Talk:Tiberius Sempronius Longus (consul 218 BC)

Proper Name?
The correct name of this person is Tiberius Sempronius Longus (see e. g. or ).--84.190.2.139 18:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Tiberius was his son. Kafziel 18:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Father and son had the same name, Tiberius Sempronius Longus. This page should be moved.--84.190.56.136 18:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What are your sources? All the sources on the page call him Titus, including Polibius and Livy, as do the pages on the Second Punic War, the Battle of the Trebia, the Battle of Lake Trasimene, the Battle of Ticinus, Hanno the Elder, and Publius Cornelius Scipio. See Tiberius Sempronius Longus. Kafziel 18:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The first poster is correct. He cites Livy and Polybius.  The webpage with the text of Livy uses the abrreviation "Ti."  This is confusing  to people uncertain of the abbreviation of Roman names since it is not clear whether it stands for "Titus" or "Tiberius."  Wikipedia's page clears this up.  But if there is any doubt, because citing Wikipedia isn't always secure (the above pages, the Second Punic War, the Battle of the Trebia, the Battle of Lake Trasimene, the Battle of Ticinus, Hanno the Elder, and Publius Cornelius Scipio, are thus wrong and need to be fixed), we look directly to Polybius.  He uses the full name.  Now, the page cited above is a translation so the translator could have chosen Tiberius over Titus.  This is impossible because there was no choice involved.  How can we tell?  Let's look to the original language which uses Τεβέριος (Tiberius).  Therefore, I will move the page to the proper name and fix all those incorrect Wikipedia pages. Amphipolis 16:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move to Tiberius Sempronius Longus (consul 218 BCE). Joelito (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
I suggest posting this at Requested moves. It should not have been unilaterally moved. Kafziel 15:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, that makes sense. It just seemed the logical thing to move it anyways, because the sources cited on the page and in this discussion either gave Ti. or Τεβέριος (Tiberius).--Amphipolis 15:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Titus Sempronius Longus → Tiberius Sempronius Longus (consul 218 BCE) … Rationale: The sources cited in the article (Plb. 3.41; Livy 21.15, 23.37) give the name as either Τεβέριος (Tiberius) or Ti.  According to Wikipedia Roman Naming Conventions, Ti. = Tiberius.  Names from Roman coins confirm this. This coin from the reign of emperor Tiberius has TICAESAR for Tiberius Caesar (see bottom of scanned page), whereas this coin from the reign of emperor Titus has TCAESIMP for Titus Caesar Imperator (see middle of scanned page). This move included the year of the consulship in the article title because there already is an article at Tiberius Sempronius Longus.

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~ ''


 * Support. The convention seems valid, and I'm the first to admit when I'm wrong. I do think this should be the main Tiberius Sempronius Longus article, though, since he came first and is the more famous of the two. The qualifier should be added to the son's article. Kafziel 16:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. As nominator, I support the move. Amphipolis 14:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Titus is T. But I would prefer to merge the two articles; neither is going to get much longer. Septentrionalis 19:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Same reason as above. Imladjov 22:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not to the move (which is so agreeable that it could have been done directly), but to the chosen destination name: The article currently uses BC format, also the article name should be Tiberius Sempronius Longus (consul 218 BC)--Panairjdde 23:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.