text:
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ancient Romans)

Interesting proposal
But! It assumes that every single one of them deserves a wiki-article. Do you want to create an article just for saying so and so was pretor in 244 BC? I'd rather have something in the style of Caecilius Metellus, creating separate articles only for people w´hich further distinguished themselves. In other words I suggest: keeping all the stubs together in the paged named after the name they share. MvHG 11:26, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I've gone back and forth on that several times in my WP career. Right now I'm tending to favor splitting, because when you put several people in one article, links from events centuries apart end up on the same page, and we make the poor reader manually sort through the dozen people trying to figure which one was actually meant, and editors not familiar with the subject would likely "fix" the descriptions incorrectly if they picked the wrong person. Of course, if a person is not ever going to be linked to from anywhere else, then there's no reason not to leave on a group page. Stan 15:51, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I've been working on articles about individual Roman gentes, and the practice I'm following is to group all of the members on one page, sorted by family if necessary, and then by date, with each name on the list linking to a separate article, if there's enough material to warrant one. Of course many of these are just red links for now, and I'll have to go back and write up the articles later!  The ones about whom there isn't enough (or doesn't appear to be enough) material for at least a paragraph or two, get about one line explaining their significance and citing the ancient sources used to document them.  If it later turns out that there's enough material to justify a separate article, it's easy to add one and link it to the page about the gens!  P Aculeius (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A proposal regarding articles on Romans
I might suggest that when an Anglicized form is often used (e.g. Livy or Marc/Mark Antony), the original form be the article and the Anglicized form the redirect. If all wikipedias would adopt this it'd make interwiki linking a lot easier -- Antony would be listed under Marcus Antonius everywhere, as he already is on DA, DE, NL, and SV. In fact, the article on en.wikipedia discussing Marcus Antonius refers to him as "Antonius" everywhere except the title, and such a standard would appear to be already in place on the German wikipedia, though it may just be that Germans retain the proper endings on their Romans. We need not be constrained in fact to the constraints of a paper encyclopedia; if people come looking for Mark Antony, they can be directed to Marcus Antonius, unless we wish to start referring to Cicero as Tully; a uniform appearance is a desirable characteristic, even if it makes people undergo a redirect here and there. --Jeff Anonymous 07:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree wholeheartedly. — B.Bryant 11:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I don't. This is just pedantagonism. --Jpbrenna 06:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Using the word pedantagonism is pedantagonism. Using true names is simply accuracy, so long as a redirect or acknowledgment exists. — Jowfair 6 August 2005
 * I used to favor Marcus Antonius until I came into contact with a language which has cases. That language (Serbo-Croat FWIW) takes the root of the name rather than nominative.  This brought home to me that using a form like Antony based on the root is just as "correct" as using the nominative form especially as in English it will be used even when the object.Dejvid 09:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This may be reviving a dead proposal, but I also think this would be preferable. I see no disadvantages to having Mark Antony, Marc Antony, Mark Anthony, and Marc Anthony all redirect to a page entitled Marcus Antonius (triumvir) or something along those lines, or having Caesar, Julius Caesar and Iulius Caesar all redirect to Gaius Julius Caesar (Roman dictator) or perhaps to a page about the gens Julia, or even a disambiguation/prosopography page, depending on the context.  If the goal is to help people find the articles they're looking for easily, then redirects are a perfectly appropriate solution. P Aculeius (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"which" vs. "whom"
There's a grammatical error in the first sentence. It should read "...about whom we have...", not "...about which we have..."; Roman citizens are people, not things. I've not made the change myself, since conventions should not be changed without consensus. If another editor seeing this concurs, please make the change.MayerG (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

clarification
I have taken some of the detailed discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and implemented them into the convention. Further expansion and clarification is till needed but this appears to clarify the position on disambiguation. --Labattblueboy (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC – WP title decision practice
Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Gens articles
WP:ROMANS exists because Roman names are confusing. There is an immense series on the gentes, each of which (depending on the size of the gens) is a prosopographical list. These currently follow a consistent naming practice, and to minimize confusion (especially with the names of women in the gens), it's highly desirable to maintain consistency. If the current system doesn't conform to MOS, then any style change would need to offer the same degree of consistency as an aid to title recognition. If a consensus can be achieved, I'd like to codify it here, and have drafted a temporary section toward that end. I seem to be having trouble attracting comment, though. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Below I'm copying a discussion on gens article titling. After seeking input at WP:Article titles and WP:Disambiguation, I was unable to get any outside editors to participate in the discussion here or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. I didn't see a clear consensus emerge from the other two discussions, nor did any editor volunteer to take on the massive job of moving all the gentes. I'm thus assuming that editors tacitly think that it isn't worth the trouble to change the status quo. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion copied from WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome:

In my view, the crucial thing for these titles is that they all follow the same style; Roman nomenclature is confusing enough. Since I see no benefit to readers or editors if only those gens articles that have a title "ambiguity" are allowed to have the parenthetical explanation, I would like to reexamine titling options, in the hope of finding one we could apply consistently.

I don't recall where the original titling discussion took place, so let me summarize the options to the best of my ability:

 * Nomen, masculine singular. The article could be titled by the nomen of the gens used for its male members: Licinius, Afranius, and so on. The nomen already redirects to the gens article when there is no other clear primary topic, or when there is no article on the nomen itself nor other prosopographical list of those who share the name. Problem: there are instances where the nomen would not be the clear primary topic, and would require disambiguation. Here I'll point out that Pompeius is the other gens article title that is anomalous; it should really be a redirect to Pompey the Great, as Syme and some routinely call him by his Latin nomen Pompeius, and he's either the clear PT or there is none.
 * Nomen, masculine plural. This is possible, but not really accurate, as the article isn't about individuals, but rather the gens itself. Also potentially ambiguous: Licinii, Afranii, … Pompeii.
 * Nomen, feminine singular. The word gens is understood, as in the example of the moved Annaea. But when women of the gens are notable, this would produce a sea of ambiguity. And some of these are already dabs (Aemilia or Cornelia, for instance) or prosopographical lists.
 * The word gens + nomen (fem.). This would be the Latin form that would be clearest: gens Licinia, gens Afrania, gens Pompeia. No ambiguities. Drawback (a serious one, in my view): it's more useful when the nomen comes first in the search string. Readers are quite unlikely to be typing in the word gens. They're looking for a name.
 *  (inserting a point here) In indices to scholarly works, a gens is often given as Afrania, gens, in alphabetical listings. Alphabetization of Roman names by the nomen is pretty standard in scholarly works that list a lot of names, even when a figure (such as "the" Crassus) is known more commonly by his cognomen (which would generate a cross-reference that functions like our redirects). This goes with what P Aculeius points out below about the utility of the gens name appearing first rather than the word gens itself, which would produce a hard-to-navigate drop-down menu if Latin word order were to be used. WP doesn't use this form of alphabetizing for article titles, so I don't see Afrania, gens as an option.
 * Nomen (fem.) + gens. Not really standard Latin to say Licinia gens, Afrania gens, Pompeia gens, but conforms to English expectations: "the Licinia family".
 * Nomen + (gens). This is the style P Aculeius arrived at in order to avoid bad Latin. But as we see with the move from Annaea (gens) (now a redirect) to Annaea, this system of naming is vulnerable to dab enforcement, and potentially results in a confusing lack of consistency for the gentes article titles. That's why I've brought the issue here.

Thoughts? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

 * I added a note on existing practice to the bottom of WP:ROMANS, with a link to this discussion. If existing practice is backed by consensus, or if we can come up with another naming scheme, then I think that guideline page should codify the style point. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm not actually away, just hadn't had time to respond, being busy. I can't claim to be unbiased, since I established the style currently in use.  I could have argued with the move of Annaea from "Annaea (gens)" but chose not to because I didn't want to get involved in a war over MOS issues involving disambiguation.  I'll briefly comment on the different options:
 * Nomen, masculine singular. I don't like this option, because it would be completely foreign to the Romans, isn't used by the most widely-available sources on the topic, and would certainly be problematic where some the gens wouldn't be the primary topic (and this would probably be the case with many important families).
 * Nomen, masculine plural. Also not a good choice in my opinion, for the reasons Cynwolfe gave above.  And probably nobody would look for an article using this format.
 * Nomen, feminine singular. Ambiguous, especially where there are articles about women of the gentes (individually or collectively).
 * The word gens + nomen (fem.). Technically correct, for which reason I would recommend it if the word gens were ignored like "a" or "the."  But it's not.  If we use this, the search window will have far too many results to display, all beginning with the same word.  A bit like filing things such as "a letter from Cicero to Licinius" and "a will belonging to Caesar" under A.
 * Nomen (fem.) + gens. I think this would work.  It would mean redirecting a lot of articles, but some of that might be done by bots.  It avoids the issue of the parenthesis conflicting with disambiguation policies.  I doubt there would be many conflicts with other pages, since the word gens isn't that widely used outside of classical studies; it's also used in biology, but the two (related) meanings aren't used in the same context, so conflicts with existing articles should be rare.  As for the objection that it's not standard in Latin, that's true.  But the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, which is about as good a source as can be expected for general topics about gentes and their members, does use this form in a high percentage of articles.  So I think we can say it's good English.  And while I strongly prefer Latin forms for some purposes ("Pompey" for "Pompeius" drives me nuts), English forms have their place in English-language articles, and this seems like a good example.
 * Nomen + (gens). Sticking with this ought to be fine, although the non-parenthetical version above might be just as good.  I don't think that the disambiguation policy should apply here, since in this case uniformity of titles is more important.  But if the preceding suggestion would avoid difficulties arising from disambiguation policies, then that seems acceptable also.  P Aculeius (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

end copied discussion
 * To P Aculeius's observation above that DGRBM lists the name as (for instance) Afrania gens, I would append a note. It does, but I believe the purpose is to keep related information together (all the Afranii and Afraniae), since it's arranged alphabetically. I'm not sure the principle differs from indices in modern works of scholarship that would list Afrania, gens for alphabetizing. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Tria nomina vs. WP:CONCISE
Recently a number of biographical articles on Roman men have been moved from their full names—usually the tria nomina plus or minus a cognomen or two—to whatever collocation of names makes them unique with respect to other article titles, on the grounds that this is required by WP:CONCISE. I think that this misapplies the policy in a way that does a disservice to our readers. I agree that there are some individuals who are so famous by abbreviated versions of their names that the articles should go under those titles, i.e. Cicero, Mark Antony, Tiberius. But for less well-known figures, I think our default policy should be to use the tria nomina plus regularly-used cognomina, and whatever other distinguishing factors are necessary for disambiguation. Some examples: I think it's a good time to discuss this because of recent moves and move proposals. Today I discovered that Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica—admittedly a mouthful—had been moved to Metellus Scipio, a collocation I wouldn't have thought to look under; if I had remembered the full name I probably would have looked under Scipio Nasica (which, as it turns out, is a disambiguation page). I reverted the move because I didn't think it was a likely search target; I don't know that the full name is that much more likely, but at least it's a predictable title. Note that this proposal wouldn't affect Roman women, who usually were known by just a nomen, occasionally accompanied by a praenomen or cognomen; I don't think articles about them are likely to be moved due to WP:CONCISE. P Aculeius (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Publius Cornelius Albus goes under that title, not Cornelius Albus, even though no other notable Cornelii used the cognomen "Albus", making the latter option unique.
 * Lucius Cornelius Lentulus Niger should be under that title, not Lentulus Niger, although that would also be unique.
 * Scipio Africanus stays where it is, because he's familiar enough under that name alone, and doesn't move to Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, even though that would be technically correct.
 * Marcus Junius Brutus likewise stays where it is, instead of moving to the seldom used, but technically correct Quintus Servilius Caepio Brutus. I note that we recently decided, after a lengthy discussion, that this title was preferable to either Brutus or Marcus Brutus.
 * How would this apply to polyonomic names? -- llywrch (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't mean that the full nomenclature needs to be used in every instance, particularly when a specific surname or collocation of names is infrequently used or applied to an individual. For example, Augustus' father is listed as Gaius Octavius (father of Augustus) rather than the seldom-seen and not very recognizable Gaius Octavius Thurinus.  The same would apply to polyonomous names of imperial times; we just need to apply common sense, and use the best-known version of the name, which in some cases will be the traditional tria nomina, possibly with one or two additional names.  For example, Gaius Bruttius Praesens (consul AD 139) seems fine for Gaius Bruttius Praesens Lucius Fulvius Rusticus, since again, that's what he is usually called.  If he were usually called by all six names, we could use that instead—it's a mouthful, but not really too long for a title.  The goal of my proposal is to support titles like this, and prevent such articles from being moved to titles like Bruttius Praesens (consul 217) or Bruttius (consul 217) or Praesens Rusticus simply because those would be more CONCISE.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, but Gaius Octavius (father of Augustus) is not distinguished by his cognomen because he apparently chose not to use the surname Thurinus at all.Aforst1 (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can say that; he died the year after putting down the rebellion, so we don't know whether he would have used it—but the article about him says that he bestowed it on his son—who seldom, if ever used it—so it's fairly clear that he thought it a worthwhile name, even if his son did not. Of course by the time the young Octavian was old enough to seek distinction, he'd already been adopted by Caesar, who was then deified—and it was far more in Octavian's interests to be remembered as a Caesar, and son of a god, than the son of a man whose signal accomplishment was putting down a slave revolt, which is what the name commemorated.  Even so, if there were a lot of Octavii requiring disambiguation, and no more natural titles, then "Gaius Octavius Thurinus" might well be a good title.  Since he was the father of Augustus, there's a much more helpful way to distinguish his article.  P Aculeius (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree. The name trio should be used in full for people who lack a different name by which they are commonly referred, since anything else might be arbitrary and cause confusion. In a case like the composite imperial-era name mentioned above, either the full name or a particular set of names (generally a tria nomina) by which he is more commonly known should be used, without arbitrarily removing name parts under the pretense of conciseness. It seems you brought up this subject in response to me moving Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica to Metellus Scipio. I still stand by the decision, since 'Metellus Scipio' is widely used in both modern and ancient sources, and I did not do it solely on basis of WP:CONCISE. If people have even heard of the man, they will most likely have heard 'Scipio' or 'Metellus Scipio', but probably not his full name.
 * Your example of Marcus Junius Brutus is a bit problematic since the name of his father's article – Marcus Junius Brutus (father of Brutus) – implies that "Brutus", rather than "Marcus Junius Brutus", is a better page name for Caesar's assassin. Aforst1 (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's problematic at all. I don't think that should be the title of the elder Brutus' article in the first place, as I said there and at CGR.  But "Marcus Junius Brutus (father of Marcus Junius Brutus)" isn't a viable option either.  From the article's creation until last fall, it was stable at "Marcus Junius Brutus the Elder", and that seems like a suitable title, even if the disambiguating phrase is a modern addition.  Some other editors have voiced concerns that this type of disambiguation is problematic, in that it risks confusing ancient and modern disambiguation—but even so, I think it's preferable to the tautological title that the article has now.  Still, what to call Brutus or his father is not what this particular proposal was about.  And I wasn't proposing to make it a rigid rule—just a clarification to the policy for Romans to prevent "WP:CONCISE" from being used as a justification for reducing Roman biographical articles to the shortest possible distinctive combination of names or words, which has been done numerous times in the past—not just with Scipio Nasica.  There will of course be exceptions: I may prefer "Gaius Julius Caesar" or simply "Caesar" to the present title, but the die is cast.  Running text can of course use whatever seems appropriate to the circumstances; this discussion is just about article titles.  P Aculeius (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My purpose wasn't to derail the issue too much with the issue of Brutus. Again, I mostly agreed with what you said – to use the tria nomina as a rule of thumb –, in the paragraph just above that mentioning Brutus (perhaps you've missed it?) Aforst1 (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I went on ad nauseam. Just wanted to be clear about the limits of what I was proposing.  P Aculeius (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'm glad we can reach an understanding on this. Aforst1 (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we've got general consensus, and have gone ahead and revised the middle portion of the article titling section accordingly. But maybe my wording could be improved upon, or maybe there's still disagreement on something—feel free to tweak it, revert it if you think it goes too far, or resume the discussion here. P Aculeius (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation: office vs. office and year
There's been some inconsistency over the years concerning how best to disambiguate Romans using magistracies or other official appointments, and I think perhaps it would be a good time to discuss it and see if we can come to a consensus. The policy currently says that between Romans sharing the same name, when the highest offices held were different, those offices alone should be used to disambiguate them; i.e. Gnaeus Arcadius Maximus (praetor) to distinguish him from Gnaeus Arcadius Maximus (grammarian) and Gnaeus Arcadius Maximus (magister equitum). However, the practice of adding the year of office is long-established and, I think, helpful, particularly when several persons with the same or very similar names held different offices over a span of time. Under the current policy, which is supposedly informed by WP:CONCISE, an article titled Gnaeus Arcadius Maximus (consul AD 217) is likely to be moved to Gnaeus Arcadius Maximus (consul) as long as none of his homonymous relatives held the consulship, even if Lucius Arcadius Maximus held the consulship in 215, Marcus Arcadius Maximus in 225, and Gnaeus Arcadius Cumulonimbus in 236. I think that this is an overly-strict application of WP:CONCISE. My suggestion is to revise our current policy, and state explicitly that the year of office should be included when an office is used as a disambiguator, and the year of office is known. I think this would be more helpful to readers and editors, as well as making disambiguation between Roman articles more predictable. P Aculeius (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Because the office and year are used for disambiguation, most article titles on Romans probably won't feature the year in which they flourished anyway. I once argued in favor of removing the year in a discussion with User:T8612, but if it helps readers and editors then I don't really have anything against it. The year-less article titles should, in such case, be redirected to those which feature the year. The very example in WP:ROMANS, Lucius Cornelius Scipio (praetor), violates the supposed conciseness rule since it redirects to Lucius Cornelius Scipio (praetor 174 BC). Aforst1 (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 * In all probability it's there because none of the editors who favoured moving these to the most concise titles possible had noticed it. But the year is immensely helpful when there's an office involved, whereas the office itself usually isn't.  For example: the article on the Junia gens lists twelve different Silani named Marcus, four named Decimus, and three each named Lucius or Gaius, covering the period from 216 BC to AD 65; at least ten of them were consuls, and every one of them had probably been praetor before that, along with some who didn't attain the consulship—to say nothing of the dozens of other Junii named Marcus, Decimus, Lucius, or Gaius over the course of nearly eight hundred years, who held numerous consulships and other offices.
 * It wouldn't make any sense to use just the year for disambiguation—"Marcus Junius Brutus (178)"—or even the year with "BC" or "AD", which I would say is pretty much obligatory for Romans, since Roman biographical articles span roughly 500 years in each direction. As it happens, only one of the ten men listed as "Marcus Junius Brutus" was ever consul—but since they and the other Junii Bruti held numerous offices over four and a half centuries, even someone with a firm grasp of Roman history might be excused for not knowing what time period "Marcus Junius Brutus (consul)" belongs to.  Only with both the office and year does the meaning become apparent: "Marcus Junius Brutus (consul 178 BC)".  Now, when one person stands head and shoulders above anyone else he might be confused with—say Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, or Marcus Furius Camillus—it isn't really necessary to have disambiguation.  That can be used for articles about other members of those gentes.  But when an office held is the most natural form of disambiguation for an article, it ought to have the year—and era, in most cases.  P Aculeius (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel that this needs to be brought out of abeyance at least so that whoever decides to someday clarify the guidelines has a more solid consensus to work on. To sum up my position on this, I can accept the idea that the year should required when using a magistracy to disambiguate individuals. This would especially make sense for non-consuls or any office which doesn't have a complete enumeration (the fasti, for instance) of men who held it. On the topic of suffect consulships, I see no reason why they should be distinguished on the article title, as in Lucius Valerius Flaccus (suffect consul 86 BC) and Publius Cornelius Dolabella (suffect consul 44 BC). Either the 'suffect' should be dropped, or the year (as in Lucius Aurelius Gallus (suffect consul) or Lucius Cornelius Cinna (suffect consul)), but using both makes the title too long. If the year is to become obligatory, then the former alternative is surely preferable.

I do not want to complicate this too much but what is to be made with, for example, Publius Rutilius Lupus (consul) and Lucius Afranius (consul), who seem to lack similarly-named officeholder relatives (and thus, reasons for disambiguation) with Wikipedia pages? Is the year rule to be applied unalterably or do cases like these constitute exceptions? Finally, what should be the order of precedence for offices not within the cursus honorum? Should princeps senatus and dictator come before consul, as in Lucius Valerius Flaccus (princeps senatus 86 BC) (cos. 100), or not, as in Marcus Aemilius Scaurus (consul 115 BC) (princeps senatus) and Titus Manlius Torquatus (consul 235 BC) (dictator)? If so, should the year be used for these offices as well? Avis11 (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Agree with including the year (with era) for persons who held one of the annual magistracies or similar offices (i.e. tribunes of the plebs were not magistrates), when those offices are the most logical means of distinguishing among individuals. In some cases, where one person is head-and-shoulders above everyone else with the name, it won't be necessary.  There is no point in distinguishing the consules ordinarii from the suffecti in article titles—they all held the consular dignity, with the same level of authority, and there will seldom, if ever, be two fully homonymous individuals holding the consulship in the same year.  I would not except Rutilius and Afranius from having the year, even if there are no homonymous consuls; I think it would be simpler to apply this principle across the board when annual offices are used for disambiguation.

 * Even though dictators held greater imperium than consuls, I think I would go by consulships for those dictators who held the consulship at least once (there can be very few who did not). I would probably not use princeps senatus at all—presumably everyone with this title had been consul, the office was not an annual magistracy, and nearly all of our dates for them are approximate.  If it is to be used, it should go without a year since its holders didn't serve for a particular year, and in any case it's relatively distinctive: our list includes only two dozen or so holders of the office for the entire history of the Republic, and the only fully homonymous individuals I noticed were the two Lucii Valerii Flacci—both of whom would be less awkwardly distinguished by their consulships.

 * My impression is that, with relatively few exceptions, this guideline—disambiguating by office and year—will apply mainly to consuls and praetors. Most consuls and some praetors who never attained the consulship will eventually have at least stub articles; nearly all dictators and most magistri equitum will have held the consulship at some point, as will most censors, principes senatus, and similar persons; relatively few articles will be written about quaestors, aediles, or tribunes of the plebs who never held higher office, but if this is the most convenient way of distinguishing them then it can be applied to them as well—except that I would probably not use a year with princeps senatus, pontifex maximus, rex sacrorum, or other Roman priests, since these were not annual magistracies.  P Aculeius (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Lets sum this up then. When using an office of the cursus honorum for disambiguation, the one of highest imperium is used, always alongside the year of tenure (the first in which the office was held). Suffect consulships are not to be distinguished. Non-annual offices like princeps senatus and pontifex maximus, aside from cases in which sources use it as a primary identifier (e.g. Quintus Mucius Scaevola Pontifex and Quintus Mucius Scaevola Augur), are to be avoided. I would only add my personal preference that dictator be used over consul when available, since the tenure was for 6 months and would thus fall within a single year; further, Sulla and Julius Caesar are more noted for being dictators rather than consuls. Avis11 (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Princeps senatus can probably be avoided altogether, but some non-annual offices such as pontifex maximus might still be needed in some cases. However, since they're non-annual and could span many years (with beginning and end points we frequently don't know) I don't think we should use years with them.  With respect to your dictator examples, while Sulla and Caesar are well-known for their dictatorships, both are well-enough known that they don't require disambiguation in their articles' titles.  I suspect the same is true of most of the famous dictators—Cincinnatus, Camillus, Corvus, Rullianus, Verrucosus.  P Aculeius (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 * I support the use of a date combined with the magistracy. I prefer using consul over any other magistracy (dictator, censor, magister equitum), principally because these ones are less securely attested than consulships, especially for the early Republic, where you have a lot of hypothetical magistracies (I am aware that several consulships found in the Fasti are also dubious). The only exception I would make is for Triumvir, but that only applies to Marcus Aemilius Lepidus. There are some men who held the dictatorship/censorship without being consul though, so the order of the highest magistracy/office should be consul>dictator>censor>magister equitum>praetor>tribune of the plebs>aedile>quaestor. Some men are more famous for another magistracy than their consulship, such as Sulla and Caesar (dictatorship), or Appius Caecus (censorship), but they are often much more famous than their homonyms and their name does not need disambiguation. Princeps Senatus should never be used because there is too much uncertainty on the incumbents. Pontifex Maximus should also be avoided; however, when a man is not known to have held any magistracy, we could use some religious appointment (for example: Publius Cornelius Scipio (Flamen Dialis 174 BC) or Marcus Fabius Ambustus (pontifex maximus 390 BC)). Rex sacrorum may have to be used too since the Rex sacrorum could not hold magistracy. I'm wondering what should we do with family connection, like: Publius Cornelius Scipio (son of Scipio Africanus). T8612  (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 * I would probably go with consul > censor > dictator > magister equitum > praetor, but honestly I don't think we need to include an official order of precedence in the policy. Common sense will usually suggest a title, and if there's some uncertainty in individual cases, we can thresh it out on the talk pages.  As for Scipio, I think the best solution is to leave him where he is—we could call him "(augur)", but that would be less helpful than the current title, and we only have an approximate date for the start of his augurship to begin with—even though he died young, he may have been an augur for several years.  That's my main objection to using continuing offices with years; if they're used at all, it should be without years, because it would be quite awkward using approximate dates and spans in article titles.  I can see this problem occurring with some annual magistrates as well, at least with regard to approximate dates, but not that often during the Republic (magistrates important enough to have their own articles are likely to have held at least one dateable office; otherwise undistinguished suffecti in imperial times are unlikely to have articles), and at least we wouldn't have to deal with spans of years in the title ("consul under Domitian" or something similar might be a logical way of dealing with this, when it comes up).

 * Bear in mind that this particular policy proposal was designed to address articles that already use an annual office as a disambiguator in the title—it wouldn't apply to those who don't need this type of disambiguation, like Scipio. The goal was to have a uniform style for the title: "Titus Quinctius Flamininus (consul 150 BC)" instead of "Titus Quinctius Flamininus (consul)" or "Titus Quinctius Flamininus (consul 150)", both of which styles have been imposed based on WP:CONCISE simply because the resulting title was unique.  The similar proposal above for preferring the tria nomina was intended to preclude editors from moving "Titus Quinctius Flamininus (consul 150 BC)" to "Titus Flamininus (consul 150 BC)" or "Flamininus (consul 150 BC)", also based on WP:CONCISE.  I think we have substantial agreement on both proposals, but I'd like to make sure before writing them into the guidelines.  P Aculeius (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Name in article text
I think it might be worthwhile to specify that in text, Romans should be referred to, in the first instance, by disambiguating linked name or with an explanatory phrase instead of the abbreviations common in classical scholarship. What I mean by that is not but rather Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, the plebeian tribune of 133 BC. Similarly, a link is should be sufficient disambiguation. If the text simply says Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, this is a problem (which one?). If it links to Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (this time the tribune's father), I think that should be noted as okay. Ifly6 (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

 * This seems like basic common sense to me. Not sure why anyone would be intentionally leaving it unclear which of several potentially notable persons with the same name is being referred to.  If it occurs, it's probably accidental, or in the case of using abbreviations instead of writing out words, being overly faithful to specialist sources.  But in either case it's easily corrected: reword and/or link to the article on the intended person (if there is one).  If abbreviations are necessary—i.e. in a table—then they can be written out and listed in a section preceding or following the table.  I don't know whether any of this needs to be added to the guideline, because it's just basic editing.  Is there some other circumstance I'm not aware of?  P Aculeius (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


text:
Keminmaa

Keminmaa (until 1979 Kemin maalaiskunta) (Kiemâeennâm; Ǩeeʹmmjânnam) is a municipality of Finland. It is located near the towns of Kemi and Tornio in the Lapland region.

The municipality has a population of 0 and covers an area of undefined km2 of which undefined km2 is water. The population density is undefined PD/km2.

Geography
Neighbouring municipalities are Kemi, Simo, Tervola and Tornio.

Villages

 * Hirmula
 * Ilmola
 * Itäkoski
 * Jokisuu
 * Laurila
 * Lautiosaari
 * Liedakkala
 * Maula
 * Pörhölä
 * Ruottala (mostly on Tornio's territory)
 * Sompujärvi
 * Törmä
 * Viitakoski

Coat of arms
Blazon: Gules with a springing Silver salmon, holding a padlock in its mouth.

Notable people

 * Peter Franzén, Finnish actor
 * Ari Koch, Finnish sculptor
 * Veikko Lesonen, Finnish businessman and investor
 * Taavetti Lukkarinen, former foreman of Kemi Oy; convicted to death and hanged for treason
 * Markus Pessa, Finnish Emeritus professor at the Tampere University of Technology and the founder and former director of the Optoelectronics Research Centre at that same university.
 * Joonas Piippola, Finnish ballroom dancer, dance teacher and choreographer
 * Tomi Putaansuu, the Finnish singer of band Lordi, lived in Keminmaa when he was a child
 * Nicolaus Rungius, local 17th century vicar whose mummified body is nowadays a tourist attraction in Keminmaa church
 * Hannu Tihinen, Finnish football player
 * Otto Vallenius, Finnish opera singer and painter
 * Paavo Väyrynen, Finnish politician

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Keminmaa


text:
Kolari

Kolari is a municipality of Finland at the Swedish border, which follows the Torne River, the longest free-flowing river in Europe.

It is located in the region of Lapland. The municipality has a population of 0 and covers an area of undefined km2 of which undefined km2 is water. The population density is undefined PD/km2.

Neighbouring municipalities are Muonio, Pello, Kittilä, Rovaniemi in Finland and Pajala Municipality in Sweden.

The municipality is unilingually Finnish.

Kolari railway station is the northernmost station in Finland.

Ylläs, one of the most popular ski resorts in Finland, is located in Kolari. The area also features the country's largest bog with a thousand-year-old forest.

History
The first permanent settler in the area was a Savonian named Pekka Kolari, arriving in the area in the early 1580s. He originated from Konnevesi, which was a part of the Rautalampi parish at the time. The island named Kolarinsaari near the village of Istunmäki was likely his original home, as the Savonian surname Kolari originates from the same island.

The area of Kolari was a part of the Pajala parish, which is in modern Sweden. Kolari started growing in the 17th century due to the nearby Kengis (Köngäs) ironworks established in 1644. Kolari was home to many skilled blacksmiths. Charcoal, tar and chalk were produced and delivered to Tornio.

After Russia gained Finland in 1809, it was transferred to the Turtola parish, modern Pello. As the winter market could no longer be held in Kengis due to the new border, they were held on the island of Kolarinsaari in the Tornio river. Kolari became a chapel community in 1856 and a separate parish in 1894.

title: Kolari


text:
Muonio

Muonio (previously called Muonionniska, Muoná) is a municipality of Finland. The town is located in far northern Finland above the Arctic Circle on the country's western border, within the area of the former Lappi (Lapland) province. The municipality has a population of 0 and covers an area of undefined km2 of which undefined km2 is water. The population density is undefined PD/km2.

The next closest Finnish municipalities are Enontekiö, Kittilä, and Kolari; and to the west is Sweden's Pajala. On the south side of town, a road bridge crosses the Muonio River, linking Muonio to northern Norrbotten County, Sweden. Muonio is good base for exploring the many things to do in the area, and is on the E8 highway which goes north to Kilpisjärvi. The municipality is unilingually Finnish, unlike many towns on the Finland–Sweden border.

Muonio is known as the municipality with the longest snow season in Finland. For that reason its vocational college has a top ski class that attracts aspiring cross-country ski champions from all over Finland. The "midnight sun" is above the horizon from 27 May to 17 July (52 days), and the period with continuous daylight is during this time. The period of continuous night, polar night, lasts from 10 December to 2 January (24 days).

Villages
The villages in Muonio include:
 * Ylimuonio
 * Kangosjärvi
 * Kätkäsuvanto
 * Kihlanki
 * Särkijärvi

Politics
Results of the 2011 Finnish parliamentary election in Muonio:

 * Centre Party  27.5%
 * National Coalition Party  23.2%
 * True Finns  16.4%
 * Social Democratic Party  15.9%
 * Left Alliance  9.8%
 * Green League  3.0%
 * Christian Democrats  2.4%
 * Swedish People's Party  1.5%
 * Other parties  0.3%

title: Muonio


text:
Auckland Harbour Bridge

The Auckland Harbour Bridge is an eight-lane motorway bridge over the Waitematā Harbour in Auckland, New Zealand. It joins St Marys Bay on the Auckland city side with Northcote on the North Shore side. It is part of State Highway 1 and the Auckland Northern Motorway. The bridge is operated by the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA). It is the second-longest road bridge in New Zealand, and the longest in the North Island.

The original inner four lanes, opened in 1959, are of box truss construction. Two lanes were added to each side in 1968–1969 and are of orthotropic box structure construction extend as cantilevers from the original piers. The bridge is 1,020 m (3,348 ft) long, with a main span of 243.8 metres (800 feet) rising 43.27 metres (142 feet) above high water, allowing ships access to the deepwater wharf at the Chelsea Sugar Refinery, one of the few such wharves west of the bridge.

While often considered an Auckland icon, many see the construction of the bridge without walking, cycling, and rail facilities as a big oversight. In 2016, an add-on structure providing a walk-and-cycleway called SkyPath received Council funding approval and planning consent, but was not built. In 2021, a stand-alone walking and cycling bridge called the Northern Pathway was announced by the New Zealand Government, but also was not built.

About 170,000 vehicles cross the bridge each day (as of 2019), including over 1,000 buses, which carry 38% of all people crossing during the morning peak.

Background
Prior to the opening of the bridge in 1959, the quickest way from Auckland to the North Shore was by passenger or vehicular ferry. By road, the shortest route was via the Northwestern Motorway (then complete only between Great North Road and Lincoln Road), Massey, Riverhead, and Albany, a distance of approximately 50 km.

As early as 1860, engineer Fred Bell, commissioned by North Shore farmers who wanted to herd animals to market in Auckland, had proposed a harbour crossing in the general vicinity of the bridge. It would have used floating pontoons, but the plan failed due to the £16,000 cost estimate ($1.9 million, adjusted for inflation as of March 2017). Additional structures for a bridge crossing the harbour were proposed in 1927 and 1929.

In the 1950s, when the bridge was being built, North Shore was a mostly rural area of barely 50,000 people, with few jobs and a growth rate half that of Auckland south of the Waitematā Harbour. Opening up the area via a new route unlocked the potential for further expansion of Auckland.

Initial structure
The recommendations of the design team and the report of the 1946 Royal Commission were for five or six traffic lanes, with one or two of them to be reversed in direction depending on the flow of traffic, and with a footpath for pedestrians on each side. The latter features were dropped for cost reasons before construction started, the First National Government of New Zealand opting for an 'austerity' design of four lanes without footpaths, and including an approach road network only after local outcry over traffic effects. The decision to reduce the bridge in this way has been called "a ringing testament to [...] the peril of short-term thinking and penny-pinching". On 1 December 1950, an act of parliament formed the Auckland Harbour Bridge Authority, chaired by Sir John Allum, then Mayor of Auckland City, who appointed British firm Freeman Fox & Partners to design the bridge.

The bridge took four years to build, with Dorman Long (who had constructed the Sydney Harbour Bridge) and the Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Company contracted to construct the bridge in October 1954. The first stage of construction involved land reclamation at the Westhaven Marina, which was completed by September 1955. The steel girder structure pieces were fabricated in England and shipped to New Zealand. The steel bridge structure began erection in December 1956. Hundreds of labourers were employed on the construction including 180 men sent out from the UK. Progress was slowed with the workers going on strike in 1956 and 1957. The large steel girder sections were partially pre-assembled, then floated into place on construction barges. One of the main spans was almost lost during stormy weather when the barge began to drift, but the tugboat William C Daldy won a 36-hour tug-of-war against the high winds.

The bridge was constructed from opposing sides of the harbour. The southern section was cantilevered, until both sides were joined in March 1959. Completed in April 1959, three weeks ahead of schedule, the bridge was officially opened on 30 May 1959 by the Governor-General Lord Cobham. An open day had been held, when 106,000 people had walked across. The opening period was extremely busy, despite the poor weather in Auckland experienced in June 1959. Either three or four men had been killed by accidents during construction, and the names of three of them are recorded on a memorial plaque underneath the bridge at the Northcote end.

The hollow girder design by Freeman, Fox and Partners design was unprecedented in New Zealand, and fell outside the 1950s building codes in New Zealand. Initial plans for the bridge were for an extremely slender structure, only 2.9 metres thick, due to the competing specifications from two stakeholders: the National Roads Board specified the gradient and locations where the bridge could launch from the shore on either side of the harbour, while the Auckland Harbour Board required an opening of 43.5 metres above the high tide point. Public Works commissioner Bob Norman, concerned about the narrow bridge design, attempted to negotiate with both the Roads Board and Harbour Board for additional width allowance for the bridge. The Harbour Board required the 43.5 metre clearance so that the entire fleet of ships operating within New Zealand could navigate the harbour, the largest of which was the P&O cruise liner SS Canberra. Norman argued that the Canberra was extremely unlikely to use the only major dock west of the bridge at the Chelsea Sugar Refinery, so the Harbour Board agreed to a smaller opening. This allowed Freeman Fox and Partners to redesign the bridge, increasing the width of the deep centre span from 2.9 metres to 4.12 metres. By the 1970s, many box girder bridges began to develop structural problems, such as the Freeman Fox and Partners-designed West Gate Bridge in Melbourne which collapsed during construction in 1970. The Auckland Harbour Bridge was inspected by the design firm, which found that the stiffening member had buckled by 61mm, so it was decided to strengthen the bridge's girder system.

Paid for by government-backed loans, the bridge started out as a toll bridge, the first one in New Zealand, with toll booths at the northern end for north-bound and south-bound traffic. Tolls were originally 2/6 (2 shillings and six pence: approximately $5.50 in 2018) per car but were reduced to 2/- (2 shillings: approximately $4.47 in 2018) after 15 months of operation. The toll remained at 2 shillings until New Zealand changed to decimal currency in July 1967, when that amount became 20 cents in the conversion. It was increased in 1980 from 20 to 25 cents (approximately $1.21 in 2018). Tolling was later made north-bound only before being discontinued on 31 March 1984, and the booths were removed. The toll system was removed as the cost of collection began to outweigh the profits. When this happened, the Auckland Harbour Bridge Authority enquired if the National Roads Board would take over operations if the toll booths were removed, which they agreed to. When the bridge became toll free, most of the Auckland Harbour Bridge Authority staff were absorbed into the roads board.

Some critics have alleged that the routing of State Highway 1 over the bridge was motivated by the need to create toll revenue, and led to a decades-long delay on finishing the Western Ring Route around Auckland, significantly contributing to the need for a massive motorway through the city centre of Auckland and severely damaging inner-city suburbs such as Freemans Bay and Grafton.

'Nippon clip-ons'

The bridge was originally built with four lanes for traffic. Owing to the rapid expansion of suburbs on the North Shore and increasing traffic levels, it was soon necessary to increase capacity; by 1965, the annual use was about 10 million vehicles, three times the original forecast. In 1967, a contract was given to Japanese firm Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (now IHI Corporation) to construct two steel box girder bridges affixed to the Harbour Bridge, to greatly increase the number of lanes on the bridge. The girder sections were prefabricated in Japan and transported to New Zealand on a converted oil tanker. The eastern section was completed in January 1969, while the western side was completed shortly before the additional lanes were formally opened on 23 September 1969. Each side added two additional lanes to the bridge, doubling the number of lanes to eight.

As the sections were manufactured by a Japanese company, this led to the nickname 'Nippon clip-ons'. The selection of the company was considered a bold move at the time, barely 20 years after WWII and with some considerable anti-Japanese sentiment still existing. The costs of the additions were much higher than if the extra lanes had been provided initially.

The clip-ons have been plagued by significant issues. In 1987, cracks required major repair works, and in 2006, further cracks and signs of material fatigue were found. The clip-ons were originally to have a life expectancy of 50 years. Auckland City Council's Transport Committee requested Transit New Zealand to investigate the future of the clip-ons as part of its ten-year plan. Transit noted that the plan already includes some funding for bridge maintenance.

In May 2007, Transit proposed a by-law change banning vehicles over 4.5 tonnes from the outside lane on each clip-on to reduce stress on the structure. This was changed in July 2007 to a bylaw banning vehicles of 13 tonnes or more, based on the high level of voluntary compliance during the previous months.

In 2007, it was announced that NZ$45 million in maintenance work on the clip-ons was brought forward as part of good practice. In October 2007, a 2006 report from Beca Group surfaced in the press, noting that the clip-ons were at risk of catastrophic, immediate failure in circumstances such as a traffic jam trapping a large number of trucks. Transit noted that this situation was extremely unlikely, and measures already implemented would prevent it from occurring. In January 2008, it became known that even after the multimillion-dollar maintenance works, a full ban for trucks on all clip-on lanes might be required, or the working life could be reduced to only ten more years.

In late 2009, it was announced that due to greater than expected complexity of the task and increasing material costs for the 920 tons of reinforcing material instead of the approximately half amount of that originally envisaged, clip-on maintenance costs had increased by a further NZ$41 million. NZTA noted that the clip-ons would not be able to be strengthened again after the current works were finished. However, after completion of the upgrade, the bridge would have a further life of between 20 and 40 years if truck restrictions were reintroduced in 10–20 years on the northbound clip-on.

Traffic management

A "tidal flow" system is in place, with the direction of the two centre lanes changed to provide an additional lane for peak-period traffic. During the morning peak, five of the eight lanes are for southbound traffic; in the afternoon, five lanes are northbound. At other times, the lanes are split evenly, but peak traffic has become proportionately less – in 1991 there was often a higher than 3:1 difference in directional traffic; in 2006, this had dropped to around 1.6:1. The bridge has an estimated capacity of 180,000 vehicles per day, and in 2006 had an average volume of 168,754 vehicles per day (up from 122,000 in 1991).

In March 1982, the Ministry of Transport and Auckland Harbour Bridge Authority conducted a week-long traffic blitz in an attempt to improve the standard of driving. Of the 600,000 vehicles which used the bridge over this period, 6,000 were stopped, with half of those receiving a ticket and the rest cautioned. A second blitz was held for 36 hours a few weeks later.

For many years, lane directions were indicated by overhead signals. In the late 1980s, a number of fatal head-on accidents occurred when vehicles crossed lane markings into the path of oncoming traffic. In 1990, a movable concrete safety barrier was put in place to separate traffic heading in opposite directions and eliminate head-on accident. Two specially designed barrier transfer machines moved the barrier by one lane four times a day, at a speed of 6 km/h, the first concrete safety barrier of its kind installed on a box girder bridge in the world.

In March 2009, the barrier transfer machines, which had lasted four times their original design life of five years, and the barrier were replaced. The new machines are capable of moving the barrier in half the time the old machines did. The concrete barrier blocks and the metal expansion blocks have been reduced in width by 200 mm, giving more width in the lanes either side of the barrier.

As part of the Victoria Park Tunnel project, the moveable barrier has been extended southwards to the Fanshawe Street onramp.

Event management
As part of large events such as the Auckland Marathon, normal motorway restrictions on access are sometimes relaxed. December 2011 was the first time that cyclists were officially allowed on the bridge, for a race / community cycling event organised by Telstra Clear, Auckland Transport, NZTA and Cycle Action Auckland, also allowing cyclists on the Northern Busway. The up to 9000 riders were protected by 160 stationary buses used as a 'guard of honour' between the bridge end and the Northern Busway from traffic on the rest of the motorway, which will stay open.

Original proposal
When the bridge was built, rail lines and walking paths were dropped for cost reasons, and neither were they included during the clip-on construction (people can walk on the span only via guided tours). After the early 1990s increase in public transportation patronage in Auckland, the Ministry of Works and Development investigated if the 'clip-ons' could be used for a light rail system, which they found was feasible if the lanes were used exclusively for this purpose. In 2007 discussions about the addition of a cycle and footpath link were mooted. Transit noted that this would cost between NZ$20 million and $40 million, but public support was polled as very high. The GetAcross group and Cycle Action Auckland (later rebranded to Bike Auckland) argued that lower-cost options were available, and that provision for a walk- and cycleway could relatively easily be included in the bridge strengthening works that were being planned for the clip-ons.

A 2008 proposal to modify the clip-ons and potentially widen them to add walking and cycling paths met with different reactions. While Auckland Regional Council and North Shore City Council voted to support it (under certain conditions), Auckland City Council considered the costs to be too high. Other stakeholders such as the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) considered the proposal as not having enough merit for the $22–53 million cost, though campaigners noted that the costs cited for the project included 45% contingencies. A proposal from the Auckland Regional Council (one of the proponents) to open up part of the clip-on structure for a walking / cycling trial use over several summer weekends, to show whether it would attract enough users, did not go forward.

The GetAcross group was showcasing its proposed walking/cycling solution, called SkyPath, on its website. Following years of campaigning a Harbour Bridge crossing, known as Skypath, was promised funding by the Labour Party in the lead-up to the 2017 general election. Once Labour was in government, the project was passed to the Waka Kotahi / NZ Transport Agency which released a revised design in 2019.

In July 2023 Bike Auckland released a report by SmartSense Limited, addressing key concerns about reallocating a lane on the motor bridge to walking and cycling, and proposing a design solution to mitigate safety concerns.

On 6 August 2023, Waka Kotahi announced their Waitematā Harbour Crossings plan which includes a tunnel for light rail and a tunnel for motor traffic under the Harbour, and walking and cycling on two lanes of the existing Harbour Bridge. Construction is expected to start by 2029. Waka Kotahi's forecast is that 6400 people would walk and cycle across the Auckland Harbour Bridge every day.

Bike Auckland continues to advocate for Waka Kotahi to Liberate the Lane, stating that Waka Kotahi's Waitematā connections project will take too long to deliver a walking and cycling connection across the Harbour. Their campaign has attracted the support of a diverse array of organisations, calling for Waka Kotahi to liberate the lane now to give Aucklanders more affordable and sustainable transport options, and that it would be a key symbol of climate action.

Protests

On Sunday, 24 May 2009, thousands of people crossed the bridge as a part of a protest by GetAcross against the bridge not providing walking and cycling access, and against what the group perceives to be the authorities' negative and obstructionist attitude towards such access. A crossing either as part of the protest or as part of the official 50-year anniversary celebrations had been forbidden by NZTA because of the costs and traffic difficulties claimed for a managed crossing. However, after several speeches, including by Auckland Regional Council Chairman Mike Lee, several people made their way around the police cordon onto the bridge. At that stage police closed the northbound lanes to traffic, bringing State Highway 1 to a stop. The remainder of the protesters moved onto the bridge, which was not resisted any more by the police. No accidents, violence or arrests were reported, and protesters left the bridge approximately an hour later, many having crossed to the North Shore and back.

The protest created a wide spectrum of responses in the media and in public perception, from being labelled a dangerous stunt representative of an increasingly lawless, anarchic society to being considered a successful signal to authorities to give more weight to the demands and the public backing of the walk and cycleway proponents. Authorities noted that they were investigating whether any of the protesters would face fines or charges. NZTA representatives noted that they were disappointed at what they considered the broken word of the organisers of the protest, and remarked that it would take 30 more years before walking and cycling could likely be provided (see also "Second Harbour Crossing" below). NZTA were criticised as having brought the situation at least partly onto themselves by choosing the easy route of forbidding the protest crossing. Several political protest marches (especially hīkoi) had been allowed to cross the bridge.

Updated proposal
Because of the costs of the proposal and increasing information about the problematic state of the clip-ons, the GetAcross campaign in late 2009 proposed an alternative solution, with a single shared walking and cycling path slung under the eastern clip-on. As confirmed by NZTA, this clip-on has significantly more remaining load capacity (it is used by fewer heavy trucks, being the route of (often empty) trucks returning to Ports of Auckland) and as the proposal would not require widening, the costs have been preliminarily assessed as of the order of NZ$12 million.

The group proposes to raise the majority of the funding via a loan backed by small tolls, of the order of NZ$1 for regular users. NZTA noted that it would be considering the proposal, should funding be able to be secured by the campaigners.

In 2011, the proposal got new public support when Auckland Mayor Len Brown agreed that a walk- and cycleway was a desirable goal, and instructed Auckland Transport to add it to its strategic priorities. The walk- and cycleway is also to be included in the city centre masterplan. Three council-controlled organisations (CCOs) – Auckland Transport, the Waterfront Development Agency and the Tourism, Events and Economic Development Agency – indicated support for the proposal, as has the Heart of the City (Auckland CBD) business association.

In August 2011, an editorial in The New Zealand Herald gave conditional support to the newest proposal, noting that a toll-based funding model and the partially enclosed weather-protected design of the $23 million proposal by Hopper Developments would appear to cover most concerns.

Approval
In 2014, the proposed walk and cycleway was publicly notified, and consent was given in 2015. However, this was appealed by three local groups (two which later dropped out of the appeal). The decision of the original hearing was upheld in December 2016, and the last appeal rejected by the Environment Court. In the meantime, Council had already provided in principle approval for a public-private partnership funding model, in a unanimous support vote earlier in 2016.

A 2019 announcement said that work on the walking and cycling "clipon" could start in 2020. Mayoral candidate John Tamihere proposed replacement with a 10-lane lower level plus rail and cycling/pedestrian facilities on an upper level.

Protests over lack of progress
On 30 May 2021, more than 1,500 cyclists crossed the bridge following the Liberate the Lane rally at Point Erin Park organised by Bike Auckland. The rally called for a trial of reallocating a traffic lane for walking and cycling on the bridge over the summer and included speeches by Auckland Central MP Chlöe Swarbrick and former associate minister of transport Julie Anne Genter. The rally was motivated by uncertainty around the future of the SkyPath project. Waka Kotahi had quietly sidelined the project due to technical issues. The Western clip on of the bridge (two motor traffic lanes) had been closed in advance of the rally, with a police cordon blocking access. After Bike Auckland's rally concluded, much of the crowd made their way over to the police cordon and pushed past onto the bridge, to show their determination for access for walking and cycling to be provided on the Auckland Harbour Bridge. No injuries were reported however one person was arrested for breaching the cordon, before being released without charge.

In response to the proposal for a trial cycle lane, NZTA stated that a cycle lane would likely require two lanes in order to provide sufficient protection for cyclists and pedestrians.

Stand-alone bridge
A couple of days after Bike Auckland's rally, in June 2021, Transport Minister Michael Wood announced a new stand-alone walking and cycling bridge would be built on the eastern side of the Auckland Harbour Bridge. The bridge was estimated to cost a total of $785 million dollars and had the support of Auckland mayor Phil Goff who said it would benefit both Aucklanders and tourists.

The plan received criticism from cycling, trucking and other transport advocates, as well as from the government opposition parties. In October 2021, Wood announced the project had been scrapped due to lack of public support. He said Waka Kotahi had spent $51 million on designs, consultants and engineering plans for the project up until the end of September, and the final amount spent was not known.

Liberate the lane
In 2022 Waka Kotahi confirmed it would not provide a trial of walking and cycling on the Auckland Harbour Bridge due to concerns around safety of people using the lane and motor congestion on the bridge.

In July 2023 Bike Auckland released a report by consultant SmartSense Limited, addressing Waka Kotahi's key concerns about reallocating a lane on the motor bridge to walking and cycling, including a design solution to mitigate safety concerns. The report revealed that motor traffic volumes have declined, leaving space on the bridge to reallocate one lane for walking, cycling, and wheeling "without significantly affecting motor traffic" Bike Auckland continues to advocate to Waka Kotahi to Liberate the Lane, stating that Waka Kotahi's Waitematā connections project will take too long to deliver a walking and cycling connection across the Harbour. Their campaign has attracted the support of a diverse array of organisations, all calling for Waka Kotahi to liberate the lane now. Reasons for their support range from giving Aucklanders more affordable and sustainable transport options, to it being a key action for climate action mitigation and emissions reduction.

Utilities
The bridge supports several utility services, including water and gas pipelines and fibre-optic telecommunications cables.

Transpower reached agreement with Transit in 2005 for the installation of cable supports beneath the bridge for a future cross-harbour power cable. In 2012, Transpower installed three 220,000-volt cables on the bridge, linking Hobson Street substation in the Auckland CBD to the Wairau Road substation on the North Shore.

Bungy jumping
Bungy operator AJ Hackett operates a 40-m bungy jump from the bridge and offers a bridge climb with views of the city and the harbour.

Footage of the first bungy jump appeared in The Bridge (2002), a television documentary about the Auckland Harbour Bridge by Bryan Bruce.

Second Harbour Crossing

Almost as soon as the bridge was built it reached capacity, before extension via the clip-ons, and a second crossing of the harbour was mooted. The high costs and the difficulties of connecting it to the motorway network have so far caused plans to remain at concept stage. In 2008, a study group narrowed down around 160 options to a multi-tunnel link approximately one km east of the bridge, with up to four individual tunnels for motorway, public transport and rail.

On 6 August 2023, Waka Kotahi announced their Waitematā Harbour Crossings plan which includes a tunnel for light rail and a tunnel for motor traffic, with walking and cycling on two lanes of the existing Harbour Bridge. Construction is expected to start by 2029. Waka Kotahi's forecast is that 6,400 people would walk and cycle across the bridge every day.

Suicides
The bridge sees a small number of suicide attempts, with between one and two people each year dying from jumping into the Waitematā Harbour.

2020 structural damage
In September 2020 high winds caused a heavy goods vehicle to tip and crash into the bridge structure inflicting significant damage. Temporary repairs were effected using a locally fabricated replacement member, pending a full engineering analysis and design of long-term solution. On 4 October, a permanent replacement strut was installed, with all lanes opening again on 7 October 2020.

General

 * Bridges in New Zealand
 * Public transport in Auckland
 * Transport in Auckland

Specific

 * Central Motorway Junction, the major motorway junction connecting southeast of the bridge
 * Newmarket Viaduct, similarly important traffic bottleneck on other side of Auckland CBD
 * Western Reclamation, large industrial area east of the bridge, possible southern end of second crossing

title: Auckland Harbour Bridge


text:
Pelkosenniemi

Pelkosenniemi (Pelkosnjargâ) is a municipality of Finland. It is located in the province of Lapland. The municipality has a population of 0 , which make it the smallest municipality in Lapland in terms of population. It covers an area of undefined km2 of which undefined km2 is water. The population density is undefined PD/km2. Neighbour municipalities are Kemijärvi, Rovaniemi, Salla, Savukoski and Sodankylä.

The municipality is unilingually Finnish and in 2000 was the last remaining municipality in Finland to have its entire population consist of native speakers of Finnish. As of 2010 there were two native speakers of other languages in Pelkosenniemi.

Pelkosenniemi hosts a popular mosquito swatting competition.

History
The area was originally inhabited by Sámi people who spoke the Kemi Sámi language.

The first Finnish settler in the area was Paavali Pelkonen from Lumijoki, who came to the area, then called Kilpimaa, in the 1670s. The area was still property of the Sompio siida. Later it was a part of the Sodankylä parish, under which it acquired its first chapel in 1857. The community was called Alaperä at that time. Pelkosenniemi became a separate parish in 1916, as did Savukoski.

Notable people

 * Andy McCoy, formerly Antti Hulkko, lead guitarist of Hanoi Rocks, was born in Pelkosenniemi.

title: Pelkosenniemi


text:
Pello

Pello (formerly Turtola) is a municipality of Finland. It is located approximately 20 km north of the Arctic Circle in the western part of the province of Lapland, and is part of the Lapland region. The municipality is on the national border with Sweden, by the Tornionjoki-river. The municipality has a population of 0 and covers an area of undefined km2 of which undefined km2 is water. The population density is undefined PD/km2.

The municipality is unilingually Finnish, according to the legal definition in Finland.

Konttajärvi is in this municipality.

History
The name of Pello is ultimately derived from the word pelto, field; which may have been the original name of the village. The weak grade stem of pelto is pello- (e.g. pellon - genitive case form of pelto), through which the name was corrupted to its current form. The name of Turtola refers to a male name Turto, a Finnish form of the Scandinavian name Tord.

During the Late Middle Ages and the 16th century, Pello was the northernmost Finnish village in the Tornio Valley. It was a part of the Tornio parish until 1606, when said parish was divided into Alatornio and Ylitornio, from which the latter included Turtola and Pello.

After Russia conquered Finland in 1809, Ylitornio was split into two parts. The villages of Pello and Turtola were also split, which is why there is a Pello and a Turtola (Svanstein) in Sweden. The northern parts of Ylitornio became a separate parish and municipality in 1867, called Turtola after its most significant village at the time. The village of Pello later surpassed Turtola, thus the municipality was renamed to Pello in 1949.

title: Pello


text:
LaMont Johnson

LaMont Johnson (October 1, 1941 – October 21, 1999) was an American jazz pianist who played in the hard bop and post-bop genres. He recorded extensively with Jackie McLean during the 1960s as well as with Ornette Coleman, Kenny Burrell, Bud Shank, Paul Beaver, and Bernie Krause, among others.

Biography
James LaMont Johnson was born in New York City, New York. During his childhood he took dancing, singing, and mime lessons, and appeared on the Star Time Kids television program at age 7. He later served in the United States Air Force in Germany, after which he attended Manhattan College and Syracuse University.

Johnson began his recording career in 1962. In New York City, he worked with tubist Howard Johnson and trumpeter Woody Shaw as the bebop period came to an end. Throughout the 1960s, he recorded with artists such as Jackie McLean, Ornette Coleman, and George Benson. Later in the same decade, Johnson began composing music for films and advertisements.

Johnson lived and worked in San Diego, California, where he established the record label MasterScores Records. Johnson worked in the film industry during the 1970s as a distributor and producer. He produced the 1973 martial arts film Thunderfist. Johnson was a major shareholder in the film distributors Artisan Releasing and Twin World Films, and formed another distributorship, Elmark General Film.

In his later years, Johnson lived in Austin, Texas, where he continued to perform at venues such as Top of the Marc, and released I'll Be Home for Kwanzaa on the Bagel Label. During this time, he appeared on Jackie's Blues Bag by the Hip Bop Essence All Stars, a group that also included Branford Marsalis, Javon Jackson, and Vincent Herring. He also worked with Black Entertainment Television. Between 1991 and 1997, he was involved with more than 30 jazz festivals, as either a performer or producer.

On October 21, 1999, Johnson died of heart failure in Austin, Texas, where he lived with his wife, Jayne Taylor Johnson. Johnson had two daughters, Astrid and Kyleigh, and two sons, Neil and Rand. At the time of his death, Johnson had indicated his plans to return to San Diego.

As leader

 * 1972: Sun, Moon and Stars (Mainstream Records)
 * 1976: Nine: A Mystical Musical Allegory (Orchard)
 * 1979: Aces (Orchard)
 * 1987: New York Exile (Orchard)
 * 1991: Burned by the Passion (MasterScores)
 * 1997: Jackie's Blues Bag (Hip Bop Essence)
 * 1998: 242 E 3rd (Orchard)
 * 2000: Collaboration (with Kenny Burrell)

As sideman

 * with Jackie McLean:
 * New and Old Gospel (Blue Note, 1967)
 * 'Bout Soul (Blue Note, 1967)
 * Demon's Dance (Blue Note, 1967)
 * Hipnosis (Blue Note, 1978)
 * with Hank Mobley
 * Reach Out! (Blue Note, 1968)

title: LaMont Johnson


text: File:Weirdalpoodlehat.jpeg

title: File:Weirdalpoodlehat.jpeg


text:
Posio

Posio is a municipality of Finland. It is located in the province of Lapland. The municipality has a population of 0 and covers an area of undefined km2 of which undefined km2 is water. The population density is undefined PD/km2. Neighbour municipalities are Rovaniemi, Kemijärvi, Ranua, Salla, Kuusamo, Taivalkoski and Pudasjärvi.

The municipality has a single language, Finnish.

Major employers in Posio are the municipality itself, a major pottery manufacturer Pentik and agriculture (especially dairy farming).

The European route E63 runs through the northern-eastern parts of the municipality.

Korouoma canyon and natural reserve is located in Posio.

8 km north of the center of Posio is a microstate called Kingdom of Valtio, founded by Ari "Paska" Peltonen in 2006.

Sights and events
Posio's most renowned attractions are the Pentik-mäki Culture Centre, Riisitunturi National Park, Korouoma Nature Reserve, and the clear waters of lakes Kitkajärvi and Livojärvi. There are also many outdoor recreational things to do in Posio.

The world's northernmost ceramics factory is located in Posio. Pentik Oy interior design company was established in 1971 by Anu and Topi Pentikäinen.

Regular events in Posio are the Posio Fair, the amateur theatre event Teatterihelinät, and the Traditional Fish Fair Market (Muikkumarkkinat) in July.

Notable people

 * Kaarlo Maaninka (born 1953), Finnish long distance runner
 * Soile Isokoski (born 1957), Finnish lyric soprano
 * Sini Karjalainen (born 1999), Finnish hockey player

Locations
Ala-Suolijärvi

title: Posio


text:
Ranua

Ranua is a municipality of Finland. It is located in the province of Lapland. The municipality has a population of 0 and covers an area of undefined km2 of which undefined km2 is water. The population density is undefined PD/km2.

The municipality is unilingually Finnish.

Geography
Neighbouring municipalities are Ii, Simo, Tervola, Rovaniemi, Posio and Pudasjärvi.

Villages
Villages within the municipality of Ranua are inclusive of:

 * Asmunti
 * Hosio
 * Impiö
 * Kelankylä
 * Kortteenperä
 * Kuha
 * Kuukasjärvi
 * Mauru
 * Nuupas
 * Petäjäjärvi
 * Pohjaslahti–Piittisjärvi
 * Portimo
 * Putkivaara
 * Raiskio
 * Rovastinaho
 * Saariharju
 * Saukkojärvi
 * Sääskilahti
 * Teerivaara
 * Telkkälä
 * Tolja

Nature of Ranua
There are 569 lakes in Ranua. The biggest of them are lake Ranuanjärvi and lake Simojärvi. There are also quite many rapids and natural salmon living in the rapids.

History
Ranua was originally the name of a farm established in the 18th century. It gets its name from the lake Ranuanjärvi, which was first mentioned in 1553. Its name is likely of Tavastian origin, as ranu- toponyms are rare and mainly found in Tavastia.

The parish of Ranua was formed from parts of Simo, Pudasjärvi and Rovaniemen maalaiskunta in 1899. The area became a separate municipality in 1917. A part of it was given to the newly formed Posio municipality in 1926. It is the only municipality in Lapland where the dialect is a Northern Ostrobothnian one, albeit with some influence from the Kainuu dialects, which are a subset of Savonian dialects.

Tourism
Perhaps the most well known attraction is the Ranua Zoo, the northernmost zoo in the world, which has many arctic animals, including the polar bear, which is the mascot of the zoo. Ranua Zoo is the only place where you can see a living polar bear in Finland.

Other notable attractions within the municipality of Ranua are inclusive of the Saukkojärvi Local History and School Museum located in the village of Saukkojärvi, Finland, the Hillamarkkinat, Poro Island and the Church of Ranua.

Sister cities

 * 🇯🇵 Iwasaki, Japan (since 1990)

Notable people

 * Eero Lohi (born 1927), modern pentathlete
 * Lauri Impiö (1929–2006), Lutheran clergyman and politician
 * Jouko Kuha (born 1939), long-distance runner
 * Taina Impiö (born 1956), cross country skier
 * Ilkka Koivula (born 1966), actor
 * Kaisa H. Hietala (born 1971), business executive
 * Jenna Pirttijärvi (born 1994), ice hockey player

title: Ranua


text:
Les Essarts

Les Essarts is the name of several places in France:

It is the name of several communes:

 * Les Essarts, in the Eure département
 * Les Essarts, in the Loir-et-Cher département
 * Les Essarts, in the Vendée département

It is also part of the name of several communes:
 * Les Essarts-le-Roi, in the Yvelines département
 * Les Essarts-lès-Sézanne, in the Marne département
 * Les Essarts-le-Vicomte, in the Marne département

Several communes have a similar name: see Les Essards (disambiguation)

Les Essarts is also the name of the Forbes family estate in Saint-Briac-sur-Mer.

Essarts designates in French a spot in a forest supposed to be deforested (see assarting).

title: Les Essarts


text:
Pete La Roca

Pete "La Roca" Sims (born Peter Sims; April 7, 1938 – November 20, 2012, known as Pete La Roca from 1957 until 1968) was an American jazz drummer and attorney. Born and raised in Harlem by a pianist mother and a stepfather who played trumpet, he was introduced to jazz by his uncle Kenneth Bright, a major shareholder in Circle Records and the manager of rehearsal spaces above the Lafayette Theater. Sims studied percussion at the High School of Music and Art and at the City College of New York, where he played tympani in the CCNY Orchestra. He adopted the name La Roca early in his musical career, when he played timbales for six years in Latin bands. In the 1970s, during a hiatus from jazz performance, he resumed using his original surname. When he returned to jazz in the late 1970s, he usually inserted "La Roca" into his name in quotation marks to help audiences familiar with his early work identify him. He told The New York Times in 1982 that he did so only out of necessity: "I can't deny that I once played under the name La Roca, but I have to insist that my name is Peter Sims with La Roca in brackets or in quotes. For 16 or 17 years, when I have not been playing the music, people have known me as Sims....When I was 14 or 15, I thought ['La Roca'] was clever; right now, it's an embarrassment. I thought that it would be something that people would probably remember - boy, was I ever right on that one! I can't make my conversion."

In 1957, Max Roach became aware of him while jamming at Birdland and recommended him to Sonny Rollins. As drummer of Rollins' trio on the afternoon set at the Village Vanguard on November 3 he became part of the important record A Night at the Village Vanguard. (Only one of five recorded tracks with La Roca was included on the original single LP release of the album). In 1959 he recorded with Jackie McLean (New Soil) and in a quartet with Tony Scott, Bill Evans and Jimmy Garrison. Besides Garrison he often joined with bassists who played in the Bill Evans Trio, especially Scott LaFaro and Steve Swallow, and also accompanied pianists like Steve Kuhn, Don Friedman and Paul Bley.

Between the end of the 1950s and 1968, he also played with Slide Hampton, the John Coltrane Quartet, Marian McPartland, Art Farmer, Freddie Hubbard, Mose Allison, and Charles Lloyd, among others. During this period, he led his own group and worked as the house drummer at the Jazz Workshop in Boston, Massachusetts. He recorded two albums as a leader during the mid-1960s, Basra (Blue Note, 1965) and Turkish Women at the Bath (Douglas, 1967).

In 1968, with the market for acoustic jazz in decline, Sims decided to enroll in law school. By this time he was already earning most of his income by driving a taxi cab in New York City, a job he held for five years during the 1960s. Sims became a lawyer in the early 1970s, and was still practicing at the time of a 1997 radio interview with WNYC's Steve Sullivan. When his second album as leader, Turkish Women at the Bath, was released under Chick Corea's name without his consent, Sims filed and argued a lawsuit against Douglas Records, and the erroneously-labeled records were recalled.

He returned to jazz part-time in 1979, and recorded one new album as a leader, Swing Time (Blue Note, 1997).

He died in New York of lung cancer at the age of 74.

As leader

 * Basra (Blue Note, 1965)
 * Turkish Women at the Bath (Douglas, 1967; also released as Bliss! under Chick Corea's name on Muse, 1973)
 * Swingtime (Blue Note, 1997)

As sideman
With Anamari With Bill Barron With Paul Bley With Rocky Boyd With Jaki Byard With Sonny Clark With Johnny Coles With Ted Curson With Art Farmer With the Don Friedman Trio With Slide Hampton With Joe Henderson With Freddie Hubbard With the Steve Kuhn Trio With Booker Little With Charles Lloyd With Jackie McLean With Helen Merrill and Dick Katz With J.R. Monterose With Sonny Rollins With George Russell With Tony Scott With the Paul Serrano Quintet
 * Anamari (Atlantic, 1964)
 * Modern Windows (Savoy, 1961)
 * Footloose! (Savoy, 1963)
 * Ease It (Jazztime, 1961)
 * Hi-Fly (New Jazz, 1962)
 * My Conception (rec. 1957, Blue Note compilation, 1979)
 * Sonny Clark Quintets a.k.a.  Cool Struttin' Volume 2 (rec. 1958, Blue Note, 1965)
 * Little Johnny C (Blue Note, 1963)
 * Plenty of Horn (Old Town, 1961)
 * To Sweden with Love (Atlantic, 1964) with Jim Hall
 * Sing Me Softly of the Blues (Atlantic, 1965)
 * Circle Waltz (Riverside, 1962) with Scott LaFaro
 * Scott LaFaro – Pieces of Jade (rec. 1961, Resonance, 2009)
 * Slide Hampton and His Horn of Plenty (Strand, 1959)
 * Sister Salvation (Atlantic, 1960)
 * Somethin' Sanctified (Atlantic, 1961)
 * Page One (Blue Note, 1963)
 * Our Thing (Blue Note, 1963)
 * Blue Spirits (Blue Note, 1964)
 * The Night of the Cookers (Blue Note, 1965)
 * 1960 (rec. 1960, PJL (J), 2005) with Scott LaFaro
 * The Country and Western Sound of Jazz Pianos (Dauntless, 1963) with Toshiko Akiyoshi
 * Three Waves (rec. 1966, Flying Dutchman (J), 1975) with Steve Swallow
 * Sing Me Softly of the Blues (Venus, 1997) with George Mraz
 * Booker Little and Friend (Bethlehem, 1961)
 * Of Course, of Course (Columbia, 1965)
 * Nirvana (Columbia, 1965)
 * Charles Lloyd - Live at Slugs' (Resonance, 2014)
 * New Soil (Blue Note, 1959)
 * Bluesnik (Blue Note, 1961)
 * The Feeling Is Mutual  (Milestone, 1967)
 * The Message (Jaro, 1960)
 * A Night at the Village Vanguard (Blue Note, 1957)
 * St Thomas – Sonny Rollins Trio in Stockholm 1959 (Dragon, 1984)
 * Oleo (recorded 1959, Jazz Hour, 1992)
 * The Outer View (Riverside, 1962)
 * Gypsy (Signature, 1959)
 * Golden Moments (recorded 1959, Muse, 1982) with Bill Evans and Jimmy Garrison
 * I'll Remember (recorded 1959, Muse, 1982); both Muse LPs reissued on CD as At Last (32 Jazz, 1999)
 * Blues Holiday (Riverside, 1961) with Cannonball Adderley a.o.

title: Pete La Roca