Talk:Lepidus

Date
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)


 * it seems to be the earliest year associated with the guy. GreatWhiteNortherner 00:15, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

According to Encyclopedia.com, that was the year he became praetor. This is really bad for an encyclopedia article title. Perhaps we should have Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (triumvir)? john k 00:43, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Works for me. GreatWhiteNortherner 06:26, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Religion
Why the hell was this changed? Because of somebodys religion (look in history)? Nobody cares about your religion, this is Wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.234.224.24 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 20 December 2005‎

Style
"The excuse he needed", and other stuff too, written as regular text, is not proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.55.4.86 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 9 March 2007

Family tree
He seems to be rather an afterthought on this largely irrelevant diagram, poor chap.qp10qp 23:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. It has almost nothing to do with Lepidus. --Tomaxer (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Category clergy
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)


 * All the Roman priests were elected for life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.144.221 (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Three banks?
"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)


 * Antony and Lepidus were already joined in a single force. Paul B (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Mutina
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)

Death
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)

Requested move 3 August 2023

 * 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)

– Per WP:PRIMARY TOPIC and WP:PRECISION. The triumvir is the primary topic of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus by a [|Marcus_Aemilius_Lepidus_(consul_78_BC)|Marcus_Aemilius_Lepidus_(executed_by_Caligula)|Marcus_Aemilius_Lepidus_(consul_187_BC)|Marcus_Aemilius_Lepidus_(consul_6_AD)|Marcus_Aemilius_Lepidus_(consul_158_BC)|Marcus_Aemilius_Lepidus_(consul_232_BC) large margin], and having “(triumvir)” to his name is too precise. In addition to this, he is also the primary topic of “Lepidus” (also in previous link), and WP:MONONYM states that Sometimes, mostly for names from antiquity, a single word is traditional and sufficient to identify a person unambiguously: Aristotle, Livy, Plutarch, Charlemagne, Fibonacci, etc. (Marcus Aemilius does seem to be used a decent amount though, so that point could be debated) Dantus21 (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 11:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (triumvir) → Lepidus
 * Marcus Aemilius Lepidus → Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (disambiguation)
 * Lepidus → Lepidus (disambiguation)
 * Partial Oppose the move to a mononym, but support making this the primary topic for Marcus Aemilius Lepidus. I did not remember this name, despite being aware of the second triumvirate.  At a quick glance, scholarly papers refer to him as "Lepidus" in the context of that being a short name to refer to a person already introduced.  As one of many possible examples, Gibbon is often referred to by his last name, but that should not be the title of his article.  But I agree with the argument from page-stats and historical importance to remove the (triumvir) disambiguator. Walt Yoder (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * You mean ape. Srnec (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Oppose "Lepidus", but would go along with Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, as he seems to be the most significant best known * of his family, and the most likely to be searched for. I don't like having Roman biographical articles under single names, in part because it increases rather than decreases ambiguity.  Exceptions should be rare, and for only the most famous of all Romans; and Lepidus simply doesn't rise to that level of familiarity.  And let's not use this discussion to launch into polemics about Gibbon, please—that's such a weary topic and completely unrelated to this.  And it certainly is a polemic if you exaggerate the age of a work in order to imply that age alone makes a source unworthy of citation in historical subjects, when nobody was even citing anything to him, and the whole argument is completely irrelevant to the topic of discussion.  P Aculeius (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * *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)


 * Support By far the best known person by the name "Lepidus". I feel like a lot of editors are blinded by their own deeper (and impressive) knowledge of Roman history that they forget that to the vast majority of average readers only a few Romans are really well known, and they tend to be well known by different names than what the person would have used in real life. To most English speakers Marcus Iunius Brutus is just Brutus, Gaius Iulius Caesar is Julius Caesar and Marcus Antonius is Mark Antony, this is another case like that.★Trekker (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per ★Trekker's well-reasoned vote and Srnec. For English-speakers, Shakespeare and other authors normally just use Lepidus. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Simply making him the primary topic for Marcus Aemilius Lepidus would be better than the current situation, but I am persuaded by  and  that Lepidus is widely-enough known among laypeople under the mononym that the article should be at Lepidus. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: particularly among non-experts, Lepidus means the triumvir: you will commonly read e.g. "the triumvirs were Octavian, Lepidus and Antony", and it's unusual to further elaborate on that name unless we're talking about a scholarly source where there's some chance that another (far more obscure) member of his family would be under discussion. Points above taken that other Lepidi may have been equally interesting or notable in their time, but they have been far eclipsed in modern consciousness. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: requesting more comments based on policy — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 11:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * No opinion because I agree with everything said here, which means I assent to principles that are mutually contradictory. Just dropping by with fodder for comparative reasoning that Crassus and Marcus Crassus both redirect to Marcus Licinius Crassus, when he is almost always Crassus or Marcus Crassus in scholarly narrative and pop culture. Crassus is probably better known than Lepidus, who wasn't played by Sir Laurence Olivier nor beheaded in an episode of Xena: Warrior Princess. Lucullus is rightly a mononym because he spawned an adjective, Lucullan. My gut feeling (only that) is someone searching "Lepidus" is most likely looking for the triumvir. However, if someone is bothering to type in the full tria nomina, it doesn't seem wrong to have Marcus Aemilius Lepidus take them to Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (disambiguation). But I'm not following the logic of doing all three moves/redirects proposed. Why would we move Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (triumvir) to Lepidus and then have Lepidus redirect/move to Lepidus (disambiguation)? Wikipedianly rusty as I am, I may not be understanding what's proposed. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, apart from his zoological expertise he doesn't have a lot to say in Anthony and Cleopatra. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome has been notified of this discussion. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support as there's enough evidence above to conclude that the individual is best known today under the mononym. Moving the article is a second choice. The current state of affairs isn't tenable or supportable. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Relisting to allow further discussion. Editors may wish to consider the extremely obscure naming convention Naming conventions (ancient Romans). BilledMammal (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Support, the triumvir is the best known Lepidus. Killuminator (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Weak oppose making the full name the primary topic (the second proposal), since it's probably only the surname that most people will be familiar with; the average person is not likely to immediately associate the name "Marcus Aemilius Lepidus" to the triumvir. Neutral on the other proposals. Avilich (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)