Talk:Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation)

message: The sentence:
:The Latin pulchra (meaning 'beautiful') is the root of the English word pulchritude (meaning 'beauty').
should be in Wiktionary, not here. I'm not deleting it, because I haven't peeked into Wiktionary for "pulchritude" yet. (The word itself is not beautiful!) Said: Rursus (☻) 20:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiktionarify!

message: I'm pretty sure this isn't correct. The sisters of Clodius are given as between three and five. He was the youngest of the family except the sister who married Lucullus, I think. And only Clodia Luculli and Clodia Metelli (the second and elder of whom is generally given as Catullus's Lesbia, although others have argued that Lesbia was Clodia Luculli or someone else entirely) were his full sisters, the other siblings coming from another marriage of the father's. One of the other sisters married Quintus Marcius Rex. At least both his full-sisters changed their names (again, I think. If I were sure I'd change it). And weren't they all called Pulchra? I've seen Clodia Metelli's childhood name given as Claudia Pulchra Tercia; Claudia Pulchra Tertia; and Claudia Pulchra Tertulla.
41.241.3.105 (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Relatives of Publius Clodius

message: Rather than argue forever about the most accurate name is for someone who has been dead for 2,000 years, it may be more helpful to consider the purpose of the disambiguation page (ie. this page).  It has only one simple function: to provide readers with a linked list of articles that may be what they were looking for when they linked or searched the term in the title: "Claudia Pulchra".  The linked articles do not have to be synonyms of the term, nor do they have to be correct, simply credible results for the text in question.  Regardless of whether Roman women were referred to with surnames, or even whether any of the people in question here were ever actually referred to as Claudia Pulchra, if people are looking for them under that name then they should be in this list.  And despite your attempts to expunge them from Wikipedia, it appears that people have and do refer to them by that name (rightly or wrongly).  Lithopsian (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two pages already to handle these ambiguous entries: Claudia (disambiguation) and Claudia gens#Claudii Pulchri. This current one came to be without any basis on sources or common usage, only due to a single (now-retired) editor's mistaken projection of the one woman into her relatives who did not bear the name. What you're suggesting is what I actually got to doing, until you and Blert cut me off. There you have it, two extra pages to satisfy your desires. Is that what you were all concerned about? Can I now proceed without interruption? Do you think I hadn't considered what you're saying while I was doing this? Avilich (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

text: (your blue link itself does not support your edits, lol; they are all single names in that article too). Avilich (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, none of these entries comply with MOS:DABPIPE. Most of them also do not comply with MOS:DABONE. A potential first step would be resolving that problem. Secondly, of the articles I checked, more than one do seem to refer to the name Claudia Pulchra. Avilich, if these are mistakes, as I think you contend, it may be best first to improve the articles with reliable sources to correct these references. It will then be clearer to make the assertion that those entries don't belong on this disambiguation page. --Bsherr (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  the key point here is that all but one of those entries are redirects, not actual articles. Look closely. I won't create articles with sources to prove that the subjects of these articles don't exist: that would defeat the article's purpose altogether. I already provided sources above demonstrating their non-existence above, so I'm still wondering what this disambiguation page is doing here. Avilich (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: See MOS:DABENTRY.  Indeed, the link should not be a redirect generally, but the link could be a link to another article in which the subject is discussed, like in the Maggie Anderson actress entry given as an example above. Now, that may or may not be appropriate depending on whether the content at the link target is sufficient to support the worthiness of the entry. But I don't see any discussion of that yet. --Bsherr (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Entries of that format are already found at Claudia gens#Claudii Pulchri, already mentioned above. It is not a disambiguation page, but still a list. Avilich (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We wouldn't redirect to a list unless it were the best target for the redirect. It may or may not be. But to the extent any disambiguation page entries would be better targeted elsewhere, the disambiguation page is still appropriate. --Bsherr (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There is in any event this other page Claudia (disambiguation), which I also suggested above. Avilich (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. It may make sense to merge and redirect the disambiguation pages. Is there consensus to do that? --Bsherr (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I suggested something like this to both of them, here and here (and would have done it sooner had I known what they even want) and they both responded by the usual uncompromising edit-reversions to the old format of this current page. Avilich (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

text: I can only speak for myself, but I'm going to say no for now.  The source of the disagreement all along has been a decision that (almost) all references to people as Claudia Pulchra are sufficiently illegitimate that they should be expunged from Wikipedia, up to and including this page once all other references were gone.  Followed by insistence on those edits remaining in place while any discussions took place.  Whatever the merits of calling Roman women by that name, it has happened and there are even still a few instances in articles that  hasn't spotted yet.  Readers wishing to find people by that name should be shown a dab page that allows them to choose from the various options, not dumped into a page where none of the entries show that name (because it is not the official name of those people, only a nickname).  Lithopsian (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere have I specifically argued that the term should be expunged from Wikipedia (?). A simple hatnote on Claudia Pulchra linking to people of similar names or belonging to the same family seems much better than creating a disambiguation page which assigns incorrect name to people. Wikipedia has many mirrors throughout the internet and we shouldn't be encouraging random mistakes like this. Avilich (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I go back to wondering whether there any appropriate entries on this disambiguation page. The link in an entry cannot be to a redirect, and if it is to a section of a related article, it must reference the subject substantially enough to be worthwhile. Which of these meet that standard? --Bsherr (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO none of those meet that standard, with exception of Claudia Pulchra herself, which already has her own article. I don't think any of the other entries are appropriate. Again, there's already a list/prosopographical article covering these people and their aristocratic family, so this disambiguation page, as it stands, is just duplicating content under false nomenclature. Avilich (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Any contrary opinion to that? --Bsherr (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on the record.  For better or for worse, the question of the legitimacy of my edits to this page has been escalated to ANI.   has asked that forum to rule on the subject. I'm going to leave it alone until that is settled.  Lithopsian (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The purpose of a disambiguation page