Talk:Gaius Marius

message: That's a picture of a bust of Sertorius. Definitely not Gaius Marius  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F720:F00:4862:1D6:72E8:AC32:C779 (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Which bust is Sertorius? What's your source for this? Paul August ☎ 16:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  That's Sertorius... 

message: There is a link in the "Reforms of Marius" section to the wikipedia entry for celebrated historian Sir Richard J Evans, a specialist in the history of 20th century Germany.  It is clear, if you look at the footnote, that the source is in fact a 1995 phd thesis submitted by a student in South Africa called Richard John Evans.  I submit that this is unlikely to be the same person as Sir Richard J Evans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H4tess (talk • contribs) 10:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. T8612 (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reforms of Marius - reference to Richard John Evans 

message: "Plutarch then anonymously relates that Marius"
100.15.127.199 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific passage (translated) in Plutarch is . Plutarch is relating what "some... say", which I think is adequately reflected by that phrasing. Would you (or anyone else) propose an alternate phrasing? Ifly6 (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  oxymoron 

message: The Scipio Asiaticus bust has been removed, and another image inserted in its place, which presumably also doesn't depict Marius. Seems to me like there should be some discussion on this, since the Asiaticus sculpture is probably too famous to warrant an unexplained removal, even if we know the traditional identification with Marius is incorrect. Avilich (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I think the Asiaticus/Marius bust can stay with an explanation. The new bust however has a fantasy attribution and is much less famous. As far as I know, the only secured depiction of Marius is that on the coin of Fundanius. T8612 (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there (or rather do we have) an image of this coin? Ifly6 (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , I believe. It's obviously not a close-up portrait, but still contemporary, and I would support using it instead of the Scipio bust. Avilich (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I would prefer leaving the current traditionally... + "but actually" portrait then: that coin portrait is so generic it could be any triumphator waltzing down the street. Ifly6 (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

text: This doesn't really make any sense - what is the point of illustrating an historical figure with a picture of a bust saying it's probably not him? 110.145.75.205 (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

text: Yes it was in the descriptions of each image. It seemed better to switch out a busy, which is known to not be of Marius, with one from the Vaticans museum that is often attributed to be him. Digital Herodotus (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you add then, the source for the attribution of the changed image? Ifly6 (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's another bust with an fanciful attribution. T8612 (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image? 

message: This article, along with several other articles about ancient Romans, was changed to use a different infobox, . In consequence, there's discussion about which infobox to use and how at Talk:Julius Caesar#Infobox and then at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Infoboxes for Roman office-holders as a more central location. NebY (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: The image in the Infobox is of a coin which doesn’t do a good job of portraying what Marius looked like, is basically a stick figure. The image should be changed to the bust of Marius which shows in great detail what he looked like
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marius_Chiaramonti_Inv1488.jpg Friedbyrd (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a bust of Marius. This attribution is baseless. T8612 (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

text: I think in the case of Marius, it could be good to have a modern art depiction of him in the lede; the coin could be moved to the section on his triumph. There are several paintings (, , , , , ). Of these, I think 2 & 3 are the best (3 is a Google Art Project picture, while 2 is in the permanent collection of the Louvre, which makes it the most appropriate imo). T8612 (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coin image 

message: Thanks for reminding me (via the Watchlist) that updating was necessary in this article to reflect changes on the Marian reforms. I largely wrote both articles; I should have taken action to reconcile them earlier. Ifly6 (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Thanks to a commenter on Devereaux's ACOUP Marian reforms blog entry for mentioning that all other articles need to be made consistent with your rewrite, I'm slowly checking them one-by-one. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Re the following, I think  is a cuckoo edit. Flower 2010 connects the willingness of the soldiers to Marius' putative reform. Ifly6 (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Putative reforms" section