User talk:Ifly6/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gaius Marius ready for GA?

Hello! I just read Gaius Marius, which I see you've done a lot of work on and nominated for GA in 2019, and I really enjoyed it. It seems to be of GA quality to me, have you ever thought about renominating it? --Cerebellum (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess I have, but I'm unfamiliar with the process for making or pushing for GA status. Ifly6 (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm I think there's a way to nominate articles jointly, do you want me to nominate it with you as co-nominator? No worries if you're not interested. Cerebellum (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, if you're interested in pushing it forward! Ifly6 (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Cool, nominated :) I'll do my best to respond to any reviewer comments and let you know if I need help. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman dictator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lucius Valerius Flaccus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Nb fixed. Ifly6 (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite of Roman dictator

Hi. I avoided this before because I didn't want to get into a major dispute, but someone's complaining about the language and content of this article being biased. I don't necessarily agree, but the previous version of the article was mostly written by me, a major overhaul from the previous version, and I thought my prose was pretty good and provided a solid discussion of the topic. I wasn't thrilled to see it all being thrown out and replaced without discussion, but as I said I wasn't in the mood to spend days arguing over it. I'm sure your sources are more up-to-date, although I don't think they're going to have provided a new and novel view of the topic. From what the critical writer is complaining about, I'm guessing that your source views Sulla in a positive light and Caesar in a negative one, which is probably the opposite of the view that the scholarship I based the previous article on. But that can certainly be addressed without simply substituting one view for the other. Would you be interested in going back to the previous version, then merging your sources' newer/differing views in with it? Something less than a wholesale rewrite, but providing as much of the scholarship you based your rewrite on as seems tenable? I hate to ask it of you, but as I said, I did think my version was some of my best work on Wikipedia, and I hate to see it just obliterated. P Aculeius (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure! I never intended to step on your toes in such a way, if that's how you saw it. If there are any portions you'd like me to focus on incorporating, please tell. Ifly6 (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

---

As to the question of Sulla. I don't have access to the same version of the OCD you used. I think this is best implied by the indexing: where mine puts Sulla under "Cornelius, Sulla..." yours seems to use "Sulla" alone. There is a similar thing with "Caesar"; my edition puts Caesar under "Iulius, Caesar, C". I'm using the 2012 4th edition. The corresponding article is by Ernst Badian, which notes explicitly that Sulla was not attempting to establish a permanent tyranny. He makes no direct connection between the dictatorship and weakening of the republic, focusing more on the impact that marching on Rome (twice!) had. (On this topic, I think I agree with this at an intuitive level; attributing importance to an archaic political institution is probably overstating its impact relative to Pompey's memorable – dubiously factual – quote of quoting laws to men with swords.)

I also re-read the original portions on the late republican dictatorship. There seems to be an equivalency drawn between Caesar and Sulla's dictatorships; there is, I feel, a meaningful difference between Caesar's permanent dictatorship and Sulla's law-giver dictatorship. Scholars believe that the latter was done to re-establish the republic. Cf Flower and my rewrite for Sulla's constitutional reforms. Caesar's, however, was unrepublican in terms that it practically replaced "the republic". I think focusing on that distinction is didactic in contextualising Sulla's republican ambitions to Caesar's military and administrative ones. (Whether Caesar would have turned out to be a good republican who restored ordinary government is speculative at best; Flower just writes "at no point did Caesar even try to restore republican politics, although he apparently paid lip service to it in... the early 40s" and that "he apparently questioned the whole meaning of res publica". Flower, Roman Republics (2010) p 163. The entry for the big Caesar in the 2012 OCD also says "he had no plans for basic social and constitutional reform".) Ifly6 (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sallust, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City of God.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Ifly6 (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Nobiles

In your rewrite of nobiles, you've added a couple of citations to Flower 2010, but there's no full citation to go with it – is this Harriet Flower's Roman Republics? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Oof, that's a serious omission on my part! It is Flower's Roman republics; I've added it to the source list already. Thanks for informing me. Ifly6 (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:La Marseillaise on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marcus Junius Brutus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stoic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Ifly6 (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Your userpage

Hi, I'm IAmChaos, wanted to drop in and let you know I just made an edit to your userpage, clearing an error that was thrown. Wanted to let you know so you don't think I'm just wandering around messing things up your stuff. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 06:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

AfD votes

Hi, in deletion discussions you have to write in bold either Delete or Keep, not Support or Oppose, as the latter options don't make it obviously clear what you're supporting or opposing. Avilich (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Emended. Ifly6 (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I think merging is rarely justified unless the article has existed in its current version for a long time and has good sources. If you're going to write a separate article from scratch then you won't be 'merging' anything, and if the sourcing is poor as you admit and I agree, then this is a further reason for deleting. A 'merge' simply means that the attribution to the original editor gets preserved, but this is unnecessary here since Aculeius, who added the content a mere two days ago, can just copy and paste his own content elsewhere. The article was effectively unsourced before that, so if you want to strictly 'merge', ie. recycle other users' content, you would make your article worse. Avilich (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Caesar's invasion of Macedonia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Ifly6 (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Taiwan on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The Catilinarian conspiracies

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Senatus consultum ultimum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catilinarian conspiracy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. (Note for self.) Something ought to be done with those pages (the disambiguation, the "First" page, and the "Second" page). Many scholars believe the "First" Catilinarian conspiracy was a fiction and did not happen. That page should be updated to reflect those doubts rather than just regurgitating the primary sources uncritically. Ifly6 (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the two articles should be merged. T8612 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Why? About half of the versions of the "First" Catilinarian conspiracy don't include mention of Catiline. Ifly6 (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Because it didn't happen... it's likely confusion/exaggeration from ancient sources and could/should be dealt with in only one article. T8612 (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it didn't happen. Why then would we put it next to the "Second" Cat conspiracy, which did? Ifly6 (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The solution is to move second Catilinarian conspiracy to Catilinarian conspiracy as the WP:Primary topic for the term. Avilich (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Ifly6 (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Ifly6

Thank you for creating Lucius Vettius.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Ifly6

Thank you for creating Roman emergency decrees.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Otto von Bismarck on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Battle of the Allia

Hi, if by any chance you have time on your hands and feel brave enough, there is a need to rewrite this article: Battle of the Allia. Right now, it's just a paraphrase of Livy. It should also be renamed Sack of Rome (387 BC), or split (Battle/Sack). Nothing urgent though. T8612 (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@T8612: Thanks for the pointer. I've been a bit more busy with work etc as of late. I also would like to complete the Catiline rewrites before starting on something like that; do you have any feedback on those three articles? (I know they've gotten longer and longer as the project keeps expanding to cover more things Catilinarian. Mission creep at its finest.) Ifly6 (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

What are the "three" articles? T8612 (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Rewrites for Catiline the laddo, the "First" conspiracy, and now "the" Catiliarian conspiracy. (All linked on my User page.) Ifly6 (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@T8612: Well, I've moved them to the main namespace now. I'm not very familiar with the early republic – I've avoided it mostly because it's so sparse – do you have any recommendations on sources for the Allia? Ifly6 (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Since almost everything on the subject comes from Livy, the Commentary on Livy by RM Ogilvie, and especially Stephen Oakley. It's frustrating that Ogilvie's commentary is so short, but Oakley's books are monument of scholarship.

For the history of the events, Tim Cornell's Beginnings of Rome and also good stuff in Fragments of the Roman Historians. Gary Forsythe's Critical History of Early Rome. Big books though, but stimulating reads. T8612 (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Catilinarian conspiracy

added a link pointing to Quintus Caecilius Metellus Nepos

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Ifly6 (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Template:Sulla

Hi, I created a draft for a template on Sulla here. Do you see something else to add? I'm creating the red-link articles on his proscription and memoirs. T8612 (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of much to add. What is already there covers most what I would have thought of to put in and more. I would reorder the proscriptions to be before the lex Valeria though. Reading the OCD entry again, it mentions Sulla's campaign in Cilicia but I don't think it is at all well documented so omission is of rather little importance.

As to "Sulla's march on Rome" (the capitalisation I would take; though I am not sure about the title), we used to have an article at Sulla's first civil war (of minimal value now) but would provide a meaningful page history. That page should be moved to "Sulla's march on Rome" and un-redirected to remake an article.

If you include Plutarch's Vit, perhaps include App BCiv? Though I guess that might be a bit outside of scope for Sulla qua Sulla. Just an alternative to think about. Ifly6 (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

And just to add. I think it's sufficiently developed that you can move it into the main space without trouble. Ifly6 (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the old article about Sulla's 1st civil war was really not good (not a single ref to modern sources). It's better to make a clean start.

I'm not an extremist regarding capitalisation (I'm not for Consul, Tribune of the Plebs, etc. as I've seen in some places), but I would still capitalise unique events like this. T8612 (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

As to replacement, I agree; I would just rather preserve the page history of the relevant topic rather than start tabula rasa. On capitalisation, I think everything should be in lower case unless it really has to be in upper case (perhaps a standard beyond that in WP:CAPS; it also leads to my agreeing with the Economist style guide on first world war). The quibbles aside, I'm going to take a look out for Keaveney's Sulla some time this week. Ifly6 (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Catilines GA?

@T8612 and Avilich: I'm thinking of perhaps submitting of my work on Catiline (Catiline, First Catilinarian conspiracy, Catilinarian conspiracy, etc) for GA review. What do you think? Ifly6 (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure inline citations such as "Waters 1970 argues" would pass. You need to change them to something like "In 1970 Waters argued[1]". T8612 (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Altered for the Catilinarian conspiracy. Will take a look for the others. Ifly6 (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Just about any substantial article which predominantly cites secondary sources and doesn't have any noticeable mistakes or omissions has a good chance at GA. I spotted nothing obvious, and I would just be bold and try GA out. Minor issues like the above can be pointed out and fixed on the GA discussion itself. Avilich (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I nominated Catilinarian conspiracy for GA; will take a look at the others more slowly. Ifly6 (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Catilinarian conspiracy

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Catilinarian conspiracy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Catilinarian conspiracy

The article Catilinarian conspiracy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Catilinarian conspiracy for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Overthrow of the Roman monarchy

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Overthrow of the Roman monarchy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Overthrow of the Roman monarchy

The article Overthrow of the Roman monarchy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Overthrow of the Roman monarchy for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Coquitlam on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Gracchi brothers

Coming back to Gracchi brothers to tweak the phrasing of a date, I found that the good edit which I'd noticed a few days ago, and was going to build on, had been reverted by yours, presumably inadvertently. Your edit summary was "incorporate rewrites from https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gracchi_brothers&oldid=1072288182", which sounds complicated and I'd rather not even think about assessing, but I thought I should flag this up just in case anything didn't actually go as planned. I've done the date tweak anyway. NebY (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Go for it. I want to note however that I am in the process of rewriting the article, so I'll just incorporate that into my current draft. Ifly6 (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah good, I'd made my little edit, I was just worried in case anything else intervening had been inadvertently lost. Will await with interest! NebY (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of European cities by population within city limits on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:First Crusade on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of First Catilinarian conspiracy

The article First Catilinarian conspiracy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:First Catilinarian conspiracy for comments about the article, and Talk:First Catilinarian conspiracy/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for creating the article War of Mutina Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ifly6!

Happy New Year!

Ifly6,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patrician.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Corrected. Ifly6 (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Proscription of Sulla

Hi Ifly6, any suggestion on this draft of the Proscription of Sulla? T8612 (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for First Catilinarian conspiracy

On 25 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article First Catilinarian conspiracy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that modern sources believe that the first Catilinarian conspiracy was fake? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/First Catilinarian conspiracy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, First Catilinarian conspiracy), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 8,262 views (688.5 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Re: Marcus Atilius Regulus (consul 227 BC)

In response to your comment on my Talk page, I had a look at this article, & there is one sentence that puzzles me. The last sentence reads: "In notes, Broughton further explains that the textual tradition is unclear: this Atilius may in fact be an Aemilius and others have suggested Serranus as cognomen rather than Rutilius." Was "Rutilius" a typo for Regulus, or is there one or more authorities who believe his cognomen might be Rutilius? -- llywrch (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Let me check. Ifly6 (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a typo for Regulus. I confirmed at MRR 1.263 that Broughton says M. Atilius (Regulus)³ and that he notes alternative cognomen Serranus as suggested by Willems for note 3 on page 267. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Ifly6 (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I found the issue. Around the time I was writing that, I was also writing a world-building portion for a D&D campaign my friend is DM'ing where one of the NPCs is one Publius Rutilius who is so honest that he's getting framed for corruption. Ifly6 (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Varronian chronology

@Llywrch and T8612: Hello there. I remembered looking through some of my notes today that you all had been in a discussion sometime previously about creating an article on the Varronian chronology. Did that ever end up going anywhere? Ifly6 (talk) 10:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Not that I know, although this article is still needed. T8612 (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Llywrch: I took a look through the WP:CGR talk archives and saw that you had a draft of such an article in your sandbox. Are you still working on it? Ifly6 (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Ifly6, I meant to respond to your original query over the weekend, but time got away from me. Which turns out to have been a fortunate mistake, because I had forgotten I had written that draft & would have otherwise just pointed you to some general sources based on my memory. (Not surprising, since I wrote this roughly 7 years ago.) But to answer your question directly: no, I am not still working on this draft. I'm actually surprised I got as far as I had, because I as I remember I stopped working on the article because I could not find enough sources to write something I felt was satisfactory. Probably because Roman chronology of this time is a complex subject & the required further research discouraged me from continuing. You're welcome to take what I wrote & use it to create this article.

One clarification I'd make to this draft is that the "Forsythe" book I refer to is Gary Forsthe, A Critical History of Early Rome: From Prehistory to the First Punic War (Berkeley: University of California, 2006). Feel free to ping me to clarify other citations. -- llywrch (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)