View source for Wikidata talk:WikiProject Ancient Rome

== Wrong labels created by bots ==
In the past years many bots added new labels for humans copying them from other languages. This approach is very useful for most people, but for ancient people (Greek and Roman) is really bad: different languages adapt ancient names differently. An example: in [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q3991115&action=history this case] Reinheitsgebot copied English label from Italian label and then PLbot copied German label from one of the previous two. Unfortunalety Italian adapts Latin names, while English and German mantain Latin forms without variations. So I had to modify them.

Now I will list some equalities which are very very likely to be wrong. X are the cases which are almost certainly wrong; OK are the cases which probably (but not certainly) have really to be equal; / are neutral cases (may be equal or may not).

{|class="wikitable"
!.!!ca!!de!!en!!fr!!it!!la!!all others
|-
|ca||=||X||X||X||X||X||X
|-
|de||X||=||OK||/||X||OK||/
|-
|en||X||OK||=||/||X||OK||/
|-
|fr||X||/||/||=||X||/||/
|-
|it||X||X||X||X||=||X||/
|-
|la||X||OK||OK||/||X||=||/
|}

Can someone create lists to correct Xs? I wouldn't create lists for OKs, because they aren't always true. Thank you, --[[User:Epìdosis|'''Epì''']][[User talk:Epìdosis|<span style="color:green">'''dosis'''</span>]] 15:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
:At [[Wikidata:WikiProject Names/reports/Romans with P2358]], I tried to add a fall-back for labels in languages that could be suitable for English (2nd column). nl and sv should work too.
:I fixed most of the easier differences between English (using "o" from Italian) by adding Latin ("us") to English.
:I also added Latin as alias in English for most (if not all) items on [[Wikidata:WikiProject Ancient Rome/lists/people]] if en<>la. 
:Latin sometimes includes the name of the father in abbreviated from (e.g. "L.f.") which isn't done in English.
:Labels from cawiki seem to be the hardest ones to fix. 
:Overview of languages used: [[Wikidata:WikiProject Ancient Rome/numbers/people/by sitelink]] <br/>--- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 13:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
::I made a request for Cyrillic ones at [[Wikidata:Bot_requests#Import_la_from_ruwiki.2Fbgwiki]]. For someone who can do de-transliteration reliably, maybe working with ru/bg labels can do.<br/>--- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 11:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Jura1}} Could you create a [[Wikidata:WikiProject Ancient Rome/numbers/people/by label]]? --[[User:Epìdosis|'''Epì''']][[User talk:Epìdosis|<span style="color:green">'''dosis'''</span>]] 13:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
::::It's a bit tricky, here is a query as a start: [https://query.wikidata.org/#%23%20Labels%20on%20items%20for%20Romans%0A%23%20by%20Jura1%2C%202016-08-05%0ASELECT%20%3Flang%20%28COUNT%28DISTINCT%20%3Fitem1%29%20as%20%3Fct%29%0A%7B%0A%09VALUES%20%3FR%20%7B%20wd%3AQ17167%20wd%3AQ2277%20%7D%0A%09%3Fitem1%20wdt%3AP2348%20%3FR%20%3B%20wdt%3AP31%20wd%3AQ5%20.%0A%09%3Fitem1%20rdfs%3Alabel%20%3Fitem1Label%20.%0A%09BIND%28LANG%28%3Fitem1Label%29%20as%20%3Flang%29%20%0A%7D%0AGROUP%20BY%20%3Flang%0AHAVING%20%28%3Fct%20%3E%2099%29%0AORDER%20BY%20DESC%28%3Fct%29]. [[Wikidata:Property_proposal/lang|This]] could make it easier. <br/>--- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 13:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC) 
:::::{{ping|Jura1}} It's OK: from this I can conjecture at least 1000 wrong Dutch labels imported from Catalan and some other hundreds with the same problem in English, German and Italian. In my opinion all Dutch labels which are the same as Catalan are to be removed: we can replace them with the name of the Dutch Wikipedia sitelinks or with the Latin/English/German label; in all other cases we have to simply cancel them. --[[User:Epìdosis|'''Epì''']][[User talk:Epìdosis|<span style="color:green">'''dosis'''</span>]] 14:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
*Related question: Should the Italian label for [[Q4821839]] be "Aulus" or "Aulo"? <br/>--- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 11:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
::{{ping|Jura1}} In my opinion all praenomina items should have the latin original form as label in all languages and the form in the native language (so, it: "Aulo") as alias. --[[User:Epìdosis|'''Epì''']][[User talk:Epìdosis|<span style="color:green">'''dosis'''</span>]] 11:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
:::Ok. I was hesitating. <br/>--- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 21:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

== List of officials ==
As a first one, I started with [[Wikidata:WikiProject Ancient Rome/lists/Roman dictators]]. I figured it's better to start with a short one. <br/>--- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 11:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Please note [[Wikidata:Project_chat#458_BC]].--- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 21:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
:Result from it seems to be: [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Dates&oldid=362338198#Years_BC Help:Dates#Years_BC] <br/>--- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 15:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

== Consuls ==

I was thinking of mass adding {{P|39}} for consuls from [[:de:List of Roman consuls]] / [[:de:Liste der römischen Konsuln]]. However, it is a litle bit tricky. 

A few questions
* I discover {{Q|21597597}}, for consuls pre 27 BC. Does such an item make sense ? If recall my history right, there was no sudden radical change in formal institutions in 27 BC. 
* I think we need to distinguish {{Q|26254800}} and {{Q|26254806}}. 
* What do we do with consules suffecti. I had a similar question on the Project Chat recently about acting presidents. The solution proposed was to use {{p|794}} as a qualifier. I think it makes sense. So that would be {{statement||P39|Q26254800}} + qualifier {{statement||P794|Q629712}}. (assuming it makes sense to say that you are a "consul suffex posterior".
* what about the dates ? Wikipedia provides years, but that does not match Gregorian dates, nor I think standard Julian dates as Roman years do not start on January. What is the best we can have ?

--[[User:Zolo|Zolo]] ([[User talk:Zolo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

:The role of the consul changed once there was an emperor .. so statements about the position are different. The title exists also elsewhere, but we wouldn't want to use the same item just because the title is the same.
:For {{Q|Q629712}}, I'd use the qualifier {{P|794}} as on [[Q722098#P39]]. If you want to use {{Q|26254800}}, it should work with {{P|794}} as well.
:The qualifier {{P|1706}} should allow to link the 2nd consul as well.
:The dates as used on [[Wikidata:WikiProject Ancient Rome/lists/Roman dictators|Roman dictators]] should work.
:Rather than create more items based on some list, you might want to merge existing items about the same consuls. <br/>--- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 18:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
::The role of the Emperor of Japan in 1900 is vastly different from the role Emperor of Japan in 2000, that does not mean they should be different items. That seems at least as valid for Roman consuls. There is no no clear single date when the role of consuls radically changed. ''De facto'' their power was shaky well before 27 BC. ''De jure'' they kept most of their prerogatives after that date. 
::The distinction consul prior / consul posterior seems fairly minor, but I don't see the point of doing it in the qualifiers rather than in the main value. {{p|794}} can spare the creation of countless ad hoc items (say "acting finance minister of Croatia") but using {{Q|26254800}} as a qualifier rather than a main value does not save any item and qualfiers make the structure more complex. 
::I don't get what you mean about creating items, I don't intend to create more items.--[[User:Zolo|Zolo]] ([[User talk:Zolo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
:::Well, even if the Japanese Emperor would have had the title "consul" at some point, I think it's good to that it has an entirely different item for P39. Obviously, any role is subject to some changes. Would you add  {{Q|Q499146}} to the item for the consuls of the Roman Empire as well? 
:::If you think the distinction for senior/junior is minor, it should definitely not go beyond a qualifier. You could use "ordinal" if you "as" doesn't suit you. I don't entirely get your comment about the acting minister, as for "consul suffectus" that's exactly what is being done.
:::If you are unsure about the values to use for one consul or the other, we can add these later. <br/>--- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 07:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
::::I am not saying that the Emperor of Japan was called consul, it was just a comparison: the role of the Emperor of Japan changed a lot, and yet we have only one item {{Q|208233}}. To me, the same would make even more sense for Roman consuls. 
::::I don't see any benefit in using a qualifier for junior / senior. Using the main value is all-round simpler. Using qualifiers for "acting minister" avoid creating items like "acting finane minister of Croatia" but using qualifier to state wether the item is junior or senior does not avoid any item creation (at worst it requires two new items if we separate Republic consul from Empire consul).
::::I don't how you intend to use {{Q|499146}} but yes, and I don't claim any expertise on Roman institutions, but I think consuls were recognized some imperium during at least part of the Empire (that does not mean they had the highest power, pretors had imperium as well). --[[User:Zolo|Zolo]] ([[User talk:Zolo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::Items for Japanese emperors look like they need fixing, but I think this is not in scope for this project. I don't quite understand your interest in the number of items to indicate what seems like a minor difference: indicate the senior/junior/Eastern/Western/First/Second etc. Personally, I'd continue with the current approach. {{Q|499146}} is already in use on [[Q21597597]], but not on the other. 

== Property Era ([[P:P2348|P2348]]) ==
It is stated that "Items related to Ancient Rome would generally have era (P2348) with value Repubblica romana (Q17167) or Impero romano (Q2277)".
Is not the period "Età regia di Roma" ("Roman Kingdom") (Q201038) missing as a selectable value for the property? --[[User:Mpiva|Mpiva]] ([[User talk:Mpiva|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
:Yes probably. We just didn't get there yet. <br/>--- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 07:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

{{Ping project|Ancient Rome}}

Hello. I would like to have a discussion about the use of {{p|2348}}. To be honest I don't really understand the point of the property. It seems to have mostly a datation purpose ; for most items however we can narrow their timeframe to at least the century level, which is a more precise and, if anachronistic, at least more neutral way of dating. I personnaly abstain from using it, for a few reasons. First, it's often a purely modern division, without clear reference in Ancient litterature, and if it appears it's only in authors writing decades if not centuries after the events. Second, its use is problematic for individual whose life spanned across two of those divisions, e. g. {{Q|Q453853}} as spent at least half, if not most, of his life in {{Q|Q2839628}}, yet he is only classified in {{Q|6106068}}. Last but far from least, all the date chosen for the division are debatable, and I don't think it exists a clear consensus among historians (and we turn back on my first point) as to how we should — but should we? — divide Rome's inner chronology. Take {{Q|787204}}: in French bibliography, it's absolutely not clear if it stops in 192, in 235 or in 284 and the name itself tend to be put aside. I would really like to have your thoughts about it. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
:I would use only {{Q|201038}} and {{Q|17167}} and {{Q|2277}}, other subdivisions are often debated as you say. --[[User:Epìdosis|'''Epì''']][[User talk:Epìdosis|<span style="color:green">'''dosis'''</span>]] 16:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
:: The dividing point between the Republic & Empire is somewhat problematic: some mark it at 44 BC (death of Julius Caesar), some at 31 BC (Battle at Actium, when Augustus became sole ruler), some at 27 BC (when he initiated a series of reforms that became the basis for the Roman Empire), & an argument could even be made for AD 14 (when Augustus died -- by picking up the mantle of rule, Tiberius made it impossible for the polity to return to the Republican model: it had to be an empire).{{pb}}There is a division between "Early Empire" & "Later Empire": both society & political structure were different in many ways. But as you write, there is no good point to divide between them. Any division would need be an arbitrary one, good only for Wikidata's purposes. (The subdivisions of the Roman Republic are even less clear -- at least to me.) -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

:::Here there are several different issues mixed up.
:::* The first. The division into {{Q|201038}}, {{Q|17167}} and {{Q|2277}} has a full historiographic sense (and different from the division into centuries). It is perfectly adequate to filter any element of Rome's history through these historical divisions, even if their boundaries appear to be somewhat imprecise. The vast majority of Romans (focusing on biographies) fall into one of these periods regardless of whether the end of the republic (or the beginning of the empire) is in 44, 42, 27, 23 BC or whatever date. However, there is a certain consensus in fixing it after {{Q|160387}}.
:::* The second. The internal division of {{Q|17167}} and {{Q|2277}} still has a full historiographic sense. The uses of {{Q|2815472}} or {{Q|787204}} (or {{Q|206414}}) are very broad in modern historiography and justify their uses as historical divisions in themselves.
:::* The third. It does not matter that in {{Q|41493}} they did not perceive or consider these divisions. Is this not the case with each and every division into periods? Does not the division into centuries suffer from the same criticism? Moreover, they exist in modern historiography, so their use is justified regardless of what the Romans of the time might have thought.
:::* The last. The date of an event is the only thing that is known about the lives of many people in {{Q|41493}}. Therefore, it's correct to place those people in the historical period that corresponds to that date, even though they logically lived longer in another period. There's nothing absurd about the example being set.
:::Therefore, I consider that its use is justifiable and that it's correct to divide it into periods. If there're discrepancies with the boundaries, that is what needs to be discussed; the use of the property is not in question. Un saludo. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

::::Thanks everyone for the answers! I wasn't clear enough, but I don't contest the use of {{Q|201038}}, {{Q|17167}} and {{Q|2277}}, although as [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] stated the turning point between the last two could be called into question ; and as we use {{Q|Q21597597}} and {{Q|26203875}} this could be problematic, specifically as {{Q|1405}} was careful not to alter too much the republican system. Would a consul of the 30s BC be any different from one in the 20s BC (I mean, when it’s not {{Q|1405}} himself)?
::::For others divisions, I'm not denying their historiographical sense, at least in some languages (in French {{Q|6106068}} is nonexistent, at least with the current dates). But again, every historian could rightfully argue for a different date and even for a different division – and they do it. If we look at [https://www.cambridge.org/core/series/cambridge-ancient-history/010C506409EE858277F898C129759025 The Cambridge Ancient History] (among others), they don’t match with what we have. Sure, the inner division of {{Q|17167}} and {{Q|2277}} are very practical and used when you want to speak about a certain period of time, be it the few decennia before {{Q|2277}} for {{Q|2815472}} or {{Q|193254}} for {{Q|787204}}: but there are also timeframe in their own rights, different from what precedes and what follows. Speaking of the Empire, we could also use {{p|2348}} based on dynasties, and it would be perfectly justified. It’s endless. What I am saying is that, outside of the kingdom/republic/empire division, which is a least institutionally justified, there is no consensus on how and when should we make divisions.
::::That doesn’t make the inner divisions false or wrong ''per se'', just very impractical to use for individuals and I think we should avoid using them for this purpose. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

== Pompeii  ==

You may know that [[User:Nvitucci]] has added lots of items about Pompeii. At my user page, I have build a clickable imagemap for Pompeii (you can use that) and now I have inserted into items like Q26960992 (Pompeii Regio I Insula 1) the "has part" values for Regio I. I would like to do so for the other Regios too. 

We have at commons categories about Pompeii, for example: [[:commons:Category:Pompeii Regio I]]. I have added as example into Q27070416 one commons category. Is that OK?

I guess there will be more questions. Is it OK to discuss them here? --[[User:Molarus|Molarus]] 19:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

== What are the best modelled items for your area of interest? ==

Hi all

Over the past few months myself and others have been thinking about the best way to help people model subjects consistently on Wikidata and provide new contributors with a simple way to understand how to model content on different subjects. Our first solution is to provide some best practice examples of items for different subjects which we are calling [[Wikidata:Model items|Model items]].  E.g the item for {{Q|Q692}} is a good example to follow for creating items about {{Q|Q214917}}. These model items are linked to from the item for the subject to make them easier to find and we have tried to make simple to understand instructions.

We would like subject matter experts to contribute their best examples of well modelled items. We are asking all the Wikiprojects to share with us the kinds of subjects you most commonly add information about and the best examples you have of this kind of item. We would like to have at least 5 model items for each subject to show the diversity of the subject e.g just having {{Q|Q692}} as a model item for {{Q|Q214917}}, while helpful may not provide a good example for people trying to model modern poets from Asia. 

You can add model items yourself by using the instructions at [[Wikidata:Model items]]. It may be helpful to have a discussion here to collate information first.

Thanks

[[User:John Cummings|John Cummings]] ([[User talk:John Cummings|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

== {{P|2358}}, {{P|2359}} and {{P|2365}} ==
Hey! Currently those three properties all ask for {{P|27}} as {{Q|Q1747689}}. But what in the case of freemen, who notoriously do not have the same civils rights as full citizens, but still share the same name system? Is it correct to use {{p|27}} in this case? Cheers, --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
:I would maybe suggest {{st||27|1747689}} + {{st||3716|841571}}, but I'm not sure, the problem you mention is real, I didn't notice it before. --[[User:Epìdosis|'''Epì''']][[User talk:Epìdosis|<span style="color:green">'''dosis'''</span>]] 20:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Epìdosis}} : thanks for your reply, I'll go on with your suggestion until we find something better. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

A similar issue will arise with Italic people who share similar naming practises, but who do not have the Roman citizenship — e. g. {{Q|11951952}}, who both ENWP and DEWP present as a non-Roman but who still have here {{st||P27|Q1747689}}. Also, as a sidenote, maybe we should update the three naming properties above so that they can also be used for all the Italic peoples (Etruscans, Osco-Umbrians, and so on) without ambiguities such as {{Q|55385579}}, labelled as ''Estruscian'' (sic) ''praenomen'' but with {{st||P31|Q1240901}}. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

:The issue of nationality in the context of Ancient Rome is tricky enough in itself to be considered on its own.
:In the case at hand, yes, you are right. What should be considered is whether the restriction is removed or if it is expanded to include other peoples of ancient history. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Romulanus|Epìdosis}} having thought about it, I think we should remove the {{P|27}} constrain and modify the property to be extended to others italic peoples. It would be way simpler than adding every pre-Roman peoples of Italy, and it would above all allow us to bypass the numerous cases when we simply don't know (and shouldn't assume). Shall I launch a discussion on the three properties themselves? --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:::No other discussion needed in my opinion, you can just remove the constraint. --[[User:Epìdosis|'''Epì''']][[User talk:Epìdosis|<span style="color:green">'''dosis'''</span>]] 20:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
::::I would prefer it if the constraint could be extended to "no value" and "unknown value". I wonder which {{P|27}} will be chosen for Etruscans, Samnites, Sabines... If it can't be done, I agree. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::It's seems possible to add "no value" and "unknown value". As for the Etruscans, we should avoid {{Q|Q17161}} and use {{Q|21573810}}, {{Q|21580466}} and the like ; for Samnites, we should again avoid {{Q|500272}} and use {{Q|1077232}}, {{Q|925746}}, etc. Basically every italic city-state and tribe would be legitimate as a {{P|27}}, just like in {{Q|11772}}. At this point, if you want to keep the constrain, we should just leave it without qualifiers, that is, Qid should have a {{P|27}}, but the value isn't specified. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::I don't think the examples you give for Samnites are valid, but they make sense for Etruscans. Therefore, I agree to remove the constraint to avoid a long list. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Well I'm unfamiliar with Samnites mode of government to be honest: I don't know if they can be considered one political block. I'll remove the qualifiers on the constrains. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
::::I personally think these constraints are unhelpful, the vast majority of women were just named the nomen.[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|*Treker}} I agree, but since knew Roman men vastly outnumber knew Roman women, it seems preferable to keep the constrain. You can add {{P|2358}} with "no value" in this case. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

== Can {{Q|777342}} be consider equivalent to {{Q|101352}} ? ==
{{ping project|Ancient Rome}}

Hello ! [[User:*Treker|*Treker]] and I disagree about [[Special:diff/1157606289|this edit]] (and so I also disagree with [[User:Laddo|Laddo]] about [[Special:diff/1002256981|this one]]). I personnaly don't think that we can consider Roman cognomen and modern surname to be equivalent. Sure, they broadly function in a similar manner. But, notably, the cognomen is not always hereditary : see for example {{Q|1419}} (T. Flavius Vespasianus) and {{Q|1423}} (T. Flavius Domitianus). The fact that the Roman name system is articulated around three elements, whereas modern name system uses only two, makes me very relunctant to equate any part of them. We would appreciate further input on this. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|Jahl de Vautban}} I substantially agree with you (little note: the first link is wrong, it refers to {{Q|14873084}}, I think), probably {{P|1889}} should be used. --[[User:Epìdosis|'''Epì''']][[User talk:Epìdosis|<span style="color:green">'''dosis'''</span>]] 09:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
:({{ping|Epìdosis}} fixed, thanks. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC))

::{{ping|Jahl de Vautban}} I agree with [[User:Epìdosis|Epìdosis]] to use {{P|1889}} if necessary. Cognomen could play different roles. In Roman aristocratic families it was hereditary (at least in the Republican period and in the early Empire), as in the Claudii Pulchri, Cornelii Scipiones, Iulii Caesares, and was ''imitated'' by other families of different descent, Calpurnii Pisones, Licinii Crassi, but other families did not follow the same guidelines. For example, Fannii, Annii, Pompeii and Licinii branches carried different cognomina and Antonii, Opimii, Vinicii, Vitelii did not even have cognomen. In the Empire, it could serve to distinguish members of the same family too. Not to mention the polyonymous.
::So, sometimes it will look like a surname (or a second surname), sometimes a nickname and sometimes a given name. Roman Naming Practices are different. Un saludo. Pd. Spanish naming sistem is articulated around three elements too ;) --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
:::I went ahead and [[Special:diff/1166181216|removed it]]. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
{{section resolved|--[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)}}

== Change of name by adoption ==

{{ping project|Ancient Rome}}

Hello. For some Romans, we know their names by birth and adoption (p. e. {{Q|1407}}). {{P|2359}}, {{P|2365}} and {{P|5025}} properties can be filled in with two values (at least). If I want to qualify both values (with {{P|1552}}), which value should I set? I think that {{Q|180472}} is suitable for adoption, but there is no one item with the meaning of ''at birth''. What do you think?

On the other hand, what is the point of [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P5025#P5025$340817f3-41f8-4bfa-b61e-15cf5ca86efd these restrictions] on gens property? Thanks. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
:Hello {{ping|Romulanus}} I think ''at birth'' should be assumed as the default and implicit qualifier for every name value ; we could however add {{Q|24575110}} and {{Q|24575125}} in case we know them. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
:: But then we encounter the issue of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polyonomy polyonomy], where an individual assumes anothers gentile name in return for receiving an inheritance. (It was a relatively common phenomena in the 2nd century AD.) FWIW, currently there is no entry in Wikidata for this property. -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Jahl de Vautban}} Thanks. I had not thought of it (the default option, I mean).
:::{{ping|Llywrch}} Not every Roman polyonomy was a polyonomy because of an inheritance.
:::By the way, I found the point of restriction. {{P|828}} is used for adoptions instead of {{P|1552}}. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Romulanus}} you are right. But most of the instances I've had to wrestle with tend to involve testamentary adoption, so I forgot about that. -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Llywrch}} To resolve the lack, the item ''testamentary adoption'' can be created and used in the qualifier {{p|828}} for the values of the properties {{P|5025}}, {{P|2359}} and so on in case they're inherited. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Romulanus}} the problem with this approach is that the reason for polyonomy is not always firmly known. Sometimes we are told by a contemporary, sometimes it's clear from examination, but often it's a process of weighing the possibilities & making a guess. (Or an expert relies on his reputation & indulges in a lot of handwaving. It's very easy to get lost in the weeds when it comes to prosopography.) -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Llywrch}} It is enough that there is a firm positive case for the item to be justified, I mean. In fact, it was the point I made as a premise at the beginning: that both should be known, adoptive and ''at birth''. Un saludo. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::: Is "unknown" a possible value to enter in this case? By this, I don't mean a null value (which might encourage someone to casually add an erroneous value), or a string, but acknowledging "yes, there should be a value here, but all sources state it is not known". If so, then there should be no problem. -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

== {{Q|1404897}} ==

What qualifier can be used to say the province in which a {{Q|1404897}} works? I've used {{P|276}}, but I don't think it's quite accurate. Nor would {{P|642}} be very appropriate because it would have the effect of making him the governor of the province, and would be mistaken with {{Q|158648}}. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|Romulanus}} {{P|1001}} maybe ? --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Jahl de Vautban}} Thank you. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

== {{Q|26187474}} and {{Q|26196891}} ==

{{Ping project|Ancient Rome}}

Hello. Following a discussion on [[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] [[User talk:Romulanus#Vettius (Q26187474)|talk's page]], I propose that we:
*a) merge {{Q|26187474}} with {{Q|32979456}}, because it's most probably only a {{Q|3760158}} ; the fact that we found it in first position is due to how {{Q|1240901}} fell in disuse in {{Q|217050}} (special ping {{ping|Epìdosis}}, since you created it);
*b) do something with {{Q|26196891}}, because it's certainly not a {{Q|1240901}}, and I don't think modern researchers ever thought it was. Its nature however isn't as clear cut as the above {{Q|32979456}}: for quite a time it was thought to be an equivalent to {{Q|32979165}}, but nowadays research tends to consider it like a {{Q|216353}}. Some reads : [https://www.jstor.org/stable/41540754] [https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/114213/1/SalwayJRS1994.pdf].

--[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
: The proper meaning of Flavius is a personal bug-a-boo. In the 4th & 5th centuries, it had become a title, ''not'' a praenomen; by that point praenomina had become obsolescent, if not extinct. As one authority put it, "Flavius" was in some ways similar to the usage "Mister" in the 17th & 18th centuries, a title of honor for people who weren't nobility, but gentry in some form; this can be determined by the form "Fl." instead of "Flavius" in the primary sources. (Calling Senator like {{Q|Q355720}} "Flavius Symmachus" would be taken as at best a faux pas & at worst an insult.) However, people who aren't as informed about the Later Roman Empire mistake it as part of the person's name. I try to combat this misinformation on en.wikipedia, but the misinformation is wide-spread beyond Wikipedia. -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
:: {{ping|Llywrch}} yes I think this is the first read I've mentionned. The author aknowledge that his opinion is a huge challenge to decennies of prosopographical research considering "Flavius" as a nomen; anyway the mininum we can do is stating and sourcing the claim that it is a title and not something else. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

*What would you add at [[Q1174079#P2358]], if anything? Where would an item for "Vettius" go? --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 18:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|Jura1}} I'll keep {{P|2358}}, but with "unknow value". — Obviously I'll intend on removing every claim of {{st||P2358|Q26187474}} before the merge. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
::once merged, where would it go? --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 18:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Every occurrence of {{st||P2358|Q26187474}} will be replaced by {{st||P2359|32979456}}. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I would delete {{Q|26187474}} because it's obviously a mistake. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
*Yes, in that case: no merge. I don't think {{Q|26196891}} should be merged either. If it is a praenomen or generally being misunderstood as a praenomen, I don't mind having an item about that. --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 11:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
:Fine with me for deleting {{Q|26187474}}. As for {{Q|26196891}}, it will not be merged, we'll keep it. We just need to figure the best way to model its nature, according to past and present researches. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

::About {{Q|26196891}}, I've been searching several sources without success. For instance, nothing is said in the two sources provided at the beginning; neither [https://www.jstor.org/stable/310491 here] nor {{Q|1138524}}. I think it's another mistake. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I have requested the deletion [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions&diff=prev&oldid=1242484415] [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions&diff=prev&oldid=1242484756] --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

== Check import ==
Hi {{ping project|Ancient Rome}}! This morning I've started an import of statements about 3428 ancient places from {{Q|87068904}}. There may be some wrong matches (i.e. statements going in the wrong item, e.g. {{Q|3538789}} instead of correct {{Q|211233}}). If you notice something strange, please not revert, but report the case in my user talk page. Thank you all in advance, --[[User:Epìdosis|'''Epì''']][[User talk:Epìdosis|<span style="color:green">'''dosis'''</span>]] 11:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
:Update: after some deep reflection, I decided to entirely revert the part of the import I had already done because the percentage of imprecise matches (especially ancient city with modern city) was too high; in the next days a Mix'n'match catalog of {{P|8068}} will be imported and you will be able to contribute to a more precise match. Thank you all for the patience. Good night, --[[User:Epìdosis|'''Epì''']][[User talk:Epìdosis|<span style="color:green">'''dosis'''</span>]] 22:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

== Concept of insulae: insula ([[Q827617]]) vs. Insula ([[Q28228887]]) ==
{{ping project|Ancient Rome}}

Hi all, 
I'm working on a Roman city-modeling Wikidata project and noticed the modeling on the concept of insulae is not clear: shouldn't there be one Q-number associated with the concept of a Roman apartment building and a different Q-number for the concept of a Roman city block (the second number conflates these)? I'm a relatively new editor, so open to advice and guidance by those of you who are more experienced: any complaints if I change the second Q-number (Q28228887) to strictly designate the concept of a city block since the first number is designated already for apartment insulae? [[User:Ahc84|Ahc84]] ([[User talk:Ahc84|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
:No complaint. --[[User:Epìdosis|'''Epì''']][[User talk:Epìdosis|<span style="color:green">'''dosis'''</span>]] 20:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

: No objection here either. -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

:Actually both items should be merged. Having two concepts, one for the building and the other for the block, is not Roman, but modern. The proof is that they used the same word. If you are going to do a Roman city-modeling Wikidata, you should only use {{Q|827617}}. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

:Thanks {{reply to|Epìdosis|Llywrch|Romulanus}} for the feedback. I'm aware that the ancients used the same word for both concepts, but the problem is how to model something like the excavations at Dura-Europos (which is actually the specific city I am working on). At Dura, the city is orthogonally gridded, and thus we know the boundaries of individual insula 'blocks'--but these did not always contain insulae as in apartment buildings. I want to be able to model that Block K2 at Dura as an 'instance of' insula (block) but not imply that it is also an apartment building (since in this case it is unexcavated and was likely not an apartment building based on surrounding comparanda). Further thoughts? [[User:Ahc84|Ahc84]] ([[User talk:Ahc84|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

:::::I think then that you should follow {{u|Jahl de Vautban}}'s suggestion mentioned below. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

::Hi! I disagree with the argument of {{u|Romulanus}}. Yes, there is the "Roman concept", but there is also the material/historic reality which we need to take account of (I actually can think of at least a few items that don't describe a "Roman" concept but a modern one). However, for a thing as widespread as urbanism, I wonder if it really useful to create civilisation-based subclasses: do we really need {{Q|28228887}} when we can use {{Q|1348006}}? Furthermore, I imagine that parts of Dura are Greek in their origin, therefore can the term "insula" be applied to them or shouldn't we need a Greek equivalent? --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

:::Hi, i left this comment unsaved by misake on my screen so pardon me if I quickly take into account other feedbacks only at the end. IMHO, you should always separate concept, so {{Q|Q827617}} and {{Q|28228887}} are fine to be separate somehow, but you should clean them up. Which IDs refer to the apartment building and which one to the concept of city block? I have no time to help you but it's a surgical operation, and not sure what to do if they describe both concepts. Some articles I have opened clearly refer to the building. Now, I read {{u|Jahl de Vautban}}'s suggestion and I feel it might be correct, but again double check all the IDs and articles. Also, if they encompass both concept, what should we do?--[[User:Alexmar983|Alexmar983]] ([[User talk:Alexmar983|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
:::Should we use {{P|1889}} also? is there any way to work maybe with lexemes (a field I totally ignore because of lack of time) to highlight/encode that the two terms are somehow related but they are different concept?--[[User:Alexmar983|Alexmar983]] ([[User talk:Alexmar983|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

::: disclaimer: I am working with {{U|Ahc84}} on this project. It seems to me that {{Q|28228887}} was likely an empty batch creation. Someone later added the description of "city block" perhaps to disambiguate it from {{Q|827617}}. I agree with {{u|Jahl de Vautban}} that the items should not be merged--we should distinguish insula in the sense of apartment building from the sense of site block. However, I notice too that people working on Pompeii used their own unique definition of insula with {{Q|26960982}} for different site subdivisions (including apartments and lots of other built structures). See [[https://w.wiki/f7c here]] for examples of structures in Pompeian insulae. But I wonder if it is useful to have too many ad hoc definitions?? I also wonder if remodelling these definitions of insula might affect existing statements in other projects (such as Pompeii).  [[User:Valeriummaximum|Valeriummaximum]] ([[User talk:Valeriummaximum|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
::::Over the years, I started to appreciate very specific concepts, they are fine if you describe them correctly with the right use of classes in a correct hierarchy and with a proper functional insertion in other items. So generally speaking (sorry I cannot dig right now), especially if there is also some specific ID, we could keep an item for the ''insulae'' of Pompei. My suspicion was that it was used to describe the items of the portions of the site and [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Q26960982 it is]. We could maybe put more instances hinting more it's a subdivision of a "museum" somehow, or something like that, but it should be probably kept.--[[User:Alexmar983|Alexmar983]] ([[User talk:Alexmar983|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
:::::I absolutely agree with you re Pompeii; I think there is a proper historical reason for using their own term. My concern is that, since Pompeian {{Q|26960982}} is listed as a subdivision of {{Q|28228887}}, if we edit the definitions of {{Q|28228887}}, we might be interfering with the ontologies that other people have used for their own sites. So I agree that we need to distinguish two concepts of insula, but I am just worried about the surgical process of how to do it, making sure the IDs and definitions and urls match for each definition (as you said), but also make sure that changes don't change existing statements involving these concepts. I'm also fairly new to wikidata so just want to get a sense of what is the best community practice[[User:Valeriummaximum|Valeriummaximum]] ([[User talk:Valeriummaximum|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
::::::It probably won't interfere that much, since {{Q|28228887}} is only linked to {{Q|26960982}}. I went ahead and added two statements ; next question is: should {{Q|28228887}} only be about ''Roman'' insulae and, should it be the case, do we need ''Etruscan'', ''Greek'' or whatever insula-equivalent? --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
::::::: I personally worry that too many subdivisions of the term 'insula', even though conceptually good, might make the work of editing and querying data more difficult, especially since at the moment we have three items whose labels just say "insula". [[User:Valeriummaximum|Valeriummaximum]] ([[User talk:Valeriummaximum|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

== Different items or clarification? ==

{{ping project|Ancient Rome}} I think it may be of some interest to the members of the Wikiproject.

The same item is used for the Roman city and for the archaeological site. I'm thinking of places like Tarraco, Barcino, Celsa, Itálica ... (not only in Hispania, of course) that they were Roman cities then and they are archaeological sites today. I think they should be in different items because they are different things. However, I have observed that many of the articles in the Wikipedias put both things together ([https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarraco Tarraco] in esWiki). For example, I have indicated that difference in {{Q|5760255}} with the property {{P|2868}} (first I used {{P|805}}, but I have already realized that it is not correct), although I can't quite see what the difference is with {{P|3831}} (I have read [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property_talk%3AP3831&type=revision&diff=1065536100&oldid=1065406467 this]) nor if what I have done is understood in the same way by everyone. The point is that the Roman city is Roman and the site belongs to a modern country and territorial entity and I cannot think of another way to clarify it. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Pd. {{Q|658893}} is another example. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

*Tricky questions. Should we have one, two or three items? Which one should link Wikipedia? How to maintain them going forward?
:I think {{ping|Bouzinac}} reviewed and/or rearranged some a while ago. 
:BTW P2868 seems correctly used on [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q5760255&oldid=1293944864 Celsa]. Occasionally, I confuse it with P3831 too. --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 15:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
::I'm unsure if they really are two different things : for me it's an unique settlement which went through various occupations phases over time, its current ruinous state being the later in date. I would avoid splitting any of such in multiples Qids unless there is an interwiki needing the distinction and go with {{P|580}} and {{P|582}} as qualifiers for the various properties needing clarification. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

{{unindent}} Thanks for your opinions. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
:Hello, I think it is two different concepts : the old city : info on when it was founded, demolished etc. And the archeologist concept : when did an archeologist discover, when did it open, etc. These cover very different time range, thus I'd like to see them splitted into for instance 'city X' and 'city X (archeologic)'. A merge might be done but complexifies greatly the sparql for lambda users. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 8px;background:#303030">[[User:Bouzinac|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Bouzinac'''</span>]]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Bouzinac|💬]]●[[Special:Contributions/Bouzinac|✒️]]●[[User:Bouzinac/UB|💛]]</sup> 23:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

*There is currently a new property proposal related to this at [[Wikidata:Property_proposal/archaeological_site_of]]. --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 10:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

== Domitia Magna ==

{{ping project|Ancient Rome}} I ping in case someone can report it to bgWiki.

{{Q|12278989}} is made up. I don't know from where, but {{Q|868066}} had no offspring [he adopted brothers {{Q|35691900}} and {{Q|684275}}] and the wife of {{Q|1233616}} is not known. I would appreciate if someone could communicate it to bgWiki so that the item can be deleted later. Thank you. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

: Around that time there was an editor (now banned) who fabricated a number of biographical articles on non-existent people, many of which have been translated to other Wikipedias. (I have been trying to track his contributions & identify those which are complete hoaxes from those that have some basis in fact.) I don't know if this article was written by the same person -- I don't see anything that clearly proves he wrote it -- but this does emphasize a need to coordinate between the different language projects so that when a hoax is found in one, other projects are alerted & can act appropriately. -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

:I changed the P31 of the item. As far as Wikidata is concerned, I think that solves it. bgwiki has an embassy at [[:bg:Уикипедия:Посолство]]. Alternatively, maybe {{ping|Nikola Tulechki}} can help you. --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 17:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

:: I [https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8#%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D0%B5_%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0 posted] it on bgWiki village pump. [[User:Nikola Tulechki|Nikola Tulechki]] ([[User talk:Nikola Tulechki|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

: [[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]], [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]], [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]], after a brief discussion on bgwiki, the article has been deleted. Don't know about {{Q|12278989}} itself—perhaps the change in P31 is, indeed, enough—but it seems to me that it would be best to also delete P22 (father), P25 (mother), P26 (spouse), P40 (child) relationships from it, {{Q|868066}}, {{Q|1233616}}, and {{Q|1713818}}. Otherwise, now Domitia still pops up in the infoboxes (unless we implement some checks for Q35779580 in P31, I guess).<br><span style="font-family:'Droid Sans', Calibri, Verdana, sans; color:silver;">—&nbsp;[[User:Iliev|Luchesar]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Iliev|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Iliev|C]]</small></span> 11:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

::[https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q12278989 I have requested its deletion]. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

== Split and/or merge; one, two, three... items ==

Some ancient Romans items come from Wikipedia articles that use sources that are now out of date. For example, {{Q|1138524}} has outdated all previous works including {{Q|1210336}} which has been widely used by Wikipedias. This causes duplicates and mergers. Some examples are here: [[Wikidata:WikiProject Ancient Rome/errors]]. I now think that calling them a mistake was wrong. Others are actually genuine contemporary doubts in need of clarification. Usually the doubts arise because scholars do not agree on who held an office. I propose here to treat them according to four different typology. This could help us clean the page of suspected errors. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|Romulanus}} I've seen your message ; I'm trying to write a comprehensive reply but I've already restarted it twice, so it might take a few more days. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

=== Item A + Item B ===
Two public offices assigned to two different people in outdated works. Today only one person is believed. There are Wikipedias that have two articles, one article to one of the office or one article with the two offices. I think that here we should have three items: one for item A, another for item B and a third for item A + item B because it is arbitrary to assign item A + item B to item A or item B. I think that for the cases that are still disputed today the same should also be done. They will also need property {{P|460}} shared by all three.

The reverse is just the same case of this. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

:Example. {{Q|2440676}}, tribune of the plebs, and {{Q|3622124}}, praetor. Father and son respectively. However, today [http://romanrepublic.ac.uk/person/874 L. Scribonius Libo] is just one person. The plWiki article merges tribune and praetor and is arbitrarily linked to tribune. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

=== Item A from Item B ===
Similar, but not the same. Here an ancient Roman holding more than two public offices, but one of them was formerly (or recently) thought of a different person. Again, different cases in the Wikipedias according to the source used. I think that two items are enough here (except if different offices are splitting). One item that accumulates most of the offices and another for splitting. They will also need property {{P|460}}.

The reverse is just the same case of this. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

:Example. According to Broughton, {{Q|101229276}}, quaestor in 509 BC, could be the same person as {{Q|1236570}}. However, both are still different. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

=== Item A ∩ Item B ===
In this case, scholars do not agree on who held what office. I believe that these items should not have {{P|460}} since they are not the same but they coincide in one or more offices and that it is enough to indicate it with a qualifier in office. However, I cannot find a qualifier that fits this. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

=== Different names ===
Sometimes the names can be totally or partially different. I think that we should only have one item indicating this particularity. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
:Example. The praetor of the year 167 BC {{Q|11924400}}. According to Smith, a Gillo son of {{Q|20100604}}, but in RE and Broughton without cognomen and related to the Fulvii Flacci (grandson of {{Q|1533130}}). --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

=== Comments ===
{{ping|Romulanus}} so I got to think about the system you described above. First of all, I think the main difficulty that we are facing is the fact that we are a somewhat different project that Wikipedia, but the technical impossibility of having multiple sitelinks forces us to model their content, which is naturally not a very optimal, at time contradicting, way to deal with an already complex subject such as Roman prosopography. To rationalise, I think we should treat the various Wikipedia as sources, naturally of weak quality but as sources nonetheless, when we are confronted with possible duplicates and to confront its content with more reputable sources. In the end, we are not stating anything new about Roman prosopography but only modeling it as it already exists elsewhere (I do admit that I sometime go out of my way and try to correct sources directly on WD, which I shouldn't be doing). That being said, I do think that I mostly agree with the above typology, perhaps with some minor tweaks.
# First, regarding the sharing of external identifiers, I think that in the case of ''Item A + Item B'', any external identifier of item C should also be present on A and B.
# In the case of ''Item A from Item B'', if any source is more affirmative than {{st||P1480|Q30230067}}, we should be working with the schema ''Item A + Item B'' and create an item C.
# For ''Item A ∩ Item B'', we could perhaps use {{P|1382}}?
Anyway it is indeed very complex topic. We ought to be precise in the referencing of the various statement when we are dealing with possible duplicate, and state the reference used as much as possible. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

:Greetings, {{ping|Jahl de Vautban|p=}}. Thanks for your comment. The point is what to do when faced with multiple items that are related. The proposal tried to structure the different options according to prosopographic criteria (public office, kinship...) to identify individuals. The great problem with prosopography in the ancient world is that it is almost an impossible science. Trying to make Wikidatic sense to the doubts, proposals, conjectures, deductions or, why not, fantasies of scholars is a very difficult task.

:I agree that we/Wikidata should take Wikipedia articles as the basis for items and relate them to the {{P|1480}} and {{P|1382}} properties where appropriate. (I am not clear about the use of the property {{P|1889}} with homonyms). Another issue is that there are no Wikipedic articles to link the items to. For this, it would be necessary to consider the advantages and disadvantages of having one or more items applying criteria of reliability in the sources. Unfortunately, it is not possible to control the appearance of spurious characters coming from places of doubtful rigor (when the origin is indicated and it can be checked).

:I am not so in agreement that the items share the external identifiers. (I would agree in the opposite case, an item with two or more identifiers). Each identifier corresponds to an individual characterized mainly by his/her public office or priesthood and secondarily by his/her kinship. That "unique" individual has to correspond to an item that is not necessarily "unique". That is, id_01 ==> item_01 / id_02 ==> item_02 or id_01 ==> item_01 / id_02 ==> item_01. Then we/Wikidata internally relate those items with the corresponding properties. In the case of the example that I mentioned above, the Scribonii Curiones, and assuming that we had a Smith identifier (could we have a Smith identifier? [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0104 Smith website]), Item A (tribune of the plebs) and item B (praetor) would have the corresponding id of Smith and item C (A + B) the corresponding of the DPRR and the three properties that relate them, just as we/Wikidata do (or should do) with the items of the articles in the Wikipedias.

:In any case, I believe that we should discuss the most complex or difficult cases to model on the corresponding discussion pages, as well as trying to specify the information as best as possible with the qualifiers like you mentioned.

:Saludos. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

== Another possible hoax, Quintus Caecilius ==

{{ping project|Ancient Rome}} because someone speaks the language of the Wikipedias that have an article with this character.

Another possible hoax. In this case, {{Q|1174086}}. Currently, the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quintus_Caecilius is up for deletion on enWiki]. The source provided in the other articles is [https://www.worldcat.org/title/metellos-de-portugal-brasil-e-roma-compilacoes-genealogicas/oclc/47756507 this], but the seminal article was the enWiki one (without sources). Neither {{Q|31350139}} nor {{Q|1138524}} mention this person, which is already a clue. What was the change in {{P|31}} to indicate this particularity? --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|Romulanus}} I think I understood what happened. There was a Quintus Caecilius tr. pl. in the year 316, but that is the year 316 since the foundation of Rome, so 439/438 BC (ca). It's indeed the same person as {{Q|4218692}}. I would keep it as it is for now: currently, it exists because they are Wikipedia pages linked to it. We can either ask for deletion on each wiki or simply transform them into redirection to the real Quintus Caecilius. Once it's all settled, we'll be able to merge it. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
:I'm seeing I forgot to answer you on the previous topic, I'll try to change that over the week-end! --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Jahl de Vautban}} Interesting! I think you are right. Taking advantage of the proximity of the dates, this (fictitious) person was made the uncle of {{Q|521498}}. I will try to explain it in the enWiki deletion proposal. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
:: I wouldn't be so generous. The person who created the original article is a banned user who created a number of articles on en.wikipedia about people who didn't exist. Some may be simple errors as [[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] points out. Others were clear fabrications, which require a lot of research in order to successfully nominate for deletion. (The give-away clue is that this banned user would cite one of Christian Settipani's books -- which are very lengthy -- without providing the page numbers. About as helpful as citing Pliny's ''Natural History'' without providing the book & section numbers.) I've spent a lot of time cleaning up after this person, & there's still a lot of his mess needing to be cleaned up.
:::At this point, wouldn't it be more efficient to just recycle the various pages from the false tribune of 316 into the true tribune of 439/8? No wiki has the real one except WPRU, which incidentally doesn't have any page about the false one. Correct the date, get ride of the dubious source and of the unproved kinship, and we have a page about a real person. It can be done in any language — we'll only need to modify the ancestry tree in WPPT. Then merge the Qid and problem solved. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
::::The item was deleted on WPEN, what do we do now? Shall we ask on the other WP to delete it as well?  --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
:::::I went ahead and edited the various Wikipedia to get ride of the 316 tribune ; I also merged the Qids. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

== Fake Atias  ==

A while ago I found these two women, {{Q|12272788}} and {{Q|12272789}}. As far as I'm capable of figuring out they are totaly fictional, without even any sources speculating on their existence.[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
:Hi Treker! Yeah I think you're right. In the source invoked, Syme speaks indeed of a "[https://books.google.fr/books?id=fj8oQ4lzteIC&pg=PA194#v=onepage&q&f=false third Atia]" but she's one generation younger. Confusion seems to arise from the L. Pinarius and Q. Pedius cited in Suet. ''Caes.'' 83. as the grandson of Caesar's sister. If they are from Julia Minor, then you need to conjecture two more Atiae. But even in Smith they are given as grandchilds of Julia Maior. Zmeskal actually think that they are the sons, not grandsons, of Julia Maior, for if Q. Pedius is {{Q|255465}}, the consul of 43, he would have been too young for this office was he a grandson of Julia. But anyway, Atia Prima and Tertia are very probably fake. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{Reply to|Jahl de Vautban}} Can we have them deleted somehow?[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::{{ping|&#42;Treker}} well, here come the tricky part. Currently thoses pages exist because they are wiki links supporting them. We need first to ask for deletion on the Bulgarian and Serbian wikis. We should probably aims for the local [[w:bg:Уикипедия:Страници_за_изтриване|Bulgarian]] and [[w:sr:Википедија:Чланци_за_брисање|Serbian]] deletion request page and follow their rules. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::{{Reply to|Jahl de Vautban}} Do you know of anyone who can read and write Serbian or Bulgarian? I sadly do not know anyone and I'm not sure where to seak help.[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|&#42;Treker}} well no, and others members of this project don't have any Babel saying that either. But supposedly you should be able to ask in English? I mean, it's also in their interest to get ride of false articles. [[w:bg:Уикипедия:Разговори/Архив/2020/април#Гай_Мемий_(претор)_and_Гай_Мемий_(претор_172_пр.н.е.)|I've done it in the past]] and it went smoothly, but it was not a deletion request. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::{{Reply to|Jahl de Vautban}} You don't think they will mind if I ask in English? I don't want to offend anyone.[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|&#42;Treker}} sorry, I've missed this message. Well, some could take offense ; the fact that you are coming from Wikidata might also be ill-viewed by others. We actually have a [[Wikidata:WikiProject Ancient Rome/errors|full list]] of things that should be corrected and that we are all too afraid to ask for. So I can't blame you if you just want to add it there.
:::::::However keeping them in this list won't do us any good and as I have said above, it's also the very interest of the various wiki to have accurate articles. If you prefer, I can go and ask them to do so. I think the case has arguments serious enough to at least try. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::::{{Reply to|Jahl de Vautban}} I would appreciate it in this case. I tried to speak to somone once regarding one of those pages on one of the Wikis and I think I communicated very poorly.[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ping|&#42;Treker}} it's asked: see the [[w:bg:Уикипедия:Страници_за_изтриване/2021/02/Ация_Балба_Прима|Bulgarian]] and [[w:sr:Википедија:Чланци_за_брисање#Ација_Балба_Прима|Serbian]] request for deletion. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::{{Reply to|Jahl de Vautban}} Thank you so much Jahl.[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{ping|&#42;Treker}} update, the Serbian page was deleted, still waiting for the Bulgarian two. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
{{ping project|Ancient Rome}}
*I think it's important to proceed as suggested above: [[#Domitia_Magna]]. One shouldn't rely on other wikis fixing these (or not). Given that the items have been there for years, I'd probably avoid deleting them even if delete on all other wikis. --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 04:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
:Seems I omitted spelling it out above and the item is gone now: that was adding a {{P|31}} value of {{Q|Q35779580}} in preferred rank: [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q12272788&diff=1358165730&oldid=1321523319] [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q12272789&diff=1358165786&oldid=1321523003] (done for these two). --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 05:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
::{{Reply to|Jura1}} Why should they be kept?[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
:::To avoid that people who come across them have to research them once more. Essentially the same reason why we have deprecated statements at Wikidata. --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 05:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
::::{{Reply to|Jura1}} So they should be listed as {{Q|Q64643615}}s?[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::I'd proceed simply as stated above: add {{Q|Q35779580}}. --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 05:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::: Wow, that is a useful quality to know about. I've encountered entries over the years that I know are due to articles on fictitious subjects or hoaxes, & adding this to the corresponding Wikidata element would help with this problem. -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks {{mention|Jura1}} for this value, I as well didn't know it existed. Ultimately however I disagree with you and I think we should actively seek the deletion of those fake items as well. The odds that someone come across them are, I believed, close to non-existent: unlike other cases of things thought to exist by then scholarship (e. g. {{Q|11954927}}), you'll find absolutely no source about those two Atiae. There are inexistent, save for BG/SRWP and dubious website replicating its content. Currently the Wikipedia link is the only thing thak keep those Qid above Wikidata notoriety threshold anyway : they are not sourced by anything nor linked to others pages. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with Jahl, I don't think it is very likely that keeping two "Wikipedia Originals" would be super helpful.[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::::*So all with the same name found elsewhere are unrelated to the two above? In that case, we should at least make items for these. --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 14:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::What do you mean {{mention|Jura1}}?[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yeah I'm not sure I'm following you as well. Basically {{Q|231696}} and {{Q|25338418}} are the only Atia attested for this period. Others are made-up and with 0 evidence, neither ancient nor modern, that they existed. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::::*Searching for "Atia Balba Prima" and "Atia Balba Tertia" does find some people. I guess Tertia could be [[Q25338418]].  --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 08:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::That is what I just explained. On one hand [[Q25338418]] is well attested, but as the wife of [[Q251964]], as the mother of [[Q544421]] and nothing else ; we aren't even fully sure she is the sister of [[Q231696]]. On the other hand Prima and Tertia seem to have been created to provide a mother for [[Q255465]] and [[Q382127]], except there is absolutely no evidence they existed at all. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::It doesn't really matter if the person existed or how much evidence there is that the person existed. That is only relevant for the rank of the P31=Q5 statement. --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 10:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{mention|Jura1}} So anybody can create ancestors for people based on nothing but their own imagination? Because that is what you are endorsing and I firmly believe it is wrong on every level. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::Strange. Which part of my comment lead you to conclude that? Maybe you could walk me through the steps. --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 10:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::::{{mention|Jura1}} just above, when you said that "It doesn't really matter if the person existed or how much evidence there is that the person existed". We are not speaking here of some mythological ancestors that could have been real or not. In the case of {{Q|12272788}} and {{Q|12272789}}, we are speaking of persons straight-out invented in 2010 from a faulty and personnal reconstruction, unbacked by any source. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The question is not if they existed, the question is if there is a reference for the statement. I don't think you should added them as if they existed nor make up any data. Wikidata is just a secondary database. You can use ranks to assess references. --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 11:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::{{mention|Jura1}} Once the articles are deleted there won't be any "references".[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Did you read my answer to your earlier comment? --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 18:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::{{mention|Jura1}} Yes, obviously, they just didn't make any sense, and based on the other replies here I don't seem to be the only one who doesn't get what you're trying to say.[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Never mind then. Happy editing. --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 08:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

{{ping project|Ancient Rome}}
All the linked articles are now deleted, should we go ahead and do the same to the items?[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|&#42;Treker}} I completely forgot about those, sure we can go ahead! Next step is to create two [[Wikidata:Requests for deletions|requests for deletions]], explaining that we got them deleted on their respective Wiki and that they now fail the [[Wikidata:Notability|notability policies]] ; want to do it ? --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

== Parameters for names ==

Would it be possible to add some kind of parameter similar to "Roman praenomen", "Roman nomen gentilicium" and "Roman cognomen" that could work for women's names? Many women didn't have praenomen or cognomen like men but instead things like ''Major and Minor'' or ''Prima, Secunda, Tertia.... etc''.[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
:I'm not really in favor of multiple name properties, it would just be tedious from a request point of view (I'm not even sure if we should really have {{P|2366}} and {{P|5438}}). For Prima, Secunda, Tertia…, they can be paralleled by Primus, Secundus, Tertius and so on. Epigraphically those cognomen are attested. For Maior/Minor, are they really use outside the literary authors ? --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
::{{Reply to|Jahl de Vautban}} As far as I know Major and Minor were used as part of women's actual names.[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
{{ping project|Ancient Rome}}

{{comentario}}. Maior, Minor, Tertia (Tertulla), Quarta, Quinta (all of them documented in the republican period) are not cognomina. It's a misconception to consider them as such. They are words used 'ad hoc' to distinguish some homonymous women from others. In modern historiography its use has been established and extended to other homonyms not necessarily republican. In the republican period, the vast majority of women (and, in particular, all the women of the patrician-plebeian aristocracy) had no cognomen. On the other hand, Maior is documented as a cognomen in the imperial period (e. g. {{Q|12276036}}). I have not found any examples of Minor. Some cognomina were used arbitrarily for men and women. In that case, for instance, {{st||P1552|1775415}} and {{st||P1552|499327}} in the same item. And in line with this, I think that the creation of different items for homonymous praenomen and cognomen or cognomen and agnomen has been unnecessary. For instance, {{Q|29981766}} and {{Q|30232680}} can be put into a single item with {{st||P31|1240901}} and {{st||P31|777342}} and so on. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
::I have to personally disagree on merging cognomen and praenomen (and also praenomen and nomen such as Appius) who were the same. We have separate items for given names and family names who are the same and I think it should stay that way. Merging them may cause issue if there are actual articles for the names in some Wikipedias.[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
::::In modern historiography, it is said "it is a praenomen used as a nomen gentilicium (eg, Appius, Publius ...)" or "cognomen used as a praenomen (eg, Cossus, Paullus ...)" and so on. They are, strictly speaking, the same, only that their use is diverse. If articles existed for the different concepts, then we would have no choice but to have two items. If not (and I see that it is most if not all), there is no reason to have two (or three) items. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::It's not just an issue of two articles per name, its also that many articles are only about one use, for example when a page is named "Appius (praenomen)" or "Drusus (cognomen)" or "Octavius (nomen)" you know the article isn't going to be about the general name but about the praenomen, cognomen or praenomen. I personally do not support mergers for names because of this reason. I only support mergers if the names are identical for both use and near identical in spelling (for example Paullus and Paulus).[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
::::::Ah, ok, I didn't understand you. That is not an obstacle. There are many items that have multiple values for {{P|31}}. {{Q|17167}} and {{Q|2277}} are considered both {{Q|11514315}} and {{Q|3024240}}. That does not induce anyone to create separate items and all Wikipedias articles are linked here regardless of consideration. The same applies to Roman names. Appius is a praenomen, but sometimes it functions as nomen gentilicium (eg, {{Q|24951240}}, father-in-law of {{Q|899739}}); Cossus is a cognomen, but sometimes functions as a praenomen (eg, {{Q|548539}}, consul in 1 BC). It is clear that we are not going to agree, but let other {{ping project|Ancient Rome}} have their say and see what happens. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Welcome back, {{mention|Romulanus}}! I am conflicted on the issue, but I think that I slightlty favor *Treker's view, mainly so because it is done this way for modern naming practise. On the other hand however, the use of the ''tria nomina'' properties already puts us at odds with what is done elsewhere, so I am not sure that this is the best argument. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
::::::::{{ping|*Treker|Romulanus}} some (wrong) merges happened yesterday with the various Qid dealing with the name Agrippa, whose situation may be of some interest for the ongoing discussion. Currenlty, we have one item for [[Q21485168|the praenomen]], one item for [[Q3221235|the cognomen]] and [[Q2580583|another for both]] (leaving aside Agrippa as [[Q19987904|modern first name]], [[Q63385884|family name]] and [[Q33216|disambigation page]]). None of the three of interest to us have a declaration linking to one another, which is a problem. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
{{od}} As far as Wikidata is concerned and the mess that having multiple items of closely related or overlapping topics can entail, I think that, if a Wikipedia does not have individual articles for each option, it's best to have a single item in Wikidata. In particular, Agrippa's example is significant as to how far the system can be developed. For the sake of abundance, deWiki says that "Agrippa ist ein römisches Cognomen, männlicher Vorname und moderner Familienname", which the automatic translator tells me that for deWiki it is a cognomen, a first name and a surname. In other words, deWiki takes Agrippa as a whole and it is clear that it does not correspond to {{Q|3221235}}, the cognomen. I'm now closer to a loose general rule that helps us consider case by case. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi again {{Reply to|Romulanus}}, I noticed today that you created {{Q|106902304}} some months ago, as you stated above should this really be listed as a cognomen or should we try to maybe get {{Property|8017}} to work for it?[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
:Maior is a cognomen as I said above. If we are not going to merge the names used as praenomen and cognomen in a single item, neither should we do it with those used as cognomen and "generational suffix". (Incidentally I will say that they cannot even be considered full "generational suffix" because many times they are used in the same generation). Kajanto, in his "The Latin Cognomina", does not consider the forms Minor, Maior and others as cognomens (of the republican period) and this is done in the works that deal with the matter (even from the 19th century). However, in individuals like Sextus Iulius Maior, Gaius Sammucius Maior or Gaius Sabucius Maior Caecilianus, Maior is a cognomen like any other. [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q106902304&type=revision&diff=1501761926&oldid=1472414184 These edits] don't even conform to what the user himself has said in this discussion, so I will proceed to undo them. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
:{{Reply to|Romulanus}} You're being astonishingly confusing right now, you explicitly stated above that "Prima, Secunda... etc and Major" are not cognomina and now you're insisting it is? And why are you refering to me as "the user"?[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
::There is no confusion. In the same paragraph I say: "<u>On the other hand</u>, Maior is documented as a cognomen in the imperial period", something I repeat in the paragraph prior to your intervention. The series Minor, Maior, Tertia ... are not cognomens. No scholar considers them that way. On the other hand, Maior is a cognomen in imperial times. It is the same as saying: Longus, Metellus, Agrippa, Gallus ... are cognomens. <u>On the other hand</u>, Agrippa is a praenomen in the early Republic. Where is the confusion? --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
:::{{Reply to|Romulanus}} There was confusion regardless if there should be or not, because I was confused, probably because I had forgoten most of the earlier conversation above, thats my bad, I am sorry, I feel dumb. Regardless I would like to ask you that you refered to me as "Trekker" or "you" instead of "the user" in conversations if that is ok.[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
::::{{ping|&#42;Treker|p=}}. You shouldn't give so much importance to "user". I use translation tools to write here. I suppose it shows. In doing so, I put generic names and then I replace them with the particular ones: users, items, places ... That "the user" passed me by as it has happened to me on occasions in other conversations with other words :o. That happened here.
::::Rereading my intervention again, perhaps I should have linked to the items, although I assumed that we were talking about the Maior-cognomen (with Q) and not the Maior-"suffix" (without Q); I also assumed that, although the same name can be used as praenomen, nomen, cognomen, agnomen, signum, supernomen, generational suffix (also prefix?), affectionate appellation, descriptive name or whatever, that all the diverse uses must have their own item, except perhaps the cognomen-agnomen pair. My fault. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

== Property for PackHum Epigraphic Database? ==

Does anyone know of an existing property for the PackHum Epigraphic database (https://epigraphy.packhum.org/)? If a property for the PH ID does not yet exist, would there be support from this group for requesting this property? [[User:Ahc84|Ahc84]] ([[User talk:Ahc84|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
{{ping|Valeriummaximum}}
{{ping project|Ancient Rome}}
:{{ping|Ahc84}} it doesn't exist — yet. We have actually very few items and properties relative to epigraphy, comparatively to literary/papyrological texts (see [[Template:Ancient world properties]]). I would gladly support more integration of this kind of material; in fact there are actually [https://wiki.digitalclassicist.org/Category:Epigraphy lots of projects] we could link to. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
:: Sure, we hoped to address the issue in the future, in [[Wikidata:Testi latini]] (the small project that we launched with [[User:Epìdosis]]) is also written somewhere there in some form. Originally this was one main target but the number of complicated Medieval authors was so high that we had to start later with the Latin texts.--[[User:Alessandro Marchetti (WMIT)|Alessandro Marchetti (WMIT)]] ([[User talk:Alessandro Marchetti (WMIT)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

== P27 with Q2277 ==

{{ping project|Ancient Rome}}

Hi! Is there somewhere a recommendation stating that [[Q2277]] shouldn't be used as {{p|27}}? As it is occasionnaly used instead of [[Q1747689]], I think it would be beneficial to write it down somewhere. Should we add it as a {{Q|52558054}} on P27? --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
:Agree on both: we should write it down clearly in the page of our WikiProject and also add Q2277 as a {{Q|52558054}} on P27. --[[User:Epìdosis|'''Epì''']][[User talk:Epìdosis|<span style="color:green">'''dosis'''</span>]] 11:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
::I have never used them but we need a standard, constraints and a guideline. I have trust in your choice.--[[User:Alexmar983|Alexmar983]] ([[User talk:Alexmar983|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
:I'm not certain I understand the question, but Roman citizenship (which applies to both the Roman Republic & the Empire) works as follows. Not all individuals in Roman history were Roman citizens; you could be born, live & die in Roman territory yet never be a citizen. For example, the Apostle Paul was a Roman citizen, but none of the other people in the New Testament (for example Peter or Jesus) were necessarily Roman citizens -- & we know Paul was only because it is central to the actions in the last part of ''Acts''. Roman Citizenship was strictly regulated, & was the cause for many conflicts, such as the Social Wars. For the most part, anyone from ancient World who does not have a ''tria nomina'' -- the three-part naming convention common during the period -- & died before AD 212 when the ''Constitutio Antoniniana'' was issued, was not a Roman citizen. Unless there is explicit evidence to the contrary. There are likely other factors that need to be taken into consideration, but those are the two primary considerations.{{pb}}You can develop constraints & a guideline based on those criteria. -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|Llywrch}} sorry, my initial comment was maybe too vague. My concern isn't about who is a Roman citizen, but how to model it in the most effective way. Currently the vast majority of Romans have {{st||P27|1747689}} (Rome as an atemporal state, regardless of its historical divisions), but a few have {{st||P27|2277}} (a single historical division of the history of Rome). We don't have yet any guidelines regarding what should be used as {{P|27}} for Romans, and this is a problem: contributors keep making change without any clear statement about what should be used. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
::: Okay, I see what you are asking. IMHO, we should use the values {{Q|2277}} & {{Q|17167}}, however we run into the problem of when is the division between Roman Empire & Republic? For that reason I'd favor {{Q|1747689}}, just to avoid this complication. But then there is another complication: would the value of [[Q2277]] possibly conflict with {{Q|41710}}? There are cases where the ethnicity & Roman citizenship could conflict, for example Plutarch who was a Roman citizen & a Greek. (If there is no constraint prohibiting this, then all is good.) -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

*The reason I tried to add {{P|P2348}} to most people was to avoid anachronistic uses of P27. --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 08:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

:{{Done}} --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Moved from the project page
{{quote|1=
"=== Citizenship ===

Items related to Ancient Romans should have {{st||P27|Q1747689}}, that is Rome as an atemporal, continuous state, regardless of its historical divisions. Thus, {{Q|17167}}, {{Q|2277}} or their subdivisions shouldn't be used.
}}

{{ping|Jahl de Vautban}} How does that reflect the discussion above? Personally, I'm fine with a none of constraint for any value.  --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 19:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|Jura1}} well {{u|Epìdosis}}, {{u|Alexmar983}} and ultimately {{u|Llywrch}} (as well as myself, so 4 person in total) agreed that [[Q1747689]] should be used as a P27 — have I misread them? Also, in all honesty, I didn't really understood what you meant with your first message, so I just assumed it was a commentary, not a position. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
::Seems I missed part of your proposal. It's actually one to use {{Q|Q1747689}} for all, not to add one (or several values) as none of constraint. 
::Ultimately, I think {{ping|Llywrch}} is correct: actually citizenship was limited to some people living in that time. I don't quite see how we could apply P27 to the others. 
::Personally, I prefer the current approach of using P2348. --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 19:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
:::If people living inside the Roman Empire weren't Roman citizen (and thus didn't have the ''tria nomina''), then they shouldn't have either [[Q1747689]] or [[Q2277]] or whatever historical subdivision. We can just state their P27 as "unknow value", though they probably had some kind of local citizenship tied to a specific city (or more). But that wasn't my concern. What I wanted to discuss is : what should we use as P27 value for Roman citizens? Currently [[Q1747689]] is overwhelmingly used, so should we make that a guideline? --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

::::{{comentario}}. I agree with {{ping|Jahl de Vautban}}, especially to avoid the ambiguity of defining temporal limits, but more precisely because there is a continuity from the founding of the Urbs to, at least, the Theodosian division. Nor do I see the contradiction of using {{P|27}} and {{P|2348}} at the same time (although I suppose it is my understanding of English that works against me to understand the point). In any case, {{st||P27|Q1747689}} is only for Roman citizens and those who were not (even if they lived in the Roman State) would have another value or they would not have it because it's unknown or because we do not have an appropriate item. The guide, if written, should perhaps say "Roman citizens will have Ancient Rome as their nationality ({{st||P27|Q1747689}})." Something like this. P.S. The tria nomina is not an infallible rule to certify Roman citizenship. It is a phenomenon that extends to other Italic peoples and to many peregrini. Let them tell Emperor {{Q|1411}} who had to legislate about it. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

== Any idea who this is? ==
The Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic has an [http://romanrepublic.ac.uk/person/5487/ item for a Livia] whom there doesn't seem to be any information on. Appearently mentioned by Shackleton Bailey in 1995 somewhere?[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
:The ultimate source seems to be Cicero, ''Epistulae ad Atticum'', 7.8.3: [https://latin.packhum.org/loc/474/57/0#130 Dolabellam video Liviae testamento cum duobus coheredibus esse in triente sed iuberi mutare nomen]. --[[User:Epìdosis|'''Epì''']][[User talk:Epìdosis|<span style="color:green">'''dosis'''</span>]] 17:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
::The book is ''Onomasticon to Cicero’s letters''. I can try to have a look at it in the following days. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
:::She is only known for that mention of Cicero. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
::::{{Reply to|Romulanus}} In that case I know who it is, the DPRR item is a duplicate for another one that already has its own Wikidata item then.[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

== Any idea who or what this is? ==

This item {{Q|Q19610035}} is described as a human, but the link to its Sandrart.net person ID seem to just add up to random mentions of satyrs.[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
:It was bot-created without double-checking. It does indeed seems to refer to any satyr depicted in an artistic way ; I'd merge it with {{Q|Q163709}}. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

== Does Wikidata have something like "what links here"? ==

Wikipedia has the search option for ""[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Cat&namespace= Pages that link to "Foo"], does Wikidata have something similar? I'd like to search for items that have "Country of citizenship: Ancient Rome" but which lack English names/descriptions.[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|*Treker}} I would use queries:
{{SPARQL|query=
#Ancient Romans without English labels
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P27 wd:Q1747689 .
  MINUS { ?item rdfs:label ?enlabel .
  FILTER(LANG(?enlabel) = 'en') . }
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE]". }
}
ORDER BY ?itemLabel
}}
{{SPARQL|query=
#Ancient Romans without English descriptions
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P27 wd:Q1747689 .
  MINUS { ?item schema:description ?endesc .
  FILTER(LANG(?endesc) = 'en') . }
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE]". }
}
ORDER BY ?itemLabel
}}
:--[[User:Epìdosis|'''Epì''']][[User talk:Epìdosis|<span style="color:green">'''dosis'''</span>]] 20:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
::Thanks a bunch {{Reply to|Epìdosis}}![[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

== What to do when several Wikipedia articles in different languages uses mistaken names? ==

The man {{Q|Q378683}} is generally assumed to not have been named "Batiatus" as he's called by Plutarch, but instead "Vatia", but several Wikipedia pages still name him as "Lentulus Batiatus", and the [https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B0%D0%B9_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%83%D0%BB_%D0%91%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B0%D1%82 Bulgarian article gives him the praenomen "Gaius"] while the [https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintus_Lentulus_Batiatus Turkish one uses "Quintus"] (this is likely taken from ''Spartacus'' TV series on Starz).[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
:Any thoughts?[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|&#42;Treker}} same as above with the Atiae: we have to go on the local wikis and change them or have them changed by a local contributor ; it will help to have a few references under your hand to source the modifications though. Thoses references should also be used to source the claims on Wikidata as well, with adequate use of the deprecated rank in case one is false, to avoid recreation of the claim by a mindless bot. 
::(Also, don't be afraid to use <nowiki>{{Ping project|Ancient Rome}}</nowiki>, it's easy to miss a message in this page among the mass of modifications anywhere else {{wink}}.) --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

== The same? ==

{{ping project|Ancient Rome}} Should these two Quirinus [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q59158396 1] [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q320333 2] be merged?[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
* At first glance, they appear to be the same personage. -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
::I'm not sure. Based on their common identifier {{P|2272}}, one is ''Curinus'', the other ''Quirinus''. But the source behind this property is quite old (1770), so perhaps there are further works on this. I'm only able to find informations about an ''Hercules Curinus'' in modern literature. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

== Cascae ==

{{Ping project|Ancient Rome}}
I think [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gaius_Servilius_Casca this AFD on en.Wiki] is relevant to this project, since all the articles on this {{Q|1491516}} figure include the praenomen Gaius.[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

== This mess of an article ==

{{Ping project|Ancient Rome}}
{{Q|85854705}} This article on French Wikipedia is an absolute mess, it seems to mix details about three men, {{Q|107638081}}, {{Q|35691900}} and {{Q|684275}}. In cases like these, what should the description say?[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
*The item could still have been about one of them, but the sitelink moved elsewhere, with statements like [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q85854705&diff=1465999163&oldid=1405428216 these]. --- [[User talk:Jura1|<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-8deg);-moz-transform:rotate(-8deg);-webkit-transform:rotate(-8deg);-o-transform:rotate(-8deg);">Jura</span>]] 05:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|&#42;Treker}} note that if he is an hoax, it might be a good idea to ask for its suppression. I think {{ping|Ursus}} might be of help. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

: The French article cites Christian Settipani without providing a page number -- about as useful as citing any large reference work without a page number. One of the tells I've found on en.wikipedia that this is the work of a banned user who would fabricate biographical articles under many different usernames. (''Note'': Settipani is otherwise a reliable source, & citations to his works '''with''' a page number are likely to be legitimate. So be careful about how you use this information.) I don't know what the procedure is here or at fr.wikipedia, but this article should be deleted as a HOAX. -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

== Titus Flavius Sabinus, consul and nephew of Vespasian ==

{{Ping project|Ancient Rome}} Hi, I have found these two articles ([https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B8%D1%82_%D0%A4%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BD_(%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%83%D0%BB_69_%D0%B3.) 1] & [https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B8%D1%82_%D0%A4%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BD_(%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%83%D0%BB_72_%D0%B3.) 2]) on the Bulgarian Wikipedia whom I believe are one and the same man.[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
: Yes, they are the same man. T. Flavius Sabinus was the nephew of Vespasian, according to the source cited in the English Wikipedia (Gavin Townend, "Some Flavian Connections", ''Journal of Roman Studies'', 51 (1961), pp. 55f). The same user created both pages on bg.wikipedia 11 years ago, & never bothered to go back & check his work. -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

== Minor issue with Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic ID ==

{{Ping project|Ancient Rome}}
The DPRR has some items for people who were technically born after the end of the Late Republic (such as {{Q|16705384}}), this creates a warning symbol on the ID. Maybe we could add "High Roman Empire" as an allowed constraint?[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
:The people listed in the DPRR are all from the Republican period, either because they are fully in it, or because part of their life was spent in that period. Thus, there is a non-zero possibility that this "Hortensius/Marcius" (whose name could have been anyone) was born in the republican period... from the point of view of the DPRR. Hence editions like [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q11277954&diff=prev&oldid=1501664458 this]. On the other hand, the "warning symbols" refer to kinship, name and things like that, never to the historical period. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
:On the other hand, haven't you thought that the wrong one is you and not the DPRR? Maybe those identifications you have made (I deduce that for genealogical reasons) are not as accurate as you think. Roman prosopography is not an exact science and there may be different genealogical trees for the same family. The Hortensii-Marcii can be organized in two ways, maybe three. Could the DPRR follow one that does not correspond to the one you know? --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
::While that is possible, I am fairly certain a number of people who I have come across on the site are now agreed to have probably been born after the end of the Republic. I'd also like to note Marcius Hortalus was not just "anyone" from prosopography, he is explicitly stated to be the orator Hortensius grandson in Tacitus and had children in the reign of Tiberius (whom he asked money from to provide for the children) but thats neither here nor there.[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
:::{{ping|*Treker|p=}}. Maybe I have explained myself wrong. It is the nomen that it can be anyone (Marcius or Hortensius), not the person.
:::A prosopographic project limited to individuals from the Republican period will only contain individuals from the Republican period. In the case of the DPRR, there is also the circumstance that it is not an original work, but rather a compilation of other works that address the prosopography of the republican period. Thus, all the individuals featured in the DPRR had a stage in their life in the Republican era ... from the DPRR's point of view; that is, from its sources. In addition, and for more information, there is no universally accepted date for the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Empire (31, 27, 23 BC), so there are individuals who are left in limbo and it will be up to each scholar to include it in one or the other or both.
:::In the case of Hortalus (I only put the cognomen because, although scholars are inclined to interpret "Marcius" in the work of Tacitus, which seems obvious to me for stylistic reasons, others still interpret it as "Marcus"), Tacitus indicates that he was a young senator with four children in the year 16 and that he was the grandson of the "orator". Nothing more. What "young" means to Tacitus is cause for doubt because he sometimes uses it for people under thirty and at other times for individuals in their forties. But, considering that he already had four children, scholars who have dealt with the subject put him around forty years of age. This gives a date of birth around 24 BC, which enters the republican period according to a chronology. The ultimate source of the DPRR is Zmeskal who, following Tacitus, makes him the son of the Hortensius mentioned as the son of the "orator". It is clear to me that Zmeskal is wrong (for chronological reasons) and that Hortalus is the grandson of the "orator" through a son or daughter of the speaker with Marcia.
:::Thus, I do not believe that there are individuals in the DPRR who do not belong to the republican period, but that it will depend on the interpretation of the sources. To indicate this there is the references section. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

== Review of potential properties ==

{{Ping project|Ancient Rome}} + {{ping|Romulanus}}

Hi there,

Would you support new properties based on :

1. [https://pir.bbaw.de/ Prosopographia Imperii Romani] : a prosopographical database for roughly 15'000 Roman of the imperial era. The design and the search function seem to have been greatly improved between April and May. Each Roman has a unique id (ex. [https://pir.bbaw.de/id/1232 L. Allius Volusianus]), but most don't have any information other than pointing to their PIR number, even the like of [https://pir.bbaw.de/id/771 Hadrian]. 

2. [https://patrimonium.huma-num.fr/ Patrimonium] : a database covering documents, people and place related to the imperial properties (so that may be 3 distinct properties). Each has its own unique ID. It has links toward Trismegistos and Pleiades but it also covers things that aren't to be found there.

I plan to request their creation but perhaps some have other ideas about it. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
:I like both of them quite a bit, I'm fully in suport.[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
:: The ''Prosopographia Imperii Romani'' is considered an authoritative reference, one of the best in the field, so no objection here. (To express my endorsement in a back-handed manner.) One ''caveat'', though: there are two editions, the first (which is available in a pdf online), & the second, which is the one most often cited in the last 50 years. We may need to either pick the latest edition, or have entries for both editions.{{pb}}As for ''Patrimonium'', I know nothing about it, & have no opinion. -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

:::Thanks to [[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] for pinging.

:::1. I have little to add to what was said by [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]], except that the existence of the two editions of the PIR is indifferent to the identifiers of the database because it links the person. The database was made in 2001 or shortly before, so it took the information published until then: A-S of the second edition; T-Z of the first edition. More important updates have not been made and, according to what they say on the website, they will not be made: «Leider konnte nach dem Start im Jahre 2001 die Arbeit an den Addenda nicht so zügig und umfassend fortgeführt werden wie erhofft, da der Abschluss der Stammbände Vorrang hatte. Was bereits erarbeitet wurde, soll aber weiter verfügbar gehalten werden in der Hoffnung, dass es dennoch von Nutzen sein kann».

:::2. Incredible database!, Although I am not clear about its usefulness in Wikidata at the moment. Neither the documents (papyri, inscriptions...), nor the places (mainly too specific), nor the people (mainly slaves and freedmen) have items in Wikidata in their vast majority. Yes, it is useful for references. However, seeing the little interest shown by the majority in them, little or nothing will contribute these identifiers.

:::That said, I will support the creation of both identifiers. --[[User:Romulanus|Romulanus]] ([[User talk:Romulanus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

::::Thanks {{ping|&#42;Treker|Llywrch|Romulanus}} for your input! As for the PIR, it was lastly updated on the [https://pir.bbaw.de/#/resources 05/07/2021] so I still have hope that it is not a completely abandonned project. I will shortly propose the properties. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

:::: To add a bit of supporting information to {{u|Romulanus}}'s comment about ancient documents. IIRC, the vast majority of ancient inscriptions are bare-bones grave markers (i.e., only the name of the decedent, with no further information such as age, family, life details). This is because commissioning an inscription was very expensive, & an option available to only a small minority of the population. Again, IIRC the vast majority of papyri are tax receipts. This is because in a population where most were illiterate or barely literate, the most important written document for anyone to keep was written proof that they had paid their taxes & thus free of further pressure to pay money to the government. While both of these have potential value in the aggregate, individually they are of minimal value. -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks good! Question for PIR: Is there a way to automatically connect the PIR entries with already existing Wikidata Items? Or would we do it through merging, where a Wikidata Item already exists? --[[User:Tolanor|Tolanor]] ([[User talk:Tolanor|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
:{{ping|Tolanor}} I think that it should be technically possible to semi-automate the matching with something like OpenRefine, given that the PIR has an API from which the data can be retrieved. However I see two difficulties : 1) Roman naming practice produce homonyms quite often and 2) the PIR notice are often quite scarce and double-checking with the paper edition seems mandatory. I have proposed it [[Wikidata:Property_proposal/Person#identifiant_Prosopographia_Imperii_Romani_Online|here]] if you want to vote (I'll do Patrimonium later). --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

== Automatically adding some place name databank IDs ==

Hi, {{Ping project|Ancient Rome}}! I am wondering if one of us has a bot that could potentially look through links from {{Q|P1936|Digital Atlas of the Roman Empire ID}} to {{Q|P1584|Pleiades ID}} and vice versa to automatically add the missing IDs. Pleiades and DARE usually link to each other, but we often lack at least one of the IDs. If any problems come up, the bot can put them on a list and we can sort through them manually. Could someone with a bot help with this? Maybe {{ping|THE IT}}? --[[User:Tolanor|Tolanor]] ([[User talk:Tolanor|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

== WikiProject Epigraphy ==

Hi y'all, I am setting up the new project [[Wikidata:WikiProject Epigraphy]].

The ongoing massive import of metadata related to cultural heritage makes it necessary to organize items about inscriptions and epigraphs properly. 

Specifically,  I am starting soon a massive creations of items of inscriptions and epigraphs of Ancient Rome located in Italy, so this is the first thread that I have opened in the talk page, I need to agree on some good practice so I know it can spread more order in the future.--[[User:Alexmar983|Alexmar983]] ([[User talk:Alexmar983|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

== Roman provinces as P27 ==

{{ping project|Ancient Rome}}

Hi all. I found myself quarelling with another contributor on the use of Roman provinces as {{P|27}} ([[User talk:Sinequonen#Unsure birth/death dates|here]] (in French)). Could someone 1) confirms me that I am not going crazy over the fact that they shouldn't be used at all as P27 ; 2) check the following query and change values as needed ?
{{SPARQL|query=SELECT ?item ?itemLabel WHERE {
 ?item wdt:P27 ?country .
 ?country wdt:P31 wd:Q182547 .
 SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}
}}
Thanks ! --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
:I assume this would depend entirely if those provinces had citizenships for their inhabitants to have that were separate from Roman citizenship.[[User:StarTrekker|StarTrekker]] ([[User talk:StarTrekker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
::{{ping|StarTrekker}} sorry, I have missed your answer in my too great of a watchlist. Thing is, I have never ever heard of a citizenship on a provincial level. Some people held numerous citizenships, like Opramoas of Rhodiapolis, but they were always tied to cities, never to provinces. Being described as a "Syrian", a "Jew", an "Egyptian", a "Greek", a "Gaul", a "German" or whatever never defined someone juridically speaking, except perhaps to say that you weren't a Roman citizen. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Jahl de Vautban}} None of the Roman client kingdoms ever had any kind of citizenship? In that case "country of citizenship" is the wrong property to use. But what property should be used for people who have city citizenships or Latin citizenship?[[User:StarTrekker|StarTrekker]] ([[User talk:StarTrekker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
::::{{ping|StarTrekker}} I guess they did, but they aren't really "provincial" insofar as they weren't incorporated in Roman day-to-day administration (btw, a lot of work has been done to reconsider Badian's view on "client kingdoms"). "Country" of citizenship is anyway a quite anachronistic terminology for Antiquity as an ancient state can assume a variety of form but I'm not sure we need another property, we just need to be cautious in assigning someone a citizenship and only rely on sources and not on assumptions. I wonder if things like Latin citizenship or ''civitas sine suffragio'' could be implemented by combining {{P|27}} and {{P|3716}}. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

== Adding RE identifiers ==

{{ping project|Ancient Rome}}

Hello there! I was directed here from en-wiki [[:en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome|Wikiproject Classical Greece and Rome]]. I'm interested in whether it's possible for RE identifiers (like Lucius Cornelius Cinna being RE Cornelius 106) to be populated for various Romans and then integrating this somehow into en-Wiki infoboxes. I can't say I know much about this. Any help you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks. [[User:Ifly6|Ifly6]] ([[User talk:Ifly6|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

: Hi! I'm one of the founders and editors of the RE project on de-wikisource. We are already adding RE identifiers to Wikidata items under "described by source", as is in fact already the case at [[Q171083|Lucius Cornelius Cinna]]. I think this should somehow be usable for infoboxes and such. You can help by matching more RE items to Wikidata items. In fact, it would be great to have some sort of tool for this work. Maybe someone can help? --[[User:Tolanor|Tolanor]] ([[User talk:Tolanor|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
::I edit some of the en-wiki articles on various magistrates. There are usually RE numbers provided in reliable sources like OCD<sup>3+</sup>, MRR, etc. If we can get that set up somehow, I'd add them when able. [[User:Ifly6|Ifly6]] ([[User talk:Ifly6|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Ifly6}} I have written some months ago a query on [[User_talk:Tolanor#DPRR_and_RE|Tolanor's talk page]] which look at which Romans on Wikidata have a DPRR identifier but no RE number. Here is the same with OCD online :
:::{{SPARQL|query=SELECT * WHERE {
  ?human wdt:P31 wd:Q5 ; wdt:P9106 ?somevalue .
  #the following line restrict it to Qid with Roman citizenship
  ?human wdt:P27 wd:Q1747689 . 
  FILTER ( NOT EXISTS { ?human wdt:P1343 wd:Q1138524 } )
}
}}
:::That should get you started for a little while. Also, some statistics I have been keeping: in March 19th, we had 8084 RE article with a subject, out of 45133 (17.91%). As of today, we are at 8924 out of 45909 (19.44%), a nice increase! --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

:::: Thank you, that's an amazing stat indeed! How did you create it? --[[User:Tolanor|Tolanor]] ([[User talk:Tolanor|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

: Anyone who has consulted one of the volumes of the ''Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertums'' knows how intimidating their lists of names can be -- & how its organization is not immediately obvious. It may not seem to be a big thing until you realize these names are by gens: consider how many Cornelii there were, or Flavii -- let alone truly popular gentile names such as Julius or Aurelius which had thousands of members. A few years back I mentioned on en.wikipedia how useful having the RE identifiers would be if included in an infobox. (IIRC, I argued that was one of the few bits of information best presented in an infobox, & not in the text of an article.) So yes, this would be a good thing to add. (As for how to do it... de.wikisource already has lists of these articles online, so it wouldn't be too to match them to existing wikidata nodes, or create new ones.) -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
::How would we have it in an infobox? (I agree it should be relegated there rather than put somewhere in the article; there's no natural place to put it.) Editors on en-wiki WP:CGR implied that we could set up some sort of template which would backfill the RE data ''from WikiData'' rather than needing to have it done on en-wiki while just throwing on a module to the infoboxes or something. That sounds cool, though I know nothing about Wikimedia's backend, so I don't know how workable that is. [[User:Ifly6|Ifly6]] ([[User talk:Ifly6|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
:::I fear the technicalities have to be worked out on Wikipedia side, as I don't think any of us here is very knowledgeable of the working on infoboxes. I imagine you'd want to look into whether a Qid as the statement {{st||P1343|Q1138524}}, then look into the value(s) added by the qualifier {{P|805}}, of which you'd want to extract the {{P|1476}} value and the link to DEWS. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
::::What's a Qid and what's a DEWS? [[User:Ifly6|Ifly6]] ([[User talk:Ifly6|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Ifly6}} whoops sorry for the confusion! A Qid is the identifier (id) used to describe an item, like [[Q171083|Lucius Cornelius Cinna]] is [[Q171083]] - it's called Qid because it combine the letter ''Q'', which is used for most item (lexemes excepted) and ''id''. DEWS is the acronym for wikisource.de, but perhaps I should have said WSDE instead. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

{{ping|Llywrch}} A late reply on the question of how to find the correct articles. One of the amazing tools of the digitized version of the RE on de.wikisource is the [[:s:de:Paulys_Realencyclopädie_der_classischen_Altertumswissenschaft/Register#Alphabetisches_Register|registry]]. Here you can browse all articles by alphabet, volume, and author. For example, you can have a look at all the Flavii at [[:s:de:Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft/Register/f#Flavius 1]]ff. We have added short descriptions as well so that it's easier to find the articles. Hope this helps, --[[User:Tolanor|Tolanor]] ([[User talk:Tolanor|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
:: {{ping|Tolanor}} (A late reply of my own. ;-) The de.wikisource is useful, but it doesn't address the problem I was pointing to: the order of names in the PW. For someone not familiar with this important reference work, it may not be obvious why, in a list of individuals with the same name element, one article follows another. Or, to provide an understandable example, why the person who is the subject of Acilius (19) precedes the person of Acilius (20), & why the person of Acilius (21) follows both. It took me several readings before I realized that articles on people with Roman names are arranged chronologically, then alphabetically in the order of bare ''gentilium'' then those with praenomen, then those with cognomina. Even with that knowledge, it can be frustrating wading thru the endless pages of individuals with the more familiar gentilia, such as Julius, Aurelius, Claudius, etc. So offering a more familiar starting point -- which the ''Oxford Classical Dictionary'' does, by adding PW numbers to many of its biographical articles -- would be a win for all. <small>&nbsp;&ndash; {{Autotranslate|base=Unsigned/text|1=Llywrch|2=20:52, 7 January 2023}}</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->

::: Yes, that's why I think it's vital to link RE items and WD items. Which in turn is only possible because the RE items exist in the first place, which is why the Wikisouce RE is so important ;). Best, --[[User:Tolanor|Tolanor]] ([[User talk:Tolanor|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
:::I agree etc. We should have some way to automatically link these via Wikidata. Is there some way to automatically fill in a infobox field in such a manner? [[User:Ifly6|Ifly6]] ([[User talk:Ifly6|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 03:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

== [[Q87125491|Clavis Historicorum Antiquitatis Posterioris]] ==

Hi, how can we make the above databank, which offers excellent data on the historical writers of late antiquity, into an identifier? Best, [[User:Tolanor|Tolanor]] ([[User talk:Tolanor|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|Tolanor}} I got my eyes on it since a few months. You can go ahead a create a property proposal and ping us on it (using <code><nowiki>{{ping project|Ancient Rome}}</nowiki></code> (don't forget to also ping Ancient Greece, they might be interested). In the mean time, perhaps {{ping|Epìdosis}} can create a M-n-M catalog ? --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

== Gallia Comata ==

This item {{Q|1143159}} seems to be for a road, but the articles connected to it seem to be for a province, was there some kind of merge here that went wrong? [[User:StarTrekker|StarTrekker]] ([[User talk:StarTrekker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

== New property P12011 (tribe) ==

I have created {{P|12011}} (love that number) and I just wanted to let you all know. I already gave a warning not to use it for Roman tribus.

If someone has any concerns, please come forward. [[User:Jonathan Groß|Jonathan Groß]] ([[User talk:Jonathan Groß|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

== Are the Republic and Empire separate for political/military purposes ==

I'm sorting out the {{P|710}} in battles and wars, where we normally use countries/political states.

{{SPARQL|query=SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?itemLabel ?article WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en". }
  {
    SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?article WHERE {
      ?item wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q645883.
      #?item wdt:P710 wd:Q1747689.      #  114 ancient rome
      #?item wdt:P710 wd:Q17167.      #  25 roman republic
      ?item wdt:P710 wd:Q2277.      #  21 roman empire
    }
  }
}
}}
shows we have a mixture. Should we split or join the entities? For comparison, the UK has 5 'countries' since 1600, the Kingdom of England,Commonwealth,Great Britain, United Kingdom with and without Ireland. If we do split them, then {{Q|17167}}) and {{Q|2277}} should be consistent in their prioritisation  of {{Q|11514315}} and {{Q|3024240}}. My preference is splitting. @[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] who queried my change to the Republic. [[User:Vicarage|Vicarage]] ([[User talk:Vicarage|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping project|Ancient Rome}}
:The question is an important one and was already debated multiple time in this very talk page on different issues; it has basically consequences for everything in which Rome was involved as a state (politics, administration, law, military, justice, etc.). I'm in favor of having a single, atemporal Rome, because the transition from republic to empire is mostly an historiographical one, and indeed you'll find various dates for it, 27 BC only being the most common. It just makes for easier queries to have a single entity to query from and the question of the "regime" under which it takes place can be left to one's own appreciation of the dates. --[[User:Jahl de Vautban|Jahl de Vautban]] ([[User talk:Jahl de Vautban|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
::I personally support {{ping|Jahl de Vautban}}'s proposal, the motivation fully convinces me. --[[User:Epìdosis|'''Epì''']][[User talk:Epìdosis|<span style="color:green">'''dosis'''</span>]] 11:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
:::46 battles changed to {{Q|1747689}}. Thanks all. [[User:Vicarage|Vicarage]] ([[User talk:Vicarage|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

== Trajan's mother ==

An IP has added a [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1425&diff=prev&oldid=1921976245 different mother for Trajan named Aureliana]. The sources for this supposed person seem to be from Medieval Spanish sources, while the supposed mother Marcia who is mainly accepted by modern scholars (as far as I know) is based mainly on the name of Trajan's sister. My question here is if there is any credibility to support the idea of "Aureliana"? Right now the Spanish language article for Trajan seems to portray that Aureliana is correct. [[User:StarTrekker|StarTrekker]] ([[User talk:StarTrekker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

: This might be something for [[User:Tusculum]]. --[[User:Tolanor|Tolanor]] ([[User talk:Tolanor|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

== Serapion Monachus ==

GND 10240576X = {{Q|126393399}} is not the same person as {{Q+|861803}}. The authority file has been supplemented by the {{Q|256507}} (see [[de:Wikipedia:GND/Fehlermeldung/Februar 2022]]). I've created a new item for Serapion Monachus but I have not found any further information. --[[User:Kolja21|Kolja21]] ([[User talk:Kolja21|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)