Talk:Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (husband of Claudia Antonia)

	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 WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Classical Greece and Rome Start‑class 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
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

First requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Claudia Antonia's first husband) → Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (gens Licinia) – My move to the proposed title was pointlily [sic] reverted. Not only is the proposed name considerably shorter, but his membership of gens Licinia also applied, unlike his marriage, throughout the subject's life, rather then merely the last four years of it; and is mentioned earlier in the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus is only notable for being Claudia Antonia's husband. Current title is clear and helpful All English speakers know what a "husband" is, only Latin-reading oddballs will recognise "gens Licinia" :) In ictu oculi (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ico. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Connection to a gens is not much of a disambiguator. (Good example, though, of how Roman men in the Imperial period sometimes derived their name from their mother's family.) Our convention for disambiguating Roman men of the same tria nomina with no further known agnomen is by highest office held. That's why we have Publius Licinius Crassus (son of triumvir) and Marcus Licinius Crassus (quaestor) for the two sons of the famous Crassus (the so-callled 'triumvir', which he was not): there is no scholarly consensus on whether Publius ever held formal office, but his brother did. This GPM seems to have been a quaestor, so the proper alternative if this article title is unacceptable would seem to be Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (quaestor). Cynwolfe (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But does that meet the initial requirements of a title (WP:TITLE) of being commonly used and recognizable to the reader or searcher? I'd suggest not. Johnbod (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't matter if consensus is that the article doesn't need to be moved, and "most common" is relative when it comes to a dude so obscure. We do have a guideline on Roman names, though: WP:ROMANS says Public officials with duplicate names should be disambiguated by the highest position held. Family relationships are used when the person held no office, or when the person's primary interest lies in that relationship, which seems to be the case here. Hence my oppose. Some sticklers might argue that "first" is unneeded unless Claudia Antonia's second husband had the same tria nomina. But if there's nothing particularly wrong or opaque about the current title (one could also, I suppose, argue that he's so lacking in independent notability per WP:ITSA that he ought to be a redirect), then I'm not sure it's worth a lot of fuss. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Cynwolfe. I think her suggestion is spot on, although my suggestion would have been "Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (husband of Claudia Antonia)" since for purposes of disambiguation it doesn't matter how many husbands she had or what order they came in (unless two of them were named Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus). But listing by office could be appropriate IF there aren't any other quaestors by the same name. A cautionary note with that, though, is that the great Pompeius was probably quaestor at some point in his career, so if office will be used to disambiguate this one, I'd put the year (if known) in parentheses. P Aculeius (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Claudia Antonia's first husband) → Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (husband of Claudia Antonia) – Slightly more encyclopedic style, and for disambiguation purposes it doesn't matter how many husbands she had. His main claim to notability is that he was married to the daughter of the Emperor Claudius. PatGallacher (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support per discussion in earlier move request. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.