Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome

Project overviewTasksCurationGuidesAwardsOur classicistsTalk page

Legio I Germanica

I've corrected an old error at Legio I Germanica, linking to a battle in 1081 AD rather than 48 BC, as prompted on the talk page. It was introduced in this 2020 edit together with several other bits of content sourced only to livius.org. I haven't checked whether any other errors crept in and am aware that that's not really a WP:RS - would anyone more familiar with such content care to take a look? NebY (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not very keen on Lendering. It doesn't appear he's has a PhD and his BMCR review of Shadows in the Desert was rubbished by the rest of the field: https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009.02.02/. I've used his website from time to time because it's one of the few online translations for the Periochae. However, I generally try not to cite him directly. There are better and more reliable sources at hand. As to the P&Gs, taking everything most generously, Livius.org should be used as WP:SPS. Ifly6 (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Livius.org is a useful ressource, but certainly not a reliable source. T8612 (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Low Roman Empire

The Low Roman Empire article seems to be an effective duplicate of the one we have on the Later Roman Empire (the Low Roman Empire having been translated last year from the French Wikipedia article Bas-Empire romain). I don't think the French historiographical perspective, which is hardly present in the article, is enough of a reason to have a separate article on essentially the same topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see this has already been discussed several months ago: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome/Archive_45#Dominate,_Low_Roman_Empire,_Later_Roman_Empire_and_History_of_the_Later_Roman_Empire, my apologies, but the conversation seems to have stalled. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The conversation at Talk:Later Roman Empire looks a bit newer than that one (Feb vs May). Might be worth pinging those participants - Biz, Srnec, Trekker — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The history of the Wikidata items is that d:Q2886278, now Low Roman Empire was created in 2013 and d:Q120754706, Later Roman Empire, was created in 2023 by StarTrekker. The items were merged in 2025 by Srnec and unmerged by StarTrekker. The Low Roman Empire article was created in 2024 by an editor working for the Open Knowledge Association (OKA). I would suggest blanking and redirecting Low Roman Empire and merging the two Wikidata items. The content of Low Roman Empire would still be available if anyone wanted to use it later. TSventon (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree with merging the Wikidata items as Wikidata's notability and functions are different than those of Wikipedia. Since there are different periodisations of the Roman Empire in scholarship I think it makes sense to have different items for them on Wikidata even if articles are merged due to overlap.★Trekker (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with TSventon. I do not believe these are different periodizations, just different names for the same period. Srnec (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the pages should be merged to later Roman empire. Ifly6 (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Contradiction between Aurelian and Tetricus I regarding the Battle of Châlons (274)

Sorry for making another thread in short succession to the last one, but this is bugging me. The articles on Aurelian and Tetricus I present contradictory accounts of the Battle of Châlons (274).

Aurelian:

In 274, the victorious emperor turned his attention to the west, and the Gallic Empire which had already been reduced in size by Claudius II. Aurelian won this campaign largely through diplomacy; the "Gallic Emperor" Tetricus was willing to abandon his throne and allow Gaul and Britain to return to the Empire, but could not openly submit to Aurelian. Instead, the two seem to have conspired so that when the armies met at the Battle of Châlons at Durocatalaunum that autumn, Tetricus simply deserted to the Roman camp and Aurelian easily defeated the Gallic army facing him. Tetricus was rewarded for his collusion by Aurelian who made him a senator and corrector (governor) of Lucania et Bruttium.

Tetricus I:

After Aurelian had succeeded in his reconquest of the Palmyrene Empire, he turned his attention to the Gallic Empire, beginning preparations for an invasion in 273. In early 274, Aurelian began to march into northern Gaul, while Tetricus led his troops southward from Augusta Treverorum to meet him. The armies of Aurelian and Tetricus met in February or March 274 at the Battle of Châlons, near modern-day Châlons in north-eastern France. The higher discipline of the Roman forces, coupled with the greater military command of Aurelian, tipped the harsh battle in Roman favor, and after Tetricus was captured in the combat, the morale of the Gallic forces broke. The army of Tetricus was soundly defeated, and Tetricus surrendered either directly after his defeat or later; the latest possible date for his surrender was March 274, when the Gallic mints switched from minting coins of Tetricus I and II to those of Aurelian. Some Roman sources including Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, the Historia Augusta, and Orosius report that Tetricus had already made a deal with Aurelian, offering to surrender in exchange for an honourable defeat and no punishment, quoting the ghost of Palinurus from Virgil's Aeneid 6.365: eripe me his, invicte, malis [it] ('pluck me out, O undefeated one, from these troubles'). However, this is believed by modern historians to be a product of Roman imperial propaganda.

The Aurelian account is sourced to Gibbon and Goldsworthy, while the Tetricus account doubting the surrender is sourced to the De Imperatoribus Romanis, Vagi, David L. (2000). Coinage and History of the Roman Empire, c. 82 B.C.– A.D. 480 and Southern, Pat (2015). The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine. How secure is the idea that reports of Tetricus I's conspiring to surrender to be imperial propaganda in the scholarly literature? Does the Aurelian article need to be changed? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

This is what Patricia Southern says:

Aurelian mobilised against Tetricus perhaps late in 273, though some authors prefer to date the beginning of the campaign to the early part of the year and the final outcomes to the autumn.

The story goes that the opposing armies seemed to be ready to fight each other when they met at Chalons-sur-Marne but neither of the two Emperors were committed to risking a battle. It was said that they had already been in contact, and that despite the wishes of his soldiers Tetricus sent his famous message to Aurelian, quoting Virgil: 'eirpe me his incte malis' (rescue me undefeated from these troubles).

More recent authors have doubted the veracity of this tale, insisting that there was indeed a battle at Chalons-sur-Marne and that Tetricus did not necessarily give up immediately after it. Whatever is the true version, it does not alter the fact that the history of the Gallic Empire came to an end probably in March 274, when the mint at Lyons changed from coining for Tetricus and began to issue coins for Aurelian, declaring him the restorer of the east, and indeed the restorer of the world. The hyperbole was customary, but very apt [...] the time for Imperial modesty had long gone.

This is on page 119. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, the account in Tetricus I did seem better sourced, my only quibble is that I wasn't sure what Goldsworthy had said. He says this in the quoted source (thanks Archive.org):

Occupied first on the frontiers and then dealing with the disorder in the eastern provinces, in 274 Aurelian attacked the ‘Gallic Empire’. Victorinus’ successor Tetricus seems to have had little enthusiasm for the struggle and had serious problems maintaining the loyalty of his own troops. It is even claimed that he betrayed them, sending them out to fight in a hopeless position against Aurelian. Tetricus himself surrendered. Unusually, he was spared by the victor and even appointed to an administrative post in Italy. Similarly, many men who had held office in the army and administration within the ‘Gallic Empire’ continued their careers in imperial service afterwards. None of the Gallic emperors had their names formally damned and wiped from the record.

Goldsworthy seems to consider the claim that Tetricus conspired to surrender questionable. Gibbon is so dated as to be pretty questionable as a source, so I think he can be safely discounted. I guess I should update the Aurelian article then. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that Southern steers clear of declaring what actually happened, and does not characterize the sources listed in the Tetricus article as "imperial propaganda". I don't know what Vagi says, so I don't know whether that's his characterization, and Southern is merely cited for having described the controversy. The two paragraphs could probably be harmonized by following Southern's approach: describe the traditional account as given under Aurelian, then explain the alternative interpretation placed on events by some modern scholars, cite all of the sources mentioned for the portions that come from them, and steer clear of suggesting which version of events is correct or "probably" correct. P Aculeius (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Reading the Goldsworthy paragraph, I don't see anything inconsistent with maintaining some uncertainty as to what exactly transpired. It's quite likely that contemporary Romans argued about what actually occurred—but it sounds to me like Goldsworthy is saying that the account in the Roman sources isn't entirely implausible, and that there is reason to believe there might be some truth to it—even if we're not sure exactly what that truth is. Gibbon may be dated, but he's still widely read, and for good reason, so a parallel citation is not undue. P Aculeius (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I've made a go at improving the section on Aurelian's article, largely based on the version at Tetricus I [1], but without proper access to many of the book sources I'll defer to the judgement of those who have access to the sources. I note the contradiction in the accounts of Southern and Goldsworthy, Southern apparently suggesting that Aurelian surrendered without a fight, and Goldsworthy suggesting that Aurelian conspired to surrender after his troops had fought. I'm not sure how to harmonise these narratives given their brevity and lack of reference to the primary sources they are based on, and I'm not familar with the primary narrative accounts of this period to know where to look (presumably including the always dubious Historia Augusta). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see where you're finding a contradiction. Southern says (paraphrasing): "the traditional story says that Tetricus agreed to surrender before the battle, betraying his own forces, but some modern scholars disagree." Goldsworthy says (again, paraphrasing): "there was a confrontation of some sort; it's claimed that Tetricus betrayed his own forces, and in any case he surrendered and was treated leniently." They're saying roughly the same thing: "we don't know what really happened, but here's what contemporary sources relate, and there may be some basis for that account, though it's not universally accepted."

What's inconsistent is what it says under Tetricus (still paraphrasing): "Tetricus was captured, and the story of his surrendering in exchange for lenient treatment, as reported by multiple sources, is merely propaganda". So unless that comes from Vagi, it looks like it might be a distortion of what the sources actually say; the scholars being quoted are equivocal about whether the traditional account is true, but the Tetricus article makes it sound as though we know the truth. Now if that's what Vagi says, then he would fit into the category of those scholars mentioned by Southern who disagree with the traditional account. But clearly there isn't a strong scholarly consensus for or against it. P Aculeius (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I just found the rather brief accounts in the recent scholarly sources confusing wtihout having read the primary sources to verify about when Tetricus is supposed to have surrendered and whether his troops actually engaged in battle depending on which source is consulted. Obviously over 1700 years on we can't really know for sure. I've made a further attempt at harmonising on the Aurelian article [2], but it's still a bit rough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Vagi writes on this across two chapters. The first comprises Aurelian's coinage entry and the second comprises Tetricus I's. The story is not recounted elsewhere. From Chapter 8 (Aurelian):

• Since its foundation in 260 by Postumus, the fortunes of this Empire had fallen greatly, and it seems that Aurelian was not only able to arrange the surrender of its two Augusti, Tetricus I and Tetricus II, in advance, but was actually invited to invade and "liberate" them.
• Thus, instead of fighting an Empire that was at its peak of power (as had been the case with Palmyra), Aurelian was prepared for an easy conquest. However, a battle was still required — at least to achieve the illusion that there was a struggle for independence. The Roman and Gallo-Roman armies met not far from Paris, at Châlons-sur-Marne, in the spring of 274. Though the battle was harder-fought than Aurelian may have anticipated, he was victorious in the end, and captured the Tetrici for use in his triumph.
• Aurelian could now rightly claim to be the most successful emperor since Trajan more than 150 years before, and he was not modest about taking credit where it was due.

From Chapter 9 (Tetricus I):

• Though Aurelian may have begun his conquest as early as the summer of 273, Tetricus' Gallic army was defeated by Aurelian’s legions in a hard-fought battle at Châlons-sur-Marne in the spring of 274. There, Tetricus and son surrendered to Aurelian. At long last, the Roman Empire was whole.
• The battle at Châlons-sur-Marne may have been a mere formality, since there is ample circumstantial evidence to suggest that Tetricus had secretly agreed to surrender before the armies clashed. Indeed, Tetricus may have invited Aurelian to invade, and to thus to rescue him from the difficulties he faced.
• Although paraded as trophies in Aurelian's triumph, Tetricus and his son were honored and taken into Aurelian’s administration. When the family's senatorial status was restored, the father was appointed governor of Lucania (in southern Italy) and is said to have lived to a greatly advanced age.

— ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not clear to me where the statement in the Tetricus article that this [surrender plot] is believed by modern historians to be a product of Roman imperial propaganda comes from. Southern' statement is merely that this narrative is doubted, which shouldn't be placed (in Tetricus) at all so dogmatically. Ifly6 (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ifly6: I've had a look to find out. The imperial propaganda claim on Tetricus I was added to the article in a 2018 edit by Iazyges. It was, and is, cited to text on Roman-Emperors.org written by historian Michel Polfer; Polfer has an article on the Luxembourgian Wikipedia. There are ~16 other citations to Polfer on the article. Hope this is helpful — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, then, if Polfer is a reliable source, and that's what he actually says (it's not clear from what you write whether it's what he says, or whether he's merely being cited for the statement, the way that Vagi and Southern were here) he can be cited for his opinion. But it seems to be a minority opinion, at least among the sources identified here. It seems to me that Vagi is still more accepting of the traditional account than either Southern or Goldsworthy, at least as a starting point for discussion, and neither of the others discounts it; Southern merely says that some modern historians doubt it, but like Vagi uses it as the starting point for discussion, since it cannot be disproved, while Goldsworthy alludes to it and suggests that there are reasons to believe that something along those lines happened. I'm not saying that the story wasn't imperial propaganda; it's certainly not implausible that it was. But none of the other sources seem convinced. P Aculeius (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

My brain is a bit tired but I'm pretty confident I agree with your analysis. Hemiauchenia asked about the primary sources; Polfer is useful in that he does list them. As to whether he supports the imperial propaganda claim, he does: "it is, however, likely that [the traditional account] of the end of the Gallic Empire only reflects the position of the Aureleanic propaganda and is therefore open to suspicion".

Polfer's statement that there is good evidence to suggest that Tetricus did I remained absolute and did not betray his troops is at odds with Vari's statement that there is ample circumstantial evidence to suggest that Tetricus had secretly agreed to surrender.

I think this is all the relevant material from Polfer:

• According to our literary sources (SHA Tyr. Trig. 24. 3; Eutrop. 9.13.2; Aurel. Vict. 35.4), Tetricus I, wearied by the insubordination of his soldiers and facing the revolt of Faustinus, had previously offered to betray his army if Aurelian would come to his rescue, quoting Vergil in his letter to Aurelian: "eripe me his, invicte, malis" (Vergil, Aen. VI, 365).
• The victorious Aurelian spared the life of both Tetricus I and his son Tetricus II. In spring of 274 AD, both Tetrici were put on display in Rome during Aurelian's triumph, but Aurelian kept his side of the bargain and pardoned them. Tetricus I was even given the office of corrector Lucaniae (Aurel. Vict. 35.5; Eutrop 9.13), and quietly ended his life in Italy, where he died at an advanced age at an unknown date (Eutrop. 9.13).
• It is, however, likely that this account of the end of the Gallic Empire only reflects the position of the Aurelianic propaganda and it is therefore open to suspicion. There is good evidence to suggest that Tetricus I remained resolute and confident in his political and military strength to the last and did not betray his troops.
• After his military defeat at Châlons-sur-Marne and his subsequent humiliation, he would thus have owed his life not to his own previous treachery, but rather to Aurelian's need to establish and stabilise his own administration in the western part of the empire.

I have delivered the sources; I shall leave deciding whether Polfer is reliable and how to bring the articles into unity etc to other participants. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I've revised again [3]. Hopefully this is enough to satisfy all parties in this discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I found more discussion of this in Aurelian and the Third Century (1999) (available selectively at IA). I'll provide a few paragraphs below, but I recommend consulting the full source. The entire account of Châlons spans pages 93–95 and it goes into more detail than what I have provided.

• One version suggests that Tetricus [...] had some time prior to the battle entered into secret negotiations with Aurelian. By way of overtures to these negotiations Tetricus is said to have sent Aurelian an invitation couched in terms of an apposite Vergilian quote: ‘Rescue me, unconquered one, from these ills.’ According to this version of events, Tetricus agreed to draw up his battle lines as if intending to make a fight of it and then, as soon as battle was joined, to surrender himself to Aurelian in exchange for the latter sparing his life.
• It has been rightly observed that this story must be largely a fabrication. If the surrender of Tetricus had been pre-arranged, it is difficult to see why the heat of battle was chosen at the moment, when a surrender just prior would have been just as devastating for the Tetrican cause and might have averted much of the carnage that followed. The decimation of the Rhine army was hardly to Aurelian's advantage. The subsequent defence of the Rhine frontier was his responsibility, and he would scarcely have jeopardized lightly.
• It seems reasonable to attribute the origin of the story of Tetricus’ betrayal of his own army to a lost panegyric delivered to the victorious Aurelian or to one of his subsequent lieutenants in the region. Such a speech might well have wished to stress the weakness, the inconstancy and the unpopularity (or paranoia) of Tetricus. Aurelius Victor and the HA adapted this account in order to serve one of their favourite themes. Only by presenting the slaughter at Châlons as part of a premeditated deal, a condition which the bloodthirsty Aurelian laid down for his clemency, could they reconcile the supposedly uncharacteristic leniency which Aurelian subsequently showed to Tetricus with their portrait of Aurelian as a man driven by cruelty.

— ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Achilles' heel#Requested move 12 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Achilles' heel#Requested move 12 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Re: RSN: Classical sources (Herodotus, Plutarch etc)

I came months late to that discussion on WP:RSN, long ago archived, but I would like to make one point that was overlooked in that discussion, for consideration next time this issue is debated. More often than not, historians of the Ancient World (& probably of other times & places) are forced to use less than desirable primary sources because they are only sources available. For example, the primary source for the date of the Battle of Cannae comes not from Polybius or Plutarch -- arguably our best sources for that event -- but from Macrobius in his Saturnalia, who wrote over 6 centuries later. Experts accept Macrobius' assertion based on (1) that 2 August is a plausible date (unlike, say, one in February or March), (2) Macrobius cites an earlier source, the annalist Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius who lived in the 1st century BC & was much closer to the event & was arguably familiar with his material, & (3) no other date has been given by any other source. Another example is that many of the events of the third century AD are known solely through the Historia Augusta, which has been considered fanciful fiction by many experts -- yet because much of that century is a historical Dark Age, we are forced to rely on it for many details.

Although no one asked, I have a simple solution to know when to prefer primary sources vs. secondary ones: study & get to know the subject matter fully, so the best sources will be used. -- llywrch (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I missed this discussion too, but my suggestion for primary sources is to use a separate numbering, distinct from secondary source citations, such as with the efn-lr citation template. See an example here. It would make it much easier for both editors to spot OR, and readers to see the difference between primary/secondary sources. Sometimes I see a Cicero (1983) alongside modern works and that hurts my eyes. This suggestion could apply to all primary sources across Wikipedia, not just classical ones. T8612 (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

"Cicero (1983)" is just a bad citation format... years are of little value to the reader, and usually of use to the scholar only when different editions of the same work are available. For modern works I always cite "author, title, page", with additional material available in a bibliography section for those who want it. For historical works, "author, title, book/chapter/section", when available. That way people can usually find the text being cited no matter what edition they have (though there are editions, such as my Penguin Livy, where the chapters are only numbered at the top of the page, and you can't tell where one ends and the other begins; IMO that kind of notation is defective!)

As for using separate numbering for different types of references, that just creates more confusion, especially when explanatory notes are also provided. However, as I think we established, the term "primary source" means something different in history than it does in other Wikipedia contexts, and they should be cited, alongside whatever secondary sources are necessary to provide analysis and context. P Aculeius (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

BTW, I'd like to take a moment & praise P Aculeius for his long but thoughtful comment in that discussion. -- llywrch (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't like the split for a separate reason, namely that it's best practice to cite ancient sources as something which is itself cited by a reliable secondary source to establish the importance and credibility of the cited ancient source. An artificial split makes it more difficult to link the two citations together in a single cohesive note. Ifly6 (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

One further reason to provide primary sources: like it or not, people will use Wikipedia as a short cut to find specific passages in a work instead of having to read the whole blessed thing to find them. The problem there, I'll admit, is that far too often the citation will point to a specific translation/edition instead of using an accepted format based on the original. For example, instead of citing Pliny the Younger's Epistulae iv.30, it will be P.G. Walsh, Complete Letters (Oxford, 2009), p. 106 -- which is only helpful if one happens to have access to that specific book. (More frustrating is when some public domain book is used, that was once seen online but lacks a URL, or the original page has since moved/vanished -- seemingly the default for every citation of Edward Gibbon's tome.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

One possibility is to use Sfn templates with the loc= parameter. That way, you can cite a specific edition and the relevant chapter and section of the primary text at the same time, e.g., for J. B. Rives' edition of Germania: {{sfn|Rives|1999|p=80|loc=9.1}} A. Parrot (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not hard to create the anchor, which makes it easy for you (or future you) to get to the ancient source easily, and then link with {{sfn}}. You can even link directly by providing a URL. This is all discussed on this page. Ifly6 (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Achilles' heel#Requested move 12 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Achilles' heel#Requested move 12 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War)#Requested move 11 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War)#Requested move 11 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 08:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Romano-Berber kingdoms

Hi everyone! I just wanted to give you all the heads-up that I've been trying to improve the coverage of the Romano-Berber kingdoms that sprouted up in the Maghreb c. 5-6th century AD, especially those eight (labled on this map) that were identified by Christian Courtois in 1955. In doing so, I've created an article for the Kingdom of the Nemencha, and I've heavily edited the articles about the Kingdoms of Capsus and Ouarsenis. In the future, I'd like to make articles for the Kingdoms of Cabaon and Hodna, as well as the Ucutumani Kingdom (proposed/discussed by Gabriel Camps). I've found that the coverage of these kingdoms is rather scattershot, not only on Wikipedia, but also in the literature, and I'm trying my best to clean up what I can. That said, if anyone has any insight, I'd love to hear their thoughts about ways these articles could be improved. (PS: I'm also posting this to the Africa and Berbers WikiProject pages.)--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 13:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I have no concerns with this, but just a note to take care in editing these articles that as an adjective, it should be "Romano-Berber", singular, not "Romano-Berbers", plural. You can refer to persons in the plural, but in phrases such as "Romano-Berber kingdoms" or even "Romano-Berber people" it would be singular. P Aculeius (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: Oh, that's a good catch. That was due to sloppy copy-n-pasting on my part (I made the mistake when working on this template, and then copied that text incorrectly when composing this message)! I believe the actual articles should use "Romano-Berber".--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 16:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm just happy that the articles you're creating aren't repeating them as if their existence is a firmly established fact (as much as people might want it to be one). You're taking the right approach. Ifly6 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Argive mass clubbing of the rich

See Talk:Argos, Peloponnese#"the infamous skytalismos of 370 BC" and the post above it. Apparently this is percolating through classical studies departments and is highly topical to present Western culture but is completely lacking discussion on Argos, Greece, let alone the general history threads, let alone its own dedicated article. Anyone want to do humanity a solid and bring this out of the closet it's been hidden in? or complete their degree requirements by doing something more in depth and possibly best-seller adjacent? — LlywelynII 13:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)