Talk:Roman–Gallic wars

Fixing the issues
The AfD resulted in keep, with the recommendation to sort out remaining issues on the talk page, namely: the current title of the article does not accurately describe its contents. Beyond that, while there appears to be support that the article would be better as a list, there was not general agreement as to whether a move, rename, or other action was most appropriate. I think there are roughly 3 main options: Note: there is a general trend to move away from the term "tribe" in anthropology and historiography, and this has been confirmed on English Wikipedia, including recent CfRs such as Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_10 and Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_10. Currently there is still a Gauls, but the related list has already been renamed List of ancient Celtic peoples and tribes. A CfM to merge Category:Celtic tribes to Category:Historical Celtic peoples is still ongoing, but I expect that to end with the elimination of the term "tribes" in favour of "peoples". So I think we should be going for Gaulish peoples rather than Gaulish tribes.
 * 1) Chronology of warfare between the Romans and Gaulish peoples after the example of Chronology of warfare between the Romans and Germanic peoples (originally Roman–Germanic wars)
 * 2) List of wars between the Romans and Gaulish peoples
 * 3) Making it as disambiguation page, like Transalpine war.

My current preference is no. #3, but I'm open to other options. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Two problems with this: 1, there is no option to leave the article at the present title, which a number of participants in the discussion thought was fine, or better than some or all of the alternatives. 2, the discussion rather clearly demonstrated that there was not a consensus for converting the article into a disambiguation page.  That would effectively be a back door to deletion, which was the purpose of the discussion.  These issues could be cured by deleting the third "option" and replacing it with "leave the article at its current title".  Whether the word "tribe" is politically incorrect is opening up another can of worms.  One awful mess at a time, please.  P Aculeius (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The fuller quote of the closer was: The clear sense of the discussion is that the article should not be deleted. There also is consensus for the position that the current title of the article does not accurately describe its contents. The option to leave the present title was a minority view; there is consensus that it does not accurately describe the contents.
 * 3 people were in favour of disambiguation, 2 people were opposed. Not a clear majority either way, but slightly in favour. One may think it's a "back door to deletion", but the article will still be kept as per closure. The nomination was in favour of deletion, but had also stated that disambiguation would be an acceptable alternative to deletion. Therefore, I've listed is as the 3rd option; not the most likely, but not yet ruled out either.
 * We haven't yet had to decide between "tribes" and "peoples", but if we go for options #1 or #2, we are going to have to make that decision. It's reasonable to go for "peoples" per the aforementioned precedents if we do. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)