Talk:Marcus Junius Brutus

message: A discussion has been occurring at WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome over the best title for this article, which, if memory serves, used to be at "Marcus Junius Brutus the Younger" and is currently at "Brutus the Younger".  After some debate, I think we're probably closing in on a consensus, but for the sake of completeness I think the matter should be decided here, so that people with this page on their watchlists will have the opportunity to weigh in, and so there's a record of the discussion on the article's talk page.  Given the article's history and the options under discussion at CGR, the choices seem to be, in alphabetical order:
#Brutus, on the argument that he was the most famous/important person of the name;
#Brutus (Caesar's assassin), similar in disambiguation format to some other articles on Wikipedia;
#Brutus the Younger, the article's current title, on the theory that he needs a little more disambiguation to distinguish him from the other Junii Bruti, as well as pop culture references;
#Marcus Junius Brutus, the tria nomina, on the theory that he is at least the most famous/important Marcus Junius Brutus;
#Marcus Junius Brutus (Caesar's assassin), providing more disambiguation to distinguish him from all other persons with the same name; and
#Marcus Junius Brutus the Younger, the article's former title.
I suggest we indicate our preferences below this comment, keeping them as succinct as possible.  P Aculeius (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You could have also added Brutus (Caesar's assassin), like the number of other "Brutus (...)" articles on WP. T8612 (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, will add that as an option.  Renumbering the replies accordingly.  P Aculeius (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

text: "more historically significant" doesn't really matter when it comes to Wikipedia notability or what someones COMMONNAME in sources is. There's a reason there are hundreds of paintings, statues, plays and books about Marcus Brutus (often called just Brutus), and zero of Decimus.★Trekker (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Who would be then? I have a hard time thiking that if I talked to some random people outside of Wikipedia they'd even be able to name Decimus or Lucius Brutus.★Trekker (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

text: This is supposed to be a simple poll of the options, not a complete rehash of the topic from the other page by the same people.  Can we please try to limit the arguments instead of replying separately to every comment that somebody else leaves?  P Aculeius (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see the what help this is going to be of if it's only goint to be a poll, it's just attracting the same crowd that is at the WikiProject. The best thing to do would be to ask for input from more people, possibly admins or those in charge of naming conventions on Wikipedia. This discussion so far seems to be very split.★Trekker (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: For one thing, this is the best place for any discussion that might decide the matter; otherwise people seeking clarification about the reasons for the page move wouldn't find them on the talk page.  Not everybody in CGR watches this page, and not everyone involved with this page checks CGR talk.  That's why I clearly linked the two at the beginning of this discussion and the ending of that one.  However, as the topic was raised nearly four weeks ago and was discussed vigorously there before being brought here almost two weeks ago, I think we've got as much participation as we're likely to see in the short term from people interested in the title of this page.  As for whether it's "very split", we only have two potential titles on the table: one is supported by two editors and opposed by twice that many; the other is supported by four editors and opposed by one.  So opinion is clearly leaning in one direction.  Just as importantly, a closely divided opinion would be more important if leaving the article at its present title were an option; but nobody has spoken in support of the present title, so the question isn't whether a majority of all editors who've weighed in favour a particular option (although it looks as though there may be a majority), but which option has the strongest support.  The topic is still open for a couple more days if other editors who haven't yet voiced an opinion want to.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

text: I don't really like "Brutus" alone and have nothing against Marcus Junius Brutus; I therefore support the latter to build a consensus and change the current title. T8612 (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Another argument in favour of Marcus Junius Brutus that hasn't already been made is that the vast majority of other language wikis use this form. T8612 (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated the above tally accordingly.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Perhaps, but technically a separate issue, and one for which there may be a different argument (for instance, "Marcus Junius Brutus (father of Brutus)" is very near a tautology, since any son of his would naturally be Brutus) in favour of the current name.  But let's try to keep that discussion separate from this one, and in a predictable location (such as that article's talk page).  P Aculeius (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed name of article 

message: Hello there! I don't have a copy of Crawford's book on coinage. I believe, however, you do? There's a claim in the article: . Could you verify? Thanks. Ifly6 (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , I couldn't find this statement so I removed it. Brutus revived his Caepio name on his later coins though, but Crawford doesn't say why. I made a subsection on his term as moneyer. As an aside I think he was appointed moneyer by the consul Appius Claudius Pulcher, also his father-in-law, but that's OR. T8612 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your edits! I did some normalisation here and there, I hope nothing of yours was mangled. Re Ap Cla Pulcher, I was under the impression that the 26-viri (of which the IIIviri monetales would have been a part) were elected by the people. How could he have been appointed? Ifly6 (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's debated whether they were appointed or elected, but I think it was the former, because there is a strange number of moneyers with family links to consuls of the same year. See Burnett's article (to which I could add several other instances). T8612 (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. I don't know much about Roman coins. That said, I can see both sides: coining is a relatively minor post, I could imagine that a consul commending his nephew or something would be influential before the tribes when the field of people who wanted to be elected is large (I'm imagining something like a municipal election in which almost nobody knows or cares about who wins crossed with a messy primary where there are twenty or thirty, or even more, candidates all trying to stand out). Ifly6 (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crawford claim verification