Talk:Mark Antony/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

LEADSENTENCE

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2016

This request is to correct a few grammatical or typographical errors.

1. In the first paragraph, "...Pacorus' conquest had capture much..." should become, "...Pacorus' conquest had captured much...".
2. In the third paragraph, "...this is what Ventidius hoped would occur..." should become, "...this is what Ventidius had hoped would occur..."
3. In the third paragraph, "...assassinated Orodes II in late 38 BC and succeeding him..." should become, "...assassinated Orodes II in late 38 BC, succeeding him..."
4. In the fourth paragraph, "...if he invaded Parthian territory, and thereby steal..." should become, "...if he were to invade Parthian territory and thereby steal...".
5. In the fourth paragraph, "...so he instead attacked and subdue the eastern..." should become, "...so he instead attacked and subdued the eastern...".

216.243.130.246 (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Mostly done. #2 seems fine the way it is. Did the others either as suggested or with slightly different wording, and reworded the end of the last sentence for clarity. Thanks for catching these mistakes and awkward passages! P Aculeius (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Novel

Can you add the 1997 novel by Allan Massie (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Massie). Massie's novels on this period are very highly regarded. His knowledge of the sources is outstanding, and his gift for portraying character exceptional. Commiades (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Commiades (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Massie also portrays Mark Antony from the perspective of other narrators in his novels Caesar and Augustus.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Antony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716100018/http://www.tyndalehouse.com/egypt/ptolemies/cleopatra_vii.htm to http://www.tyndalehouse.com/Egypt/ptolemies/Cleopatra_vii.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012091837/http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/0272.html to http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/0272.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Name of article

I know it's been thoroughly discussed and ruled upon but there is one argument I didn't see mentioned. Marcus Antonius is his proper, historical and correct name. Isn't (shouldn't) one of the major goals of WP to espouse knowledge? By allowing "Mark Antony" to be used as the title is misleading as to his true name. What's wrong with just having a redirect to his proper name? I understand the argument that most only know his anglicized name but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. We, as the learned, should be doing all we can to stop the ignorance that seems to plague the world today. It's simple to place "anglicized: Mark Antony" in the first paragraph. Solri89 (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind the move at all, but at the same time we might need to reconsider current policy on Roman article titles, which supports the Anglicized name. I doubt there would be a consensus for that. And while I certainly prefer Latin for names like "Marcus", "Antonius", and (especially) "Pompeius", a lot of people prefer the versions with which they're most familiar. And then some writers vary the forms they use a little or waver between one and the other; for instance, "Tarquin" vs. "Tarquinius".

We haven't been too dogmatic on Wikipedia, enforcing one person's preference on everyone else; while there's just one article title, references to a person within each article often vary according to the writer's preference. A degree of flexibility allows more people to feel comfortable about contributing, and doesn't really cause that much confusion. Too much rigidity isn't a good thing; I'd hate to see all the J's turned into I's, or the V's into U's (or vice versa). So, I really think we need a strong consensus before moving this article or changing the policy. P Aculeius (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You make a very good argument on rigidity. And since the article does state his birth name, I'll agree and concede to your point. Solri89 (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

If the non-english version was used in the title, too many english language speakers might not be able to find the article or identify it. The name "Mark Anthony" is the one most common, familiar and popularly used by the UNEDUCATED and native english speakers, as well as entertainment and other media,at least in the USA; the uneducated need to find this info maybe more than the "educated and enlightened". So in order for it to be findable and recognizable by the most people who use english as first language, the name most commonly known is the one that they should be able to locate. Good thing though, that his real Latin name is the first one used in the article to tell who he was. That's essential and educational. and

Meat Eating Orchid (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

References

everyone's a Cretic

His cognomen is mentioned only obliquely (in his father's name). Why? —Tamfang (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Not all cognomina were hereditary; in fact a great many were never passed down to subsequent generations, especially those that were derisive, and became attached to rather infamous individuals. In the case of Antony's father, it was a personal cognomen. He was supposed to clear the sea of pirates, and attacked Crete, where the pirates had been given safe harbour, but he was defeated and made a treaty with the Cretans—thus earning a surname that would normally mean "made of chalk", but resembles a cognomen ex virtute, which would have meant "conqueror of the Cretans". Not the sort of name that could be vindicated by a glorious career—and Antony's father died in ignominy soon after it was bestowed upon him. There was no particular reason to apply it to his sons, and no reason for them to want it—so like many cognomina, it was ephemeral, and never applied to Antony. P Aculeius (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Descendants

Hello:

what are the sources for the Bosphorus descendants listed here?

thank-you

norenxaqNorenxaq (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norenxaq (talk • contribs) 20:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Mark Antony

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mark Antony's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "France Theatre of OW":

• From Caesar (Mercury Theatre): France, Richard (1977). The Theatre of Orson Welles. Lewisburg, Pennsylvania: Bucknell University Press. ISBN 0-8387-1972-4.
• From Mercury Theatre: France, Richard. The Theatre of Orson Welles. Lewisburg, Pennsylvania: Bucknell University Press, 1977. ISBN 0-8387-1972-4

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Addressed. I filled in the full ref from Caesar (Mercury Theatre) and converted the orphaned ref to proper short ref format. To help the nice friendly bots out in future I also converted the use of French 1977 in Mercury Theatre to use {{cite book}}. This specific cite is currently used in at least 3 different (but related) articles, so it'd be nice if the bots and other utilities could tell they're the same.

PS. While looking at this I noticed some bitrot in the references and reference formats used in this article (and the other two, for that matter). Anyone who cares about that might want to give them a little tender love and care. --Xover (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

This article, along with several other articles about ancient Romans, was changed to use a different infobox, {{infobox officeholder}}. In consequence, there's discussion about which infobox to use and how at Talk:Julius Caesar#Infobox and then at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Infoboxes for Roman office-holders as a more central location. NebY (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)