This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
Caerosi is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations.
If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gaul, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gaul on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GaulWikipedia:WikiProject GaulTemplate:WikiProject GaulGaul
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Responding to edsum [1] "it's interesting to have one or two lines about the boundary marker, but a whole paragraph?" I don't really think a paragraph is very big, and I also don't think there is any justification for making a separate article about the boundary marker. It is one of the only things which always gets mentioned for this topic, so the article is not currently at risk of being overloaded. I also don't see a "relevance" concern as per the new tag, as it is obviously relevant, and consistently mentioned together with this article topic? (Also for other peoples from the same period, whenever a hint of a boundary definition is known, it is a topic of interest.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From the edsum: "This paragraph can be trimmed down; walls of text in general are scary for the reader (although this article is not a main concern compared to others); that's why I've been trying to add sub-sections and trim down the verbiage in most articles". Alcaios (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Debatable? I personally find the question of continuity of geographical entities in this region interesting and they are often discussed/mentioned. Major dialect break areas often correspond to old bishoprics, and those often correspond to very old divisions. I find it hard to call it scary or really growing out of control or truly irrelevant?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the tag. Although this article in particular is not concerned, I still think that we should avoid wall-of-texts in articles in general. Alcaios (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly a good general rule. But do you ever worry about making too many very short sections? I suppose both directions can go too far. I don't mean that we are doing that though. In general most sectioning you are doing is indisputably an improvement and you are doing great work.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-sectioning is a way to organize content while the article is still in construction. A short section is thus a section in construction that needs further content. If it remains a short section at the end of the editing phase, then it should be merged with another section. Alcaios (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on this principle. Of course for most of these small tribes they only have a limited amount of discussion possible. So they are unlikely to expand very much.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Lancaster: I only removed the material that was related to the Germani Cisrhenani in general (Whightman on geographical considerations, Tacitus on the origin of the term 'Germani') rather than the Caeroesi in particular. These have been replaced by a summary of the Cisrhenani issue by Neumann, for I intend to add content, and perhaps clarifications, to the article Germani Cisrhenani. I hope you see no issue with that. Alcaios (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Berig, considering the attested variants and comparative linguistic evidence, I think that this article should be renamed to Caerosi. See the section "Name" with references. If that matters, the Dutch and German WP articles use this written form. Alcaios (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
