Talk:Aemilia gens

message: Buca seems to be an ambiguous link in terms of Roman society and the Gens, or is there some connection to a geographic region of Turkey? 
Richardsidler (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look in gens. Stan 19:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ambiguity? 

message: I deleted the following sentence
(However, the similarity of the name "Aemilius" and the Greek word aimilios is most likely just a coincidence.)
ok, how you tell someone HOW some can write the word "Aemilius" if not "Αιμίλιος"??? Why some people have so much complex???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.177.169 (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a coincidence?

message: This really needs to be two articles, Aemilius, a disambiguation of the proper name, and Aemilia gens, an article on the family itself.  If no one has any strong objections, I'd like to perform the split in a couple days.  Ford MF 14:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article in need of splitting

message: I got on this page a bit by accident and I spotted what seems to be an inconsistency, but since I know nothing of the subject, I wasn't going to edit it myself...
How come the list contains "Tiberius Aemilius L. f. Mam. n. Mamercus, consul in 470 and 467 BC." when the underlying link identifies this person as "Tiberius Aemilius Mamercinus"? Okay, his page does also say "or Mamercus" in the first line, but then continues on to only ever use Mamercinus.
Furthermore, when one follows the "filiation" link right above the list and arrives at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_naming_conventions#Filiation, an explanation is given that uses this very same person as an example:
 "Tiberius Aemilius Mamercinus, the son of Lucius and grandson of Mamercus" would be written Ti. Aemilius L. f. Mam. n. Mamercinus.
Looking at the rest of Wikipedia, the listing on this page seems to be the odd one out and should perhaps be corrected?
--Falc (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a mistake, Broughton, the PW, and Ogilvie call him Mamercus. It's fixed now. Thanks. T8612 (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) According to the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, which is the principal source for most of the articles on major gentes, the two forms were interchangeable, particularly in early generations, with the earliest members using the root form as a cognomen, and subsequent generations gradually adopting the derivative form.  In the section on this branch of the family, Mamercus is the form given for the first two: Lucius, the consul of 484, and Tiberius, the consul of 470 BC; subsequent members are given as Mamercinus.  It's not particularly desirable to explain what's really a minor variation in each biographical article about a member of this family; it might be noted in the lead sentence without difficulty, but presumably the authors of each article simply followed the source preferred in whatever they were following, which is why it's not there now.  Unless the source clearly explains why one should be preferred over the other, it's simply a matter of personal preference.  P Aculeius (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiberius Aemilius Mamercus or Mamercinus?