Talk:Naming conventions for women in ancient Rome

Full of false statements

Examples of patently false or unclear statements:

• "Early Roman women could not divorce their husbands." (Maybe; but what does "early" mean? Regal? Early Republic? Certainly this was not true in the Late Republic.)
• "Growing legal rights and de facto social independence appeared to go hand in hand with varied first names." (This is an absurd statement; it would require, for instance, that because men had greater legal rights, they would have had more varied names than women. This is not true; try sorting out the various Publii Licinii Crassi or Lucii Valerii Flacci. Variety of naming has no intrinsic connection with legal rights.)
• "It is also no coincidence that most Roman women known to us today (or who appear in contemporary or classical histories) come from the Imperial period." (Also observably false; Lucretia, Claudia Quinta, Fulvia, various Corneliae, Clodia ... one could go on and on, and I haven't even included any of the Vestals during the Republic for whom names are known.)

And this is all from a single paragraph. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

deleted reference to 'large' Roman families

It was asserted that "because" Roman families were large, they gave their sons praenomina. If this was true in the Early and Middle Republic, please cite your source; but large families were emphatically not the norm in the Late Republic. (See Lily Ross Taylor, Party Politics in the Age of Caesar, p. 33 here.) I guess it depends on what you consider large, but the typical family seems to be one or two sons and one or two daughters. The family of Publius Clodius Pulcher, for instance, was considered unusual or even eccentric because there were six children, three boys and three girls (including the Clodia infamous from Catullan studies). Since this statement wasn't footnoted, I don't know where it came from.

It was implied in the article that somehow the girls were stuck with a gens name, and boys got to have distinctive names; this is untrue. Male names were no more distinctive, and included the gens name and often (but not always, as in the case of Gaius Marius or Quintus Sertorius), a cognomen (or at least we don't know the cognomen of Marius and Sertorius). The eldest son got his father's name, most of the time; other sons got the names of a grandfather or uncle. Carrying on family names was a source of Roman pride; I don't know why it's assumed that carrying on the family name constitutes the erasure of personal identity for women, but not for men. In the 21st century, most of us in the Anglophone world prefer distinctive names that announce our individuality. But I'll bet it would be very hard to find any implication in Roman literature that people, men or women, ever felt burdened or extinguished by their gens name, or regarded it as anything other than a source of strength and pride. Even in families where a near ancestor, even a grandfather or father, was disgraced, you don't seem to find anybody trying to dodge the name.

A recommendation I made elsewhere on Wikipedia is that people who are interested in feminist topics in ancient Rome should roll up their sleeves and do some serious research to improve the biographies of Roman women such as Fulvia, the Clodiae, and others. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not an expert on the subject of Roman history, and I didn't make those edits, but I think it's a bit rich to equate sons being named after various relatives with daughters being identifiable only by their number. Sons' names weren't distinctive from others in their family, but they were distinguishable from each other. Of course there aren't any implications in Roman literature that women were dissatisfied with the arrangement - they weren't writing it. --70.23.229.212 (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

But if the gens name was the primary identifying label for the male, why is it somehow oppressive for it to be the primary identifying label for the female? Why would she be less proud to carry on the name? And what makes you think daughters weren't distinguishable from each other? If you deal with Latin texts, not translations that have male names clarified, you'll see that in fact brothers or first cousins can often be distinguished only by context, and there is great deal of confusion about who's who. Roman names, particularly in the Republic, are notoriously characterized by sameness for both men and women. There are a very limited number of names. Many praenomina for men were originally numerical: Quintus (the "Fifth"), Sextus (the "Sixth"), Septimus (the "Seventh"). The "numbering" of girls is no different from calling a son Charles Quincy Whittington IV: in societies or social circles where status is inherited, the family name is more likely to be perpetuated, and individual or quirky names frowned on. Roman women from the mid Republic onward kept their own name when they married, because they remained legally part of their birth family and kept their own property separate from that of their husband: it's still considered unusual in much of the U.S. for a woman to keep her own name when she marries, and people sometimes assume I'm not married to the father of my child because I don't have his last name. Roman society was patriarchal, and roles were divided by gender, but given the conservatism of Roman names in general, it's uninformed to argue about the status of Roman women or the esteem in which they were held on the basis of mere naming. There is a vast body of literature and legal texts that offers a much more complex picture. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

How were women/girls addressed in private or intimate settings?

Is it know how women or girls would be addressed in non-official settings, such as, what would a parent call their daughter when asking her to hand over the bread, or what would playing girls call each other? I have a hard time imagining that the family name would be used for that. -- 77.7.142.251 (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Me too. As I've thought about this over the years, I've wondered if maybe we're missing some fundamental difference in how Romans thought of a person's name. I suspect also that there were nicknames, just as men could add a name (cognomen, agnomen) that distinguished them from what was usually a number of men with the same or similar names. We refer to the "Atticus" who was Cicero's friend, but this was a nickname that reflected his interest in Athenian culture, for instance. I'll try to learn more about this. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Strange features of late Republic naming practices

Ordinary non-aristocratic women in the late republic sometimes didn't even really seem to have personal names. If you take a classic male three-part name like "Publius Cornelius Scipio", then (at least in some cases) all the women of the Cornelius lineage would be uniformly named "Cornelia". Of course there would be nicknames and modifiers to distinguish individual girls/women, but probably such were often considered unofficial... AnonMoos (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

This article could probably use some work, but it does mention the key points, as does the more comprehensive Roman naming conventions. The first of these is that personal names had a very limited importance in Roman society, for both men and women. Because the same names tended to be passed down in every generation, the number of praenomina in general use shrank throughout Roman history, and as the aristocratic families grew the praenomen lost most of its individualizing utility. It could still be used to distinguish between siblings, and might be used among close friends, although the more common ones had limited value there. But one reason why it endured so long for men is that it was required by legal formulae that involved reciting the praenomen and nomen gentilicium for official, public purposes. Until imperial times, when a host of new practices seem to have developed, the cognomen, which was often the most distinctive part of Roman nomenclature, was still treated as a sort of unofficial nickname.

These reasons why the praenomen persisted for men did not apply, or applied much less, for Roman women, who like women in other ancient societies, seldom participated in public life, and were not required to recite a praenomen and nomen for any legal formulae. Within the family, a Roman daughter's nomen was sufficient to distinguish her from both of her parents and all of her brothers; unlike all the male members of her household, her name was feminine, and because Roman women did not change their names when they married, she did not usually share a name with her mother.

The result of this was that Roman women were free to use a host of individualizing names which, while not necessarily conforming to the naming practices used by men, permitted more variety and could be more useful than the individual names of their male relatives. As previously mentioned, a Roman daughter with no sisters already had a distinguishing nomen that would be sufficient to identify her, both within her father's family, and when she married. However, other names might be given to her; for instance Cicero's only daughter was affectionately known as "Tulliola", rather thant "Tullia". If there were younger sisters, individual names might be given to them, rather than to their older sister, if she were used to being called by her nomen alone, or the sisters might be distinguished by individual praenomina or cognomina; as personal names the two were not clearly distinguished. For example, Quinta Claudia, the granddaughter of Appius Claudius Caecus, is also (and perhaps more usually) referred to as "Claudia Quinta".

This last example is also instructive because there is also no evidence that she had four older sisters, or even four older brothers, and because Quintus was not a regular praenomen of the Claudia gens. Two sisters were frequently known as Major and Minor, with these treated like personal cognomina, although they're not usually called such; however, we know that there were corresponding praenomina, Maio and Mino. We also see lots of women named Secunda and Tertia, who could only have borne these names in consequence of having had elder sisters, in the great majority of cases; a smaller number named Prima, since an elder daughter might not have wanted an additional name; some named Quarta, and at least a handful named Quinta or Sexta. We know from inscriptions around the Roman world that all of the common masculine praenomina had feminine forms that were used, and there are a few oddities among women that are a bit hard to puzzle out, not least because all of these names could be placed in the position of a cognomen, even though they were individualizing names and most of them were simply feminine praenomina.

Perhaps the most common of these was Paulla, spelled variously, of which the corresponding masculine praenomen Paullus was rare, and generally known only because a family of the Aemilii, which had used it as a cognomen, revived it as a praenomen. Paulla was typically given to younger daughters, precisely because individualizing names were frequently necessary, at least within the household. And, as I said, we have oddities like Burra, not really well explained, Rufa or Rufina, and Caesia, Caesilla, or Caesula, probably all feminine forms of the praenomen Caeso, as well as diminutives of other names, like Primilla or Primula, Secundilla, Tertiola, Quartilla, etc., a process rarely found among Roman men.

Of course, just as for men, "ordinary" praenomina were not often sufficiently distinguishing, and while there was far less need for most Roman women to require such distinction, they could be known by true cognomina, as we meet with in the latter part of the Republic, with names like Caecilia Metella. Typically one finds either a nomen or a cognomen, but in this instance we see that both could be used together, or a woman might be known by either alone. There was no sense of officialness about it; Romans didn't go to a registrar of births and record a child's name, which henceforth became the only recognized name, unless permission to use another were granted. So while it's true that Roman women's names weren't "official" in the sense that we use that word today, neither were men's names, at least in that sense; only the legal formulae of public life gave men's names a sort of "officialness", although even this was somewhat flexible. Romans did change their names when they were adopted into another gens, which required an official act of approval, but nothing kept them using a particular name; Marcus Junius Brutus was, by adoption, Quintus Servilius Caepio, but he returned to his original name without any legal process. And so it was with Roman women; their names were governed by tradition, a sense of propriety, and practical use, but not by law; if anything their choice of names was somewhat less restricted than that of Roman men. Which just goes to show that it's easy to misjudge the state of things when we look at antiquity from our own perspective! P Aculeius (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Appius Claudius Caecus did not belong to the late Republic period.

Of course there were no birth certificates; the question is how a girl or woman would be referred to or addressed at a formal/ceremonial/legal occasion. I'm a little suspicious of "Tulliola", because that's a simple diminutive of "Tullia", and so could also be a semi-informal nickname.

I'm aware that during the late Republic period there were both uniformitarian tendencies (according to which all females born into the Tullius lineage, for example, would have the same name "Tullia" for formal purposes) and also countervailing individualizing tendencies (differentiating between women with nicknames and such), and I'm not familiar with all the details as to which tendencies prevailed in which circumstances.

What I find a little strange is that the uniformitarian tendency (towards giving all women born into a lineage the identical name) even existed at all (it's quite odd from a cross-cultural anthropological perspective, as far as I know...) AnonMoos (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at. There was never any point at which women were "given identical names". The idea that someone has to "confer" a particular name upon children at or after the time of birth has nothing to do with Roman practice. All daughters of Lucius Aemilius were named "Aemilia", just as all of his sons were named "Aemilius". He didn't line them up and say, "I'm naming you "Aemilia" and you "Aemilia", and you "Aemilia"!" Nor was there a nurse standing by to write down a child's name before he or she was taken home from the hospital, or a record book in which every newborn was supposed to be registered.

The difference between boys and girls is that Lucius Aemilius might name his eldest son Lucius, carrying on his father's name, his second son Marcus after his uncle, his third son Manius, after another uncle, and soforth, since in public life they would be expected to use such names for differentiation, and all of them would have answered to "Aemilius", including the father. But if he had only one daughter, she would be the only person in the family named Aemilia. And if there were a second daughter, she might be called Aemilia Minor, Aemilia Secunda, Aemilia Paulla, or even receive a praenomen as in olden times, and be Quinta Aemilia or something else. Not to mention odd names like Rufina or Burra, or diminutives like Aemiliola or Aemilla. The elder daughter might simply continue to be the Aemilia. In imperial times, she might receive one or more names from the female line, a practice that developed for both men and women during the first century. P Aculeius (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

And, as I forgot to mention this, there were few or no "formal" occasions at which a woman would be expected to have a praenomen or any other particular name. Praenomina were required for things like calling the roll of the senate, or soldiers in a century, or voters at an assembly, or inaugurating a magistrate. But Roman women didn't sit in the senate, serve in the army, vote in the assemblies, hold magistracies, etc. Roman women, like Greek women, and women in most other ancient societies, didn't participate in public life, which is not to say that they were hidden away in their homes, as they frequently were in Greece, but they did not hold non-religious offices or do any of the other things that helped preserve praenomina among Roman men. P Aculeius (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Roman women were involved in lawsuits, marriage ceremonies (though Gaius and Gaia seem to have been the main names used there!), some religious occasions, etc. I don't want to get into a debate about terminology or secondary matters, but it seems reasonably clear that in the late republic period, there were some people (I don't know how many) who assumed that the way things should be was that all females born into a lineage should have just one exactly identical name. Even though common practice very often diverged from this idea (almost always in informal practices when there was need to disambiguate between two sisters etc.), the same-name theoretical ideal still exerted some influence, and is somewhat unusual in cross-cultural comparative perspective... AnonMoos (talk) 11:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

There was no "same-name theoretical ideal." You're imposing 21st century concepts of names and gender equity on an ancient culture that did not share them. There was never any conscious act of identity suppression; no law dictated what names Roman women had, no philosophers felt the need to justify a particular practice. And you seem to have missed the point that all the members of a gens shared "just one exactly identical name": the nomen gentilicium, which differed only morphologically between men and women. The fact that it was called nomen while other names were called praenomen and cognomen demonstrates that it was the primary expression of identity in Roman culture, and indeed all of the cultures that surrounded Rome: the Latins, Etruscans, Sabines, Faliscans, Hernici, Aequi, Volsci, Umbrians, Picentes, Samnites, etc. up and down Italy all regarded the nomen gentilicium as the most important name.

To this all-important name all men and some women added additional names; all men and some women had praenomina; originally all women had praenomina, but these increasingly became regarded as useless relics with the passage of time and were simply omitted. It was not, as you seem to assume, an act of oppression, but one of practicality; why undergo the formality of bestowing a name that is seldom or never pronounced? Roman men received praenomina pro forma; Roman women received them as needed. With the passage of time and the rise of the cognomen, women's individualizing names came to be treated as personal cognomina more than praenomina, even when they were identical in form and function to the latter.

While men continued to receive separate praenomina, they too relied chiefly on the cognomen as a form of individualization; the praenomen had no practical value to distinguish among Roman men unless they shared both nomen and cognomen. Because women's names were not so restricted, there was even less need for their names to conform to an ancient and increasingly irrelevant form; actual praenomina were merely one of several ways that Roman women could be distinguished from one another, and in imperial times it was men's naming practices that followed women's in the preferred methods of individualization.

Note that for nearly a century, while the men of the Flavii Sabini all had praenomina, they were all named Titus, even those who were brothers! A similar process, known as fossilization, occurred in other gentes to various extents; three centuries earlier nearly all of the Fabii Maximi were named Quintus, and for the entire history of the Republic practically all of the Julii shared just three praenomina: Gaius, Lucius, and Sextus. Is it any wonder that the praenomen wasn't regarded as particularly useful for individualization, and was simply discarded by women unless and until a practical need arose?

To reiterate, there was never any ideal or consensus declaring that women only needed one name, or should have no more, or a concept that Roman women were somehow not individuals in the sense that men were. That concept involves forcing modern values onto another culture, and it has no historical validity. P Aculeius (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I really don't want to get into philosophical disputes or debates over abstractions, but there was a definite tendency in the late Republic period (in at least some parts of society) for all women of a given lineage to be named just "Tullia" (or whatever), with any needed disambiguation by means of basically informal nicknames, while the men had multiple and variable names ("Marcus Tullius Cicero" etc.), and didn't usually need nicknames to be told apart. There were also some countervailing tendencies, but the aforementioned mononymic tendency did exist, and since it did exist (though obviously it never applied 100% without any exceptions throughout the culture), presumably it corresponded to something in people's brains. This has nothing to do with fairness to women (most individual women probably had more pressing problems to worry about in their lives), but with an interesting and unusual custom. You appear to have a good command of various little quirks and obsolete practices, but I find your selective resistance to simple generalizations to be a little unfortunate. AnonMoos (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Clearly you don't understand the culture you're generalizing about, if you have to resort to ad hominem attacks, and making vague, unsupported statements about people's brains. I've tried to explain that most Romans didn't gain a great deal of individuality from their names, but you're not absorbing it. So let's go with the example you cite: Tullia. Tullia's father was indeed named Marcus Tullius Cicero. His father was named Marcus Tullius Cicero. His grandfather was named Marcus Tullius Cicero. His son was named Marcus Tullius Cicero. The only male member of his family whose name differed in any respect for generations in either direction was his brother, Quintus Tullius Cicero, and the only reason why that distinction was important was because both of them went on to have public careers. These five men all shared the same two names, four of them sharing a third. The only ways to distinguish between them verbally or in writing would be the same ways that one would distinguish between Roman women with the same names: by "basically informal nicknames."

Which is actually why the name Cicero existed in the first place: there had been Tullii for hundreds of years, and many of them would have been named Marcus; Plutarch tells us that one of Cicero's ancestors had a cleft in the tip of his nose the shape of a chickpea, or cicer, and so he and all his family after him came to use this surname to distinguish them from the hundreds of other Tullii. As a cognomen it was certainly 'informal' in the sense that you mean; Cicero could have adopted a more impressive surname had he wanted to, and Plutarch tells us that he was urged to do so at the beginning of his political career; but he was attached to it as a family heirloom, and he kept it. But within his family, it wasn't distinctive at all.

Who had distinctive names in Cicero's family? The women. All the men in his family were Tullius Cicero, and all but one of them was also Marcus. But Cicero's mother was Helvia, his first wife was Terentia, his second Publilia, his sister-in-law Pomponia, his daughter Tullia, or Tulliola, as he called her. Every one of the women in Cicero's family had a distinctive name, but all of the men shared an identical or nearly-identical nomenclature. The same would have been true in countless Roman families. For Roman women, one name was typically more distinctive than two or even three names were for a Roman man. That's why women's praenomina were abandoned; not because of something in the Roman brain that denied the individuality of women. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

My statement about "people's brains" was a statement about the brains of people in the late Republic period of Roman society, and was an assertion in the area of Cognitive semantics, not an "ad hominem attack"! Let me try to spell out the most essential point in words of as few syllables as possible (anticipating minor quibbles and cavils that rather miss the point): Among some families in Roman society of the late Republican period, all SISTERS in the family received ONE IDENTICAL NAME (and were disambiguated by means of basically informal nicknames), while all BROTHERS in the family had multiple names, and the praenomen was generally different for each individual brother, so that brothers didn't need nicknames to be told apart. This applies to birth families -- so of course it doesn't apply to women of different family origins living with the family that their husbands belong to (an obviously totally irrelevant issue, which is a complete red herring).

Since you appear to have an extreme aversion to the word "informal", here's part of what "informal" means in this context: If one element of your name depends on whether or not you have a younger sister, and you are given that element of your name only after your younger sister is actually born, then it should be easy to deduce that that element of your name has a rather different status than the element of your name which was given to you at birth. Here's another part of what "informal" means: pairs such as "Laelia Maior" and "Laelia Minor" can look imposing with their capital letters (of course, the Roman alphabet of the late Republic period did not have an upper-case vs. lower-case contrast), but if you translate them into English while paying proper attention to Dynamic equivalence principles, then they come out as "big Laelia" and "little Laelia" (cf. "big sister" and "little sister").

The basic essential point about the difference between the naming of sisters and the naming of brothers in some families of the late Republic period is so obviously true, that I'm somewhat at a loss to understand the purpose of some of your remarks, or why you would make them. AnonMoos (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Because you're looking for confirmation of your own theory about how the relative lack of women's praenomina in the late Republic proves that Roman brains did not perceive women as individuals. You're applying modern ideas about types and functions of names to an ancient culture with different practices, traditions, and ideas about what names were for and how they should be used. Worse, you're then drawing conclusions about people's brains and how they worked from a single aspect of their culture. It should go without saying that if you don't understand the significance of names in a culture, you can't draw valid conclusions about the significance of their naming practices. It's even more absurd to suggest that the differences between an ancient culture and our own is attributable to differences in the brain, based on nothing more than supposition. You have to recognize that the standards of our culture can't be applied to another and produce any kind of valid results. P Aculeius (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Source for late Republic feminine naming convention

I happened across a source for the fact (obvious to those familiar with the evidence) that the daughters born to some Roman lineages in the late Republic period simply did not have individual legal names (they often had individual nicknames or tacked-on seniority indicators, of course). Discussing the threefold praenomen / nomen / cognomen system for masculine names, Nicholas Ostler says in the book Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin ISBN 978-0-7394-9564-3 page 41:

"Curiously, but presumably for reasons that made sense at the time, this system never applied to women of good family, each of whom had had as her official name just the gentilic nomen, marked with the feminine ending -a. By this token, all women in a clan were interchangeable. Evidently, this was impractical for everyday life, so pet names abounded."

I really don't know why some people who should know better try to deny these basic facts. It's hard for me to see how their motives for doing so could be consistent with writing an encyclopedia... AnonMoos (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: Nowhere is it denied.*Trekker (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Have you looked up at the immediately-preceding section of this talk page, to see the results the last time I tried to raise this issue? AnonMoos (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: No, regardless whatever happened there it doesn't change that nowhere in this article is it denied that women of the same gente had the same simple nomen. And don't change my signature.*Trekker (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The article as it now stands mentions a uniform single (legal) name for daughters of a clan or lineage, in two sentences, but does not call attention to it, or the fact that it's rather unusual. I hesitate to add anything to the article about this myself, since it's apparently an extremely touchy issue for some. Anyway, the main Roman naming conventions#Women's names article is more detailed than this one, and the information on the two articles is not fully consistent. As for your signature, see User talk:DuncanHill#Encryption protocol u[pgrade effects... -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: I don't really care what you linked, you don't change other peoples comments or signatures. If my username needs to be changed then that can be brought up on my talkpage first and arranged. As for naming conventions, edit on with reliable sources about legal names, I doubt anyone will stop you.★Trekker (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

That's nice -- if you had read what I linked to, then you would know that the stupid 2019 encryption protocol upgrade almost knocked me completely off of Wikipedia permanently, but I found a narrow loophole to continue connecting to Wikipedia through an convoluted indirect method, which unfortunately is not fully Unicode compliant. The only way to get around the stupid 2019 encryption protocol upgrade was to buy a whole new computer, and eventually I did buy a whole new computer, but that only allows me to access Wikipedia in a fully Unicode-compliant way for a few hours a week through public Wi-Fi. To access Wikipedia in a fully Unicode-compliant way from home after the stupid 2019 encryption protocol upgrade, I would have to switch to a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my old computer (which I still use quite frequently). Meanwhile, the fact that you seem to be very eager to silence my voice on Wikipedia over an inessential vanity issue does not throw a very favorable light on your personality, in my opinion... AnonMoos (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: No one has tried to silence you. I don't know anything about unicode this and that, if you have a larger problem with how Wikipedia works then you should bring that up to some higher power not drag it into this unrelated conversation.★Trekker (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

You're the one who "dragged it in" (if you didn't want to drag it in to this discussion, then you should have left a message on my user talk page instead). If you followed the link I provided, you could see that I and several other people complained about it before it happened, and also just after, but it seems that the Wikimedia technical people cared solely about their bright shiny tech toys, and didn't have the slightest concern for people like me. I've been editing Wikipedia for over 15 years, and this is almost certainly the most consistently hostile article talk page I've come across, so congratulations on that... AnonMoos (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: Again, feel free to edit the page with sources. No one is stopping you.★Trekker (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)