Talk:Magnis (Carvoran)

Military history: Fortifications / 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 not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Archaeology Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology 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.

Name of this fort?

I see that this page has been moved from Magnis (Carvoran) to Magnae Carvetiorum. Just curious, but what is the evidence that "Magnae Carvetiorum" is the actual name for this fort? Pasicles (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm not sure what is going on here. This page seems to have been moved from "Magnis" to "Magnae Carvetiorum" apparently on the basis that the Carvetii were one of the tribes near this area. But I can find no good authority for this suffix. This fort is listed in the Ravenna Cosmography and the Notitia Dignitatum as "Magnis" and all the textbooks I can find either list the fort under that name or under the alternative "Magna". Pasicles (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pasicles: I agree, I can find zero sources on Magnae Carvetiorum or The Greats of the Carvetii, and the same applies to Magnae Dobunnorum and The Greats of the Dobunni in Magnae Dobunnorum. The latter used to be Magnis (Kenchester) before it too was moved without discussion. I suggest a move back to the referenced titles and removal of the unreferenced additions. — Sam Sailor 19:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An admin needs to notified and the article moved back to its original name - there is ZERO primary or secondary source support for the current name. Cagwinn (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence has appeared, so I'll move it back. "Magnis" is the only form of the name for which there is clear evidence. It could be the locative/ablative of "Magnae" but that would only be one possibility among several. The identification of this name with the Carvoran fort is also a guess, but perhaps a fairly likely one. Andrew Dalby 19:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course, I can't move it back: the redirect would have to be deleted first. But this is a desirable move: I see now that the identification of "Magnis" with Carvoran is definitely supported by Rivet & Smith (already cited in a footnote). I'll request a move. Andrew Dalby 19:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for a move. Meanwhile I took out the following, which gave the invented longer name: ", fully Magnae Carvetiorum (Latin for "The Greats of the Carvetii"),{{refn|The names are sometimes misspelled in the singular as '''Magna''' as well. The fort sometimes appears as '''Magnis''' in some itineraries, owing to Latin's declensions.}}". The Latin would most likely mean "the great women of the Carvetii" [but, to be clear, I'd say the name is much more likely to be Celtic and to mean something quite different. There was no "Magnis" elsewhere in the Roman world so far as I know]. Andrew Dalby 19:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise at first that this move, and the one at Magnae Dobunnorum, had been made by LlywelynII, an active editor. So I deleted my move request and asked LlywelynII to comment. Andrew Dalby 13:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. China's been blocking Wikipedia and Wikipedia's been blocking VPNs.

I was going with the NATURALDAB, but if the name is felt objectionable by at least three of you without support in the primary texts, sure, it's fine to go back to the dabs. — LlywelynII 16:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles have been moved back. Sam Sailor 19:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]