Talk:Gaius Antonius Hybrida

Gaius Antonius Hybrida has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 16, 2016. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gaius Antonius Hybrida article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Biography / Roman & Byzantine / Classical

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Biography: Military / Politics and Government / Royalty and Nobility

	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 articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Gaius Antonius Hybrida appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 December 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that expulsion from the Senate did not prevent Gaius Antonius Hybrida from attaining the highest elected office in the Roman Republic?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gaius Antonius Hybrida.

Wikipedia

Caius Antonius Nepos and Antonius Hybrida

I notice that the encyclopedia in English gave the same name which could be for 2 men : Caius Antonius Nepos and Antonius Hybrida. In other languages, the consul in 63 BC is just Caius Antonius.

Pliny supposes that Antonius Hybrida was the consul. He could be wrong.

He could have confused the two men. One is really the son of Orator (Caius Antonius), the other not. One was praetor in 67 BC(Caius Antonius), so inside the Senate for more than 3 years, the other (Antonius Hybrida) was excluded from the Senate in 70 BC.

Some authors think that Caius Antonius was Nepos, this other, Hybrida, the ex senator expelled from the Senate in exile in Spain.

réf : http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Cicero0070/PoliticalWorks/0044-01_Bk.html

BC...

There's no need for every single date in this article to have "BC" tacked on to it. I may have missed a few but ... gees. No professional publication would allow such a constant overuse of the BC (or BCE) tag on dates. It just looks silly. "In 87 BC, Hybrida accompanied Lucius Cornelius Sulla into Greece either as a military tribune or as a legatus. Two years prior, in 89 BC, the Mithridatic Wars had begun due to a dispute between Mithridates VI of Pontus and Nicomedes III of Bithynia over the Roman province of Cappadocia." I don't think the reader has forgotten from the previous sentence that we're discussing BC dates... in that one paragraph (the first one in Mithridatic Wars) there are 8 "BC"s... surely they don't all need to be there! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, I reverted your change because I couldn't see a pattern to your removals. I had no clue why you'd just decided to rip out half (or more) of the BCs and leave the rest. One sentence has no BC, the next sentence there is a BC. "CE" doesn't help me understand your change when it's not a simply copy-edit or tidying of prose. I'll go through, leave a single BC per paragraph or section (depends) and remove the rest. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]