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 WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles
We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.
To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?
Standardize the Chronology.
A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)
Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .
This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HHarr8001.
There is a quotation of Victor J. Katz here that comes out longer than the entire footnotes section, and rivals the length of the prose in some of the article body sections. This seems to be over-quotation. It appears that, once again, ethnicity arguments have taken precedence over good writing of free content. Uncle G (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ptolemy observed the motion of the Sun and Moon. His equation of time gave sinusoidal deviations of the Sun from its mean motion. This works quite well to get an epicycle. It appears he repeated the mistakes of his predecessors in applying the same procedure to the planets. Could this have resulted from using theory to interpret observations? Was there a tendency to interpret signs in the heavens? Of projecting ideas onto observations? If so, his geocentrism can be viewed as a blunder, an over generalization of a theory. Jbergquist (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ptolemy "the Alexandrian", as depicted in a 16th-century engraving.
Clearly this is some type of renaissance romanticism and a Greco-Egyptian in the second century wouldn't have actually appeared this way? He looks like a Dutch painter. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 07:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a footnote that reads Since no contemporary depictions or descriptions of Ptolemy are known to have existed, later artists' impressions are unlikely to have reproduced his appearance accurately. Talk about understatement. I agree that the image is jarring. It is no more contemporary, but I prefer the one at right. Srnec (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– This page should move to either Claudius Ptolemy or Ptolemy (scholar), though WP:NCDAB prefers the former. The scholar is by no means the clear and definitive WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name. The main contestant is Ptolemy I Soter; this is one of the three other subjects named under the Collins dictionary entry for Ptolemy. This is also where most of the readers heading from this page to the disambiguation page head. Objectively, the king and scholar receive pretty neck-and-neck pageviews. Subjectively, whether any particular individual thinks the general/king or the scholar is the primary topic quite likely largely depends on whether they read more history or philosophy, though, needless to say, as an Alexandrian, the scholar was no doubt a namesake of the Ptolemaic dynasty. For me personally, today, Alexander's general actually looms larger on the consciousness, though I think when I was a student, it was the philosopher. It is also worth noting that per WP:SINGLENAME specifically states that single names are permitted for people from antiquity where it is "sufficient to identify a person unambiguously", but given the clear ambiguity here, the case for rendering Claudius Ptolemy as just Ptolemy in the first place is weak. NB: There was a no-consensus discussion in 2006 on this. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oppose just 'Ptolemy' is pretty unambiguously this guy—blindlynx 14:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you sure? @Blindlynx: the "Ptolemy was" test in GBooks resembles pageviews with the mathematician barely visible 19:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC) (unsigned)Reply[reply]
All that proves is that "Claudius Ptolemy" is hardly ever used by anyone, which is a key reason to oppose this nom to rename the article to that. Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
exactly, google and wiki library searches are overwhelmingly for the mathematician ,  —blindlynx 15:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
my gbooks search it favours the mathematician slightly, but is admittedly more evenly divided that google or scholarly searches—blindlynx 15:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak OpposeOppose The simple "Ptolemy" is pretty clearly the scholar. Unless the context is specifically about Alexander's military campaigns, you never see the commander referred to simply as "Ptolemy". Not even in the context of Hellenistic kings (he is always Ptolemy I, or Ptolemy I Soter, numeral needed to differentiate from other Ptolemaic kings). The founding king is almost never referred to simply as "Ptolemy" without the numeral. Whereas in any other context, simple "Ptolemy" is always the scholar. I object "weakly" because I wouldn't particularly mind if the article title was his full name "Claudius Ptolemy". But the simple "Ptolemy" must continue to re-direct here regardless. Walrasiad (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Scholarly works are written for specialists, Wikipedia is written for general readers. To general readers, "Ptolemy" is the well-known astronomer-geographer that pops up frequently in many contexts, not some obscure Macedonian general or Egyptian king that people rarely come across. Scholarly works are also written in a given context, where readers already expect it, and will be unsurprised. If I am writing about Alexander's military, readers expect "Ptolemy" to mean Ptolemy I Soter, not Ptolemy III Euergetes nor Ptolemy the scholar. Similarly, if I am writing about the Beatles for Beatles fans, readers expect my using "John" to mean "John Lennon" and not "John F. Kennedy" nor even "Elton John". That doesn't make "John Lennon" the primary topic for "John". Walrasiad (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your point here is all twisted around. I am not arguing for any WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, merely against the existence of one. So no, in your example, none of your Johns should be at John; a disambiguation page should be at John. And Ptolemy is not "an obscure Macedonian general"; he is the man that built the Library of Alexandria and made the city one of the greatest of antiquity while establishing a dynasty that would last three centuries. And as the pageview comparison already provided show, he is just as popular as the philosopher, with the topics equally engaged with by readers. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was only illustrating different expectations of different contexts. Only in narrow specialized contexts does Ptolemy I Soter seem the primary meaning of "Ptolemy". In all other contexts, "Ptolemy" is assumed to mean Ptolemy the scholar. And yes, Ptolemy I Soter is very obscure compared to Ptolemy the scholar. People know of the "Library of Alexandria", yes, but they don't know who built it (indeed, specialist historians don't know who built it either - most tend to argue for Ptolemy II or even Ptolemy III, not Ptolemy I). And even if I were to write "Ptolemy made Alexandria famous in antiquity", I'd bet most would still assume I meant Ptolemy the scholar. His legacy is just much more outsized in human history, and has had far more long-term significance. There is no comparison. Regardless of what is the name this article, "Ptolemy" has to redirect here, period. Walrasiad (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said in my opening comment, people will have subjectively different perspectives on the matter, but by the objective metric of reader engagement, these two subjects are almost perfectly matched. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure what that represents. But adjust to any other year, or encompass multiple years, and they are very mismatched. Not sure what happened in 2022, but Ptolemy outdoes Ptolemy I Soter by your metric by two or three times in nearly all prior years. Is there a computer game or movie out perchance?
I prefer my subjective metric where I consider the variety of subjects and topics where Ptolemy comes up. And the list is large and the range is vast. It's not even close to comparable. One man has a vast impact in many areas over thousands of years, whose legacy still stirs passions today half-way across the world. Children still learn the names of his constellations, cars steer by his directions, sports fans fight over his ethnic labels. His scribblings both guided and deterred adventurers, intellectual and practical, peaceful and belligerent, across several civilizations, across centuries, to all corners of the Earth. Magellan freezing in the Antarctic winds, was cursing Ptolemy's name. So great was Ptolemy's influence, for so long, that to undo that grip is celebrated as revolutionary, turning points for mankind. And not merely Copernicus. It is perhaps fitting that another man - Amerigo Vespucci - whose renown rested solely on writing a book claiming Ptolemy was wrong, was rewarded for it by having two continents named after him. The history of the world would look very different without Ptolemy's extraordinary influence, for better or for worse. And the other guy? He is a virtual unknown by comparison. Walrasiad (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't speak to the long-term metrics. I'm certainly not here based on any digital media. I would not be surprised if the balance of interest was simply shifting. In more recent works on Alexander, Ptolemy has risen more and more to the fore as the practical mind and logistical genius behind Alexander's innovative but often ostensibly hair-brained stratagems and tactics. So in facilitating Alexander, Ptolemy too very much reshaped the world. And that was before he founded a dynasty/empire and built Alexandria up brick by brick, without which bastion of culture, civilization and learning we would have no Claudius Ptolemy some 400 years later in the Roman era. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Other well-known astronomers such as Nicolas Copernicus, Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler also have their articles labelled by their full name while Copernicus, Brahe and Kepler would have been sufficient. Many more examples can easily be found -- why should Claudius Ptolemy be an exception? AstroLynx (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because most ancient figures usually had only one name - Pythagoras, Aristotle, Eudoxus, Strabo, Plutarch, Vitruvius, etc. Unlike Renaissance figures, ancient Greeks didn't have surnames. Ptolemy isn't a surname, its his only name (in Greek). Claudius is a Latin name, sometimes added in Latin sources (but not Greek sources). That said, Copernicus and Kepler redirect to their main pages as primary topics, not to disambiguation pages. Walrasiad (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He was a Roman citizen and his full name was Claudius Ptolemaeus; no sources appear to doubt that this was his full name, so I do not see what supports the idea that Ptolemy is his standalone name in the same way as these other scholars of antiquity. As I briefly mentioned in my opening comment, and as Astrolynx also opines, there is no particular reason not to go with the default first name - last name setup here. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a Roman citizen, he would have had three names, the tria nomina. I do not think "Claudius" can be called his "first name". Srnec (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe you are correct in saying that "Claudius" was not his "first name", in the sense that it probably wasn't chosen for him by his parents, and he probably wasn't called "Claudius" by his family and friends—and I agree with your position on the title—but the name is still apparently authentic, and for this reason Ptolemy was almost certainly a Roman citizen. We don't always know the praenomina of Romans from imperial times, particularly when they were Romans of Greek extraction with Greek surnames, and we know too little of Ptolemy's life to know whether he was born a Roman citizen, or obtained Roman citizenship in his lifetime.
I found a few inscriptions referring to people with both names: CILVI, 9416, Tiberius Claudius Aurelianus Ptolemaeus, a former military tribune, who built a late second-century tomb at Rome for his wife, Claudia Antonia, and their family; CILVI, 20587, Claudius Ptolemaeus, a twelve-year-old boy buried along with his sister, ten-year-old Claudia Ptolemais, in a first century tomb at Rome, built by their mother, Julia Onesime; CILXIV, 4569, Claudius Ptolemaeus, a member of the 14th company of... boot makers? at Ostia, honoured in an inscription from AD 198. Note that in two of the three examples, we don't have a praenomen, probably because it was omitted to save space—praenomina weren't considered very important in this period, and monument carving could be expensive!
I'm assuming that we know Ptolemy's name either from his writings, or mentions by later writers. While Ptolemy would probably have wanted to indicate that he was a Roman citizen, he might not have cared much about a praenomen that he either received unchanged from whoever granted him ciitizenship, or from his father and perhaps grandfather, who may have received it unchanged from their patron. It wouldn't have been terribly useful for distinguishing him from others, unlike his surname; by this period praenomina had become "fossilized" in many Roman families (for instance, every member of the Flavian dynasty whose praenomen we know was named "Titus"; even brothers in this family shared the same praenomen, and were distinguished by their cognomina), and most of them held no personal significance to people who weren't ethnically Roman. Writers mentioning him centuries later would likely have been even less inclined to record a name that held little or no significance to them.
So lacking one element of the tria nomina that we tend to associate with Roman culture doesn't really tell us anything about Ptolemy's citizenship; but the fact that he was called "Claudius" at all is a strong indication that he was a citizen, even if the name was and still is generally omitted except when introducing him. P Aculeius (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. When do sources ever call him "Claudius Ptolemy", let alone just "Claudius"? That all 15 kings of the Ptolemeic dynasty were called "Ptolemy" means that none of them are ever just called by the plain name without a number at first reference, so there is no ambiguity. Yet another time-wasting nom by this editor, who of course has never edited the article. Johnbod (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Johnbod: Hmm. Are WP:AGF and WP:NPA principles that just fly totally over your head? Needless to say, the complaint that someone has not edited an article is perhaps the saddest and most meaningless variant of an argument from authority. Having edited a page does not automatically makes someone more qualified to discuss it (they may have edited it for the worse); and coming new to an article does not make anyone else less qualified to make observations and discuss it. Broad perspective is a good thing, hence RFCs. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was doing your "Ptolemy was" test and this work on the scholar ironically has an entire page and a half devoted to the historic confusion between the scholar and the various King Ptolemies, and the subsequent process of disambiguation. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Walrasiad said "Claudius Ptolemy" wasn't an issue, but opposed repurposing "Ptolemy". Iskandar323 (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This. There are 5,000 links from other Wikipedia pages to this Ptolemy page, which would be confusingly redirected to a pointless disambiguation page. I don't know why Iskandar323 is trying to force the world to learn a new name few use, when Ptolemy is universally known and available. But the true crime would be to introduce confusion to readers by screwing with the redirect and scattering people in different directions. The world knows and remembers only one great Ptolemy. Others are dwarves by comparison and already disambiguated anyway by numerals and nicknames. Across a huge range of subject areas and topics, references to simple "Ptolemy" refers to this great Ptolemy, not any other. By a gigantic margin. This is what the vast majority expects when they click "Ptolemy", and will be very surprised not to find. Why confuse and complicate life for readers? There is no gain and great cost to messing around with this. Walrasiad (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As of this comment, there were five support votes (six as of this reply), so I am not sure why you are personalizing this, and this nonsense about the scholar being the only one anyone knows is your opinion, and one that has been debunked even here by plenty of other editors turning up and disagreeing with that sentiment. This is an encyclopedia, not an astronomy fan club, and the pageviews between this Ptolemy and the next most prominent one are basically equal - and that's before we even get onto the other 15 King Ptolemies or the dozens of other individuals since named Ptolemy. Your link count is meanwhile misleading. You will find that many of those links are simply by virtue of the pages containing the "Ancient Greece" template at the bottom. An example is the page Acropolis, which ostensibly links to Ptolemy, but it is in the template, not on the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I declared the problem in advance and then edited it in line with the obvious, which is correcting to the link to reflect the only famous ancient Greek Ptolemy, not a Roman Greco-Egyptian. Claudius Ptolemy was not an Ancient Greek in any standard sense of the word. He was a Greek-speaking Roman. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is he the only one? A whole bunch of others are listed right there. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No others called simply "Ptolemy", no.
And just noticed that rather than recognize your mistake, you went ahead with a new edit to insert Ptolemy I Soter on that template. This seems like a rather strange campaign. I hope you're not trying to influence things here.
You should probably take a break and let this discussion evolve. You have been constantly replying to everything and everyone. I am sure you don't want to appear WP:BLUDGEONing this RM. Walrasiad (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's called a discussion ... and I'm entitled to respond to your responses to me, not least those with aspersions. Yes, I've added Ptolemy I Soter to the Ancient Greeks template. Ptolemaic Kingdom was already there. Do you have an actual point to make? If so, take it to talk (the right one). Iskandar323 (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The scholar is much more obscure than the Ptolemaic monarchs. I have seen websites and book pages dedicated to the genealogy of the Ptolemaic dynasty, analysis of surviving primary sources on them, and poetry and novels dedicated or inspired by them. With the exception of a couple of Don Rosa stories, I have rarely encountered any written reference on the obscure scholar in the last 25 years. Dimadick (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But have you ever encountered any written reference to "Claudius Ptolemy", which is the rename you are supporting? There is a case for redirecting "Ptolemy" to Ptolemaic dynasty I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first two are books by him (and very old translations), the last is from 1854! Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You asked for any written reference. There are 100 pages on Google Scholar. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The author field on a book written by someone is obviously not a written reference to that person. --JBL (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The scholar is much more obscure than the Ptolemaic monarchs." I don't think so; it seems more the other way around. Ptolemy the astronomer was the author of one of the books of the quadrivium, the advanced courses in medieval universities. And whoever knows the basics of the history of astronomy knows of the changed from Ptolemaic astronomy to heliocentric astronomy. Maybe in your parochial neighborhood the Ptolemaic monarchs are more well known. 2601:447:C601:3690:118A:2F2D:143E:4BB2 (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is an assumption that the average reader on Wikipedia has a high degree of familiarity with medieval astronomy curriculums. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support disambiguation, oppose niche and unused "Claudius Ptolemy" named. Aza24 (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support making the base name a disambiguation page. The dynastic founder and the philosopher both come up somewhat frequently -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. (1) Our current dab page sucks. (2) This guy is just "Ptolemy" in most situations and there are many more situations when he is mentioned than any of the ruling Ptolemies. For example, Ngrams show greater popularity for "Ptolemaic astronomy" than "Ptolemaic dynasty". Until recently, Ngrams has "Ptolemaic system" handily beating "Ptolemaic Egypt", although now they are tied. When I look at book titles, this guy is usually just Ptolemy, while the rulers of Egypt are usually disambiguated by numeral or nickname. Compare Geoffrey Gunn's Overcoming Ptolemy, Gerd Grasshoff's The History of Ptolemy's Star Catalogue, Springer's edited volume Ptolemy in Perspective or Jacqueline Feke's Ptolemy's Philosophy with all the works that have Ptolemy I, Ptolemy I Soter or Ptolemy Philadelphus in the title. Srnec (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't both of those Ngrams prove the opposite point, that though indeed the scholar may have loomed larger historically, those days have definitively ended? In 2019, uses of the term Ptolemaic dynasty exceeded both the scholar-related terms you threw at it, and it's clear what direction these overall trends are going in. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oppose move. Nobody calls him by full name in literature, nobody calls him Ptolemy (scholar), people just use common name Ptolemy. Look into Jesus or Galileo, that's the same thing. Artem.G (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Under Wikipedia's naming scheme, there is no difference in a pagename with "Ptolemy" or one with "Ptolemy (parenthetical disambiguator)". As such "Ptolemy (scholar)" and "Ptolemy" are exactly the same, as the name is the part outside the brackets and the bracket are used to distinguish it from other topics. Thus "Ptolemy (scholar)" is "Ptolemy" per our WP:DISAMBIGUATION rules. The disambiguated page name is not something to be looked for in other people's publications, as they can disambiguate however they want. If it is a paper book, they can have multiple topics with the exact same topic name, but this would cause a name collision on a website for different webpages. -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It is becoming apparent that some commentators here may not necessarily be particularly familiar with this topic, and given its high importance it should be given a wider reading with more knowledgeable editors. There have been no alerts to the relevant WikiProjects for this RM. This article is registered as "Top Priority" for Mathematics, "Top Importance" for Classical Greece and Rome, Astrology, "High Importance" for Astronomy, Geography, History of Science, Environment, and "Mid-Importance" for Science. So these projects certainly have a strong interest in the fate of this article. My suggestion is to put an alert on these WikiProject pages, to gather more opinions. Since I don't want to appear as if canvassing, I want to first gather opinions here. (P.S. Ptolemy I Soter is only "High Importance" for "Classical Greece and Rome" and "Greece".) Since it overlaps both, at minimum an alert to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome should be given. Does anyone have objections to placing alerts on these pages? Walrasiad (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, this should have been done in the first place. It can't be called canvassing so long as all projects it is tagged for are alerted. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Disambiguation to Ptolemy (scholar) as the common name, but not the obvious primary topic. Note to closing admin: some comments in opposition are from people unfamiliar with Wikipedia naming policies and policy based arguments should come first. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Without having seen this present thread, I'd have thought the astronomer is the obvious primary topic and the monarchs are obscure by comparison. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Nobody else is just called "Ptolemy" without qualification, so this is the WP:PRIMARYMEANING and does not need disambiguation or a move to a non-WP:COMMONNAME. The n-gram searchers above are unconvincing because they fail to distinguish "Ptolemy" used as a name by itself from its usage as part of longer qualified names. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David Eppstein: Sorry, what is the Ngram evidence you are talking about? None has, as far as I am aware, been provided as part of any support arguments, so the thrust of this comment is a little confusing. In ictu oculi did suggest a gbooks search for "Ptolemy was" as a useful sampling on in-text usage. That can also pretty insightful search on Google Scholar. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was what I was referring to. The responses to the first oppose comment, the first of which is unsigned. They fail to distinguish content about this Ptolemy (using only the name Ptolemy) from content where a qualified version of some other name has already been established, justifying a later shortened form Ptolemy. For instance, the GBooks hits for "Ptolemy was" include the novel The Last Days of Ptolemy Grey, in which the title character has the first name "Ptolemy"; I think nobody sane would argue that that interferes with the primary meaning of the unqualified name "Ptolemy". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. He's almost never called by both names, except occasionally to introduce him, after which he's just "Ptolemy", or sometimes "Ptolemaeus". P Aculeius (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two options have been suggested: one natural, following the first name-last name default of WP:NCBIO; the other is parenthetical disambiguation. But to your point about using both names, WP:SINGLENAME clearly states: "Using the last name as the page title for a person, when the first name is also known and used, is discouraged, even if that name would be unambiguous". Iskandar323 (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yet we have Virgil rather than Publius Vergilius Maro, Horace rather than Quintus Horatius Flaccus, Augustus rather than Gaius Octavian or Caesar Augustus, Nero rather than Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus or Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, sitting in happy compatibility with Vitruvius, Archimedes and Plato, and in accordance with the opening of WP:SINGLENAME: Sometimes, mostly for names from antiquity, a single word is traditional and sufficient to identify a person unambiguously: Aristotle, Livy, Plutarch, Charlemagne, Fibonacci, etc.NebY (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was about to quote that very sentence! But I also note that the top of the "Naming Conventions" guideline also points to WP:ROMANS as a more specific guideline that could be read to supersede the general principles—if we accept the argument that Ptolemy should be considered a Roman, rather than a Greek, which I think is debatable—but it does not matter much here, because the result would be the same: Common names as regularly used in English are preferred to the Latin forms or official nomenclature, which should be created as redirects. Examples of article titles: Livy, with the redirect Titus Livius; Pliny the Younger, with the redirects Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus and Plinius Minor; Germanicus, with the redirect Germanicus Julius Caesar; Trajan, with the redirect Marcus Ulpius Traianus (internal list arrangement modified for space). Just like in the present article, in most of these examples there are other persons with similar names, but these are the ones that readers are most likely to be searching for under those titles.
IMO the geographer/astronomer/scholar/whatever label you apply to him is a giant in the history of science and the world; hardly any discussion of the history of astronomy or geography or science in general will fail to mention him. The Ptolemaic kings of Egypt were, individually, minor figures in history, who had relatively little influence on events beyond Egypt and its immediate neighbors, and hardly any influence on events after their deaths. I think I saw someone here arguing that Ptolemy I Soter was important because he participated in and perhaps influenced the campaigns of Alexander, but his own article here has relatively little to say about his role in history prior to his appointment as Satrap of Egypt after Alexander's death.
The successors of Alexander are not without historical value, but nobody is likely to encounter most of them by name unless in a course on ancient history; Cleopatra VII is the main exception, but that doesn't help this nomination. Ptolemy the geographer was influential from antiquity to modern times (most modern discussions of his areas of scholarship will begin with him and his writings). All of the articles on the Ptolemaic kings have article names based on natural disambiguation; the titles are how historians commonly refer to them. And the title of this article is how the geographer is usually referred to; so by our guidelines it should probably stay here. P Aculeius (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. In my experience, "Ptolemy" with no further context, always refers to the scholar. I'm convinced that for the vast majority of folks, if they know only one Ptolemy, it's this one. Paul August☎ 18:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As to who is the clear and definitive primary topic, one important data point is that after Ptolemy's books on astronomy were reintroduced into Europe they became one of the most important parts of the curriculum of late medieval universities in Europe. You can't say the same of the king by that name. (But perhaps Ptolemy (scholar) is ok.) Michael Hardy (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Ptolemy (scholar), the clearest title possible. Oppose Claudius Ptolemy as nobody uses that name. In spite of what some have said, Ptolemy the scholar is not more famous than the king(s), so there must be a disambiguation in the title. It seems that most people have voted on "Claudius Ptolemy", so I suggest another vote of "Ptolemy (scholar)" alone. T8612(talk) 19:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Ptolemy (scholar) because it avoids the problem of nobody using "Claudius". I concur with T8612 both as to rationale and separation of these red herring-esque options. Ifly6 (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, pageviews for Ptolemy I Soter are mostly driven by the massive pageviews for Cleopatra. Strong oppose "Claudius Ptolemy", virtually unused. —Kusma (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Ptolemy by itself is pretty much always refers to the mathematician and astronomer. I'm familar with him but the other is much less well known. Reywas92Talk 02:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support either "Claudius Ptolemy" or "Ptolemy (scholar)". I don't buy that this person is the primary topic for this name, most people would almost certainly think of Alexander's general or one of his descendants. The scholar may have been closer to a primary topic once upon a time during the Middle Ages and Renaissance when his work was very influential, but that was hundreds of years ago now.★Trekker (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is absurd. Everybody who knows even a little bit about the history of astronomy thinks of this person when the name Ptolemy is mentioned. Alexander the Great is obscure by comparison. 2601:447:C601:3690:118A:2F2D:143E:4BB2 (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you unmade your point when you made the ad absurdum comparison to Alexander the Great, who looms monumental in world history. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you should assume that he meant to say Alexander's Ptolemy, i.e. Ptolemy I Soter, not Alexander himself, since this discussion concerns the Ptolemies. P Aculeius (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But practically everyone who studies astronomy at any point—and most schoolchildren are taught the basics on multiple occasions, even if this is the only time that most people actively study it—will begin by discussing the way that our understanding of the universe has progressed from Ptolemy to Copernicus to Galileo. So while the history of astronomy may be a small topic, it is one of general knowledge, as opposed to say, the rule of Ptolemy I Soter following the death of Alexander—a topic which was immensely more important in Ptolemaic Egypt, but which is not studied at all by most schoolchildren; at best the dynasty as a whole might be mentioned in passing, by way of describing what became of Alexander's empire, or where Cleopatra came from. After all, there are only a few luminaries in astronomy prior to Galileo, and Ptolemy is one of the giants; but several kingdoms grew out of Alexander's empire, none of which survived antiquity, and none of their rulers over the course of generations was remotely as significant as Alexander. P Aculeius (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment My experience is that the name Ptolemy refers to the astronomer, i.e. this scholar in his role as an astronomer, and the Ptolemaic monarchs are obscure and maybe most people have never heard of them, although everybody has heard of Ptolemaic astronomy; how it dominated the Arab world when most who did astronomy were Arabs; how it was reintroduced into Europe via a translation of a translation of a very long book (from Greek to Arabic to Latin); how it was superseded by heliocentric astronomy; how everyone at an advanced level in European universisites for centuries was required to be familiar with Ptolemaic astronomy, etc. A few people also know that there were kings named Ptolemy. C.S. Lewis's book The Discarded Image, about how to understand medieval literature, gives a lot of attention to Ptolemaic astronomy, since that was such a big thing in medieval education. Apparently some people's experience is different from mine. Those people seem quite alien to me. So it seems to be a matter of what field you're in. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. This is precisely why I noted in my opening comment that there would likely be different subjective opinions based on choice of reading. The very fact that there are people who can be on widely different ends of the spectrum in terms of their understanding of the connotations of the name is exactly why "Ptolemy" is ambiguous and why it needs disambiguating. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This doesn't require familiarity with a "field", but just familiarity with the history of anything. Because Ptolemaic stuff is everywhere - maps, countries, horoscopes, etc. The history of many, many things runs into Ptolemy at some point. I'm assuming the people who "never heard" of Ptolemy were merely asleep in class, or their eyes glazed over and didn't retain the name (*sigh* another old Greek whose name starts with P), or simply don't have a habit of reading at all. Because it is pretty hard to escape him.
There is no ambiguity. Ignorance or forgetfulness of a few editors is not an excuse. There is only one person in history consistently referred to as "Ptolemy" alone, and that is the scholar. And your two favorite sources agree with me. Both Britannica and "Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece" have only one entry for "Ptolemy", and that is for the scholar.
Indeed, such is the case with all RS works of general reference (Wikipedia's standard). Let me put down a challenge to you or anybody here. Find me one - one - RS of general reference where the entry for "Ptolemy" is anyone but the great scholar.
The Ptolemaic kings are already disambiguated by their numerals. There is no need for additional disambiguation and screwing up redirects for no reason. Personal ignorance is not an excuse. Walrasiad (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a lot of bandying around of the word ignorance. People simply have different knowledge sets, and there are no prescribed knowledge sets that make some people more knowledgeable or ignorant than anyone else. Ultimately, knowledge of ancient Greek scholar is a highly specialist knowledge set, and not everyone learns classics. As for the encyclopedia, immediately before "Ptolemy" comes "Ptolemies", and the scope for confusion between these remains as it ever was. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What? You don't need to be a specialist or a classicist to have heard of Ptolemy, didn't we all learn about Ptolemy in school? I did. E.g. see just below. Paul August☎ 19:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who is we here? I fear what you are alluding to might be a rather narrow demographic not particularly representative of the entire global English-speaking population. When people suggest Wikipedia has systemic bias, I think underlying assumptions like 'everyone should know their Greek astronomers' are part of the (first-world) problem. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In particular we apparently includes every kid in my then US-school system, plus those using the current version of the National Curriculum for England. Paul August☎ 22:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So 25% of global English speakers might have seen a fleeting glance of the name in a childhood textbook? If the definition of ignorance used earlier in this chain of comments is forgetting a piece of minutiae from our early school years then we are likely all dammed. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point is precisely that it's not specialized knowledge. Quite the contrary. One does not have to be a specialist in ancient Greek science to wonder or know where the names of the constellations come from. Or where latitude and longitude lines come from. Or why Columbus called Native Americans "Indians". Or that the earth going around sun was a revolutionary idea. You just need a casual interest in horoscopes, maps, explorers, country names or basic astronomy. Any general book about horoscopes, maps, explorers, astronomy, etc. if it has a history section, will inevitably mention Ptolemy. Their readers do not need to have any interest or familiarity with ancient Greece at all, but that name will be thrown at their face. Whereas nobody will come across any Macedonian Ptolemies unless they are reading specialized works on Diadochi or Biblical translation history. The only time the Ptolemies might come up in non-specialist works is if they are ever curious about Cleopatra.
Wikipedia is written for general readers, not specialists. Most people come here to satisfy casual curiosity, because they read somewhere that zodiac signs were invented by some guy called "Ptolemy", and want to know more about that guy. That is the readers we serve here. That is the audience that has to be kept in mind, not the peculiar tastes of Wikipedia editors. And complicating life and causing confusion to general readers, because you happen to be fascinated with obscure topics, is a disservice to them. Walrasiad (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could just bounce the "fascinated with obscure topics" line back at you. Most people could read plenty about any of the topics you mentioned without ever hearing the name "Ptolemy", and I think you are massively overplaying his resonance in the modern era. Today, he is no more than just a stepping stone in scientific history. In truth, he probably set astronomy back by a millennia by shoring up geocentrism with a degree of plausibility, when heliocentrism had already been proposed in the 3rd century BC. But again, regardless of your personal thoughts, by pageviews readers want this page and the page of Ptolemy son of Lagos (who equally, anyone with even a lick of fondness for ancient Greek history will know of) more or less equally. We don't need to guess what readers want, because they have already cast their votes, and those votes are equal before we even get to any of the other Ptolemies, and hence there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and hence we should disambiguate. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obscure? If these books or articles have a history section, then Ptolemy will be inevitably mentioned. Our own articles on them do, e.g.:
* Constellation: "The traditional 48 constellations, consisting of the Zodiac and 36 more (now 38, following the division of Argo Navis in three constellations) are listed by Ptolemy, a Greco-Roman astronomer from Alexandria in Egypt, in his Almagest."
* Geographic coordinate system: "Ptolemy's 2nd-century Geography used the same prime meridian but measured latitude from the Equator instead."
* Columbus's letter on the first voyage: "The published Latin versions of the letter are almost all titled "Letter of Columbus, on the islands of India beyond the Ganges recently discovered". The term "India beyond the Ganges" (India extra Gangem) was the archaic term frequently used by earlier geographers (e.g., Ptolemy) to refer vaguely to Southeast Asia."
* Copernican Revolution: "The Copernican Revolution was the paradigm shift from the Ptolemaic model of the heavens, which described the cosmos as having Earth stationary at the center of the universe, to the heliocentric model with the Sun at the center of the Solar System."
* Zodiac: "The construction of the zodiac is described in Ptolemy's comprehensive 2nd century AD work, the Almagest."
These are articles written for general readers on these topics, not articles for people interested in Ancient Greek history. If they want to know more, they can click on "Ptolemy".
General readers come across "Ptolemy" in all sorts of topics and contexts. Not everyone will remember the name, I am sure most will yawn and their eyes will glaze over it, but they will have come across it. And those that are curious to follow up will look up "Ptolemy".
They do not have to have a "lick of interest" in Ancient Greek science, or Ancient Greece at all. Heck, they might have heard about Ancient Greece for the first time on Wikipedia yesterday. They came across the name "Ptolemy" when reading about constellations, latitude and longitude, Columbus, basic astronomy, horoscopes etc. They might not know whether this "Ptolemy" is Greek, Persian or Indian, or whether he was a scholar, magician, bishop or even a king. But if they want to find out more about "Ptolemy", they will come here to Wikipedia, to this article.
It is our duty to help general readers find this article, as painlessly as possible. It is a disservice to sidetrack readers through confusing pages because some Wikipedia editors have a kink for obscure Macedonian militarism or fell asleep during science classes, and assume everyone else has too.
My knowledge is deep and vast. I know more about both Ptolemy and Ptolemy I Soter than most people. But I am not the measure, nor am I using myself as the measure. In this, as in everything I do on Wikipedia, I try to place myself in the position of a general reader, and try to do what best serves them. I want Wikipedia to be as useful as it can be.
In its current state, readers looking for Ptolemy arrive here easily. You want to make it complicated for them. For what reason?
How does your proposal help anybody or make it more useful?
Ptolemy is already disambiguated from Ptolemy I Soter and all other Ptolemaic kings. There is no need to make things more confusing. You have yet to provide any evidence that the current article is problematic, or that general readers would be "surprised" to find the article "Ptolemy" is about the scholar rather than a Macedonian general. You have not provided any evidence from RS works of general reference or for general readers. The RS works you cite, both Britannica and "Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece" have only one entry for "Ptolemy", and that is for the scholar. He is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name, and easily so. You have yet to show one work of general reference where he is not. So far you have been merely throwing sand into the air, claiming there is a problem, when there isn't. Walrasiad (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* PT.1 by "greatest usage" - both in quantity and range, "Ptolemy" means the scholar, not the general;
* PT.2, "by long-term significance" and "educational value", Ptolemy the scholar trumps any other use by miles. Indeed, by his track record already, there are few figures of any name in history that have had greater long-term significance or educational value than Ptolemy. He's already proven it.
What is with this 'Macedonian general' labelling, characterizing Ptolemy Lagus by the middle portion of his career trajectory, not its culmination? It feels like rhetoric and does little service to your claim to impartially serve the reader. I'm sure Claudius Ptolemy was an apprentice at some point, but if I labelled him as such, I would be duly mocked. I remain unawed by the widespread scattering of often trivial mentions to Claudius Ptolemy, whose long-term significance certainly presided up until the Renaissance period. His input is footnote material these days. The bracketed mention on the Columbus page failed verification, fyi. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please don't go editing the pages above to remove references to Ptolemy. That is the second time you've done this in discussion. That shows rather bad faith. Walrasiad (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I see a failed verification, I will address it as an editor, and here I stated plainly and transparently the problem. If you have a problem with that, it is your problem and your problem alone. Aspersion is 100% bad faith. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What failed verification? The reference to classical geography is given, or click the link through: Geography (Ptolemy)#Image_Gallery: "India Extra Gangem" is given right there as Tabula XI Asiae of Ptolemy. Please don't remove references to try to manipulate this discussion. Walrasiad (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rather than tag it as citation needed or failed verification, you removed valid, pertinent and constructive content from the encyclopedia. You could have searched for india extra gangem ptolemy - no quotes required - and quickly confirmed that Ptolemy is not merely an example but the geographer from whom others took the term, eg by finding The main divisions of India into India intra Gangem and India extra Gangem, have been adopted by the [p. 2.46]majority of subsequentt geogrwphers, from Ptolemy.NebY (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was unverified and in brackets (so already delineated as secondary information), so I chose to remove it. But thank you for remedying it. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose to Ptolemy (scholar/astronomer/geographer/whatever), Strong oppose to Claudius Ptolemy. I agree with the commentary above that this Ptolemy is far more likely to be the person readers are looking for at this title. I believe that the evidence already linked to above makes that clear, but I also have this nugget of personal experience/OR to add to the mix. The following is taken from the current version of the National Curriculum for England's section on science education in upper key stage 2: Pupils should find out about the way that ideas about the solar system have developed, understanding how the geocentric model of the solar system gave way to the heliocentric model by considering the work of scientists such as Ptolemy, Alhazen and Copernicus. While that comes from the non-statutory guidance part (so it's a suggestion, not law), it is nevertheless the case that almost everyone in England will have received formal instruction on who this Ptolemy was, and what he contributed to the development of our understanding of the solar system. There is no similar provision for any other Ptolemys (?Ptolemies?) in the history curriculum. I imagine it's similar in other countries - people are far more likely to have heard of this bloke, and I think that COMMONNAME most probably applies here. If we are to disabiguate it, which I don't think we should do, then it would be much better to keep the name as simply 'Ptolemy' (which is how he is almost always referred to), and to select an appropriate 'job title' to disambiguate with. GirthSummit (blether) 17:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose. Nobody calls him “Claudius Ptolemy,” and not even everybody knows that he had another name than just “Ptolemy.” I do understand that most people looking for a Ptolemy are looking for a pharaoh, but on the other hand, most of those have a regnal number or an additional name or qualificative added to their name (such as Ptolemy ISoter or Ptolemy IIIEuergetes), so I don’t see why—and thus (weak) oppose—we would do that. CielProfond (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose both moves per the very compelling arguments of Walrasiad. --JBL (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. There is clearly no primary topic. The ngrams and pageviews evidence support the move. No evidence was provided that this article is the primary topic. Most opposition comments are based on personal preference, anecdotes or policies inapplicable to a primary topic discussion, such as COMMONNAME. It could be argued that Ptolemy (astronomer) is a better alternative title (I'd say so), but that is irrelevant to the primary topic discussion and can be decided in a later discussion if needed. Vpab15 (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the contrary, this is clearly the primary topic for the plain name, since none of the others candidates are ever identified by the plain name. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. I think Ptolemy (astronomer) is better than Ptolemy (scholar) even though he was also a geographer, because his work in astronomy is the reason why everyone who's gone to school has heard of him. ok, So apparently it is exaggerated to say "everyone who's gone to school", but I think it's closer to the truth than to say that the monarchs named Ptolemy are more well known; that is clearly false. Any one-page history of astronomy mentions Ptolemy; probably any list of the three most influential people in the history of astronomy includes him; his prominence is comparable to that of Copernicus. Only because of Copernicus and his ilk did it cease to be the case that everyone who attends a university is required to study the books of Ptolemy. It is absurd to suggest that you'd have to know your ancient astronomers to have heard of him. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"everyone who's gone to school has heard of him" I don't remember ever hearing about Claudius Ptolemy in school. Our lessons on ancient history and literature focused on texts by Homer, Sophocles, Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato, and Arrian. I was also taught Latin for a year, but the only Roman writer whose texts I still remember from that boring class is Ovid. Dimadick (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You'd likelier come across him in science or geography classes. Ptolemy is not a historian. Most of your readings above are historians. And more specifically historians with a military focus. I guess that's where your teacher's interests lay. Walrasiad (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tend to agree that Ptolemy (astronomer) is better than Ptolemy (scholar) if a move is required. Could one go to Ptolemy (astronomer and geographer) even? But I still don't believe a move is necessary. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per PRIMARYTOPIC, the other Ptolemy is known as Ptolemy I so is naturally disambiguated.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If dab is correctly understood, anyone named "Ptolemy" may go by that name, but for purposes of WP the name Ptolemy I Soter or just Ptolemy I is used, "I" or "I Soter" dabbing him from others named Ptolemy. Gentle reminder to practice the assumption of good faith 'round here. Agree that Ptolemy is the PTOPIC! His astronomical system of Earth-centered universe alone lasted well over a millennium. His notable influence over many generations is unmatched!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 08:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisting comment: It seems impossible to secure this Ptolemy as the primary topic, but what qualifier to use in case this happens is disputed. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I know we're not technically counting votes, but I don't know how else to determine whether there's a consensus. It's not necessary to "secure" this article as a primary topic—the question is whether to move it to another title or leave it where it is. And by my count as of a couple of minutes ago, 19 people think the article is fine where it is, and 15 favour moving it to one of three alternatives [Claudius Ptolemy, Ptolemy (scholar), or Ptolemy (astronomer)]. And while most of them can agree on Ptolemy (scholar), some are opposed to that option. So while there's not a problem with relisting this, the relisting is to determine whether there's a consensus to move—which there currently is not—and not whether there is a consensus about it being the primary topic. P Aculeius (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know how else to determine whether there's a consensus. Ideally we should be looking at the evidence to see if there is a primary topic per the two aspects mentioned in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: usage and long-term significance. Pageviews and ngrams would suggest that there is no primary topic. Opposers don't seem to agree with that, but so far their main arguments rely too much on personal preference and anecdote in my opinion. Vpab15 (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But this is a proposed move of the page currently occupying that title, and there clearly is no consensus for doing so at this time. The impetus is on those urging a move to develop a consensus that it should be moved, not to demonstrate the lack of a primary topic to someone who will then move the article irrespective of the lack of consensus for doing so.
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not an exception to the principle of determining consensus; there is disagreement over what ngrams show, as one ngram showed overwhelming support for the present title, and another formulation suggested a surge in publications for "Ptolemaic Egypt", although since that would never be confused with the present title, and no formulation submitted here would, it doesn't help. There is plainly no consensus that ngrams favour a move. Long-term significance would require that the article stay at this title.
Consensus is widespread agreement among members of the community, and if a majority of those expressing opinions—or even a very large minority—disagree with the others, then there is no consensus. That was the problem with the comment left with the relister, who seemed to assume that there was agreement to move the article, but no agreement as to the title. There is no agreement to move the article from its present title. P Aculeius (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The impetus is on those urging a move to develop a consensus that it should be moved, not to demonstrate the lack of a primary topic. On the contrary, if evidence is provided that shows there is no primary topic, then the article needs to be moved per long-standing WP:PTOPIC guideline. Unless there is some other policy that would override PTOPIC, which no one has argued for. Vpab15 (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you would still need a consensus for that, and clearly there isn't one. You can't simply state an argument and then insist that you win unless proved wrong. PRIMARYTOPIC is an argument being advanced for moving the page to another title, and it hasn't convinced most people. Your argument seems to be that you don't need a consensus to agree that there's no primary topic because there's no primary topic—and that's circular reasoning. P Aculeius (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, if the evidence shows there is no WP:PTOPIC, the article will have to be moved regardless of the personal preference of other editors. That's the whole point of having policies and guidelines, that they need to be followed. Of course, it will be the closer who determines if the evidence does support the move. Vpab15 (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But it's still just your opinion that there's no primary topic—and a majority of people in this discussion have rejected that opinion. You don't get to ignore everybody who disagrees with you by declaring that you're right and they're wrong. Most of the people in this discussion think that this is the primary topic, and arguing that it's not until the cows come home won't create a consensus that doesn't exist. P Aculeius (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consensus is not determined by a vote count, and you shouldn't be declaring majorities or implying votes win the day. This is for the closer to decide based on strength of policy and evidence. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If most of the people who've given their opinion are opposed to the move, then there clearly isn't consensus for the move. The relisting comment implied that there was. No matter how often or loudly you say it, "you're wrong so I win" doesn't demonstrate a consensus. P Aculeius (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not what I said: I said to shut up and let the closer do their job. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you continue to be WP:UNCIVIL, as you also were at Talk:Ptolemy I Soter (Bugger off. It doesn't buttress anything, and you can go stick your bad faith. Occam's razor, should you choose to use it, would simply lead you to grasp.... Sometimes it's hard to account for the fickleness of the community.... No shit.... The only problem I see here is endless aspersion.... You have ceased discussing the topic altogether in favour of pure ad hominem.... I said to shut up....), I will have to begin ignoring your replies. P Aculeius (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Iskandar323: Yes and what's your lack of civility in aid of? Please stop. 11:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rules and guidelines do not need to be followed. They can be ignored. In fact, ignoring the rules is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Srnec (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pageviews are potentially misleading. If readers already know of a person, they won't so often bother to click on links to their article. The number of links in the encyclopedia may be a better guide to the person's overall significance. NebY (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per common name and long-term significance. A good discussion above, seems to have sorted this out. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment (still opposing): Here's a quantitative and qualitative approach I've not noticed above: Ptolemy's significance within Wikipedia with 3,087 direct links from other articles is markedly greater than that of Ptolemy I Soter(1,257 direct links), and whereas those to Ptolemy I Soter are almost entirely from the narrow temporal and geographical range of Hellenistic history, those to Ptolemy are from a much broader range of articles, more of them - to my eyes - of great significance in themselves than of those linking to Ptolemy I Soter. NebY (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since this RM, I've stumbled on Ptolemy in our articles on Kashgar and Michael Vickery. There really is no comparison. So to be clear to the closer: I am absolutely asserting that this is the primary topic for Ptolemy by educational value and longterm significance. Srnec (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support Ptolemy (scholar)--there were a lot of relevant Ptolemies, especially the Macedonian, and a disambiguation page could be very useful to help people. I weak support as proposed as well. RedSlash 21:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose on the grounds that it's not broken and so we don't need to stress about how to fix it. I generally distrust ngram figures as being divorced from context, so that doesn't sway me either way. However, I am persuaded that the bare bones of astronomical history (i.e., the high points of the complicated transition from geocentrism to heliocentrism) are more widely taught than the Macedonian Ptolemies. XOR'easter (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.