Talk:Amalasuintha

message: Isn't Amalasuintha the standard Romanized spellling? Jacob Haller 04:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Amory, People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy p. 448 (after PLRE). See Wright, Primer of the Gothic Language p. 233: "swin(th)s (188), aj. strong, sound, healthy.
Perhaps the spellings given in the untranslated histories and letters of Cassiodorus, Procopius & Jordanes should serve as the guide?  Granted, they may have their own variations. Sgt.widget 08:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It looks like this was taken directly from the EB, but a sentence like, "The choice was unfortunate, for Theodahad, in spite of a varnish of literary culture, was a coward and a scoundrel." would work better as a quote of someone's opinion than as a straight encyclopedic statement. Aren't there any other reliable sources (not another encyclopedia) available? -- Donald Albury 12:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: Bazuz (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  oops, 85.64.108.40 is me 

message: "DOI Not Found 10.1093/acref/9780195046526.001.0001/acref-9780195046526-e-0199#" --Methodios (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not found 

message: Here you need a register:  --Methodios (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here you need a register 

message: Vitiges married Amalasuntha's daughter only after he became king of the Ostrogoths, i.e about one year after Amalasuntha's death.  So it might be a bit confusing to write "Shortly after Amalasuntha's murder, Theodahad would be replaced by Witigis, Amalasuntha's son-in-law". Consider that Amalasuntha's daughter, Matasuntha, was forced to marry Vitiges to give him royal legitimacy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabioantonello (talk • contribs) 15:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vitiges 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved to Amalasuintha (non-admin closure)  BegbertBiggs (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Amalasuntha →  – Amalasuintha is a scholarly spelling, found in Amory's People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy which cites Jones's Prosopography of the Late Roman Empire, and in Barnish's translation of Casiodorus's Variae. It may be the most etymological form. Amalasuentha is another scholarly spelling, found in Heather's The Goths, page 233, and analogous to a scholarly spelling for her daughter Matasuentha. Or Matasuintha. Note that Amalasuntha appears in Jones's Late Roman Empire, pages 274-275, so the current title has some scholarly usage, but apparently not as much. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would probably avoid using non-Latin letters in the title, since they're unlikely to be encountered in scholarly sources (including histories) written prior to the advent of modern word processors.  It'd be fine to include them in the etymology portion of the lead, but I would draw the line between say, having accented Latin letters in Greek names (not going to find them in English names, as a rule), and non-standard and difficult to type letters; better to transliterate for the title, in my opinion.  So just like we don't place Greek names under their spelling in Greek, we probably shouldn't use thorn/eth/æsc in article titles.  I'm sure we do, at least in Norse/Icelandic articles, but I think those are better suited for the lead, and that we should prefer typical English transliterations for titles—certainly for new articles or articles whose titles are up for discussion, although I'm not proposing we go and purge those titles already using these characters.  Just suggesting a principle to follow here.  P Aculeius (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard modern transliterations from the Gothic alphabet use both eth and hwair. And have since the 19th century. I figure that we can't consistently use them for article titles, so we should probably follow the best ancient transcriptions. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 25 March 2020 

message: — Assignment last updated by Dwlehm1 (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: The Middle Ages

message: The last sentence of the Personal Life section, should be worded differently so readers can understand the significance of the dates in parenthesis listed. Also, there was no citation added for this entry and needs cited. If nobody opposes this edit, I will add it. The sentence below is what is currently listed on the article.
"Eutharic died, apparently in the early years of his marriage to Amalasuintha, leaving her with two children, Athalaric and Matasuntha (c. 517 – after 550)." Tbay99 (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life 

message: In the paragraph referencing Amalasutha's parentage, Theodoric the Great and Aefleda, it states she was an only child. However, both Theodoric the Great's page, as well as Aelfleda's page state three children born to them. 
Which is it? 
I tend towards Amalasutha having two siblings, but I am ignorant of this topic. Furthermore, the pages regarding Amalasutha's regency prior to her son taking over as sole regent, are omitted in the predecessor/successor pages. 
If the original author(s) of Amalasutha's page is still a Wikipedia contributor, I would highly recommend a confab with the authors of the other pages mentioned above to bring the biographical details into basic informational alignment. 
Thanks all. Dtss2017 (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies for the misspellings of Audofleda, Amalasutha's mother. If I have misspelled other names, further apologies.  Dtss2017 (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only child?