Talk:Actuaria

Flat keel

"They had flat keels, so they could run aground without damage to the ship..."

Huh? I think "flat hull" is meant here. "Flat keel" means no keel, AFAIK. Mathglot (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC) @Mathglot: thats likely, its from a rough translation of the german wiki. Thanks. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

See CHANT (ship type). What I think is meant is a flat bottom. Mjroots (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I think you're agreeing with the above, but not sure I understand the connection with the CHANT article, which doesn't have the expression "flat keel" anywhere in it (or even just "keel"). Also, this article is about antiquity, not WW2. Mathglot (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Title

According to the sources I've read, ''actuaria'' is the term used for these ships. It also encompasses a much broader category than just the 4th century patrol boats that the museum at Mainz has built replicas of.

What do other modern sources say? Peter ^Isotalo 17:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so no one actually bothered to look up any of the relevant sources here. Both the German-language sources use the term "actuaria", not "navis actuaria". Same with Casson. The World History Encyclopedia didn't actually describe an actuaria but merely referred to ancient warships in general. One of the main sources is of course Lionel Casson. And it's basically written by amateurs, not professional historians. Peter ^Isotalo 18:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Two other sources using navis actuaria have been added to the references section as general references for now. Another thing to consider when doing a page move, is exactly what you mentioned above: your proposed rename to actuaria "encompasses a much broader category". Precisely; that broader category is a different topic. If sufficient sourcing cannot be found for the narrower category (current title, i.e., navis actuaria) to support a standalone article then indeed, a topic change to the broader category, and a title change reflecting the broader scope would be warranted, and the narrower topic should become a named section within the broader article, with a redirect created for it, pointing to the section. Is that the case? I'm not as concerned about modern sources, here; unlike many other fields of academia, in the field of Roman antiquity (as in mathematics), sources from a century ago (or millennia ago) continue to be cited in contemporary literature. So the main question to answer, as I see it is: are there enough reliable sources to continue to support the narrow topic as title? If not, the article should be rescoped, and retitled. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to post a summary of the available sources, but then I noticed that you kept on on adding new sources specifically to support the "navis actuaria" topic as a completely separate definiton. This is not something that is supported by any of the sources. Also, two of the sources you just added, Forty (2021) and Ermatinger (2019) are pretty problematic. The former is written by someone who isn't an authority on either naval or ancient history (all his other books are popular history about WW II) and the latter is described as a "quick guide on various topics" which cites no sources and has a bunch of websites as "Further reading". Please do not throw unreliable sources into the mix.

You seem to have already decided the definition of the article and are now looking for sources to support your initial assumption. That's kinda worrying and so is your claim that primary ancient sources are okay to use directly without referencing how secondary sources interpret them. Peter ^Isotalo 19:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

One last source, is Günther et al. (2007). I did not include the quotation in the citation, because it is long, but I'm including it here for convenience. If you feel citations I've added are not valid, please remove them and add them below, and they can be discussed. Here is the Günther quotation:

Strikingly, the term aktuaria, which is encountered again and again in the written record, according to Isidor von Sevilla is to be assigned to the class of oared sailing ships. It is sometimes even used as a synonym for this type of ship, as can be seen from a remark by jurist Vulpius Marcellus (mid-second century AD). Regarding the question of whether or not a given class of ships in the empire can claim postliminium or not (Dig. 49, 25,3), only four categories count for him: the navis longa (long ship = warship), navis oneraria (= cargo sailor), navis piscatoria (= fishing boat), and the navis actuaria.

According to Livy, naves actuariae could be manned by up to 30 oarsmen (remiges), which according to the usual thwart spacing on ancient rowing ships suggests hull lengths of over 20 m, but they also operated in much smaller versions as so-called actuariolae. The ship marked as actuaria on the Althiburos mosaic shows a galley equipped with a large square sail and a small artemon sail (headsail), which has a very peculiar front contour with a nose tapering directly above the waterline and a bow parapet swinging back concavely above it and at the same time diverging in a V-shape. These features can be observed in a number of other representations of ships in the Mediterranean region, some of which offer clear indications of cargo (e.g., amphorae) and function (such as for transporting wild animals). The bow shape just described probably also made it possible when the need arose to quickly equip vessels of this type with a ramming device and to use them for naval combat.

If need be, a brief excerpt from the above could be included in the citation at the article page, if we choose to keep it. From what I'm seeing, actuaria and navis actuaria are (usually) not synonyms, but the former is a superset of the latter. Mathglot (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The Livy comment that Günther quotes above is at Livy XXI:

"The navis actuaria, 'pinnace', was worked by sails and at least 18 oars, and as many as 30 (cf. 25, 30, 10), (distinguished from the onerariae, which had only sails). They were used as transports, and for active service".

Mathglot (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

There are quite clear explanations in Casson, Chatterton, Viereck and Luebeck where they explain roughly what I've tried to summarize as article content: "actuaria" a short form of "actuaria navis" or "navis actuaria" and appears to have been the commonly used term by the Romans. Günther says pretty much the exact same thing.

Not a single source list these two terms as separate entities. The only outliers seem to be the iffy Forty and Ermatinger who either have deliberately focused on the military applications, or simply didn't do their homework. Peter ^Isotalo 21:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of book sources, though, use the term navis acturia, so it's not so clear to me that the ones you list are the majority. If they are, that would be a convincing WP:COMMONNAME argument, but I don't think we're there yet. It would be good to have some tertiary sources to consult, as that would likely settle the question; unfortunately, EB 1911 does not have it. In addition, the Museum of Ancient Seafaring in Mainz, from where the image in the article was taken, calls it navis actuaria as well. And that's what the article always called it in the caption underneath the image, until this recent edit. The article has been called Navis actuaria since 2016 when Iazyges first wrote it, and the image and caption have remained largely stable since 2018. But it seems to me that until this can be settled one way or another, the status quo ante should prevail. Mathglot (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I have provided several reliable sources on this matter and explained them above. The sources you provided also say essentially the same thing. No author lists the terms separately. Even the primary sources agree. You're not proving anything by Google Books search with multiple editions of dictionaries from the the early 17th century. Stop moving the goal posts, read the sources already provided, and try address the points I've already made.

And above all, note that the Mainz museum does not call the vessel in the photo a "navis actuaria". I noticed that just about an hour ago when I started searching for research articles on it. It's called a patrol craft, transport, "river cruiser", etc. but never "actuaria". It seems that the person who decided this was an actuaria was the person who took the original photos.[1] The only other sources I can find that call that ship an "actuaria" is Forty (who uses the same photos). And Wikipedia articles.

Unless you can prove otherwise, you've got a case of citogenesis on your hands. Peter ^Isotalo 23:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The Günther and Livy sources I mentioned in my earlier posts both use the term you disfavor. I listed a link to a page full of results whose bolded snippet summaries shows that other sources use it, too, but I haven't examined them one by one. I'll try and do so soon, but it may not be right away. And I don't know what the implication of "no one uses them separately" is; if they are both used equally, then per WP:CONSENSUS the article should remain as it was, until a new consensus is determined. And what do you mean by citogenesis, here? Are you implying that the Mainz museum must have copied the Wikipedia article's earlier unsourced statement that it is a navis actuaria, and after they did, now we are quoting the Museum back to the article? Mathglot (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

One of the sources I did find which supports navis actuaria was, "The World of Ancient Rome: A Daily Life Encyclopedia" by J. Ermatinger (2015), and I added that as a general reference. I just now noticed that it isn't there anymore, removed in this edit as an "unreliable source". What is unreliable about it? Mathglot (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Full-scale replica of a 4th century actuaria at the Museum of Ancient Seafaring in Mainz, Germany.

Simple question: other than the original Flickr photo description, where does it say that the image on the right here (Type B, Mainz Wreck 3) is called an "actuaria"? Peter ^Isotalo 08:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't, but it does say it's a navis actuaria, at Commons, both in the name of the file, and in the description of it there. I'm not very familiar with Commons's vetting apparatus, but I do notice not infrequently Wikipedia articles having adjustments being made to them by bots that delink images that have been removed from commons for one reason or another, so Commons must have some kind of process. But honestly, I couldn't tell you what it is. If Commons has no vetting for the title, especially, or the content, then it shouldn't be used to support anything in the article one way or another, because we do have standards about verifiability, and maybe it shouldn't even be in the article at all if we can't verify what it is, or whether it is related to the article topic.

Anyway, that caption that says Actuaria now is your caption, not the long-standing one that said navis actuaria that was in the article all along, and matched the Commons filename. But if they are wrong, then I guess it's moot.

If you wanted to take it a step further and propose a rename on Commons of that image to something which excludes any mention of navis or actuaria in the title or the description, ping me from there and I'll support it. Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, we're in agreement that the vessel in the image has been erroneously classified. We can ask for a name change later on.

And here's another question: can you quote a specific source that compares the terms "actuaria" and "navis actuaria" side by side, claims them to be separate things, and describes what those differences are? Peter ^Isotalo 09:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

If I have time, I may look at that, but I don't know how it would help. There's nothing in article title policy that says that sources must address two different terms or have both of them in a document. If the majority of sources use the term navis actuaria about the topic of this article, then it should be called that; and if the majority use actuaria, then it should be called that. I included some sources in the article, which you removed from the article as unreliable (disagreement about that should go to WP:RSN) which use the term navis actuaria, and that is of interest to this discussion, and to the article. I added another source above: Günther-2007 (in German, but that's acceptable) which also uses it. If Günther doesn't happen use the term actuaria at all (I haven't checked) or explain why the two terms are different, then I don't think that disqualifies Günther as a source. I guess what I'm saying is, I don't see how your latest question will lead to anything fruitful here. We should be concentrating on common name. Mathglot (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

If you can't answer the question, then the two terms are obviously synonymous.

Casson, Viereck, Pryor and Luebeck all refer to "actuaria". Casson also explains that they're synonymous. Chatterton sometimes use either, but lists them in the index as "actuaria". Günther consistently writes "actuaria". Only once does he write "navis actuaria" and that's when explains the differences between ships for war, trade, fishing and trade. Note also what it says on the Altiburus mosaic. There's nothing more to discuss here really

Good luck with your research, though.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

There's an error in your logic. The reason they talk about "actuaria" and not always "navis actuaria" is in fact, obvious: in every domain, two-word terms are often shortened to one, when the context makes it clear that the more precise, two-word expression is meant. The article about the "Space shuttle" talks about the "last shuttle flight", about "reusable shuttles", about the construction of "the shuttle", equipment "on board the shuttle", and so on. This doesn't mean that "space shuttle" and "shuttle" are synonymous. In the article on the US Airways Shuttle the numerous references to "the shuttle" refer to an airplane, and in the article on shuttlecocks, they refer to sports equipment. Same thing is happening here. I'm afraid your argument doesn't hold water. You may be correct that actuaria is a synonym, but that has not been demonstrated. Mathglot (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

So, as your friendly third-party opinion provider, here is my judgement:

• The dispute is over the title of the article. As such, Wikipedia:Article titles is the guiding policy. To quote: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles."
• First I conducted my own search, so as to have some numbers and background. I found many spellings during the course of the search: the original "actuaria" and "navis actuaria", and variant spellings. There is "naves actuaria", [2] lists "actuarium navigium", Latin for "fast-sailing ship". [3] mentions the spellings "actuarius" and "actuaris". An old Encyclopaedia Britannica lists the entry as "actuariae naves".
  • I tried googling "actuaria" and the only relevant-ish results are this article, a Flickr photo of a container ship, the registration for presumably the same container ship, and a Latin-English dictionary entry which defines actuaria as the term in this article. Adding the term "ship" ("actuaria" ship), I got more relevant results, mainly dictionary/historical encyclopedia entries. Notably, many results mention that actuaria is short for "navis actuaria"; an exception is this thesis. Searching Google Books with "actuaria" ship -"Navis actuaria", I got ~27 results without navis or naves.
  • For "navis actuaria", I got several relevant museum articles and fan wikis right off the bat. In Google Books, I got an absurd amount of dictionaries. Changing to "navis actuaria" -dictionary, I counted ~37 distinct usages, hard to tell because there were a lot of duplicates and non-English results; I didn't really want to count all the old 1600-1800's Latin results. Notably there were some popular histories published in recent years.
  • Searching for "actuarius" ship, actuarius seems rare, only ~10 relevant results. It has other meanings such as a court scribe.
  • actuaris just seems to be a mispelling and had only the one result.
  • actuariae naves had about 15 English results, and then a lot of Latin.
  • naves actuariae had about 32 English results, generally of pretty high quality (academic books and such), and then a lot of Latin, German, etc. results.
• Turning now to the principles:
  • Recognizability (WP:COMMONNAME) – "navis actuaria" is kind of common, but "naves actuariae" seems to actually be a better, more common spelling. The reversed version "actuariae naves" appears in EB. Actuaria on its own is mostly a shorthand and seems to be less common than the full name.
  • Naturalness – Honestly, none of them are great. They're all in Latin, a dead language. Even a vague English title like "Roman light transport ship" or "Roman corgette" would be more natural. Unfortunately there is no common English name. But, including the ships in a larger article like Roman navy (or a sub-article like "Ships of the Roman navy") would make sense.
  • Precision – The one-word variants are not very specific; I was getting tons of things, like scribes, modern ships, songs, etc. We could use the "natural" disambiguation of adding the Latin navis/naves, or we could use a parenthetical, like "Actuaria (ship)". The parenthetical has the advantage of avoiding how to choose the spelling, but maybe someone knows their Latin and determine the proper spelling. But, none of the alternatives seem notable, so it seems Actuaria or one of its variants is specific enough for now.
  • Concision – Actuaria is the shortest.
  • Consistency – navis rostrata is a parenthetical comment in Roman navy#Armament and tactics. Navis lusoria is its own article.

What is the conclusion? Well, I don't like how short the article is - 185 words, close to the 150 "definitely merge this stub" threshold in WP:LENGTH. It seems based on the sources I found that there not much room for growth either. I think, based on the "naturalness" criteria, WP:LENGTH, and the lack of consistent spelling, that covering all the different styles of Roman ships as one article "Ships of the Roman navy" would be more appropriate. So then the title becomes a section header, which has much more freedom and is simply a matter of editorial consensus. I would say including "naves" or "navis" is more encyclopedic and consistent with common usage. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Reading this again I note that the ships were not just used by the military, so maybe "Ships of the Roman empire" would be more appropriate. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Really appreciate the work you've put into this, and I think your conclusion is better than mine, for the reasons you gave. The only caveat I'd add (and I don't think it changes much of anything in your argument), is that naves actuariae is simply the plural of navis actuaria, like bases can be the plural of basis, and formulae can be (one of) the plurals of formula. Like I said, that doesn't change anything, so I support your proposal. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mathnerd314159: Afterthought: you did point to a possible merge because of the stubbiness, and I wasn't clear if you were leaving that open as a possibility, but I'd be okay with that, too, which I presume would mean finding the right venue for it, then creating two redirects to the new section from the two titles in contention here. Did you want to come down on either side of the merge/don't merge question? Mathglot (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I guess I wasn't clear, but my preferred outcome is to merge this article to a "Ships of Roman empire" article, into a section entitled "Naves actuariae", and then creating redirects to that section for each of the terms I listed.

It would be possible to leave this article as a stub, but then there is the naming debate - each name has good arguments (WP:COMMONNAME for "Naves actuariae", WP:PLURAL for "Navis actuaria", WP:CONCISE for "Actuaria"). But I think they're all terrible choices. It's like that "struggling with two buttons" meme where the choices are "obscure Latin" and "obscure Latin". Mathnerd314159 (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

You probably were clear, I might not have enough caffeine. Thanks for the explanation, and I support merge to Ships of the Roman empire § Naves actuariae. Mathglot (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Fwiw, here's Draft:Ships of the Roman Empire for anyone who's interested. Mathglot (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the idea that "each name has good arguments". If you read reliable sources, especially those cited in the article, "actuaria" is the most common term. It's not just a matter of shortening "navis actuaria" for convenience. And many authors explicitly describe that it's a short form of "navis actuaria". There are also very clear references in the cited sources to "actuaria" as a contemporary ancient term, for example in the visual reproduction of the Altiburus mosaic included in the article. Peter ^Isotalo 17:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not support any kind of merge at all. There are clearly cited sources in the article that provide the definition for this vessel. It's crystal clear from reliable sources like Casson, Pryor, Viereck, Luebeck, etc. that actuaria primarily referred to trade galleys.

Mathnerd, have you consulted the sources cited in the article? Peter ^Isotalo 16:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I've read them now. I don't see much in them that's not in the article or in Galley, so it still looks like a stub. Certainly, there is enough coverage to establish notability for actuaria, but as WP:NOPAGE says, "at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic)." Given that every source I've found discusses actuaria in the context of Roman ships, or merchant galleys, or whatever broader context, I don't really understand why you would oppose a merge to one of those articles, as it would be much easier to discuss those other types of ships as well. E.g., following the Marcellus quote from Günther et al. (2007), Roman navy briefly mentions navis longa and navis oneraria, and Venetian navy has a red link for oneraria, but navis piscatoria is nowhere to be found on Wikipedia. I would much rather see one decent-sized article covering Marcellus's four types of Roman ships (and more, if there are any) than four permastubs. From a quick search, there doesn't even seem to be enough material to establish notability for navis piscatoria, so the only way it could be discussed is as part of a broader article. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to get at here, and I appreciate that you're taking the time to comment, but I'd respectfully like to ask you to not argue by referring to content in other articles for contextualization. This is an article about a type of trade vessel and you're referring to articles on military history. And one of them is about a completely different time period. This article was in a really bad state just a week ago primarily because editors had relied far too heavily on content in other articles. Discussions about WP:Notability and WP:Relevance should start with what's in reliable sources, not previous coverage in Wikipedia.

I've nerded out pretty hard on galleys for over ten years now, and also generally pre-modern maritime history. I've been particularly interested in the period befor "Age of Sail". My impression so far is that the coverage on Wikipedia is very sparse, especially regarding anything that isn't military in nature. From the comparatively few works cited just in galley#References, I believe there is more than enough research material to fill articles on at least a dozen ancient ship types. Not saying they might not be better off merged into somewhat larger article categories, but if we can host articles on fairly specialized forms of Scottish boat types, I don't see why we should rush to merge this article. Peter ^Isotalo 19:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Certainly, there is a place for articles like Birlinn, but there is also the need for articles that list various types of ships, in this case the relevant article for Birlinn being Medieval ships. And that article lists other types of ships, in this case Crayer and Picard, that do not have their own articles. I don't see how the overview article can be written other than to start writing it, and it is much easier to break out specific ships once their discussion becomes too long than to retrieve the contents of deleted articles that are not notable. If there are a dozen ship types you find interesting and think there is sufficient material on, then just start writing the overview article about them, like at Draft:12 Ships I find interesting. I think that's a more useful way to contribute than arguing over the title and deleting other people's work.

Now when considering whether an article is worth merging, the potential must also be considered. The high water mark for this article was 321 words, before you deleted some stuff in [4]. Maybe I missed 3 independent book-length dissertations on actuariae in the non-English sources, and there's actually an undiscovered trove of information out there, but I doubt it. Wikipedia has been worked on for a long time now so I think it's reasonable to assume that the current coverage in Wikipedia is about the extent of the information that's easily available. So that's why I said in this case that merging seems most appropriate, considering the length. If you do think there's a lot more to write about Actuaria, by all means add it, but I didn't see you arguing that the article is not done in its current state. In fact you said "There's nothing more to discuss here really. Good luck with your research."

Regarding your asking me "not to argue by referring to content in other articles for contextualization", I wish I could be respectful, but, to be blunt, my first thought was that your request was quite hilarious. First, you yourself go on to cite Birlinn, which is of course referring to content in other articles for contextualization. I believe this practice is known as the pot calling the kettle black. Secondly, you linked to WP:CIRCULAR, which is an article content policy, not even applicable to talk pages. Thirdly, even if it did apply, it specifically lists an exception for referencing Wikipedia to make statements about Wikipedia. The relevant policy for talk pages is instead WP:TPG. By my count, you've skirted quite close to violating WP:TALKPOV, WP:NOPA, WP:AVOIDYOU, and WP:NOTFORUM, so I would recommend re-reading the talk page guidelines yet again. (I say re-read since I assume given your long editing history that you've read them at least once). Mathnerd314159 (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

If someone takes a serious interest in writing ancient classical ships or something equivalent, I'll be happy to assist. But nothing like it exists. So please hold off on the merger discussions.

The "good luck" comment, btw was very much aimed at Mathglot's inexplicable attempt to find a completely separate definition for "navis actuaria". It was an argument against WP:OR, not that the article is "done".

Regarding your comment on "contextualization", the reference to WP:CIRCULAR was very much intentional. I interpreted your post as an argument about the definition and classificaiton of actuariae based on the content of the content of Roman navy and Venetian navy. Did you mean something else? Peter ^Isotalo 00:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Just linking Draft:Ships of the Roman Empire here for the Talk record, as I realize you've since discovered it. Without addressing any of the 3O points directly, I can't help seeing the irony of a discussion section with 5,693 words of text currently, arguing about a NOPAGE issue for an article that is 191 words long. I guess it happens. Mathglot (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Well there I was examining WP:CONSISTENT. WP:CIRCULAR makes no sense in this context since the explicit instruction is to examine what other articles on similar subjects do. The standard "article title" for many types of ships, as I have listed, is that they do not have articles but are instead covered in broader articles. I guess for some other subjects the standard would be different, e.g. there have been some automated imports of place names, Gray's anatomy, and so on, so for those areas creating a stub would be more appropriate. But, at least for ships, tiny stubs are not the usual approach. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think Mathglot has made a very constructive proposal in creating a draft. We'll focus on that instead and when it's ready to move into article space we'll see if it's logical to merge this article or not. But right now, there's simply no suitable article to merge this article into. Peter ^Isotalo 11:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft released

@Peter Isotalo and Mathnerd314159: the draft has been released as Ships of ancient Rome, and includes everything in this article, except for the last sentence about 8th century Arab fleets. At this point, I would say we should either considerably expand the Actuaria article so it can become a more detailed, child article for which section § Actuaria in the just-released article would be a summary section, with a {{Main}} link to here; or if that's not possible, then this article should be redirected there. Mathglot (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I strongly object to any redirect per my motivation on the talkpage.[5] The new article has clearly been rushed into mainspace without regard for any kind of quality. The sole purpose seems to be to get rid of this article. I consider Mathglot's approach to be deeply problematic and disruptive. Mathglot misrepresents sources, editorializes in articles, ignores other opinions and appears to be completely incapable of even the most basic contextualization. Peter ^Isotalo 23:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with this page not being redirected, so if you want to keep it, then just keep it. But we do now have two pages with identical content, now, which isn't a situation that should go on for too long; the best thing to do imho, is to expand this article.

As far as your other comments, please refrain from making comments here about my motivation or behavior as an editor. This page is dedicated strictly to discussions of how to improve this article; anything else is out of scope. If you wish to make comments about my behavior as an editor, please do not make them here, but only on my Talk page (as a first stop). If you don't get satisfaction there, then next stop is ANI. Mathglot (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)