Talk:Caecilia gens

Metelli
I'm linking here a discussion (Articles for deletion/Quintus Caecilius Metellus (tribune)) in which 'Llywrch' outlines some possible extra Metelli as of yet unmentioned in this page. Avis11 (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal
[Transclusion of discussion from Talk:Caecilius Metellus]:

Formal request has been received to merge: Caecilii Metelli family tree into Caecilius Metellus; dated: September 30, 2020. Proposer's Rationale: Same information / redundant. Discuss here. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 21:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The other way around: this current page needs to be redirected to the family tree. But before that, all individuals listed herein need to be sorted properly, as some do not have any sources and are of questionable existence even. Avis11 (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorting done, only individual of questionable authenticity already nominated for deletion. Avis11 (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would remove Caecilius Metellus. It is redundant with Caecilia gens. Outdated too. T8612  (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose all these proposals. I think the family tree should be moved to a template instead and this page remade into a prosopographical list, set index or disambiguation page of men in the family.★Trekker (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect Caecilius Metellus and Caecilii Metelli family tree to Caecilia gens (or make Caecilius Metellus a disambiguation page), merge all substantial content to Caecilia gens and put the family tree itself in a suitably useful format on that page. A synthesis of the proposals above. GPinkerton (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)