Talk:Geta (emperor)

Damnatio Memoriae
There appears to be a conflict between this page and that for Caracalla over whether Caracalla ordered a damnatio memoriae against Geta. I have attempted to reconcile the two by citing the apparently-conflicting accounts, but it would be helpful if someone with access to the sources could determine whether each actually does make the representations other editors have ascribed to them. HavelockWilltravel (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Spelling
At school I learned Gaeta. Was that spelling in use? If so, it could be added.

Birthplace
There seems to be 2 accepted birth places for Geta (Rome and Milan) (google). Does anyone have a definitive source reagrding this?


 * No. No one knows where Geta was born. The Historia Augusta is our source for both. In Geta 3.1 Milan is given, in Sev. 4.2 Rome. The discrepancy is about 1500 years old. &#8212; Bill 23:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deleted "reference"
"Spartianus, Caracalla, 2" is in fact a roundabout reference to the Historia Augusta; it appears to mean Chapter 2 of the Life of Caracalla, but is an old-fashioned way of referring to the Life of Geta, which has been viewed as a sort of appendage (a "chapter 2" if you will) to Caracalla. Spartianus, of course, is one of the pseudonyms of the author of the Historia Augusta. (So in fact I haven't deleted the reference at all.) &mdash; Bill 23:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deified emperor category
Who the hell deified Geta? Caracalla surely didn't. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Macrinus did. Though sicne this edit is nine years late you probably will never see this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.41.63 (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments
I strongly oppose the convention here of numbering the Roman emperors in the manner of the presidents of the United States of America. In our era we consider Augustus the first emperor, but for other periods (including the Roman era itself) the first of the Caesares was the dictator C. Iulius Caesar. It should also be pointed out that the internal order of Augusti is not always obvious. On what grounds is Pupienus designated the 30th emperor and Balbinus the 31st? They were named emperors at the same time. Moreover, to determine which individuals were real emperors becomes increasingly difficult for the emp

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.232.156.16 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 6 April 2016

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Geta (emperor). A clear consensus that he's not the primary topic for "Geta" and also a consensus to use parenthetical disambiguation. While natural disambiguation is preferred in general, a good case has been made here for why that is not ideal in this case (as often happens with people). Jenks24 (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Publius Septimius Geta → – Most sources referring to him during his reign refer to him simply as Geta. As such, I thing this is his common name. I am not sure if he is the primary topic for this name, so an alternative change would be .147.126.10.156 (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose "Geta" I see no reason to delete the page currently at Geta and merge it into a gigantic hatnote here. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I wasn't suggesting deleting the current page Geta. I should have made my intentions more clear. I suggested moving this page to Geta and moving the existing page to Geta (disambiguation). If you do not wish to Geta to have a disambiguation note in pareththeses, then I offer the alternative of changing this article to Geta (Emperor).
 * Speedy close - malformed template Geta (emperor) exists as a redirect. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support rename to "Geta (emperor)": WP:ROMANS says that "Emperors who are clearly not the primary topic of their most common English name are disambiguated by the English title emperor: Valerian (emperor)".  I don't see that there's any particular reason to have an exception for Geta.  (Although note that in at least two other cases: Marcus Claudius Tacitus and Marcus Aurelius Probus this guideline is not followed.  In the majority of cases – Valerian (emperor), Zeno (emperor), Jovian (emperor), Honorius (emperor), and Maurice (emperor) – however, the guideline is followed). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Geta (emperor). After a cursory look, I don't think "Publius Septimius Geta" is really useful as natural disambiguation. He's far and away better known as just "Geta", to the point that the full name may be a bit confusing even to people familiar with the emperor. Additionally, he was also known as "Lucius Septimius Geta", and sometimes even just "Septimius Geta" or "P. Septimius Geta". As with other emperors mentioned by, parenthetical disambiguation may be the way to go here.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose use of "(emperor)" – The use of natural disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical disambiguation per WP:NATURAL, and the present title provides that. There is no reason to add a parenthetical. Also, "Geta" is too ambiguous. I tend to believe that the sandals would have more notoriety than this fellow, but I certainly don't think that he has WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status, and no evidence has been provided that he does. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to Geta (emperor) per . WP:NATURAL is good in some circumstances, but not for a case like this, where the "natural" name is hardly used and not the only possibility that one might use. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.