Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 45

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45

Gentes and the single common ancestor

The article gens Servilia includes a phrase, The nomen Servilius is a patronymic surname, derived from the praenomen Servius (meaning "one who keeps safe" or "preserves"), which must have been borne by the ancestor of the gens. There are two elements which I want to focus on: must and the ancestor. The two together imply that there must have been, ie it is historical that there was, a single common ancestor for the gens Servilia who bore the name Servius.

I removed the underlined portion and was reverted by P Aculeius. I then edited the statement to say that the Romans believed in a single ancestor, along with other clean up, and was then again reverted here. The following are the edit descriptions.

  • the idea that they're all descended from one servius is nonsense
  • That *is* both the premise of patronymic surnames, *and* that of all Roman gentes; the definition of a gens involves at least the tradition or belief in descent from a common ancestor. That the gentiles were, or believed that they were descended from such a person is not nonsense, but tautological.
  • literally a non sequitur; a fictitious kin group – "That distant ancestor (princeps gentis) was commonly a fiction" OCD 4 sv gens – is not the same as your addition right here of text implying that this ancestor must have existed at some point. i am editing to say that they thought some ancestor existed and tagging. WP:TSI.
  • Rewording, but deleting "failed verification" tag for reasons to be discussed on the talk page.

Pursuant to obligations, I am here for a third opinion. I bring here because of similar language used on gens Quinctia and gens Lucilia.

Aculeius' desired text has two major issues:

  • Basically nobody in the WP:SCHOLARSHIP believes the facile claims that every gens was descended from a common ancestor. Writing that every one descended from a single ancestor should not be the default; policy requires such semi-extraordinary claims to be sourced.
    • OCD4 sv "gens": That distant ancestor (princeps gentis) was commonly a fiction and a real or supposed kinship link between those claiming membership of the same gens became increasingly difficult to demonstrate. Common fictions are not consistent with a historical single ancestor as the premise ... of all Roman gentes.
    • Cornell Beginnings (1995) p 84: In historical times the clan (gens) was a patrilineal descent group whose members (gentiles) claimed descent from a common ancestor. This common descent, whether real or fictitious, was reflected in the system of nomenclature. A claim of common ancestry is not evidence that such a common ancestor existed.
    • Forsythe Critical History (2005)
      • pp 100–101: the obvious derivation of both the Etruscan and Latin forms of the name from a toponym conforms to a larger pattern of ancient Italian nomenclature, by which a clan name could be nothing more than an adjectival form of a city’s name used to specify origin (showing that not all clan names actually emerge from a common ancestor)
      • p 160: The clan name usually ended in -ius (e.g., Fabius, Cominius) and in theory it indicated that all bearers of the name could trace their descent back to a common ancestor, although (as argued above concerning the Etruscan origin or descent of Tarquinius Priscus, see p. 100–101) in some instances a clan name could be simply invented or borrowed (again, a claim of common ancestry is not evidence of that ancestor's historicity)
    • Salway 1994: it is not plausible that the progenitors of, for example, all the families of Marcii, will have been one and the same Marcus, casting the very idea as implausible
    • Smith 2006: we can see that there will have been a tendency to try to identify the first holder of a given nomen, the ancestor of the gens... it will be evident that these figures are mythical, and that the relationship to a single ancestor is fictitious, and this raises questions over how genuine was the kinship between members of a gens. Rejecting the idea of common descent. (Book positively cited in Lomas Rise of Rome 2017 and in reviews.)
  • The sources cited in the article right now do not support the claim that there was a single ancestor for the gens Servilia called Servius. This content fails verification and, given the above, should be removed.
    • The 1897 article deals relevantly only with the etymology of Servilius. The entire article has four instances of the substring servili: the first two have to do with where the long-i is, the third lists it as formed from a suffix added to the praenomen Servius, the fourth is in a list of names. This does not support the single ancestor; it does not support this ancestor being called Servius; it does not support that so-called ancestor giving rise to the gens Servilia.
    • Livy 1.30 states only He [Romulus] nominated Alban nobles to the senate that this order of the State might also be augmented, amongst them were the Tullii, the Servilii, the Quinctii, the Geganii, the Curiatii, and the Cloelii. (I have checked the Latin, they are in accusative plural.) This does not support the single ancestor; it does not support this ancestor being called Servius; it does not support that so-called ancestor giving rise to the gens Servilia.

The closest I'm aware of when it comes to a facile ecce conditor story is with the gens Marcia. See Morelli 2021, describing how Numa adlected someone called Marcus and made him Marcius. But then Morelli notes there were other branches of the same family – basically Salway's point – and that the patrician descendants of the adlected Marcus died out. (Even though those branches then claimed descent from this first Marcius for political prestige reasons.)

Anyway, that's my position: the clause should go and so should the like clauses in other articles. Third opinions on this matter welcome. Ifly6 (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  • I note that you didn't wait for me to finish posting on the article's talk page before bringing the issue here to involve a larger audience. This is meant to be a discussion, not a spectacle or an election where whoever garners the most votes wins. I gave the matter extensive consideration—and I admit my discussion is even more of a wall-of-text than this is, for which I apologize—but frankly this is a minor point in the article, and it's not even likely to be relevant to the particular article in which it occurs, because no sources dispute that the patrician Servilii at the beginning of the Republic were all part of the same family. And as I tried to explain on the article's talk page, stating that the Servilii would have been descended from someone named Servius should be no more controversial than saying that a family named Johnson was presumably descended from someone named John, even though that likely would have occurred so far in the distant past that we have no idea who the person was.
If the dispute concerns the use of the word "must", as if to imply that "no other possible explanations are possible", then I concede that other explanations are possible, although I would state that no other explanations are plausible, particularly as there are no traditions in Roman writers concerning some other hypothetical reason why the Servilii were so named. This strikes me as nothing more than hair-splitting in the extreme: "you can't prove that someone named John existed!" or "He might have been mythical!" But if the dispute is that a claim of common ancestry is not the same as having a common ancestor, I think you at least must have some reason to dispute specific instances, rather than making a general assertion about Roman gentes.
The Servilii were patricians, the earliest generations mentioned all seem to have been related, and the fact that some other family at some other place and time might have acquired the same name from a different ancestor (also, presumably named Servius) doesn't really seem relevant to the origin of the patrician Servilii of the early Republic. The article doesn't say that the Servilii said anything about their common ancestor, doesn't involve whether he was real or mythical, only that their name was derived from some ancestor named Servius—and in the case of the Servilii at the beginning of the Republic, there seems to be no reason to speculate about whether they could actually have been several unrelated families, because that claim is found nowhere in any source relating to the Servilii.
But again, I'm not sure why this discussion could not have been had on the article's talk page before being brought here with copious citations, none of which frankly affect the basic issue. P Aculeius (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I see that approximately the same time I posted this, Aculeius posted a wall of text on Talk:Servilia gens. The justification given there essentially misses the point of the chosen grammatical construct's the ancestor of the gens. Nor does the rest of the response engage at all with why it {{failed verification}} or connect the admission that it is by no means inconceivable that multiple families could have borne the name due to their descent from different persons named Servius (similarly it is self-evident that all of them would have been descended from someone named Servius) to that the ancestor construct.
To answer the question why are we going to argue that the Servius whose descendants were named Servilius in Republican Rome was a "fictitious person" whose existence cannot be verified? The reason why is because Aculeius' proposed text asserts that such a person existed and, by admission, it fails verification. Moreover, the argumentation given that all the noble Servilii are related because they use the same praenomina is, by admission, only suggestive and also WP:SYNTH when here applied. It also doesn't support the claim brought back to the article that the single ancestor applied to the whole clan, contra just these specific patrician families. Ifly6 (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
In reply to the argument that not everyone who bore some nomina could have been descended from a common ancestor, all scholars agree that names such as Marcius or Servilius could have arisen independently at various times and places. But in no instance do we have evidence that the Romans considered any important gentes to have consisted of two or more separate and unrelated families that merely happened to share the same gentilicium, and in no instance can we prove that one prominent family was unrelated to another bearing the same nomen—the closest that we can come is showing descent by adoption (which the Romans considered legal descent), or unresolved disputes over whether the plebeian Junii could have been descended from Lucius Junius Brutus (who was assumed to have been a patrician, though there are good reasons to doubt this), or whether the Marcii or Tullii were really descended from Ancus Marcius and Servius Tullius. Nobody disputed whether the Junii, Marcii, or Tullii constituted individual gentes, and nobody today disputes whether Marcius is derived from Marcus or Tullius from Tullus.
In the case of any nomen gentilicium which is derived from another name, the presumption is that some ancestor bore the name from which it was derived. That is not itself a tradition about such an ancestor, or a claim of historicity, or proof that it could not have arisen any other way. But in the complete absence of any reason to doubt it, that is the presumption. And patronymics such as Servilius are unusually transparent in this regard; even if they were not all descended from the same Servius, they would all have been descended from some Servius. And there is no reason whatever to doubt that the Servilii of the early Republic were all part of the same family, and thus whatever Servius gave them their name can fairly be described as one person—though as there is nothing more to say about him, it is baffling why we need to have this conversation for the whole WikiProject to weigh in on. P Aculeius (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
The legitimacy of Brutus' claimed descent from Lucius Junius Brutus is irrelevant for this dispute. Your self-described presumption of a common ancestor requires a source, especially when reliable sources say that we cannot use a name like Marcius to presume descent from a single ancestor: it is not plausible that the progenitors of, for example, all the families of Marcii, will have been one and the same Marcus (Salway 1994). There is a material difference between some Servius and one Servius.
If you are baffled by why I brought it here rather, I must say I am similarly baffled then by why the similar claim is made at The nomen Quinctius is a patronymic surname based on the praenomen Quintus, which must have belonged to an [one!] ancestor of the [one!] gens (contra "some ancestors") and The nomen Caesonius is a patronymic surname, based on the praenomen Caeso, which must have belonged to the [one!] ancestor of the gens. The reason I brought it here is because I expect you to revert any changes to those sentences there as well; there's little point splitting discussion on the same thing into three separate talk pages.
What I would want to see on all such pages is the claim merely that the nomen is patronymic and the omission of any of these claims about how there was an or the ancestor of the gens. This is in fact what my original you reverted did. The statement that it is patronymic also already implies what you say you want, that there were some people who bore the root praenomen. Ifly6 (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
The incipit's accusation, which relies on my being able to see your post and then compose this separate post in the three minutes between your posting it there and my posting this here, is not plausible. I have already given justification as to why this forum is preferable due to similar claims on other pages.
As to no sources dispute that the patrician Servilii at the beginning of the Republic were all part of the same family. WP:ONUS. You need to cite a reliable source saying that they were in fact all part of the same family, not assert it. Having read your response, your response does not say they were all part of the same family, just that some specific patrician Servilii were. Even if this is true, there is no reason to believe that the Servilii listed as living in the high empire are descended from the same alleged Servius and (more relevantly) no reliable source for it. That distinction, at a minimum, should be reflected in the text.
It falls back then, on the unsourced core claim that each patrynomic gens has a single common ancestor who bore that name. This, for example, misses the point – no more controversial than saying that a family named Johnson was presumably descended from someone named John – the assertion given in those pages is beyond that. It is analogously that all families named Johnson were descended from a single John. There is no proof of this. Ifly6 (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
You should have waited because I specifically said that there would be discussion on the article's talk page, then immediately went to write it. The articles you mention all concern the same very simple issue: a patronymic surname being described as the result of an ancestor bearing the name from which it was derived. This should not be controversial!
As for the claim that other, unrelated families might have borne the same name for other reasons, these articles are about Roman gentes that were treated as one family in Roman times and grouped together by modern scholarship because they cannot readily or reliably be separated with unrelated lines being distinguished—in almost every case, the most that modern scholarship can do is guess as to whether families widely separated in time were related to each other, but the lack of any relationship is almost never provable.
The gentes that dominated the Republic were a relatively small group of families constituting the Roman aristocracy; this meant that provincial families that just happened to share the same names for etymological reasons could not simply insert themselves into Roman politics unless their lack of relation were obscured and they were thought to be part of the same gens—and if the Romans themselves could not distinguish them, then modern scholars cannot hope to do so.
My arguments have focused on the fact that the Servilii bear all the hallmarks of being the single gens that they were treated as by Roman historians and continue to be treated in modern sources, but the same arguments would apply to other gentes, such as the Marcii: could there have been Marcii who were not related to the others? Certainly. But were the few families of Marcii who were part of the Republican aristocracy related to each other? Almost certainly—and we have no evidence that they were not. Discussions over whether they were descended from Ancus Marcius or how Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus related to them are beside the point; with the exception of Coriolanus, all of the Marcii who were significant in the history of the Republic appear from the mid-fourth century BC onward, and there is no reason to doubt that they were related to one another, as they always assumed. That there could have been two or more unrelated families is no more than speculation, as the Romans did not say that there were, and there is no possible means for modern scholars to distinguish them. No source says that there were two gentes Marciae, or two Serviliae, and to argue that they should be treated as such in the absence of any proof is idle speculation. P Aculeius (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
These long sentences on Coriolanus or provincial families obscure the point. Wikipedia is not here to publish your conclusions on the families of the Marcii, Servilii, or others. It is here to summarise scholarly conclusions on those gentes. Scholars do not claim that there was a single common ancestor for each gens bearing its root praenomen; I have cited two above which reject the idea.
These replies are mostly interpretive arguments about primary sources attributed to nobody. The others are misunderstandings of the core dispute. I put it out clearly already: that there must have been, ie it is historical that there was, a single common ancestor for the gens Servilia who bore the name Servius. What I am disputing is that there was a (1) historical (2) single (3) ancestor for the (4) whole gens. That is what the sentence I removed claims. Restoring the sentence unaltered and then justifying it by omitting or conceding one of the subclaims here – but not there – is highly misleading. Ifly6 (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
What I am disputing is that there was a (1) historical (2) single (3) ancestor for the (4) whole gens this seems a perfectly reasonable thing to question for me; if we can't find scholarly sources saying that this is the case we shouldn't say it either. I certainly don't believe, to use the example provided by P. Aculeius above, that all Johnsons descend from a single historical John from which the surname derives; I don't see any reason why we should necessarily assume that's true of Servilii either. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I never said that every person named Johnson is part of the same family and descended from a single person named John. I said that any family named Johnson must have had a John underlying that surname, the same as anyone named Stevens would look back to some unknown Steven or Stephen, or every Samuelson to someone named Samuel. There may well have been many such persons who independently left their name to different families, though nobody knows who they were. But this is all that the article says: "they must have been descended from some person named Servius."
It seems to me that Ifly6 has confused this patently obvious (and passing) statement with the question of whether all Servilii (or Marcii, or Lucilii, etc.) were descended from the same Servius, Marcus, or Lucius, or whether the tradition that the Marcii were descended from Ancus Marcius was true. That is not the subject of this discussion. The basic premise of all Roman gentes is that their members shared a common ancestor, and in the case of the aristocratic families of the Roman Republic, there is no reason to doubt it. No source, ancient or modern, disputes that the Servilii Prisci, Structi, and Ahalae were all part of the same gens, or that the Servilii Caepiones, Gemini, or Vatiae of the middle and late Republic were descended from them. I do not know of any legends about the ancestors of the Servilii, but the fact that their name was Servilius means that they must have had an ancestor named Servius, and that seems too obvious to be worth disputing.
The name Servilius could indeed have arisen independently from other persons named Servius, but their descendants were not the patrician Servilii of the Republic. No Roman source distinguishes any group of Servilii and says that they were not part of the Servilia gens; we cannot even assume that the plebeian Servilii toward the end of the Republic were not part of the same gens, because both Roman and modern scholars agree that most patrician gentes had or somehow acquired plebeian branches.
While it is possible that some of the "miscellaneous" Servilii listed at the end of the article were not lineal descendants of the Republican Servilii, there is no way of distinguishing them. And in any case, all of them would still have been descended from some person named Servius. It should not be a controversial statement that a specific family—the Servilia gens—must have taken its name from some ancestor named Servius, even though that is all that can be said of him. The statement is tautological; demanding proof of the obvious is simply a waste of time. P Aculeius (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
If you believe that, then stop reverting my removal of text that says, in effect, that every person named Johnson is part of the same family and descended from a single person named John. Here you keep saying that you don't mean that there's literally one ancestor and to justify your repeated restoration of text, which through use of through use of singular articles, requires there to be one ancestor.
Moreover, tChase 1897, does not actually support this claim of necessary descent from some (contra one) ancestor with that name. I've already listed every single instance of servili* in that article. The relevant part says only

So Lucilius, Manilius, and Servilius are explained as formed by the gentile suffix -ilius directly from the praenomina Lucius, Manius, and Servius

It says nothing as to descent. Nor does the word patronymic appear anywhere in the article. Now, there are other (uncited) sources describing essentially all nomina as patronymic. Smith 2006 p 18 Modern scholarship has shown that the nomen was in essence an adjectival patronymic. But this is not the only view. Ibid p 17 n 11 We should note the position of Franciosi, who denies that the nomen was a patronymic and associates the Roman onomastic system with a sort of totemism; Franciosi (1999) 223–60; Franciosi (1984b).
The restoration of the contested clause must be justified by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution (WP:BURDEN). This burden has not been met. Ifly6 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
You brought this here for a "third party opinion" because you weren't willing to discuss it on the talk page, and between eleven separate posts of yours totaling more than 14,500 bytes, exactly one other person has written one short paragraph while you wikilawyer and quote in green and red with numerous links to things you assume I don't understand because I don't share your point of view, while deliberately confusing multiple issues and continue splitting hairs about the blatantly obvious—and now you say "stop reverting me!" as though you're continually being victimized by evil me, when in reality you haven't been reverted once since before any of this discussion or the ignored talk page discussion was posted. If you didn't want to hear from anybody else, you shouldn't have started this in the first place. P Aculeius (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Instead of attacking my intentions and trying to bait me into an edit war, justify your revert or propose an alternative wording. Ifly6 (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
between eleven separate posts of yours totaling more than 14,500 bytes Given that you've contributed about 12,000 bytes to this discussion and I still don't even understand what your argument is you don't exactly have the moral high ground here.
As best I can make out you now agree with Ifly's original argument that there is no reason to believe that there was a single original Servius from whom all the Servilii were descended. To me, the text at issue (which must have been borne by the ancestor of the gens) clearly implies that there was a single common ancestral Servius from which all the Servilii were descended. What do you actually want to achieve here? What is your objection to Ifly's proposed text? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
No, I do not agree; the Servilia gens believed itself to be one family with a common name and springing from a common ancestor, and there is no evidence whatever to contradict that: not one Roman writer claimed they were an amalgamation of unrelated families that just happened to have the same nomen; no modern writer disputes that the Servilii of the Republic were all related to one another; no reference source disputes the definition of a gens as a group of Romans sharing the same nomen gentilicium and claiming descent from a common ancestor. Only fringe sources make ridiculous claims such as that gentilicia such as Servilius, Marcius, or Lucilius are not patronymics but instead some kind of totemism; neither Roman writers nor mainstream scholarship today make such outlandish claims.
All that the disputed statement at the heart of this absurd war says is that a family sharing a gentilicium that is plainly and transparently formed from a praenomen must have been descended from someone with that praenomen, just as families named Johnson or Williams or Jackson can safely assume that they are descended from someone named John, William, or Jack—and I did not and do not claim that there can only ever have been one John, William, or Jack after whom all Johnsons, Williamses, or Jacksons everywhere are named, but there is no reason to believe that the Servilii of the Republic shared multiple unconnected origins, and even if they had they would all have been descended from someone named Servius, even if they were descended from multiple such persons.
And that makes the distinction between one or many families moot, although as I have tried to explain the mere potential for unrelated families to have shared the same gentilicium does not justify claiming that any particular gens was in fact an amalgamation of unrelated families. Nor is whether the particular ancestor they claimed was a real or historical figure, raised in the arguments above, relevant in any way, because all that was said in the first place was that the Servilii (Marcii, Lucilii) must have been descended from somebody named Servius (Marcus, Lucius). That would be just as true even if some of the Servilii could be shown to be descended from a different family with a separate origin—which they cannot, and even if no traditions relating to such a person have survived from antiquity; that is simply how patronymic surnames work. P Aculeius (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source for these claims. Ifly6 (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

You're asking for proof of what all standard references on Roman culture agree upon: as Cornell puts it (p. 84): "[i]n historical times a clan (gens) was a patrilineal descent group whose members (gentiles) claimed descent from a common ancestor. This common descent, whether real or fictitious, was reflected in the system of nomenclature" (italics in original). Virtually the same thing is said under gens in the Oxford Classical Dictionary (2nd ed.). Harper's said the same thing decades earlier: "[a] Roman family in the widest sense of the word, descended on the male line from a common ancestor, and therefore bearing a common name." Cornell also does us the favour of mentioning the Servilii among the patrician gentes (p. 254), and note 47 helpfully adds that the plebeian Servilii are thought to have descended from the patrician Servilii Gemini.
The DGRBM has an article on the "Servilia Gens", not several "Gentes Serviliae". So under "Servilius" in PW, an ancient patrician gens, in which it is noted that the first individual mentioned bore the cognomina Priscus and Structus, which were borne by his descendants, who subsequently assumed the surnames of Ahala and Fidenas. The descent of the later Servilii Caepiones and Gemini from these early families is unclear, but assumed, since they are still treated as part of the same gens, and I note that they were still patricians, and so can hardly be imagined to be some upstart family that migrated to Rome after the demise of the original Servilii. But, as I said above, it would not matter if they had been, because anyone who bears a patronymic surname may rely upon an ancestor having borne the name upon which the patronymic was based, so no matter how many gentes Serviliae there were (good luck proving that there was more than one), all of them would necessarily have been descended from someone named Servius.
Cornell also assumes what we have been saying here, again on page 84: "[e]ach individual member of a gens had two names: a personal name or praenomen (e.g. Marcus, Titus, Sextus) and a clan name or nomen gentilicium, sometimes in the form of a patronymic (hence Marcius, Titius, Sextius). We may compare the names of the Scottish clans: MacDonald, MacGregor, etc." And in OCD, "[m]any [nomina] are thus formed from praenomina: these probably arose as patronymics, Marcius, for example, standing for Marci (filius)". Chase says at p. 125, "Lucīlius, Manīlius, and Servīlius are explained as formed by the gentile suffix -ĭlius directly from the praenomina Lucius, Manius, and Servius."
Or are we arguing that when such names are called "patronymics", then the scholars using that word didn't know what it meant, which according to Webster's Third New International Dictionary is, "a name derived from that of the father or a paternal ancestor". PW discusses such patronymic gentilicia under Namenwesen at col. 1657 ff., again clearly stating that these names came arose from an ancestor with the praenomen in question, and became "fixed" when they no longer changed if one's father bore a different praenomen; i.e. when the grandson, great-grandson, great-great-grandson, etc. of Marcus didn't change his gentilicium from Marcius to Quinctius if his father were Quintus rather than Marcus; there was necessarily an original Marcus (or a last one) in the patrilineal ancestry of a family named Marcius, whose name was preserved even if his descendants no longer used the name—or even, as Cornell observes, they preserved no traditions relating to their "founder".
But if at the end of this long, long road, all of which results from your insistence that we cannot say that "Servilius is a patronymic surname derived from the praenomen Servius, which must have belonged to an ancestor of the gens", then I am going to throw up my hands (and possibly my breakfast) and take the next train out of Dodge, because I cannot stand one more wasted hour on this nonsensical war against the blatantly obvious. Do whatever you want, I'm through. P Aculeius (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • [i]n historical times a clan (gens) was a patrilineal descent group whose members (gentiles) claimed descent from a common ancestor. This common descent, whether real or fictitious, was reflected in the system of nomenclature. Saying that they "claimed" descent from a common ancestor and this common descent may be fictitious seems to me to support Ifly's position here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
As for the OCD: I don't have the OCD2 to hand and you don't quote the text in question, but the OCD4 is online and the article "gens" begins derives from a root denoting procreation and the gens was frequently conceived as comprising the free-born descendants of a common ancestor in the male line. That distant ancestor (princeps gentis) was commonly a fiction and a real or supposed kinship link between those claiming membership of the same gens became increasingly difficult to demonstrate. This goes even further than Cornell, explictly stating that the supposed common ancestor of a gens was "commonly a fiction". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Whether a legendary "founder" existed or was invented at a later point to give the gens a mythical origin has nothing to do with this: we're not discussing whether traditions relating to such a person are historical, because we don't have any such traditions about the Servilii to dispute. And as Cornell says, most gentes had no such traditions. A patronymic name is not a tradition about a founder; it is not a claim of a mythical founder who might or might not have some basis in history. It is itself a record of an ancestor's name that tells us nothing besides the fact that such a person existed, whether or not he held any particular significance to his descendants, and that would be the same even if there were two or more such families, because each of them would still have been descended from some person named Servius. P Aculeius (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • The sources do not support your position. The text you restored requires defending four elements: (1) historical (2) single (3) ancestor for the (4) whole gens. You have provided evidence for:
  • A historical single ancestor for the patrician part – maybe adding the Servilii Gemini per Cornell – of gens Servilia (though I still believe this is impermissible under WP:PRIMARY)
  • A theoretical single ancestor for gens Xia (OCD, Cornell 1995)
  • A historical single etymological root for the whole gens' name (Chase, RE)
None of these defend all four elements of that the text requires. But if you are serious about disengaging, that's fine. I'll go and implement the removal of only the text that requires all four elements in the three different articles where analogous claims are made. Ifly6 (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I have now made those edits at pages for gentes Caesonia, Servilia, Quinctia, Sextia, Vibia, Titia, and Aulia. Ifly6 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I think the debate can be resolved by rephrasing the contentious sentence: The nomen Servilius is a patronymic surname, derived from the praenomen Servius (meaning "one who keeps safe" or "preserves"), which was theoretically borne by the mythical ancestor of the gens. T8612 (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    But there was no "mythical ancestor". They were not named Servilius because they believed in or had a tradition about an ancestor named Servius who may or may not have existed; they were named Servilius because some ancestor of theirs had been named Servius at the time their gentilicium became "fixed", instead of changing with each generation (as explained in PW under "Namenwesen"), irrespective of whether they had any memory of him. In other words, this is not an instance where the statement depends on whether a legendary personage did or didn't exist. We know that the Servilii had ancestors, we know that one of them must have been named Servius, and it does not really matter who he was.
    If the Servilii had any such traditions about an ancestor from whom they derived their name, we do not know of it. Cornell says that, as a rule, most gentes seem to have had no particular traditions relating to their "founder", although I'm sure we can all think of a few exceptions, such as the Julii or Mamilii, who claimed descent from Aeneas and Odysseus, respectively, or the various gentes that claimed descent from the Roman kings, but apart from such instances, most gentes—even very important, patrician ones—seem to have attached no great importance to their founders.
    The only reason we know that there was a Servius in the ancestry of the Servilii is that it's where their nomen came from, the same way that we can state with reasonable certainty that someone named Roberts is ultimately named after someone named Robert, or that a family named Torkelson must be descended from some Thorkil, even though we have no idea who the people who lent their names to their descendants were. It's not merely "theoretical"; it's how patronymic names work. P Aculeius (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Remove "____ equivalent" fields from Template:Infobox deity?

What do editors think of the idea of removing the "____ equivalent" fields (eg. "Greek_equivalent", "Norse_equivalent", "Hinduism_equivalent", etc.) from Template:Infobox deity? Input at Template talk:Infobox deity would be appreciated. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Zagreus § Source for "In popular culture" section. This is a follow up to the 2021 RfC which established sources used in the subsection & is focused on if these sources should be replaced. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Interested?

Greetings everyone!

I noticed that WikiProject Rome has been marked as inactive. Is anyone interested in reviving this project? If interested - please leave a notice on my talk page so we can contribute to it together. Cheers The AP (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I imagine it's inactive because most editors who work on Roman topics also contribute at least occasionally to Greek topics, and vice-versa, so this is where you'll find the most activity by classical scholars/enthusiasts. P Aculeius (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Do the volunteers of this WikiProject cover the Roman Republic and Empire? Because as far as I can see, only Ancient Rome is covered. The AP (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
It was conceived as covering the whole history of the city up to modern times, but never really took off. It's redundant to this here and the Wikiproject Italy. We have far too many Wikiprojects, & successful revivals are vanishingly rare. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Not sure how you're using "ancient Rome" here, but editors here work on Roman topics from prehistory to Byzantine times, taking in history, geography, literature, mythology, etc. Some of us have specific focuses; for instance I mainly work on Roman gentes, with a secondary interest in onomastics, but I contribute to history, biographical, and mythological articles (mainly Greek) and weigh in other topics that appear in this project's article alerts. And occasionally I dabble in other areas of Wikipedia that interest me for one reason or another. What would make things more difficult is if they only appeared in article alerts for Greece or Rome, but not for this project; and following all three might become tedious. But perhaps that's how other editors work best. P Aculeius (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Personally I'm not so happy about how the projects are set up here, for example does this Classical Greece and Rome project also include Byzantine history which is often way into the Middle Ages? Does it include the Minoan civilization which certainly wasn't "classic" history and arguably not really "Greek"/"Hellenic"? What about other bronze age civilisations in the Mediterranean? Does this project include stuff on the pre-history of the city of Rome? What about the city of Rome during the Middle Ages and modern times?★Trekker (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Probably not - certainly these hardly ever come up here. Some have their own projects - Ancient Egypt for example. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
The community of people who work on the topic of ancient/classical Greece and Rome is small. Further subdivision would make it difficult to collaborate, form consensus, etc. If this was 19th century Germany or something and we had 100 editors patrolling this page whose entire lives are devoted to researching just Roman republican prosopography, further subdivision would probably be justifiable (if not necessary). Ifly6 (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Siege of Gythium

Siege of Gythium has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 18:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Classicists and Renaissance Classicists

Hi there, can I ask to what extent you regard Classicists and in particular Renaissance and early Modern Classicists as within scope of this project? For example, Petrarch, or perhaps Erasmus? I ask because there can be a need to bring people who know Latin into conversation about these Latinists, but of course, not all Latinists are primarily Classicists, or remembered as such. Jim Killock (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

These topics come up in our article alerts (or at least some do), so I would imagine it's fine to include them. I can see no disadvantage to suggesting that any topic touching on classical Greece or Rome can be counted as part of this project; nobody is obliged to work on a particular article just because they're active in a related WikiProject. P Aculeius (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll do this where I notice, then, thank you. Jim Killock (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I saw this when looking about re a rewrite I've been planning for some time on the First Mithridatic War.

I've nominated Roman command structure during First Mithridatic War at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman command structure during First Mithridatic War. It's far too specific a topic and reliant on original research. Some portions could probably be merged (evidently back into) First Mithridatic War. Also note that there was a previous discussion here in 2022. Ifly6 (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Battle of Thermopylae

Battle of Thermopylae has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Mother of Lucan

A new article Atilla (mother of Lucan) has been created, but I'm a bit uncertain on her name, some sources seem to refer to her as Acilia or Acilia Lucana instead of Atilla. Does anyone know which is prefered by modern scholard? ★Trekker (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You might already have this, but PW has her under "Acilius", No. 59, which reads:

59) Acilia, Tochter von Nr. 48, Mutter des Dichters M. Annaeus Lucanus, vita Lucani bei Suet. ed. Reiff. 76. Bei der Verschwörung des Piso im J. 65 in den Process ihres Sohnes verwickelt. Tac. ann. XV 56. 71.

Which Google Translate renders as:

59) Acilia, daughter of No. 48, mother of the poet M. Annaeus Lucanus, vita Lucani in Suet. ed. Reiff. 76. Involved in the trial of her son during the conspiracy of Piso in 65. Tac. ann. XV 56. 71.

As for Acilius No. 48: "48) Acilius Lucanus, Rhetor uns Sachwalter von Ruf in Corduba, Vater der Acilia (Nr. 59), vita Lucani bei Suet. ed. Reiff. 76.", which translates as "48) Acilius Lucanus, rhetorician and lawyer of repute in Corduba, father of Acilia (No. 59), vita Lucani in Suet. ed. Reiff. 76."
So really just Suetonius and Tacitus, but evidently Suetonius does not give her name. The Loeb edition of Annales on Lacus Curtius gives her name as Acilia on both occurrences; this translation is from 1937.
I also found an inscription that may have a bearing on it. From Corduba, dated to the reigns of Augustus or Tiberius, AE 2005, 827: "Valeriae T(iti) f(iliae) / Lu[ca]ni / d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) // Aciliae L(uci) f(iliae) / P(ubli) Aemili Silonis / d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)". We can only speculate on whether these are relatives of Lucan's, but the fact that these names are found together at Corduba during this period seems to indicate that Acilia is probably the correct reading. I might also cite alternative forms, but I'd give Acilia first, and possibly footnote the others. P Aculeius (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I can't find any modern scholarship to call her "Atilla"; she is "Acilia" in e.g. Martindale 1984, "The Politician Lucan", WIlson 1990, "The Death of Lucan", and in Brill's Companion to Lucan. Stephen Dando-Collins, who is cited in the article and does call her Atilla, is neither an academic historian or a classicist by training. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I have moved the article now and cleaned up links.★Trekker (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I spent some time over the holidays getting, scanning, and processing the scans for MRR 1 and 2. It's my impression that both are in the public domain: they were published between 1930 and 1963 and to my knowledge there was no copyright renewal. See Cornell public domain table. Google and HathiTrust evidently thinks MRR 1 is PD at least, since they digitised and host (respectively) scans thereof with that tag.

Although there have been previous scans online, I can't say I'm at all happy with the OCR quality from some of those scans (especially with Greek letters) or the particular quality of them (duplicate or sometimes unreadable pages); others also have large portions missing, eg the preface and chronological note, or are wildly oversized relative to the state-of-the-art.

Anyway, I think it's worth while at least to put up a notice given how MRR remains widely consulted in the field. You can find the scan PDFs on my GitHub: https://github.com/ifly6/broughton-mrr/releases/tag/mrr20250111. If you find any errors please tell me. I also have and scanned MRR 3 but because that is still in copyright it is impermissible to distribute; nor is it clear to me, because of Broughton's death, who even holds that copyright. Ifly6 (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pedanius Dioscorides#Requested move 20 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

16th Century pictures

I removed a series of 16th century images of Roman empresses from List of Roman and Byzantine empresses. @StarTrekker reverted the edits and asked me to raise it here.

I think that these anachronstic and imaginary images of obscure Empresses hold no value in either the list or the individual articles. For example there are two entirely fanciful images of used for Orestilla who was married to Caligula for precisely one day.

Article - File:Livia_Orestilla.jpg

List - File:Orestilla,_wife_of_Caligula.png

Clearly these images bear no relation either to each other or to the real Orestilla - their presence in the articles and lists is simply decorative. Given the importance of the iconography and representation of Empresses to the Roman it seems wrong to represesent these images as actually being of the Empresses involved. The very lack of ancient imagery of them speaks to either their minor siginficance, or the specifics of thair tenure as Empress through usurpation etc. The fact that we don't have statuary or coins representing them is itself significant.

Most of these images are entirely made up 1200-1500 years after the lives of the subjects, and they're a mix of the jumbled ideas of what a Roman woman should look like to a Renaissance man. Things like hairstyles etc, very important in the way the imperial image and message was conveyed, are completely misrepresented by these omages - for example that of file:Thermantia,_wife_of_Honorius.png bears no rememblance ot the iconography, dress or hairstyles to any other Empress of the Theodosian dynasty.

It gets even more extreme when we get into the Empresses from the Historia Augusta where all of a sudden we have fictionalimages of fictional empresses Nonia Celsa - admittedly that image is tagged as imaginary in the infobox. Golikom (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Images, regardless of when they're from, aid memory for readers and are therefore helpful. Historical depictions of notable persons are also relevant to their legacy, so having them in the infobox and mentioning where they are from is perfectly apt. Your information about Orestilla supposedly only being married to Caligula for one day is probably neither accurate nor relevant. The "decorative" argument is only really relevant when images aren't free, when fair use is a question.★Trekker (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Inaccurate represntations don't improve the value of any article, and series of almost identical images from a 16th centry catalogue don't aid memory - if anything they're actively confusing to the reader since htey all look basically the same. And in the list we don't mention where the images are from, and have images that look extremely different to those in the articles. That does not aid the reader in anyway.
My point about Ortestilla is that the brevity of her tenure (be it a party stunt or one day or not) is exactly relevent to the absence of any imagery of her and her legacy.
Free use or not has nothing to do with whether images are decorative. Golikom (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Literally any image improves reader memory retention. And the simple fact that she has depictions made over a thousand years later is clearly evidence that she does have a legacy.★Trekker (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Are these the types of images used in high quality reference works? Almost certainly not. These are fictitous placeholders and are completely interchangeable, forgettable, and ahistorical. This isn't about reader memory retention - there isn't a test here for readers - it's about accuracy. Fiction doesn't belong on wikipedia and these are very inauthentic. Golikom (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia does depict fiction and cultural depictions fairly often. See for example Assassination of Julius Caesar.★Trekker (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
That's not a like for like example. Illiustrating an event, particularly one that's well described and extensively depicted is very different to using a poor image that's essentially indistiguishable from any other equally imaginary image in the same speculum. Golikom (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
As far as I see it that is just your POV.★Trekker (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
As far as I can see your claim that these images are useful is just your POV. Any how, we're clearly not going to agree, so let's see what others think on the inclusion of these images. In the meantinme would you agree that the images on the lists and the articles should at least be matched so that we're at least consistent? Which set of images should we use?

Golikom (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

An image appearing in some published source—particularly a historic or notable one, whether drawing, painting, or sculpture—is a valid depiction of someone, even if it's not contemporary with the subject and probably doesn't represent an accurate depiction. When we have accurate depictions, those can be preferable, though a Renaissance illustration is probably better for an article lead than a crudely-executed coin from antiquity. There are countless figures from antiquity for whom no contemporary depictions exist, and the Greeks and Romans themselves had no issues with "filling in the gaps" by depicting figures from their history or mythology the way that they imagined—centuries later, with different fashions—they might have looked. For nearly all of human history, that's how illustration worked, and was accepted.
Now that anybody—with the aid of AI or just the internet—can publish crude depictions without any artistic merit, we can place higher standards on recently generated images. If a noted illustrator fills in a gap for us, we might be inclined to accept it, while rejecting a random scribble by someone. But when we're talking about say, well-known sixteenth century woodcuts, we're in another realm of authenticity. These illustrations serve a useful purpose, even though it's highly unlikely that they resemble the actual persons whom they represent. And when they're the only illustration—at least, the only ones that particularly resemble people, thinking of some really lousy coins from late antiquity—they're fine to use as is typically done on Wikipedia.
The argument that "there isn't a test here for readers" cuts both ways: not only don't we expect readers to detect an accurate depiction that doesn't exist; we don't ask them to reject a later interpretation that does. That the images are "interchangeable" would be relevant when we have a choice, but when we have two images of similar quality then they're both usable, the same as any other depictions. I happen to like some modern-ish sculptures of Caesar, but I don't go around replacing all of his other imagery wherever it's found, and there's no reason to reduce our illustrations to a handful out of a large number of images. The claim that the lack of images says something about the obscurity of the persons depicted (namely, that they should not be depicted at all) seems like a kind of meta-argument that does not really benefit the reader.
I find the images useful, as I think do many of our readers. I don't think they're "forgettable", at least not if you regularly engage with a particular subject. If you don't think they're worth remembering, or you don't like them simply because you're aware that the actual person probably looked different, you don't need to look at them. But please don't try to purge them from articles or lists depicting the subject, which would otherwise feature even poorer illustrations, or none at all. P Aculeius (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
You say you find them useful, but I'm curious as to how? What's the benefit to the reader beyond decoration and a bit of passing visual interest while reading the article? The reader is no better informed about the subject than they were before. Generally with the statuary or coins you discuss there is a degree of scholarly rigour and discussion around the identification with the individual. The coins might be poor images but they are contemporary and they do either represent the subjects and an individual or their role as empress. The depictions from the speculum Romanae at least are exactly "crude depictions without artistic merit". They just happen to have been done some time ago. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Speculum_Romanae_Magnificentiae-_Po
These go all the way through to Isabella of Portugal in the 1530 and they're all indistinguishable. They aren't in any meaningful way attempt s to illustrate the individuals, they're decoration for a list from their very inception. Golikom (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Like Trekker, I disagree with you. I think they are useful aside from being merely "decorative", which after all is the nature of all illustrations—the most useful chart that doesn't appeal to the eye doesn't add any more than a picture that illustrates how some artist at some period of time chose to portray a person. And when there are no significantly better illustrations, those are the ones that should be used. I don't see what purpose is served by being indignant at the lack of realism in sixteenth-century woodcuts. P Aculeius (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't have clearly inaccurate or fictitious depictions. I support removing them. The exception for inaccurate depictions are those which are regularly used in high quality reference works. The assassination of Caesar can be depicted by various neoclassical paintings because reference works do that. Reference works do not do the same for many of these figures. The specific images used are interchangeable. (Something purposeful given how many were created at once.) Beyond the core interesting in factual accuracy, the figures without statuary are generally so obscure that readers won't remember them whether the fictitious images are included or not. Ifly6 (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
    By that logic, virtually no articles on figures from antiquity would contain illustrations, because very few contemporary portraits or sculptures survive with certain identification. Even many of the most famous busts of ancient Greeks and Romans depend on either the sculptor's imagination for how some revered figure might have looked, or worse, the imagination of post-Renaissance scholars identifying otherwise unlabeled busts with figures who seem to evoke the spirit of the depiction. And yet, they do serve a purpose just as paintings or woodcuts from any period do, especially when the identification is one of long standing and widespread use.
    Substituting coins for sculptures or paintings is a dubious practice, because we often have little basis for believing that the engraver made a realistic depiction of someone in a difficult and unforgiving medium; the results are often poor, the examples in the public domain often badly worn, and in the later period coins frequently become cartoonish—late Roman and Byzantine emperors frequently look little better than stick figures on coins. Given that, they're not necessarily an improvement on sixteenth-century woodcuts. Unless a better depiction exists, these should stay; and unless there's no room, they can both go in an article. P Aculeius (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
    In ledes, and lede-like purposes such as these lists, we should only use images which are of the sort used in high quality reference works. For ledes this is policy. For the latter it ought to be; they serve essentially the same purpose of attempting to summarise the article at a glance.
    The admission that this standard probably means all the images have to go seems also to be an admission that those high quality reference works wouldn't use these arbitrary woodblocks. To the latter factual question, I agree: an illustrated history wouldn't use any of them; if anything they are just the renaissance version of having AI generate images and then randomly assigning them to names. Ifly6 (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The fairly highly-viewed (over 200 a day) article Castra has been subject for years to complaints that the usages, especially regarding castrum and castra are/are not well explained or distinguished. The lead look too short too. Could people take a look? Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Hyginus

(For context, see the discussion between Paul August, Natg 19, and myself at Talk:Gaius Julius Hyginus#Hyginus.) Recently, a page on the Fabulae was split out from Gaius Julius Hyginus, with the latter article being reworked in line with the more common view among scholars that the Fabulae and De astronomia were authored by a separate Hyginus to Gaius Julius Hyginus (for sources on this, see the comment in the linked discussion which starts with By the way, regarding which Hyginus wrote what, and the one below it). Alongside these changes, Hyginus (disambiguation) was moved to Hyginus (as I think that Gaius Julius Hyginus wouldn't be the primary topic if we are treating the two authors as separate). This left numerous links pointing to the DAB page, however, and these links have been treated somewhat inconsistently – in different articles we have the name linked as [[Hyginus]], [[Gaius Julius Hyginus|Hyginus]], [[Fabulae|Hyginus]], and Hyginus (ie., someone removed the link). The above-linked discussion has left a few questions:

  • Should the DAB page remain at Hyginus rather than Hyginus (disambiguation)? And, if not, where should the redirect go?
  • How should the name "Hyginus" be linked when in reference to the author of the Fabulae or De astronomia, in citations and in prose?
  • Should we resolve the previous question by creating a separate article for their author, Hyginus (mythographer)?

Any input on these points would be appreciated. (My views on these three questions are (1) yes, (2) as suggested here, and (3) no, as I'm not sure there's anything on him that can't be covered more effectively at Fabulae or De astronomia.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

As the discussion at Talk:Gaius Julius Hyginus#Hyginus will show, I've gone back and forth on all of this. My current opinion is that (1) the DAB page should remain at "Hyginus", that (2) links of "Hyginus" should be "[[Gaius Julius Hyginus|Hyginus]]" and should be accompanied by a linked reference to the work being considered (i.e. the Fabulae or the De astronomia), and that (3) no separate article for the mythographer is needed. My reasoning regarding (1) is that it's not clear to me that there is a primary topic, and for (2), that for any linked mention of "Hyginus", although linking both to Gaius Julius Hyginus and to the relevant work might seem somewhat redundant, since each of the articles will have relevant information about the author that the other article will not have, having links to both seems preferable to me. Paul August 14:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
I think I'm in agreement with all of that. We also have the question of how the DAB links ought to be dealt with. Disambiguating all of them to Gaius Julius Hyginus would probably be an acceptable solution, though it would leave a number of instances where we link to the author but not the work. That said, I suppose such cases could just sit there until someone comes along to fix them; we're not creating any new problems, only retaining old ones (from before the move), I guess ... – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes Paul August 15:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
All links now fixed. [1]Michael Aurel (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Great! Paul August 12:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

List of your articles that are in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, 2025

Currently, this project has about ~117 30 26 23 14 9 articles in need of some reference cleanup. Basically, some short references created via {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} and similar templates have missing full citations or have some other problems. This is usually caused by templates misuse or by copy-pasting a short reference from another article without adding the full reference, or because a full reference is not making use of citation templates like {{cite book}} (see Help:CS1) or {{citation}} (see Help:CS2). To easily see which citation is in need of cleanup, you can check these instructions to enable error messages (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist the monk's script is a bit more refined if you're interested in doing deeper cleanup). See also how to resolve issues.

These could use some of your attention

To do as of 22:43 31 Jan 2025
  1. Bruno Gentili (fixed: Ifly6)
  2. Campaign history of the Roman military (talk page tagged)
  3. Hector (fixed: Andy02124)
  4. Herodian coinage (fixed: Andy02124)
  5. Ligurian language (ancient) (fixed: Ifly6)
  6. Melite (ancient city) (fixed: Ifly6)
  7. Migration Period (fixed: Ifly6)
  8. Mithridates II of Parthia (fixed: Ifly6)
  9. Modern influence of Ancient Greece (many require fixing)
  10. Mérida, Spain (fixed: Ifly6)
  11. Names of the Scythians (fixed: Ifly6)
  12. Naumachia Vaticana (no clues; perhaps rewrite instead?) (fixed: TSventon) (citations copied from San Pellegrino in Vaticano, page numbers are the same)
  13. Neoclassicism
  14. Nero (fixed: Ifly6)
  15. Nicene Creed (fixed: Ifly6)
  16. Numerius (praenomen) (fixed: Ifly6)
  17. Numerus Batavorum (fixed: Ifly6)
  18. Nundinae
  19. October Horse (fixed: Ifly6)
  20. Odaenathus' Sasanian Campaigns (fixed: Ifly6)
  21. Ogygia (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  22. Old Smyrna (fixed: Ifly6)
  23. Olympia, Greece (fixed: Ifly6)
  24. Omphale (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  25. Ostrogoths (fixed: Ifly6)
  26. Ottoman claim to Roman succession (citation to Harper 2021 is somewhat mysterious; other citation fixed, Ifly6) (Harper 2021 fixed: TSventon)
  27. Paedagogus (occupation) (talk page tagged)
  28. Paeonia (kingdom) (fixed: Ifly6) (citations copied from Dardani)
  29. Palladium (protective image) (fixed: Ifly6) (citation copied from London Stone)
  30. Paphos (citation to NOAA data)
  31. Parmenides (somewhat insane custom citation format by assigned IDs like "DK A5")
  32. Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  33. Phaedrus (fabulist) (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  34. Pherecydes of Syros (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  35. Philebus
  36. Philip V of Macedon (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  37. Philo (fixed: Ifly6)
  38. Phlegon of Tralles (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  39. Phoenician–Punic Sardinia (partial fix: Ifly6; Brigaglia 1995, p. 70 fixed: TSventon)
  40. Phrygia (fixed except for "Olbrycht 2000a": Michael Aurel) (fixed: Ifly6)
  41. Piazza del Campidoglio (fixed: Ifly6)
  42. Picentes (fixed: Ifly6)
  43. Pistis (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  44. Plato (mythology) (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  45. Polyphemus (fixed: Michael Bednarek)
  46. Polytheism (fixed except for four in "Modern Paganism" section: Michael Aurel)
  47. Pontia gens (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  48. Pontius Pilate's wife (fixed: Ifly6)
  49. Porolissum (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  50. Pottery for oil (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  51. Pre-Greek substrate (fixed: Ifly6)
  52. Prizren ("Elsie 2004, p. 144" remains)
  53. Proclus of Constantinople (fixed: Ifly6)
  54. Procne and Itys (sculpture) (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  55. Proscription (fixed: Ifly6)
  56. Proserpina Dam (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  57. Ptolemy III Euergetes (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  58. Ptolemy V Epiphanes (seemingly 1977 work at Ludwig Koenen#Selected works)
  59. Ptolemy VIII Physcon ("Grainger 2011" left)
  60. Ptolemy XII Auletes (fixed: Ifly6) (citations copied from Cleopatra without source anchors)
  61. Punic people
  62. Pythagoreanism
  63. Pythia (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  64. Saka (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  65. Sasanian Empire (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  66. Saturnalia (Beard, North & Price 2004 probably actually that of 1998: ifly6)
  67. Sayyed Ahmad Alavi (removed: Michael Aurel)
  68. Scythian culture (fixed: Ifly6) (citations copied from Melanchlaeni)
  69. Seleucus IV Philopator (fixed: Ifly6)
  70. Septuagint (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  71. Siege of Constantinople (626) (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  72. Skudra (fixed: Ifly6)
  73. Socratic method
  74. Soluntum (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  75. Souliotes (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  76. Stele of Quintus Aemilius Secundus (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  77. Stele (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  78. Structural history of the Roman military (fixed: Ifly6) (tons of citations copied from Marian reforms)
  79. Succession of the Roman Empire (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  80. Sulpicia (wife of Quintus Fulvius Flaccus) (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  81. Sybaris (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  82. Tabula patronatus (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  83. Tacitus on Jesus (fixed: Ifly6)
  84. Tangier (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  85. Tarquitius Priscus (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  86. Teia
  87. Temple of Ares (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  88. Temple of Minerva (Marano di Valpolicella) (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  89. Textual criticism (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  90. The True Word (fixed: Ifly6) (citation rescued from history)
  91. Theodotus of Amida (no issue, wrongly identified: Michael Aurel, Ifly6)
  92. Thracian language (removed by Revolution Saga)
  93. Tigranes the Great (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  94. Timeline of Cluj-Napoca
  95. Triballi (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  96. Troy
  97. Tusculanae Disputationes (fixed: Ifly6)
  98. Umbrian language (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  99. Upper Macedonia (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  100. Vaballathus (fixed: Ifly6)
  101. Valens (fixed: Ifly6)
  102. Vallis Murcia (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  103. Vandal Kingdom (fixed: Ifly6)
  104. Vandal Sardinia (fixed: Ifly6)
  105. Vandal War (461–468) (some anchors fixed: Ifly6) (fixed all except for "Bury 1958, p. 337" & "Heather 2006, p. 406": Michael Aurel) (fixed: Caeciliusinhorto)
  106. Velchanos
  107. Venus Obsequens (some anchors fixed: Ifly6) (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  108. Venus Verticordia (fixed: Caeciliusinhorto)
  109. Vestal Virgin (fixed: Ifly6)
  110. Vestalia (fixed: Ifly6)
  111. Vesunna (fixed: Ifly6)
  112. Villa Poppaea (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  113. Villa of Augustus (fixed: Ifly6)
  114. Vindicius (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  115. Vlorë (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  116. Vulgar Latin
  117. War of Radagaisus (fixed: Michael Aurel)

If you could add the full references to those article/fix the problem references, that would be great. Again, the easiest way to deal with those is to install Svick's script per these instructions. If after installing the script, you do not see an error, that means it was either taken care of, or was a false positive, and you don't need to do anything else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Progress report. 117 – 87 = 30. Ifly6 (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Now just 26 remaining. Ifly6 (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Now just 3 left: Nundinae, Timeline of Cluj-Napoca, and Troy. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

These are the now 23 remaining:

  1. Campaign history of the Roman military (talk page tagged) (fixed: Mariamnei, Michael Aurel)
  2. Modern influence of Ancient Greece (many require fixing: full citations can be found in the "main article"/"see also" hatnote) (fixed: TSventon)
  3. Neoclassicism (fixed: XabqEfdg)
  4. Nundinae (all fixed except for "Graev., Thesaur., viii, p. 7" and "Göttling, Gesch. der Röm. Staatstv., p. 183", seemingly works by Johann Georg Graevius and Karl Wilhelm Göttling: Michael Aurel) (Note on talk page TSventon)
  5. Paedagogus (occupation) (talk page tagged) (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  6. Paphos (citation to NOAA data) (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  7. Parmenides (somewhat insane custom citation format by assigned IDs like "DK A5") (fixed, though the odd citation method remains: Michael Aurel)
  8. Philebus (fixed: XabqEfdg)
  9. Polytheism (fixed except for four in "Modern Paganism" section: Michael Aurel, last four fixed: TSventon)
  10. Prizren ("Elsie 2004, p. 144" remains) (fixed: XabqEfdg)
  11. Ptolemy V Epiphanes (seemingly 1977 work at Ludwig Koenen#Selected works; now all fixed: Michael Aurel)
  12. Ptolemy VIII Physcon ("Grainger 2011" left; now all fixed: Michael Aurel)
  13. Punic people (fixed: XabqEfdg)
  14. Pythagoreanism (fixed: XabqEfdg)
  15. Saka (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  16. Saturnalia (Beard, North & Price 2004 probably actually that of 1998: ifly6) (was 1998 work, fixed: Michael Aurel)
  17. Socratic method (fixed: XabqEfdg)
  18. Teia (fixed: Michael Aurel)
  19. Timeline of Cluj-Napoca (2 of 4 fixed: TSventon) (remainder fixed: XabqEfdg)
  20. Troy (fixed: XabqEfdg; for some reason, the of the article at revision 944002222 from 2020 seems (at a glance) more complete and well formatted)
  21. Vandal War (461–468) (some anchors fixed: Ifly6) (fixed all except for "Bury 1958, p. 337" & "Heather 2006, p. 406": Michael Aurel) (fixed: Caeciliusinhorto)
  22. Velchanos (raised on talk page) (fixed: Caeciliusinhorto)
  23. Vulgar Latin (fixed: XabqEfdg)

Making a new list because the last one has so many strike-outs its not very useful to look at. Ifly6 (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The final remaining source (in Nundinae) presumably refers to Johann Georg Graevius' Thesaurus antiquatum romanarum. However at least the edition on archive.org does not have numbered pages and column 7 does not verify any of the cited text (though it is at least about the Roman calendar!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! We'd narrowed it down to that location in Graevius' work, but (as XabqEfdg pointed out) the citation was lifted from Smith, and the citations in his dictionaries often contain errors in my experience. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm absolutely shocked that we're essentially done with the whole list. Huge appreciation to the other contributors: Michael Aurel, TSventon, Caeciliusinhorto, XabqEfdg, Mariamnei. Our list might have been a bit shorter than others' (just take a look at WP:MILHIST's list!) but the fact we sorted it all out in just a few days is astonishing. This is some really excellent collaboration. (In part only possible because of the tools that have been built up around {{sfn}} and the citation template ecosystem; I want to thank Headbomb for making this possible too.) You should all be proud of yourselves for pitching in. Ifly6 (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Anyone who has got a taste for fixing tagged issues, you can find a weekly report of all cleanup tags on CGR articles here. Currently we're a little over 10,000 issues on 6,000 articles – some are straightforward if time consuming to fix (most of the CS1 errors); others can be trickier (nearly 2,500 articles with {{citation needed}} tags). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Have we a centralised list of {{primary sources}} tags? Ifly6 (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
@Ifly6: I believe they're grouped under §Cites unreliable sources, but not differentiated from the other cleanup tags which categorise an article into Category:Articles lacking reliable references (e.g. {{Unreliable source}} Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
I think I solved the two Harv and Sfn multiple-target errors identified on that list. Ifly6 (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
I also want to note that there seem to be a lot of textual short citations (ie non-template ones) that have similar "anchor" and "multiple-target" errors. More prosaically, stuff like Doe and Roe 1950 has no corresponding bibliographic entry or Suetonius, 1 being insufficiently clear. The lack of templates means there isn't any easy way to find them centrally like Headbomb just did. I think that if we combed through our articles we would find many more issues than just ~117 (on equites I just found three seven). Ifly6 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Unsourced articles on fora

Dear citizens, the articles Forum civilium and Forum venalium have been unsourced for 15 years. Please find and add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Forum civilium should probably be deleted since there are essentially no results on Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47&q=%22forum+civilium%22&btnG=. The latter too should probably be deleted under WP:NOTDICT. Ifly6 (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Dominate, Low Roman Empire, Later Roman Empire and History of the Later Roman Empire

There is quite an overlap between the articles Dominate, Low Roman Empire, Later Roman Empire and History of the Later Roman Empire, all of which talk about more or less the same time period. The Dominate article even starts stating that the phase is also known as the "Late Roman Empire", which doesn't help. Personally I would merge Low Roman Empire, Later Roman Empire (both articles even use many of the same sources) and Dominate. I don't see why the History of the Later Roman Empire needs to be a separate article when it's quite literally half of the entire history of the Roman Empire. Any ideas? Tintero21 (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I support this. They are historiography terms, and for the most part, not longer being used by recent scholarship. Mommesen’s principate/dominate, Bury’s Late Roman Empire —- now replaced by the late antiquity view, but which it self is now being revised. Biz (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Yea, that seems really duplicative, making it hard for us to keep track of and maintain. Impressionistically, the phrasing "Dominate" is now disfavoured and the period is usually called the "late Roman Empire" (as in this Oxford Centre for Late Antiquity page and the title of CAH2 vol 13). A merger of the pages would be worthwhile, though "Dominate" could be retained – if not renamed – to focus on the government and administration of the empire rather than its history, similar to the division in CAH vols 12–13 between the narrative and imperial government. Ifly6 (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Hum, there might be some use for articles speaking on how these are older historiographical terms used in different schools of thought. But as general overviews of Roman history to think it's a bit overkill to have all of them.★Trekker (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
The duplication is relatively recent
TSventon (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Dominate is the most problematic so should be prioritised. It’s useful, but fraught with distortionary bias now abandoned by scholarship.
In this last year, @AirshipJungleman29 has rewritten to the latest scholarship the history section of Byzantine Empire. A solution is to merge @Borsoka’s great work which uses similar but also different sources, and make it its own article, perhaps replacing the content of history of the Byzantine Empire or easier would be a new article but using the terms recent scholarship is using. The Roman Empire during Late Antiquity covers this same period and is the most neutral way to title it, also it will survive the revisions being made by today’s historians. Biz (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes, much of this can be merged. If, for example, Low Roman Empire is a French historiographical construct, it should focus uponthe historiography and not venture into describing the history as it currently does. I also don't see the need for a separate "History of the Later Roman Empire" article, which can be merged into History of the Roman Empire/Later Roman Empire where appropriate. "Dominate" is also historiographical terminology, and thus should focus on the supposed characteristics and arguments for/against it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
I would WP:Blank and redirect the Low Roman Empire article. It looks like a mistake as it was created by an OKA editor after Later Roman Empire and their guidance at meta:OKA/Instructions for editors#Check for similar articles in English says If a similar article already exists in English Wikipedia, then the article should not be translated. TSventon (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
I think Dominate, Later Roman Empire and the History of the Later Roman Empire should be separate articles, Dominate with a focus on government. Later Roman Empire could present the late Roman state as a "country" with the summary of its history, territory, governmental structure, demography, economy, etc. History of the Later Roman Empire could be its subarticle, and also a subarticle of the History of the Roman Empire. Borsoka (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Dominate is a relic of historiography. Scholars no longer uses it. You should read what Bleicken has to say, the German scholar that did a biography on Augustus.
The country view, starting from Diocletion, is where the scholarship seems to be heading so that's interesting. The issue with "Later Roman Empire" is who is using this terminology today? Biz (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
I think Dominate could stay, but it should be about the historiographical concept. T8612 (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Government articles merger too?

I think there should be an article on the governance of the late Roman empire. We have articles Dominate (If we keep an article at the name Dominate, it would probably have to be a historiographical article like Marian reforms rather than what is presented right now.), Constitution of the late Roman Empire, Tetrarchy, and probably others that escape my notice. In terms of just government (contra historical narrative) this also is highly duplicative. I suppose there are two questions: (1) should we keep the split between government and historical narrative and (2) what, if any, merger should be done and to what article? Ifly6 (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The excellent article of the Marian reforms is an great example and what I would like to see the Principate/Dominate turn into. I support the idea of splitting government and historical narrative, and merging with any article that covers this topic, or at the least revising it down. The standard can be if Principate or Dominate are mentioned in the article, it's a target. Biz (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm under the impression that Principate is still in use in current research. Just today, for example, BMCR released a review of Caillan Davenport, Meaghan McEvoy, The Roman imperial court in the Principate and late antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2024. Pp. 432. ISBN 9780192865236. Dominate, I don't see at all often, however. Ifly6 (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
That’s reasonable. My point is that its usage has changed; the concepts are intimately tied to each other, and they distort our understanding. For example, on p. 358 of Davenport & McEvoy (which you shared), they state: "The adoption of Christianity by the emperor and his family is the defining difference which separates the Principate from the world of Late Antiquity" Despite its continued use, this interpretation differs from Mommsen’s original definitions, which described the constitutional power from which the emperor derived his authority. I believe it would be more appropriate, and neutral, for periodisation in all articles to default to the dominant broader categories—classical and late antiquity—removing narrative explanations of the government as you suggest, while focusing the terms distinguishing the government's evolution in the context of their historiography. Biz (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
If you want to take a lead on the matter, I'd have no objection. Late antiquity isn't really my wheelhouse and what I know on the period is mostly confined to late Roman administration. Ifly6 (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
I’ll review dominate once the FAR for Byzantine Empire is finalised. Life’s getting a little too busy but hey, one more article can’t hurt… Biz (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)