Talk:Aquila (Roman)

The Ball

"Another figure used in the standards was a ball (pila), supposed to have been emblematic of the dominion of Rome over the world (Isid. Orig. xviii.3); "

That doesn't make sense if the ball is a symbol of the globe. Did the Romans believe the world was round? If not, then how could they have used a ball as a representation of the world? Comatose51 04:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The Romans knew that the world was round, that the ancients generally belived the world to be flat is itself something of an myth. The more usual word for ball in this sense would be globus. See picture of coin in pilum article. I really don't know about the role of an orb for aquila, but the Sovereign's Orb has been a symbol of power for a very long time. Gaius Cornelius 07:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Note 1 is wrong, taken from Webster. it was not Caesar who concealed any eagle. Florus talks abnout the Teotoburg disaster (the clades variana) and about an aquilifer who concealed his eagle that way... only to die and loose it in the marshes.80.103.130.197 01:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Which species?

Was a particular aquila species "the" Roman eagle, or was it several or even any aquila species? Whogue 01:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

and fate

I removed the 'and fate' from the see also section because I'm not entirely sure what it's trying to say. What is the meaning of it, please? Mon Vier 10:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I see now - clarified. Mon Vier 17:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move: → Roman eagle

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, defaults to previous title Aquila (Roman). Discussion appears to have petered out without any consensus unfortunately. A few notes: I have taken both RMs into account when making this close; if you think a relist and an extra week will get us to a consensus, drop a note on my talk page and we can discuss potentially reopening; although everyone clearly had the best intentions, this RM has become a bit of a mess – as such, and taking into account the many editors who supported some form of a title change, there should be considered no prejudice against starting a new RM, though I would strongly recommend waiting at least a few weeks to give everyone a bit of a break. Jenks24 (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Eagle (Roman military standard) → Roman military standard – WP:NCDAB provides that a parenthetical disambiguator be a "generic class...that includes the topic, as in Mercury (element), Seal (mammal)" or a "the subject or context to which the topic applies." The current title refers to the subject twice, i.e. it is an improperly constructed double title. The title should be in English rather than Latin, per WP:UE. Of the non-Latin titles mentioned in the previous discussion, this one seemed to have the most support. Kauffner (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Aquila (Roman) → Roman eagle – Let's follow WP:UE and use English. "Eagle" is used to mean "legionary standard" in the title of the extremely popular novel The Eagle of the Ninth. This was recently adapted for film as The Eagle. For scholarly usage, see Brewer's Birthday of the Eagle: The Second Augustan Legion and the Roman Military Machine (2002) or Webster's The Roman Imperial Army (1998). Aquila is just the Latin word for eagle, not a technically specific word for this subject. Roman eagle is already a redirect to this article. --Relisted. Salix (talk): 06:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Kauffner (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The result of the move request was: Moved to Eagle (Roman military standard) which meets the precision required by WP:TITLE. Salix (talk): 19:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Following discussion on my talk page it seems people are not happy with the close and want more time to discuss so I'm reverting my close and relisting.--Salix (talk): 06:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether you would notify the two relevant projects? Especially at Greece & Rome, project members may be interested in commenting, but given the vast number of articles under the project's aegis, may not have this one on their watchlist. I myself don't have strong feelings either way at present, and would like to know if anyone else does. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note there and will give it a few days before closing. Jenks24 (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Old survey

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

On 16 March 2013‎, this RM was closed and the page moved prior to consensus. The RM was subsequently reopened and retargeted. A new survey section was opened to following the retarget.

• Support Good use of WP:NATURALDIS and WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not sure how familiar most people will be with the term aquila unless they've taken a Latin class. Some such concepts don't have a simple English equivalent, such as vexillum, but the proposed title should be recognizable to many readers. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. As noted above, I have no strong feelings about this. I do wonder, though, whether Roman eagle, especially the lowercase "eagle", leaves the topic a bit ambiguous, or not restricted in usage as an article title to "military standard". A "Roman eagle" could appear in Imperial art, or even in the context of private art, and the broader symbolism of this visual device is something that can be given encyclopedic treatment: see for instance the sarcophagus at Cupid and Psyche#Ancient art. So an image recognizable as a "Roman eagle" is a general symbol of sovereignty (in association with the supreme deity Jupiter) and of "ascent" in various senses. I'm not arguing for aquila, but just noting that a technical term is sometimes chosen because it delimits scope. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I might suggest "Eagle (Roman military standard)" as a better name than "Roman eagle". Paul August ☎ 15:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Paul's idea vel sim.  davidiad { t } 19:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposed new name is very generic/ambiguous. This would not be an issue if it were the English common name for the article's subject ("Wikipedia...prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."), but it is not. The term "Roman eagle" is no more closely associated with Roman legionary standards than "aquila". Cursory searches of academic sources (for "Roman eagle") produce more results relating to art and heraldry than military symbols. "Legionary standard" actually returns relevant documents more reliably than the other two terms.
  —Sowlos 07:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I would support a move to Legionary standard or Roman legionary standard.
  —Sowlos 07:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • This subject is commonly referred to as an "eagle" in both popular and scholarly literature. I gave examples in the nomination. "Roman" is disambiguation. Perhaps we could call it Eagle (standard). Kauffner (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose to "Roman eagle", which I think is even worse than Aquila, but I support Paul August's suggestion for "Eagle (Roman military standard)", or something equivalent (e.g. legionary standard), like the previous comments. Michael! (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "Eagle" and "Roman military standard" mean the same thing. The disambiguator is supposed be a generic class or category that the subject is an item within, per WP:NCDAB. Kauffner (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Really? Every time the word "eagle" is used in the English language it means "Roman military standard"? Or every time the word "eagle" in used in reference to ancient Rome it means "military standard"? NCDAB emphasizes precision as much as simplicity. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Any commonly used word can mean more than one thing depending on context. I meant that in the context of the title, "eagle" and "Roman military standard" would be two ways to refer to the same thing. It would be like having a double title. The guideline gives the examples Mercury (element) and Mercury (planet), mercury being either an item in the category "element" or in the category "planet". Kauffner (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Compare Eagle (a bird), Eagle (heraldry) and Eagle (Roman military standard), to name just a few eagles, ignoring all other possible meanings at Eagle (disambiguation). I don't see why a double title would be a problem, nor what is fundamentally different with Mercury (by the way, you could have add Mercury (mythology) as well).Michael! (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with Eagle (standard)? That would comply with the guideline. It is one word instead of three. Every example in the guideline is done this way. None of them are double titles. None of them are three words long. Show me an example of a double title somewhere on Wiki. What's wrong with double titling? If double titling was allowed, somebody would want triple titling. Before long, we would have titles that went all the way down the page. Kauffner (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Eagle (standard) looks too much like Eagle (heraldry) to me. I still like the original proposal, but I guess it's just you and me. --BDD (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with BDD that Eagle (standard) doesn't sufficiently distinguish the scope of this article from Eagle (heraldry). But let me try to make the point more clearly that "Roman eagle" is an iconographical type, not just the eagle as a military standard. In the gallery following, these are all "Roman eagles". The Roman eagle can appear independently as a symbol on coins, for instance. I wouldn't oppose calling the article Roman eagle if we're intending to broaden its scope to include the symbolic use of the "Roman eagle" in numismatics and other art. Examples: Roman eagle as a type distinguished from an eagle on Herod's coins (also here); Roman eagle as predecessor for the eagle of the U.S.; as part of imperial iconography; as Roman symbol in conjunction/contrast with a Celtic wheel. As an attribute of the supreme deity Jupiter, the eagle is a general symbol of Roman sovereignty, setting aside its use on sarcophagi and the like to represent spiritual ascent. Besides all that, in the Republic not all legionary standards were eagles; other totemic animals might be used. (Not sure about the pre-Constantinian Imperial army.) So Sowlos' suggestion for legionary standard should be considered. I see this as a question of scope: do you want the article to be about the "Roman eagle" or about the "legionary standard," which was an eagle in some periods? Cynwolfe (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Here are two sources on standards of the Republican legions prior to Marius: [1][2]

Examples of the "Roman eagle"

• 
  Denarius, 73 BC
• 
  Augustan cameo
• 
  Imperial-era corbel
• 
  Relief from Roman Britain
• 
  from the Pont Flavien
• 
  Lapis lazuli, maybe a scepter tip

Legionary's tombstone with eagle vexillum, 2nd century AD

The purpose of disambiguation is to allow readers to distinguish among articles that Wiki actually has. The phrase "Roman eagle" is associated with this subject, as you can see in this example. The fact that the Romans had other kinds of eagles is beside the point. In any case, I am fine with the options that avoid both Latin and double titling: Roman eagle, Eagle (Roman), Eagle (standard), or Roman military standard. Kauffner (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but once again you miss my point: what is the scope of the article? Is it Roman eagle as an iconographical device, which would include the historical development of the eagle as the military standard, or is it the legionary standard (or Roman military standard or similar), which would need to include the Republican standards? An appropriate title can't be chosen for an article unless its scope is understood. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't mind an expansion in scope. It's difficult to picture such an article getting so large that it would need to be split back into military and civil uses. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

And it would be hard to draw a line between the imperial eagle in general, and the eagle perched on the standard. To me, if the article is supposed to be about the military standard only, I think we have to exclude Roman eagle as the actual title, but allow it to remain as a redirect because (as Kauffner notes) there is no other article currently for which that title is useful. An overview Roman eagle that encompassed the history of the military standard could incorporate the Republican background on how the eagle came to nudge out the other totem animals. If the scope is broadened, it would be easier to have a historical (actual Roman) image at the top instead of a modern fabrication. There's a fine image at Commons I think should be in the article regardless, which I give to the right, but there's no room for it now. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of disambiguation is to allow readers to distinguish among articles that Wiki actually has.

1. Aquila (Roman) already fulfils that requirement.
2. "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles", WP:AT. Note the and. Worded another way, Wikipedia article titles are supposed to accurately indicate the scope of their articles in an unambiguous way. This is accomplished by selecting article titles "...based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by" (WP:NAMINGCRITERIA),

As has already been stated above (repeatedly), the eagle is a persistent iconographical motif in Roman culture. To take an article focused on Roman military standards and name it "Roman eagle" is to improperly indicate scope.

An article titled "Roman eagle" should discuss all appearances of the eagle pervading Roman culture. An article titled "Roman military standard" should discuss all Roman military standards, not just ones depicting eagles. I think Wikipedia would do well to have both articles, actually. By the way, this article already describes standards other than eagle standards.

And it would be hard to draw a line between the imperial eagle in general, and the eagle perched on the standard.

Good point.

—Sowlos 08:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

These points have already been made and rebutted, but it looks like I'll have to do it again. Any word or phrase that is in common use can mean more than one thing depending on context. That doesn't mean we can't use it as a title. I have already given various examples where terms "eagle" or "Roman eagle" are used to refer to this subject. The non-military eagles are also aquila. This word is simply non-English; It is not a more technical or precise term. Kauffner (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Where in classical studies is aquila used for "non-military eagles"? When Dando-Collins at the bottom of p.73 says, "The eagle standard of the legion, the aquila, initially silver, later gold, was...", note "eagle standard" while "aquila" stands by itself, we see there that "aquila" is indeed a technical term, needing no qualification, when used. It is the same on p.39, "the legion's golden eagle standard, the aquila...." Peter Herz in A.I. Baumgarten, Sacrifice in Religious Experience, uses "aquila' here, but defines it immediately as "the eagle standard of the legion". Eagle is a generic term, while aquila is a technical term. -- spin|^control 14:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Kauffner, simply because you countered said points does not mean you have invalidated them. You agree that terms can have multiple meanings, but you disagree that they need disambiguation in such cases. Several of us have pointed out that "Roman eagle" refers to a broader topic than Roman military standards and that the majority of academic sources do not refer to Roman military standards simply as "Roman eagles" (nullifying any WP:COMMONNAME argument).
Citing Dando-Collins did not make your case. He used "eagle" as a descriptor for the "standard of the legion", then parenthetically rephrases the preceding simply as "the aquila". He is introducing a clause that is inessential to understanding the meaning of the sentence, but is providing another name which the reader is likely to better know the subject by.
Regardless, we all agree that a Latin name ("Aquila") is not called for in this case. If you can provide sources for your opinion that "eagle" is used in Roman scholarship to reference military standards far more than other Roman eagles, then please do. Otherwise, let us discuss the validity of other titles, such as the one this page was prematurely moved to.
—Sowlos 09:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the move to Roman Eagle. "Aquila" is used as a technical term in the most reliable sources, standard works such as G.R. Watson, The Roman Soldier, Cornell UP:1969, H.D.M. Parker, The Roman Legions, B&N:1993(1928), Lawrence Keppie, The Making of the Roman Army, B&N, 1984. Syme uses it. What about this book? Do a google scholar search for 'crassus legion aquila'. The newly released Legions of Rome, Stephen Dando-Collins, has no problem with it. Wikipedia's aim is not to reduce vocabulary or substitute less appropriate generic for technical terms. As it is a standard technical term, seen in the most reliable sources, we should leave it. -- spin|^control 06:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think you are seriously misrepresenting the sources. Parker was published in 1928 when a lot more people studied Latin than do nowadays. Here is Watson: "It does not appear that the loss of an eagle led to inevitable disabandment." (p. 129). Here is Keppie: "The loss of an eagle was traditionally held as the supreme disgrace of a legion." (pp. 214-215). Here is Dando-Collins: "The 12th Fulminata Legion...disgraced itself by losing its eagle standard to the rebels." (p. 11). Kauffner (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
    • If you think I have misrepresented Keppie, I suggest you look at this. Use the same search for "eagle" and compare the hits. You'll find fewer hits and less specific hits as well. (This book disagrees by two pages with my copy.) Watson p.21f, "The second of the Marian reforms was the presentation of the aquila to each legion. The eagle gave the legion a sense of// corporate identity..." and your p.129, "The aquila first became a legionary emblem as part of the reforms of Marius." Same page, "There is a small shrine, and in this there is an eagle of gold." It's plain that Watson uses aquila technically and "eagle" is used for a range of options. And on to Dando-Collins, noting the expression "eagle standard", "eagle" qualifies "standard", ie it doesn't stand alone. He also writes, p.75, "Roman standards were focal points for the attacking enemy, who particularly went after the golden aquila. To lose its eagle was the single greatest disgrace for a legion." Dando-Collins does the same thing as Watson, give the technical term here first, before talking of the eagle. So, "eagle standard" or "aquila... eagle" is no help to giving life to "eagle". I don't think I've misrepresented anything and it's not very nice to accuse people of doing so. -- spin|^control 13:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
      • If the sources you cite use both “aquila” and “eagle”, I don’t see how they can be used to support one form over the other. Notice that they typically give "aquila" in italics to indicate that it is a non-English form. Readers are more likely to be to be familiar with the Sutcliff novel, or the movie based on it, than they are with the academic scholarship. Kauffner (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Eagle (standard) does not work, Napoleon used eagle standards, and then any flag with an eagle on it used as a standard is also an "eagle standard", or the standard promulgated by the Eagle coin. Roman eagle does not work, eagle iconography is used in many places in Roman works, so the scope is much different. legionary standard doesn't work since Rome isn't the only place with legions that had standards. Roman legionary standard doesn't work, since the Roman Legions had other standards before standardizing on the eagle. Eagle (Roman military standard) works quite well in explaining the scope of this article. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I see your reasoning, but why shouldn't an article on the Roman legionary standard include the full history of the standard? That's why to me it's a question of scope. If the article is about Roman eagle, its scope will encompass a section on the general symbology of the Roman eagle, including its use on coins and other imperial art; if the article is about the Roman legionary standard, it should be about that, which would include the history of the pre-Marian standard. Surely we're not saying we have to write the article to explicate the title of a Channing Tatum movie (though note that his character's cognomen is Aquila, so even Hollywood knows aquila means). "Aquila" and "eagle" are used interchangeably in English, as aquila and the more general signa are in Latin (aquilifer, signifer). At signifer, there's a redlink to signum (standard); there's no way that can be reasonably distinguished from the aquila. What are the arguments against Roman legionary standard? All the variations on aquila and eagle would remain as redirects. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer a separate article on Roman legionary standards, but this article could be expanded to cover them... I think that the pre-Aquila-standardization could support an article on its own. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment If this discussion closes as no consensus, the article needs to be moved back to its former title at Aquila (Roman).--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Paul August ☎ 19:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RM interlude

Pity the article had to end up with a worse title than it had to begin with. Kauffner (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was a consensus for this or any other title yet, and think the discussion was prematurely closed. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree. In fact I was beginning to be persuaded by spin^control's argument for retaining "Aquila (Roman)". Paul August ☎ 21:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

There was not. Either Salix alba was not paying attention or he moved the page, after seven days, based on what he saw as the strongest arguments.
—Sowlos 09:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't even had a chance to read the new posts arguing for the retention of aquila when the discussion was closed, and was completely undecided between broadening the scope to encompass "Roman eagle" as a general imperial symbol and clarifying that it was about the legionary standard. Either topic seems good to me, and I just want a clear consensus about article scope before we decide on a name. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Second survey

This RM was originally intended to move Aquila (Roman) to Roman eagle. However, it was closed and the page moved prior to establishing consensus. The RM has been reopened, this time proposing Eagle (Roman military standard) be moved to Roman military standard based upon WP:NCDAB and what "seemed to have the most support" in the prior discussion.
A few comments have been made in the above survey section since the RM reopened, but they are mixed with comments on the old proposed move target. It is difficult to tell if the new posts distinguish between the current and previous state of the RM.
Please restate your support or opposition to the RM in light of the new proposal (Eagle (Roman military standard) → Roman military standard) and comments thereof in this section.
—Sowlos 08:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support. For reasons previously stated ad nauseam.
  —Sowlos 09:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Here is what I see as the options, depending on the intended scope of the article:
  • Roman eagle, an overview of the Roman eagle as a iconographical type that can be distinguished from other eagles at the time, used most famously for the legionary standard, and appearing also on coins and as an imperial symbol. In the dominant section on the legionary standard (also known as signum, plural signa), a paragraph would be included on the pre-Marian standards, and how the eagle came to be the sole totem. The article already points to the Roman eagle's nachleben, which is properly not a part of the following options.
  • Roman legionary standard, an overview of the signa used by the Roman legions, presented historically by period. "Roman eagle" would redirect there, until and unless the overview article on the icon was created.
  • Roman military standard, an overview of all the signa used by the Roman military as a whole, since "military" includes standards of the auxilia such as the draco (military standard). Cynwolfe (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right to re-raise this issue.
As we have already established, the article does not broadly discuss Roman eagle iconography, so Roman eagle is inappropriate. (That would be the worthy name of an entirely new article.) The current article defines its scope and heavily focuses on legionary standards. That makes its title at least Roman legionary standard. However, the article already discusses more than just legionary standards (though it focuses on them). It is my opinion that Roman military standard is a suitable title and is compatible with the article's current content (although the tone in a few spots would need adjusting). But even if it is expanding the article's scope, at least a few people here have expresses support for that.
—Sowlos 13:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry to sound so dogged. It just seems to me that if the topic is "Roman military standard" the argument between "eagle" (which would need to encompass the icon) and aquila (which would require a narrower focus on the "Roman legionary eagle standard" than the current article) becomes superfluous. I can support the current proposal if some of the parties who engaged above can indicate which of these three scope parameters they endorse. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the eagle may be a loose means of referring to the aquila, but it is also the means of referring to the icon, as Cynwolfe has pointed out, which is obviously not a standard at all, so while eagle is ambiguous for us in English, having two possible referents (icon or standard), the aquila is not. Dealing with the eagle under "Roman military standard", when it isn't just the standard, isn't accurate. -- spin|^control 22:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. As no consensus was arrived at to cause the initial move from Aquila (Roman) to Eagle (Roman military standard), it was against Wiki policy to make the move and must go back to Aquila (Roman). The proposed re-move will not achieve much other than sweep aquila under the aegis of "Roman military standard", which is a good place to have a generic discussion on Roman military standards, but not really a suitable place to deal with the full range of "(Roman) eagle" or to deal with just the aquila. If someone wants to totally rewrite Aquila (Roman) to include significant new material for Roman military standards other than the aquila, then I suppose one could justify the move. But as things stand, it must go back to Aquila (Roman). -- spin|^control 22:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I konw a lot of people have probably been put off by the premature move, but lets not throw out the whole RM just because someone made a mistake. Let us continue the discussion and see if consensus actually settles on something other than "auila". It's already been established that the move should be reverted if there is no consensus, but if there is, the issue is moot.
As for article scope: it would be trivial to modify the article's tone to better reflect the article's coverage of Roman military standards. Afterwords it would be simple enough to add some more relevant content. I don't understand your point of comparing the article's scope to the topic of Roman eagles. The article clearly does not include coverage of that broad topic.  —Sowlos  02:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

When a generic article is written for Roman military standards, then that is a good reason to post such an article. It can then link to Aquila (Roman) as well as Vexillum. I'm not a fan of renaming an article with the vague promise of adapting it to make the name fit. It's better to write an article for the name you want, then post it. My understanding of previous discussion was that the implications of the Roman eagle were to be included in Eagle (Roman military standard). If I have that wrong, just forget about my comment on the matter. -- spin|^control 03:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, you were against any move from the start. ;) My intent was not to raise a vague promise of adapting the article, but to point out it already covers the said topic (albeit poorly).
And, my understanding of previous discussion was that the implications of the Roman eagle were not to be included in Eagle (Roman military standard). That's why Cynwolfe wanted to make sure we all agree on what the article is (or should be) before continuing to debate on a name.  —Sowlos  03:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I find this procedurally highly improper, since it makes a jumble of comments for the various moves. Why was the old section repurposed for the new move, and have a weird interlude hiding in the middle of the move discussion, instead of just opening a new move section with a clean new discussion area? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes; it is highly irregular. Salix alba mistakinly closed and moved the page based on his judgement because consensus wasn't reached in under 7 days. Several of the participants began talking on this page outside the closed RM (originally called "Post-RM", now called "RM interlued"). Kauffner tried to open a second, separate RM. Cuchullain reverted the second because it was too soon to start one.[3] Salix reopened the same RM because of the discontent over the closure. Kauffner re-targeted the reopened RM based on what transpired. Then, participants returned to the old survey section, mixing new discussion with old and even replying to post from before the RM closure (which of course came before the new situation and new proposed move target). Due to the confusion, I tried to stop things from unravelling by closing the old survey, starting a new survey subsection for the new proposed target, summarizing the current/new situation for participants, and renaming "Post-RM" to "RM interlude" (to hopefully avoid confusion of a "post" discussion taking place in the middle).
As you can tell, I reverted your refactoring. I advise you to next time look more closely and read the revisions more carefully before heavily refactoring a battered RM full of historical content.
Unfortunately, I think too much prior damage has been done and this attempt to revive an RM after a disputed move may only cause more confusion than solutions.  —Sowlos  06:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think your solution has been a good one to sort out what quickly became a messy problem. Kudos.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Per the last discussion, I would prefer a separate article on Roman military standard, while keeping this one focused on Eagle (Roman military standard), but an expansion is scope is suboptimal in my opinion. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As the original move was done against Wiki policy and there is no consensus for this move proposal, we have to go back to the original name Aquila (Roman). This does not mean that there can't be a generic article for "Roman military standard". -- spin|^control 17:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

We still have a few days, but it looks like that's were it's going.  —Sowlos  18:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.