Talk:Sponsianus

'Hypothesis' not 'Theory'

Bearing in mind the difference between a Theory and a Hypothesis, I make the suggestion, accordingly, that the word 'hypothesis' replaces the word' theory' in the article. I think most would agree that 'Theory' has more conceptual gravitas than the word 'Hypothesis'. For example, the 'theory of evolution' or 'theory of special relativity' but the 'hypothesis' that life exists in other parts of the universe. Perhaps the latter is a 'Belief' in which case we would need to differentiate between a 'belief' and a 'hypothesis'. I do not think that the speculations around the actual historical existence of Sponsianus (based on a few coins whose authenticity is hotly debated) carry enough 'weight' to deserve use and application of the word 'Theory'.

Moreover, is locating 'Sponsianus' in the category of '3rd Century Roman Usurpers' appropriate at this stage when we do not know if he actually existed? Advancingreturns (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

A hypothesis is an assumption made without data, and a theory is an explanation of existing data.[1][2] Since what's being discussed here are explanations of existing data (the coins), I think "theory" is an appropriate term to use. CodeTalker (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Cambridge Online Dictionary. Theory : a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas that are suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation. Hypothesis : an idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proved.

An assumption made without data is a belief, not a hypothesis. For example, belief in gods or hobgoblins. Clearly, your concept of a hypothesis contradicts the COD. Besides, the 'existing data' here in the form of a coin which looks likely to be a fake is unreliable and so cannot be considered data in the scientific sense of the word. In no sense can we describe what has been written about a possibly fictional character as a theory. In the definition of hypothesis given by the COD, 'known facts' can be attributed as reliable data. In this case, we have known facts about the period in which 'Sponsianus' supposedly lived and we have the sol crown on his head which was typical of third century emperors and usurpers. To use the word 'theory' in this case is to assert that what has been written in the article 'is much more likely' to 'be true than a hypothesis'. Once again, 'theory' should be replaced by 'hypothesis' or even by 'believe/belief'.

According to the link you have given : 'A hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been done. It is formed so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. A theory is a principle formed to explain the things already shown in data. Because of the rigors of experiment and control, it is much more likely that a theory will be true than a hypothesis.'

'Before any research has been done' does not necessarily mean 'without data' which you have inserted. 'Because of the rigors of experiment and control, it is much more likely that a theory will be true than a hypothesis.' Hence to use the term 'theory' in the article under consideration is inappropriate. Your second link also backs up my assertion and actually undermines your assertion. https://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Theories.shtml In any area of knowledge, to take even legitimate data from a solitary investigation or set of results which have not been consistently repeated and developed with appropriate controls and degrees of rigour and then use these to propose a 'theory' would be seen as scientifically inappropriate and illegitimate.

In my sincere opinion, it is disputes like this, where it is somewhat obvious which is the correct term to use, which bring the global project of an online encyclopaedia into conceptual disrepute. If editors are simply 'too bloody minded' and 'too proud' to revert a single term to a more correct term then that clearly illustrates what I am asserting here. 'Theory' is quite simply the wrong term to use. That is the top and bottom and the end of the matter. And to categorise 'Sponsianus' with known and proven 3rd century usurpers is simply fiction or thrashing around within the realms of tenuous possibility. Advancingreturns (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The words are used somewhat interchangeably in most contexts, and as this is not a strictly scientific discussion, and the overlap between the concepts is considerable, there is nothing wrong with using "theory" do describe two possible explanations for the evidence that exists. The fact that you consider anything other than your opinion in an ambiguous situation to be a blot on the whole encyclopedia suggests that you may be editing too rigidly, and focusing too much on minute details. P Aculeius (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It is false to assert that the concepts are used "interchangeably in most contexts". There is a real distinction of meaning between a theory and a hypothesis and actually this distinction is deployed in "most contexts". The fact that you consider the distinction to be blurred merely reveals that you do not grasp the distinction as outlined above and that you may be editing too loosely without the necessary due care and attention. If a page cannot deploy the correct epistemological terminology with rigour but rather uses such terms very loosely and without due care then it loses its credibility as a page. This may not be a 'natural scientific' discussion but it must be subject to the basic norms and paradigms of a scientific approach. The more appropriate term remains 'hypothesis' and not 'theory'. In fact, some may assert that the most appropriate term is 'belief' and I would have some sympathy with that. Fine, keep the term if that is your consensus. If the page does not use more accurate and epistemologically appropriate infrastructural terminology, then I will choose to remove the page from my watchlist. Informally, it will go onto my list of Wikipedia pages which I consider to be illegitimate and simply refuse to touch. 'Baloney' is word used by an online friend who is an ex-Wikipedian. She herself stated that there is not sufficient rigour on many pages which would justify them being incorporated into any hard copy encyclopaedia. Advancingreturns (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

In certain more "hard"-scientific contexts, you would be justified in making an absolute distinction between hypotheses and theories, but this is not such a context. As it stands the word theory is being used in its more borad sense (cf. OED sense 6.b: "More generally: a hypothesis or set of ideas about something."), as basically interchangeable with hypothesis or (Pearson's preferred) tentative explanation. The absolute difference between theory and hypothesis is only maintained in a few very particular subsections of academia, and does not generally represent how those words are used or what they mean to most people outside those those subsextions--I don't think most people would find it at all unusual or inaccurate to characterize what these scholars are doing as theorizing, and we are writing for a general audience.

As to whether he should be included in the category, I think the answer is yes, for two reasons: 1. Categories are there to be used; if someone wants a list of all third century usurpers, why wouldn't they want a link to Sponsianus' page, to make a decision on his historicity themselves? 2. Insofar as his existence is disputed, the case for his inclusion being too conjectural 0is just as strong as the case for his non-inclusion being too conjectural :) Winthrop23 (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I refer you to the reply already given to Aculeius. Writing for "a general audience" does not permit a certain looseness and laxity in the deployment of epistemological terminology. It would not be accepted by editors compiling a hard copy dictionary or encyclopaedia. What "most people" think here, therefore, is not relevant. If a category is "there to be used", that does not mean that one should fill it with those who have not been proven to exist as real historical figures. Sponsianus is not part of this "all" third century usurpers, is he? If there is significant doubt regarding his historical existence, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and not place a possible fictional character in a category of real historical figures. You obviously think to the contrary. Personally, I prefer not to run my conceptions through a miasma of epistemological inaccuracy. I do not travel on significantly potholed and unsafe roads when I am not forced to. If the local council elects to fill the potholes with enduring and weather-resistant materials and put in place safety measures, then I may be enticed to drive on them.Advancingreturns (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Undue emphasis on a single paper against the weight of scholarly opinion.

What a strange article, on a topic, which has clearly created great interest in the press, but where the alleged new research, consisting of one article in a “processing fee“ journal, stands against the weight of scholarly opinion. Should the general tone of our article, not be that this topic is generally considered to be a hoax, but there is now one opinion, based on the scratches etc, that it is genuine? I have no skin in the game here, but there seems to be undue emphasis on a single, and as things stand fringe, paper. Since it is peer reviewed, it should certainly be mentioned. It seems to be given undue weight against the consensus of scientific opinion. Good wishes to all, Springnuts (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Since, as you point out, the paper has itself created "great interest in the press", i.e. made front-page news in practically every news organization on earth, and that fact alone is what's been driving all of the interest in the subject, including all of the articles rebuffing or rebutting that opinion, I'd say the weight is perfectly "due". How exactly would one relegate it, as it were, to this article's "back pages"? And is it even worth starting a new argument over whether something is or isn't "fringe" (something impossible to establish, as it's a vague description based largely on one's opinion of it), or whether the journal it appears in ought to be considered reputable? None of the scholars arguing with the research seem to be going after the journal—why would Wikipedia, which is supposed to be neutral? Whatever balancing needs to be done in the article is surely still in the camp of "probable forgery"—although very briefly the reporting on it suggested otherwise—but we don't try to hide away the source of a controversy, merely because the opinion that started it is thought to have been erroneous. P Aculeius (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It should certainly be in the article, but with due weight. This is a single, and primary source, reported in a lot of newspapers: the newspaper reports do not add to its value as a source. We prefer secondary sources. We're wary of sources where the authors pay to have their research published. We prefer independent peer review, which this journal does not normally do. I have had a go at the Lede to reflect where the balance of scholarship is in the sources. I have "promoted" Pearson's study to the first paragraph, but in the context of majority view. When and if Pearson's conclusions gain more traction that balance will change of course - we're always a work in progress. Springnuts (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

"Processing charges" have been collected for a long time by many prestigious academic journals, notably those of the APS. Only recently things started to change, so this is not a serious argument.79.100.200.28 (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Despite my own and others' best efforts, there appears to be a 'refractory', presuppositional element in the editing of this page. You can only go so far with this and, of course, nobody wants an editing war. All you can do is leave 'the faithful' to their page. And hope that a 'bolt out of the blue' alters the situation. The whole page, imo, should be re-written within the "general tone" and altered contexuality to which you refer. 77.86.63.166 (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Lede : "existence implied"

Lede : 'His existence is implied by a series of coins bearing his name, ostensibly discovered in the eighteenth century.' 'Implied' is clearly the wrong term to use here when the authenticity of the coins is widely under question. Implication takes place on the basis of the extrapolation of undoubted facticity. The existence of Sponsianus is therefore NOT implied on the basis of the coins which are not incontrovertible factual evidence. Replaced by 'supposed'. Advancingreturns (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

No, "imply" is precisely what evidence does. The evidence doesn't have to be correct or universally accepted in order to imply something. "Supposed" is the wrong word, since it implies belief, rather than suggestion. The coins are incapable of believing anything—or at least, we don't usually anthropomorphize inanimate objects for this purpose on Wikipedia. Even reworded, "supposed" would be problematic, since then it would be necessary to clarify precisely who supposes—in this case something that does not belong in the lead. "Implied" is neutral, because it only states the effect of the evidence, which makes something more probable than it would be without the evidence. In fact without the coins, there would be no probability at all, since there would be no evidence of Sponsian's existence. So while they may be, and likely are forgeries, they are evidence and do imply the existence of an usurper named Sponsianus. The likelihood that they do so deceptively and do not prove that what they are saying is true does not change what they imply. P Aculeius (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

All implication is made on the basis of factual evidence. Otherwise it is simply not an implication. Evidence is not evidence unless it is factual. The coins are not incontrovertibly evidential of the existence of Sponsianus nor do they imply his existence. Of course, evidence must be "correct" in order to "imply" something. Where have you taken the assertion from that evidence does not have to be "correct or universally accepted"? The coins are not "evidence" because their status as ancient coins is not "accepted" by most scholars and experts (which they must be) if they are to form the factual basis of a coherent and reasonable implication. Semantically, suppose means to think or assume that something is true or probable but with lack proof or certain knowledge, used to make a suggestion or a hesitant admission. It is used to introduce a hypothesis. Hence 'suppose' is the correct term to use here and not 'imply'. I am not "anthropomorphising" anything. Why have you stated this? We are the ones who imply or suppose on the basis of our state of knowledge. Not the coins. Coins do not "know" or "suppose" and, being inanimate and without cognitive faculty as you correctly observe, they do not "imply" either. We don't ignore deductive reasoning on Wikipedia and deploy as evidence items which have not been demonstrated to be factual evidence. Use of the word "imply" is incorrect because it is not grounded in generally accepted facticity. It is most certainly not "neutral" because it is stating that the existence of the coins indicates the existence of Sponsianus when they most certainly do not. The physical existence of the coins cannot be taken as evidence when the status is questioned by many. This actually denies the definition of the term evidence. Hence the title of the "Evidence" subsection in the article should itself be altered. Deductive reasoning is being ignored in this case by admitting 'imply'. 'All men are mortal'. 'Socrates is a man'. Therefore (implication) 'Socrates is mortal'. This is deductive reasoning and it is not being applied here in relation to the existence of Sponsianus. What we have here is editors introducing a fideistic leap. What are the premises here to "imply" that he existed? There are none. A coin whose status is in dispute, controversial and refuted as authentic by most scholars and experts is not a premise for the assertion of the historical existence of the given individual. Advancingreturns (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but your definition of "evidence" doesn't comport with the dictionary—nor does your use of "suppose". Anything tending to make something more or less probable is evidence, whether or not the thing they tend to make more or less probable is true. Evidence may be false or misleading—which would be the case if the coins are forgeries—but it is still evidence. You insist on writing that Sponsian is "supposed by a series of coins", which is simply ridiculous. Coins do not suppose; supposition is created by the mind of the supposer. Something suggested, but not necessarily proved, by evidence is implied. Facts do not need to be true in order to be implied; something merely has to point in their direction, and the coins can do that without any intent or consciousness. P Aculeius (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with P Aculeius: there's nothing about the verb "implies" which requires that the premise has to be true – if I say "all swans are white" that implies that any bird which is black is not a swan, regardless of the existence of black swans. On the other hand, "his existence is supposed by a series of coins bearing his name" is nonsense. If there really were a consensus that the word "implies" is inappropriate here, then we would have to recast the sentence as e.g. "his existence is supposed on the basis of a series of coins bearing his name", but I really don't see that as any improvement. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Semantically we may state any first premise we wish, and follow it with a second premise from which a conclusion can be drawn. For example, All Plutonians live under the surface of Pluto. Greeno is a Plutonian. Therefore Greeno lives under the surface of Pluto. In this article, we are putatively dealing with a page in an online Encyclopaedia. If the premises are not factually evidential, (and this coin does not hold that status) then there can be no implication of the historical existence of Sponsianus. Otherwise, we may state all manner of premises and draw the appropriate conclusions as we so wish. Implication is not supposition so your suggestion would be an improvement. Your first statement is an example of a false premise since black swans do indeed exist. But this we know. We do not have to imply it. Advancingreturns (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, my definitions, including that of "evidence", have been taken from dictionaries. Look at the OED and CED. You conception of "evidence" is flawed as is the title of the sub-section in the article. The coin in itself is simply not evidence. It is no more evidence than a statue of Zeus is evidence for his existence. False evidence invalidates itself as evidence. The fact that the coins cannot be taken as authentic by the vast majority of scholars *implies* that they cannot be taken as evidence. They are without evidential status. You have not studied my post. It is we who "suppose, imply and know". Coins do none of these. "Supposed by a series of coins" does not mean the actual coins "suppose" does it? This sentence can easily be altered. Please spare us the pedantry. When we state that x implies y, then it is we who are doing the implying on the basis of our understanding of x. It is not y which is subjectively implying using its cognitive faculties, is it? Ditto supposition and knowledge. *We* make implications on the basis of our knowledge. Implication, like supposition, is posited by thinking humanity on the basis of concrete, specific, factual evidence."Facts do not need to be true"?????? Really? Facts do not need to be implied. That is why they are facts. The quality of being factual means they are "determinate" (to use a philosophical term). They are a statement about the existence of something real or something that has been historically real. If we take suggestion and implication as identical semantically then what you assert in your penultimate sentence is tautologous. This coin simply does not point in the direction of the existence of a "usurper" called Sponsianus. It does not imply his historical existence unlike the many coins of Augustus, Alexander, Claudius, etc.To assert that this coin "points in the direction" of his existence is pure supposition which is why the word "suppose" is better than the word "imply". Whether we use the word imply or the word suggestion is immaterial. If they both mean the same thing then they are the wrong term. 'Suppose', of course, is semantically distinct from 'imply' Advancingreturns (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I would be very interested where in the OED's definition of the word "evidence" you find any suggestion that it must be unanimously accepted as authentic to be so described. I have reverted your reintroductions of ungrammatical wordings to the stable version while discussion continues, as there is clearly thus far no consensus for them. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

You have reverted my edits. There is nothing whatsoever "ungrammatical" about them. Read the OED entry on "Evidence". The section headed "Evidence" in this article is not evidence. I have clearly outlined this in previous contributions. 'Discussion' (not Evidence) is clearly a more appropriate heading for the section. Clearly, you have not paid sufficient attention. Advancingreturns (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I have read the OED entry on evidence, and I do not find that it says what you are suggesting it says. Unless you can quote where it does, I will continue to assume that is because it does not in fact say what you are suggesting it does. And regardless of what the OED says, sources on both sides of the authenticity question describe the coins as "evidence". Multiple editors have reverted your change on the grounds that it's a perfectly acceptable word to use in this context. If you want to change it, you need to persuade editors to your point of view, and your walls of text in this discussion are unlikely to achieve that. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Read again. Then look at the section headed. Here is the Wikipedia entry for 'Evidence'. Simply read the first sentences. There appears to be a refractory cabal of editors on this page (all with classical usernames) who appear to *want to believe* Sponsianus existed in third century Dacia. I wonder why. You cannot convince anybody otherwise who *wants to believe*. They will always find ways of perpetuating what they believe on a page regardless. This way of proceeding in editorial matters would never be accepted by hard copy publishers of history books and encyclopaedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence Advancingreturns (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

"Evidence for a proposition is what supports this proposition. It is usually understood as an indication that the supported proposition is true.". From the Wikipedia link given. Advancingreturns (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Lol. "Everyone disagrees with me universally therefore I am right." I don't think there's a point to further discussion if your contribution is going to be walls of meaningless text or assertions that we are being possessed by our classical-theme screen names to serve the dark god fantasy. Perhaps you might consider an RFC to settle the matter, but I doubt you'll find much support there either. Might just be time to wp:drop the stick. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

More abuse I see. Referring with total disrespect and pejorative terms to contributions by other editors. Read Wikipedia's own page on 'Evidence'. Again, no replies to abusive editors. I do not wish to engage with abusive characters who are on an online power trip in order to placate their low self-esteem and inferiority complex. Bravo! Brilliant! I wish I was like you! How very sad. Advancingreturns (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Engaging to say that you refuse to engage is an interesting tactic. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

It is a tactic I use with abusers online and offline. It means the interaction is over. Goodbye. Advancingreturns (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

see also WP:1AM Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

No knowledge is better than 'knowledge' like this - Jimmy Wales

Wales, Jimmy. "Insist on sources", WikiEN-l, July 19, 2006: "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources."—referring to a rather unlikely statement about the founders of Google throwing pies at each other. Advancingreturns (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Advancingreturns: as you are so keen for us to stick to what the sources say, I am sure I can rely on you to self-revert your edit-warring here when the coin is described as "evidence" even in skeptical sources like Mary Beard's TLS editorial. The alternate wording you have introduced isn't even good English. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

If Beard described the coin as evidence, then her description is semantically incorrect. As for edit warring, clearly you and others are engaged in the same. It takes at least two to make a war. My English is fine. It is your understanding of English which is obviously deficient. Do show me where my English "isn't even good English" (that is poor English and dreadful style by the way) and perhaps I will learn something. I am always ready and willing to learn but not to be browbeaten and bullied. That I shall always fight. Advancingreturns (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is source based, and thus if the sources agree it's evidence, it is evidence. You can take issue with the definition of the word all you want, but you will almost certainly never win against the sources, especially if even the skeptical sources would take umbrage with your claims. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

There are no primary sources for the legitimacy of the whole page itself except the existence of the coins. Pearson's study of the coins has re-ignited the debate but his paper remains a primary source which is increasingly controversial and being questioned. Most scholars and experts state unequivocally that the coins are fake eighteenth century casts. Some academics have described the conclusions Pearson et al have drawn (or rather leaps to) as "pure fantasy". All references to Sponsianus in previous literature are rooted in the existence of these coins. There are no primary references in the writers in Antiquity. Advancingreturns (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

For one, Pearson's study is a secondary source. There is no wiggle room there. For another: Yes, there is skepticism. Thus the article explains both sides. A group of scholars support and oppose the validity of the evidence. And evidence it remains, unless the minter comes forward and confirms it as either real or fake, which is... highly unlikely. The evidence against the existence of Sponsianus may perhaps be persuasive, but far from conclusive. Until conclusively disproven (again, effectively impossible), it will remain evidence, and Wikipedia is justified in presenting it within the article as such. "There are no records in antiquity" seems to come from someone unware of the Damnatio memoriae, which has removed huge swathes of information of Usurpers who are both definitely real and quite important, let alone one of lesser importance. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Get your facts straight first. Pearson's study is a primary source. It is the first time a physical scientific investigation has been made of the coins. So do educate me and tell me where is the primary source for Pearson's study? The coins by themselves are NOT a primary source. And I have explained why they are not evidence. I will not repeat all that. I refer you back to previous posts. Advancingreturns (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Articles do not require a certain number of "primary sources" in order to justify their existence. Many perfectly valid articles depend entirely on secondary and tertiary sources. While it is often desirable to cite the original sources for a topic, the fact that this topic is the subject of considerable speculation among scholars is itself noteworthy and verifiable. Those are the criteria for inclusion of articles in Wikipedia. Note that the discussion is what is verifiable; the coins do not have to be verified as authentic in order for the discussion to be worthy of an article. If you review Wikipedia's policies regarding verifiability, you may note that even hoaxes may be notable and deserving of articles if there is adequate coverage in reliable sources. The sources do not need to claim that the subject of a biography is a historical person, nor does there need to be proof that he was, nor does it need to be more likely than not that he was. This article could still exist even if Sponsian could be conclusively proven to be a hoax, simply because that in itself would be noteworthy. The tone might be different, but as the evidence currently available only allows us to conclude that he probably did not exist, the best that we can do is summarize what the various scholars have to say on the subject, balancing the weight thereof as best we can, without taking sides. P Aculeius (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the only reply editors who abuse me with pejorative terms will receive from me. My personal policy. No reply to abusive editors. Write what the hell you like. You will not get a considered, polite and reasoned reply from this published author. Goodbye. Advancingreturns (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Civility

Referring to an editor's considered and informed contribution as a "talk page rant" is not "civil". In fact, it is abusive, pejorative, derogatory. Disagree if you wish but please, remember that abuse of others is simultaneously self-abuse and therefore betrays a lack of self-respect. Those who are the strongest advocates of the 'Five Pillars' should be the most assiduous in practicing them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#:~:text=Civility%20is%20part%20of%20Wikipedia%27s%20code%20of%20conduct,always%20treat%20each%20other%20with%20consideration%20and%20respect. Advancingreturns (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Citations

I think shortened footnotes are completely useless in this article. Most of the citations are news, where the title is important not the writer. Same books aren't cited multiple times so that only their page numbers would have to be changed - then {{sfn}}s would be more comfortable.

@P Aculeius and @Iazyges and other frequent editors of the article,

would you mind (uphold) if I'd convert the {{sfn}}s to basic references? Gyalu22 (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind at all. I dislike the short footnote template, and don't think "author–year" is a good way to cite things generally—I prefer "author–title" where the author is important (as it is with Beard, Deahl, etc.), otherwise "article title–publication"; and regular references are more flexible in this regard. P Aculeius (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I like {{sfn}} in general, but I think you make a reasonable case that they aren't super useful in this article; I'd have no objection to changing to a different citation style. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I generally prefer SFNs, but in this case, I agree that the title may be important. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)