Talk:Roman naming conventions/to do

Shouldn't this be called "roman naming conventions for males" since there is a "roman naming conventions for females" page?

Unfinished tasks as of 1 June 2006
 * There should be references and inline citations as indicated in the criteria.
 * Some sections are too short.
 * Sources are in inappropriate format.

Finished tasks:
 * this page would benefit greatly if the examples were split off into either seperate lists or sent to Wiktionary.
 * Roman Tribe names now at List of Roman Tribes.
 * Female names now at List of Roman Female Names.
 * Agnomen are integrated and link added.
 * Lists are removed.Rrpbgeek 20:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The exact method of name creation evolved along with the nature of the Empire. As birth rates declined and Emperors began to have to adopt heirs, the popularity of it increased and it began to change the style of naming. As the culture changed and became larger, the need for further specificity of family and subfamily groups became more acute.
 * Shown, Rrpbgeek
 * explanation as to the name creation changed over time is only hinted at. I would strongly suggest that a "History" section be included to provide background on how names evolved, perhaps with reference to other possibly pertinent articles like Roman Republic, Roman Empire or relevant sub-sections/links.
 * Added, and links provided at page bottom. Rrpbgeek 20:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * any information on how this may have evolved since Roman times would be relevant: did the practice carry on into Byzantine or post-Byzantine times?
 * Done, not much but some. Rrpbgeek
 * You may also get faux objections with regard to the lack of pictures, which is not in itself criteria for rejecting an article for FA status. However, I would recommend delving into WikiMedia Commons looking for relevant illustrative images depicting names at various stages in Roman history, perhaps from headstones, coins or images of Vesuvian graffiti. A similar article for reference: Fivefold Titulary
 * Tomb Picture added. Rrpbgeek
 * Too much lists
 * Fixed. Rrpbgeek 20:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Confusing and not very informative for those who don't already have some grasp of the topic.
 * Attempted to resolve, but will leave up to admin. readers. Rrpbgeek