Talk:Ptolemy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

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.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 07:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Over-quotation of non-free text

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]

Was Ptolemy's geocentrism a blunder?

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]

Here's a fit of Ptolemy's anomaly that I did in Feb, 2016. Jbergquist (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Jbergquist[reply]
The only way it would be a "blunder" is if the Greeks were launching interplanetary space probes, in which case the geocentric model would be a disaster. Or if they lived on the sun. Or had ignored some sort of evidence for heliocentrism. Other than that, the two models were mathematically identical, just different frames of reference.
But for astronomers who live on Earth, geocentric coordinated are what we use, be it 500 BCE or 2024 ADE. If you own a computerized telescope, it operates on geocentric az-alt or geocentric ra-dec coordinates. In fact, if the Greeks had computed planet positions in heliocentric coordinates, those coordinates would be utterly useless. Useless until someone performed the laborious task of converting them to geocentric coordinates for Earth-based astronomers to use. There would be no way to compute the apparent position or brightness of planets, nor compute sunrise/sunset times and positions, no way to compute local time, no way to compute latitude or longitude, no way to navigate, etc. for locations on Earth using heliocentric coordinates.
In addition, there was no way to test heliocentric vs geocentric. There were no "mistakes" "repeated." Science is evidence-based, and there was simply no evidence either way, and no way to obtain any evidence for the first 2,000-2,500 years or so of the geocentric model's existence. Until then, both options were equal guesses, so the Greeks went with the philosophy of geocentrism and of all motion being perfect circles. It wasn't until the invention of the telescope that observation of phases of Venus proved heliocentrism "correct."
I say "correct" in quotes because the sun is not actually the center of the universe, like heliocentrism claimed. But then again, the big bang theory says all points are the center of the universe, so technically geocentrism wasn't wrong about Earth being the center... Skintigh (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ptolemy "the Alexandrian"

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]

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]
Agreed - much better. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 May 2023

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.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus for the move. (non-admin closure) Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– This page should move to either

Iskandar323 (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[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]
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]
exactly, google and wiki library searches are overwhelmingly for the mathematician [1], [2] —blindlynx 15:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[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]
  • Weak Oppose Oppose 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]
    Ptolemy the king is frequently referred to as just Ptolemy in works published by scholarly outlets about dynastic Egypt, including the
    Iskandar323 (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[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]
Your point here is all twisted around. I am not arguing for any
Iskandar323 (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[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]
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
]
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]
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
]
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,
Kepler redirect to their main pages as primary topics, not to disambiguation pages. Walrasiad (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:COMMONNAME, that's why. Johnbod (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[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
]
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]
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: CIL VI, 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; CIL VI, 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; CIL XIV, 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]
@
Ptolemy (music theorist)? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Walrasiad said "Claudius Ptolemy" wasn't an issue, but opposed repurposing "Ptolemy".
Iskandar323 (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[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]
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
Iskandar323 (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
And very ironically, the template may be meant to direct to
Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Because you just edited it right now so that it looks that way? My god, you're making it very difficult to assume good faith.
PS Reversed your edit. You may not know who Euclid, Archimedes, Hipparchus, etc. are, but that is our Ptolemy alongside them. Walrasiad (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[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
Iskandar323 (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
PPS - Our Ptolemy is the only "Ptolemy" in the List of ancient Greeks#P. Switching my earlier vote from weak to full oppose. Walrasiad (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[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
]
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
]
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.
Iskandar323 (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[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]
A written reference like the books Claudius Ptolemy, Geography of Claudius Ptolemy or Claudius Ptolemy and the Nile, or just about any of this material on Google Scholar (continuing past page 100 of the results)?
Iskandar323 (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[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]
You asked for any written reference. There are 100 pages on Google Scholar.
Iskandar323 (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[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]
"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]
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
]
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]
Oh dear, there are rather a lot of them, with too high importance ratings. I've downgraded the "Religion" one from top to low, but is this actually needed at all? And nothing for Wikipedia:WikiProject Egypt or Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[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
    ]
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]
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]
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]
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
]
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]
Ok but the vast majority of the people, (scholars or laymen), are not invested in the rather small field of history of astronomy.★Trekker (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[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]
Note: here are the Ngrams, which support this Ptolemy as the PTOPIC.
ed. put'er there 09:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Oppose to Claudius Ptoleomy per
    WP:COMMONNAME.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Move to
    Avilich (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose both moves per the very compelling arguments of Walrasiad. --JBL (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[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
    ]
  • 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]
    • "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]
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]
      • 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]
  • Oppose per PRIMARYTOPIC, the other Ptolemy is known as Ptolemy I so is naturally disambiguated.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is clearly not true, the articles Alexander the Great or Wars of Alexander the Great for example introduce him simply as "Ptolemy". That is like saying Barack Obama is never referred to as just "Obama" because that is not his full name. Vpab15 (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If dab is correctly understood, anyone named "Ptolemy" may go by that name, but for purposes of WP the name
ed. put'er there 08:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose Unnecessary. Vic Park (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[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]
  • 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]
    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
    ]
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]
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
]
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]
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
]
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]
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
]
Per
applicable policy preserves the most recent prior stable title." Paul August ☎ 22:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[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]
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
]
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
]
This is user talk page stuff - what's this performance in aid of?
Iskandar323 (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Iskandar323: Yes and what's your lack of civility in aid of? Please stop. 11:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[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
]
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]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ptolemy&oldid=1208622815"