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)

Gens vs nomenEdit

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)Edit

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)Edit

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 Q53858973Edit

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)

Vettius (Q26187474)Edit

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 Flavius (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 Flavius (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 (manner of address) (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)Edit

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)