Talk:Roman–Seleucid war

message: The following things need to be changed with this article:
1. The introduction needs to be more encyclopedic
2. Grammar and punctuation needs to be fixed Crispus 23:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up 

message: Wouldn't it be better to call it Roman-Seleucid War?--Aldux 11:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Potentially this would be a better title, as it would fit in the Roman war naming conventions that we have been using.  But since there was earlier fighting between the Seleucid Empire and Rome before this conflict, this issue would also need to be discussed in an article on the Roman-Seleucid War.  Or maybe we could make several articles, and make them the First Roman-Seleucid War, the Second Roman-Seleucid War, etc. Crispus 17:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name, 2006 

message: I reworded and rewrote the first and second paragraphs of this article but the section on the battle of Magnesia is too far gone for me to do much with. That section should be linked to the wiki page on the battle (Battle of Magnesia). The problem is that the writer of the page describing the battle is a little off on his statistics and seems to be using a new source for his numbers, completely disregarding traditional views of the battle, as well as all the primary sources. Drungarios 17:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: The lead says that this war began in 192 BC, while the infobox claims that it occured in 191 BC. This is contradictory.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 192 is correct, when Antiochus landed in Greece during autumn. --Kryston (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the beginning year of the war 

message: I was busy with some other things, but I got a reply from Michael J. Taylor, an authentic published historian on this.  I tried not to prejudge things TOO much and asked about the title of the war from 192-189 with Antiochus, and here's the reply:
::The Romans themselves called the war "the Syrian War," but I've never cared for the term. It confuses the war with the back and forth wars between the Seleucids and Ptolemies that were also called the Syrian Wars, and of course the Seleucid kingdom was far larger than Syria, although Syria was indeed a core component (and no actual fighting took place in Syria). Syrian-Aetolian War does sound confusing, and has no currency among historians so far as I know.
::I've personally always preferred "Roman-Seleucid War." 
I am inclined to favor reverting the move on basically the same grounds as described above, whether via opening a WP:RM or just doing it boldly if Ifly6 and/or Avilich are convinced.  Any final thoughts from participants above?  Trying to avoid a trainwreck RM with too many clashing options...
I'll note as well that in browsing some other sources (one on the Kingdom of Pergamon), I saw yet another variant: "Antiochic War", which is pretty similar to "Antiochene War".  But eh, that one isn't very specific either.  SnowFire (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Support restoring the old title like I said before.--Catlemur (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Inasmuch as there is some credibility for  (I would prefer it "war" decapitalised), I think it's acceptable. Ifly6 (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Should we proceed with the move to "Roman–Seleucid war"?--Catlemur (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to a move back at this point. I am satisfied that the discussion largely rejects my initial impression, from the previous discussion in 2006, that the name was invented whole-cloth. I also would recommend that the other names be kept somewhere in the article and in redirects. Ifly6 (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Works for me.  And yes, we can definitely bold and highlight the various alternative names of the war.  I was going to prepare a big long essay for a formal RM, but if we informally are okay with a move to R-S war with a lowercase w, that's also good.  SnowFire (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with Ifly6's solution. Avilich (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: (Wow, this ping train is getting long.)  I've noticed the existence of Aetolian War as well. I feel these articles should be merged per WP:OVERLAP. Ifly6 (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Support the merge into the Syrian War (192–189 BC) article.--Catlemur (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

text: I checked the sources and there are several occurrences of Syrian-Aetolian War. While this name is not that prevalent, it would be a good title in case of a merger. See CAH 8 p. 145 for example. T8612 (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you think of that proposition? Ifly6 (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Syrian–Aetolian War. It's the best of all options proposed until now. Avilich (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would oppose this - this has the same problems as French and Indian War in that any casual reader would assume it was referring to a war between the Syrians and the Aetolians.  Not good without an overwhelming COMMONNAME argument.  SnowFire (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

text: The Aetolians spurred Antiochus into invading Greece and thus provoked a direct Roman-Seleucid conflict, when the invasion failed they kept fighting in mainland Greece as allies of Antiochus in a minor side front. I don't agree with the Syrian–Aetolian War title since its not prevalent and does not represent the full scale of the conflict which had Cold War proportions with many satellite states involved.--Catlemur (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Aetolian War]] 

message: I moved the page to  and turned  into a redirect to effect the article merge; most of the material formerly at Aetolian war was poorly sourced and to the extent that it was reliable had been merged here regardless. Some double redirects have been left hanging; I expect that bots will clean them up per guidance. Ifly6 (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update on naming, 2023 

message: Hi,
:File:Roman-Syrian-War.png, :File:Treaty of Apamea.png, and :File:Aegean Sea 192 BC.png appear to be unsourced. Would be good to add sources for GAN. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced maps 

message: I reverted some drive-by edits to the infobox which included a very strange line  which is complete nonsense when Syria is wikilinked to Roman Syria and only absurdly misleading when "Syria" means the Selucid Empire. As to the bolding of certain participants, I find it strange to emphasise Hannibal (who largely played no part in fighting) and Scipio Africanus (who was ill at the decisive battle and played no part in it). This isn't some kind of action movie rematch between the two TITANS™ of the Second Punic War, no matter how much people might want to read that in. Ifly6 (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert, 1 March 2024 

message: Hi, I wanted to explain why I reverted your edit. When I wrote the article, I took specific care to write  before the man by that name adopted the victory cognomen . While he is more well known as Scipio Asiaticus, he is not called that prior to his victories in Asia. (Similar terminological exactitude can be seen in works describing Augustus in the triumviral period as  instead of  or anachronistically as .) Ifly6 (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all good. I figured it may have been something chronological. As I posted on user:Emrahthehistorist17's talk page, since this is a GA article they should be getting consensus before making changes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert, 10 March 2024