Open main menu

User talk:Romulanus

Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Romulanus!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

  • Introduction – An introduction to the project.
  • Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
  • Community portal – The portal for community members.
  • User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
  • Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
  • Project chat – Discussions about the project.
  • Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! Taketa

Q11689777Edit

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)

RomansEdit

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)

WikiClassicsEdit

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 consulEdit

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 Early Roman Empire (Q787204) and Late 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)
Return to the user page of "Romulanus".