Talk:Caeso Quinctius

Nonsense

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)

You've made it perfectly clear that you don't respect Roman naming conventions in articles about Romans. Your first edit summary was "removing random string of meaningless letters", then reverted their restoration with another rude summary: "That's great. Gloss them. In this article." followed by this heading, "Nonsense" (not "filiation", "name", "lead", or anything NPoV), following by your description, "a string of nonsense abbreviations". If you can't even maintain a neutral tone with respect to an important aspect of Roman culture and nomenclature, you shouldn't be deleting it. None of the long string of policies you cited above actually deal with this particular situation. All except for the first deal with article titles, not lead sentences, and are completely irrelevant. With respect to the lead policy, here's some relevant language which I think you've ignored:

"The name of a person is presented in full if known, including any given names that are not included in the article's title or are abbreviated there. For example, the article on Calvin Coolidge gives his name as John Calvin Coolidge, Jr." This is fully on-point, but you might rely on this language:

"Consider footnoting foreign-language and archaic names if they would otherwise clutter the opening sentence." (emphasis supplied). Here there's no question of clutter. A standard filiation is four letters, and the rest of the sentence is perfectly simple with or without it.

While the significance of filiations may not be obvious to every reader, they are a standard part of Roman nomenclature, and readers may be expected to encounter them many times without a full explanation each and every time. It would be unwieldy to include an explanatory section in every place that they occur, although there is a very thorough explanation under Roman Naming Conventions which readers could easily consult. At the same time, it's unlikely most readers seeking information on Caeso Quinctius would be completely unfamiliar with them, because unlike articles on Caesar or Augustus, it's not one likely to be encountered by someone with only a casual acquaintance with Roman history and culture. Filiations are found in many standard reference works, and while many Wikipedia articles on Romans don't include them, many do. It's not a situation that's likely to surprise or confuse readers en masse, and it doesn't call for the kind of solution you're demanding. P Aculeius (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Formatting

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)

An example of a common hierarchy, in which the citations and bibliography are clearly different sections.

This isn't news. It's not even a fact. You may consider it "such an obvious improvement", but it's not obvious to Wikipedia and it's not a policy. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Notes_and_references doesn't say anything about bibliographies being a subheading of references. The example picture for this policy even shows them as separate sections, labeled "notes" and "references" (although what they're called varies from one article to another). You're attempting to impose your own preferences on the article structure and present them as official Wikipedia policy, and that's just not so. And since you made a whole section just for discussion of this issue, it doesn't make a lot of sense to bring up other issues and argue that I should leave your changes alone and go work on other articles, or that I'm motivated purely by angst at other edits you've made, or that I'm violating policies that aren't even at issue here and weren't relevant to the other issue either. The change that this section is about isn't supported by any policy; it's your personal preference. And there's no particular reason to use a more complex hierarchy. P Aculeius (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Article improvement

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)

Maintaining a neutral point of view (which really is Wikipedia policy) means not asserting that the entire narrative is "legendary" as stated by your edit, or deleting details that are almost universally accepted, at least within the limits of possible historical doubts. Forsythe may doubt that any of the events in this article occurred, and that's his right. But it's just his opinion, not accepted historical fact. I added a section addressing historical doubts, and if I've misstated Forsythe's opinion, feel free to revise it. But most sources treat the narrative as if it either did happen or could have happened. Forsythe shouldn't be cited as the primary source for the article, when really Livy and Dionysius are the sources for the narrative, while Forsythe is commentary and criticism on those sources. Nowhere does the article say that Caeso was a "major" historical figure. But the events concerned with him, his trial, and the aftermath do occupy a considerable amount of space in the ancient historians, and are worthy of discussion. You can't simply delete parts of that narrative (such as a description of him, or his relationship to his father) because Forsythe doubts his existence. P Aculeius (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)