Wikidata talk:WikiProject Ancient Rome

Wrong labels created by bots edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

In the past years many bots added new labels for humans copying them from other languages. This approach is very useful for most people, but for ancient people (Greek and Roman) is really bad: different languages adapt ancient names differently. An example: in this case Reinheitsgebot copied English label from Italian label and then PLbot copied German label from one of the previous two. Unfortunalety Italian adapts Latin names, while English and German mantain Latin forms without variations. So I had to modify them.

Now I will list some equalities which are very very likely to be wrong. X are the cases which are almost certainly wrong; OK are the cases which probably (but not certainly) have really to be equal; / are neutral cases (may be equal or may not).

.	ca	de	en	fr	it	la	all others
ca	=	X	X	X	X	X	X
de	X	=	OK	/	X	OK	/
en	X	OK	=	/	X	OK	/
fr	X	/	/	=	X	/	/
it	X	X	X	X	=	X	/
la	X	OK	OK	/	X	=	/

Can someone create lists to correct Xs? I wouldn't create lists for OKs, because they aren't always true. Thank you, --Epìdosis 15:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

At Wikidata:WikiProject Names/reports/Romans with P2358, I tried to add a fall-back for labels in languages that could be suitable for English (2nd column). nl and sv should work too.

I fixed most of the easier differences between English (using "o" from Italian) by adding Latin ("us") to English.

I also added Latin as alias in English for most (if not all) items on Wikidata:WikiProject Ancient Rome/lists/people if en<>la.

Latin sometimes includes the name of the father in abbreviated from (e.g. "L.f.") which isn't done in English.

Labels from cawiki seem to be the hardest ones to fix.

Overview of languages used: Wikidata:WikiProject Ancient Rome/numbers/people/by sitelink
--- Jura 13:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I made a request for Cyrillic ones at Wikidata:Bot_requests#Import_la_from_ruwiki.2Fbgwiki. For someone who can do de-transliteration reliably, maybe working with ru/bg labels can do.
--- Jura 11:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Jura1: Could you create a Wikidata:WikiProject Ancient Rome/numbers/people/by label? --Epìdosis 13:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's a bit tricky, here is a query as a start: [1]. This could make it easier.
--- Jura 13:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Jura1: It's OK: from this I can conjecture at least 1000 wrong Dutch labels imported from Catalan and some other hundreds with the same problem in English, German and Italian. In my opinion all Dutch labels which are the same as Catalan are to be removed: we can replace them with the name of the Dutch Wikipedia sitelinks or with the Latin/English/German label; in all other cases we have to simply cancel them. --Epìdosis 14:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Related question: Should the Italian label for Q4821839 be "Aulus" or "Aulo"?
--- Jura 11:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Jura1: In my opinion all praenomina items should have the latin original form as label in all languages and the form in the native language (so, it: "Aulo") as alias. --Epìdosis 11:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok. I was hesitating.
--- Jura 21:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

List of officials edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

As a first one, I started with Wikidata:WikiProject Ancient Rome/lists/Roman dictators. I figured it's better to start with a short one.
--- Jura 11:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please note Wikidata:Project_chat#458_BC.--- Jura 21:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Result from it seems to be: Help:Dates#Years_BC
--- Jura 15:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Consuls edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I was thinking of mass adding position held (P39) for consuls from de:List of Roman consuls / de:Liste der römischen Konsuln. However, it is a litle bit tricky.

A few questions

I discover consul of the Roman Republic (Q21597597), for consuls pre 27 BC. Does such an item make sense ? If recall my history right, there was no sudden radical change in formal institutions in 27 BC.
I think we need to distinguish consul prior (Q26254800) and Q26254806.
What do we do with consules suffecti. I had a similar question on the Project Chat recently about acting presidents. The solution proposed was to use P794 (P794) as a qualifier. I think it makes sense. So that would be position held (P39)consul prior (Q26254800) + qualifier P794consul suffectus (Q629712). (assuming it makes sense to say that you are a "consul suffex posterior".
what about the dates ? Wikipedia provides years, but that does not match Gregorian dates, nor I think standard Julian dates as Roman years do not start on January. What is the best we can have ?

--Zolo (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

The role of the consul changed once there was an emperor .. so statements about the position are different. The title exists also elsewhere, but we wouldn't want to use the same item just because the title is the same.

For consul suffectus (Q629712), I'd use the qualifier P794 (P794) as on Q722098#P39. If you want to use consul prior (Q26254800), it should work with P794 (P794) as well.

The qualifier together with (P1706) should allow to link the 2nd consul as well.

The dates as used on Roman dictators should work.

Rather than create more items based on some list, you might want to merge existing items about the same consuls.
--- Jura 18:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

The role of the Emperor of Japan in 1900 is vastly different from the role Emperor of Japan in 2000, that does not mean they should be different items. That seems at least as valid for Roman consuls. There is no no clear single date when the role of consuls radically changed. De facto their power was shaky well before 27 BC. De jure they kept most of their prerogatives after that date.

The distinction consul prior / consul posterior seems fairly minor, but I don't see the point of doing it in the qualifiers rather than in the main value. P794 (P794) can spare the creation of countless ad hoc items (say "acting finance minister of Croatia") but using consul prior (Q26254800) as a qualifier rather than a main value does not save any item and qualfiers make the structure more complex.

I don't get what you mean about creating items, I don't intend to create more items.--Zolo (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, even if the Japanese Emperor would have had the title "consul" at some point, I think it's good to that it has an entirely different item for P39. Obviously, any role is subject to some changes. Would you add imperium (Q499146) to the item for the consuls of the Roman Empire as well?

If you think the distinction for senior/junior is minor, it should definitely not go beyond a qualifier. You could use "ordinal" if you "as" doesn't suit you. I don't entirely get your comment about the acting minister, as for "consul suffectus" that's exactly what is being done.

If you are unsure about the values to use for one consul or the other, we can add these later.
--- Jura 07:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am not saying that the Emperor of Japan was called consul, it was just a comparison: the role of the Emperor of Japan changed a lot, and yet we have only one item Emperor of Japan (Q208233). To me, the same would make even more sense for Roman consuls.

I don't see any benefit in using a qualifier for junior / senior. Using the main value is all-round simpler. Using qualifiers for "acting minister" avoid creating items like "acting finane minister of Croatia" but using qualifier to state wether the item is junior or senior does not avoid any item creation (at worst it requires two new items if we separate Republic consul from Empire consul).

I don't how you intend to use imperium (Q499146) but yes, and I don't claim any expertise on Roman institutions, but I think consuls were recognized some imperium during at least part of the Empire (that does not mean they had the highest power, pretors had imperium as well). --Zolo (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Items for Japanese emperors look like they need fixing, but I think this is not in scope for this project. I don't quite understand your interest in the number of items to indicate what seems like a minor difference: indicate the senior/junior/Eastern/Western/First/Second etc. Personally, I'd continue with the current approach. imperium (Q499146) is already in use on Q21597597, but not on the other.

Property Era (P2348) edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

It is stated that "Items related to Ancient Rome would generally have era (P2348) with value Repubblica romana (Q17167) or Impero romano (Q2277)". Is not the period "Età regia di Roma" ("Roman Kingdom") (Q201038) missing as a selectable value for the property? --Mpiva (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes probably. We just didn't get there yet.
--- Jura 07:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome

Hello. I would like to have a discussion about the use of time period (P2348). To be honest I don't really understand the point of the property. It seems to have mostly a datation purpose ; for most items however we can narrow their timeframe to at least the century level, which is a more precise and, if anachronistic, at least more neutral way of dating. I personnaly abstain from using it, for a few reasons. First, it's often a purely modern division, without clear reference in Ancient litterature, and if it appears it's only in authors writing decades if not centuries after the events. Second, its use is problematic for individual whose life spanned across two of those divisions, e. g. Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Asina (Q453853) as spent at least half, if not most, of his life in Early Roman Republic (Q2839628), yet he is only classified in Middle Roman Republic (Q6106068). Last but far from least, all the date chosen for the division are debatable, and I don't think it exists a clear consensus among historians (and we turn back on my first point) as to how we should — but should we? — divide Rome's inner chronology. Take High Roman Empire (Q787204): in French bibliography, it's absolutely not clear if it stops in 192, in 235 or in 284 and the name itself tend to be put aside. I would really like to have your thoughts about it. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I would use only Roman Kingdom (Q201038) and Roman Republic (Q17167) and Roman Empire (Q2277), other subdivisions are often debated as you say. --Epìdosis 16:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The dividing point between the Republic & Empire is somewhat problematic: some mark it at 44 BC (death of Julius Caesar), some at 31 BC (Battle at Actium, when Augustus became sole ruler), some at 27 BC (when he initiated a series of reforms that became the basis for the Roman Empire), & an argument could even be made for AD 14 (when Augustus died -- by picking up the mantle of rule, Tiberius made it impossible for the polity to return to the Republican model: it had to be an empire).

There is a division between "Early Empire" & "Later Empire": both society & political structure were different in many ways. But as you write, there is no good point to divide between them. Any division would need be an arbitrary one, good only for Wikidata's purposes. (The subdivisions of the Roman Republic are even less clear -- at least to me.) -- Llywrch (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Here there are several different issues mixed up.

The first. The division into Roman Kingdom (Q201038), Roman Republic (Q17167) and Roman Empire (Q2277) has a full historiographic sense (and different from the division into centuries). It is perfectly adequate to filter any element of Rome's history through these historical divisions, even if their boundaries appear to be somewhat imprecise. The vast majority of Romans (focusing on biographies) fall into one of these periods regardless of whether the end of the republic (or the beginning of the empire) is in 44, 42, 27, 23 BC or whatever date. However, there is a certain consensus in fixing it after Battle of Actium (Q160387).
The second. The internal division of Roman Republic (Q17167) and Roman Empire (Q2277) still has a full historiographic sense. The uses of Late Roman Republic (Q2815472) or High Roman Empire (Q787204) (or Principate (Q206414)) are very broad in modern historiography and justify their uses as historical divisions in themselves.
The third. It does not matter that in ancient history (Q41493) they did not perceive or consider these divisions. Is this not the case with each and every division into periods? Does not the division into centuries suffer from the same criticism? Moreover, they exist in modern historiography, so their use is justified regardless of what the Romans of the time might have thought.
The last. The date of an event is the only thing that is known about the lives of many people in ancient history (Q41493). Therefore, it's correct to place those people in the historical period that corresponds to that date, even though they logically lived longer in another period. There's nothing absurd about the example being set.

Therefore, I consider that its use is justifiable and that it's correct to divide it into periods. If there're discrepancies with the boundaries, that is what needs to be discussed; the use of the property is not in question. Un saludo. --Romulanus (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks everyone for the answers! I wasn't clear enough, but I don't contest the use of Roman Kingdom (Q201038), Roman Republic (Q17167) and Roman Empire (Q2277), although as Llywrch stated the turning point between the last two could be called into question ; and as we use consul of the Roman Republic (Q21597597) and consul of the Roman Empire (Q26203875) this could be problematic, specifically as Augustus (Q1405) was careful not to alter too much the republican system. Would a consul of the 30s BC be any different from one in the 20s BC (I mean, when it’s not Augustus (Q1405) himself)?

For others divisions, I'm not denying their historiographical sense, at least in some languages (in French Middle Roman Republic (Q6106068) is nonexistent, at least with the current dates). But again, every historian could rightfully argue for a different date and even for a different division – and they do it. If we look at The Cambridge Ancient History (among others), they don’t match with what we have. Sure, the inner division of Roman Republic (Q17167) and Roman Empire (Q2277) are very practical and used when you want to speak about a certain period of time, be it the few decennia before Roman Empire (Q2277) for Late Roman Republic (Q2815472) or Five Good Emperors (Q193254) for High Roman Empire (Q787204): but there are also timeframe in their own rights, different from what precedes and what follows. Speaking of the Empire, we could also use time period (P2348) based on dynasties, and it would be perfectly justified. It’s endless. What I am saying is that, outside of the kingdom/republic/empire division, which is a least institutionally justified, there is no consensus on how and when should we make divisions.

That doesn’t make the inner divisions false or wrong per se, just very impractical to use for individuals and I think we should avoid using them for this purpose. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Pompeii edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You may know that User:Nvitucci has added lots of items about Pompeii. At my user page, I have build a clickable imagemap for Pompeii (you can use that) and now I have inserted into items like Q26960992 (Pompeii Regio I Insula 1) the "has part" values for Regio I. I would like to do so for the other Regios too.

We have at commons categories about Pompeii, for example: commons:Category:Pompeii Regio I. I have added as example into Q27070416 one commons category. Is that OK?

I guess there will be more questions. Is it OK to discuss them here? --Molarus 19:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

What are the best modelled items for your area of interest? edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all

Over the past few months myself and others have been thinking about the best way to help people model subjects consistently on Wikidata and provide new contributors with a simple way to understand how to model content on different subjects. Our first solution is to provide some best practice examples of items for different subjects which we are calling Model items. E.g the item for William Shakespeare (Q692) is a good example to follow for creating items about playwright (Q214917). These model items are linked to from the item for the subject to make them easier to find and we have tried to make simple to understand instructions.

We would like subject matter experts to contribute their best examples of well modelled items. We are asking all the Wikiprojects to share with us the kinds of subjects you most commonly add information about and the best examples you have of this kind of item. We would like to have at least 5 model items for each subject to show the diversity of the subject e.g just having William Shakespeare (Q692) as a model item for playwright (Q214917), while helpful may not provide a good example for people trying to model modern poets from Asia.

You can add model items yourself by using the instructions at Wikidata:Model items. It may be helpful to have a discussion here to collate information first.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Roman praenomen (P2358), Roman nomen gentilicium (P2359) and Roman cognomen (P2365) edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Hey! Currently those three properties all ask for country of citizenship (P27) as Ancient Rome (Q1747689). But what in the case of freemen, who notoriously do not have the same civils rights as full citizens, but still share the same name system? Is it correct to use country of citizenship (P27) in this case? Cheers, --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I would maybe suggest country of citizenship (P27)Ancient Rome (Q1747689) + social classification (P3716)freedman (Q841571), but I'm not sure, the problem you mention is real, I didn't notice it before. --Epìdosis 20:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Epìdosis: : thanks for your reply, I'll go on with your suggestion until we find something better. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

A similar issue will arise with Italic people who share similar naming practises, but who do not have the Roman citizenship — e. g. Titus Afranius (Q11951952), who both ENWP and DEWP present as a non-Roman but who still have here country of citizenship (P27)Ancient Rome (Q1747689). Also, as a sidenote, maybe we should update the three naming properties above so that they can also be used for all the Italic peoples (Etruscans, Osco-Umbrians, and so on) without ambiguities such as Arruns (Q55385579), labelled as Estruscian (sic) praenomen but with instance of (P31)praenomen (Q1240901). --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The issue of nationality in the context of Ancient Rome is tricky enough in itself to be considered on its own.

In the case at hand, yes, you are right. What should be considered is whether the restriction is removed or if it is expanded to include other peoples of ancient history. --Romulanus (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Romulanus, Epìdosis: having thought about it, I think we should remove the country of citizenship (P27) constrain and modify the property to be extended to others italic peoples. It would be way simpler than adding every pre-Roman peoples of Italy, and it would above all allow us to bypass the numerous cases when we simply don't know (and shouldn't assume). Shall I launch a discussion on the three properties themselves? --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

No other discussion needed in my opinion, you can just remove the constraint. --Epìdosis 20:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I would prefer it if the constraint could be extended to "no value" and "unknown value". I wonder which country of citizenship (P27) will be chosen for Etruscans, Samnites, Sabines... If it can't be done, I agree. --Romulanus (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's seems possible to add "no value" and "unknown value". As for the Etruscans, we should avoid Etruscans (Q17161) and use Populonia (Q21573810), Tarquinia (Q21580466) and the like ; for Samnites, we should again avoid Samnites (Q500272) and use Pentri (Q1077232), Caraceni (Q925746), etc. Basically every italic city-state and tribe would be legitimate as a country of citizenship (P27), just like in Ancient Greece (Q11772). At this point, if you want to keep the constrain, we should just leave it without qualifiers, that is, Qid should have a country of citizenship (P27), but the value isn't specified. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 07:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the examples you give for Samnites are valid, but they make sense for Etruscans. Therefore, I agree to remove the constraint to avoid a long list. --Romulanus (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Well I'm unfamiliar with Samnites mode of government to be honest: I don't know if they can be considered one political block. I'll remove the qualifiers on the constrains. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I personally think these constraints are unhelpful, the vast majority of women were just named the nomen.*Treker (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@*Treker: I agree, but since knew Roman men vastly outnumber knew Roman women, it seems preferable to keep the constrain. You can add Roman praenomen (P2358) with "no value" in this case. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can cognomen (Q777342) be consider equivalent to family name (Q101352) ? edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome

Hello ! *Treker and I disagree about this edit (and so I also disagree with Laddo about this one). I personnaly don't think that we can consider Roman cognomen and modern surname to be equivalent. Sure, they broadly function in a similar manner. But, notably, the cognomen is not always hereditary : see for example Vespasian (Q1419) (T. Flavius Vespasianus) and Domitian (Q1423) (T. Flavius Domitianus). The fact that the Roman name system is articulated around three elements, whereas modern name system uses only two, makes me very relunctant to equate any part of them. We would appreciate further input on this. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jahl de Vautban: I substantially agree with you (little note: the first link is wrong, it refers to Caesar (Q14873084), I think), probably different from (P1889) should be used. --Epìdosis 09:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

(@Epìdosis: fixed, thanks. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC))Reply

@Jahl de Vautban: I agree with Epìdosis to use different from (P1889) if necessary. Cognomen could play different roles. In Roman aristocratic families it was hereditary (at least in the Republican period and in the early Empire), as in the Claudii Pulchri, Cornelii Scipiones, Iulii Caesares, and was imitated by other families of different descent, Calpurnii Pisones, Licinii Crassi, but other families did not follow the same guidelines. For example, Fannii, Annii, Pompeii and Licinii branches carried different cognomina and Antonii, Opimii, Vinicii, Vitelii did not even have cognomen. In the Empire, it could serve to distinguish members of the same family too. Not to mention the polyonymous.

So, sometimes it will look like a surname (or a second surname), sometimes a nickname and sometimes a given name. Roman Naming Practices are different. Un saludo. Pd. Spanish naming sistem is articulated around three elements too ;) --Romulanus (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I went ahead and removed it. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Change of name by adoption edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome

Hello. For some Romans, we know their names by birth and adoption (p. e. Tiberius (Q1407)). Roman nomen gentilicium (P2359), Roman cognomen (P2365) and gens (P5025) properties can be filled in with two values (at least). If I want to qualify both values (with has characteristic (P1552)), which value should I set? I think that adoption (Q180472) is suitable for adoption, but there is no one item with the meaning of at birth. What do you think?

On the other hand, what is the point of these restrictions on gens property? Thanks. --Romulanus (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Romulanus: I think at birth should be assumed as the default and implicit qualifier for every name value ; we could however add start time (Q24575110) and end time (Q24575125) in case we know them. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

But then we encounter the issue of polyonomy, where an individual assumes anothers gentile name in return for receiving an inheritance. (It was a relatively common phenomena in the 2nd century AD.) FWIW, currently there is no entry in Wikidata for this property. -- Llywrch (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jahl de Vautban: Thanks. I had not thought of it (the default option, I mean).

@Llywrch: Not every Roman polyonomy was a polyonomy because of an inheritance.

By the way, I found the point of restriction. has cause (P828) is used for adoptions instead of has characteristic (P1552). --Romulanus (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Romulanus: you are right. But most of the instances I've had to wrestle with tend to involve testamentary adoption, so I forgot about that. -- Llywrch (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Llywrch: To resolve the lack, the item testamentary adoption can be created and used in the qualifier has cause (P828) for the values of the properties gens (P5025), Roman nomen gentilicium (P2359) and so on in case they're inherited. --Romulanus (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Romulanus: the problem with this approach is that the reason for polyonomy is not always firmly known. Sometimes we are told by a contemporary, sometimes it's clear from examination, but often it's a process of weighing the possibilities & making a guess. (Or an expert relies on his reputation & indulges in a lot of handwaving. It's very easy to get lost in the weeds when it comes to prosopography.) -- Llywrch (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Llywrch: It is enough that there is a firm positive case for the item to be justified, I mean. In fact, it was the point I made as a premise at the beginning: that both should be known, adoptive and at birth. Un saludo. --Romulanus (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is "unknown" a possible value to enter in this case? By this, I don't mean a null value (which might encourage someone to casually add an erroneous value), or a string, but acknowledging "yes, there should be a value here, but all sources state it is not known". If so, then there should be no problem. -- Llywrch (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

legatus legionis (Q1404897) edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

What qualifier can be used to say the province in which a legatus legionis (Q1404897) works? I've used location (P276), but I don't think it's quite accurate. Nor would of (P642) be very appropriate because it would have the effect of making him the governor of the province, and would be mistaken with legatus Augusti pro praetore (Q158648). --Romulanus (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Romulanus: applies to jurisdiction (P1001) maybe ? --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jahl de Vautban: Thank you. --Romulanus (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Q26187474 and Q26196891 edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome

Hello. Following a discussion on Romulanus talk's page, I propose that we:

a) merge Q26187474 with Vettius (Q32979456), because it's most probably only a nomen (Q3760158) ; the fact that we found it in first position is due to how praenomen (Q1240901) fell in disuse in late antiquity (Q217050) (special ping @Epìdosis:, since you created it);
b) do something with Q26196891, because it's certainly not a praenomen (Q1240901), and I don't think modern researchers ever thought it was. Its nature however isn't as clear cut as the above Vettius (Q32979456): for quite a time it was thought to be an equivalent to Flavius (Q32979165), but nowadays research tends to consider it like a title (Q216353). Some reads : [2] [3].

--Jahl de Vautban (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

The proper meaning of Flavius is a personal bug-a-boo. In the 4th & 5th centuries, it had become a title, not a praenomen; by that point praenomina had become obsolescent, if not extinct. As one authority put it, "Flavius" was in some ways similar to the usage "Mister" in the 17th & 18th centuries, a title of honor for people who weren't nobility, but gentry in some form; this can be determined by the form "Fl." instead of "Flavius" in the primary sources. (Calling Senator like Quintus Aurelius Symmachus (Q355720) "Flavius Symmachus" would be taken as at best a faux pas & at worst an insult.) However, people who aren't as informed about the Later Roman Empire mistake it as part of the person's name. I try to combat this misinformation on en.wikipedia, but the misinformation is wide-spread beyond Wikipedia. -- Llywrch (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Llywrch: yes I think this is the first read I've mentionned. The author aknowledge that his opinion is a huge challenge to decennies of prosopographical research considering "Flavius" as a nomen; anyway the mininum we can do is stating and sourcing the claim that it is a title and not something else. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

What would you add at Q1174079#P2358, if anything? Where would an item for "Vettius" go? --- Jura 18:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jura1: I'll keep Roman praenomen (P2358), but with "unknow value". — Obviously I'll intend on removing every claim of Roman praenomen (P2358)Q26187474 before the merge. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

once merged, where would it go? --- Jura 18:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Every occurrence of Roman praenomen (P2358)Q26187474 will be replaced by Roman nomen gentilicium (P2359)Vettius (Q32979456). --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I would delete Q26187474 because it's obviously a mistake. --Romulanus (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, in that case: no merge. I don't think Q26196891 should be merged either. If it is a praenomen or generally being misunderstood as a praenomen, I don't mind having an item about that. --- Jura 11:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fine with me for deleting Q26187474. As for Q26196891, it will not be merged, we'll keep it. We just need to figure the best way to model its nature, according to past and present researches. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

About Q26196891, I've been searching several sources without success. For instance, nothing is said in the two sources provided at the beginning; neither here nor Paulys Realenzyklopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (Q1138524). I think it's another mistake. --Romulanus (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have requested the deletion [4] [5] --Romulanus (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Check import edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome! This morning I've started an import of statements about 3428 ancient places from ToposText (Q87068904). There may be some wrong matches (i.e. statements going in the wrong item, e.g. Esquilina (Q3538789) instead of correct Esquiline Hill (Q211233)). If you notice something strange, please not revert, but report the case in my user talk page. Thank you all in advance, --Epìdosis 11:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Update: after some deep reflection, I decided to entirely revert the part of the import I had already done because the percentage of imprecise matches (especially ancient city with modern city) was too high; in the next days a Mix'n'match catalog of ToposText place ID (P8068) will be imported and you will be able to contribute to a more precise match. Thank you all for the patience. Good night, --Epìdosis 22:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Concept of insulae: insula (Q827617) vs. Insula (Q28228887) edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome

Hi all, I'm working on a Roman city-modeling Wikidata project and noticed the modeling on the concept of insulae is not clear: shouldn't there be one Q-number associated with the concept of a Roman apartment building and a different Q-number for the concept of a Roman city block (the second number conflates these)? I'm a relatively new editor, so open to advice and guidance by those of you who are more experienced: any complaints if I change the second Q-number (Q28228887) to strictly designate the concept of a city block since the first number is designated already for apartment insulae? Ahc84 (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

No complaint. --Epìdosis 20:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

No objection here either. -- Llywrch (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Actually both items should be merged. Having two concepts, one for the building and the other for the block, is not Roman, but modern. The proof is that they used the same word. If you are going to do a Roman city-modeling Wikidata, you should only use insula (Q827617). --Romulanus (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Epìdosis, Llywrch, Romulanus: for the feedback. I'm aware that the ancients used the same word for both concepts, but the problem is how to model something like the excavations at Dura-Europos (which is actually the specific city I am working on). At Dura, the city is orthogonally gridded, and thus we know the boundaries of individual insula 'blocks'--but these did not always contain insulae as in apartment buildings. I want to be able to model that Block K2 at Dura as an 'instance of' insula (block) but not imply that it is also an apartment building (since in this case it is unexcavated and was likely not an apartment building based on surrounding comparanda). Further thoughts? Ahc84 (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think then that you should follow Jahl de Vautban's suggestion mentioned below. --Romulanus (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I disagree with the argument of Romulanus. Yes, there is the "Roman concept", but there is also the material/historic reality which we need to take account of (I actually can think of at least a few items that don't describe a "Roman" concept but a modern one). However, for a thing as widespread as urbanism, I wonder if it really useful to create civilisation-based subclasses: do we really need insula (Q28228887) when we can use city block (Q1348006)? Furthermore, I imagine that parts of Dura are Greek in their origin, therefore can the term "insula" be applied to them or shouldn't we need a Greek equivalent? --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, i left this comment unsaved by misake on my screen so pardon me if I quickly take into account other feedbacks only at the end. IMHO, you should always separate concept, so insula (Q827617) and insula (Q28228887) are fine to be separate somehow, but you should clean them up. Which IDs refer to the apartment building and which one to the concept of city block? I have no time to help you but it's a surgical operation, and not sure what to do if they describe both concepts. Some articles I have opened clearly refer to the building. Now, I read Jahl de Vautban's suggestion and I feel it might be correct, but again double check all the IDs and articles. Also, if they encompass both concept, what should we do?--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Should we use different from (P1889) also? is there any way to work maybe with lexemes (a field I totally ignore because of lack of time) to highlight/encode that the two terms are somehow related but they are different concept?--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

disclaimer: I am working with Ahc84 on this project. It seems to me that insula (Q28228887) was likely an empty batch creation. Someone later added the description of "city block" perhaps to disambiguate it from insula (Q827617). I agree with Jahl de Vautban that the items should not be merged--we should distinguish insula in the sense of apartment building from the sense of site block. However, I notice too that people working on Pompeii used their own unique definition of insula with insula (Q26960982) for different site subdivisions (including apartments and lots of other built structures). See [here] for examples of structures in Pompeian insulae. But I wonder if it is useful to have too many ad hoc definitions?? I also wonder if remodelling these definitions of insula might affect existing statements in other projects (such as Pompeii). Valeriummaximum (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Over the years, I started to appreciate very specific concepts, they are fine if you describe them correctly with the right use of classes in a correct hierarchy and with a proper functional insertion in other items. So generally speaking (sorry I cannot dig right now), especially if there is also some specific ID, we could keep an item for the insulae of Pompei. My suspicion was that it was used to describe the items of the portions of the site and it is. We could maybe put more instances hinting more it's a subdivision of a "museum" somehow, or something like that, but it should be probably kept.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I absolutely agree with you re Pompeii; I think there is a proper historical reason for using their own term. My concern is that, since Pompeian insula (Q26960982) is listed as a subdivision of insula (Q28228887), if we edit the definitions of insula (Q28228887), we might be interfering with the ontologies that other people have used for their own sites. So I agree that we need to distinguish two concepts of insula, but I am just worried about the surgical process of how to do it, making sure the IDs and definitions and urls match for each definition (as you said), but also make sure that changes don't change existing statements involving these concepts. I'm also fairly new to wikidata so just want to get a sense of what is the best community practiceValeriummaximum (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

It probably won't interfere that much, since insula (Q28228887) is only linked to insula (Q26960982). I went ahead and added two statements ; next question is: should insula (Q28228887) only be about Roman insulae and, should it be the case, do we need Etruscan, Greek or whatever insula-equivalent? --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I personally worry that too many subdivisions of the term 'insula', even though conceptually good, might make the work of editing and querying data more difficult, especially since at the moment we have three items whose labels just say "insula". Valeriummaximum (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Different items or clarification? edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome I think it may be of some interest to the members of the Wikiproject.

The same item is used for the Roman city and for the archaeological site. I'm thinking of places like Tarraco, Barcino, Celsa, Itálica ... (not only in Hispania, of course) that they were Roman cities then and they are archaeological sites today. I think they should be in different items because they are different things. However, I have observed that many of the articles in the Wikipedias put both things together (Tarraco in esWiki). For example, I have indicated that difference in Celsa (Q5760255) with the property subject has role (P2868) (first I used statement is subject of (P805), but I have already realized that it is not correct), although I can't quite see what the difference is with object has role (P3831) (I have read this) nor if what I have done is understood in the same way by everyone. The point is that the Roman city is Roman and the site belongs to a modern country and territorial entity and I cannot think of another way to clarify it. --Romulanus (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Pd. Italica (Q658893) is another example. --Romulanus (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Tricky questions. Should we have one, two or three items? Which one should link Wikipedia? How to maintain them going forward?

I think @Bouzinac: reviewed and/or rearranged some a while ago.

BTW P2868 seems correctly used on Celsa. Occasionally, I confuse it with P3831 too. --- Jura 15:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm unsure if they really are two different things : for me it's an unique settlement which went through various occupations phases over time, its current ruinous state being the later in date. I would avoid splitting any of such in multiples Qids unless there is an interwiki needing the distinction and go with start time (P580) and end time (P582) as qualifiers for the various properties needing clarification. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thanks for your opinions. --Romulanus (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I think it is two different concepts : the old city : info on when it was founded, demolished etc. And the archeologist concept : when did an archeologist discover, when did it open, etc. These cover very different time range, thus I'd like to see them splitted into for instance 'city X' and 'city X (archeologic)'. A merge might be done but complexifies greatly the sparql for lambda users. Bouzinac ^{💬●✒️●💛} 23:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

There is currently a new property proposal related to this at Wikidata:Property_proposal/archaeological_site_of. --- Jura 10:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Domitia Magna edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome I ping in case someone can report it to bgWiki.

Q12278989 is made up. I don't know from where, but Gnaeus Domitius Afer (Q868066) had no offspring [he adopted brothers Gnaeus Domitius Lucanus (Q35691900) and Gnaeus Domitius Tullus (Q684275)] and the wife of Marcus Junius Silanus (Q1233616) is not known. I would appreciate if someone could communicate it to bgWiki so that the item can be deleted later. Thank you. --Romulanus (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Around that time there was an editor (now banned) who fabricated a number of biographical articles on non-existent people, many of which have been translated to other Wikipedias. (I have been trying to track his contributions & identify those which are complete hoaxes from those that have some basis in fact.) I don't know if this article was written by the same person -- I don't see anything that clearly proves he wrote it -- but this does emphasize a need to coordinate between the different language projects so that when a hoax is found in one, other projects are alerted & can act appropriately. -- Llywrch (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I changed the P31 of the item. As far as Wikidata is concerned, I think that solves it. bgwiki has an embassy at bg:Уикипедия:Посолство. Alternatively, maybe @Nikola Tulechki: can help you. --- Jura 17:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I posted it on bgWiki village pump. Nikola Tulechki (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Romulanus, Llywrch, Jura, after a brief discussion on bgwiki, the article has been deleted. Don't know about Q12278989 itself—perhaps the change in P31 is, indeed, enough—but it seems to me that it would be best to also delete P22 (father), P25 (mother), P26 (spouse), P40 (child) relationships from it, Gnaeus Domitius Afer (Q868066), Marcus Junius Silanus (Q1233616), and Lucius Junius Silanus Torquatus (Q1713818). Otherwise, now Domitia still pops up in the infoboxes (unless we implement some checks for Q35779580 in P31, I guess).
— Luchesar • T/C 11:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have requested its deletion. --Romulanus (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Split and/or merge; one, two, three... items edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

Some ancient Romans items come from Wikipedia articles that use sources that are now out of date. For example, Paulys Realenzyklopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (Q1138524) has outdated all previous works including Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (Q1210336) which has been widely used by Wikipedias. This causes duplicates and mergers. Some examples are here: Wikidata:WikiProject Ancient Rome/errors. I now think that calling them a mistake was wrong. Others are actually genuine contemporary doubts in need of clarification. Usually the doubts arise because scholars do not agree on who held an office. I propose here to treat them according to four different typology. This could help us clean the page of suspected errors. --Romulanus (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Romulanus: I've seen your message ; I'm trying to write a comprehensive reply but I've already restarted it twice, so it might take a few more days. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Item A + Item B edit

Two public offices assigned to two different people in outdated works. Today only one person is believed. There are Wikipedias that have two articles, one article to one of the office or one article with the two offices. I think that here we should have three items: one for item A, another for item B and a third for item A + item B because it is arbitrary to assign item A + item B to item A or item B. I think that for the cases that are still disputed today the same should also be done. They will also need property said to be the same as (P460) shared by all three.

The reverse is just the same case of this. --Romulanus (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Example. Lucius Scribonius Libo (Q2440676), tribune of the plebs, and Lucius Scribonius Libo (Q3622124), praetor. Father and son respectively. However, today L. Scribonius Libo is just one person. The plWiki article merges tribune and praetor and is arbitrarily linked to tribune. --Romulanus (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Item A from Item B edit

Similar, but not the same. Here an ancient Roman holding more than two public offices, but one of them was formerly (or recently) thought of a different person. Again, different cases in the Wikipedias according to the source used. I think that two items are enough here (except if different offices are splitting). One item that accumulates most of the offices and another for splitting. They will also need property said to be the same as (P460).

The reverse is just the same case of this. --Romulanus (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Example. According to Broughton, Marcus Minucius (Q101229276), quaestor in 509 BC, could be the same person as Marcus Minucius Augurinus (Q1236570). However, both are still different. --Romulanus (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Item A ∩ Item B edit

In this case, scholars do not agree on who held what office. I believe that these items should not have said to be the same as (P460) since they are not the same but they coincide in one or more offices and that it is enough to indicate it with a qualifier in office. However, I cannot find a qualifier that fits this. --Romulanus (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Different names edit

Sometimes the names can be totally or partially different. I think that we should only have one item indicating this particularity. --Romulanus (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Example. The praetor of the year 167 BC Gnaeus Fulvius (Q11924400). According to Smith, a Gillo son of Quintus Fulvius Gillo (Q20100604), but in RE and Broughton without cognomen and related to the Fulvii Flacci (grandson of Gnaeus Fulvius Flaccus (Q1533130)). --Romulanus (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Comments edit

@Romulanus: so I got to think about the system you described above. First of all, I think the main difficulty that we are facing is the fact that we are a somewhat different project that Wikipedia, but the technical impossibility of having multiple sitelinks forces us to model their content, which is naturally not a very optimal, at time contradicting, way to deal with an already complex subject such as Roman prosopography. To rationalise, I think we should treat the various Wikipedia as sources, naturally of weak quality but as sources nonetheless, when we are confronted with possible duplicates and to confront its content with more reputable sources. In the end, we are not stating anything new about Roman prosopography but only modeling it as it already exists elsewhere (I do admit that I sometime go out of my way and try to correct sources directly on WD, which I shouldn't be doing). That being said, I do think that I mostly agree with the above typology, perhaps with some minor tweaks.

First, regarding the sharing of external identifiers, I think that in the case of Item A + Item B, any external identifier of item C should also be present on A and B.
In the case of Item A from Item B, if any source is more affirmative than sourcing circumstances (P1480)possibly (Q30230067), we should be working with the schema Item A + Item B and create an item C.
For Item A ∩ Item B, we could perhaps use partially coincident with (P1382)?

Anyway it is indeed very complex topic. We ought to be precise in the referencing of the various statement when we are dealing with possible duplicate, and state the reference used as much as possible. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, @Jahl de Vautban. Thanks for your comment. The point is what to do when faced with multiple items that are related. The proposal tried to structure the different options according to prosopographic criteria (public office, kinship...) to identify individuals. The great problem with prosopography in the ancient world is that it is almost an impossible science. Trying to make Wikidatic sense to the doubts, proposals, conjectures, deductions or, why not, fantasies of scholars is a very difficult task.

I agree that we/Wikidata should take Wikipedia articles as the basis for items and relate them to the sourcing circumstances (P1480) and partially coincident with (P1382) properties where appropriate. (I am not clear about the use of the property different from (P1889) with homonyms). Another issue is that there are no Wikipedic articles to link the items to. For this, it would be necessary to consider the advantages and disadvantages of having one or more items applying criteria of reliability in the sources. Unfortunately, it is not possible to control the appearance of spurious characters coming from places of doubtful rigor (when the origin is indicated and it can be checked).

I am not so in agreement that the items share the external identifiers. (I would agree in the opposite case, an item with two or more identifiers). Each identifier corresponds to an individual characterized mainly by his/her public office or priesthood and secondarily by his/her kinship. That "unique" individual has to correspond to an item that is not necessarily "unique". That is, id_01 ==> item_01 / id_02 ==> item_02 or id_01 ==> item_01 / id_02 ==> item_01. Then we/Wikidata internally relate those items with the corresponding properties. In the case of the example that I mentioned above, the Scribonii Curiones, and assuming that we had a Smith identifier (could we have a Smith identifier? Smith website), Item A (tribune of the plebs) and item B (praetor) would have the corresponding id of Smith and item C (A + B) the corresponding of the DPRR and the three properties that relate them, just as we/Wikidata do (or should do) with the items of the articles in the Wikipedias.

In any case, I believe that we should discuss the most complex or difficult cases to model on the corresponding discussion pages, as well as trying to specify the information as best as possible with the qualifiers like you mentioned.

Saludos. --Romulanus (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Another possible hoax, Quintus Caecilius edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome because someone speaks the language of the Wikipedias that have an article with this character.

Another possible hoax. In this case, Quintus Caecilius (Q1174086). Currently, the article is up for deletion on enWiki. The source provided in the other articles is this, but the seminal article was the enWiki one (without sources). Neither The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (Q31350139) nor Paulys Realenzyklopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (Q1138524) mention this person, which is already a clue. What was the change in instance of (P31) to indicate this particularity? --Romulanus (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Romulanus: I think I understood what happened. There was a Quintus Caecilius tr. pl. in the year 316, but that is the year 316 since the foundation of Rome, so 439/438 BC (ca). It's indeed the same person as Quintus Caecilius (Q4218692). I would keep it as it is for now: currently, it exists because they are Wikipedia pages linked to it. We can either ask for deletion on each wiki or simply transform them into redirection to the real Quintus Caecilius. Once it's all settled, we'll be able to merge it. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm seeing I forgot to answer you on the previous topic, I'll try to change that over the week-end! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jahl de Vautban: Interesting! I think you are right. Taking advantage of the proximity of the dates, this (fictitious) person was made the uncle of Lucius Caecilius Metellus Denter (Q521498). I will try to explain it in the enWiki deletion proposal. --Romulanus (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't be so generous. The person who created the original article is a banned user who created a number of articles on en.wikipedia about people who didn't exist. Some may be simple errors as Jahl de Vautban points out. Others were clear fabrications, which require a lot of research in order to successfully nominate for deletion. (The give-away clue is that this banned user would cite one of Christian Settipani's books -- which are very lengthy -- without providing the page numbers. About as helpful as citing Pliny's Natural History without providing the book & section numbers.) I've spent a lot of time cleaning up after this person, & there's still a lot of his mess needing to be cleaned up.

At this point, wouldn't it be more efficient to just recycle the various pages from the false tribune of 316 into the true tribune of 439/8? No wiki has the real one except WPRU, which incidentally doesn't have any page about the false one. Correct the date, get ride of the dubious source and of the unproved kinship, and we have a page about a real person. It can be done in any language — we'll only need to modify the ancestry tree in WPPT. Then merge the Qid and problem solved. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

The item was deleted on WPEN, what do we do now? Shall we ask on the other WP to delete it as well? --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I went ahead and edited the various Wikipedia to get ride of the 316 tribune ; I also merged the Qids. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Fake Atias edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago37 comments4 people in discussion

A while ago I found these two women, Q12272788 and Q12272789. As far as I'm capable of figuring out they are totaly fictional, without even any sources speculating on their existence.*Treker (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Treker! Yeah I think you're right. In the source invoked, Syme speaks indeed of a "third Atia" but she's one generation younger. Confusion seems to arise from the L. Pinarius and Q. Pedius cited in Suet. Caes. 83. as the grandson of Caesar's sister. If they are from Julia Minor, then you need to conjecture two more Atiae. But even in Smith they are given as grandchilds of Julia Maior. Zmeskal actually think that they are the sons, not grandsons, of Julia Maior, for if Q. Pedius is Quintus Pedius (Q255465), the consul of 43, he would have been too young for this office was he a grandson of Julia. But anyway, Atia Prima and Tertia are very probably fake. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jahl de Vautban: Can we have them deleted somehow?*Treker (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@*Treker: well, here come the tricky part. Currently thoses pages exist because they are wiki links supporting them. We need first to ask for deletion on the Bulgarian and Serbian wikis. We should probably aims for the local Bulgarian and Serbian deletion request page and follow their rules. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jahl de Vautban: Do you know of anyone who can read and write Serbian or Bulgarian? I sadly do not know anyone and I'm not sure where to seak help.*Treker (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@*Treker: well no, and others members of this project don't have any Babel saying that either. But supposedly you should be able to ask in English? I mean, it's also in their interest to get ride of false articles. I've done it in the past and it went smoothly, but it was not a deletion request. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jahl de Vautban: You don't think they will mind if I ask in English? I don't want to offend anyone.*Treker (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@*Treker: sorry, I've missed this message. Well, some could take offense ; the fact that you are coming from Wikidata might also be ill-viewed by others. We actually have a full list of things that should be corrected and that we are all too afraid to ask for. So I can't blame you if you just want to add it there.

However keeping them in this list won't do us any good and as I have said above, it's also the very interest of the various wiki to have accurate articles. If you prefer, I can go and ask them to do so. I think the case has arguments serious enough to at least try. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jahl de Vautban: I would appreciate it in this case. I tried to speak to somone once regarding one of those pages on one of the Wikis and I think I communicated very poorly.*Treker (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@*Treker: it's asked: see the Bulgarian and Serbian request for deletion. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jahl de Vautban: Thank you so much Jahl.*Treker (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@*Treker: update, the Serbian page was deleted, still waiting for the Bulgarian two. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome

I think it's important to proceed as suggested above: #Domitia_Magna. One shouldn't rely on other wikis fixing these (or not). Given that the items have been there for years, I'd probably avoid deleting them even if delete on all other wikis. --- Jura 04:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Seems I omitted spelling it out above and the item is gone now: that was adding a instance of (P31) value of possibly invalid entry requiring further references (Q35779580) in preferred rank: [6] [7] (done for these two). --- Jura 05:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jura1: Why should they be kept?*Treker (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

To avoid that people who come across them have to research them once more. Essentially the same reason why we have deprecated statements at Wikidata. --- Jura 05:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jura1: So they should be listed as prosopographical phantom (Q64643615)s?*Treker (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'd proceed simply as stated above: add possibly invalid entry requiring further references (Q35779580). --- Jura 05:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wow, that is a useful quality to know about. I've encountered entries over the years that I know are due to articles on fictitious subjects or hoaxes, & adding this to the corresponding Wikidata element would help with this problem. -- Llywrch (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Jura1: for this value, I as well didn't know it existed. Ultimately however I disagree with you and I think we should actively seek the deletion of those fake items as well. The odds that someone come across them are, I believed, close to non-existent: unlike other cases of things thought to exist by then scholarship (e. g. Vocanus Ager (Q11954927)), you'll find absolutely no source about those two Atiae. There are inexistent, save for BG/SRWP and dubious website replicating its content. Currently the Wikipedia link is the only thing thak keep those Qid above Wikidata notoriety threshold anyway : they are not sourced by anything nor linked to others pages. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Jahl, I don't think it is very likely that keeping two "Wikipedia Originals" would be super helpful.*Treker (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

So all with the same name found elsewhere are unrelated to the two above? In that case, we should at least make items for these. --- Jura 14:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean @Jura1:?*Treker (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I'm not sure I'm following you as well. Basically Atia (Q231696) and Atia (Q25338418) are the only Atia attested for this period. Others are made-up and with 0 evidence, neither ancient nor modern, that they existed. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Searching for "Atia Balba Prima" and "Atia Balba Tertia" does find some people. I guess Tertia could be Q25338418. --- Jura 08:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

That is what I just explained. On one hand Q25338418 is well attested, but as the wife of Q251964, as the mother of Q544421 and nothing else ; we aren't even fully sure she is the sister of Q231696. On the other hand Prima and Tertia seem to have been created to provide a mother for Q255465 and Q382127, except there is absolutely no evidence they existed at all. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't really matter if the person existed or how much evidence there is that the person existed. That is only relevant for the rank of the P31=Q5 statement. --- Jura 10:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jura1: So anybody can create ancestors for people based on nothing but their own imagination? Because that is what you are endorsing and I firmly believe it is wrong on every level. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Strange. Which part of my comment lead you to conclude that? Maybe you could walk me through the steps. --- Jura 10:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jura1: just above, when you said that "It doesn't really matter if the person existed or how much evidence there is that the person existed". We are not speaking here of some mythological ancestors that could have been real or not. In the case of Q12272788 and Q12272789, we are speaking of persons straight-out invented in 2010 from a faulty and personnal reconstruction, unbacked by any source. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

The question is not if they existed, the question is if there is a reference for the statement. I don't think you should added them as if they existed nor make up any data. Wikidata is just a secondary database. You can use ranks to assess references. --- Jura 11:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jura1: Once the articles are deleted there won't be any "references".*Treker (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Did you read my answer to your earlier comment? --- Jura 18:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jura1: Yes, obviously, they just didn't make any sense, and based on the other replies here I don't seem to be the only one who doesn't get what you're trying to say.*Treker (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Never mind then. Happy editing. --- Jura 08:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome

All the linked articles are now deleted, should we go ahead and do the same to the items?*Treker (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@*Treker: I completely forgot about those, sure we can go ahead! Next step is to create two requests for deletions, explaining that we got them deleted on their respective Wiki and that they now fail the notability policies ; want to do it ? --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Parameters for names edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion

Would it be possible to add some kind of parameter similar to "Roman praenomen", "Roman nomen gentilicium" and "Roman cognomen" that could work for women's names? Many women didn't have praenomen or cognomen like men but instead things like Major and Minor or Prima, Secunda, Tertia.... etc.*Treker (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not really in favor of multiple name properties, it would just be tedious from a request point of view (I'm not even sure if we should really have Roman agnomen (P2366) and signum (P5438)). For Prima, Secunda, Tertia…, they can be paralleled by Primus, Secundus, Tertius and so on. Epigraphically those cognomen are attested. For Maior/Minor, are they really use outside the literary authors ? --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jahl de Vautban: As far as I know Major and Minor were used as part of women's actual names.*Treker (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome

Comment. Maior, Minor, Tertia (Tertulla), Quarta, Quinta (all of them documented in the republican period) are not cognomina. It's a misconception to consider them as such. They are words used 'ad hoc' to distinguish some homonymous women from others. In modern historiography its use has been established and extended to other homonyms not necessarily republican. In the republican period, the vast majority of women (and, in particular, all the women of the patrician-plebeian aristocracy) had no cognomen. On the other hand, Maior is documented as a cognomen in the imperial period (e. g. Gaius Sabucius Maior Caecilianus (Q12276036)). I have not found any examples of Minor. Some cognomina were used arbitrarily for men and women. In that case, for instance, has characteristic (P1552)feminine (Q1775415) and has characteristic (P1552)masculine (Q499327) in the same item. And in line with this, I think that the creation of different items for homonymous praenomen and cognomen or cognomen and agnomen has been unnecessary. For instance, Cossus (Q29981766) and Cossus (Q30232680) can be put into a single item with instance of (P31)praenomen (Q1240901) and instance of (P31)cognomen (Q777342) and so on. --Romulanus (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have to personally disagree on merging cognomen and praenomen (and also praenomen and nomen such as Appius) who were the same. We have separate items for given names and family names who are the same and I think it should stay that way. Merging them may cause issue if there are actual articles for the names in some Wikipedias.*Treker (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

In modern historiography, it is said "it is a praenomen used as a nomen gentilicium (eg, Appius, Publius ...)" or "cognomen used as a praenomen (eg, Cossus, Paullus ...)" and so on. They are, strictly speaking, the same, only that their use is diverse. If articles existed for the different concepts, then we would have no choice but to have two items. If not (and I see that it is most if not all), there is no reason to have two (or three) items. --Romulanus (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's not just an issue of two articles per name, its also that many articles are only about one use, for example when a page is named "Appius (praenomen)" or "Drusus (cognomen)" or "Octavius (nomen)" you know the article isn't going to be about the general name but about the praenomen, cognomen or praenomen. I personally do not support mergers for names because of this reason. I only support mergers if the names are identical for both use and near identical in spelling (for example Paullus and Paulus).*Treker (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ah, ok, I didn't understand you. That is not an obstacle. There are many items that have multiple values for instance of (P31). Roman Republic (Q17167) and Roman Empire (Q2277) are considered both historical period (Q11514315) and historical country (Q3024240). That does not induce anyone to create separate items and all Wikipedias articles are linked here regardless of consideration. The same applies to Roman names. Appius is a praenomen, but sometimes it functions as nomen gentilicium (eg, Sextus Appius Severus (Q24951240), father-in-law of Lucius Ceionius Commodus (Q899739)); Cossus is a cognomen, but sometimes functions as a praenomen (eg, Cossus Cornelius Lentulus Gaetulicus (Q548539), consul in 1 BC). It is clear that we are not going to agree, but let other

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome have their say and see what happens. --Romulanus (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back, @Romulanus:! I am conflicted on the issue, but I think that I slightlty favor *Treker's view, mainly so because it is done this way for modern naming practise. On the other hand however, the use of the tria nomina properties already puts us at odds with what is done elsewhere, so I am not sure that this is the best argument. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@*Treker, Romulanus: some (wrong) merges happened yesterday with the various Qid dealing with the name Agrippa, whose situation may be of some interest for the ongoing discussion. Currenlty, we have one item for the praenomen, one item for the cognomen and another for both (leaving aside Agrippa as modern first name, family name and disambigation page). None of the three of interest to us have a declaration linking to one another, which is a problem. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ As far as Wikidata is concerned and the mess that having multiple items of closely related or overlapping topics can entail, I think that, if a Wikipedia does not have individual articles for each option, it's best to have a single item in Wikidata. In particular, Agrippa's example is significant as to how far the system can be developed. For the sake of abundance, deWiki says that "Agrippa ist ein römisches Cognomen, männlicher Vorname und moderner Familienname", which the automatic translator tells me that for deWiki it is a cognomen, a first name and a surname. In other words, deWiki takes Agrippa as a whole and it is clear that it does not correspond to Agrippa (Q3221235), the cognomen. I'm now closer to a loose general rule that helps us consider case by case. --Romulanus (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi again @Romulanus:, I noticed today that you created Maior (Q106902304) some months ago, as you stated above should this really be listed as a cognomen or should we try to maybe get generational suffix (P8017) to work for it?*Treker (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Maior is a cognomen as I said above. If we are not going to merge the names used as praenomen and cognomen in a single item, neither should we do it with those used as cognomen and "generational suffix". (Incidentally I will say that they cannot even be considered full "generational suffix" because many times they are used in the same generation). Kajanto, in his "The Latin Cognomina", does not consider the forms Minor, Maior and others as cognomens (of the republican period) and this is done in the works that deal with the matter (even from the 19th century). However, in individuals like Sextus Iulius Maior, Gaius Sammucius Maior or Gaius Sabucius Maior Caecilianus, Maior is a cognomen like any other. These edits don't even conform to what the user himself has said in this discussion, so I will proceed to undo them. --Romulanus (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Romulanus: You're being astonishingly confusing right now, you explicitly stated above that "Prima, Secunda... etc and Major" are not cognomina and now you're insisting it is? And why are you refering to me as "the user"?*Treker (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is no confusion. In the same paragraph I say: "On the other hand, Maior is documented as a cognomen in the imperial period", something I repeat in the paragraph prior to your intervention. The series Minor, Maior, Tertia ... are not cognomens. No scholar considers them that way. On the other hand, Maior is a cognomen in imperial times. It is the same as saying: Longus, Metellus, Agrippa, Gallus ... are cognomens. On the other hand, Agrippa is a praenomen in the early Republic. Where is the confusion? --Romulanus (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Romulanus: There was confusion regardless if there should be or not, because I was confused, probably because I had forgoten most of the earlier conversation above, thats my bad, I am sorry, I feel dumb. Regardless I would like to ask you that you refered to me as "Trekker" or "you" instead of "the user" in conversations if that is ok.*Treker (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@*Treker. You shouldn't give so much importance to "user". I use translation tools to write here. I suppose it shows. In doing so, I put generic names and then I replace them with the particular ones: users, items, places ... That "the user" passed me by as it has happened to me on occasions in other conversations with other words :o. That happened here.

Rereading my intervention again, perhaps I should have linked to the items, although I assumed that we were talking about the Maior-cognomen (with Q) and not the Maior-"suffix" (without Q); I also assumed that, although the same name can be used as praenomen, nomen, cognomen, agnomen, signum, supernomen, generational suffix (also prefix?), affectionate appellation, descriptive name or whatever, that all the diverse uses must have their own item, except perhaps the cognomen-agnomen pair. My fault. --Romulanus (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Property for PackHum Epigraphic Database? edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Does anyone know of an existing property for the PackHum Epigraphic database (https://epigraphy.packhum.org/)? If a property for the PH ID does not yet exist, would there be support from this group for requesting this property? Ahc84 (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC) @Valeriummaximum:Reply

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome

@Ahc84: it doesn't exist — yet. We have actually very few items and properties relative to epigraphy, comparatively to literary/papyrological texts (see Template:Ancient world properties). I would gladly support more integration of this kind of material; in fact there are actually lots of projects we could link to. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sure, we hoped to address the issue in the future, in Wikidata:Testi latini (the small project that we launched with User:Epìdosis) is also written somewhere there in some form. Originally this was one main target but the number of complicated Medieval authors was so high that we had to start later with the Latin texts.--Alessandro Marchetti (WMIT) (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

P27 with Q2277 edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome

Hi! Is there somewhere a recommendation stating that Q2277 shouldn't be used as country of citizenship (P27)? As it is occasionnaly used instead of Q1747689, I think it would be beneficial to write it down somewhere. Should we add it as a none-of constraint (Q52558054) on P27? --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Agree on both: we should write it down clearly in the page of our WikiProject and also add Q2277 as a none-of constraint (Q52558054) on P27. --Epìdosis 11:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have never used them but we need a standard, constraints and a guideline. I have trust in your choice.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not certain I understand the question, but Roman citizenship (which applies to both the Roman Republic & the Empire) works as follows. Not all individuals in Roman history were Roman citizens; you could be born, live & die in Roman territory yet never be a citizen. For example, the Apostle Paul was a Roman citizen, but none of the other people in the New Testament (for example Peter or Jesus) were necessarily Roman citizens -- & we know Paul was only because it is central to the actions in the last part of Acts. Roman Citizenship was strictly regulated, & was the cause for many conflicts, such as the Social Wars. For the most part, anyone from ancient World who does not have a tria nomina -- the three-part naming convention common during the period -- & died before AD 212 when the Constitutio Antoniniana was issued, was not a Roman citizen. Unless there is explicit evidence to the contrary. There are likely other factors that need to be taken into consideration, but those are the two primary considerations.

You can develop constraints & a guideline based on those criteria. -- Llywrch (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Llywrch: sorry, my initial comment was maybe too vague. My concern isn't about who is a Roman citizen, but how to model it in the most effective way. Currently the vast majority of Romans have country of citizenship (P27)Ancient Rome (Q1747689) (Rome as an atemporal state, regardless of its historical divisions), but a few have country of citizenship (P27)Roman Empire (Q2277) (a single historical division of the history of Rome). We don't have yet any guidelines regarding what should be used as country of citizenship (P27) for Romans, and this is a problem: contributors keep making change without any clear statement about what should be used. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I see what you are asking. IMHO, we should use the values Roman Empire (Q2277) & Roman Republic (Q17167), however we run into the problem of when is the division between Roman Empire & Republic? For that reason I'd favor Ancient Rome (Q1747689), just to avoid this complication. But then there is another complication: would the value of Q2277 possibly conflict with ethnic group (Q41710)? There are cases where the ethnicity & Roman citizenship could conflict, for example Plutarch who was a Roman citizen & a Greek. (If there is no constraint prohibiting this, then all is good.) -- Llywrch (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The reason I tried to add time period (P2348) to most people was to avoid anachronistic uses of P27. --- Jura 08:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Done --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Moved from the project page

"=== Citizenship === Items related to Ancient Romans should have country of citizenship (P27)Ancient Rome (Q1747689), that is Rome as an atemporal, continuous state, regardless of its historical divisions. Thus, Roman Republic (Q17167), Roman Empire (Q2277) or their subdivisions shouldn't be used.

@Jahl de Vautban: How does that reflect the discussion above? Personally, I'm fine with a none of constraint for any value. --- Jura 19:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jura1: well Epìdosis, Alexmar983 and ultimately Llywrch (as well as myself, so 4 person in total) agreed that Q1747689 should be used as a P27 — have I misread them? Also, in all honesty, I didn't really understood what you meant with your first message, so I just assumed it was a commentary, not a position. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Seems I missed part of your proposal. It's actually one to use Ancient Rome (Q1747689) for all, not to add one (or several values) as none of constraint.

Ultimately, I think @Llywrch: is correct: actually citizenship was limited to some people living in that time. I don't quite see how we could apply P27 to the others.

Personally, I prefer the current approach of using P2348. --- Jura 19:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

If people living inside the Roman Empire weren't Roman citizen (and thus didn't have the tria nomina), then they shouldn't have either Q1747689 or Q2277 or whatever historical subdivision. We can just state their P27 as "unknow value", though they probably had some kind of local citizenship tied to a specific city (or more). But that wasn't my concern. What I wanted to discuss is : what should we use as P27 value for Roman citizens? Currently Q1747689 is overwhelmingly used, so should we make that a guideline? --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Comment. I agree with @Jahl de Vautban:, especially to avoid the ambiguity of defining temporal limits, but more precisely because there is a continuity from the founding of the Urbs to, at least, the Theodosian division. Nor do I see the contradiction of using country of citizenship (P27) and time period (P2348) at the same time (although I suppose it is my understanding of English that works against me to understand the point). In any case, country of citizenship (P27)Ancient Rome (Q1747689) is only for Roman citizens and those who were not (even if they lived in the Roman State) would have another value or they would not have it because it's unknown or because we do not have an appropriate item. The guide, if written, should perhaps say "Roman citizens will have Ancient Rome as their nationality (country of citizenship (P27)Ancient Rome (Q1747689))." Something like this. P.S. The tria nomina is not an infallible rule to certify Roman citizenship. It is a phenomenon that extends to other Italic peoples and to many peregrini. Let them tell Emperor Claudius (Q1411) who had to legislate about it. --Romulanus (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Any idea who this is? edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic has an item for a Livia whom there doesn't seem to be any information on. Appearently mentioned by Shackleton Bailey in 1995 somewhere?*Treker (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The ultimate source seems to be Cicero, Epistulae ad Atticum, 7.8.3: Dolabellam video Liviae testamento cum duobus coheredibus esse in triente sed iuberi mutare nomen. --Epìdosis 17:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The book is Onomasticon to Cicero’s letters. I can try to have a look at it in the following days. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

She is only known for that mention of Cicero. --Romulanus (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Romulanus: In that case I know who it is, the DPRR item is a duplicate for another one that already has its own Wikidata item then.*Treker (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Any idea who or what this is? edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This item satyr (Q19610035) is described as a human, but the link to its Sandrart.net person ID seem to just add up to random mentions of satyrs.*Treker (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

It was bot-created without double-checking. It does indeed seems to refer to any satyr depicted in an artistic way ; I'd merge it with satyr (Q163709). --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Does Wikidata have something like "what links here"? edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia has the search option for ""Pages that link to "Foo", does Wikidata have something similar? I'd like to search for items that have "Country of citizenship: Ancient Rome" but which lack English names/descriptions.*Treker (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@*Treker: I would use queries:

#Ancient Romans without English labels
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P27 wd:Q1747689 .
  MINUS { ?item rdfs:label ?enlabel .
  FILTER(LANG(?enlabel) = 'en') . }
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE]". }
}
ORDER BY ?itemLabel

Try it!

#Ancient Romans without English descriptions
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P27 wd:Q1747689 .
  MINUS { ?item schema:description ?endesc .
  FILTER(LANG(?endesc) = 'en') . }
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE]". }
}
ORDER BY ?itemLabel

Try it!

--Epìdosis 20:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a bunch @Epìdosis:!*Treker (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

What to do when several Wikipedia articles in different languages uses mistaken names? edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The man Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Vatia (Q378683) is generally assumed to not have been named "Batiatus" as he's called by Plutarch, but instead "Vatia", but several Wikipedia pages still name him as "Lentulus Batiatus", and the Bulgarian article gives him the praenomen "Gaius" while the Turkish one uses "Quintus" (this is likely taken from Spartacus TV series on Starz).*Treker (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Any thoughts?*Treker (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@*Treker: same as above with the Atiae: we have to go on the local wikis and change them or have them changed by a local contributor ; it will help to have a few references under your hand to source the modifications though. Thoses references should also be used to source the claims on Wikidata as well, with adequate use of the deprecated rank in case one is false, to avoid recreation of the claim by a mindless bot.

(Also, don't be afraid to use {{Ping project|Ancient Rome}}, it's easy to miss a message in this page among the mass of modifications anywhere else

.) --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

The same? edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome Should these two Quirinus 1 2 be merged?*Treker (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

At first glance, they appear to be the same personage. -- Llywrch (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure. Based on their common identifier Hederich encyclopedia article (P2272), one is Curinus, the other Quirinus. But the source behind this property is quite old (1770), so perhaps there are further works on this. I'm only able to find informations about an Hercules Curinus in modern literature. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Cascae edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome

I think this AFD on en.Wiki is relevant to this project, since all the articles on this Servilius Casca (Q1491516) figure include the praenomen Gaius.*Treker (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

This mess of an article edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome

Sextus Curvius Lucanus (Q85854705) This article on French Wikipedia is an absolute mess, it seems to mix details about three men, Sextus Curvius Tullus (Q107638081), Gnaeus Domitius Lucanus (Q35691900) and Gnaeus Domitius Tullus (Q684275). In cases like these, what should the description say?*Treker (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

The item could still have been about one of them, but the sitelink moved elsewhere, with statements like these. --- Jura 05:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@*Treker: note that if he is an hoax, it might be a good idea to ask for its suppression. I think @Ursus: might be of help. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

The French article cites Christian Settipani without providing a page number -- about as useful as citing any large reference work without a page number. One of the tells I've found on en.wikipedia that this is the work of a banned user who would fabricate biographical articles under many different usernames. (Note: Settipani is otherwise a reliable source, & citations to his works with a page number are likely to be legitimate. So be careful about how you use this information.) I don't know what the procedure is here or at fr.wikipedia, but this article should be deleted as a HOAX. -- Llywrch (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Titus Flavius Sabinus, consul and nephew of Vespasian edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome Hi, I have found these two articles (1 & 2) on the Bulgarian Wikipedia whom I believe are one and the same man.*Treker (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, they are the same man. T. Flavius Sabinus was the nephew of Vespasian, according to the source cited in the English Wikipedia (Gavin Townend, "Some Flavian Connections", Journal of Roman Studies, 51 (1961), pp. 55f). The same user created both pages on bg.wikipedia 11 years ago, & never bothered to go back & check his work. -- Llywrch (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Minor issue with Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic ID edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome

The DPRR has some items for people who were technically born after the end of the Late Republic (such as Marcius Hortalus (Q16705384)), this creates a warning symbol on the ID. Maybe we could add "High Roman Empire" as an allowed constraint?*Treker (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The people listed in the DPRR are all from the Republican period, either because they are fully in it, or because part of their life was spent in that period. Thus, there is a non-zero possibility that this "Hortensius/Marcius" (whose name could have been anyone) was born in the republican period... from the point of view of the DPRR. Hence editions like this. On the other hand, the "warning symbols" refer to kinship, name and things like that, never to the historical period. --Romulanus (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

On the other hand, haven't you thought that the wrong one is you and not the DPRR? Maybe those identifications you have made (I deduce that for genealogical reasons) are not as accurate as you think. Roman prosopography is not an exact science and there may be different genealogical trees for the same family. The Hortensii-Marcii can be organized in two ways, maybe three. Could the DPRR follow one that does not correspond to the one you know? --Romulanus (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

While that is possible, I am fairly certain a number of people who I have come across on the site are now agreed to have probably been born after the end of the Republic. I'd also like to note Marcius Hortalus was not just "anyone" from prosopography, he is explicitly stated to be the orator Hortensius grandson in Tacitus and had children in the reign of Tiberius (whom he asked money from to provide for the children) but thats neither here nor there.*Treker (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@*Treker. Maybe I have explained myself wrong. It is the nomen that it can be anyone (Marcius or Hortensius), not the person.

A prosopographic project limited to individuals from the Republican period will only contain individuals from the Republican period. In the case of the DPRR, there is also the circumstance that it is not an original work, but rather a compilation of other works that address the prosopography of the republican period. Thus, all the individuals featured in the DPRR had a stage in their life in the Republican era ... from the DPRR's point of view; that is, from its sources. In addition, and for more information, there is no universally accepted date for the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Empire (31, 27, 23 BC), so there are individuals who are left in limbo and it will be up to each scholar to include it in one or the other or both.

In the case of Hortalus (I only put the cognomen because, although scholars are inclined to interpret "Marcius" in the work of Tacitus, which seems obvious to me for stylistic reasons, others still interpret it as "Marcus"), Tacitus indicates that he was a young senator with four children in the year 16 and that he was the grandson of the "orator". Nothing more. What "young" means to Tacitus is cause for doubt because he sometimes uses it for people under thirty and at other times for individuals in their forties. But, considering that he already had four children, scholars who have dealt with the subject put him around forty years of age. This gives a date of birth around 24 BC, which enters the republican period according to a chronology. The ultimate source of the DPRR is Zmeskal who, following Tacitus, makes him the son of the Hortensius mentioned as the son of the "orator". It is clear to me that Zmeskal is wrong (for chronological reasons) and that Hortalus is the grandson of the "orator" through a son or daughter of the speaker with Marcia.

Thus, I do not believe that there are individuals in the DPRR who do not belong to the republican period, but that it will depend on the interpretation of the sources. To indicate this there is the references section. --Romulanus (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Review of potential properties edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome + @Romulanus:

Hi there,

Would you support new properties based on :

1. Prosopographia Imperii Romani : a prosopographical database for roughly 15'000 Roman of the imperial era. The design and the search function seem to have been greatly improved between April and May. Each Roman has a unique id (ex. L. Allius Volusianus), but most don't have any information other than pointing to their PIR number, even the like of Hadrian.

2. Patrimonium : a database covering documents, people and place related to the imperial properties (so that may be 3 distinct properties). Each has its own unique ID. It has links toward Trismegistos and Pleiades but it also covers things that aren't to be found there.

I plan to request their creation but perhaps some have other ideas about it. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I like both of them quite a bit, I'm fully in suport.*Treker (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Prosopographia Imperii Romani is considered an authoritative reference, one of the best in the field, so no objection here. (To express my endorsement in a back-handed manner.) One caveat, though: there are two editions, the first (which is available in a pdf online), & the second, which is the one most often cited in the last 50 years. We may need to either pick the latest edition, or have entries for both editions.

As for Patrimonium, I know nothing about it, & have no opinion. -- Llywrch (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to Jahl de Vautban for pinging.

1. I have little to add to what was said by Llywrch, except that the existence of the two editions of the PIR is indifferent to the identifiers of the database because it links the person. The database was made in 2001 or shortly before, so it took the information published until then: A-S of the second edition; T-Z of the first edition. More important updates have not been made and, according to what they say on the website, they will not be made: «Leider konnte nach dem Start im Jahre 2001 die Arbeit an den Addenda nicht so zügig und umfassend fortgeführt werden wie erhofft, da der Abschluss der Stammbände Vorrang hatte. Was bereits erarbeitet wurde, soll aber weiter verfügbar gehalten werden in der Hoffnung, dass es dennoch von Nutzen sein kann».

2. Incredible database!, Although I am not clear about its usefulness in Wikidata at the moment. Neither the documents (papyri, inscriptions...), nor the places (mainly too specific), nor the people (mainly slaves and freedmen) have items in Wikidata in their vast majority. Yes, it is useful for references. However, seeing the little interest shown by the majority in them, little or nothing will contribute these identifiers.

That said, I will support the creation of both identifiers. --Romulanus (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @*Treker, Llywrch, Romulanus: for your input! As for the PIR, it was lastly updated on the 05/07/2021 so I still have hope that it is not a completely abandonned project. I will shortly propose the properties. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

To add a bit of supporting information to Romulanus's comment about ancient documents. IIRC, the vast majority of ancient inscriptions are bare-bones grave markers (i.e., only the name of the decedent, with no further information such as age, family, life details). This is because commissioning an inscription was very expensive, & an option available to only a small minority of the population. Again, IIRC the vast majority of papyri are tax receipts. This is because in a population where most were illiterate or barely literate, the most important written document for anyone to keep was written proof that they had paid their taxes & thus free of further pressure to pay money to the government. While both of these have potential value in the aggregate, individually they are of minimal value. -- Llywrch (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Looks good! Question for PIR: Is there a way to automatically connect the PIR entries with already existing Wikidata Items? Or would we do it through merging, where a Wikidata Item already exists? --Tolanor (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Tolanor: I think that it should be technically possible to semi-automate the matching with something like OpenRefine, given that the PIR has an API from which the data can be retrieved. However I see two difficulties : 1) Roman naming practice produce homonyms quite often and 2) the PIR notice are often quite scarce and double-checking with the paper edition seems mandatory. I have proposed it here if you want to vote (I'll do Patrimonium later). --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Automatically adding some place name databank IDs edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi,

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome! I am wondering if one of us has a bot that could potentially look through links from Digital Atlas of the Roman Empire ID (P1936) to Pleiades ID (P1584) and vice versa to automatically add the missing IDs. Pleiades and DARE usually link to each other, but we often lack at least one of the IDs. If any problems come up, the bot can put them on a list and we can sort through them manually. Could someone with a bot help with this? Maybe @THE IT:? --Tolanor (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

WikiProject Epigraphy edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi y'all, I am setting up the new project Wikidata:WikiProject Epigraphy.

The ongoing massive import of metadata related to cultural heritage makes it necessary to organize items about inscriptions and epigraphs properly.

Specifically, I am starting soon a massive creations of items of inscriptions and epigraphs of Ancient Rome located in Italy, so this is the first thread that I have opened in the talk page, I need to agree on some good practice so I know it can spread more order in the future.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Roman provinces as P27 edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome

Hi all. I found myself quarelling with another contributor on the use of Roman provinces as country of citizenship (P27) (here (in French)). Could someone 1) confirms me that I am not going crazy over the fact that they shouldn't be used at all as P27 ; 2) check the following query and change values as needed ?

SELECT ?item ?itemLabel WHERE {
 ?item wdt:P27 ?country .
 ?country wdt:P31 wd:Q182547 .
 SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}

Try it!

Thanks ! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I assume this would depend entirely if those provinces had citizenships for their inhabitants to have that were separate from Roman citizenship.StarTrekker (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@StarTrekker: sorry, I have missed your answer in my too great of a watchlist. Thing is, I have never ever heard of a citizenship on a provincial level. Some people held numerous citizenships, like Opramoas of Rhodiapolis, but they were always tied to cities, never to provinces. Being described as a "Syrian", a "Jew", an "Egyptian", a "Greek", a "Gaul", a "German" or whatever never defined someone juridically speaking, except perhaps to say that you weren't a Roman citizen. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Jahl de Vautban: None of the Roman client kingdoms ever had any kind of citizenship? In that case "country of citizenship" is the wrong property to use. But what property should be used for people who have city citizenships or Latin citizenship?StarTrekker (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@StarTrekker: I guess they did, but they aren't really "provincial" insofar as they weren't incorporated in Roman day-to-day administration (btw, a lot of work has been done to reconsider Badian's view on "client kingdoms"). "Country" of citizenship is anyway a quite anachronistic terminology for Antiquity as an ancient state can assume a variety of form but I'm not sure we need another property, we just need to be cautious in assigning someone a citizenship and only rely on sources and not on assumptions. I wonder if things like Latin citizenship or civitas sine suffragio could be implemented by combining country of citizenship (P27) and social classification (P3716). --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Adding RE identifiers edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome

Hello there! I was directed here from en-wiki Wikiproject Classical Greece and Rome. I'm interested in whether it's possible for RE identifiers (like Lucius Cornelius Cinna being RE Cornelius 106) to be populated for various Romans and then integrating this somehow into en-Wiki infoboxes. I can't say I know much about this. Any help you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks. Ifly6 (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'm one of the founders and editors of the RE project on de-wikisource. We are already adding RE identifiers to Wikidata items under "described by source", as is in fact already the case at Lucius Cornelius Cinna. I think this should somehow be usable for infoboxes and such. You can help by matching more RE items to Wikidata items. In fact, it would be great to have some sort of tool for this work. Maybe someone can help? --Tolanor (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I edit some of the en-wiki articles on various magistrates. There are usually RE numbers provided in reliable sources like OCD³⁺, MRR, etc. If we can get that set up somehow, I'd add them when able. Ifly6 (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Ifly6: I have written some months ago a query on Tolanor's talk page which look at which Romans on Wikidata have a DPRR identifier but no RE number. Here is the same with OCD online :

SELECT * WHERE {
  ?human wdt:P31 wd:Q5 ; wdt:P9106 ?somevalue .
  #the following line restrict it to Qid with Roman citizenship
  ?human wdt:P27 wd:Q1747689 . 
  FILTER ( NOT EXISTS { ?human wdt:P1343 wd:Q1138524 } )
}

Try it!

That should get you started for a little while. Also, some statistics I have been keeping: in March 19th, we had 8084 RE article with a subject, out of 45133 (17.91%). As of today, we are at 8924 out of 45909 (19.44%), a nice increase! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, that's an amazing stat indeed! How did you create it? --Tolanor (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Anyone who has consulted one of the volumes of the Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertums knows how intimidating their lists of names can be -- & how its organization is not immediately obvious. It may not seem to be a big thing until you realize these names are by gens: consider how many Cornelii there were, or Flavii -- let alone truly popular gentile names such as Julius or Aurelius which had thousands of members. A few years back I mentioned on en.wikipedia how useful having the RE identifiers would be if included in an infobox. (IIRC, I argued that was one of the few bits of information best presented in an infobox, & not in the text of an article.) So yes, this would be a good thing to add. (As for how to do it... de.wikisource already has lists of these articles online, so it wouldn't be too to match them to existing wikidata nodes, or create new ones.) -- Llywrch (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

How would we have it in an infobox? (I agree it should be relegated there rather than put somewhere in the article; there's no natural place to put it.) Editors on en-wiki WP:CGR implied that we could set up some sort of template which would backfill the RE data from WikiData rather than needing to have it done on en-wiki while just throwing on a module to the infoboxes or something. That sounds cool, though I know nothing about Wikimedia's backend, so I don't know how workable that is. Ifly6 (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I fear the technicalities have to be worked out on Wikipedia side, as I don't think any of us here is very knowledgeable of the working on infoboxes. I imagine you'd want to look into whether a Qid as the statement described by source (P1343)Paulys Realenzyklopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (Q1138524), then look into the value(s) added by the qualifier statement is subject of (P805), of which you'd want to extract the title (P1476) value and the link to DEWS. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

What's a Qid and what's a DEWS? Ifly6 (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Ifly6: whoops sorry for the confusion! A Qid is the identifier (id) used to describe an item, like Lucius Cornelius Cinna is Q171083 - it's called Qid because it combine the letter Q, which is used for most item (lexemes excepted) and id. DEWS is the acronym for wikisource.de, but perhaps I should have said WSDE instead. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Llywrch: A late reply on the question of how to find the correct articles. One of the amazing tools of the digitized version of the RE on de.wikisource is the registry. Here you can browse all articles by alphabet, volume, and author. For example, you can have a look at all the Flavii at s:de:Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft/Register/f#Flavius 1ff. We have added short descriptions as well so that it's easier to find the articles. Hope this helps, --Tolanor (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Tolanor: (A late reply of my own. ;-) The de.wikisource is useful, but it doesn't address the problem I was pointing to: the order of names in the PW. For someone not familiar with this important reference work, it may not be obvious why, in a list of individuals with the same name element, one article follows another. Or, to provide an understandable example, why the person who is the subject of Acilius (19) precedes the person of Acilius (20), & why the person of Acilius (21) follows both. It took me several readings before I realized that articles on people with Roman names are arranged chronologically, then alphabetically in the order of bare gentilium then those with praenomen, then those with cognomina. Even with that knowledge, it can be frustrating wading thru the endless pages of individuals with the more familiar gentilia, such as Julius, Aurelius, Claudius, etc. So offering a more familiar starting point -- which the Oxford Classical Dictionary does, by adding PW numbers to many of its biographical articles -- would be a win for all. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Llywrch (talk • contribs) at 20:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC).Reply

Yes, that's why I think it's vital to link RE items and WD items. Which in turn is only possible because the RE items exist in the first place, which is why the Wikisouce RE is so important ;). Best, --Tolanor (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree etc. We should have some way to automatically link these via Wikidata. Is there some way to automatically fill in a infobox field in such a manner? Ifly6 (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Clavis Historicorum Antiquitatis Posterioris edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, how can we make the above databank, which offers excellent data on the historical writers of late antiquity, into an identifier? Best, Tolanor (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Tolanor: I got my eyes on it since a few months. You can go ahead a create a property proposal and ping us on it (using {{ping project|Ancient Rome}} (don't forget to also ping Ancient Greece, they might be interested). In the mean time, perhaps @Epìdosis: can create a M-n-M catalog ? --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Gallia Comata edit

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This item Gallia Comata (Q1143159) seems to be for a road, but the articles connected to it seem to be for a province, was there some kind of merge here that went wrong? StarTrekker (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

New property P12011 (tribe) edit

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have created tribe (P12011) (love that number) and I just wanted to let you all know. I already gave a warning not to use it for Roman tribus.

If someone has any concerns, please come forward. Jonathan Groß (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Are the Republic and Empire separate for political/military purposes edit

Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I'm sorting out the participant (P710) in battles and wars, where we normally use countries/political states.

SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?itemLabel ?article WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en". }
  {
    SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?article WHERE {
      ?item wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q645883.
      #?item wdt:P710 wd:Q1747689.      #  114 ancient rome
      #?item wdt:P710 wd:Q17167.      #  25 roman republic
      ?item wdt:P710 wd:Q2277.      #  21 roman empire
    }
  }
}

Try it!

shows we have a mixture. Should we split or join the entities? For comparison, the UK has 5 'countries' since 1600, the Kingdom of England,Commonwealth,Great Britain, United Kingdom with and without Ireland. If we do split them, then Roman Republic (Q17167)) and Roman Empire (Q2277) should be consistent in their prioritisation of historical period (Q11514315) and historical country (Q3024240). My preference is splitting. @Jahl de Vautban who queried my change to the Republic. Vicarage (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome

The question is an important one and was already debated multiple time in this very talk page on different issues; it has basically consequences for everything in which Rome was involved as a state (politics, administration, law, military, justice, etc.). I'm in favor of having a single, atemporal Rome, because the transition from republic to empire is mostly an historiographical one, and indeed you'll find various dates for it, 27 BC only being the most common. It just makes for easier queries to have a single entity to query from and the question of the "regime" under which it takes place can be left to one's own appreciation of the dates. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I personally support @Jahl de Vautban:'s proposal, the motivation fully convinces me. --Epìdosis 11:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

46 battles changed to Ancient Rome (Q1747689). Thanks all. Vicarage (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

.	ca	de	en	fr	it	la	all others
ca	=	X	X	X	X	X	X
de	X	=	OK	/	X	OK	/
en	X	OK	=	/	X	OK	/
fr	X	/	/	=	X	/	/
it	X	X	X	X	=	X	/
la	X	OK	OK	/	X	=	/

.	ca	de	en	fr	it	la	all others
ca	=	X	X	X	X	X	X
de	X	=	OK	/	X	OK	/
en	X	OK	=	/	X	OK	/
fr	X	/	/	=	X	/	/
it	X	X	X	X	=	X	/
la	X	OK	OK	/	X	=	/

.	ca	de	en	fr	it	la	all others
ca	=	X	X	X	X	X	X
de	X	=	OK	/	X	OK	/
en	X	OK	=	/	X	OK	/
fr	X	/	/	=	X	/	/
it	X	X	X	X	=	X	/
la	X	OK	OK	/	X	=	/