Talk:Geta (emperor)

	Biography portal 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 supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Phoenicia Low‑importance

	Phoenicia portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Roman and Byzantine emperors Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Roman and Byzantine Emperors WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Roman and Byzantine emperors. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roman and Byzantine emperorsWikipedia:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsTemplate:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsRoman and Byzantine emperors articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Damnatio Memoriae

There appears to be a conflict between this page and that for Caracalla over whether Caracalla ordered a damnatio memoriae against Geta. I have attempted to reconcile the two by citing the apparently-conflicting accounts, but it would be helpful if someone with access to the sources could determine whether each actually does make the representations other editors have ascribed to them. HavelockWilltravel (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

At school I learned Gaeta. Was that spelling in use? If so, it could be added.

Birthplace

There seems to be 2 accepted birth places for Geta (Rome and Milan) (google). Does anyone have a definitive source reagrding this?

No. No one knows where Geta was born. The Historia Augusta is our source for both. In Geta 3.1 Milan is given, in Sev. 4.2 Rome. The discrepancy is about 1500 years old. — Bill 23:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deleted "reference"

"Spartianus, Caracalla, 2" is in fact a roundabout reference to the Historia Augusta; it appears to mean Chapter 2 of the Life of Caracalla, but is an old-fashioned way of referring to the Life of Geta, which has been viewed as a sort of appendage (a "chapter 2" if you will) to Caracalla. Spartianus, of course, is one of the pseudonyms of the author of the Historia Augusta. (So in fact I haven't deleted the reference at all.) — Bill 23:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deified emperor category

Who the hell deified Geta? Caracalla surely didn't. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Macrinus did. Though sicne this edit is nine years late you probably will never see this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.41.63 (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I strongly oppose the convention here of numbering the Roman emperors in the manner of the presidents of the United States of America. In our era we consider Augustus the first emperor, but for other periods (including the Roman era itself) the first of the Caesares was the dictator C. Iulius Caesar. It should also be pointed out that the internal order of Augusti is not always obvious. On what grounds is Pupienus designated the 30th emperor and Balbinus the 31st? They were named emperors at the same time. Moreover, to determine which individuals were real emperors becomes increasingly difficult for the emp

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.232.156.16 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 April 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Geta (emperor). A clear consensus that he's not the primary topic for "Geta" and also a consensus to use parenthetical disambiguation. While natural disambiguation is preferred in general, a good case has been made here for why that is not ideal in this case (as often happens with people). Jenks24 (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Publius Septimius Geta → Geta – Most sources referring to him during his reign refer to him simply as Geta. As such, I thing this is his common name. I am not sure if he is the primary topic for this name, so an alternative change would be Geta (emperor) .147.126.10.156 (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose "Geta" I see no reason to delete the page currently at Geta and merge it into a gigantic hatnote here. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wasn't suggesting deleting the current page Geta. I should have made my intentions more clear. I suggested moving this page to Geta and moving the existing page to Geta (disambiguation). If you do not wish to Geta to have a disambiguation note in pareththeses, then I offer the alternative of changing this article to Geta (Emperor).
Speedy close - malformed template Geta (emperor) exists as a redirect. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to "Geta (emperor)": WP:ROMANS says that "Emperors who are clearly not the primary topic of their most common English name are disambiguated by the English title emperor: Valerian (emperor)". I don't see that there's any particular reason to have an exception for Geta. (Although note that in at least two other cases: Marcus Claudius Tacitus and Marcus Aurelius Probus this guideline is not followed. In the majority of cases – Valerian (emperor), Zeno (emperor), Jovian (emperor), Honorius (emperor), and Maurice (emperor) – however, the guideline is followed). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Geta (emperor). After a cursory look, I don't think "Publius Septimius Geta" is really useful as natural disambiguation. He's far and away better known as just "Geta", to the point that the full name may be a bit confusing even to people familiar with the emperor. Additionally, he was also known as "Lucius Septimius Geta", and sometimes even just "Septimius Geta" or "P. Septimius Geta". As with other emperors mentioned by Caeciliusinhorto, parenthetical disambiguation may be the way to go here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose use of "(emperor)" – The use of natural disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical disambiguation per WP:NATURAL, and the present title provides that. There is no reason to add a parenthetical. Also, "Geta" is too ambiguous. I tend to believe that the sandals would have more notoriety than this fellow, but I certainly don't think that he has WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status, and no evidence has been provided that he does. RGloucester — ☎ 16:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Geta (emperor) per Cuchullain. WP:NATURAL is good in some circumstances, but not for a case like this, where the "natural" name is hardly used and not the only possibility that one might use. — Amakuru (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Geta sources on origins

Hello, @Remsense. please explain your refusal agree to the Modifications on recent articles including the modification on 03/12/2024 share the peer reviewed scholarly articles you have found on the origins of the dynasty so we can clarify the matter, as you have commented on the modification that your sources mention that he is of "Punic" origins. Lobus (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just repost what I posted on your talk: I want to make sure it's a due addition. Is this a mainstream characterization of the Severans? Again, most of the generalist histories I'm aware of characterize them as merely North African or as Punic. Are there others than the one from the 1960s you are citing? And, assuming there are, is it really that important of a detail in those biographies—especially for emperors after Severus—to mean it's worth mentioning in a tertiary encyclopedia article? If it's always an offhand remark when only sometimes mentioned, that may mean it's just not that important as reflected in the body of reliable sources as a whole, which we are required to represent proportionally per WP:NPOV. Remsense ‥ 论 14:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, unfortunately you have removed well sourced material on 3 articles both from the lead and from from the bodies of the article and noted the Punic origins of Septimius severus from sources "you have read" as can be seen here 1,

Your comment :"I am not convinced (1) that this is a mainstream identity associated with him (this 1967 book is among the only generalist history sources I'm finding, most characterize the severans as merely Punic"

If you claim this is the case, then post the sources that you have read that he is punic in origin. Otherwise I will reinstate the edits and escalate the matter to admins if you continue undoing edits without engaging in serious discussion Lobus (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this dispute about the use of the word Berber rather than Punic? Ifly6 (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is a dispute on removing additions from several articles, the word punic is never removed, the word berber is constantly removed by @Remsense from 3 articles. Lobus (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifly6 the issue is that despite several sources showing the origins of a dynasty, the user constantly removes added information from across several articles Septimius Severus, Geta (emperor), Severan dynasty. Lobus (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]