User talk:Graearms

New cross-language page link: Gynecology in ancient Rome

A new page پزشکی زنان در روم باستان on the Persian Wikipedia has been linked to page Gynecology in ancient Rome, which you created, via Wikidata (Q112424391).

You will not be notified in the future about new articles linked to any of the articles you have created, if you wish to opt-in to receiving these notifications, please follow the opt-in instructions.

NervousBot (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Aedinia gens moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Aedinia gens. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and the current sources are all primary inscriptions and of the modern references, the only one I can access only records that an individual with the gens name Aedinius existed. The gens is not discussed, so sources giving significant coverage are needed. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue I would argue that its notability is somewhat inherent in the fact that it is a Roman gens with numerous attested members. These pages are primarily just lists of all known members of the family, though they do sometimes have additional information regarding the origin of the gens or the associated praenomina. Look at other pages for Roman gentes, such as the ones for the Laronia gens or Lavinia gens. I suppose you could say I did original research when creating the page insofar as I was the first person to compile all this information together into a list, but all I did was just read the inscriptions and report directly what was on them. I don't think you can speak Latin, so you probably just couldn't tell, but when I say things like Aedinia Iulia lived for 45 years, that is just directly what the Latin text says. Some of the information regarding the inscriptions, such as their findspots, was sourced directly from the EDCS website, which is itself a secondary source operated by the University of Zurich.

I would also like to ping @P Aculeius for comment, as he has worked extensively on the coverage of Roman gentes on Wikipedia, and would probably have some interest in this matter. Graearms (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I would say that this article is not as complete as I would like it to be, and it needs some cleanup with things such as number formatting and orthography, but those are things that could be addressed through ordinary editing. IMO this article was not in need of draftification, and was fine in mainspace. Its individual members may not be notable in the sense that we usually apply Wikipedia's notability criteria—though recall that there is a widely-held argument that everyone from antiquity whose name has survived to the present is inherently notable—but as a collection of persons they can be listed to the extent that they are documentable (which all of them are).

I don't regard this as a matter of original research, insofar as we know that such a gens existed simply from the fact that these persons shared the nomen Aedinius. And the individual entries state only what can be gleaned directly from the inscriptions—essentially who they were, the names of other persons to whom they were related, what offices they held, how old they were, where they were buried, and of course, expert opinion as to when, all of which is included with the cited epigraphic sources (CIL, AE, etc.). Anyone who reads the inscriptions cited from those sources can verify what they say. So I think that the article can be returned to mainspace as-is. P Aculeius (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that on wikipedia we can't surmise from lapidary evidence that a gens exists, and for a gens to be notable, we need a reliable third party to have discussed it. We are not qualified to analyse inscriptions and extrapolate that this indeed refers to a gens, even if you might actually be qualified to do that, doing so on wikipedia is breaking WP:OR. That is why it is tagged as original research.

But even if it wasn't OR, the article still has to pass WP:GNG, and be established as notable. Two sources giving two paragraphs each to the topic of this gens would be enough, but merely mentioning somebody with this name does not constitute significant coverage per WP:GNG. Even if we treat this as a list article, WP:NLIST would still require the category (i.e. the gens itself) to have two reliable sources discussing it and giving it significant coverage.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I understand that you are just doing your job as a new page patroller and are probably wandering into a field in which you have little expertise, so I mean no offense when I say this, but I do not think you understand the concept of a gens in Roman culture or Roman tria nomina. There is no extrapolation that this is a gens; It is factually and unequivocally a gens because they shared the same nomen. As far as notability and potential original research is concerned, I feel like this an area where WP:Ignore all rules applies. Having these list articles to showcase every attested member of a certain gens is still useful to readers, and it would be a shame to delete them just because no one else has bothered to mention the exact word "Aedinia gens" before. Any original research that might technically exist in the page is incredibly minor, and any conclusions drawn via original research are all very obvious to someone who does speak Latin and have knowledge of Roman culture. Graearms (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Graearms is essentially correct here: we know with reasonable certainty that the individuals documented here constituted a gens because they all bore the same nomen gentilicium. The fact that we see multiple persons using the same tria nomina, or the same nomen as part of the tria nomina with differing praenomina and cognomina, is determinative. Polyonymous imperial-era nomenclature sometimes throws a monkey wrench into recognizing nomina, but that generally applies only to Roman nobility, and there are only one or two individuals here with remotely polyonymous names—all of which still fit the pattern of the tria nomina, with the possible exception of the Clodia Aedinia listed at the end. I would say that this is less akin to WP:IAR and more akin to WP:BLUE.

But as for notability, I would add that articles on individual gentes have a distinct virtue: allowing us to sidestep the question of whether indeed all persons from antiquity whose names have been preserved are inherently notable. In this case they can be listed to the extent that they are documented and that something can be said about them, without creating a slew of stubs about persons who individually have little or no claim to notability for other reasons. For this reason, articles on Roman gentes have a usefulness perhaps unmatched in other cultures; giving us a broad overview of Roman society through the units that made it up. The notability of individuals can be argued, but when they can clearly and indisputably be grouped together into family units that can be followed over the course of centuries, notability of those units seems inherent.

The Aedinii present an excellent case: the earliest known members of this gens lived under the late Roman Republic or early Empire; the latest ones in the fourth century, three to four hundred years later. Early members are concentrated in southern Italy; later ones mostly in Roman Africa. Simply gathering these entries in one place is of tremendous value to scholars, even if little can be said of most of them individually, beyond the surviving text of their inscriptions. The value is that they are documented, alongside the two or three members who rose to higher offices in the course of centuries, and who have been mentioned in various scholarly sources. P Aculeius (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Again, these are arguments that rest on your own expertise, which we're not really allowed to entertain. But if we grant that the existence of a nomen gentilicium demonstrate the existence of a gens is WP:BLUE, you still need to demonstrate the notability of the gens. The only way to do that is to have two reliable sources which discuss it. I get that this might be useful and interesting for scholars but I just can't see a basis in policy for creating the article. The fact this information doesn't exist anywhere else is an argument against keeping this article rather than in favour.

In my view the articles on the Laronia gens and Lavinia gens do not pass WP:GEN either, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is probably relevant in this case. I have looked at some of the other gens articles Graearms has listed as creations, and I personally think there is slightly better sourcing there, depending on how much discussion is given to the etymology of the gens name specifically.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't really say these arguments rest on my "expertise;" I'm really only going off what the definition of a gens is. Also, all my knowledge of Latin allows me to do in this context is just read the inscriptions. Fundamentally, what is the difference between me citing a primary source written in Latin vs citing one in English? Both of them are just directly reporting what a source says; it doesn't matter that not everyone will be able to speak the language in which the source is written.

Concerning the notability, I would like to point out that the notability guidelines for lists are not actually all that rigid. According to WP:Stand-alone lists, the notion that the group described by a list article must have significant coverage in sources is only "one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable" (with italics added for emphasis). The same page goes on to state that "There is no present consensus for ... what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists," and also that "lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigational, or developmental purposes are often kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." In fact, that particular mention of "informational" purposes should allow for the inclusion of these pages for Roman gentes, as—per P. Aculeius's above arguments—these lists are very useful and informative. Graearms (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I think WP:NLIST is quite clear here Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines, and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. I don't think the title of this gens article fulfils the criteria to be described as a list. But even if we grant it is a list, I don't see a case that you can get round the requirement for notability for the gens itself; the category to which the items on the list belong.

In terms of primary sources, it is textbook OR to extrapolate from funerary inscriptions in this way: Several of the earliest inscriptions of the Aedinii come from Volcei in Lucania. From there, they seem to have spread elsewhere in Italy and throughout the Empire, particularly northern Africa. You must have a secondary source to draw this conclusion. Furthermore, primary sources cannot grant notability to a topic, only secondary or tertiary coverage can do this. And an inscription saying "John Smith 1847-1922" does not give notability to the Smith family, even if it is recorded in a reliable secondary compilation of inscriptions.

I just can't see any way round it, you need someone to have written about the gens in a degree of detail that is not supported by the sources currently on the page. You are entirely entitled to move the article back to mainspace if you wish, per WP:DRAFTOBJECT and given there are only 3 of us discussing it, you probably have consensus on your side. I might AfD it in that case, if the community accepts your perspective on this it will give a useful ruling as a benchmark on articles of this nature.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I would say that the sentence you're concerned with merely summarizes the contents of the list. But assuming that it's a step too far, it should be fixable through ordinary editing. I can have a go now. As for "John Smith", I don't think that anyone suggests that mere proof of existence is relevant for any purposes with modern people; the argument that ancient Greeks and Romans have a degree of notability is a legitimate viewpoint. And articles such as those on Roman gentes provide a place for both persons mentioned in history and those about whom little is known.

A list of known members, even with little or no commentary, tells the reader a great deal about the gens, which makes articles such as this a potentially valuable resource. That's not possible in other contexts; with Greeks or Celts or Germans, we're pretty much limited to members of the aristocracy, or random persons who can't be meaningfully grouped with other persons. Roman nomenclature gives us unique insights into Roman culture. P Aculeius (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I will go ahead and move the article back into the mainspace. Graearms (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I really wish you hadn't done this; the other editor threatened to go to AfD if you did it. Now we may wind up with hundreds of articles nominated for deletion just because one editor has decided that Roman gentes aren't notable unless some authority makes a big deal out of them, and tens of thousands of hours of work over more than a decade and a half and by dozens of editors in the WikiProject could be at risk. Poking bears is a risky hobby. P Aculeius (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, thank you for finding those additional sources; I think they may be sufficient to win the day. I cannot access Salway's 2000 paper through JSTOR, unless the Wikipedia Library allows me to—I do have a free JSTOR account; but I find figuring out how to log in to things through the Wikipedia Library once or twice a year a bit of an ordeal. What does Salway say about the Haedinii? I think that Haedinius is clearly just an orthographic variant of Aedinius, just as Edinius is, but it would be nice if Salway or anyone else citable would draw such a conclusion explicitly. P Aculeius (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Salway just says "Note also four Haedinii from the area." This French source may explicitly make the claim that they are the same gens, but I can't actually speak French so I'm not comfortable adding the information myself. Perhaps also here in the Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum, but I can't access the full source so I'm not sure. If they are in fact the same gens, then it would pose a problem for the etymological connection with aedes, as one would not expect an initial h- from the underlying PIE root, unless it was artificially added as a hypercorrection. Perhaps one could instead opt for an etymological connection with haedus? Graearms (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Google Translate is actually fairly good with languages such as French and German—its Latin is still iffy, but it can help you puzzle things out. Here's what I got, using quotation marks to indicate italicized words (I transliterated the Greek parts, including apostrophes/single quotes for the rough breathing marks, which probably confused GT a little):

Rapprocher les formes du même groupe, Schulze, "Eigen.", p. 127 et ajouter "arm-n-es" CIE 5034; "arm-n-i" 5178; "arm-n-e" 5202; "arm-n-es" 5245. L'esprit rude de "'Armon, 'Armonia" peut trés bien résulter d'une étymologie populaire. Cf., d'ailleurs, en onom. tosco-latene même, "Aedinius, Haedinius"; "Aerennius, Haerennius"; "Ammonius, Hammonius"; "Ermonius, Hermonius"; etc. (Schulze. "Eigenn." s. v.).

Group together the forms listed by Schulze (*Eigen.*, p. 127) and add: "arm-n-es" CIE 5034; "arm-n-i" 5178; "arm-n-e" 5202; "arm-n-es" 5245. The rough breathing in "*Armon*, *Armonia*" may well stem from folk etymology. Cf., moreover, within the same Tusco-Latian onomastic corpus: "*Aedinius*, *Haedinius*"; "*Aerennius*, *Haerennius*"; "*Ammonius*, *Hammonius*"; "*Ermonius*, *Hermonius*"; etc. (Schulze, *Eigenn.*, s.v.).

While it doesn't come out and explicitly say that Haedinius and Aedinius are two forms of the same name, it certainly seems to assume it, and Salway implies that the two are perhaps identical. The explanation conjectured is pretty much as you suggested: folk etymology (hypercorrection) resulting in a "rough breathing" sound at the beginning of the name. I would add that regional accent seems just as reasonable an explanation.

As for etymology, I wouldn't venture beyond what the authorities suggest for anything not perfectly transparent (i.e. Rufius or Rufinius from Rufus). I add that the degree of certainty in such sources probably should also translate into whatever is said in the article, thus avoiding issues with OR or synthesis. However, I note that if an editor misunderstands what a source is saying, that ought to be fixable through ordinary editing. P Aculeius (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, the fact that both Aedinius and Haedinius are found at Volcei seems highly improbable if the names aren't related. It's not like Volcei turns up every time there's a gens of Oscan origin; in fact I don't recall seeing it before (though I probably have). P Aculeius (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Following up: the Repertorium only seems to be available on-site at university libraries, which would require a trip of several hours, assuming I'd be allowed to view it as a non-student (and that the item isn't locked away in some specialist archive/basement like similar works at my local university usually are). However, Schulze mentions several inscriptions of the Aedinii here at p. 116 and then again Aedinius and Haedinius are connected on page 205. P Aculeius (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Revisions to Aedinia gens (currently in draft space)

Hi, just noticed an edit conflict while saving revisions to about a dozen entries. Tried to resolve it by restoring your bibliographic changes, though it does mean that the sources no longer share the same formatting (though that's not really unusual in Wikipedia). Just thought I'd mention a few things I've been changing and explain why:

1. It's not necessary to use anything longer than "CIL" in the CIL template, even though the template's been moved.
2. Members should be sorted in approximate chronological order, when known, then the undated ones separately in alphabetical order. For purposes of alphabetization for Roman gentes, go by cognomen first, then praenomen. Grammatical gender only factors in after those are accounted for. So Aedinia first, then Aedinius, Marcus Aedinius, Aedinius Priscus, Aedinia Quintilla, Gaius Aedinius Rogatus, Aulus Aedinius Spherus, Aedinia Valeria, etc. Not sure where to sort Clodia Aedinia, so I placed her last, as if Clodia was her nomen (it's probably a nomen, though she could still be an Aedinia).
3. I've been finding the source citations from the C-S Datenbank and adding them with or in place of citations to the datenbank itself. Just two so far: AE (uses a template the same as CIL) and Inscriptions Latines de l'Algérie. I'm sure there will be others. I also checked DGRBM and PIR in case there were entries (Julianus was in PIR, which I've cited).
4. It's not usually necessary to state that someone is "named in an inscription" if the purpose of the inscription is clear; i.e. it's a grave, and the person is either buried/inurned there, or built/dedicated the tomb for the person buried there, or was a soldier stationed somewhere, patron of a city, made an offering to a god, etc. Most of the time, I'll only mention the inscription (which is still cited, of course) if it's not apparent what it's for or why the person is named in it.

So basically I'm streamlining entries and clarifying some of the details, at the same time as I'm resorting them and working on the citations. I probably will be able to check and update the rest tomorrow. P Aculeius (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I've revised/updated all of the members I could find, including a few mostly early ones with the spelling "Haedinius". Also added the standard top sections, to the extent possible with just the epigraphic examples. More secondary sources speaking about the Aedinii, rather than just recording their inscriptions, would be nice, but this family is pretty obscure, so it's good to have anything about them at all. P Aculeius (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bulla (amulet), a link pointing to the disambiguation page Embossed was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Aedinia gens for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aedinia gens is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aedinia gens until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Boynamedsue (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2026 (UTC)