Talk:Luca Conference

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

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

Title of article?

Why is this article titled "Lucca Conference"? The ancient name for the city is Luca, and as far as I can remember, I have always encountered that name to refer to the conference, not the modern name of the city, Lucca. The latter practice is anachronistic. Two general references that I have consulted (Oxford Classical Dictionary and Brill's New Pauly) discuss Luca, not Lucca; in the Wiki article itself the Plutarch passages use Luca (although in the text on the Wiki page Luca has been changed to Lucca in the Crassus passage). Unless someone can provide good reason for why the name of the article should use the modern spelling of the city, I think that it should be changed. 163.41.112.5 (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Nathan[reply]

Thank you for your interest in the article. I am the creator. I have no issue with you changing the name of the article so long as you make the proper re-direct links to redirect 'Lucca Conference' to the 'Luca Conference', as this page has been linked to other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunterkap (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with First Triumvirate

@CaptainEek and Chunterkap: According to Xtools, you two are the main authors of this short article. I'm currently in the process of drafting a replacement of the current article at User:Ifly6/First Triumvirate. As the Luca conference is almost entirely a sub-part of the First Triumvirate's renewal in 56, I intend to merge this it into the larger article when it's complete (at the current rate, maybe, some time next month?). If you have any comments, dissenting views, etc on that, please respond. Ifly6 (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. I'm glad to see you working on the First Triumvirate! It needed a real reset and modern sources. Re: this article, I almost entirely rewrote it a bit back. The paragraphs with quotes in them I did not write, or only tweaked, so you may want to peer at those more closely. But I'm pretty confident in everything else. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifly6 Ping CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look at integrating your work here with the sources etc that I also have on hand. Ifly6 (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]