in front of them. [[User:Furius|Furius]] ([[User talk:Furius|talk]]) 21:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
-*'''Comment'''. I support the form "Legio I Minervia" as standard title, because it really helps with disambiguation and seems to be the most common name. But in the text body, I prefer saying "1st Legion", instead of "Legio" or "Ist Legion", since we already have English words. It's better to avoid overburdening the text with Latin words. [[User:T8612|<span style="color:yellow;background-color:navy">T8612</span>]] [[User talk:T8612|(talk)]] 20:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
-*'''Agree with T8612''', except that we should write out "First" rather than use the numeral "1st" in running text.  "1st" would be acceptable in a table, but we probably won't need to use it that way.  None of the legions have numbers too large to write out the number in the article body.  Note that I'm not suggesting that "Legio I Parthica" would be unacceptable in body text; just that "First Legion" is a good, and perhaps the preferable short version, allowing for variety.  It doesn't do to become too prescriptive, as long as normal rules of orthography are adhered to.  [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 23:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
-::'''Strongly oppose writing out ordinal numbers in English.''' This is not usual in either a Roman context or a wider military context. Military formations known by their numbers are never written out in words. Just as centuries of time are usually numbered in Arabic (or Roman) numerals, so are military units, including legions. Sometimes the difference between Roman and Arabic numerals is itself significant (as between the [[Fifth Regiment]], the [[5th Regiment of Foot|5th Regiment]], and the [[V Corps]]. Obviously there's a stylistic reason to prefer Roman numerals in this case, and a strong legibility reason for the brevity and clarity offered by numerals, advantages recognized by the legionaries themselves in their inscriptions, insignia, and so on. We all already use Roman numerals for kings and queens, and I don't see any reason to insist on "Pope John the Twenty-First" or "James the Seventh and Second" in running text; on the contrary, like monarchs', legions' numbers should be clearly distinct from all other ordinal numbers mentioned in any surrounding text, which I agree should in general be written in words. Thus we could have situations which would otherwise risk confusion: "... first the 1st [or Ist] ''Germanica'' arrived, followed by, within seconds, the 2nd [or IInd] ''Sabina'' ..." In short: "1st Legion" is preferable to "First Legion. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 04:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
-So what is the consensus? "Legio" over "legion"? (I hope the first.) It appears that Roman numerals is preferred to writing out or using Arabic ones.  Do we need to include "legio" every time, only in the first mention of the unit, or can one be allowed to refer to "III Gallica" instead of "Legio III Gallica" from the start?  Which leads to this question: once a given legion is named, what is the preferred short version? To provide an example, after the first time "Legio III Gallica" is mentioned, may/should/must we refer to it as "III Gallica" each time afterwards? (Note that those three helper verbs have different connotations.){{pb}}''Note'': I'm only asking these annoyingly picky questions in order to avoid pointless edit wars; if there is no clear consensus on any of these points, I for one will not insist on consistency between articles. But these are points of style worth thinking about & coming to a decision at some point down the road. If only to avoid pointless edit wars. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 20:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
-:I think most of us can get behind using "The '''Legio III Gallica''' was blah blah..." in the lead sentence, together with or followed by such translations as seem advisable ("Third Gallic Legion").  In the body I think you should be free to use the form that makes sense to you, with whatever variations you think will avoid unnecessary repetition, as long as it's clear what unit you're referring to.  If you want to say "the ''III Gallica'' was stationed at Lugnutum to hold it against the Tirejacti" or "the third, fourth, and fifth legions wintered in Flabonia Superior, before taking up positions near Ctetilcorn the following spring," either should be fine—and I don't mean to limit references to these types of examples—others I haven't thought of might be fine too.  But as all other body text, I think the real questions are whether it'll be clear what's being referred to, and whether it follows the normal rules of grammar and practice in historical writing.  And that would best be judged on a case-by-case basis.  [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 23:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
-:I agree that the title should be of the format '''Legio I Parthica''', but I don't really have an opinion about the body. [[User:HalfdanRagnarsson|HalfdanRagnarsson]] ([[User talk:HalfdanRagnarsson|talk]]) 02:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
-== Standard name of Roman roads ==
-Article titles on Roman roads are not standardised. We can find [[Appian Way]] (English translation), [[Via Trionfale]] (Italian), [[Via Argentaria]] (Latin, no italic), and ''[[Via Aemilia]]'' (Latin, italic). What should be the standard one? [[User:T8612|<span style="color:yellow;background-color:navy">T8612</span>]] [[User talk:T8612|(talk)]] 19:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
-:"''Via x''" Uniformly in Latin. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 19:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
-:COMMONNAME should rule. "Appian Way" is very famous under than name, I think we should watch out with using too much untranslated Latin on Wikipedia, we are all familiar with many of these terms, but many readers may not be.[[User:&#42;Treker|★Trekker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|talk]]) 19:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
-::True, but the few English names ([[Watling Street]] is another) that are common names can remain as they are, but there's no reason to use Italian; that should be for modern roads, like the [[Via dei Fori Imperiali]]. Via Triumphalis is much better than Via Trionfale and "triumphal way" is in English a general concept, not a road name. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 19:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
-:::Good points.[[User:&#42;Treker|★Trekker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|talk]]) 20:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
-:::I agree; English names that are common names should be used per COMMONNAME. Unless there are COMMONNAME issues with the other roads, using consistent latin naming for them (i. e. Via Triumphalis instead of Via Trionfale) should be fine. [[User:Ichthyovenator|Ichthyovenator]] ([[User talk:Ichthyovenator|talk]]) 20:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
-:::So do I.  Latin, never Italian or English, ''except'' where the English/Italian/whatever will be more familiar to English speakers.  "Appian Way" is more familiar than "Via Appia", although in the lead I would expect to see both, probably with the Latin first.  In almost all other instances it's likely to be the Latin that's more familiar, but each case should be judged on its own merits.  [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 20:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
-::: I sorta agree: I would prioritize English (at least for those in Britain), then Latin, & never Italian. And also have redirects for all names to the article. (Sometimes one forgets that a road has 2 different names, & only discovers that at the last minute.) -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 20:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
-:::Disagree - although the article doesn't make this very clear at the start the [[Via Trionfale]] appears to be a busy modern road, only 11 or 20 KM long; you can't go calling those by their Latin names.  COMMONNAME should rule, wherever it takes us.  For example it would be ridiculous to call [[Spaccanapoli (street)|Spaccanapoli]] by the Latin name.  What about italics?  We don't normally use them for modern streets, or the buildings on them, so why for ancient ones? [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 21:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
-::::Is that really why a Wikipedia article exists on the subject? Do we have articles on all the 11km-stretches of autostrade, or is it only the ones which are notable as vitally important ancient Roman roads? (unsigned by Pinkerton)
-:::::::We have featured articles on 3 mile stretches of roads in the Middle West, so I don't see why not.  The article has as much to say about the modern as the ancient road, which doesn't actually seem to have been "vitally important". [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 01:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
-::::::::{{tq|which doesn't actually seem to have been "vitally important"}} Oh my well do write and say they needn't have bothered to all those generals and emperors that held triumphs there, and to those that built all those triumphal arches over it, and to Septimius Severus who built the [[Septizodium]] there, and to Nero and Constantine who had 125-foot statues of themselves built to be seen from a a 900-foot stretch of it. I guess there must have been some more convenient way between the Caelian and Palatine hills, and they should have built the Vatican somewhere else ...
-::::::::Of course, we have no article for the modern ''via di San Gregorio'', the most significant part of the ''via triumphalis'' ... [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 03:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
-:::::I always thought Via Appia was more common. It's always ''Via Appia'' in academic sources. Most wikis in other languages use Via Appia too. [[User:T8612|<span style="color:yellow;background-color:navy">T8612</span>]] [[User talk:T8612|(talk)]] 21:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
-== Is this historian credible? ==
-I read this [https://www.academia.edu/12853591/cadet_line_of_Servilii_Caepiones_ver_2_ this article today] by a man named Mark Passehl which seems to run in contrast to mainstream opinion on the [[Servilii Caepiones]]. Nothing was really eyebrow raising tho until it came to a part where the article claims that "Livia seems to have born a bastard son by her lover Salvius while Caesar was away"; that made me take pause.[[User:&#42;Treker|★Trekker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|talk]]) 22:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
-:He may be credible, but this is not a peer-reviewed article (just a draft), and therefore not a RS. [[User:T8612|<span style="color:yellow;background-color:navy">T8612</span>]] [[User talk:T8612|(talk)]] 22:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 == Move good/featured article topicons next to article name ==
 There is an interesting discussion on the Village Pump about moving GA/FA icons next to article name [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Move good/featured article topicons next to article name|here]]. [[User:T8612|<span style="color:yellow;background-color:navy">T8612</span>]] [[User talk:T8612|(talk)]] 12:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)