Talk:Marcus Junius Gracchanus

Recent editing
Thank you for your interest in the article and sorry to have undone so much but, aside from possible —which of course I don't think applies: reread when you have time to see the exceptions to "only ever link once ever",—none of those edits seemed well taken. Some were entirely mistaken, such as using the wrong name for Censorinus instead of clicking through to see what the correct name was or trying to change the grammar and phrasing to a more British style (see ). Am I missing something?

As far as the format of the classical citations, yeah, that's arguable too. The idea, though, is that I'm providing a specific edition in the bibliography for people who are curious here but the actual citation is to any given version of the text formatted to match any given version (section numbers instead of page numbers). Laundry listing every edition of a given text is inappropriate here but they are helpfully listed and linked on the works' own pages. Therefore, it's more helpful to to handle them this way instead of changing the cite to only link to the one version provided in the bibliography here.

Also, since those edits aren't about any disqualifying policy problem and are separate from its eligibility, they should really be handled here instead of there. — Llywelyn II   21:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @LlywelynII User reverted perfectly justified article changes, and disputed incidental findings I made while reviewing their DYK submission. Clearly very territorial and very very angry. el.ziade (talkallam) 09:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not angry at all. The changes weren't justified, though, in either sense of the word. That's what this talk page is for: justifying proposed but disputed changes. — Llywelyn II   15:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)