Talk:Annaea gens

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Rome Mid‑importance

	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.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 12 December 2017

It has been proposed in this section that Annaea gens be renamed and moved to Annaea (gens).

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Annaea gens → Annaea (gens) – The basic form for an article title for other gentes, as in the article "List of Roman gentes", is "X (gens)", with X being the name of the gens in feminine singular form. There is no need to differ the gens Annaea from the rest. Examples: Julia (gens), Claudia (gens), Flavia (gens), Antonia (gens), Octavia (gens), etc. Sanada Yuki-kun (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was originally created at that title, then another editor insisted on moving it because there was no need for disambiguation (evidently there's no genus of spiders named after it), and would not relent on grounds of consistency. After this had happened a few times, I realized that it would probably have been better to use this format from the beginning, although it seemed a bit late in the day to start. So I'm fine with leaving this and a few others without parentheses, and eventually perhaps moving the others to this style for consistency. P Aculeius (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support. Since all the other pages have "(gens)" in the title, and a discussion has not yet been had about changing this format, this page (and the dozen others) should be moved to "(gens)". This should probably just be an RMT instead of a normal RM, as it was an unneeded move to begin with. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Annaea. Why do we need to include "gens" at all, since the term is apparently not ambiguous, and Annaea already redirects here? Per WP:CONCISE it should just rest at the base name. — Amakuru (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last editor has just demonstrated the main problem here, by re-re-moving another gens article to a title that provides no indication of what it's about, after it had already been moved to an appropriate title, after a previous editor insisted on the same erroneous move in the past. Consistency is important, but whether there are parentheses is really not. And frankly, it would be better if none of these articles had parentheses to begin with, but they were nearly all created that way, and it will take time to move them. We need to apply a logical and consistent format to all articles in this series, instead of making a hodgepodge of different styles. With or without parentheses, it's clear what they are. Without "gens", they're constantly being confused with types of spiders or freshwater fish that were named after them. And unless we hold to that policy, we're going to have constant edit wars with editors who insist that some other Wikipedia policy overrides common sense in unpredictable cases. However, until today nobody had bothered one of the articles without parentheses; apparently some editors just hate anything that looks like disambiguation, and will do away with it if they think it's unnecessary, even at the expense of logic or usefulness to readers. That's why it's better to have the articles titled with "gens" but without parentheses. It should avoid more of these unnecessary moves to inconsistent and unpredictable titles. P Aculeius (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]