Talk:Tiberius Claudius Nero

rationale for unlinked names
Several Tiberii Claudii Nerones appear in Wikipedia articles, particularly lists of magistrates, who do not have separate articles. Some of these will in future; some may not, because so little is known of them. However, if a person is trying to track down the Ti. Claudius Nero who was active in the 170s, for instance, it helps to have some direction and clarification. Roman nomenclature is very confusing, because so many people have the same name. I don't have time to sit down and write an article on each of the missing Tiberii Claudii Nerones, but I do have time to jot a sentence to help alleviate any confusion. Some disambig articles function as miniature prosopographies; see, for instance, Lucius Valerius Flaccus. My feeling is that we ought to help where we can, rather than deliberately withhold information that might clarify a user's question, just because we're blindly following a rule that's perhaps not intended to cover this situation. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Either create stubs or leave it for now - these entries do not meet the guidelines for a dab, see MOS:DAB pr WP:DAB for a clear idea on the aims of a disambiguation page. It is solely a navigational tool, to help find articles, nothing else. If these entries are redlinked in other articles, or are in other articles and someone now redlinks them, then they would be valid entries, but not until. Boleyn3 (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I strenuously disagree with attempts to occlude the finding of information, but know better than to argue with someone who values blind obedience to rules above usefulness. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * At the very least, any user, no matter how deeply involved in a disambiguation-page uniformity campaign, should show due caution when subject-matter experts like Cynwolfe provide helpful information about the disambiguation function served by entries. It seems Boleyn has not taken it on herself to demonstrate the non-importance of entries before removing them and re-removing them over the protests of experts (even when any expert would know that the entries removed pointed to persons notable enough for an eventual page).  She has even  (cf. ) when they disagree with her perspective.  But MOSDAB is its own little world and community, which exists to make rules, and I'm not confident that the expert editors getting steamrolled will manage to change that.  Wareh (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel both of those comments, particularly the last, are unnecessarily personal. I did not need to establish whether entries without links were notable - the whole point on a dab is to link to articles mentioning the entry or on the entry. As for the removal of your rude comments on the Talk page of a previous article - telling editors they 'should be ashamed of themselves' etc. I felt belonged on an editor's Talk page, if at all. (I actually thought better of it soon afterward, however, and felt I shouldn't have reverted it and wouldn't have challenged its reinstatement). We're all trying to make Wikipedia better, so there is no need for personal attacks. I fully understood Cynwolfe's concerns, but felt that he/she wasn't fully understanding the whole raison d'etre of a disambiguation page. I am glad that my advice seems to have been taken re: redlinking and that the problem is now solved. I look forward to reading their articles and learning more about the people if they are ever created. Best wishes, Boleyn3 (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the purpose of a disambig page is to help people find the information they need in the most efficient way. I believe in Wikipedia as an organic, responsive, evolving mechanism for delivering information, and I tend to resist arguments based on top-down, rules-based authoritarianism that exclude rather than include useful information. I apologize To Boleyn3. It's static authoritarianism I was deriding, not you as a person.
 * (BTW, I make no claim to be an expert on anything; just an amateur who's passionate and methodical in limited areas of subject matter.) Cynwolfe (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, concerning the reference to "your rude comments." Those were other editors' comments I pointed to, not mine, and I agree that at least one of them used a regrettable tone.  However, I think they raise a legitimate issue about what helps and harms the encyclopedia, so that reverting them seemed to be part of the assumption that the MOSDAB principles as you understand them are unequivocally right and useful.  As I see it (and I am neither inexperienced in editing nor an enemy of rules in general), "Disambiguation pages are for x, nothing more," unhelpfully closes off the possibility of meeting many possible needs of the encyclopedia's users, and it raises the danger that worthwhile content completely appropriate to an encyclopedia will be lost.  Wareh (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion - list articles
Can I make a suggestion. A similar problem has come up at a completely different project (console games), and a solution suggested there was to create text list articles (as opposed to link list articles) for topics where the topic as a whole is notable (eg in your case Roman magistrates called Tiberius Claudius Nero) but where not enough info exists on each Tiberius Claudius Nero to create anything more than a sub-stub. The advantages of a text list article over a dab is that you can include a sentence or two on each subject, you don't need links to everything, and you can redirect to section headers, allowing you to create a redirect for each entry. You can then perfectly properly disambiguate between any Tiberii CNs that have articles, and the list of other TCNs. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Elen. You understand the issues clearly. These praetors will probably never have articles, because not enough is known about each; however, someone reading Livy — and there are a number of such readers regularly on Wikipedia, particularly those interested in military history — may encounter these guys, and maybe try to look them up to clarify who's who. Your suggestion is a good one. I had been mulling over some kind of "end run" maneuver such as a list. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to help. Coincidentally, my better half is a military historian (although I think it's a while since he read Livy).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Tiberius Nero" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tiberius Nero. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 17 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 14:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)