Talk:Bonifatius

message: That 5th century title was patricius and it was military in nature, not directly "patrician." --Wetman 01:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it to Bonifacius because that's what both OCD and EB use. "Count" as an anglicization has fallen out of favor in recent years, at least partly because it has very misleading connotations to English speakers. Stan 07:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Jeroen W. P. Wijnendaele recently wrote a fantastic work on Count Boniface which I have heard nothing but very good reviews from, called "The Last of the Romans: Bonifatius - Warlord and comes Africae." If anyone has this book I would appreciate it if you could update this article, which I have done my best to improve, with further information from it.
MMFA (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information from 2016 book on Bonifatius 

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Bonifacius →  – technically the correct spelling, is most common in sources and the article itself Avilich (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Per WP:UE, as a search on Google shows that usage of Bonifacius is more common than of Bonifatius. Also, the article mostly used "Bonifacius" until these edits in March 2017 by :User:MMFA. Happily888 (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

text: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Sam Sailor 08:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

text: queried move request. Sam Sailor 08:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * Does this constitute consensus already? Of two lean oppose votes, one was switched and the other withdrawn, and this has gone over for more than a week. Avilich (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there does seem to be a consensus. Since I didn't vote or voice an opinion on the proposed move itself, I think I'm sufficiently uninvolved to close the discussion, which I will now do. Lennart97 (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with * Support or * Oppose,then sign your comment with . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support as nom. Spelling with T is used on the Pauly-Wissowa (s:de:RE:Bonifatius 1), the PLRE, and in this recent work about him. Results for for the C spelling on Google scholar are mostly older sources. On Google proper they're either wikipedia mirrors or much older sources. Avilich (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Procopius is likely the main source for his life, and he wrote in Greek, which of course does not have a direct equivalent to the letter 'C'.  He would have rendered the name into Greek with a 'T', and it's fair to say that Olympiodorus would have done the same.  Augustine wrote in Latin, and I think must have rendered the name 'Bonifacius', which after all is the form that would be expected.  So here we have a conflict between older sources which render Latin names according to traditional Latin orthography, and recent sources which insist upon a strictly literal translation of Greek, even when it comes to Latin names.  If I am correct, and the only real distinction is whether you use the spelling in Augustine, who wrote in Latin, or the spelling in the Greek writings, then the article should stay where it is, or perhaps be moved to "Boniface" (just a guess, but there might be other articles with that title, hence the decision to leave it at "Bonifacius").  Our subject is a Roman with a Latin name, and I can see no reason to spell it with Greek orthography, merely because the majority of the historical writing about him is in Greek.  P Aculeius (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

text: * 'Bonifatius' is the Latin spelling of his Latin name. Augustine spelled it with T (see here, here, and here), as did Marcellinus Comes, Prosper Tiro (here and here), Jordanes, the two Gallic Chronicles of 452 and 511, and the Consularia Italica. Augustine actually knew him, and that may confirm T as the 'better' spelling. 'Bonifatius' also seems to be most common in recent secondary sources, as per my comment below. Avilich (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A check in the C-S Databank suggests that  is quite rare in epigraphy, whereas  is relatively abundant.  That seems to indicate that the latter is the regular form in Latin, contrary to my expectations.  I think I was fooled into supposing that the name was derived from facio, and cognate with "benificent".  Not sure where the other spelling comes from, but as long as it's mentioned in the lead as an alternative spelling, I can't see a strong objection to moving the article as proposed.  P Aculeius (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  presumably it's the same sort of variation that yields, say, Lepcis Magna instead of Leptis Magna. I neglected above to mention Hydatius, who does use the C spelling, but that's the only primary source I could find for that aside from a few inscriptions. THose are all the Latin sources that the PLRE references, so it's unlikely there are more. Avilich (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

text: *So you actually demonstrated that the T spelling is more common. And there's no way all of these results refer to this Bonifatius. In a more specific search, 'bonifatius aetius' yields thrice as many results as 'bonifacius aetius' (Aetius = his contemporary and rival). Avilich (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

text: *:So I'm no expert on this, I'll defer to the better judgement of others. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 11 July 2021 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with * Support or * Oppose,then sign your comment with . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support as nom. Spelling with T is used on the Pauly-Wissowa (s:de:RE:Bonifatius 1), the PLRE, and in this recent work about him. Results for for the C spelling on Google scholar are mostly older sources. On Google proper they're either wikipedia mirrors or much older sources. Avilich (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Procopius is likely the main source for his life, and he wrote in Greek, which of course does not have a direct equivalent to the letter 'C'.  He would have rendered the name into Greek with a 'T', and it's fair to say that Olympiodorus would have done the same.  Augustine wrote in Latin, and I think must have rendered the name 'Bonifacius', which after all is the form that would be expected.  So here we have a conflict between older sources which render Latin names according to traditional Latin orthography, and recent sources which insist upon a strictly literal translation of Greek, even when it comes to Latin names.  If I am correct, and the only real distinction is whether you use the spelling in Augustine, who wrote in Latin, or the spelling in the Greek writings, then the article should stay where it is, or perhaps be moved to "Boniface" (just a guess, but there might be other articles with that title, hence the decision to leave it at "Bonifacius").  Our subject is a Roman with a Latin name, and I can see no reason to spell it with Greek orthography, merely because the majority of the historical writing about him is in Greek.  P Aculeius (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

text: * 'Bonifatius' is the Latin spelling of his Latin name. Augustine spelled it with T (see here, here, and here), as did Marcellinus Comes, Prosper Tiro (here and here), Jordanes, the two Gallic Chronicles of 452 and 511, and the Consularia Italica. Augustine actually knew him, and that may confirm T as the 'better' spelling. 'Bonifatius' also seems to be most common in recent secondary sources, as per my comment below. Avilich (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A check in the C-S Databank suggests that  is quite rare in epigraphy, whereas  is relatively abundant.  That seems to indicate that the latter is the regular form in Latin, contrary to my expectations.  I think I was fooled into supposing that the name was derived from facio, and cognate with "benificent".  Not sure where the other spelling comes from, but as long as it's mentioned in the lead as an alternative spelling, I can't see a strong objection to moving the article as proposed.  P Aculeius (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  presumably it's the same sort of variation that yields, say, Lepcis Magna instead of Leptis Magna. I neglected above to mention Hydatius, who does use the C spelling, but that's the only primary source I could find for that aside from a few inscriptions. THose are all the Latin sources that the PLRE references, so it's unlikely there are more. Avilich (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

text: *So you actually demonstrated that the T spelling is more common. And there's no way all of these results refer to this Bonifatius. In a more specific search, 'bonifatius aetius' yields thrice as many results as 'bonifacius aetius' (Aetius = his contemporary and rival). Avilich (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

text: *:So I'm no expert on this, I'll defer to the better judgement of others. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey