Talk:Scymnus of Chios

Suggestions for further improvement

• Find source to back up the claim of 185 BC.
• Find source to back up the claim that the Periodos to Nicomedes was published in Augsburg in 1600, I didn't see it mentioned in the source of Bunbury.
• More in general, now the article is mostly about how he is not the author of the Periodos to Nicomedes. The interesting question is what he really did, so figure out what work he has produced and who cited it. AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus is that there is no primary topic. Moved to the natural disambiguation Scymnus of Chios as that option received no opposition and, after some searching, is indeed a name this individual is referred to by (the lead already uses it as his long-form name). I will turn the automatically created redirect Scymnus into a DAB page of course. (non-admin closure) ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 05:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Scymnus → Scymnus (geographer)Scymnus (geographer) – We also have articles on Scymnus (beetle) and Scymnus (subgenus), and there appears to be no clear primary topic. ~2026-24668-78 (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 20:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: somewhat leery of renaming articles about ancient Greeks and Romans simply because some taxonomer or other mined works on classical antiquity for names to give beetles, spiders, fish, liverworts, etc. Since the main page on the genus of ladybugs gets only about three views per day, and the subgenus page was just created, and includes nothing but a long list of mostly redlinked names of ladybug species, I would say that the Greek writer remains primary by long-term significance. If the article is moved, then I suggest it be moved to Scymnus of Chios, since that's already what he's called in the lead, and natural disambiguation is preferable. P Aculeius (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  @P Aculeius I support moving the article to Scymnus of Chios as a natural disambiguation. However, Scymnus and Scymnus (beetle) appear to receive comparable views (), so it is not clear that there is a primary topic. ~2026-24498-48 (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  There are two different but commonly-used criteria for determining whether a topic is primary: long-term significance, and page views. Either one may be used, and other factors can also be considered, although nothing else comes to mind here. By page views, the topics would seem to be evenly matched; but both topics are relatively obscure and receive very few page views. By long-term significance, the Greek writer is easily primary, since he was known for many centuries before someone decided to borrow his name for a genus of beetles.

  And while the fact that thing 'B' was named after thing 'A' is not alone decisive in discussions about a primary topic, the fact remains that the only reason why the genus of ladybugs has this name, is because someone was mining lists of Greek and Roman topics and came across the name "Scymnus", referring to the person who is the current target of the name on Wikipedia. So IMO that should remain the primary topic; a hatnote should be sufficient to redirect anyone searching for a genus of beetles. P Aculeius (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom, create DAB at base name. No PRIMARYTOPIC.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support the geographer has 114 views but the beetle has 105 and the subgenus has 26[]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.