This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
We should have an article on every Pharaoh & every nome in Ancient Egypt. Let's check to see if every important Egyptologist has an article. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.
To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?
Standardize the Chronology.
A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)
Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .
This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Various WikiProjects have listed this article as an article of Top-Importance/High-Important to their project's efforts. I am in the in process of translating text from the Spanish, French, German, and Italian versions of this article into English and incorporating there information into this version. Any assistance regarding general edits, such as punctuation, spelling, grammar, and the like, would be greatly appreciated. - Rougher07 (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Antony and Cleopatra, no mention of Arsinoe murder
There is no mention in this para of the shocking murder, by Antony, of young Arsinoe IV, which outraged Rome. I have therefore included it.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Mark Antony → Marcus Antonius – Google Books search hits since 1965 has 330 in favour of 170. The neologism popularized with Shakespeare goes against consistency in other Roman articles. Zoupan 22:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Uncertain. Personally I'd like to, and to move Pompey to Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus as well, but as many experienced editors have pointed out, Wikipedia policy is to place articles under their most familiar forms, even if the person's name was something else. The classic example is that we have Bill Clinton rather than William Jefferson Clinton, but many other names could be cited for the same proposition. I don't believe that Google hits demonstrate the familiarity of "Marcus Antonius" to English speakers. Perhaps that's the form most commonly used in scholarly literature today, but it's far from the most familiar. I also disagree with the characterization of "Mark Antony" as "Shakespeare's neologism." That's an ahistorical view of English rendering of Latin names. Standard practice for hundreds of years was to drop -us and -a endings, and change i-stems to terminal y's. Shakespeare didn't invent it and doesn't deserve to be blamed for it merely because most people are familiar with that linguistic fashion as a result of his plays. Getting back to the issue at hand, readers wouldn't be harmed by the proposed move, since there'd be a redirect to this article. But many people might be surprised to find it under the proposed title, including editors who've stuck by Wikipedia's policies for user-friendliness reasons. If a majority agree that this move would be okay, then I'll support it. But I'd like to hear from the many other editors who've contributed to this article over the years. P Aculeius (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment. The nom's numbers don't make sense to me. Since 2000, I get 34,800 Gbook hits for "Marcus Antonius" -llc compared to 50,600 for "Mark Anthony." -llc This type of search is what the guideline tells us to do. These results are almost 99 percent ghost hits, so I don't consider them terribly meaningful. This ngram suggests that the two forms are about equally common. Fernando Safety (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Tentative support it is a bit odd to have just one Roman general at a Shakespearean name. Sources actually dealing with Roman history do appear to use the Latin. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Not just one. As I pointed out, we have "Pompey", who was arguably a much more significant figure in Roman history, if much less Romantic. There'd probably be others, but most Roman generals aren't as well known as these two, and are first encountered when studying history rather than literature, where their proper names (or at least parts of them given in Latin form) are more likely to be used. And as I've also said, Shakespeare didn't originate this, so let's stop using his name as shorthand for "archaic and irrelevant". P Aculeius (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Support Almost all other Roman biographical articles use the Latin forms of the name. Redirects should remain however and notes about how the name is rendered in older English texts. Dimadick (talk) 07:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose far more known as "Mark Antony" than Marcus Antonius. TheAstuteObserver (talk) 09:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. The most well known name in English is clearly Mark Antony (ask the next random ten people you meet on the street, hence Britannica's article's name of "Mark Antony"). Whether or not "Mark Antony" is a Shakespearean neologism is irrelevant. That many other articles use Latin rather than anglicized forms is also irrelevant. Obviously the more obscure a figure is, the less likely their name will have a popular anglicized form. The only relevant issue is what is the most well known name in English. Paul August☎ 13:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment: the specific policy we're really going under is WP:Romans, which supports the current name. Of course, exceptions and changes to either policy can be made by consensus. I doubt we'll achieve consensus for this move, however! And as I said earlier, the Anglicization of Greek and Roman names didn't originate with Shakespeare, and it's not fair to call it "neologism"; it was just the standard practice of English at the time, much as the shifts in the pronunciation of Latin names in English. Those are perfectly valid; so while having studied Latin in college, I refuse to pronounce alumnae as though it were alumni, as a historian I'm equally adamant about not saying Yulius Kaiser. And that sort of idiosyncracy is just fine. We don't need to enforce some notion of orthodoxy. The article opens with the name given in its proper form, explains what the common form in English is, and has an explanatory footnote. This is a messy area, and the tendency may be to clean it up, but we have a good compromise in place, and unless one side can convince the other to change, let's leave it at that. P Aculeius (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, Wikipedia uses the most common name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, per Fdewaele. We have many less famous Romans with Anglicized names. Maybe they should all be moved, but this title is in line with current practice. Fernando Safety (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Oh please, his common name is still the Anglicised version. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose as per commonname. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
There's seldom→never a good reason to start off an article "XYZ, commonly known in English as ABC...". I understand some online Romans above were pushing to change the article's title but, until the time comes that the page actually is moved, it should start with the English common name and list the Latin original second rather than vice versa. — LlywelynII 04:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Similarly, M·ANTONIVS·M·F·M·N is not a name—it's an inscription. Fixt. — LlywelynII 04:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Not so. Bill Clinton, to use the standard-bearer for WP:COMMONNAME, begins "William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III; August 19, 1946), commonly known as Bill Clinton...", as I'm sure do many other articles where the subject's proper name and most familiar name differ. Also, as previously stated, the current lead for this article is the product of a reasonable compromise between sides that have differing views on how the article should be named, and how the subject should be referred to in the body. Such a compromise ought to be respected, not challenged each time one side or the other wins a victory or suffers a defeat with respect to the issues that led to the compromise.
As for the "inscription," the use of small capitals and interpuncts is one convention for rendering Latin names, but without it, "M. Antonius M. f. M. n." would be equally valid, without being mistaken for an inscription. As the article on Roman names states, praenomina were regularly abbreviated (in fact more often than not) in writing of all sorts, and the filiation was regarded as part of the name, even though it could be used or ignored at the will of the writer, much as patronymics and middle names are today. Of course, the Romans didn't use minuscule letters the way we do today; that's a modern convention for rendering Latin. So if you want to be "typographically authentic", use all capitals and interpuncts. But as with many such matters, it's really a matter of style, in which different authors prefer different conventions, and many are happy to use one convention for a specific purpose (such as giving the "authentic" version in the lead) and not others (repeating it every time the name is used would be distracting).
My suggestion is to focus on the content of the article, rather than the form in which Mr. Antonius' name is written in each instance. As long as there's some legitimate reason for giving his name one way in some places and differently in others, and doing so won't cause unreasonable confusion, there are better ways to improve this article. P Aculeius (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)