Talk:Eudocia (daughter of Valentinian III)

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Women's History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

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

Untitled

I will finish this entry in a couple of days - hopefully by June 2nd or so - I just don't have time in the next day or so. Stevenmitchell 03:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not entirely true. Eudocia was taken captive when the vandals sacked Rome in 455, by that time her father was already dead. She was forced to wed Huneric some time after this date, but it seems she left him eventually.

Not quite true. Eudocia was betrothed to Huneric at an age of 5 by her father Valentinian. PakoPenguin (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

The following discussion is an archived 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. Please pick one destination title and re-propose for discussion. —Darkwind (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original proposal was Princess Eudocia → Eudocia. —Darkwind (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– Naming conventions, since Eudocia already redirects there. 216.8.128.124 (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There are eleven Eudocias who have Wikipedia articles, if you include people called Eudoxia. It is unclear that this daughter of Valentinian III should be the primary meaning and justify being known simply as Eudocia. It is arguable that the name Eudocia should lead to the same DAB page as Eudoxia page and not be dedicated to this princess. The best-known Eudocia is possibly Aelia Eudocia, who was a Byzantine empress and the author of Homeric cantos. Our article says she was a 'prominent historical figure.' EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose revert to disambiguation page as it used to be [1] -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eudocia should just redirect to Eudoxia. —Srnec (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The "opposes" on the basis of disambiguation seem correct to me, but in general I'm opposed to using "Empress" and "Princess" as if they were official titles of Roman Imperial nobility in the same way that we say "Princess Eugenie" or "Queen Victoria". (See explanation at List of Roman and Byzantine Empresses: there was no single title that straightforwardly meant "empress", much less "princess".) Could the nominator propose an alternate disambiguator? Cynwolfe (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Eudocia (queen of the Vandals)? I was only trying to apply the guideline, so I don't really know. 216.8.128.124 (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Eudocia (queen of the Vandals). She is not the best known figure named Eudocia, and the title Princess is anachronistic. Dimadick (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would Eudocia (Vandal queen) work as well? More compact. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I was looking back over the article, and have what may be an overly scrupulous question: do we know she was actually a "queen"? The wife of a king isn't always a queen, and the word "queen" isn't used in the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could do Eudocia (Vandal), then. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that she married a Vandal; she wasn't herself a Vandal. "Queen of the Vandals" or "Vandal queen" is therefore better, and some English sources do call her a "princess" (lowercase, not as a title), so that's still a possible parenthetical. I looked through the index in some books that cover this period, and unhelpfully for our problem, these disambiguate her from other Eudociae as "daughter of Valentinian III". According to WP:ROMANS, that form of disambiguation could be justified in this case, but it's rather bulky. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2013 (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.

"Princess Eudocia" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Princess Eudocia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 23#Princess Eudocia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. GPinkerton (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]