Talk:Ptolemy (nephew of Antigonus I Monophthalmus)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ptolemy (general). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605075409/http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/2898.html to http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/2898.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 March 2020

 * 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: not moved. As per discussion, move is a non-starter and lacks evidential support GPinkerton (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Ptolemy (general) → Polemaios – If, as the lead paragraph suggests, "Most modern historians call him Polemaios to distinguish him from the more famous Ptolemy", then perhaps we should too. The article consistently uses Polemaios rather than Ptolemy. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I see your point and I agree, but English Wikipedia uses the anglicized names of historical characters. So Antipatros becomes Antipater, Alexandros becomes Alexander, and Polemaios becomes Ptolemy....so what can we do? LuciusHistoricus (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That claim was added, without citing any of the "most modern historians" referred to, by the same Lucius Historicus who changed all of the instances of "Ptolemy" in the article to "Polemaios". None of the sources for this article call him that: all of them call him "Ptolemy" in running text, although he's listed under "Ptolemaeus" in the DGRBM; ironically the one form that seems to have been deliberately excluded from this article, despite the fact that it's based largely on that entry.  In fact, the only source mentioned in this article (edit: looks like it was deleted as "trivia" in 2017) that calls him "Polemaios" seems to be a historical novel written in 2002—hardly a persuasive source.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It was done to distinguish him from the more famous Ptolemy, modern historians like Richard A. Billows (Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State) do so. He was called Ptolemaios in most literary sources according to Billows, but in IG II2 469 and in I. Iasos no. 2 his name is given as Polemaios. That's why some historians use Polemaios. I am, however, not going to revert P Aculeius' edit because, as I said, English Wikipedia uses anglicized names, and I don't want to turn this into a polemic.LuciusHistoricus (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This Google ngram shows all instances of four different spellings in English-language books, not just this person, from 1800 to 2008 (the latest year from which results are available). And while there are a number of other figures with this name, he's one of the more important ones, so he should account for a fair percentage of all instances.  Among the spellings, Ptolemaeus is by far the most common historically, and in most sources people might consult, except for a brief period around 2000 when Ptolemaios was about equally common, before declining in use again.  Neither Polemaeus nor Polemaios is found in more than a handful of sources; nearly all since 1987, in the case of Polemaios, but still not very many.  And a vast amount of reference material in libraries and on-line today is older than that.  So the claim that "most modern historians" use this spelling would rely on excluding pretty much anything written before 1987 as "not modern", and even then the claim would seem to be refuted.  Of course, Ptolemy is still much more common than all of the others put together, as this ngram shows, in which the only other forms that are even visible above the base of the chart are Ptolemaeus and Ptolemaios (barely).  I have absolutely no qualms about using Ptolemaeus, since it's a form that's likely to be found in scholarly sources printed at any point in the last two hundred years, and it's fine to say that Ptolemaios is the more "Greek" transliteration—though not the one most widely used—but none of the spellings omitting the 't' are common, or ever were.  P Aculeius (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected! Can we end this thread?LuciusHistoricus (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. I don't really know the technical procedure for closing the discussion.  It might be sufficient just to wait until a week has elapsed, and then perhaps someone with some experience in that regard will do it.  P Aculeius (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Proposed name is common in academic sources as demonstrated above. I almost said weak support because commonsense says both names are common enough to be highly acceptable. But it's a very good catch as the academic name is currently a redlink and should certainly be at least a redirect. Let us move and move on. Andrewa (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment this discussion shouldn't still be going on. "Commonsense" says nothing of the sort—clear evidence linked above shows that "Polemaios" has never been common anywhere—the current title incorporates the most common form of the name in English by far, and this form always has been; the only other spellings that even chart against it both use a 't', and the only other historical spelling with longstanding and widespread use is "Ptolemaeus", although it's dwarfed by the vast number of references to "Ptolemy".  The changes in the article that prompted this request were not supported by evidence, and are no longer there.  The editor who made those changes has asked that the discussion be closed without a move—and the only "support" votes seem to ignore the discussion, the changed circumstances, and the cited evidence—one of them without giving any reasoning, and the other—out of the blue a week after the discussion was dead—makes broad assertions that are completely contrary to all of the evidence.  By all means, close this discussion.  The ship has sailed, the train has left the station, and Elvis has left the building.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you say you oppose the proposal? —BarrelProof (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Because the discussion was already fairly advanced—and pretty much over—before someone randomly added a "support" vote—and that was the only person who had "voted" for over a week, when the next person came along and inexplicably said that the evidence supported the proposal that had already been shown not to have any evidentiary support. But there's no requirement that move discussions be voted on, and the outcome is based on the discussion, not simply counting the number of votes.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2020 (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.