User talk:Llywrch

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archive 1  · Archive 2  · Archive 3  · Archive 4  · Archive 5  · Archive 6  · Archive 7  · Archive 8  · Archive 9  · Archive 10  · Archive 11  · Archive 12  · Archive 13 · Archive 14 · Archive 15 · Archive 16 · Archive 17

You have....[edit]

.... an email! DuncanHill (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Replied to yours, hopefully this one gets through. DuncanHill (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@DuncanHill: & now I received yours. Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chloe (American singer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Everclear.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of Roman governors of Asia
added links pointing to Lucius Antonius, Marcus Cocceius Nerva, Lucius Vipstanus Messalla and Publius Cornelius Dolabella

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lucius Arruntius (battle of Actium), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atina.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day![edit]

Disambiguation link notification for October 26[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marcus Rutilius Lupus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beneventum.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Africa (Roman province), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lucius Volusius Saturninus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Lets talk about Marcus Papirius Mugillanus and the List of Roman Consuls[edit]

Heyo again!

I just want to have some response and opinion from you in regards to your revert in regards to M. Papirius Mugilanus and M. Papirius Atratinus for the consul of 411 BC.

While Livy has the name of M. Papirius Atratinus he is also known to have several instances where the names he provides for the consular tribunes of the 5th and 4th century BC does not agree with any other source, be they fasti or other ancient historians.

The List as provided by Wikipedia leads with the following statement: Unless otherwise indicated, the names and dates of the consuls between 509 and 81 BC are taken from Thomas Broughton's The Magistrates of the Roman Republic.

Thus my arguments are as follows: As Broughton and apparently Ogilvie on his commentary on Livy both are in agreement on Mugillanus as the consul of 411 over that of the cognomen of Atratinus, this seems to be a logical choice for Wikipedias list to follow. Additionally one should add that other sources, such as the Fasti Hydatius and that of the Chronograph of 354 list him as Mugillanus.

CutieyKing (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I should also add that the arguments that Ogilvie brings forth of a college of three existing with a Papirius, Nautius and Sempronius even further strengthens that Papirius should have the cognomen of Mugillanus while the unknown Sempronius carried the cognomen of Atratinus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CutieyKing (talkcontribs) 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
@CutieyKing: I was about to drop a note on your Talk page about this, but you beat me to it. And I do want to tell you that I appreciate your work in writing articles on the Republican consuls. These are articles that Wikipedia do need written.
A few years back I subjected the List of Roman Consuls to a fairly thorough revising with the goal of providing reliable sources for this entire list. (Which is mostly complete, however I ran out of steam just before I completed the entire list; the part concerning the Late Roman Empire still needs a last tidying up.) In doing so, I found that the list as we receive it is not as simple as it appears. For example, no list for the suffect consuls of Imperial Rome has come down to us complete, & the names of these office-holders need to be compiled from various sources. (Which means reading lots of academic articles in various foreign languages, evaluating their arguments & rectifying their disagreements.) More to this point under discussion, while there is one list of the Republican consuls, this list is like a Classical text that exists in a number of manuscripts with conflicting readings. Moreover, there is evidence that even the reconstructed list does not accurately report all of the names of the men who were Republican consuls (or Consular Tribunes). Even the copy that Livy worked from may not be accurate: Polybius in his History reports a different first pair of consuls than the received tradition. (I don't have my notes or my copy of Polybius at hand as I type this, but believe it was Junius Brutus & Lucretius Tricipitinus). This led me to decide that one element that needed to be emphasized is that there are portions of this list, especially in the earlier parts, with different names.
I know Broughton is an authority -- if not the authority -- for the Republican portion of this list, but there are expert opinions about various pairs (or "colleges"), & 411 BC is one of them. Ogilvie's paper goes into further detail why the tradition that begins with the Fasti Capitollini should not be uncritically accepted -- maybe I summarized too concisely what he wrote. So I included his corrections, with footnotes, where they make sense. (I'll admit that Ogilvie is something of a radical deconstructionist critic of the history of Republican Rome, pace Livy, but he does make arguments that need to be taken seriously.)
As for the the identity of the Papirius of 411 BC, the only sensible answer is, "We don't know." Was Papirius Mugillanus consul in 411 BC? Or was the consul one M. Papirius Atratinus? Or was there a Papirius with an altogether different cognomen? We simply don't know, & probably never will. I prefer the Atratinus based on (1) Livy draws on an older, & likely less corrupted source than the Fasti, (2) following the rule of lectio difficilior: when faced with a choice between two readings, always select the more difficult one, & (3) I would like this list to vary in some places from Broughton's. (Yes, #3 is the weakest argument, but it is worth considering.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


What exactly was hard to understand about the move? And what was the benefit to completly deleting the gens article? And to merge the two article about the women into one same Wikipedia:FRANKENSTEIN page again?★Trekker (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November![edit]

AfroCine - bare logo.png


Thank you very much for participating in the Months of African Cinema global contest/edit-a-thon, and thank you for your contributions so far.

It is already the middle of the contest and a lot have been achieved already! We have been able to get over 1,500 articles created in over fifteen (15) languages! This would not have been possible without your support and we want to thank you. If you have not yet listed your name as a participant in the contest page please do so.

Please make sure to list the articles you have created or improved in the article achievements' section of the contest page, so that they can be easily tracked. To be able to claim prizes, please also ensure to list your articles on the users by articles page. We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

  • Overall winner
    • 1st - $500
    • 2nd - $200
    • 3rd - $100
  • Diversity winner - $100
  • Gender-gap filler - $100
  • Language Winners - up to $100*

We are very excited about what has been achieved so far, but your contributions are still needed to further exceed all expectations! Let’s create more articles before the end of this contest, which is this November!!!

Thank you once again for being part of this global event! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:30, 06 November 2020 (UTC)

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Disambiguation link notification for November 9[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marcus Statius Priscus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sohaemus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
One year!

Will you run for arbcom again? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gerda Arendt! First, I want to thank you once again for the Precious Award. We Wikipedians far too often fail to acknowledge each other's contributions.
As to your question, I have thought about it & doubt I will -- unless I am certain I can successfully run for the position. I don't want to be one of these perennial candidates (such as Harold Stassen), or seen as a gadfly & general malcontent. I'm here to make Wikipedia better resource, which I hope I'm doing with my writing; I don't need to be on the ArbCom to do that. If I'm not cut out for it, I'm willing to live with that. -- llywrch (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Understand. I just remember that I liked your response last year, and am so used to arbs not looking, that someone looking would be a nice change. On the other hand, I - and my friends I guess - have no intention to ever have to do with them, so not immediately threatened. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lucius Fabius Cilo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Legate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

I invite you give an input on this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faustus Cornelius Sulla (grandson of Sulla), as you have previously displayed the means and capability to solve problems of the sort. Avis11 (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gnaeus Caecilius Simplex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roman Africa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello, would you mind giving an input on this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lateranus family? 3 years ago you left a comment on the talk page suggesting the article in question was not appropriate. Avilich (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open[edit]

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Aurelius Heraclianus
added a link pointing to Latomus
Claudius Gothicus
added a link pointing to Latomus

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


Sorry for misreading your edit at Oclatinia (gens)—I confused Marcus Oclatinius Adventus and Titus Oclatius Severus as the same person. They still shouldn't be in boldface, IMO, since the article isn't about either of them, specifically, and the second occurrence isn't using "Oclatius" as a word when it cites Severus as an example, so it shouldn't be italicized there either, although cited by itself as a word is should be and is. I thought I owed it to you to explain why I reverted your edit—and why the reason I gave wasn't quite right, even though the result should be the same. I'm annoyed not to find any other Oclatini in the C-S databank, however. Do you have any theories about this? Do you suppose he could have been the only person with this nomen—a gens of one? Or is he merely the only member of an obscure family to come to light from known inscriptions? The number of inscriptions mentioning him make it seem improbable that "Oclatinius" is a mistake for the known "Oclatius". And as he doesn't seem to have any other names, it doesn't seem likely that it's a cognomen. ATM I'm continuing to suppose that it's an obscure gentilicium, and that others might come to light in the future, but I'm uneasy about that. P Aculeius (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi P Aculeius, no harm. My rationale is that redirects for both Oclatinius & Oclatius point to this article, & to minimize the element of surprise for the user I thought it might be best to embolden both names. Otherwise said person will be scratching their head, wondering why they ended up at this article. Which reminds me of something...
Writing articles on Roman consuls, I have found that for a quarter of the known office holders all we know about them is their name. (Sometimes we also know the date they were consul, sometimes their colleague, often not even those details.) So to avoid the creation of permastubs that say little more than "X was a Roman senator during the principate who was consul", I have been creating redirects from those names in List of Roman Consuls to the relevant gens article. While this works for the plethora of Julii, Claudii & Aurelii, there still remains a few individuals who are the only known members of their gens, such as Oclatinius. Maybe Oclatinius is not a good example, since I've stumbled on enough information about him to justify a stand-alone article. On the other hand are a couple of articles I've recently worked on such as Marcus Aefulanus (who has a few more than half a dozen other members in his gens) or Gaius Vellaeus Tutor (who has even fewer) whose article would be better written about their gens, although not much more can be said of them. So what should we do in these situations...? -- llywrch (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, I feel somewhat reassured about one thing: there are obviously many more Romans whose names we don't know at all, from any source, than whose names are mentioned in history or engraved on known surviving artifacts, and no doubt that accounts for many of the "gentes of one". If the existence of a gens can be reasonably inferred from at least a few inscriptions, but not more than a few dozen, at most, I'm likely to write an article listing the ones who are known. Obviously bigger gentes are more deserving of articles—but it's impractical to create articles listing hundreds of persons about whom there's almost nothing to be said, while the more obscure gentes are more likely to be overlooked entirely without one. But what to do? As a stopgap measure, go ahead and create biographical stubs for the ones who don't have any corresponding gens articles. They can always be deleted if and when a corresponding article about the gens is created. But I'm not sure about redirecting links to obscure persons to their gentes. I did that at one point, but it made it difficult to create redlinks in their gens articles without creating recursive links, which typically got deleted by other well-meaning editors. Perhaps the better technique is to place a link to the gens either early in the article, or in a "see also" section at the end—or both. I think at an early stage in the gens project, I tried to add "see also" links to the gens in all Roman biographical articles I visited, and I still think that might be a good idea. P Aculeius (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quintus Pompeius Sosius Priscus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eques.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Merry![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Llywrch, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,

★Trekker (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Julius Cornutus Tertullus[edit]

New to Wikipedia... Would you kindly look over my chapter which has several pages on the prosopography and inscriptions of the cognomen Tertullus and determine whether you believe it to be worth including in that Wikipedia entry?

“Pliny’s Correspondence and the Acts of the Apostles: An Intertextual Relationship?” Luke on Jesus, Paul and Christianity: What Did He Really Know? Edited by J. Verheyden and J. S. Kloppenborg. BTS 29 (Leuven: Peeters, 2017) 147–69.

Thank you! Vocesanticae (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gaius Junius Faustinus Postumianus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valerian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing[edit]

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Happy Birthday![edit]

Inquiry from American journalist[edit]

Hi, I'm a writer for The Ringer, the American tech, culture, and sports site. We're running a package of Wikipedia-related articles this Friday for the 20th anniversary of Wikipedia, and I'm working on an article about the wonderfully entertaining "Lamest edit wars" page. I'm trying to include some thoughts from people who've contributed to the page, and I noticed that you'd made a few edits to it over a long period (first in 2006, last in 2020). Could you tell me a little bit about your involvement with the page, why it appeals to you, or what you think its existence says about the positive or negative aspects of Wikipedia? Curious about how you found it, how you improved it, and what your favorite edit war is. My deadline is late Thursday, Eastern Time. Hope to hear back!

Thank you,

Ben Lindbergh
Staff Writer, The Ringer
BenLindbergh (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Marcus (Popilius) Pedo Vergilianus[edit]

Hi, Llywrch! As you might have seen on the CGR talk page, there was some discussion about the name "Caepia" and whether it could be the feminine form of "Caepio", either as the surname of the Servilii Caepiones, or even more strangely, as a nomen gentilicium, for which I found some scanty and rather inconclusive evidence. In the course of trying to decide whether "Caepio" could be a nomen, or should be regarded as something else, such as a surname in a partial nomenclature omitting a familiar nomen, or perhaps even the result of errors, someone raised the example of Marcus Pedo Vergilianus as possible evidence that nomina could have a third-declension -o stem, and I said I didn't think that Pedo could be a nomen in this case.

I then realized that you and I had discussed this unfortunate consul before, but at that time I could not find his PW entry (it turns out to have been in supplement 15—I had to search most of the supplements before I found it, and didn't see 15–17 the first time because they were sorted under another file format). I summarized what it said about him being (probably) a Popilius in the discussion at CGR, but I'd like to know if you have any opinion on this—if we accept this assessment, I think it would be appropriate to move the article to that title; I'd be more comfortable with it there than at its present title, but I defer to your expertise. P Aculeius (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

P Aculeius, sorry for the delay. I saw your message Sunday & a few hours later my power went out. In the excitement that followed (trying to stay warm while wondering how fast the power company would help us return to the 21st century), I forgot about your question until now.
First about the thread in CGR. I saw it, started looking into the matter, but found I had little to offer -- except sending a belated thanks to @Avilich: for the link to the Arctos archive. All of you delved into the questions there further than I had. My original search in Salomies' Adoptive and polyonymous nomenclature in the Roman Empire turned up nothing about him, so I effectively struck out there. Although if "Vergilianus" is his cognomen, it would suggest his mother was a Vergila; adding -ianus to the mother's gentilicum to create a cognomen was an old Roman practice, & a few examples from the 2nd century could be produced.
As for whether he belongs to gens Pedo or gens Vergilianus... that is a good question. Attilio DeGrassi & others call him M. Pedo Vergilianus, although without an explanation. I did find some inscriptions from 115 using consular dating, but all that does is establish his name elements were "Pedo" (which CIL VI, 31148, CIL VI, 32637 called him) & some "Verglianus" (which others called him). As you wrote, 4 other inscriptions refer to him as M. Vergilianus Pedo & one as M. Pedo Vergilianus, & there are more examples of gens Vergilianus than of the other; & Romans occasionally sometimes reversed the gentilicum & the cognomen -- all of which suggest he belonged to gens Vergilianus. However, sometimes there is a good argument out there explaining why the simplest solution is not the correct one, & we simply haven't encountered it. (One reason I prefer to cite an expert to state the obvious: they have not only done more research than us on the matter, they have the resources to do more than us.) As for Popilius, while I trust Eck to be right nevertheless I wish I could find his article to see what he actually wrote. I looked thru the copy of PW at de.wikisource, & could not find it, & the one library in my area with a copy of that massive reference is closed to the public due to the epidemic.
So in short, I don't know what to think. The fact that the elements in his name were often reversed needs to be mentioned in his article. And if Eck is right about him being a Popilius, that would help define a few more Senatorial families. All I can advise is to do what you think is correct. But I will make sure there is a redirect at Marcus Pedo Vergilianus if you rename the article. -- llywrch (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
A few years ago, I found a source that—perhaps with dubious legality—had made scans of all the pages of all the volumes, including 17 or 18 supplements. Realizing how vital PW was and how hard it is to access (my local copy, which at one point many years ago I was allowed to take home in stacks to catalogue Romans, since the books had been gathering dust since they were new, to the chagrin of the Classics Department chairman, who had lobbied for their purchase, is now kept in closed stacks, and can only be retrieved a couple of volumes at a time by scheduling an appointment for the reference librarian to go get them), I downloaded all the scans and now can look up any article and type it into Google Translate, which does a fair job with German (but not, sadly, very well with Latin, to say nothing of German with Latin words and phrases and scholarly abbreviations). Anyway, the Popilius Pedo articles were short, and I typed them both out. Here's what they say, first in German, then in English(ish):
38 a) Popilius Pedo Apronianus. Sein nomen gentile ist durch eine Inschrift aus Asturien bekannt: Opilio Pedone, Dessau 9131. Mit aller Wahrscheinlichkeit ist es zu [P]opilio zu verbessern, Dessau zur Inschrift; vgl. G. Barbieri L'albo senatorio nr. 431 (vgl. ferner den Namen des Konsuls vom J. 147: C. Popilius Carus Pedo); in CIL VI 1980: ...ius Pedo Apronianus. Consul ordinarius im J. 191 n. Chr. mit M. Valerius Bradua Mauricus, Dessau 9131 und Fasti. Während seines Prokonsulates von Asia (IGR IV 1282) ließ ihn Septimius Severus ca. 205 n. Chr. töten. Ihm wurde zum Vorwurf gemacht, seine Amme habe einmal geträumt, er werde Kaiser werden, sowie, er habe sich der Magie bedient, Cassius Dio LXXVI 8, 1. Wohl mit M. Popilius Pedo, salius Palatinus (CIL VI 1977), verwandt; er gehörte also wahrscheinlich dem Patriziat an (Dessau 9131, jetzt auch Ann. ép. 1966, 188).
38 b) M. (Popilius) Vergilianus Pedo. Sein nomen gentile ist aus dem Namen des Konsuls von 191 n. Chr. erschlossen (s. Nr. 38 a). Consul ordinarius im J. 115 n. Chr. zusammen mit L. Vipstanus Messalla, CIL VI 43, 44, 543, 791, 1984, 2404, 2411, 31148, XV 20, 21, 22; Ann. Ep. 1949, 23. Nach Cassius Dio LXVIII 25, 1 starb er während seines Konsulats. [Werner Eck.]
38 a) Popilius Pedo Apronianus. His nomen gentile is known from an inscription from Asturias: Opilio Pedone, Dessau 9131. In all probability it can be improved to [P]opilio, Dessau to the inscription; see G. Barbieri L'albo senatorio no. 431 (cf. also the name of the consul of 147: C. Popilius Carus Pedo); in CIL VI 1980: ... ius Pedo Apronianus. Consul ordinarius in 191 AD with M. Valerius Bradua Mauricus, Dessau 9131 and Fasti. During his proconsulate of Asia (IGR IV 1282) Septimius Severus had him killed around 205 AD. He was reproached for having once dreamed of his wet nurse becoming emperor and for having used magic, Cassius Dio LXXVI 8, 1. Probably related to M. Popilius Pedo, Salius Palatinus (CIL VI 1977); so he probably belonged to the patriciate (Dessau 9131, now also Ann. ép. 1966, 188).
38 b) M. (Popilius) Vergilianus Pedo. His nomen gentile is derived from the name of the consul of 191 AD (see No. 38 a). Consul ordinarius in 115 AD together with L. Vipstanus Messalla, CIL VI 43, 44, 543, 791, 1984, 2404, 2411, 31148, XV 20, 21, 22; Ann. Ep. 1949, 23. According to Cassius Dio LXVIII 25, 1 he died during his consulate. [Werner Eck.]
I will say that, absent any proof to the contrary, neither Pedo nor Vergilianus is a nomen gentilicium. I could be persuaded if that's what the experts say, but if they use the word gens in combination with these names, I would tend to guess that they were using the word carelessly unless context made it clear that they really were making the claim that such names were gentilicia, rather than surnames. And if these people were Popilii, then they were certainly not gentilicia in these examples, if indeed any examples of them where they could actually be gentilicia can be found. My surmise is that they were never gentile names, and that where they occur without a nomen, the nomen has simply been omitted, as it seemed unnecessary at the time, or in some cases perhaps by accident. P Aculeius (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
On a personal note, I understand about the power situation. I've been expecting long-term power outages since Thursday's ice storm, to which we've added snow and more ice three times since, with little chance of the ice melting off for another few days, if then—and then another storm expected over the weekend. I lost a lot of branches, possibly a small tree, but the power has stayed on, except for a few very brief outages, all combined under a minute. But who knows—a few years ago I was without power in the dead of winter for more than a week on two separate occasions. P Aculeius (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I'm glad I could be of help with regards to the Finnish archive. As for the subject matter, I could find the following:

  • Salomies 1998, p. 201 n. 6, writes, "the nomen of this consul has yet to be established", and also notes that, in inscriptions where the subjects are referred to by one cognomen only, the consul is referred to as either Pedo or Vergilianus, only one in each occasion, suggesting both are cognomina.
  • Salomies, again in p. 201, notes that gentilicia are sometimes omitted for the sake of shortening names, resulting in potentially misleading formulations. Salomies provides as examples L. Lollianus Avitus (short for L. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Avitus) and C. Annianus Verus (short for C. Ummidius Quadratus Annianus Verus). In absence of further evidence, Lollianus, Annianus, and Vergilianus could all be thought to be nomina. This was, of course, already common during the late Republic (e.g. Q. Metellus Pius and Q. Caepio Brutus), but for the Empire it's much more difficult to decipher.
  • Syme suggests 'Pompeius Pedo' over Popilius.
  • Burgess 2000, p. 267 n. 31, oddly writes that 'Pedo' is a gentilicium and provides more examples of 'Vergilianus' being used (seemingly) as a cognomen.
  • There are twice as many google scholar search results for "Pedo Vergilianus" as for "Vergilianus Pedo".

Based on the unsatisfactory evidence, I lean towards keeping the title 'Marcus Pedo Vergilianus' as it is. Imho it's more likely that 'Vergilianus', being derived from 'Vergilius', is just really a cognomen, unlike (say) 'Norbanus' or 'Albinovanus', both of which are gentilicia and are not derived from any other nomen I know of. Names ending in -anus also generally seem to come last in the nomenclature, like Flavius Vespasianus and Flavius Domitianus (name followed by adjectival distinguisher), as well as the example of Popilius Pedo Apronianus provided above. Whether 'Pedo' is a gentilicium or not is anyone's guess. Avilich (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely to be a gentilicium—it's well-attested as a surname, and I'm not aware of any nomina that have this form, barring a very small number of examples of Caepio that could all represent omitted nomina or errors—one of which could be the result of it being the dative and ablative singular of Caepius, which was clearly a nomen gentilicium. Names ending in -anus (and the similar -inus) have what I would call a "derivative" ending—not necessarily the same as a "diminutive", but in the sense of "descended from" or "related to", but in some cases, such as Norbanus and Albinovanus, they're derived not from the name of a person, but of a place—Norba, in the former instance, and perhaps a place called Albinova, now lost to history. But these are clearly nomina, as there are numerous examples of Norbanus from the republican period, if I recall correctly, and a few of Albinovanus, all or most of which follow republican forms—the binomial "praenomen + nomen" or classic tria nomina. Although as I recall, Norbanus stumped early modern scholars, who guessed that it was a surname of another gens, perhaps a branch of the Junii.
As for Syme's claim (I'll have to take your word for it) that -anus was typical of Etruscan nomina, I point out that Norba is in Latium, nowhere near Etruria, while Albinova—if such a place existed—also seems to have a Latin name. Masculine gentiles ending in -na were typically Etruscan, but I don't recall any source so describing -anus, which was a common Latin termination, if uncommon for a gentilicium. What does Syme have to say about the other Popilii mentioned in PW—or does he address Eck's conclusions? P Aculeius (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Postscript: I've just read what Salomies, Syme, and Burgess have to say about our mystery consul. Salomies states that neither Vergilianus nor Pedo is a nomen here, and later on says that Pedo should be deleted from the catalogue of nomina that he previously developed; he notes that Popilius is the suggestion of PIR, and offers no contradictory opinion. Syme begins his brief discussion with Popillius (two 'l's), based on the consul of 147, and only suggests Pompeius as an alternative based on an earlier consular, but I see nothing to indicate that he finds this preferable to Popillius, other than that he notes that there had not been any earlier consular Popillii under the Empire (although as he notes, there was a later one). Burgess' use of "nomen" in passing—in a footnote—does not inspire me with confidence that he considered Pedo to be a literal nomen gentilicium. I think he was using the word carelessly, probably in the sense that Pedo occurred in the place of a nomen in this instance, not because he was asserting the existence of a gens Pedonia, of which Pedo would be the nomen. As he does not mention Popilius or any other nomen in connection with the consul, I don't think Burgess adds much to the question of his gentilicium. Scholarship seems to tilt strongly in favour of Popilius, with Syme alone suggesting Pompeius as a possible alternative, although PW presents more evidence than Syme discussed. P Aculeius (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Having read all of this, I've come to the conclusion that Marcus Pedo Vergilianus probably should keeps its current name, but it needs a paragraph explaining that because "Pedo" is not otherwise attested as a gentilicum (although many gentilica are attested by single individuals), & Vergilianus is possibly a cognomen, various experts have suggested that another element in his name is missing, either the most suggested "Popilius" because 2 other consular Popilii share the cognomen "Pedo", or (as Syme suggests) it may be "Pompeius" based on the Senator Claudius is alleged to have executed, Pompeius Pedo. Does that make sense? (And if no one responds here, I'll copy this over to the other thread for input.) -- llywrch (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I trust your judgment, Llywrch, and will happily add such a paragraph unless you'd rather do it yourself. I'll make the Popilius version redirect to it, and if at some point it becomes preferable, the two can just be flipped. P Aculeius (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
After forgetting about this for a few days, P Aculeius, I finally updated that article with the information above. (I put it in its own section because, well, it is a self-contained issue.) Let me know what you think of the addition. -- llywrch (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I think it could stand a little work—but it's my fault you had to resolve all of this with an issue you didn't set out to research, since I didn't get around to it! I'm also doubtful about his name constituting the only section prior to references—my inclination is to move most of the lead into its own section. I would feel bad about revising this if it made you feel like you did all this work for nothing—I really appreciate your work, although in this case I think it could probably be streamlined while at the same time including additional relevant details. Perhaps I could propose text here and get your reaction—if I manage to get it done tomorrow. P Aculeius (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd hardly resent you rewriting my edit to that article, P Aculeius; I'm not entirely happy with it, since I see now I left out a detail or two. In any case we're all working to improve the content of Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I've had a go at it, in the article rather than here on your talk page. Please let me know if you think it's acceptable! You may note a spot or two where it could use additional documentation—particularly as I believe I caught a mistake: Vergilianus could not have been consul at the time of his death, if his consulship was in January, and the earthquake was in December. I think my explanation of his presence in Antioch is simply stating the obvious, but it really ought to have a source, if one can be found that would support this statement. P Aculeius (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@P Aculeius: The date of that earthquake is definitely a surprise; I've always assumed it happened in the first months of 115! Considering that having the day & month for an event like that is unusual for the 2nd century -- more often than not, we are fortunate to have even a rough idea what part of the year something happened in, & often we don't even have the year -- I feel compelled to figure out where that date came from. (Sometimes tracking that information leads to useful results; that's how I found the date for the Battle of Cannae.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh, that's a good point—I didn't check for the source of the date of the earthquake; I simply assumed the date in our article was correct. Checking Cassius Dio, I don't see a date, but Dio says that Trajan was wintering in Antioch when the earthquake struck, and then began his campaign in the spring. If I read the article on his campaign correctly—and no, I didn't check the sources for that, either!—Trajan was at Antioch in the winter of 115–116—months after Vergilianus would have resigned his office. The sources listed in the article about the earthquake might lead to a source for the date—one of them apparently is an article that gives this date in the title. I also note that the Ides of December fell on the 13th—that might have provided a handy time reference in Roman sources, although obviously it would be better to know if there really is a Greek or Roman source for the precise date, and then to cite it. P Aculeius (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@P Aculeius: I found the source. First, Julian Bennett in his Trajan: Optimus Princeps confirms that Trajan was spending the winter of 115/116 in Antioch, as opposed to the winter of 114/115; the chronology of his movements better fit the later winter than the earlier. As for the exact date, this comes from the Chronicle of John Malalas:

In the reign of the most divine Trajan the great (city) of Antioch by Daphne suffered its third disaster (an earthquake) on the 13th day of the month Apellaios, i.e. December, on the first day, after the cock's crow, in the year called 164 according to the Antiochians, in the second year after the presence (in Antioch) of the most divine emperor Trajan on his way to the east. (Translated by Robert K. Sherk, The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian)

While Malalas is known to be sometimes unreliable about his dates, Bennett shows that if 13 December is not correct, it is close to the true date of the earthquake, & in any case Pedo Vergilianus was not in office at the time of his death. So I'll need to add this citation to the article. -- llywrch (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Writing Black History of the Pacific Northwest into Wikipedia - Editathon 2021[edit]

Afrocrowd User Group Logo.png
Writing Black History of the Pacific Northwest into Wikipedia - Editathon 2021
  • Friday, February 26, 2021, 1:00-5:00 PM PST
  • with Oregon State University, Education Opportunities Program, and AfroCROWD
  • Guest Speaker: Spelman College's Alexandria Lockett
  • "Click here to register directly on OSU's site".
Cascadiawikimedians transparent Gill Sans 155px high.png Cascadia Wikimedians placed this banner at 03:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC) by using the Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Participants list.
To subscribe to or unsubscribe from messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland, please add or remove your name here.

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Legio XXII Deiotariana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amyntas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Legio II Italica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parthian War.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Consuls 150/51 AD[edit]

Hi Llywrch. I ask for your help with something. The source currently used for the consuls under Antoninus is Werner Eck, who places, with some reluctance, the suffecti C. Curtius Justus and P. Julius Nauto in 151 AD. Cooley on the other hand reluctantly prefers 150. There's this apparently newly-discovered inscription which names C. Curtius Justus as consul in c. December 150 with an obscure C(aio) Iulio Iuliano. One could presume that Justus held office with these both men as colleagues, but the German Wiki (which has an article on C. Julius Julianus) seems to suggest that Nauto may be entirely made up. Do you have access to sources or knowledge that could settle this issue? Thank you in advance. Avilich (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Avilich Hi back atcha. For once I have the relevant sources at hand, so I can provide a speedy answer.
First, Cooley for some reason bases the section of the Consul List on Alföldy, Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter der Antoninen, published in 1977, instead of Werner Eck, whose work was an updating of Alföldy (actually, part of a Festschrift for Alföldy) published in 2013. So on that basis, I'm inclined to follow Eck for populating the consuls of 150 & 151. But this deserves a more closer look, because all three authors (Alföldy, Cooley, & Eck) admit that Justus & Nauto could have been suffecti in either 150 or 151. Cooley admits in her footnotes that she is simply copying Alföldy, so she has nothing to offer here. Alföldy prefers to put the pair in the last quarter of 150 based on the chronology of Justus' career; reviewing the evidence, I don't see anything that forces us to accept 150 over 151. (Yeah, I know this borders on original research, but making the pieces from reliable sources fit together sometimes requires us to bend the rules. As long as we explain what we've done.) Looking at Eck, who prefers 151, he notes that one L. Novius Crispinus Martialis Saturninus is mentioned as a consul designate in an inscription dated between 10 December 149 & 10 December 150: Saturninus could have held the fasces in the last quarter of 150, so there is no need to put Justus & Nauto in that year. Based on Eck (assuming I understand him properly), the balance of evidence puts Justus & Nauto in 151. However, to follow WP:NPOV we should probably add a note that some authorities (such as Alföldy, p. 156) believe they were suffecti in 150.
Now Eck cites AE 1922, 135 (which means the German Wiki is wrong to suggest Nauto did not exist) which has the date 2 October. (BTW, According to Alföldy, except for this one inscription he is otherwise unknown -- not unusual, but worth keeping in mind while considering the following.) This new document with the names of C. Curtius Justus & C. Julius Julianus -- according to the pictures on Clauss-Slaby, it appears to be a military diploma -- is dated to 19 November ( = a.d. xiii kalendas Decembres). There is no reason to conclude that Nauto left office between 2 October & 19 November, & the remainder of his term was filled by Julius Julianus; officials have been known to die in office. This would be the simplest solution: in either 150 or 151, Justus & Nauto began their consulship 1 October; Nauto died some time in the following 6 weeks, denied further opportunities to appear in the historical record; Julianus was then appointed to serve the remainder of the nundinium.
Does this make sense? -- llywrch (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Llywrch, I hope you don't mind if I interfere here, but there's an article about the 2 consuls by Roger S. O. Tomlin, John Pearce: A Roman Military Diploma for the German Fleet (19 November 150) Found in Northern Britain ZPE 206 (2018), pp 207–216, which on pp 214–216 assigns the 2 consuls to October and November 150. Unfortunately the article isn't online. Cheers --Agentjoerg (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC) PS According to Tomlin/Pearce Nauto is a misspelling of Julianus made by the scribe.

It apparently is online. Avilich (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
It says that the transcript Πουπλιω Ιουλιω Ναυτωνε (Publio Iulio Nautone) is actually quite a questionable reading, and claims the cognomen Nauto is otherwise unattested. The paper, which I found out just now, says without sign of doubt that Justus and Julianus were consuls in October–November 150. Avilich (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the proper date is 19 November 150. I made a mistake, which I only realized this morning. Roman military diplomas contain three different methods of dating: by consuls (which works if one knows the dates for the consuls), the sets of witnesses (which is not exact, but is better than nothing), & by the year of the tribunicia potestas (or tribunican power) of the emperor -- which narrows things to the year. (All three together make complete military diplomas very valuable for chronology: they are some of the few documents from Roman times with accurate dates.) The year of the tribunicia potestas is clearly preserved in this document, & thus the year is verified as 150. (I should not type out replies late at night when I should be in bed asleep.) On the matter of Nauto, however...
Tomlin makes a very persuasive argument, & he is far more knowledgeable about these matters than I (to say the least), but I'm just not convinced. Yes, no other example of the cognomen "Nauto" is attested, but there are many unique cognomina known. As for the possibility of a scribal error, it just seems odd that a scribe would be so off with his ability to read Latin, & write out the Greek for "Publius" instead of "Gaius", then misread "Julianus" for "Nauto". Yes, scribes make mistakes, & some are more sloppy about writing unfamiliar names than others, but the suffect consuls were prominent enough for scribes (who deal with official dating on a regular basis) to recognize & make an effort to get the date right. And at this point in time, the names of ordinary consuls were increasingly used for an entire year rather than those of suffects, so if the scribe had any trouble reading the name, he would have simply dated the document with the names of that year's consuls--Gallicanus & Vetus--than guess at a poorly written name of the relevant suffect consul.
But I guess the proper way to handle this would be to put C. Julius Julianus in this place, but with a footnote to state Nauto has been read as suffect consul in 2 October, & if correct Nauto died before 19 November when Julianus is attested in his place. -- llywrch (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
That takes care of the problem. As always, many thanks for your time and help, and to Agentjoerg as well. Avilich (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

PR for Mynors[edit]

Hi Llywrch, I just wanted to let you know that the PDF you mentioned at the peer review for Mynors is stupendous. I wish I had had it when I wrote the core of this article! Thank you very much; I'm sure it will improve the article a lot. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive[edit]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Massacre at Thessalonica[edit]

Hi! I am not here to nag, I just wanted to let you know I now have a second article up for review, and am overwhelmed with a project in my real life that I am lead on, but I promise I will keep up with whatever you give me to do just as quickly as is humanly possible - even if I have to stay up all night to do it. :-) I am so grateful to you for being willing to do this review. I hope you found this article as interesting to read as I found researching it. Hope you are well, see you again soon I hope.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: No, I understand: I've been moved to a new group at work & I'm overwhelmed with the challenges there too. (And I get distracted with other articles too.) It's going to be a couple of days before I get everything in order to give the Massacre article a useful review, so don't feel pressured on your behalf. -- llywrch (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Got it! Whenever you're ready, I'll be there! Thanx again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I saw you made an edit on the article today, does this mean you're back? Face-smile.svg Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for assistance[edit]

Hi again Llywrch. I was wondering if you could help me with this rather complicated problem which has been lingering unresolved for awhile now. Some 5 years ago one editor, now retired, created a bunch of redirects titled Claudia Pulchra ([qualifier]) and a disambiguation page to list them all. After some research I concluded that this was all wrong, and that the only person of this name was the wife of Quinctilius Varus of the Teutoburg forest. The root problem is simple enough, but I can't seem to undo this mess using the regular Wikipedia procedures.

Back in December I tried taking the individual redirects to RfD, but the community was uncooperative and deletion proposal rejected. Some months later I tried deleting the disambiguation page, but this was likewise rejected because the redirects were still there and deleting the page would cause them to be orphaned. This put me in a bind: the disamb page was now dependent on the redirects, which in turn (due to the failure of the December proposal) could not be deleted by any licit means. I was tempted into breaking the rules a bit by assigning the redirects to a similar-enough ProD-ed page, but I was careless when concealing this act. There was some editwarring and unproductive discussion in the disambiguation article's talk page, and so I took this to ANI, but the board there was next to useless and the discussion automatically archived.

So now a bunch of people think I'm sloppy, disruptive or outright dishonest, either because of that one admittedly shifty maneuver, or because they think me bringing this to ANI was too extreme, or because I partook in an edit war, or because I did not show enough civility to other editors whose reading comprehension I found dismal. As a consequence, there is little else I can do on the matter other than repeat my previous arguments to disinterested parties whose goodwill is essentially gone. The problem on the whole still remains, however: I'm positively sure that only one Claudia Pulchra ever existed, but we still have disambiguation page and those redirects actively casting confusion on the matter. Until now, the sole rationale which the opposition provided for keeping either is that they might be useful to readers, which I find very questionable given all this trouble. As a last resort, I tried opening yet another RfD here (which I'd appreciate if you could comment on) but I'm not optimistic about its outcome.

I know firsthand that you're an assiduous and knowledgeable contributor to Wikipedia, and that your time is not best spent on petty disputes. But you're an administrator with much higher authority and experience than myself, you have a friendly disposition, and you're the only one I trust enough to handle something like this. I thank you for your attention. Avilich (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Locust Grove, Oregon[edit]

Hello, Llywrch since you are on top of the list, and looking for an image to enhance the article, I was hoping this image of the Locust Grove Church would be suitable. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Lucius Caesennius Sospes[edit]

Hi Llywrch, since you are the main editor of the article Lucius Caesennius Sospes, I'd like to ask your help. I'm in the process of enhancing the article in the de.wp and I've come across some interesting deviations with regards to the opinions of historians. Bernard Rémy, for example, dates his governship from 111/112 until 113/114 as opposed to Syme.

But what I find really puzzling, is this section:

This was followed by Sospes serving as military tribune of the Legio XXII Primigenia which was stationed in Pannonia at the time; while serving as a junior officer in the legion, Sospes "received the decorations appropriate to a legate of praetorian rank, expedit(ione) Suebic(a) et Sarm(atica)." Syme explains he earned these dona militaria from actions in Domitian's campaigns in Pannonia around 92, in response to the Sarmatians and Suebi having invaded that province and destroying Legio XXI Rapax.

Now, all other sources, that I have available, state quite explicitly, that Sospes received the dona as Legatus legionis of Legio XIII Gemina and not as military tribune of Legio XXII Primigenia. My sources are:

Depuis toujours de nombreux savants ont pensé que Sospes avait commandé la légion XIII Gemina et gagné ses décorations lors de la guerre de 92, où les Sarmates Iazyges étaient entrés en Pannonie, province de garnison de la XIII Gemina.
Sospes had followed a fairly standard senatorial career until he was appointed as legatus legionis XIII geminae in which capacity he was awarded dona for his participation in an expeditio Suebica et Sarmatica by an unnamed emperor.
Returning to the position of Sospes of legatus legionis XIII Gemina and the discussions regarding expeditio Suebica et Sarmatica, we support the fact that the expedition is the one during Domitian’s reign, during  which  the  character  in  question  is  granted  the  dona  militaria.

If you still have access to the article of Syme, could you check, if Syme is quoted correctly, when stating, that Sospes served as military tribune in Legio XXII Primigenia, when the dona were awarded.

Many thanks in advance. Cheers --Agentjoerg (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Agentjoerg:, sorry for the delay in responding. This has been a busy week for me. I do have a copy of Syme's article in pdf format (if you'd like a copy, email me & I will respond with it), & reviewed it based on your inquiry. I have to say that not only does Syme not date the military awards to Sospes' tribunate (in fact, he does not offer a date for it in that article), but the primary source all of these articles base Sospes' career on is cited at the beginning of this article, and it clearly associates this decoration to the period when he was commissioned legatus legionis. (The inscription can be found at CIL III, 6818.) I'm honestly surprised & embarassed that I misquoted Syme at this point so badly, & as soon as I have a chance I'll correct this article. As well as look at the sources you generously provided above to improve the one here in en.wikipedia.
BTW, there is another suggested date for Sospes' governorship of Cappadocia-Galatia: Werner Eck writes in a footnote that for the period June 94-June 95, "möglicherweise war auch Caesennius Sospes noch für kurze Zeit tätig." (Eck, "Jahres- und Provinzialfasten der senatorischen Statthalter von 69/70 bis 138/139", Chiron, 12 (1982), p. 322 n. 165. These two articles in Chiron update the material in his earlier monograph, Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian (Muenchen, 1970).) -- llywrch (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Llywrch, I've enhanced the article in the de.wp, see On the talk page I've listed all the dates, that historians have brought up with regards to the career of Sospes, according to the sources at my hand, see Once you've sent me the email, I will check out Syme and take his considerations into account. Cheers --Agentjoerg (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)