This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Okay, I'm not sure what is going on here. This page seems to have been moved from "Magnis" to "Magnae Carvetiorum" apparently on the basis that the
Carvetii were one of the tribes near this area. But I can find no good authority for this suffix. This fort is listed in the
Ravenna Cosmography and the
Notitia Dignitatum as "Magnis" and all the textbooks I can find either list the fort under that name or under the alternative "Magna".
Pasicles (
talk)
21:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Pasicles: I agree, I can find zero sources on Magnae Carvetiorum or The Greats of the Carvetii, and the same applies to Magnae Dobunnorum and The Greats of the Dobunni in
Magnae Dobunnorum. The latter used to be
Magnis (Kenchester) before it too was moved without discussion. I suggest a move back to the referenced titles and removal of the unreferenced additions. — SamSailor19:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)reply
An admin needs to notified and the article moved back to its original name - there is ZERO primary or secondary source support for the current name.
Cagwinn (
talk)
22:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)reply
No evidence has appeared, so I'll move it back. "Magnis" is the only form of the name for which there is clear evidence. It could be the locative/ablative of "Magnae" but that would only be one possibility among several. The identification of this name with the Carvoran fort is also a guess, but perhaps a fairly likely one.
Andrew Dalby19:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Ah, of course, I can't move it back: the redirect would have to be deleted first. But this is a desirable move: I see now that the identification of "Magnis" with Carvoran is definitely supported by Rivet & Smith (already cited in a footnote). I'll request a move.
Andrew Dalby19:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I've asked for a move. Meanwhile I took out the following, which gave the invented longer name: ", fully Magnae Carvetiorum (
Latin for "The Greats of the
Carvetii"),{{refn|The names are sometimes misspelled in the singular as '''Magna''' as well. The fort sometimes appears as '''Magnis''' in some itineraries, owing to Latin's declensions.}}". The Latin would most likely mean "the great women of the Carvetii" [but, to be clear, I'd say the name is much more likely to be Celtic and to mean something quite different. There was no "Magnis" elsewhere in the Roman world so far as I know].
Andrew Dalby19:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Sorry for the delay. China's been blocking Wikipedia and Wikipedia's been blocking VPNs.
I was going with the NATURALDAB, but if the name is felt objectionable by at least three of you without support in the primary texts, sure, it's fine to go back to the dabs. —
LlywelynII16:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Okay, I'm not sure what is going on here. This page seems to have been moved from "Magnis" to "Magnae Carvetiorum" apparently on the basis that the
Carvetii were one of the tribes near this area. But I can find no good authority for this suffix. This fort is listed in the
Ravenna Cosmography and the
Notitia Dignitatum as "Magnis" and all the textbooks I can find either list the fort under that name or under the alternative "Magna".
Pasicles (
talk)
21:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Pasicles: I agree, I can find zero sources on Magnae Carvetiorum or The Greats of the Carvetii, and the same applies to Magnae Dobunnorum and The Greats of the Dobunni in
Magnae Dobunnorum. The latter used to be
Magnis (Kenchester) before it too was moved without discussion. I suggest a move back to the referenced titles and removal of the unreferenced additions. — SamSailor19:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)reply
An admin needs to notified and the article moved back to its original name - there is ZERO primary or secondary source support for the current name.
Cagwinn (
talk)
22:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)reply
No evidence has appeared, so I'll move it back. "Magnis" is the only form of the name for which there is clear evidence. It could be the locative/ablative of "Magnae" but that would only be one possibility among several. The identification of this name with the Carvoran fort is also a guess, but perhaps a fairly likely one.
Andrew Dalby19:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Ah, of course, I can't move it back: the redirect would have to be deleted first. But this is a desirable move: I see now that the identification of "Magnis" with Carvoran is definitely supported by Rivet & Smith (already cited in a footnote). I'll request a move.
Andrew Dalby19:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I've asked for a move. Meanwhile I took out the following, which gave the invented longer name: ", fully Magnae Carvetiorum (
Latin for "The Greats of the
Carvetii"),{{refn|The names are sometimes misspelled in the singular as '''Magna''' as well. The fort sometimes appears as '''Magnis''' in some itineraries, owing to Latin's declensions.}}". The Latin would most likely mean "the great women of the Carvetii" [but, to be clear, I'd say the name is much more likely to be Celtic and to mean something quite different. There was no "Magnis" elsewhere in the Roman world so far as I know].
Andrew Dalby19:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Sorry for the delay. China's been blocking Wikipedia and Wikipedia's been blocking VPNs.
I was going with the NATURALDAB, but if the name is felt objectionable by at least three of you without support in the primary texts, sure, it's fine to go back to the dabs. —
LlywelynII16:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)reply