Talk:Tiberius Sempronius Longus (consul 218 BC)

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

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

	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).

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.

Proper Name?[edit]

The correct name of this person is Tiberius Sempronius Longus (see e. g. [1] or [2]).--84.190.2.139 18:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Tiberius was his son. Kafziel 18:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Father and son had the same name, Tiberius Sempronius Longus. This page should be moved.--84.190.56.136 18:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are your sources? All the sources on the page call him Titus, including Polibius and Livy, as do the pages on the Second Punic War, the Battle of the Trebia, the Battle of Lake Trasimene, the Battle of Ticinus, Hanno the Elder, and Publius Cornelius Scipio. See Tiberius Sempronius Longus. Kafziel 18:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first poster is correct. He cites Livy and Polybius. The webpage with the text of Livy uses the abrreviation "Ti." This is confusing to people uncertain of the abbreviation of Roman names since it is not clear whether it stands for "Titus" or "Tiberius." Wikipedia's page clears this up. But if there is any doubt, because citing Wikipedia isn't always secure (the above pages, the Second Punic War, the Battle of the Trebia, the Battle of Lake Trasimene, the Battle of Ticinus, Hanno the Elder, and Publius Cornelius Scipio, are thus wrong and need to be fixed), we look directly to Polybius. He uses the full name. Now, the page cited above is a translation so the translator could have chosen Tiberius over Titus. This is impossible because there was no choice involved. How can we tell? Let's look to the original language which uses Τεβέριος (Tiberius). Therefore, I will move the page to the proper name and fix all those incorrect Wikipedia pages. Amphipolis 16:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Tiberius Sempronius Longus (consul 218 BCE). Joelito (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

I suggest posting this at Wikipedia:Requested moves. It should not have been unilaterally moved. Kafziel 15:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, that makes sense. It just seemed the logical thing to move it anyways, because the sources cited on the page and in this discussion either gave Ti. or Τεβέριος (Tiberius).--Amphipolis 15:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titus Sempronius Longus → Tiberius Sempronius Longus (consul 218 BCE) … Rationale: The sources cited in the article (Plb. 3.41; Livy 21.15, 23.37) give the name as either Τεβέριος (Tiberius) or Ti. According to Wikipedia Roman Naming Conventions, Ti. = Tiberius. Names from Roman coins confirm this. This coin from the reign of emperor Tiberius has TICAESAR for Tiberius Caesar (see bottom of scanned page), whereas this coin from the reign of emperor Titus has TCAESIMP for Titus Caesar Imperator (see middle of scanned page). This move included the year of the consulship in the article title because there already is an article at Tiberius Sempronius Longus.

Survey[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support. The convention seems valid, and I'm the first to admit when I'm wrong. I do think this should be the main Tiberius Sempronius Longus article, though, since he came first and is the more famous of the two. The qualifier should be added to the son's article. Kafziel 16:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As nominator, I support the move. Amphipolis 14:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Titus is T. But I would prefer to merge the two articles; neither is going to get much longer. Septentrionalis 19:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Same reason as above. Imladjov 22:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not to the move (which is so agreeable that it could have been done directly), but to the chosen destination name: The article currently uses BC format, also the article name should be Tiberius Sempronius Longus (consul 218 BC)--Panairjdde 23:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.