This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
It's very well and good that you're trying to clear up filiation. You can't do it by ignoring WP:LEAD and WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME and WP:READER to ignore his common English name and import a string of nonsense abbreviations that are unexplained on this page. Julius Caesar, Augustus, et multa cetera do not have this and, at minimum, you need to gloss it or link to an explanation on every page you use it. — LlywelynII 22:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
In other news, the #Bibliography is part of the #References. No idea why the editor in question would revert such an obvious improvement, but presumably there are other pages that need fixing (fix them) or is annoyed at the filiation issue. ( WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not override foundational policies like using straightforward English and leading with common English names.) — LlywelynII 22:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
If there's really a brood of historians circling around this page... um... fix it. The historicity of Livy's entire account of L. Quinctius Cincinnatus is sometimes questioned and Caeso's trial in particular has been generally believed to be a fabrication or legendary embellishment since at least the 19th century. There's nothing on this page that raises that (major) issue at all. You can shunt the filiation into a name section but that's neither here nor there compared to representing a possibly legendary figure as a historical figure (and "major" one at that). — LlywelynII 22:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
It's very well and good that you're trying to clear up filiation. You can't do it by ignoring WP:LEAD and WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME and WP:READER to ignore his common English name and import a string of nonsense abbreviations that are unexplained on this page. Julius Caesar, Augustus, et multa cetera do not have this and, at minimum, you need to gloss it or link to an explanation on every page you use it. — LlywelynII 22:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
In other news, the #Bibliography is part of the #References. No idea why the editor in question would revert such an obvious improvement, but presumably there are other pages that need fixing (fix them) or is annoyed at the filiation issue. ( WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not override foundational policies like using straightforward English and leading with common English names.) — LlywelynII 22:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
If there's really a brood of historians circling around this page... um... fix it. The historicity of Livy's entire account of L. Quinctius Cincinnatus is sometimes questioned and Caeso's trial in particular has been generally believed to be a fabrication or legendary embellishment since at least the 19th century. There's nothing on this page that raises that (major) issue at all. You can shunt the filiation into a name section but that's neither here nor there compared to representing a possibly legendary figure as a historical figure (and "major" one at that). — LlywelynII 22:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)