Talk:Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation)

Wiktionarify!

The sentence:

The Latin pulchra (meaning 'beautiful') is the root of the English word pulchritude (meaning 'beauty').

should be in Wiktionary, not here. I'm not deleting it, because I haven't peeked into Wiktionary for "pulchritude" yet. (The word itself is not beautiful!) Said: Rursus (☻) 20:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Relatives of Publius Clodius

I'm pretty sure this isn't correct. The sisters of Clodius are given as between three and five. He was the youngest of the family except the sister who married Lucullus, I think. And only Clodia Luculli and Clodia Metelli (the second and elder of whom is generally given as Catullus's Lesbia, although others have argued that Lesbia was Clodia Luculli or someone else entirely) were his full sisters, the other siblings coming from another marriage of the father's. One of the other sisters married Quintus Marcius Rex. At least both his full-sisters changed their names (again, I think. If I were sure I'd change it). And weren't they all called Pulchra? I've seen Clodia Metelli's childhood name given as Claudia Pulchra Tercia; Claudia Pulchra Tertia; and Claudia Pulchra Tertulla.

41.241.3.105 (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Name

@Narky Blert: stop reverting what you don't know anything about. I have actually done research on this matter, and there is only one person named 'Claudia Pulchra'. The others are pointless redirects or obsolete articles which should have never been created. I'm currently close to correcting the mess several editors made here a few years ago, and you're inexplicably blocking my attempt. Avilich (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Avilich: DGRBM disagrees with you - link. I count about 12 in the Claudia gens. If you think that the woman executed for adultery in 26 AD is WP:PTOPIC - now that your edit has been challenged, a WP:RM is required by WP:BRD. Narky Blert (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: DGRBM is an outdated and unreliable source. The much more reliable Realencyclopädie, which I linked for your convenience, only gives this one. Women didn't have surnames until around the Empire; the other ones were simply called 'Claudia'. Avilich (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

A google scholar search on "Claudia Pulchra" also returns only the one executed for adultery. Avilich (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I've struck a misstaken part of my last post.

That argument requires a WP:RM. I could argue that your 1899 German source is incomplete, certainly as far as the English-speaking world is concerned. In the meantime, the page should remain in its last unchallenged version. You cannot just make the other articles virtually unfindable. Narky Blert (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

My German source is to this day considered a standard reference work in English-speaking sources. Your dismissal of it as 'incomplete' is based on literally nothing. I already told you: some of these entries are not articles at all but redirects, and the articles in there must be deleted or renamed, which I'm in the process of doing. Avilich (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed: your own source supports my changes. There was only one Claudia Pulchra. Avilich (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted this article to its state before this edit war began. Hopefully, discussion will continue here until a consensus is reached. If not, then there are avenues for more formal discussions to take place, which *will* reach a consensus. The article should not be radically changed until that consensus is reached. If other articles are "obsolete" or "should never have been created", go to them and start a deletion discussion, don't just presume to erase them from history by editing this article. Meanwhile, some reading material about what disambiguation pages are, what they are not, and how they should look: WP:DAB, MOS:DAB. Lithopsian (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I. Said. This. Three. Times. All but two of the articles are redirects. I have researched this topic thoroughly and reached the conclusion there is only one person of this name. I am in the process of removing or renaming the stray articles. What is so hard to understand? DOes someone have any significant research/sources to counter any of my claims? Avilich (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I even restored the disambiguation page as a compromise while I do the necessary corrections, with the only two articles that actually exist. Satisfied? Avilich (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any compromise or good faith here. You ignored everyone who disagreed with you, had the original dab page (from Claudia Pulchra) moved to this title as a technical request (ie. with consensus assumed where there was none) and created a primary topic article in its place, forced redlinks on all the entries by a variety of methods and then had the page, history and all, speedily deleted. Now we are back here. Are you going to talk this time? Lithopsian (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I did exactly what I announced I was going to do, I addressed the original objection, and you're the one who ignored all of my arguments and the source I provided. The links are now red because I nominated the incorrect entries (a mess created by another editor 5 years ago) for deletion, and they were accordingly removed per usual procedure. Here are the Claudias' respective entries in the Pauly-Wissowa:

• s:de:RE:Claudius 385 (wife of Gracchus)
• s:de:RE:Claudius 386 (wife of Philippus)
• s:de:RE:Claudius 388
• s:de:RE:Claudius 389 (wife of Brutus)
• s:de:RE:Claudius 390 (wife of Augustus)
• s:de:RE:Claudius 434 (great-niece of Augustus)

As you can see, only the "great-niece of Augustus" is called "Claudia Pulchra". Lets now see the source which Narky Blert provided, supposedly in opposition to me. Oh look, it supports what I was saying all along. Will you listen now? You evidently know nothing of the subject, and the only editor who objected has already long abandoned this, so why are you making life difficult for me? Avilich (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you always this rude? Lithopsian (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Not really, I just don't appreciate having to repeat the same arguments over and over again, provide reliable sources, and have all of that fall on deaf ears. Do you have anything at all to add to the discussion? A source, a fact I don't know of, anything? Do you have a single piece of evidence to suggest that the title of this useless disambiguation page is not ambiguous, that there is more than one person of this name? Or are you just going to keep reverting my edits out of petty spite? Avilich (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of a disambiguation page

Rather than argue forever about the most accurate name is for someone who has been dead for 2,000 years, it may be more helpful to consider the purpose of the disambiguation page (ie. this page). It has only one simple function: to provide readers with a linked list of articles that may be what they were looking for when they linked or searched the term in the title: "Claudia Pulchra". The linked articles do not have to be synonyms of the term, nor do they have to be correct, simply credible results for the text in question. Regardless of whether Roman women were referred to with surnames, or even whether any of the people in question here were ever actually referred to as Claudia Pulchra, if people are looking for them under that name then they should be in this list. And despite your attempts to expunge them from Wikipedia, it appears that people have and do refer to them by that name (rightly or wrongly). Lithopsian (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

There are two pages already to handle these ambiguous entries: Claudia (disambiguation) and Claudia gens#Claudii Pulchri. This current one came to be without any basis on sources or common usage, only due to a single (now-retired) editor's mistaken projection of the one woman into her relatives who did not bear the name. What you're suggesting is what I actually got to doing, until you and Blert cut me off. There you have it, two extra pages to satisfy your desires. Is that what you were all concerned about? Can I now proceed without interruption? Do you think I hadn't considered what you're saying while I was doing this? Avilich (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(your blue link itself does not support your edits, lol; they are all single names in that article too). Avilich (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, none of these entries comply with MOS:DABPIPE. Most of them also do not comply with MOS:DABONE. A potential first step would be resolving that problem. Secondly, of the articles I checked, more than one do seem to refer to the name Claudia Pulchra. Avilich, if these are mistakes, as I think you contend, it may be best first to improve the articles with reliable sources to correct these references. It will then be clearer to make the assertion that those entries don't belong on this disambiguation page. --Bsherr (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bsherr: the key point here is that all but one of those entries are redirects, not actual articles. Look closely. I won't create articles with sources to prove that the subjects of these articles don't exist: that would defeat the article's purpose altogether. I already provided sources above demonstrating their non-existence above, so I'm still wondering what this disambiguation page is doing here. Avilich (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

See MOS:DABENTRY. However, in some cases the target article title is not an expansion or variation of the term being disambiguated. For example, in the Maggie Anderson (disambiguation) page for the entry corresponding to Maggie Anderson (activist), the link is an expansion or variation, but for the entry corresponding to the actress in Corpus Callosum (2007 film) it is not. Indeed, the link should not be a redirect generally, but the link could be a link to another article in which the subject is discussed, like in the Maggie Anderson actress entry given as an example above. Now, that may or may not be appropriate depending on whether the content at the link target is sufficient to support the worthiness of the entry. But I don't see any discussion of that yet. --Bsherr (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Entries of that format are already found at Claudia gens#Claudii Pulchri, already mentioned above. It is not a disambiguation page, but still a list. Avilich (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

We wouldn't redirect to a list unless it were the best target for the redirect. It may or may not be. But to the extent any disambiguation page entries would be better targeted elsewhere, the disambiguation page is still appropriate. --Bsherr (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

There is in any event this other page Claudia (disambiguation), which I also suggested above. Avilich (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. It may make sense to merge and redirect the disambiguation pages. Is there consensus to do that? --Bsherr (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I suggested something like this to both of them, here and here (and would have done it sooner had I known what they even want) and they both responded by the usual uncompromising edit-reversions to the old format of this current page. Avilich (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but I'm going to say no for now. The source of the disagreement all along has been a decision that (almost) all references to people as Claudia Pulchra are sufficiently illegitimate that they should be expunged from Wikipedia, up to and including this page once all other references were gone. Followed by insistence on those edits remaining in place while any discussions took place. Whatever the merits of calling Roman women by that name, it has happened and there are even still a few instances in articles that Avilich hasn't spotted yet. Readers wishing to find people by that name should be shown a dab page that allows them to choose from the various options, not dumped into a page where none of the entries show that name (because it is not the official name of those people, only a nickname). Lithopsian (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere have I specifically argued that the term should be expunged from Wikipedia (?). A simple hatnote on Claudia Pulchra linking to people of similar names or belonging to the same family seems much better than creating a disambiguation page which assigns incorrect name to people. Wikipedia has many mirrors throughout the internet and we shouldn't be encouraging random mistakes like this. Avilich (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Then I go back to wondering whether there any appropriate entries on this disambiguation page. The link in an entry cannot be to a redirect, and if it is to a section of a related article, it must reference the subject substantially enough to be worthwhile. Which of these meet that standard? --Bsherr (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

IMO none of those meet that standard, with exception of Claudia Pulchra herself, which already has her own article. I don't think any of the other entries are appropriate. Again, there's already a list/prosopographical article covering these people and their aristocratic family, so this disambiguation page, as it stands, is just duplicating content under false nomenclature. Avilich (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Any contrary opinion to that? --Bsherr (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm on the record. For better or for worse, the question of the legitimacy of my edits to this page has been escalated to ANI. Avilich has asked that forum to rule on the subject. I'm going to leave it alone until that is settled. Lithopsian (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bsherr: I rest my case. It's been demonstrated that the article title is not ambiguous, therefore this disambiguation page is illegitimate per WP:D. The single argument Lithopsian can conjure up is that it might help readers by preempting their mistakes (somehow). It's inherently probable that this will mislead them instead. People who are insufficiently familiar with the term 'Claudia Pulchra' will mistakenly believe the information here to be genuine. Those who are familiar with it will not have heard the name in the way it's conveyed here (unless they looked at a Wikipedia mirror, in which case Wikipedia actively contributed to the mistake), but may conceivably change their minds (wrongly) after seeing this. This page I'm trying to delete has demonstrably misled several editors already, including myself, the 1st time I stumbled here.

Jut look at the arrangement Lithopsian is supporting. There is only one actual article listed here; the rest of the entries are redirects which Lithopsian himself acknowledges are invalid. He's going out of his way to replicate an already-existing list of people and another disambiguation page in a way that conveys outright falsehoods. In no conceivable reality will this be of help to anyone, and it's so absurd and counter-intuitive I'm surprised I even need to argue this. If Wikipedia's job is to preempt every mistake conceivable, it's not an encyclopedia anymore, just a load of organized rubbish. Avilich (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)