Talk:Leptis Magna

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Low‑importance

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

World Heritage Sites (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites articles

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Greece: Byzantine Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

Africa: Libya Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libya portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libya (assessed as Low-importance).

Phoenicia Low‑importance

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

Dead leptismagna.com link[edit]

Was this:

LeptisMagna.com, local information, authored by Libyans

But seems useless now. Roger Pearse 15:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Resolved

Leptis Magna → Lepcis Magna — "Lepcis Magna" is generally recognised as the original and correct name of the city. Although most guidebooks, signs, etc, still refer to it by the corruption "Leptis Magna", I think it's time we moved it to its accepted title now. Deb (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm not sure - personally I've seen both forms used, but more often "leptis magna", even from more academic sources. Even primary sources use various names; http://irt.kcl.ac.uk/irt2009/introductions/I3_lepcismagna.html leans towards variants on "lepcis", but not overwhelmingly so.

If you're aiming for the original name then I would suggest that "Lepcis" or even "Lpqī" might be more original than "Lepcis Magna"! The first use of ~~"Leptis Magna"~~ the "Magna" suffix that I know of is in Pliny's Natural History (by which time the town, whatever we call it, was already well established), and the first local inscription is a little later than that.

However, I think widespread usage should also count for something too - or else we should move the corrupted London to the original Londinium ;-)

Got any good sources? I'm open to persuasion...

bobrayner (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; let's see the evidence. If you are arguing that Lepcis is the Semitic name of the city, then how can you support Latin Magna? For what it's worth, Neue Pauly lists under Leptis in English and in German. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment shouldn't we be using the WP:COMMONNAME ? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that the generally received "correct" name of the city is Lepcis Magna. Archaeologists now almost all use this name. However, tourism and promotional material still tends to use the discredited "Leptis". A google search would certainly give more hits for Leptis Magna than for Lepcis Magna, but that doesn't make it the best title. I will look further for sources. Deb (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC) So far, the best ones I can find are the site hosted by the latest team of archaeologists to work there and Current Archaeology magazine, which always uses "Lepcis". I believe that the Society for Libyan Studies would also support this, but have yet to find evidence, as their main website is rather out of date. Deb (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "correct" and "generally"? As far as I can tell, "Lepcis Magna" is neither the most commonly used name, nor the most original (though I'd welcome any sources that say otherwise). What are your criteria for "correct" and "generally"? That the name is widely - but not universally - used within a group of current-day specialists?

How about WP:PLACE?

bobrayner (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in saying that it's not (currently) the most commonly-used name, but then "Princess Diana" is the most commonly-used name for Diana, Princess of Wales, even though it's totally incorrect. I suppose an analogy could be made with Beijing, which thirty years ago would probably have been listed on wikipedia as "Peking".

I am not going to die in a ditch over this, I just think that we should recognise that the usage for the name of this archaeological site among archaeologists (who named it in the first place) has changed in recent years. If we don't move the article now, we will do so in a few years time (probably when the Libyan government gets around to erecting new signs). Deb (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not bound, fortunately, by the decisions of the Libyan government; and do you really mean to call Pliny an archaeologist? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough call, and pretty much an even debate. However, this move request has been backlogged and it's time for someone to to either deny or implement it. We have a common name vs. correct name situation here. It's my judgment that 1) Lepcis Magna is indeed the correct name, and 2) Lepcis Magna is not uncommon, and it is becoming more common and will presumably continue to do so. Thefore I'm moving it to Lepcis Magna. Herostratus (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

move back to Leptis Magna[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lepcis Magna → Leptis Magna — The name on the UNESCO list is "Leptis Magna". I have also never heard of this "Lepcis Magna", only "Leptis Magna". Propose to restore the original name of the article back. Gryffindor (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that; I think that the previous move went against sources. bobrayner (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support and I say that as the person who made the previous move. On consideration, looking at my reasoning, it was not necessarily a good close and better one might have been "case not proven". Sorry. The sources given by Deb - Current Archeology magazine and some guy with the Society for Libyan Studies - show that a reasonable case can be made for using "Lepcis", but better sources such as [Libya Online use Leptis. Granted that is not an official site, apparently, but still seems to be a comprehensive one. The closest thing to an official site appears to be libyan-tourism.org, but that is in Arabic which I can't read (the little union jack icon doesn't seem to work). However, the UNESCO World Heritage Site list uses "Leptis", and that is probably as close to game-set-match as you're going to get. So I would say that the original move probably shouldn't have been accepted, and I can be faulted for that. Herostratus (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aren't c and t sometimes interchangeable in Latin? Nev1 (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The familiar title is what the Wikipedia reader will search for, and Wikipedia serves the reader. --Wetman (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support move back, per WP:UCN, the most commonly used name is English Language sources Leptis Magna, though the "c" variant may be availible and more pedantically correct, Wikipedia guidelines aren't about pedantism, but about the title most likely to be recognized by the most English speakers. Only a few academics would even recognize the controversy over the spelling of the name, much less have the preference for the "c" varient. --Jayron32 06:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. What on earth is Lepcis Magna? Sounds like a misspelling. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm fine with the current title, but just for the record, UNESCO is an exceptionally crappy replacement for scholarly sources.

The OCD has "Lepcis (in some inscriptions Leptis) Magna (neo-Punic Lpqy)".[1]. Leptis is clearly just the Greek adaptation of the native LPQ, which leaked into Latin usage to some extent. --dab (𒁳) 12:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean sure, but WP:COMMONNAME. According to this Google Ngram -- which admittedly weighs the Oxford World Atlas and comic book equally, I think, but is still worthwhile -- we see that in the corpus of books published in English:

Before about 1940 it was Leptis Magna, end of story.
Between 1940 and 1980, Lepcis Magna become popular to the point that by 1980 roughly 5/12 of references were for Lepcis (Leptis held the lead, but not my much, and the trend was strongly toward Lepcis).
But after 1980 the curves flattened and Leptis maintained it's lead of very roughly 7/12 of references.

So its close, and to some degree I would weigh more scholarly sources a bit heavier, but I would also weight more popular sources (the best-selling atlases or whatever) a bit heavier too. So not knowing the actual correct answer, the Google Ngram data seems to point to "Leptis", although not by a decisive margin. Herostratus (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

It's fine that the Semetic meaning is sourced here, but it's worth noting (maybe correcting?) Leptis Parva, which offers a completely different (sourced) meaning of the name. Meanwhile Livius thinks they're both wrong and finds it to be a local name that the Phoenicians must've carried over when they colonized the area. — LlywelynII 13:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible over-citation[edit]

Can anyone explain why this article has the standard Wikipedia references, "Bibliography", "Further Reading" and "External Links"? That's four different ways of providing supporting information, and it's the first time I have seen anything like that on here. At the very least, "Bibliography" would have to be folded into the reference list where needed (and simply cut where unnecessary), and the other two sections can most likely do with a lot of trimming as well.InformationToKnowledge (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]