Talk:Aegidius

Flavius Afranius?
Open in front of me is my copy of Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. Aegidius is listed under that name alone, his son Syagrius, the second person of that name, also under a single name. The next Syagrius listed, the third of that name, who seems to be a different person, reproached by Sidonius for devoting all his time and energies to cultivating his estate in the territory of the Aedui, is "greatgrandson of Fl. Afranius Syagrius (cos. 381)."

PLRE is a highly-respected source. In view of the possibility that tertiary sources have become confused, I suggest that we leave the names Flavius and Afranius out of this article until and unless they can be well-attested to belong to Aegidius. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Plausible primary title"
What's that judgement of plausibility based on? I might not have been so bold as to move it myself, but when another editor moved it, it looked pretty uncontroversial to me, so I was surprised at the recent reversion. Wareh (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Roman governor is the first Aegidius notable enough to appear here and arguably the one who made the greatest mark on the world. (There again that may be just my interest in Romans speaking.) Personally I'd leave it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * St. Giles and Giles of Rome are the ones that seem, in my mind, to rival his notability. I think "well known name" is probably the more pertinent criterion than "mark on the world," but, as I said, I wouldn't have had the temerity to initiate a move.  I did want to find out what I could about the degree of consensus it attracts.  Wareh (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Promoting from stub to B class
It may appear that I am tooting my own horn by raising this article from "stub" to "B" class, but I believe I have good reasons for doing so -- beyond more than the fact I doubled the size of this article. One is that AFAIK I have added practically everything that is known about this shadowy figure in the waning days of the Roman Empire; any further material would come from mining the secondary literature for speculations about the man -- or for information that would put him in the proper context & help a reader understand his motivations. Another is that if we assume a "B" class article should be more detailed than the equivalent article in another encyclopedia -- say the Encyclopedia Britannica or Oxford Classical Dictionary -- I can attest that this article is far more complete than either of those. And any single account of this man & his place in history is bordering on a subject properly handled by either a graduate student's thesis, or a scholar's monograph. -- llywrch (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is this article so dependent on MacGeorge?
It's not as if she were the only person to have published on Aegidius or his son in recent years. In the version of this article I worked on back in 2011, I cited a number of authoritative secondary sources -- such as Herwig Wolfram & Ralph W. Mathisen -- yet neither are mentioned. It is not as if new evidence has been recovered that renders the published work of either obsolete. And why have all mention of primary sources been removed? It is useful to cite them specifically, rather than obscured as "ancient sources". Without this material, this article is not truly at GA status. -- llywrch (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)