Talk:Claudia gens

Untitled

Nero the Emperor of Rome bruns Rome down to the Ground and PLays a Fiddle... He Blammed the Christians For the fire that he had sent people to go and burn his town of Rome... The Christians were burnt with a torch...The GOOD thing that Nero did was stopped blood sports...Nero was and evil man he killed Familt members...

• What does that have to do with this article? -- SFH 22:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

Is it true that the name comes from 'claudus' meaning lame?

That is how Antoine Meillet explains Claudius. Is it true? Who knows; the Romans were apparently innovating Claudius to serve instead of Clausus. No one knows what Clausus means. Why would they call the man lame? There is no evidence any of them were lame. It is possible the Romans knew Clausus meant lame. All this is total speculation. I think I will cover it in the article.Dave (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Addition Made

I added the note regarding Claudians without cognomen--Al-Nofi 18:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unnexistent people

Theres listed some people unnexistent:

• Gaius Claudius, consul 454(?)
• Appius Claudius P.f. Crassus Inregillensis, consul 346 BC

I will check more...--83.52.17.74 19:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of non-existent people in there, the whole thing needs a thorough going-over. This article is unsat but there is some good information in it. Needs work.Dave (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Asellus's suit against Scipio

Scipio Aemilianus by A. E. Astin, Ch. XI seems to think that Ti. Claudius Assellus' suit against Scipio was in -140, not -139. To borrow a phrase from a controversial group, should we "teach the controversy"? Or is there some quick resolution here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.82.229 (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• A brief search for the original sources didn't really clear up the date this occurred. The DGRBM says it occurred when Asellus was Tribune of the Plebs in 139. Some modern histories say that this occurred in 140. Do we know for certain in which year Asellus was tribune? Broughton also gives 140. I would say that 139 in DGRBM is in error. Good source, occasionally mistaken. Dates easy to transpose by a year. I'll change the article text; if anyone ever finds evidence that it was 139 we can change it back. P Aculeius (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Julio-Claudian Nerones

Germanicus's sons Nero, Drusus and Gaius were never Claudii Nerones and as such probably should not feature on this list, just as nobody from the Julio-Claudian dynasty after Caligula is shown in the Julia gens page. Germanicus's name was also certainly not Decimus Claudius Nero, as is currently displayed here. It was probably the same as his father, but in reality it's not attested anywhere. Avis11 (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

They most certainly were Claudii Nerones—they were direct descendants of this branch of the gens and no other. Members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty descending from Tiberius' father bear various surnames, often serially, but did not and never did constitute separate and independent families. They're in this article because they were all Claudii, by birth or adoption; most of them were never Julii, which is why they're not included on that page as well, although if they had been Julii, they would be properly included there. So as far as where they belong, they're in the proper place.

As for Germanicus, he was almost certainly not born "Tiberius", since that was his brother's name. A century later it would not have been unusual for two brothers to share the same praenomen and be distinguished solely by their cognomina, but at this period it was highly unusual. If he was named after his father, he's more likely to have borne his father's birth name, Decimus, than the affected Nero; and the fact that his brother bore a traditional praenomen suggests that this was the case. Certainly Nero is an extraordinary praenomen and would require extraordinary proof. I was hoping that Drumann would shed some light on the matter, but the Claudii Nerones aren't included, probably due to their association with the imperial family. The most that I can say is that Decimus is the most likely of the three names, but I can't point to a scholarly source attesting it at the moment. P Aculeius (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, this source (pp. 363–8) appears to accept the notion that he was called Tiberius Nero, but I agree that it sounds inherently unlikely. Most other sources seem to think that "Nero Claudius Drusus" is the most likely birth name (by the linked source's admission). It doesn't seem at all extraordinary if there was already a precedent for it, i.e. his own father did it – especially given that Drusus the Elder had long already discarded "Decimus" by the time Germanicus was born. The use of "Decimus" as a praenomen is in any event unprecedented in this family.

It seems a bit much to display "Decimus" as established fact, as it currently appears. To reflect scholarly uncertainty, perhaps the praenomen should be done away altogether, and have Germanicus displayed as "Claudius D. f. Ti. n. (Drusus? Nero?)". Surely the cognomen here should be Drusus (keeping in line w/ his father) and not Nero, as is currently displayed? Avis11 (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear when Nero Claudius Drusus substituted his surname for his original praenomen—and in any case there was no legal process involved: at most it was a personal decision. There's a short article on the subject on JSTOR, which seems like a good analysis, but it concludes that in any case he must have done it some time before his sons were born. IMO that doesn't require changing their filiations—but it doesn't tell us what Germanicus' proper name was, either. At this stage the solution I'd consider would be calling him "Nero Claudius D. f. Ti. n. Drusus", with a footnote indicating the uncertainty about his birth name. I don't want to put question marks in the list—it's not done in any other instance, although m-dashes might be in filiations. Parentheses are usually used for inferred names, not possible alternatives that really need further explanation. That's what footnotes are for! P Aculeius (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting literally putting question marks and garbling up the names – just outlining the uncertainty and implicitly asking your opinion. Admittedly I did not think of adding footnotes at first: my first instinct was to just omit the uncertainty and leave the detailed explanations to the article on Germanicus proper. I did what you suggested though. Avis11 (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Inregillensis etc.

Is there any reason Regillensis is preferred over Inregillensis when the latter is overwhelmingly used by secondary sources? The order of names "Sabinus Regillensis" also seems off: I'm familiar with the inverted order only, and the footnote saying the Fasti was subjected to later emendations is not properly referenced. The Fasti also does not give the surname Inregillensis for the consular tribune of 403 but does so for the consul in 349, yet their filiations are identical. If both have the same surname and filiation, they must be identical, otherwise the tr.cos.403 must not be called that. Am I missing something? Avilich (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Technically the difference is simply a matter of preference—but since the first Appius Claudius was from Regillum, and the surname Regillensis is also known from the Postumia gens, it makes much more sense than the otherwise inexplicable Inregillensis, which makes no sense, and has, as far as I can recall, no parallel in Roman onomastics—why would anyone add a preposition to a surname derived from a place? That's not how any other Roman surnames I can think of were formed—or any names at all. And no source claims that he was from a place called Inregillum, as far as I know. Until recently this was consistent across both this article and individual biographical articles—the one on the consular tribune of 403 is, I think, the first to break this pattern and prefer Inregillensis. I could have moved it when I found it—yesterday—but I deferred to the choice made by that article's author, and merely created a redirect so that someone following the orthography in the gens article would still find it.

The order of some surnames varies from source to source; here I'm following the source I was using when I was first writing this article. Drumann, I see, always places Sabinus after Inregillensis, while PW places Sabinus first twice, and Inregillensis once, but once Sabinus is omitted, always places Inregillensis at the end. The DGRBM gives Sabinus Regillensis, except for the decemvir, for whom it places Regillensis between Crassus or Crassinus and Sabinus—the same arrangement given by PW. However, to a large extent this is hair-splitting. Even if these names are authentically attributed to this distant period, they didn't ordinarily use all their names on a daily basis—they probably used just two, or sometimes three, except when they wanted to sound particularly impressive—and that usage may in some respects be a retrojection of later onomastic practices onto an earlier time; some scholars have argued that cognomina were barely used even among the aristocracy until the late Republic, and that most such occurrences in earlier times are anachronisms. I don't think that's the majority position now, but there's probably a grain of truth to it, and we shouldn't be too dogmatic about one version being correct and another found elsewhere incorrect. I think that the Romans would have found our concept of there being an official, i.e. legal, version absurd.

The identity of the consular tribune of 403 and the consul of 349 is not established, and their filiations are disputed, as indicated by a previous editor (I note that Drumann regards them as separate persons of uncertain relationship; PW treats them together as Claudius No. 122; the DGRBM considers them uncle and nephew). There are many sources we could go by to work out how they were related, or if it's possible for them to have been identical—but it's rather improbable that they are the same, even though the Fasti seem to give the same filiation—especially since there's no reason why one couldn't be the nephew or cousin of the other, which might explain the filiation, although that could also be a mistake. For the same man to have stood at the head of the Roman state twice, fifty-four years apart, is exceptional; it may have happened in one or two cases, such as Marcus Valerius Corvus or Quintus Fabius Vibulanus—men who, unlike either of these Claudii, covered themselves in glory—but it's much more likely that the one of 349 was the son or nephew of the one of 403.

If we suppose that, even at this early period, it would have been unusual to be elected consular tribune before the age of thirty, a thirty-year-old Claudius in 403 would have been nearly eighty-five in 349—not merely old by the standards of the day, but by today's standards as well. And no doubt this is one reason modern scholars doubt that the two Claudii could have been the same person, meaning either that the filiation reported in the fasti is wrong for one of them, or that we simply know their family imperfectly—something we can probably assume to be the case, even if we're not sure about the filiation. If the assertion that the fasti were subject to some editing (or perhaps errors) is controversial, I'm not aware of it—even sources that generally accept nearly all of the contents seem to accept that some degree of editing or interpolation occurred, even though it's not always clear where.

Now, as to whether to include the surname, we quite often see surnames borne by all the members of a family down to a certain point, then replaced by another; or they are omitted for a generation or two, but then reappear, from which it may be inferred that they belonged to the intervening generations as well, but were omitted from surviving written sources, perhaps for convenience. Note that as late as Livy's time it was quite normal to omit cognomina altogether when discussing early figures; and many of the surnames found in current reconstructions of the fasti are merely inferred. Drumann infers Inregillensis for several generations, down to the dictator of 337, and here he is followed by PW; the DGRBM continues it only down to the decemvir, but if we suppose that the consul of 349 and the dictator of 337 bore it, then presumably so did the consular tribune of 403, even if it isn't mentioned in the surviving sources. P Aculeius (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain in detail. Livy (6.40) says that Appius, grandson of the decemvir (and thus the consular tribune of 403), was alive in 368, 35 years after his tribunate, so I don't see much difficulty in identifying him as the dictator of 362 or perhaps even the consul of 349. He could have assumed his first office at a very young age, like Valerius Corvus supposedly did. That he did die early in his consulship perhaps supports the idea that he was elderly. Or, as you said, we don't know the family in full and there could very well have been a cousin with identical name and filiation. Avilich (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we can take for granted that we don't know the family in full—the idea that the Claudii held power for many centuries, but that there were never more than two or three adult male Claudii at a time before the time of Caecus, and seldom more than four or five thereafter, seems ridiculous. Doubtless there were numerous younger brothers who only rarely entered public life, or appear in the pages of history, but who had descendants of their own—typically leading more modest lives, but occasionally rising to prominence. Which doesn't resolve our question here, or prove whether the filiations in the fasti are correct, but it's worth bearing in mind that we probably know only a small fraction of the members of even the most prominent patrician families, and that much of what we know—or think we know—about how they were related has had to be reconstructed or inferred. And this process probably dates to Roman times—Fabius Pictor, Dionysius, Livy, etc. probably had to make their own inferences, or depend on others who claimed to have knowledge, although they also reconstructed the families based on logic and their best guesses, about persons who lived centuries earlier. P Aculeius (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Filiation

I don't think filiation should be included when an individuals ancestry is disputed. Many of the ones included in this article seem to be based on speculation. ★Trekker (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe all of them come from reliable secondary sources, however. The earlier ones are probably based on Drumann, whom I believe devoted nearly an entire volume to the Claudii; the later ones may come directly from first-century BC sources mentioning who the father-in-law/son-in-law/brother-in-law of so-and-so was. A few may be uncertain—but if that's the best guess of the scholars, then I see no reason not to include them until and unless some other source comes along with a different opinion. P Aculeius (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

But there are cases when scholars have different opinions, then who do we pick from? Many of these items of lesser known individuals have no articles, and therefore lacks explanations for why a majority prefer one over the other.★Trekker (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Genealogical Table of Claudii Gens

Is there any rational reason why this should not be included in this article in this format?

JMvanDijk (talk)

Genealogy of the Patrician Claudii During the Republic & Early Principate (no References)

Legend Orange Dictator Yellow Censor Green Consul Julii Family Julii Caesares Emperor Emperor dashed lines -- Most probable descent dotted lines ... Adopted Marcus Clausus Appius Claudius Crassus Inregillensis Sabinus Cos. 471, 451 BC, Dec. 451 BC Gaius Claudius Sabinus Regillensis cos. 460 BC Appius Claudius Crassus, con. trib. 424 BC Publius Claudius Crassus Appius Claudius Crassus con. trib. 403 BC Appius Claudius Crassus Inregillensis dict. 362 BC, cos. 349 BC C. Claudius Inregillensis nom. dict. 337 Ap. Claudius Caecus cens. 312-308 BC, cos. 307, 296, dict. c.285 Ap. Claudius Caudexcos. 264 Son 1. Ap. Claudius Russus cos. 268, trium. viz. Picentes Son 4. Ti. Claudius Nero Son 2. P. Claudius Pulcher cos. 249 Son 3. C. Claudius Centho cos 240, cens. 225 dict. 213 Ti. Claudius Nero P. Claudius Nero Ap. Claudius Pulcher aed. cur. 217, pr. Sicilia 215, propr. 214-213, cos. 212, procos. Capua 211 C. Centho leg. 200 C. Claudius Nero legate 214 BC, praetor 212 BC, propraetor 211 BC cos. 207, cens. 204, vic. ova. Battle of the Metaurus, Ti. Claudius Nero cos. 202, gov. Africa Ap. Claudius Nero pr. 195, gov. Hispania Ulterior Ap. Claudius Pulcher pr. 188, cos. 185, amb. 174-173 P. Claudius Pulcher aed. cur. 189, pr. Tarentum 187, cos. 184, Liguria illvir col deduc 181 C. Claudius Pulcher pr suff prereg. 180, cos. 177, cens. 169, aug 195, defeated Istrians and Ligurians Ap. Claudius Centho pr. 175 C. Claudius Centho leg. 155 Ti. Claudius Nero pr. 181, gov. Sicily Ti. Claudius Nero pr. 178, 167, procos. 177-176 Ti. Claudius Nero pr. 167 Ap. Claudius Pulcher cos. suff. 130 Clodia (or Claudia, sp. varies) Ap. Claudius Pulcher c.185, cos. 143, cens 136, PS 136, IIIvir a.i.a. 133-130, augur † 130 C. Claudius Centho amb. 155 Ap. Claudius Nero great-great-grandfather of Imp. Tiberius P. Claudius Nero Q. Claudius Pulcher C. Claudius Pulcher (c. 136–92) pr. 95 BC, cos. 92 BC Ap. Claudius Pulcher (c. 130–76) mon. c. 111-110, q 99, pr. 89, cos. 79, intrerex 77, d. 76 Daughters: 1. Claudia 1 2. Claudia 3 Claudia 2 m. 143 Ti. Semp. Gracchus Ti. Claudius Nero mon. 79, leg. 67, pr. ante 63 C. Claudius P.f. Nero pr. 81, procos Asia 80-79 Ap. Claudius Pulcher (d.battle 82 BC) trib. mil. 87 Appius Claudius Pulcher, adopted as M. Livius Drusus Claudianus pr. 50 BC, Ap. Claudius Pulcher Major (- 48 BC) pr. 57, Sard 56, cos. 54, Cilicia 53-51, cens. 50, Greece 49-48, augur G. Claudius Pulcher (c. 136–92) cos. 92 BC P. Clodius Pulcher adpt. by a plebeian 59 q. Sicilia 61-60, tr. pleb. 58, aed. cur. 56 3 dau: 1. Clodia Tertia (eldest d) 2. Clodia 3. Clodia ? Ti. Claudius Nero q. 48, pr. 42, pont. 46 L. Claudus rex sacr. 57, Ap. Claudius Pulcher (minor) (ex. C. Claudius Pulcher ==>) ment. 52, sen. 25 Livia Drusilla (Livia Augusta) m. Augustus Ap. Claudius Pulcher (Major) cos. 38, triumph 32, procos. Bithy 27, Vllvir Epu, (C. Cladius Pucher) adopt. by cousin as Ap. Claudius Pucher (Minor) <=== Dau. 1. Claudia 1. m. Cn. Pompeius Magnus (s. of Pompey) 2. Claudia m. M. Iunius Brutus pr. 44, div 45 P. Claudius Pulcher q. quaesitor, pr. augor by 31 Claudia m. 43, div 41 Augustus IMP. AUGUSTUS Triumvir (43–27 BC), Imp. 27BC Antonia Minor, d. of Mark Anthony & Octavia Minor s. of Augustus Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus (post.) gov Gaul 15-11 BC, 12-9 BC co. 9 BC Ti. Claudius Nero==> IMP. TIBERIUS CAESAR 14 AD ? Ap. Claudius (Pulcher)? or s. of Ap. Claudius Pucher Minor?or son of P. Clodius Pucher? sen. 25 BC Ap. Claudius Pulcher adpt. as M. Val. Messalla Appianus sen., cos. 12 BC. 1. Claudia 2. Appia (Claudia) P. Claudius Pulcher q. quaesitor, pr. augur by 31 (Claudia) Livia Iulia called Livilla Ti. Claudius Drusus --> IMP. CLAUDIUS IMP. 41 AD Germanicus Julius Caesar co. 12 AD, 18 AD procos. Germania, 14-16 AD, trium. 17 AD Drusus Julius Caesar M.Valerius Messalla Barbatus , cos. 20 AD Nero Julius Caesar (6 - exec. 31) Drusus Julius Caesar Germanicus (7/8 - 33 in pris.) IMP. CAESAR AUG. GERM. CALIGULA , IMP. 37 (12-41) Julia Agrippina or Aggippina the Younger Julia Drusilla (16 – 38 AD) Julia Livia (c. 18 – c. 41 AD) Julia Livia (AD 7–43) T. Julius Caesar Nero Gemellus (AD 19 – 37/38) Valeria Messalina m. Imp. Claudius wife 1. Ti. Clau. Drusus wife 2. Claudia Antonia m. Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus Faustus Cornelius Sulla Felix wife 3. Claudia Octavia m. Imp. Nero wife 3. Ti. Clau. Caesar Britannicus L. Domitius Ahenobarbus -->IMP. NERO CAESAR, IMP. 54

Well, it's obvious why one might think that it and other genealogical tables belong in this article, but there are some potential issues with it and reasons why it and its counterparts might be better split off into a separate article.

This article is fairly long and detailed to begin with, and while you can certainly construct a coherent narrative from at least parts of the list of members (probably not all, and bearing in mind that some of the relationships may be inferences or the result of research by modern scholars such as Drumann, and so not absolutely rock solid), it may not be ideal to add what look like several lengthy digressions about specific lines of descent that necessarily focus on particular individuals and omit numerous others.

These trees, if they belong at all, obviously are correctly placed at the end, rather than inserted in the middle; but coming at the end of an already lengthy article, they are less likely to be encountered or used by the reader. On top of which, they add a significant number of references—many of which are somewhat duplicative of the ones already given above. Normally in a tree of this type, I would not provide additional references; all of the Claudii in it are already in the list of members, and most of them have references (since this is an older article in the series, some may just have been linked to existing articles and left without references, but this can be fixed). So I wouldn't have added references in a tree based on the list of members, though they would of course be needed if the trees are split off into a new article.

The tree above (and there's now a second one, and there could easily be more) is quite complex, with more information than I would consider placing in a tree of this kind; typically I would include only the most important offices or years held by officeholders, and scant other information. Here I would follow the model of charts such as this one in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (obviously making updates or corrections as needed), which as you can see is fairly compact and easy to follow. You can use electronic footnotes (I prefer {{efn-lr}} because the small Roman numerals aren't easily confused with references) for explanations such as "L. not usual in patrician Claudii, but rex sacr. is a patr. office.", and this has the additional benefit that you don't need to abbreviate things in notes.

That doesn't mean that a tree on Wikipedia should be limited to what was possible with the limitations of printing on a single page in 1849. Width and length are flexible, though I note that unless someone's window is quite wide, the tree as expanded doesn't fit in the center column: I see it running through and under the right sidebar, which makes it hard to read. I can hide the sidebar, or at least part of it, but readers may not know this, or want to have to do it to read the table, and then figure out how to do so, and how to restore the toolbar after looking at it. But since the toolbar can be hidden, it's not a major issue. Adding colours is fine; but too many colours can become confusing (I think the red and purple outlines should go) or difficult to read (the purple background is too dark).

All in all, I think it's a table with potential, but the boxes seem a bit cluttered and the formatting overly complicated. This can be cleaned up, and the extra text changed to electronic footnotes, but the genealogical tables (this and the other one) might be better split off into another article with a title such as "Genealogy of the Claudia gens", and linked with a section hatnote such as "See also: Genealogy of the Claudia gens". If split off, then it needs the references as provided. If it stays here, maybe it doesn't need its own set of references. P Aculeius (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Definitely good ideas: here are my thoughts:

-I can definitely simply the table dates, etc so it doesn't look so cluttered. Almost all the names have wikipedia articles about them anyway where someone can look for more details. But that should make them fit into the width that most people have on their screens.

- I'm sure I can make happen for the notes.

-I had been thinking this would go into the current article as the tree would remain collapsed, so it would only take up an inch or so visually. If someone wants to see it they'd need to click on the expand. Am happy to put into another article with a link though if that is the consensus. JMvanDijk (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

References

Personally I think a genealogy should be restricted to the patrician Claudii, since there are probably thousands if not millions of unrelated Claudii over the hundreds of years of Roman history.★Trekker (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it would be possible to make a table consisting of plebeian Claudii, at least not to any significant degree. This table consists entirely of patricians or their immediate relatives and important descendants. I think the main question is whether this table and its companion fit well in this article as it stands.

As for just how many Claudii there were, certainly not millions! Though they might, in theory, have millions of living descendants today (though it's unlikely that anyone can prove descent from any Claudii, certainly not the patrician ones). But plausibly there were thousands of Romans with the nomen Claudius at various points. The main entry in PW has 451 entries under Claudius, and there are probably more in the various supplements!

The Clauss–Slaby Datenbank shows 4,756 inscriptions containing the strings Claudius or Claudio, plus 2,053 for Claudi or Claudii, and 3,911 with Claudia or Claudiae. Many of these will be duplicates—inscriptions naming one of the emperors, for example, or one of the many consuls named Claudius for dating; but there will also be lots of funerary inscriptions naming multiple members of obscure families, along with lists of soldiers, donors, or guild members that could have multiple Claudii. In small gentes for whom no more than a few dozen members can be attested, I have sometimes included every known person. That would not be practical for the Claudii or similar families! P Aculeius (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Definitely agree there. Maybe not millions, but lots of members of the Claudii tribe and freemen who later took the Claudii name, that were the plebeians. Of the plebeians, the Claudii Marcelli do merit tracking. JMvanDijk (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes the Marcelli are notable in their own right, and maybe some other specific smaller families (tho they probably do not need family trees).★Trekker (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Here is a cleaned up version with much less info in each box and more endnotes and a lighter imperial purple. Let me know if ready for posting: JMvanDijk (talk)

Genealogy of the Patrician Claudii During the Republic & Early Principate

Legend Orange Dictator Yellow Censor Green Consul Julii Family Julii Caesares Emperor Emperor dashed lines -- Most probable descent dotted lines ... Adopted Marcus Clausus Appius Claudius Sabinus Regillensis (orig. Attus Clausus)(Fasti consulares) cos. 495 BC Appius Claudius Crassus Inregillensis Sabinus Cos. 471, 451 BC, Dec. 451 BC Gaius Claudius Sabinus Regillensis cos. 460 BC Appius Claudius Crassus, con. trib. 424 BC Publius Claudius Crassus Appius Claudius Crassus con. trib. 403 BC Appius Claudius Crassus Inregillensis dict. 362 BC, cos. 349 BC C. Claudius Inregillensis nom. dict. 337 Ap. Claudius Caecus cens. 312-308 BC, cos. 307, 296, dict. c.285 Ap. Claudius Caudexcos. 264 Son 1. Ap. Claudius Russus cos. 268, trium. viz. Picentes Son 4. Ti. Claudius Nero Son 2. P. Claudius Pulcher cos. 249 Son 3. C. Claudius Centho cos 240, cens. 225 dict. 213 Ti. Claudius Nero P. Claudius Nero Ap. Claudius Pulcher aed. cur. 217, pr. Sicilia 215, propr. 214-213, cos. 212, procos. Capua 211 C. Centho leg. 200 C. Claudius Nero legate 214 BC, praetor 212 BC, propraetor 211 BC cos. 207, cens. 204, vic. ova. Battle of the Metaurus, Ti. Claudius Nero cos. 202, gov. Africa Ap. Claudius Nero pr. 195, gov. Hispania Ulterior Ap. Claudius Pulcher pr. 188, cos. 185, amb. 174-173 P. Claudius Pulcher aed. cur. 189, pr. Tarentum 187, cos. 184, Liguria illvir col deduc 181 C. Claudius Pulcher pr suff prereg. 180, cos. 177, cens. 169, aug 195, defeated Istrians and Ligurians Ap. Claudius Centho pr. 175 C. Claudius Centho leg. 155 Ti. Claudius Nero pr. 181, gov. Sicily Ti. Claudius Nero pr. 178, 167, procos. 177-176 Ti. Claudius Nero pr. 167 Ap. Claudius Pulcher cos. suff. 130 Clodia (or Claudia, sp. varies) Ap. Claudius Pulcher c.185, cos. 143, cens 136, PS 136, IIIvir a.i.a. 133-130, augur † 130 C. Claudius Centho amb. 155 Ap. Claudius Nero great-great-grandfather of Imp. Tiberius P. Claudius Nero officer in 125 BC Q. Claudius Pulcher C. Claudius Pulcher (c. 136–92) pr. 95 BC, cos. 92 BC Ap. Claudius Pulcher (c. 130–76) mon. c. 111-110, q 99, pr. 89, cos. 79, intrerex 77, d. 76 Daughers: 1. Claudia 1 2. Claudia 3 Claudia 2 m. 143 Ti. Semp. Gracchus, Ti. Claudius Nero mon. 79, leg. 67, pr. ante 63 C. Claudius P.f. Nero pr. 81, procos Asia 80-79 Ap. Claudius Pulcher (d.battle 82 BC) trib. mil. 87 Appius Claudius Pulcher adopted as M. Livius Drusus Claudianus pr. 50 BC, Ap. Claudius Pulcher Major (- 48 BC) pr. 57, Sard 56, cos. 54, Cilicia 53-51, cens. 50, Greece 49-48, augur G. Claudius Pulcher (c. 136–92) cos. 92 BC P. Clodius Pulcher adpt. by a plebian 59 q. Sicilia 61-60, tr. pleb. 58, aed. cur. 56 3 dau: 1. Clodia Tertia (eldest d) 2. Clodia 3. Clodia ? T. Claudius Nero q. 48, pr. 42, pont. 46 L. Claudus rex sacr. 57, Ap. Claudius Pulcher (minor) (ex. C. Claudius Pulcher ==>) ment. 52, sen. 25 Livia Drusilla (Livia Augusta) m. Augustus Ap. Claudius Pulcher (Major) cos. 38, triumph 32, procos. Bithy 27, Vllvir Epu, (C. Cladius Pucher) adopt. by cousin as Ap. Claudius Pucher (Minor) <=== Dau. 1. Claudia 1. m. Cn. Pompeius Magnus (s. of Pompey) 2. Claudia m. M. Iunius Brutus pr. 44, div 45 P. Claudius Pulcher q. quaesitor, pr. augor by 31 Claudia m. 43, div 41 Augustus IMP. AUGUSTUS Triumvir (43–27 BC), Imp. 27BC Antonia Minor, d. of Mark Anthony & Octavia Minor s. of Augustus Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus (post.) pr. 16BC, qae. 15BC, leg. Augusti pro pr. 15-11 BC, 12-9 BC (gov Gaul), pr. urbanis 11 BC, co. 9 BC T. Claudius Nero==> IMP. TIBERIUS CAESAR 14 AD ? Ap. Claudius (Pulcher)? or s. of Ap. Claudius Pucher Minor?or son of P. Clodius Pucher? sen. 25 BC Ap. Claudius Pulcher adpt. as M. Val. Messalla Appianus sen., cos. 12 BC. 1. Claudia m. P. Suipicius Quirinus, cos. 12BC 2. Appia (Claudia) m. C. Iunius Silanus cos. 17 or his father. P. Claudius Pulcher q. quaesitor, pr. augur by 31 (Claudia) Livia Iulia called Livilla T. Claudius Drusus --> IMP. CLAUDIUS IMP. 41 AD Germanicus Julius Caesar pr. AD 9, co. 12 AD, 18 AD proco. Germania, 14-16 AD, trium. 17 AD, imp. maius Asia, 18 AD Drusus Julius Caesar M.Valerius Messalla Barbatus , cos. 20 AD Nero Julius Caesar (6 - exec. 31) Drusus Julius Caesar Germanicus (7/8 - 33 in pris.) IMP. CAESAR AUG. GERM. CALIGULA , IMP. 37 Julia Agrippina or Aggippina the Younger Julia Drusilla Julia Livia Julia Livia T. Julius Caesar Nero Gemellus (AD 19 – 37/38) Valeria Messalina m. Imp. Claudius wife 1. T. Clau. Drusus wife 2. Claudia Antonia wife 3. Claudia Octavia wife 3. T. Clau. Caesar Britannicus L. Domitius Ahenobarbus -->IMP. NERO CAESAR, IMP. 54

The sheer quantity of formatting here alone gives me pause, though I presume it's possible, as before, to turn it into a giant template used only on one page... Besides that, I still think some of the boxes are overly complicated, and that the red and purple box outlines add too much complexity to the overall table. And there are too many references and notes.

If this is still going to be part of the same page on which most or all of the individuals have references, then they don't need to be repeated in a genealogical table. Certainly not numerous references to prove each office or cite each authority for each fact mentioned. There's one box near the beginning with nine references, and some later ones with four or six! Cumulative references add a great deal of clutter, and most of them repeat references already given in the article for the same facts under the same people.

The footnotes also add unnecessary levels of detail—such as etymologies of names, hyperformal epigraphic forms (bold, all-caps, V for U—why include this at all?), and lists of children not shown in the table, things that would be found in linked articles about the individuals listed. But explanatory notes should also be written in clear English, not truncated and stuffed with so many abbreviations that they need to be carefully parsed to understand them. Of course they don't require any significant abbreviation: since they aren't shown within a box of limited space, they can include complete sentences, or at least logical sentence fragments, without shortened or omitted words that would make the meaning clearer. But economy again suggests that anything that is already addressed in the main part of the article, such as the meaning of a name, or in individually-linked articles, like other relatives who don't fit in the chart, shouldn't have a footnote at all.

I appreciate the great deal of effort that's been put into this table, but it's still highly complex, and while the main part can indeed be collapsed—and if included, that should definitely be the default state given its size—the references and footnotes also significantly expand the article and cannot be similarly collapsed. Plus many of them are unnecessarily duplicative, or unnecessary at all given that the table is meant to be (primarily) a visual representation of things already discussed and cited in the main article or linked biographical articles. P Aculeius (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

So, it seems like what I will do is post a link to this, which I've turned into a template. Those who want to use it can. JMvanDijk (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

If this were included in the article, this is the space it would take up:

Genealogy of the Patrician Claudii During the Republic & Early Principate (no References)

Legend Orange Dictator Yellow Censor Green Consul Julii Family Julii Caesares Emperor Emperor dashed lines -- Most probable descent dotted lines ... Adopted Marcus Clausus Appius Claudius Crassus Inregillensis Sabinus Cos. 471, 451 BC, Dec. 451 BC Gaius Claudius Sabinus Regillensis cos. 460 BC Appius Claudius Crassus, con. trib. 424 BC Publius Claudius Crassus Appius Claudius Crassus con. trib. 403 BC Appius Claudius Crassus Inregillensis dict. 362 BC, cos. 349 BC C. Claudius Inregillensis nom. dict. 337 Ap. Claudius Caecus cens. 312-308 BC, cos. 307, 296, dict. c.285 Ap. Claudius Caudexcos. 264 Son 1. Ap. Claudius Russus cos. 268, trium. viz. Picentes Son 4. Ti. Claudius Nero Son 2. P. Claudius Pulcher cos. 249 Son 3. C. Claudius Centho cos 240, cens. 225 dict. 213 Ti. Claudius Nero P. Claudius Nero Ap. Claudius Pulcher aed. cur. 217, pr. Sicilia 215, propr. 214-213, cos. 212, procos. Capua 211 C. Centho leg. 200 C. Claudius Nero legate 214 BC, praetor 212 BC, propraetor 211 BC cos. 207, cens. 204, vic. ova. Battle of the Metaurus, Ti. Claudius Nero cos. 202, gov. Africa Ap. Claudius Nero pr. 195, gov. Hispania Ulterior Ap. Claudius Pulcher pr. 188, cos. 185, amb. 174-173 P. Claudius Pulcher aed. cur. 189, pr. Tarentum 187, cos. 184, Liguria illvir col deduc 181 C. Claudius Pulcher pr suff prereg. 180, cos. 177, cens. 169, aug 195, defeated Istrians and Ligurians Ap. Claudius Centho pr. 175 C. Claudius Centho leg. 155 Ti. Claudius Nero pr. 181, gov. Sicily Ti. Claudius Nero pr. 178, 167, procos. 177-176 Ti. Claudius Nero pr. 167 Ap. Claudius Pulcher cos. suff. 130 Clodia (or Claudia, sp. varies) Ap. Claudius Pulcher c.185, cos. 143, cens 136, PS 136, IIIvir a.i.a. 133-130, augur † 130 C. Claudius Centho amb. 155 Ap. Claudius Nero great-great-grandfather of Imp. Tiberius P. Claudius Nero Q. Claudius Pulcher C. Claudius Pulcher (c. 136–92) pr. 95 BC, cos. 92 BC Ap. Claudius Pulcher (c. 130–76) mon. c. 111-110, q 99, pr. 89, cos. 79, intrerex 77, d. 76 Daughters: 1. Claudia 1 2. Claudia 3 Claudia 2 m. 143 Ti. Semp. Gracchus Ti. Claudius Nero mon. 79, leg. 67, pr. ante 63 C. Claudius P.f. Nero pr. 81, procos Asia 80-79 Ap. Claudius Pulcher (d.battle 82 BC) trib. mil. 87 Appius Claudius Pulcher, adopted as M. Livius Drusus Claudianus pr. 50 BC, Ap. Claudius Pulcher Major (- 48 BC) pr. 57, Sard 56, cos. 54, Cilicia 53-51, cens. 50, Greece 49-48, augur G. Claudius Pulcher (c. 136–92) cos. 92 BC P. Clodius Pulcher adpt. by a plebeian 59 q. Sicilia 61-60, tr. pleb. 58, aed. cur. 56 3 dau: 1. Clodia Tertia (eldest d) 2. Clodia 3. Clodia ? Ti. Claudius Nero q. 48, pr. 42, pont. 46 L. Claudus rex sacr. 57, Ap. Claudius Pulcher (minor) (ex. C. Claudius Pulcher ==>) ment. 52, sen. 25 Livia Drusilla (Livia Augusta) m. Augustus Ap. Claudius Pulcher (Major) cos. 38, triumph 32, procos. Bithy 27, Vllvir Epu, (C. Cladius Pucher) adopt. by cousin as Ap. Claudius Pucher (Minor) <=== Dau. 1. Claudia 1. m. Cn. Pompeius Magnus (s. of Pompey) 2. Claudia m. M. Iunius Brutus pr. 44, div 45 P. Claudius Pulcher q. quaesitor, pr. augor by 31 Claudia m. 43, div 41 Augustus IMP. AUGUSTUS Triumvir (43–27 BC), Imp. 27BC Antonia Minor, d. of Mark Anthony & Octavia Minor s. of Augustus Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus (post.) gov Gaul 15-11 BC, 12-9 BC co. 9 BC Ti. Claudius Nero==> IMP. TIBERIUS CAESAR 14 AD ? Ap. Claudius (Pulcher)? or s. of Ap. Claudius Pucher Minor?or son of P. Clodius Pucher? sen. 25 BC Ap. Claudius Pulcher adpt. as M. Val. Messalla Appianus sen., cos. 12 BC. 1. Claudia 2. Appia (Claudia) P. Claudius Pulcher q. quaesitor, pr. augur by 31 (Claudia) Livia Iulia called Livilla Ti. Claudius Drusus --> IMP. CLAUDIUS IMP. 41 AD Germanicus Julius Caesar co. 12 AD, 18 AD procos. Germania, 14-16 AD, trium. 17 AD Drusus Julius Caesar M.Valerius Messalla Barbatus , cos. 20 AD Nero Julius Caesar (6 - exec. 31) Drusus Julius Caesar Germanicus (7/8 - 33 in pris.) IMP. CAESAR AUG. GERM. CALIGULA , IMP. 37 (12-41) Julia Agrippina or Aggippina the Younger Julia Drusilla (16 – 38 AD) Julia Livia (c. 18 – c. 41 AD) Julia Livia (AD 7–43) T. Julius Caesar Nero Gemellus (AD 19 – 37/38) Valeria Messalina m. Imp. Claudius wife 1. Ti. Clau. Drusus wife 2. Claudia Antonia m. Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus Faustus Cornelius Sulla Felix wife 3. Claudia Octavia m. Imp. Nero wife 3. Ti. Clau. Caesar Britannicus L. Domitius Ahenobarbus -->IMP. NERO CAESAR, IMP. 54

I collapsed it, and made it so the references, endnotes, and bibliography would be included with the rest below. JMvanDijk (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Reference errors may still be a problem. Make sure that each short reference actually links to a full reference that exists in the article. Also, for accessibility, font sizes below 85% are not permitted per MOS:FONTSIZE. It is unclear why you restored errors to this template that other editors have painstakingly fixed for you. We have fixed and tagged some of the problems again. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

This was cross checked by ai and there were no references that did not link to a full reference. As of last night there were no unmatched references. I will correct the one that seems to have popped up after the last comb through and want to thank those who contributed to fixing any errors I missed. I would point out that there are many of these tables that have no references at all, given that their subjects are referenced and linked to on wikipedia articles on them itself. However, given the time difference between us and the subjects and the detective work necessary around the information by scholars much abler than me, it seemed prudent to include references, as have been asked for by other editors.

Fonts in many of these charts are lower than 85% to make content flow easier, however, I have no problem with 85%. I merely point out that the definition of the MOS FONTSIZE specifies the word should (not MUST).

I have posted the references to the template(s) as the consensus of the subject matter experts (SMEs) on this page, instead of including it in the article itself. This allows the article to retain its current size and format, which seemed a paramount concern to the SMEs that contributed to this discussion.

I would respectfully restore the links, in which case those who would prefer and personally benefit from the table would be free to use it. JMvanDijk (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, whatever "ai" you used gave you the wrong answer. Many short references do not link to full references, including "Münzer", "Ogilvie", "Wiseman", "Warrior", and three or four more. Adding this template to the page (in preview) also causes an error with an existing reference: "The named reference "Suetonius Tiberius 1" was defined multiple times with different content". Also, I removed the links you placed in the article that went to Template space, per our guideline about linking outside of article space: In articles, do not link to pages outside the article namespace. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

The template has already been re-referenced by multiple contributors. Please feel free to print out any errors you can find for correction.

I do not see, or perhaps I am not seeing your point about not inserting a link to the templates in this article. It is done in many other wikipedia articles, which is why I believe it was suggested by the SMEs in this talk stream. Within this article you cited, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, there are many examples of links to Templates, esp. under section headings. JMvanDijk (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean with your sentence about errors. I explained the referencing errors.

Re the template links: You inserted a link from this article to Template space; I removed it per the guideline that I linked above. Linking directly to Template space from within the body of articles is not permitted.

Re that guideline page linking to templates, the prohibition applies only to article space, i.e. "mainspace", not other namespaces like the Wikipedia or Help spaces. The word "article" at Wikipedia is applied to pages that live in the main namespace occupied by encyclopedia entries. The general term for any page in any namespace is "page"; for example, this "page" on which we are having a discussion is in the "Talk" namespace. It is fine to link to other namespaces from the Talk namespace, but not from the article (main) namespace. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I really don't see any prohibition on what you are, I think pointing out, Interwikimedia linking. Please point out the sentence and/or the article that prohibits this.

Also, I would appreciate, as the other contributors have, pointing out any short form references that do not match long form references. They will happily be corrected. JMvanDijk (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

See my response above for a direct quotation from the guideline, and for examples of missing full references. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

These should be fixed now, and also alphabetized.

I can find nothing in "guideline about linking outside of article space" that prohibits linking pages to another namespace, i.e. template. JMvanDijk (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I am happy to put in the template itself, which should now show only collapsed and take 1/2 in of space, however, the SMEs seem to want the link instead.

A page of these charts can also be created and linked to. JMvanDijk (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I have no strong objection to the chart itself, although it could be a stand-alone article (perhaps combined with the other chart someone recently added). But as long as it's here, it doesn't need to repeat all the references that are already given in the main body of the article. If it's part of this page, it's simply an diagram of persons already named and described, with citations and/or links to separate articles that have those citations. At most a single citation should be enough for most boxes.

And they do not need copious notes explaining surnames that are already explained in the article or linked biographies, or giving spans of years other than those necessary for the table itself. There is no need to have over a hundred of them! Those notes that are necessary should be written in clear English, not full of abbreviations and genealogical or typographical shorthand, symbols, etc.

Please see the model tables in Drumann or the DGRBM—the Claudia gens generally or those applying to the imperial family. Admittedly they had to be brief to fit on one or two pages, but they are also good models for restraint—the level of detail necessary to convey the basic information of the table, and little else. You could double the amount of information without approaching what is currently in this table. So it really does need to be pared down to the basics, and relieved of all the duplicative citations and all but the most important notes. P Aculeius (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Salve! All good suggestions, and maybe at this point I'm leaning to the standalone article.

Couple of points where I am a bit at sea as I'm getting conflicting advice above:

-I did follow the DBRBM abbreviations for the offices, and took out birth and death dates. Names are linked where there is an article.

-Genealogical tables are popular in wiki and the world as there is a substantial number of us whose brains are wired that way, so the info makes more sense.

-I did put in the references for the table as its a template, so it can stand on its own. Also, as I've had suggestions in the past to put references in, esp. as the subjects for this table are so far in the past. But, it is coded so that all the references and bibliography are not included in an article if the template is included in an article. This is, since, as you rightly pointed out they are mostly replicated in the bibliography and sources in this article. I did put the references in . The table would be shown collapsed, so it would only take about a 1/2 in.

Let me know if we should continue this, as several articles on Roman gens have, or a link to a standalone article with these tables in is better.

Thanks for your constructive suggestions. ~2025-40500-64 (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

As a stand-alone article it would need references, though perhaps not for every fact that can be verified for linked individuals. And if details such as minor offices, dates of birth and death, or details on their names are in those linked articles (or this one, about the gens), then they don't need to be included on the chart. As long as the sources are identified clearly enough to find the basic information, that should be fine.

There may be a few other families for which charts of this type are useful, but some of them already have them, and in most instances only a relatively small portion of the gens can be plotted out due to ambiguities in relationships and sometimes large gaps in time. And from my own experience making a couple of charts like this, I'm not convinced that the benefits are sufficient to justify them. I think they have the potential to distract visually from the members lists, and offer a reductive format that cannot convey more than a small amount of information without becoming overwhelming.

But I'm not convinced that charts like this have no place on Wikipedia or even in articles in this series, either. For now I'm satisfied if they're well-organized and assembled in a manner that might potentially be helpful to readers. P Aculeius (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Re linking from article space to template space, the guideline clearly states, as I quoted above, In articles, do not link to pages outside the article namespace.

And there are still many broken short references in the template. I listed them above, and they are not fixed. Here's just one example, with step-by-step instructions: Go to Template:Family tree of the Patrician Claudii. Scroll to reference 12, "Ogilvie, pp. 376–377". Click on the linked name "Ogilvie". Notice that nothing happens. That is a broken short reference. It should jump to the full reference, but that full reference is not present. Repeat that step for every reference. Provide full references for those that are missing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Ogilvie, R. M. (1965). A Commentary on Livy, Books 1–5. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Look under modern bibliographical references. JMvanDijk (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

That's not the issue; it's fine for them not to have links if the bibliographic information is in the bibliography, but instead the reflist contains many broken or recursive links. "Ogilvie" and "Wiseman", for instance, in the citations, shouldn't link to anything if there aren't articles about them—or if their articles are linked in the bibliography. For whatever reason, they're linked, and just lead back to the template itself, so the reader thinks they lead to more information, but clicking on them takes you nowhere.

You could instead use "short footnote" templates, which I think is what Jonesey means by "jump to the full reference", but that's not the way that the references in the main article work. They're not meant to link to anything, but just to abbreviate sources found in the bibliography (where there are links to many authors), with page references.

But to illustrate why they're not used, a short footnote template would produce "Ogilvie (1965), pp. 376–377", which IMO is less helpful than "Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy, pp. 376, 377." Sadly the short footnote templates are inflexible and only allow for one citation format—or if they can be adjusted to work the way I think they should, I can't figure out how because it's not at all obvious from the documentation.

The other issue is that the table template isn't an article. It's a template. You could move the contents into article space by creating an article by that name, and placing the template there—although you don't really need a template anyway. Placing all of this stuff in a template makes it harder for other editors to modify, the way that Wikipedia articles are normally meant to be edited.

What you should do is copy the contents of the template into an article called "Family tree of the patrician Claudii" (note that "patrician" isn't a proper noun, so we don't capitalize it in article or section titles), and make any changes necessary to the formatting so that it displays correctly without being in a template. For instance, it wouldn't need parameters for a collapsible table, since that's only possible—or desirable—in a template placed in another article. As a stand-alone article it wouldn't need to be collapsed, and wouldn't make sense that way. P Aculeius (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

This is what I've been able to research about the use of genealogical tables in Wikipedia, which would lead me to conclude that we can include a collapsed version of the short form of the genealogical table. Note, I've restructured the template, so there are 2 versions that can be used, Referenced (with all the references any scholar might need) and UnReferenced (with no references). They can both be included collapsed, so that the only take about 1/2 in of space on the page.:

=== Are genealogical charts required for hereditary figures? ===

No. Wikipedia does not require genealogical charts, even for monarchs, dynasts, nobles, or holders of hereditary religious authority.

Relevant policies include:

• WP:NOTMANDATORY – No specific content type is required.
• WP:SUMMARYSTYLE – Articles summarize; detail is included where it is most useful.
• MOS:BIO – Family background is appropriate, but charts are optional.

That said, genealogical charts are commonly accepted where hereditary succession is central to notability, relationships are complex or multi-generational, or a visual summary is clearer than prose. This is why they frequently appear in articles on royal dynasties, Roman patrician gentes, and religious successions.

Common usage, however, does not make them mandatory.

=== Must genealogical charts have inline citations? ===

Not necessarily.

Genealogical charts are generally treated as summarizing devices rather than standalone analytical claims.

Relevant policies:

• WP:V – Content must be verifiable, but not every visual element requires inline citation.
• Wikipedia:Inline citation – Inline citations are required where material is likely to be challenged.
• WP:SYNTH – Charts must not combine sources in a way that implies original research.

In practice, charts without inline citations are acceptable where:

1. The relationships shown are widely accepted and uncontroversial.
2. The same relationships are documented and sourced elsewhere in the article.
3. The chart does not introduce new claims beyond what reliable sources state.

This approach is common for well-attested dynastic lines, including Roman gentes, medieval royal houses, and long-established religious lineages.

=== Can another Wikipedia article serve as a source? ===

Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources for one another (WP:CIRCULAR).

However, it is acceptable for genealogical charts to link to other Wikipedia articles for navigation, provided that verification ultimately traces back to reliable sources cited in the article or in the linked material. Internal links may summarize or point readers to related, well-sourced content, but they do not replace independent sourcing.

=== On the “Wikipedia is ever-changing” concern ===

This concern is understood and accounted for in editorial practice.

Wikipedia operates on an assumption of good-faith continuity: if linked articles are well-sourced at the time, summarizing them is acceptable. If a linked article later degrades, editors can add local sourcing, simplify the chart, or remove it.

What will not survive scrutiny are charts that:

• Assert controversial or minority genealogies without attribution.
• Introduce relationships not stated in the prose.
• Synthesize across sources in ways the sources themselves do not present.

=== Best-practice approach ===

A structure that generally withstands GA/FA/AfD scrutiny is:

• A conservative genealogical chart summarizing well-attested relationships.
• Nearby prose with inline citations.
• A solid bibliography.
• Optionally, a single explanatory note under the chart (e.g., “Based on Livy; Dionysius of Halicarnassus; Münzer; Broughton.”

=== Bottom line ===

• Genealogical charts are not required.
• They are appropriate and common where hereditary authority—political or religious—is central.
• Inline citations inside charts are not mandatory if the article is otherwise well-sourced and the chart summarizes accepted scholarship.
• Wikipedia articles cannot serve as sources, but may be linked for navigation.
• The evolving nature of Wikipedia is acknowledged and managed through editorial maintenance.

This approach reflects long-standing editorial practice across articles on dynasties, Roman gentes, and hereditary religious successions. JMvanDijk (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Have not received any objections to the above line of reasoning. So, will expose the minimal genealogical chart, collapsed so as to take up only 1/2 in. each and no references exposed. JMvanDijk (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

References