Talk:Gaius Valerius Flaccus (consul 93 BC)

military significance
Although this Flaccus commanded the largest number of troops in the western empire during the turbulent 80s, as far as I've been able to determine no account of his generalship per se exists -- that is, not one of his battles is narrated. If those of you from the military project have sources that indicate otherwise, but not the inclination to incorporate the material yourselves, please leave a note here. I would be glad to work in any additional information. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

dating convention
For about the 20th time, the dating convention (BC/BCE) has been changed in this article. I didn't create it, but wrote what it is in its present form. I don't much care about this kind of thing, and am not willing to shed any blood over it, but it's my impression that us old-fashioned folks at the Greece & Rome project prefer BC. Many articles have a note saying 'this is the dating convention for this article; let's keep it this way.' I'd really like to arrive at that here, and quit going back and forth. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay I have checked the history a bit more carefully and yes the history is a little more complicated then I assumed/remembered. But the page was created as BCE and was changed in  17 October 2007 without any indication in the edit history (not by you of course).  I agree that the era style that a page has at creation does not prescribe the style in the future but it was changed at a time when changes of the era style required there be a good reason.  What "good reason" is open to interpretation but to not give a reason in the edit summary is an admission that there is no good reason.  Rather than going thru the page history with a tooth comb in the hope that we can agree on what the current status quo should be I suggest that we seek a community consensus.  I don't agree that any project can lay down which convention that pages within its orbit should use.  However, were there to be a formal discussion it would be fine for you to put a neutral note on the project page inviting people to add their opinions here.Dejvid (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The exact wording from 2007 is "substantive reason".Dejvid (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The "good reasons" would be as follows:
 * using the era-style that predominates in the secondary scholarship used; consistency with the predominance of sources used to create the article;
 * consistency with era-convention in the List of Roman consuls and the convention for disambiguating Roman consuls, for example Lucius Caecilius Metellus (consul 251 BC). Although it has been decided that Flaccus's date need not appear in the article title, there's no reason it should be inconsistent with the body text with the era conventions used for other Roman consuls.
 * If there's some pressing reason why this Valerius Flaccus's era-dating should not be consistent with that of other consuls, and with that used in the articles for his kinsmen listed on this disambiguation page, then by all means, let's use BCE. But let's know why we're making these changes. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My point about good reason was in relation to the person who made the change. They gave no reason so it is reasonable to conclude they had none.  However,  I will take your two points as the reasons you personally think the page should use the BC style.
 * Your first point is based on a principle I agree with - that wikipedia should reflect the scholarship in the field.  But my impression, gleaned from looking at the newly written books that I find on the shelves of bookstores, is that BC does not predominate. Currently the wider world is inconsistent and it is important that Wikipedia reflects this. (I appreciate that your impression of the current BCE-BC balance in new publishing may differ and that your impression is equally valid)
 * Your second point is one I completely disagree with. While consistency within a page is laid down, overall inconsistency is the essence of the current policy.  What else does "No preference is given to either style." from WP:ERA mean?  It is true that the overwhelming majority of consul pages currently use BC.  This, however, suggests an over representation of the BC style that requires a correction.
 * For me the principle that wikipedia should retain an inconsistency on eras that reflects wider society is more important than whether any individual page follows one era or the other. Given the pages checkered history, a case can be made that this is currently a BCE page and I may yet make it.  I do however concede that the great extent of your personal contribution is a strong argument on the other side.  But when you argue on the basis that all consuls should have the same era style then you are arguing for something I fundamentally disagree with and indeed against the current wikipedia policy.Dejvid (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the extent of my contribution as an individual has anything to do with this issue, because that would be to claim ownership. A number of people could've contributed, and we might all agree that in this case, it's better to use BC as minor cognitive aid for the reader. The basis for my argument is that the stub content copied from a out-of-copyright encyclopedia was replaced by this more extensive, researched and documented article, and that ease of use dictated the era convention. There is "substantial reason" to wish that this article not be the ONLY article on a Roman consul to use BCE, and that its dating system be congruous with a set of articles that are extremely closely related, such as those of his relatives living at the same time who often confused with him. Why should we confuse matters further by using different era conventions? This is a matter of keeping it simple for both the readers and those who edit the articles — and after all, who else should benefit from a style convention? There's another G. Valerius Flaccus who was a consul and who doesn't have an article; when he does, it would not be useful in disambiguation to have one dated according to one era convention and the other by another. There is no attempt here to impose BC or BCE usage on other articles. I'm fine with the policy of overall inconsistency; I don't care that much or way or the other, and don't attempt to change other articles. Consistency here isn't desirable for its own sake, but as one way to make sure this small set of articles "talk" to each other in the least confusing way. I'm posting the discussion from the G&R project below. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Views from the Greece & Rome Project
Note. The following discussion has been copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and is presented here unedited. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been kindly informed that it is permissible for me to ask the project's opinion as to whether the era-convention (BC vs. BCE) for the article Gaius Valerius Flaccus (consul) should differ from the convention of using "BC" in the List of Roman consuls, and for disambiguating consuls of the same name by year, and for the rest of the Valerii Flacci, and based on the bulk of the scholarship used to create the article, as I am unclear as to why the long-term proconsul of much of Spain and the Narbonese who had to dance between the Marians and the Sullans should be exceptionally dated "BCE." I believe I have betrayed an opinion here. Please block me now, before I do further irreparable harm to the great name of Wikipedia. Frontem tabernae sopionibus scribam! Cynwolfe (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * When it was created, BCE was used, and according to WP:ERA that's what it should remain. We don't require consistency between articles. Some of our Ancient Egypt articles are BC, others BCE. Starting to require consistency would overturn the current compromise, as it could then be argued all articles should be BC/AD. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ERA says: Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors. I completely replaced the content of the stubbish article that was the original, using "BC" in accord with my sources. The editorial consensus is implicit in the use of BC at List of Roman consuls and in the naming of articles on consuls who are disambiguated by means of consular year — this was discussed on the project page (see epic discussion here, where BCE was not even in play); I believe all of these disambiguated consul articles now use BC, unless some slipped through the cracks, and presumably the body text accords, so whether or not the era appears in the article title, there's 'substantial reason' for using a consistent system among the consuls, in part to make the consul box consistent throughout their articles. The other articles on Valerii Flacci also use the BC convention. Is that not collectively "substantial"? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason for the provision in WP:ERA was to discourage the drive-by changing of dates, usually by editors who do nothing else and are playing factional politics. Changing the era as part of a thorough rewrite, in order to assure consistency between articles, is entirely reasonable, and an example of what is meant by "substantial reason". We could also settle this by using AUC, citing Varro, Obsequens, Niebuhr, and Mommsen, ;-> but on the whole I think that no service to the reader.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is how far does this go. What happens if someone then says that another set of articles covered by this Wikiproject should be brought into line? If we can draw the line here, and there was a discussion, I'm happy. If it then gets extended to another group of articles, I won't be happy at all. I've experienced this elsewhere, where someone was changing AE articles 'to make them consistent', but in that case there had never been any discussion. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article in its present form had used the BC convention for almost two years before someone decided to change it. No reason for changing it was given, other than the stub had used it. More than a year and a half ago, I completely replaced the content, using BC (actually BC had been used as early as 2007). It's been that way since, except for another time when someone drove by and changed it to BCE, and then again it was changed back to BC. For a while, "BCE" was used in the article title, because I didn't know about doing a move when I was new at this. Then it was decided, against my wishes, that the date be removed from the article title completely (there are several Lucii Flacci who were consuls, and only one Gaius; still, I thought the year was useful, because praenomina are easily overlooked or confused, there were at least three Valerii Flacci running around at the time, and the date helped orient the reader); if the date were there, surely it should not be the only article on a consul to use BCE. The application of a guideline shouldn't result in an anomaly — especially since this guideline says there are exceptions, given good enough reason. There's no precedent being set here, other than allowing an edit to be made without weighing whether it makes sense for the kind of subject matter dealt with; notice (but visible only in edit mode) that ALL the articles to which this one links use the BC convention. Also, it belongs to the category "1st-century BC Romans," not "1st-century BCE Romans." Since the guideline permits exceptions, I don't see why my reasons for using BC in this article are outweighed by nothing other than "somebody created the article by copying word-for-word an entry from an 1870 dictionary, but decided to use BCE to sound hip." Cynwolfe (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Once you start taking about making the era style consistent between pages you are fundamentally overturning the current compromise and is a compromise that I consider it to be a big mistake to touch. To argue that a substantial rewrite justifies a change would not contradict  current policy and, if everyone is happy with that principle, I would be happy to  subscribe to it.Dejvid (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there seems plenty discussion here and Cynwolfe's first sentence (in the post immediately above Dejvid's) seems reason enough to use BC in the article. If we're going by era-policy, that seems enough. What if it had been BCE, though? I can entirely see the point in discouraging era drive-by warriors but as per PMA (and QED) above, that has nothing to do with this. Wikipedia era-policy keeps shtum on consistency within categories, as far as I can see. Perhaps it shouldn't. I've no strong feelings on the matter, and no argument to offer for or against. (Additional comment: on the other hand, and off the cuff, Cynwolfe's argument for seems pretty convincing). But I feel very strongly that we should respect and value the era-preferences of those who do the work; in this case, the expansion of a rather stubbish affair into a well-written, fully cited and wikified article. Anything else seems, on a human level, frankly absurd. Haploidavey (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cynwolfe. Consistency in a set of related articles is a factor worth considering in deciding the format of the title.  It shouldn't necessarily determine the outcome of every case, and I certainly understand that "drive-by editors" are a concern.  But in this case we have an established editor revising the whole article and working to improve the entire field, not just slavishly altering titles to suit her preference.  I think such changes are reasonably warranted and ought to be allowed.  P Aculeius (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If we are going to make a decision that a particular category should be consistent by era then the fair way to do it is to propose a discussion to decide how all the pages should be irrespective of what the current majority of those pages currently conform to. However, I think it would be mistake to do so because when the issue is so controversial, making a decision that covers a large number of articles always pisses of a large number of people who did not participate in the discussion because they heard of it after the event.  Just look at the controversy over the delinking of dates.Dejvid (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That wasn't what was proposed. The question was whether it was appropriate to rename a specific article that was conspicuously inconsistent with all of the related articles with which it was grouped (and also inconsistent with the text of the article).  The reason for the policy against renaming articles in this way does not seem to apply to this case, because this isn't an arbitrary decision by an otherwise disinterested party, but a logical decision by one of the article's main contributors.  In fact the case for not renaming it is especially weak, because the author is merely restoring the original title, which was apparently changed from "BC" to "BCE" in precisely the arbitrary manner that the policy was written to discourage.  Applied to these facts, it seems clear that the article title ought to use "BC".  Since a broad new policy would indeed be controversial, I think it would be better to make these decisions on a case-by-case basis.  As long as editors use common sense, most changes won't cause conflict.  P Aculeius (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The elephant in the room is that for historical reasons pretty much all categories currently have a majority that are BC. Hence virtually all BCE articles are inconsistent and no BC articles are inconsistent.  If argue that a major rewrite taking a stub up to a full article justifies an era change that would equally allow a change from BC to BCE if the person doing the change did an similar amount of work as Cynwolfe has.  That principle would not give preference to either era and hence is in line with the current policy.  When you make the first justification  that the article  "was conspicuously inconsistent with all of the related articles" you are outlawing any change from BC to BCE while at the same time declaring open season against the minority of BCE articles.  Surely that is incompatible with the current policy?Dejvid (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not what Cynwolfe is arguing; but her argument is below. On the general point, if BC is the most common style, we should not be changing to BCE anyway; we are not here to reform the English language, least of all in advance of its readers. If, in some particular subfield, BCE is more common in current reliable sources (and there are some where this is the case), that might well be "a substantial reason" for discussion and consensus to redo the whole cat. But, again,  that's not what we[re discussing here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy is that era-convention can be changed for a 'substantial reason.' I've said what I have to say on this, for believe it or not, how we date his era is perhaps the least interesting thing we could discuss about dear Flaccus. The bottom line is (and what I did or didn't do to the article is beside the point) there's no good positive reason to insist on using BCE in this article. The only reason I've seen stated is that one should lockstep "obey" a guideline (not even a policy) that explicitly states there can be good reason to make the change anyway. If we ask the question "how does using BCE benefit the readers of the encyclopedia?" I can come up with no answer. Using the same era convention used in the scholarship and in the most intimately related articles seems to me to be a positive reason and of some slight cognitive help to the reader. WP rules are a matter of evolved consensus and are always subject to discussion and reevaluation anyway. Surely we all have better things to do than haggle over this, though as always I appreciate the eloquence and care with which P Aculeius expresses himself. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Briefly: I think this is a can of worms possibly best left unopened. The current policy is, "People disagree, so let's follow the arbitrary practice of keeping it whichever way it was first." The "substantial reason" clause doesn't seem to have led to frequent departures from this. "Norm of the subfield's scholarship" could be a very slippery new criterion, since in fact scholarly practice is divided: many could and would argue that the right and best classical scholars all use BCE, etc. The practice at Wikipedia is tilted towards BC/AD. So necessarily, in my view, the more people are encouraged and empowered to believe that "substantial reasons" are to be discussed, the more this BC/AD tilt will come under fire. We could have war instead of compromise, and probably more CE/BCE in the encyclopedia (which I'll admit I personally don't like for two reasons: a tendency to stick to traditional usages, and a belief that renaming a Christian scheme for dividing time "Common Era" has the opposite of its intended effect to give that scheme a less imperious sway). Wareh (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't see this as any kind of casus belli or precedent. It's the simple application to a single article of the existing guideline: leave it as it was ab origine, unless there's 'substantial reason.' Cynwolfe (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * One additional note: when I referred to the dating convention used by the scholarship, again I was limiting that to only the scholarship used to create the article in its present state — not making any generalized case about how usage in the scholarship should in principle be applied to WP articles. That is, the usage in the scholarship cited here caused the article to be created with that dating convention, replacing the stub that had been copied from a PD encyclopedia; another anomalous point is that the original editor changed little if anything in posting the stub directly the source except the era convention, which was BC in the encyclopedia entry copied otherwise more-or-less verbatim. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)