Talk:Seccia gens

List of members

The list of members is very long. I wonder if it could be usefully split up by dates e.g., all of the 1st century BC, then the 1st century AD, 2nd century AD, etc.? Or at least into members living during the Republic, & members living during the Empire? That said, inscriptions can be very difficult to date properly, & there may simply be no way to break up this lengthy list in a useful way. -- llywrch (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

That's actually why it isn't separated into subsections; most of the inscriptions aren't dated, so it's alphabetized instead (which is how sections for undated members are usually organized). Nearly all of the inscriptions will be either imperial or late Republic, but there's just no way to tell for most of them. If there were enough members mentioned in ancient writers to support an article, I wouldn't need to resort to inscriptions. But there are hardly any known except from inscriptions, and clearly the number of inscriptions makes this family too substantial not to have an article. So while it's not ideal, it's the best organization possible without much more information for dating the members (not really worth doing if there's only a handful that can be dated even roughly). P Aculeius (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I would separate Lucius Siccius Dentatus though, as he is the only member mentioned by ancient authors. He could even be removed as he is most likely a Sicinius. If you list him here, then you should add the other Sicinii who are also spelled Siccius in some ancient sources (two entries on the Sicinia page).T8612 (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

You're right that any others who might be part of this gens should be included here. But with respect to separating out individuals, one person, or even three people, out of dozens, isn't really enough to warrant a separate subsection, particularly when they don't represent a distinct family, and where their connection here is dubious. P Aculeius (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)