Talk:Caerosi

a "whole paragraph"
Responding to edsum "it's interesting to have one or two lines about the boundary marker, but a whole paragraph?" I don't really think a paragraph is very big, and I also don't think there is any justification for making a separate article about the boundary marker. It is one of the only things which always gets mentioned for this topic, so the article is not currently at risk of being overloaded. I also don't see a "relevance" concern as per the new tag, as it is obviously relevant, and consistently mentioned together with this article topic? (Also for other peoples from the same period, whenever a hint of a boundary definition is known, it is a topic of interest.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I meat is Today the Vinxtbach is still a boundary between modern German dialects, with Ripuarian to the north, and Moselle Frankish to the south. Also nearby is the modern boundary of modern German Länder of Rheinland-Pfalz and Nordrhein-Westfalen relevant? not the whole paragraph... Alcaios (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * From the edsum: "This paragraph can be trimmed down; walls of text in general are scary for the reader (although this article is not a main concern compared to others); that's why I've been trying to add sub-sections and trim down the verbiage in most articles". Alcaios (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Debatable? I personally find the question of continuity of geographical entities in this region interesting and they are often discussed/mentioned. Major dialect break areas often correspond to old bishoprics, and those often correspond to very old divisions. I find it hard to call it scary or really growing out of control or truly irrelevant?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have changed the tag. Although this article in particular is not concerned, I still think that we should avoid wall-of-texts in articles in general. Alcaios (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a good general rule. But do you ever worry about making too many very short sections? I suppose both directions can go too far. I don't mean that we are doing that though. In general most sectioning you are doing is indisputably an improvement and you are doing great work.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sub-sectioning is a way to organize content while the article is still in construction. A short section is thus a section in construction that needs further content. If it remains a short section at the end of the editing phase, then it should be merged with another section. Alcaios (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree on this principle. Of course for most of these small tribes they only have a limited amount of discussion possible. So they are unlikely to expand very much.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Toorians article
also useful/interesting? https://www.academia.edu/36564155/ --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Germani Cisrhenani

 * I only removed the material that was related to the Germani Cisrhenani in general (Whightman on geographical considerations, Tacitus on the origin of the term 'Germani') rather than the Caeroesi in particular. These have been replaced by a summary of the Cisrhenani issue by Neumann, for I intend to add content, and perhaps clarifications, to the article Germani Cisrhenani. I hope you see no issue with that. Alcaios (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Renaming
, considering the attested variants and comparative linguistic evidence, I think that this article should be renamed to Caerosi. See the section "Name" with references. If that matters, the Dutch and German WP articles use this written form. Alcaios (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I managed to rename it myself. I thought that there was already a version with this title. Alcaios (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)