Talk:Lepidus

message: What does the date in the article title mean?  He was neither born nor died in that year. I imagine it's a consulate year (?), but if that absolutely needs to be said straight out. john k 23:56, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: it seems to be the earliest year associated with the guy. GreatWhiteNortherner 00:15, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Works for me. GreatWhiteNortherner 06:26, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Date

message: He seems to be rather an afterthought on this largely irrelevant diagram, poor chap.qp10qp 23:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It has almost nothing to do with Lepidus. --Tomaxer (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Family tree

message: This is a preposterous category. I agree with the incredible definition in clergy just about anybody would qualify. A Pontifex Maximus was appointed or elected for a short term. He did not have to be religious nor a strict practitioner. Just had to lead several annual Roman ceremonies and cut a few chickens, I suppose. Not exactly what the category was created to include. Student7 (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All the Roman priests were elected for life.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.144.221 (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Category clergy

message: "Octavian, Antony and Lepidus met on an island in a river near Mutina (modern Modena), their armies lined along opposite banks...". This river had THREE banks? GeneCallahan (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Antony and Lepidus were already joined in a single force. Paul B (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three banks? 

message: in 43 b.c. there was a fierce battle between troops of octavian and hirtius and pansa. i think this is quit important to mention  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.48.133.8 (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutina 

message: I see that lepidus’ date of death is given as either 13bc or 12bc. Does anyone know a source that sheds more light onto which year Lepidus died? FlavusTitus (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

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. There's a clear consensus that the triumvir is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for both the full name and the mononym. However, participants disagreed on which of the two should become the title of the article itself; this disagreement primarily revolved around the question of whether the average reader would find the mononym "Lepidus" to be sufficiently recognizable. Supporters of the mononym argued that none of the other Lepidi would be familiar to people not specialized in Roman history; conversely, supporters of the full name argued that the triumvir was obscure enough to prevent the mononym from improving understanding. Neither argument appears notably stronger than the other on policy grounds (the case of Crassus was raised briefly, but I hesitate to use a single article as the grounds for a WP:CONSISTENT argument). I also note the naming convention at WP:ROMANS, which was brought up in the last relist; this did not attract a significant amount of discussion, though it did appear to swing one participant from supporting the full name to supporting the mononym.Ultimately, when both the strength of argument and the support numbers are taken into account, I see a consensus to move the article to "Lepidus" and to establish "Marcus Aemilius Lepidus" as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. (closed by non-admin page mover)  ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose the move to a mononym. There are numerous men by this name and I agree with Walt Yoder that the mononym is used in circumstances where the ambiguity has already been removed. Also, let's not cite a 300-year-old text (Gibbon) as evidence of anything except his own idiosyncratic or early modern (i.e., now outdated) usage. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:   To be clear, I don't have the slightest idea how (or even if) Gibbon talked about Lepidus.  It was just the first example that jumped to mind of a person commonly referred to in a way different from how their biographical article would be titled.  Perhaps not the best example, because of the species of monkey, but ... Walt Yoder (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean ape. Srnec (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

text:  I did not know about the policy page mentioned by BilledMammal, which does seem to support having the article at "Lepidus". Walt Yoder (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Support making this the primary topic for both the full tria nomina and the cognomen, whichever one is the actual title. The current title is so precise it makes you question that you've found the right one. This one gets over two thirds of all views including the two dab pages and all the articles listed on them. Srnec (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  *Actually the consul of 187 BC seems to have been a better and more successful Roman statesman by several mille passuus.  He's just not as well known—as a figure from the Republican era—as one of the men who jockeyed for power in the wake of Caesar's assassination.  P Aculeius (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Relisting comment: requesting more comments based on policy — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 11:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome has been notified of this discussion. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Relisting comment: Relisting to allow further discussion. Editors may wish to consider the extremely obscure naming convention Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ancient Romans). BilledMammal (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well thanks - yes I'd never heard of that myself. It isn't too prescripive, & doesn't rule out any of the options above, imo. I think most above are aware of the complexities it deals with. Lepidus is actually used as an example "Highest office. Men who had a public career should usually be distinguished by the highest office held, as in Lucius Valerius Flaccus (consul 195 BC), Lucius Cornelius Scipio (praetor 174 BC), Quintus Servilius Caepio (quaestor 103 BC), Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (triumvir)...". So that may need changing, depending on how this goes. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Support, the triumvir is the best known Lepidus.  Killuminator (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 3 August 2023