Talk:Alimentus

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Biography

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

See also entries

Re this edit: these are not invalid entries, Avilich. See MOS:DABSEEALSO: the "see also" section is explicitly there for topics that can be confused for the term being disambiguated. And if the Cincia gens indeed used the cognomen "Alimentus" this means that the cognomen, as a topic discussed within that gens article, should actually be included in the main body of the dab page and not the "see also". – Uanfala (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The gens page lists only two individuals with that surname: those already listed here. That's the only connection between the two subjects. Showing "Cincia gens" as a "see also" won't enhance the reader's understanding of anything beyond what is already listed here, at this page. Avilich (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that article lists only two people with Alimentus in the name, but it also contains a bit of information about the cognomen itself. – Uanfala (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source seems to be a dictionary entry. I added a link to the wiktionary entry, this should be a better course of action. Avilich (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How the information is sourced in the Wikipedia article is beside the point. As long as that article contains information about a topic, we should provide navigation for that topic. The only real argument that I can see here is over whether we should cover (and link to) cognomina in principle. (And btw, both Wiktionary links you've added point to non-existent entries). – Uanfala (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you had looked at the gens article by this point, and that you would've noticed that the article, like its source, also gives only a dictionary definition. The sole relationship between "Cincia gens" and "Alimentus" is that two people named "Cincius" just so happen to be called "Alimentus". That's it, it is no more than an intersection, with some dictionary definition being present somewhere. Avilich (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I had assumed there was a more substantial relationship. So "Alimentus" has been used by a number of other gentes? If that is indeed the case, then I agree there's no need for a link to that. – Uanfala (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only these two people seem to have used it. To say that any "gentes"/families used it may be misleading, since surname use is not always consistent, and only these two people are known to have been so called in this specific case. We simply don't know anything more than that. Avilich (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]