This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Not seeing agreement either to rename, not to rename, nor even what might be the very best name for this article. As usual with a no consensus decision, there is no prejudice toward a new attempt soon to garner consensus. Would strongly suggest an informal discussion to decide firmly upon a highest and best article title. Happy New Year to All! (closed by page mover) Paine Ellsworthput'r there03:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article was originally created at that title, then another editor insisted on moving it because there was no need for disambiguation (evidently there's no genus of spiders named after it), and would not relent on grounds of consistency. After this had happened a few times, I realized that it would probably have been better to use this format from the beginning, although it seemed a bit late in the day to start. So I'm fine with leaving this and a few others without parentheses, and eventually perhaps moving the others to this style for consistency. P Aculeius (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support. Since all the other pages have "(gens)" in the title, and a discussion has not yet been had about changing this format, this page (and the dozen others) should be moved to "(gens)". This should probably just be an RMT instead of a normal RM, as it was an unneeded move to begin with. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The last editor has just demonstrated the main problem here, by re-re-moving another gens article to a title that provides no indication of what it's about, after it had already been moved to an appropriate title, after a previous editor insisted on the same erroneous move in the past. Consistency is important, but whether there are parentheses is really not. And frankly, it would be better if none of these articles had parentheses to begin with, but they were nearly all created that way, and it will take time to move them. We need to apply a logical and consistent format to all articles in this series, instead of making a hodgepodge of different styles. With or without parentheses, it's clear what they are. Without "gens", they're constantly being confused with types of spiders or freshwater fish that were named after them. And unless we hold to that policy, we're going to have constant edit wars with editors who insist that some other Wikipedia policy overrides common sense in unpredictable cases. However, until today nobody had bothered one of the articles without parentheses; apparently some editors just hate anything that looks like disambiguation, and will do away with it if they think it's unnecessary, even at the expense of logic or usefulness to readers. That's why it's better to have the articles titled with "gens" but without parentheses. It should avoid more of these unnecessary moves to inconsistent and unpredictable titles. P Aculeius (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Annaea is just fine. The word "gens" is not adding anything to this title, with or without parentheses, as it's unambiguous. Bradv's original close was the correct one. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: I had closed this discussion, but a discussion on my talk page led me to revert the move and relist it instead. Further input into this discussion is welcome. Bradv05:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this just confuses things. In Latin the word order ("gens Annaea" or "Annaea gens") is probably freely variable, but if a Latin phrase like this is taken into English text, it would nearly always be in the order "gens Annaea", wouldn't it?
As to the main question, I would say the word "gens" is essential (with whatever punctuation or order) because a reader, even one familiar with Roman history, would not guess that an article titled "Annaea" is about a family/gens. The word "Annaea" on its own has no complete meaning. Andrew Dalby13:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The DGRBM titles most articles with the style "Annaea Gens", although in the case of smaller families it usually just gives the nomen. I think we may be influenced by the use of words like "clan" or "house" preceding the name in popular culture, but either seems to be acceptable use. However, for article titles I think the nomen should come first, since that's what readers would look for; and besides, otherwise all the gens articles would be grouped together alphabetically! However, between parentheses and no parentheses, I think that no parentheses would be better, as long as "gens" is always included. What we shouldn't have, if it can be avoided, is a situation in which you can't tell whether an article about a gens will be primary for its title, or secondary to a female member, or a genus of snails. Consistency is desirable, and we don't really have to worry about "common names" here, as the most likely search title will be one including "gens", although articles about individual members should normally have links back to these articles. P Aculeius (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that other encyclopedias would use a heading such as "Annaea gens". My word order issue could be dismissed as a quibble (and I wouldn't be offended): the main point is that "Annaea" alone is not a meaningful title. If there is a consensus for "Annaea gens", I join it. Andrew Dalby14:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
