Talk:Lucius Valerius Flaccus (consul 100 BC)

	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 politics and government work group.

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.

Designation

Although it's conventional to distinguish various Romans of the same name by their highest office, I created a redirect for Lucius Valerius Flaccus (consul 100 BC) and named the article Lucius Valerius Flaccus (princeps senatus 86 BC). For two reasons: Flaccus's primary historical significance lies in his actions as princeps; also, there's another L. Valerius Flaccus who is significant that year as suffect consul. I'm currently working on his article under the title Lucius Valerius Flaccus (suffect consul 86 BC). I thought the best way to distinguish the two men was by the office they held that same year, in case someone was looking for a man by this name who was active that year and was as confused as I initially was. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, I'm aware of and participated in recent discussions at the G&R project about article naming. I still believe that the best way to distinguish the two Lucii Valerii Flaccii who were so visible and active in 86 is to include the year in the article name. This Flaccus is more important as princeps senatus than he was as consul because of his role in declaring Sulla dictator. I spent a certain amount of time poring over other articles to make sure they linked to the right LVF and distinguished between them properly. So unless another editor is willing to do the same, I don't see why a less-helpful 'consistency' should override the current name. Please don't change without discussion. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is 10 years old, but princeps senatus is not an office with a fixed period of tenure, so it's kind of arbitrary to label him as (princeps senatus 86 BC) when his exact tenure is not specified. Perhaps (interrex 82 BC) might be more appropriate, since it's actually with that office that Flaccus allowed Sulla to become dictator. Avis11 (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another Lucius Valerius Flaccus was princeps senatus, so current title will not do. I don't really like using princeps senatus as disamb, because of the uncertainty regarding the dates of this office. I propose Lucius Valerius Flaccus (consul 100 BC), arguably Lucius Valerius Flaccus (censor 97 BC) since his homonymous cousins did not reach the censorship. T8612 (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly just prefer 'consul 100 BC', keeping in line with every other consul. 'princeps senatus 86 BC' really has the potential to cause confusion w/ the 'consul 86 BC' (at a first glance) due to the identical year.

With regards to the original argument of historical importance in favor of princeps senatus, again, it's through the office of interrex that he allowed Sulla to become dictator. Nevertheless 'consul 100' is more straightforward and a more easily recognizable title. Avis11 (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]