Talk:Gelon

message: It's confusing that the title of this article is Gelo yet throughout the text he is referred to as Gelon. I wouldn't know which of the two versions is more standard but I have only heard of him under the name Gelon. If Gelon is standard, then the page should be moved - if Gelo then it should be changed in the text with the variant noted at the start. --Spondoolicks 22:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree --5telios 11:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, Gelon is the preferred form, at least in everything I've ever read (latin and english). I have never seen Gelo. I reitereate Spoondolicks' point, that it is horrible encyclopaedic practice to have the lemma disagree with the title.--Ioshus(talk) 22:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In most translations of Archimedes I have seen, he is called Rex Gelon. Honestly, this is the form I would prefer, but since this is en, not la, maybe King Gelon?--Ioshus(talk) 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think straight Gelon is preferable. To those familiar with Sicily or the classical world in General will be looking for Gelon for the person and Gela for the place. I think having Gelo as the article name would be like having Ruggero as the article name for Roger of Sicily. --5telios 09:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, Gelon is already taken...--Ioshus(talk) 16:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since there have not been any pro-Gelo voices so far, I suggest that this article is moved to Gelon with a disambiguation header for the city, while the Gelo page becomes a disambiguation page for the Gelao people, the racing team and the tyrant. The pre-existing Gelon page shouldn't be too much of a problem (although I'm not 100% clear on exactly what the procedure should be). Perhaps an administrator could be drafted in to move things around to preserve page histories and so forth. --Spondoolicks 10:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A small correction to something above: there is no doubt that the only correct form in Latin is Gelo.  You won't find "Gelon" in Cicero or Livy.  Thus, according to the tradition where we run Greek through Latin to make English (Oedipus, not Oidipous), the traditional English version of this name is also Gelo (compare Plato, Crito, Meno, etc.).  Now, in fact, people tend to refer to this guy as Gelon (perhaps "GEE-low" just sounds too weird to some people).  I'm guessing the article title here came from 1911 Britannica.  Anyway, I like traditional English spellings & pronunciations of Classical names, but, I have to admit, when I published an article mentioning Gelo several times, I called him Gelon in deference to the more common 21st century scholarly usage.  But I like the way Wikipedia tries to keep the traditional English names in general, and in a move vote I'd vote Gelo.  This is in accord with WP:GREEK ("The normal English practice is to use the Roman standard, rather than attempting a phonetic transcription.").  So the page should not be casually moved in a false panic of "Oh no it's wrong!"  I've removed the inconsistency for now.  Wareh 21:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The traditional English name is the name most often used traditionally in English texts, not the name you chose to form retroactively by following what was done with Plato or the names of his texts. For whatever reason of chance and history, the traditional English name is indeed Gelon and it is found in this way in scholarly texts and schoolbooks in the UK at least until the mid 1990's. If since then, usage has reverted to what a latinised form of the name might have looked like had English chosen to adopt it, then by all means Gelo would be correct. I doubt this is the case, however. I am sorry to be quite so blunt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 5telios (talk • contribs) 07:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to apologize for your bluntness, but your suggestion that Gelo is some kind of "retroactive" "might have" reconstruction is mistaken.  It is exactly what I said it is, the traditional English form.  I'm not sure "tradition" can be defined by a numerical census of authors as you seem to suggest ("most often"), but the fact that the form Gelo is traditional is quite obvious from its usage in Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, George Grote's History of Greece and other standard histories (e.g. Connop Thirlwall's; English edition of Ettore Pais's Ancient Italy), James Frazer's Pausanias, George Rawlinson's Herodotus, and, for good measure, Ann Radcliffe's Sicilian Romance.  I'm confining myself here to authors notable enough to have Wikipedia articles and whose names can be rattled off in a couple of minutes.  Has Gelo fallen into some disuse?  Yes.  But it is the traditional form. Wareh 13:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gelo or Gelon 

message: What is the source for this? The entire section is unsourced but I will still leave it in. Seems like a preposterous conspiracy theory to me that the Persians and Carthaginians conspired to conquer Greece. --Mr. 123453334 (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  coordination with Xerxes?