Romulanus

Babel user information
es-N Este usuario tiene una comprensión nativa del español. de-0 Dieser Benutzer beherrscht Deutsch nicht (oder versteht es nur mit beträchtlichen Schwierigkeiten). en-0 This user has no knowledge of English (or understands it with considerable difficulty). fr-0 Cet utilisateur n’a aucune connaissance en français (ou le comprend avec de grandes difficultés). it-0 Questo utente non è in grado di comunicare in italiano (o lo capisce solo con notevole difficoltà).
Users by language

Q11689777

Hi Romulanus, I noted that you corrected a few things on the above item. Thanks for this.

I wonder if the statements I added are correct? I take it the assumption is that there was a consul with that name in 409 and some think he was identical with the "Tribuni militum consulari potestate" a few years later.

If this is correct, we should reflect it better in the item. Obviously, it's always difficult to present two assumptions about the reality on Wikidata, but this is also an objective of Wikidata.
--- Jura 10:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

To follow up on your comment on my talk page: if it's either the father or the son, it's easier: corresponding statements would just need to be added to both people. If one if more likely than the other, maybe we could use preferred rank for this. Maybe would could even make Q11689777 about the term in office.
--- Jura 06:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Romans

from here.

Sorry about that, Romulanus. I can remove the Roman edits in bulk - and will do later today. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Before I go off half cocked, do you tend to agree that the records in this report should have their given name removed? If so, happy to make it so. (The report looks for occupation=politician, had praenomen and has given name ... my fiddling last night was restricted to politicians.) Thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Tagishsimon. I have reviewed the names of about 700-800 on the list and they are all Roman or Byzantine (a primera vista). I agree with removing the given name. I ping Jura1 in case he wants to comment too. Greetings. --Romulanus (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Romulanus. For now, I'm removing the 322 names I added last night. Jura - do you recommend I remove all of them? --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how you determined the first names, but Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P2358 had hardly any conflicts with P735 before (your additions may appear there tomorrow or later), now there are still some 1300. Usually Romans also "time period" = Republic/Empire.
--- Jura 17:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I had a vlookup issue on a local spreadsheet. I'm now removing the other 1294 additions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah. I see we've met before. I'm better at reporting & quickstatements than I was in December, but obviously not much more skilled with Romans :). (Main reply to your note from this morning is on my talk page.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

WikiClassics

Hi! I'm involved in creating a new user group WikiClassics in order to discuss problems related to classical antiquity and archaeology between users from different projects and coordinate efforts to improve both the single linguistic projects (Wikipedias, Wikisources ...) and the multilingual ones (Commons and Wikidata). I hope you could be interested in joining our discussions! We will really start working in a month, I hope. Bye, --Epìdosis 22:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Roman consul

Help me understand your view regarding (Republic|Empire) consul position. Specifically why Cassius Dio (Q185223) cannot be considered as consul of the Roman Republic (Q21597597) instead of just Roman consul (Q40779)?

Ghuron, It's very easy. The history of Rome is divided into three periods according to the type of government: Monarchy, Republic and Empire. During the last two, the Roman consul (Q40779) existed. Cassius Dio (Q185223) lived during the Empire, so it is unhistorical to label him as consul of the Roman Republic (Q21597597); in any case, he would have to be labeled as consul of the Roman Empire (Q26203875).

However, I am very opposed to this separation (consul of the Roman Republic (Q21597597) and consul of the Roman Empire (Q26203875)) because it only occurs for temporary reasons. Both are Roman consul (Q40779) and the precision would have to be done with time period (P2348). Why don't we divide, for instance, consul of the Roman Empire (Q26203875) between those of the High Roman Empire (Q787204) and Low Roman Empire (Q2886278)? Why not divide those of the Republic in the same way? The division between the ordinary consul (Q868903) (for simplicity, Roman consul (Q40779)) and the consul suffectus (Q629712) is more interesting from the point of view of the office itself.

Un saludo. --Romulanus (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, we might want to have 2 separated items because a) many wikis seems to be distinguishing those titles b) working with separate items is much easier that working with qualifiers. But I wouldn't insist on that, Roman consul (Q40779) is fine for me, I've updated Category:Roman Republican consuls (Q9876650) --Ghuron (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Gens vs nomen

There isn't any need to have separate pages for the Gens Vitellia and the Nomen Vitellia. Wikipedia doesn't have separate article for those because they cover the same thing. It just creates a ton of confusion to have to pages that have pretty much the same name and usage.*Treker (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You understand English since you're replying to me, I don't speak Spanish, could you please reply in English so I understand why you're insising on having two duplicate pages?*Treker (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

*Treker, Well, I'll express myself in English. I don't know how it will be in English, but in Spanish the name of a clan and the personal name are different things, even though they seem to be the same names. In the same way that the feminine and masculine forms are not the same either. The nomen as a separate entity has a linguistic and etymological history; the gens as an entity has a social and political history. Can they be united in one article? Yes. Can they be put into separate articles? Yes. There are separate properties for each of them and precise definitions of what each of them is... at least in the Spanish version. There is no confusion. However, this is Wikidata, not Wikipedia. On esWiki there are articles that are not created because they do not have enough relevance to esWiki and they are included in others, but that is no reason for them not to have their own item on Wikidata.

Of course they are not duplicated. Answer me one question: why do items exist for the Tolkien (Q30069423) surname and the Tolkien family (Q82718)? Aren't they the same in 99% of the cases? Do we put in the family name (P734) property of J. R. R. Tolkien (Q892) the Tolkien family (Q82718) value? I bet not. Well, neither do the Romans. --Romulanus (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a bad example, "Tolkien family" refers to only one specific family that happens to have the name. In Rome, if you had a nomen you were part of the gens. In most other societies even if you happen to have the same surename that doesn't mean you are part of the same clan or family, but in Rome that was the case.*Treker (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

*Treker How many gens could a Roman belong to? --Romulanus (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Why does that matter?*Treker (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I mean, what about the Romans who had two or more nomina in their name? That's matter. It's all right. The example is good because what is being highlighted is that, in the property for the last name (the last name it can share with other people from other families), you are putting in the family name (which you can also share with other families). But you don't be left alone with the example. Un saludo. --Romulanus (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm having a really hard time understanding what you're saying. And either way, if you're going to insist on having duplicates for names, make sure that they actally have names. So far the nomen that you decided to revert back doesn't have a label and will only display as a random number on each page it appears on.*Treker (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

What you saw was the Q of the item, because in English it had no label. It wasn't a random number. I see the label in Spanish which is the language I speak and it doesn't have to be the same as the label in English, French, German or Italian, for example. In fact, the Roman names are translated into Spanish and Italian, so they will be different from English or German. And there may be labels in some languages and not in others. In Spanish, there is no duplication. The male nomen is «Vitelio», the female nomen is «Vitelia» and the name of the gens is «gens Vitelia». Not in Italian either. The male nomen is «Vitellio», the female nomen is «Vitellia» and the name of the gens is «gens Vitellia». All different. The word gens is necessary to be understood because they are different things. In Spanish, you cannot say «Aulo Vitelio pertenció a Vitelia» (Aulus Vitellius belongs to Vitellia), but you have to say «Aulo Vitelio pertenció a la gens Vitelia» (Aulus Vitellius belongs to the [gens] Vitellia). This is because «Vitelia» (Vitellia) and «gens Vitelia» ([gens] Vitellia) are different things and they have different meanings. Besides, you can't say «el nomen de Aulo Vitelio fue gens Vitelia» (the Aulus Vitellius's nomen was [gens] Vitellia), because that's nonsense. You have to say «el nomen de Aulo Vitelio fue Vitelio» (the Aulus Vitellius's nomen was Vitellius). And it's «Vitelio» (Vitellius) and not «Vitelia» (Vitellia) or «gens Vitelia» ([gens] Vitellia).

So, when I have to put a value on the nomen property of «Aulo Vitelio», I put «Vitelio» (the name of the male nomen); on the nomen property of «Vitelia», I put «Vitelia» (the name of the female nomen); and on the gens property of both, I put «gens Vitelia» (the name of the gens). All different; no duplicates. In Italian they will do the same, and in Catalan, Galician, Asturian, Aragonese, Portuguese... Do you understand, at least, that this is a multilingual project?

It's not all about English. --Romulanus (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The names are the same in all languages, they're ancient names, they don't get translated.*Treker (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you say. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Que te vaya bonito, majo. --Romulanus (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Obellius (Q53796012) and Obellia (Q53796022)

Hello! You created this two Roman nomens back in 2018, with respectively Obelio and Obelia as spanish labels. I've changed them with a double l, as I was only able to find example with Obellius (notably House of Obellius Firmus (Q27688629) and Q29887310). If I have done wrong, feel free to correct me! Cheers, --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok I think I got it, double l in Roman became one in Spanish - I changed the label accordingly. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Yes, that's right. I will write a guide in the WikiProject of the most common changes when I have some time. --Romulanus (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! In the meantime I took the habit to double-check the Spanish spelling, I think it should be all sorted now. You may however want to take a closer look at this two changes, in case I did wrong: Orvicia to Orcivia ; Paltucia to Patulcia. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Ups, those were my mistakes. Thanks. --Romulanus (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Albinus (Q66119802)

Hello! As I was intrigued by your reverts, I tried to dig a little deeper on this man and I found a whole article, in French, on this Albinus. The author conclusions are that this person is in fact a Roman citizen, named Q. Lucceius Albinus, although the author can't find who gave him the Roman citizenship. As the article is already 20 years old, maybe you have read something more recent. Happy to discuss it with you in any case. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: I have gone directly to the source indicated by the Wikidata item [7] from Spanish Biographical Dictionary (Q41705771). I think it's more recent because it includes the article you're pointing out to me. It says that «it seems to lack the right of citizenship», which has led me to the issues you mention. For that reason, I have also added probably (Q56644435). --Romulanus (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes I saw this source, but wanted to read something more developped :D. There is also this article in Spanish from 2005, which I am trying to read even if my Spanish level is not as good as it should be. Anyway, as it doesn't seem to be completely settled, I propose that we keep the Roman properties (nationality, praenomen, nomen and cognomen) with obsolete rank. This way, they won't interfere with any infobox but will still be recorded. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Great discovery. In this article they lean towards Roman citizenship and give a very reasonable argument. It also rejects the identification of Albinus Albui f. with Lucceius Albinus. I'm going to correct the data. One question: What do you mean by «obsolete rank»? ¿Perhaps «Unknown value»? --Romulanus (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Fine for me! As for "obsolete rank" (which I mistranslated, in English it's "deprecated"), I was speaking about ranks ; it's a nice way to either promote data among a group (you can see it in use in Julius Caesar (Q1048) for date of birth (P569)) or indicate that a value isn't considered valid anymore but was considered so at some point (see Rhetorica ad Herennium (Q1973998) at author (P50)). --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Oh, right. I see. I hadn't noticed that. I'll read the help to find out more. Un saludo. --Romulanus (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Q53858979, Q53858988 and Q53858973

Hello! First, I apology, because that's already the third time I reach you in a matter of days. To come back to Roman business, I don't think Gelenius is a valid Roman nomen. The only entry in which it would apply is Gaius Maenius (Q11923938), which has two wikilinks. BGWP gives some reference, but in those Gelenius is nowhere to be found. CAWP give this page as reference, section Maenius 2, but it's in fact a misread ; the dictionnary refers to two different lecture of the name C. Maenius, tr. 483 BC, one by Lupus (Wolf Appentegger ?), who read Manilius, the other one by Sigismund Gelenius (Q1232944), who read Maenius. In any case, Gelenius isn't a developpement of C(aius), which is the true praenomen of this tribune.

Since we can't merge those entries with anything, best would be to ask an admin to delete them. As above, happy to discuss it with you in case you disagree. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: I no longer have the table from which I got the data to run the QuickStatements batch, but I remember that I got the information from the Wikidata items themselves. So, it's likely that Q53858973 et al. were taken from Gaius Maenius (Q11923938). Un saludo. --Romulanus (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the precision! I've contacted someone on both BGWP and CAWP to have the title of the articles changed. @Epìdosis: could you delete thoses three items? --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban:  Done. --Epìdosis 09:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Q26187474

Hello! What do you think of this praenomen? I wasn't able to find anything on it, and judging from the date of the persons to whom it is linked it's sound more like a duplicate of Vettius (Q32979456) to me. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Yes, you're probably right, and I would add Q26196891, sometimes a nomen, sometimes something like lord (Q332209) et al., but hardly a praenomen. --Romulanus (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree on Q26196891 too. I left a message a while ago on the WikiProject Names, but it wasn't answered ; I should have done it on the Ancient Rome one. Maybe we can have it changed to something like noble title (Q355567) ? --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: I think it's more like style (Q5767753) (e.g. [8]), especially on the eastern side of the Empire; but what you say is also appropriate. --Romulanus (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Forgot to reply: it was an interesting read, thanks! I think I'll open a thread in a few days in the Wikiproject to discuss this. Whatever we'll end up choosing we need to get ride of false praenomen. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Casca (Q11912911)

Would you agree to transform this into a cognomen? I think it would be better suited. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: I agree. --Romulanus (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Brutus mother

She is pretty widely said to be Priscus daughter. Would you please explain why you keep removing this?*Treker (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@*Treker: You should read this article and let me finish the genealogy. Thank you. --Romulanus (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't afford to have a subscription to JSTOR sadly. Could you recap what the article says?*Treker (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@*Treker: I will finish these two generations in a moment. Then I tell him. --Romulanus (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@*Treker: I can't finish today. Let's see if I can tomorrow. In quick summary, the paper defends with chronological arguments that there is an extra generation between Lucius Tarquinius Priscus (Q212671) and Lucius Tarquinius Superbus (Q193047), so all the contemporaries of the last are bringing down a generation. So, Arruns Tarquinius (Q2864244), Tarquinia (Q3515798)... Lucius Tarquinius Priscus (Q212671) had two daughters. So keep this fact with Tarquinia the Younger (Q98378682). In my opinion, it can also be defended with genealogical considerations. This is defended by Cornell, and in that case Gnaeus Tarquinius (Q94971567) hurts. That is why Tarquinia (Q3515798) is almost the same as Tarquinia the Younger (Q98378682). I will continue tomorrow. I will try to make the family trees here with the two ideas. Un saludo. --Romulanus (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Antonius

This source claims that the orators fathers name was Gaius based on coins. Where have you read the orators filiation which says M.Antonius M.f.M.n?*Treker (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@*Treker: That source is out of date. Since it was published (1844) many discoveries have been made, among them the Fasti Capitolini (Q1397785) where the consul from 99 BC (Marcus Antonius (Q176122)) is spelled M.Antonius M.f.M.n. If you are looking for reliable sources, you can start with this. --Romulanus (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, that's good to know. Thank you.*Treker (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Romulanus, *Treker: I added a deprecated claim for Gaius as praenomen, so the information is not lost even if it's now obsolete. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Tarquinia

Hello Romulanus! Tarquinia the Younger (Q98378682) and Tarquinia the Elder (Q55385885) are the same person? Thanks, bye Palotabarát (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Palotabarát: No, they are not the same person. I think I got the two possible family trees of the Tarquinii right. What makes you wonder if they are the same person? Maybe I made a mistake. It's a bit crazy. --Romulanus (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

OK., Thanks for the reply. (Same English name, same mother, same father.) Palotabarát (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Palotabarát: I have written the labels in English. --Romulanus (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Marcus Claudius Marcellus (Q4281785) and Marcus Claudius Marcellus (Q6758092)

Hi Romulanus,

A contributor stated in 2017 that those two were not the same person. The interwiki strongly suggest that they are all dealing with the same individual (that is, the aedile of 91BC). Should we bypass the warning and merge them? --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: they are the same person. Only one Claudius Marcellus was aedile in 91 BC and all six Wikipedia articles refer to the same person. It is a «de cajón» case. Un saludo. --Romulanus (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer! I merged them. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Issues at Hungarian, Bulgarian and Serbian Wikipedias

The Hungarian, Bulgarian and Serbian language Wikipedias seems to have several articles and information that is made up about the family of Atia (mother of Augustus). For there are articles and mentions of two women [9] [10] whom they claim were sisters of Atia, which I can find no sources about whatsoever. Is there anything we can do about this?*Treker (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@*Treker: There are only two Atias recorded: Atia (maior), mother of Augustus, and Atia (minor), wife of L. Philippus (cos 38 BC). The second is just a shadow. Their relationship is not even known: perhaps sisters; maybe aunt and niece. The third Atia was a Syme proposal that did not come to fruition. It is a prosopographical phantom like so many others. That is, she did not exist. Regarding the names, they are fanciful and impossible. --Romulanus (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Deepenig, Q12272788 and Q12272789 are very fanciful articles!! Neither of them is a historical figure. --Romulanus (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes these two articles are not about the wife of Philippus or Syme's Atia. Also, little spat at the main Atia page about the image, I always assumed it was widely accepted to depict her. My bad.*Treker (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@*Treker: I agree. For next time, I will try to use the talk page so that we can easily exchange views. Un saludo. --Romulanus (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

I hope you have a good day today!*Treker (talk) 09:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Referencing with the DPRR

Hi Romulanus, I believed it is favored to use dedicated property when they exist instead of generic one, so Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic ID (P6863) should be used instead of reference URL (P854). They link to the same content, but should the website change its adress we would have to edit only the URL of this property instead of going through the hundreds links. Cheers, --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Hmm, I didn't know and I don't think I understood you. Can you make an example? You can correct an item to clarify it for me. Thanks. I have stopped the BATCH while I wait. --Romulanus (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Stop, stop... I understand you. Thanks. Uff. I think I'll spend a couple of days reviewing the BATCH :-). --Romulanus (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry to catch it only now! For the next batch, you can also add retrieved (P813) and we should be good. Also, in case you need to manually add a ref from the external identifiers, you can import Bargioni's UseAsRef script in your common.js (see mine). It save a lot of clicks! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: I will keep it in mind. Until next time. Un saludo. --Romulanus (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Romulanus, I figured it would be ok make a note about some issues that DPRR has at times, for example they often list, siblings, half-siblings and even step-siblings as the same thing, which is confusing, (one example is with Hortensia the orator and Cato the Younger's children), another issue sometimes if that there are a couple of duplicates (for example there are two Alexander Helios with slightly different names) as well as sometimes including two pair of parents and two separate sets of siblings (as is the case with Brutus cousin Servilia). I've removed some of the issues I've found that I saw you added. I hope that's ok with you.*Treker (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@*Treker: No, I don't agree. I cann't agree that correctly referenced content is deleted. You can add other references that indicate what you say or qualifiers that clarify the "supposed confusion" that there may be, but never do what you have done. It's a fundamental concept of the Wikimedia project: well-referenced content will not be deleted. --Romulanus (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

But it's not "well referenced". It's straight up wrong information sometimes.*Treker (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

DPRR pretty much amalgamates and combines (sometimes outdated and contradicted) theories of several different historians and Wikidata does not allow us to explain that those speculations are not longer considered credible. And honestly a lot of the time the site is sloppy, like I said there are many duplicates I have found. I don't think it should in itself be considered a reliable enough source to dictate how items are decribed/linked to each other.*Treker (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@*Treker: Maybe, and maybe all sources contain errors, but that's not the point. The point is that it is well referenced and you have no reason to delete it. --Romulanus (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not really a "maybe" when we know something is wrong. Should we also make a duplicate item for Alexander Helios because there are two pages for him on the site? The Servilia thins is clearly a mistake on the part of the sites editors. As far as I see it I have perfectly good reason to remove it. It's very likely also a mistake with Cato's children and the Hortensii, the site doesn't actually link step-siblings to each other ever except in this ONE case, it's not some standard and likely not derived from any actual scholar ever describing them as siblings, it's just the editors linking pages who's parents happened to be married to each other and screwing up. If the editors made a mistake and linked Marcus Claudius Marcellus the five time consul as the father of Marcus Claudius Marcellus the nephew of Augustus should we include that too because it's "well referenced"?*Treker (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, my 2 cents on this: if it is referenced by a serious website (and not some random genealogical database) we ought to keep it, no matter what. The fact that it is false or that a statement is more reliable than the others is a second step and should be determined by the statement's rank, from deprecated to preferred (don't forget to also add reason for deprecated rank (P2241) or reason for preferred rank (P7452)). Basically, we are saying : "Hey look, this information there is false, but based on this and this and this this other information should be preferred". --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: I quite agree and this is what I wanted to say to our colleague with little success on my part. I am convinced that the maxim "There is no deadline" is also used here on Wikidata. @*Treker: "Well referenced" does not judge the quality of the source. It just means that it is fine from a Wikidata point of view. If I had wanted to assess the quality of the source, I would have said "good reference" or "bad reference".

That said, I want to clarify that I am able to detect when a source contains misconceptions and I can ensure that all sources can have them. What's more, most kinship relationships are modern conjectures and many individuals (mainly women) are just inferences to justify a claim from classical sources. Different authors may have different opinions and neither is better than the other. However, that is not the point we are dealing with here. What counts here is what can be demonstrated with sources, not what we think. If it were for the latter, we would be in "Edit warring" every day. --Romulanus (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

So reliability and accuracy doesn't matter on Wikidata? Your comment about most women's relationships being speculative is completly irrelevant in these instances, the fact is that the Servilia who is described as Cato's niece is objectivly described as his niece who was placed in his custody after Caepio's death in Plutarch and no modern historian has ever described her as being a fourth sister of Cato. It's literally just a confusion by the sites' editors, mixing her up with one of Cato's sisters, not something cited by some actual scholar. And if we have to link the Hortensii and Porcii together, could you could have at least added a statement that it's a step relationship. I want to know a few things here:

A) Should we create duplicate items for people based on DPRR, since apparently as long as something is "well referenced" it can be done?

B) If even more ridiculous and obvious errors show up, as the Marcelli one I mentioned, can they be accepted as well?

C) If I contacted the site and had them fix the errors, would they then be removed?

Also pinging @Jahl de Vautban:.*Treker (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@*Treker: (sorry it's late and I'm failry tired, sorry if I am sometime unclear in what follows). Starting from C), yes. See this example, a claim that I removed when an obvious error (a Christian author in the 2nd c. BC, really?) that I pointed on the Digital Latin Library was fixed. But until it was fixed I made sure to add the claim, deprecate it and add why it was deprecated. As Wikidata editors we are basically only agregating informations: we keep everything (again, if the source is serious, which the DPRR is) and then sort the false (rank deprecated), the true (rank normal) and the more precise/actual (rank preferred). Just as with all Wikimedia project, and especially Wikipedia, we are not making science ourselves, as this is the job of scholars and the domain of academic publications. But we are taking everything that was said by thoses scholars and then sorting it according to its reliability. It all comes to referencing. This is the only latitude that we have as Wikidata editor: choosing which source, and so which statement, is the more reliable one (and sometime you can't decide). In case of Cato's niece, we could imagine to have the "sister" value given by the DPRR as deprecated, with due reference and the qualifier reason for deprecated rank (P2241)error in referenced source or sources (Q29998666) and an other claim with the correct kinship relation. In other words, neither Romulanus nor I are saying that the DPRR is right and you are wrong; simply that because the DPRR is actually stating it, we ought to record it until it is fixed. This should answer B).

Coming to A), I haven't myself a very clear line of conduct, because I don't like splitting items but this is what we are suppose to be doing and what is already done on some items, where we have QXXXXX as tribune and QXXXXX as consul because thoses items are (mostly) based on Smith's dictionnary which had two different entries. But it's all depend if you can give an other, more reliable source, and you'll need to reference it.

So, to anwser you: reliability and accuracy are important values, but they are not achieved by removing statement given by unreliable and unaccurate sources: they are achieved by ranking these statements as deprecated and adding other statements with other sources. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Jahl de Vautban: for your clear and concise answers for my questions. I will be putting some effort to once more alert DPRR of some of the issues I have noticed, so that onfusion like this will be less likely to happen.*Treker (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Caeciliae Metellae

According to the book Servilia and her Family, both a Caecilia who married a Vatia and a Caecilia who married a Caepio likely existed.*Treker (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Batches for German

Hi Romulanus, thanks for the uniformisation of names! I think you are in for another round with the German description: for what I know, adjectives such as römisches should not be capitalized (see e. g. the article on Roman names in DEWP). Could you create another batch (I'm fully ignorant on how to do so)? --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem, @Jahl de Vautban, and if you see related things that can be improved, do not hesitate to tell me. Un saludo. --Romulanus (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Well I have some concerns about the way we are currently modelling gens. With the use of language of work or name (P407), writing system (P282) and has characteristic (P1552) we are considering them as if they were another "name" element whereas gens (Q899409) is currently, and I think rightly, a subclass of clan (Q211503) and institution (Q178706); it essentially functions in the same way a family (Q8436), a noble family (Q13417114) or a dynasty (Q164950) does. I think we should get ride of the above mentionned properties and use them only for (pre/cog/ag)nomen. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban, I'm thinking about gens too. For now, I have left it out of the batches because I think like you that it is more of a clan subclass and that it should be modeled as such. It is not exactly like that, because there did not have to be kinship relationships between individuals with the same nomen, but broadly speaking I think it would not be a problem (it is already done that way, after all). The concept of family, although more extensive in the Roman world (and something different ), could be adapted to the Cornelii Scipones, Porcii Catones, Flavian dinasty and so on: as it were, lineage or part of a clan, stirps (Q104258569) o familia (Q15281450) the latter has been put aside and I don't know why. If there is consensus, there would be no problem in creating a batch to remove these properties from the "gens".

However, my biggest doubt is the fact of assigning multiple "gens" to the same individual. Inevitable, I think, with the current system, not very troublesome at first glance, but wrong from the Roman point of view. And I think of some individuals whose nomen and gens do not coincide, such as the famous son-in-law of Claudius, Cn. Pompeius Magnus, from the Licinia gens despite his name. --Romulanus (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

By the way, the German descriptions are already corrected. --Romulanus (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy to hear that we broadly agree on this; I'll see in the future to launch the discussion, I am not so much on Wikidata these days. For multiple gens we could perhaps use qualifiers with the pair replaces (P1365) and replaced by (P1366) coupled with has cause (P828)Roman adoption (Q5658243). That would at least establish some sort of relative chronology between the statements. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Item documentation

Thanks for your contribution to {{Item documentation}}. I've seen that you've switched two lines here. I think it would be useful to explain why you've made this change in the talk page of the template. Is there any example which have motivated your choice? PAC2 (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@PAC2, in Roman magistrates and magistratures classes, the template displayed the queries of occupations rather than positions. This is because the tree is currently a bit messy. Since I'm checking the positions first, I need the template to show their queries. However, it generally showed the occupations. I assumed it was because of the occupations-positions sequence, hence the change. It didn't seem like such a relevant change to me, really. Un saludo. --Romulanus (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. If you need to have generic queries for positions and generic queries for occupations, you can also directly add {{Generic queries for occupations}} and {{Generic queries for positions}} directly in the talk page. PAC2 (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Claudii and Clodii

I have never heard of them being established as different clans in imperial times, from what I've seen some people still switches between the two spellings when they felt like it.*Treker (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@*Treker, The nomen switch is just that: a nomen switch. Publius Clodius Pulcher used the name Clodius (also his sisters), but he belonged to the Claudii clan (specifically the Claudii patricii). No one would think of saying that he belonged to the Clodii clan, right? Never mind that some of them switched the spelling whenever they felt like it. Furthermore, what is true for some people doesn't have to be true for the rest. Have you ever seen anyone for whom I have restored the Clodii clan were called Claudius? You haven't seen it. That's because, although some switched the spelling (mainly from Clodius to Claudius for reasons that are now irrelevant), Clodius was so established in imperial times that they were different clans. But beyond all this, without proof, you (or I or anyone) cannot say that some people called Clodius belonged to the Claudii clan. They will belong to the clan of the Clodii. It's something of a truism. --Romulanus (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)