Talk:Alimentus

See also entries
Re this edit: these are not invalid entries,. See MOS:DABSEEALSO: the "see also" section is explicitly there for topics that can be confused for the term being disambiguated. And if the Cincia gens indeed used the cognomen "Alimentus" this means that the cognomen, as a topic discussed within that gens article, should actually be included in the main body of the dab page and not the "see also". – Uanfala (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The gens page lists only two individuals with that surname: those already listed here. That's the only connection between the two subjects. Showing "Cincia gens" as a "see also" won't enhance the reader's understanding of anything beyond what is already listed here, at this page. Avilich (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that article lists only two people with Alimentus in the name, but it also contains a bit of information about the cognomen itself. – Uanfala (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The source seems to be a dictionary entry. I added a link to the wiktionary entry, this should be a better course of action. Avilich (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How the information is sourced in the Wikipedia article is beside the point. As long as that article contains information about a topic, we should provide navigation for that topic. The only real argument that I can see here is over whether we should cover (and link to) cognomina in principle. (And btw, both Wiktionary links you've added point to non-existent entries). – Uanfala (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought you had looked at the gens article by this point, and that you would've noticed that the article, like its source, also gives only a dictionary definition. The sole relationship between "Cincia gens" and "Alimentus" is that two people named "Cincius" just so happen to be called "Alimentus". That's it, it is no more than an intersection, with some dictionary definition being present somewhere. Avilich (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I had assumed there was a more substantial relationship. So "Alimentus" has been used by a number of other gentes? If that is indeed the case, then I agree there's no need for a link to that. – Uanfala (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Only these two people seem to have used it. To say that any "gentes"/families used it may be misleading, since surname use is not always consistent, and only these two people are known to have been so called in this specific case. We simply don't know anything more than that. Avilich (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)