Category talk:Gens Caecilia (Nova Roma)
Listing of Stirpes?
Given that this happens to be one of the gentes in Nova Roma whose familiae are modeled on the known ancient familiae, would it be desirable to include a listing of the stirpes (there's only one at present) of the Caecilii, as well as a history of them, in their own category pages (listing, then, each individual in its respective stirps)? Q. Caecilius Metellus 18:32, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
- I would suggest trying without a separate category for each stirps to begin with. The biography-links should be listed alphabetically by cognomen on the category page, so the members of each stirps will be listed together. Perhaps it will turn out in due course that some or all of the stirpes merit their own categories, but I think it would be better to start without.
- Incidentally, this raises an interesting general point. At the moment our policy of putting "(Nova Roma)" at the end of all articles on modern Roman matters creates an absolute dichotomy between modern and ancient Roman history. In some ways that makes sense (it makes it easier to tell the difference between an article on L. Sulla cos. 88 and L. Sulla cos. 1999), but it also puts an obstacle in the way of any feeling of continuity between old and new. If we regard you, Metelle, as a member of the same gens and stirps as the ancient Caecilii Metelli, then shouldn't you be listed in the same category as they? And if so, should it be in "Gens Caecilia (Nova Roma)" or "Gens Caecilia"? Or should one page redirect to the other (if indeed that can be done with category pages)? Hmm. It's worth thinking about. I wonder whether we should rethink the whole policy of distinguishing between the two. Would it be so difficult just to have a disambiguation page saying "there are several people in Roman history called L. Cornelius Sulla: one was consul in 88 and dictator in 81, another was consul in 1999..."?
- - Cordus 20:25, 28 October 2006 (CDT)