Talk:Gaius Iulius Caesar (name)/Draft

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main Article
Talk Template:Default button 3
 
Template:Cell style

Article re-approval and version record area


Article re-approval and version record area


Name

Given that there is no article at Caesar do we really need to tag ", name" on the end of this article. Similar to other name/title based articles such as Baron and Baronet. Derek Harkness 11:09, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

Now changed. Caesar (as disambiguation, name etc.) is now in "See also". —Arne Eickenberg 21:23, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

"Jiulius Caesar" as a name

There is a prominent American politician that uses the name "Julius Caesar". Yi Zhe Wu 19:12, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Interesting. :-) There's also a German politican by the name Cajus-Julius Caesar. These two would be mentioned in the article Julius Caesar (disambiguation) or in an article called Julius Caesar (name). This article here is only about those whose name was (or is) actually Gaius Iulius Caesar, not even Gaius Julius Caesar with an anglicized J…, i.e. (most probably) only people from Roman antiquity. Cheers. —Arne Eickenberg 21:48, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Changes made after approval nomination

Corrected the remark on Iuppiter's older name Iovis. There were other old Jupiter-names, e.g. the archaic Zeus-derivate Dieus. Therefore sentence changed from "which used to be the older name of Iuppiter" to "which used to be one of the older names of Iuppiter". The revision-ID for the nominated article should accordingly be updated. —Arne Eickenberg 23:56, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

I thought the page should have been approved by now, why is it still a draft? Yi Zhe Wu 13:33, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
Added subpage templates etc. and subpages. Changed the nominated version.  Arne Eickenberg  talk 14:03, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

approval subpage

I just added an approval subpage, some thing I have wanted to see for a while. I'm interested in feed back. Matt has seen this before but we never pushed to finalise the details. The primary reason for such a beast is to keep the approval related edits seperate from the talk page edits. It should make it a lot easier to reconstruct the approval history of an article. This might not be that helpful now but when these articles have been through multiple approvals and are serveral years old it might be advantageous. Chris Day (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2007 (CDT)