This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
For WP:ROMANS the date of a consulship is only needed if the full name is shared by several inidivuals. An articles search and a look through List of Roman consuls didn't produce any double hits, so I don't think the date is required for the following articles. However, the qualifier (consul) is still required because none are WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Labattblueboy (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for all. It adds just four characters for increased clarity. --TakenakaN (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is my position on the matter, but in this particular case, the proposed move is not possible, as Aurelian was several times consul. --TakenakaN (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What literate writer of modern English would call Aurelian Aurelianus, any more than LivyLivius?
Who in his right mind would look for an Emperor under his consulships? It's not as if Aurelian had been consul before his acclamation. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 22:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Aurelianus was converted to Aurelian, the date qualifier is not necessary as there are no other consulship duplicates articles, at least at present time.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Septentrionalis: you assume that your reader does need "AD" clearly written to understand that it is an "AD" year, even more you should assume your reader needs clarification on an ambiguous matter. Furthermore, you know that Aurelian's name was Aurelianus, don't you?
@Labattblueboy: yet Aurelian was consul, therefore this addition increases clarity (which is my point). --TakenakaN (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, you created the article. Is the article supposed to be Aurelianus or Aurelian? because they are two different names altogether. For Roman articles you insert a qualifier for exact names, not ones that are close, otherwise the topic would have an overwhelming number of articles with qualifiers. If you believe there may be an issue we can insert a hatnote.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a "hatnote" should be the right solution? I truly believe that a disambiguation is what is needed, and therefore the addition of four (four!) characters to the title does little harm and increases clarity. --TakenakaN (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.
Concise – Using names and terms that are brief and to the point. (Even when disambiguation is necessary, keep that part brief.)
As has been pointed out in discussion elsewhere, the clarity is illusory; will the reader have any idea whether these are from the fifth century AD, as they are, or the fifth century BC, when there were also consuls? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 19:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your reader knows well that "2010" means "2010 AD", as she knows that years without era indication are AD. --TakenakaN (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And if the consulship had survived until 2010, or even 1010, those years would be clearer. But it didn't. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 22:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear, it does not need to be more clear. --TakenakaN (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear to you, because you made it up; whether it will be clear to a rerader is a different question; on which you have offered nothing but bare, unsupported, assertions. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 19:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Bare, unsupported assertions"? Let's see; I told you that a reader knows that numbers without era indication are "AD", and this is common sense. You said that a reader might be confused, but failed to support your claim in any way. Now, which are the "bare, unsupported assertions", exactly? --TakenakaN (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eustathius and Anatolius; as Septentrionalis says, the extra year is unnecessary, perhaps even confusing to some. Neutral about Aurelianus, as in this case there is a potential confusion with another consul Aurelianus. Ucucha 18:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Eustathius (consul 421) to Eustathius (consul) and Anatolius (consul 440) to Anatolius (consul), but there is a query about there being two consuls Aurelianus. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)