Talk:Lucius Caecilius Iucundus

message: My name is Megan and I'm a Classics major at Northwestern University. For my Roman Civilization class, we have an assignment to either revise a current Wikipedia article or create one for an assigned topic. My topic is Lucius Caecilius Iucundus, so obviously I'm going to need to edit this page since it already exists. How do I go about getting it unprotected or getting around the protected status so that I can edit it? I've never written anything on Wikipedia before, so I have no idea what I'm doing. If anyone could tell me how to do this, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
megan gier 22:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  protected? 

message: You've got a ton of great information and things look really professional, so I just have some small comments that I think would make your article perfect. Wikipedia likes to have dates in articles linked so that users can see what was going on in 79 AD, other than Vesuvius' eruption, for example. You have a bunch of dates in your article, so for those dates where there are other events happening, I would create links to those dates. Also, sometimes you refer to the banker as Caecilius lucundus and sometimes just as lucundus--this can be distracting within the article, so if you making all mentions of his name standard, either both names or just lucundus, would be a nice improvement. Also, since you mention so much information, maybe there would be some less obvious words you'd like to link, like triptychs or Stabian Street for example, if certain of those words have Wikipedia articles. Finally, I would try, if you can, to make your picture less crooked--your article looks very professional, but because the picture is just slightly off, it becomes very distracting and ultimately detracts from all the great information you provide. Again, these are just tiny changes--otherwise, it looks great!
--Stuart Anderson  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.162.236 (talk • contribs) 
:Well, in regards to how to refer to Lucius Caecilius Iucundus, we need to think about naming conventions for Roman citizens.  "Lucius" is his praenomen, or first name.  "Caecilius" is his nomen, meaning he belongs to the clan of the Caecilii - something of a last name.  Then "Iucundus" is his cognomen, which is a family name - also something of a last name.
:I will agree, though - whatever we use, it needs to be consistent throughout the article.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modifications 

message: Caecilius est in horto.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Jerry Jackson (talk • contribs) 18:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caecilius est in horto. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lucius Caecilius Iucundus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060902075503/http://nisee.berkeley.edu/elibrary/getimg?id=KZ930 to http://nisee.berkeley.edu/elibrary/getimg?id=KZ930
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A further freedman named Felix has been suggested as the dedicator of the portrait herm of Iucundus 
It says "GENIO NOSTRI FELIX L" right there on the bust. Not very difficult or controversial then, is it? The text makes it sound like a very thorny issue. 2A02:AA1:104D:1981:6CB5:153C:86DE:D041 (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The bone of contention is how many people we're talking about here: we already have a Felix that is Iucundus's father, and it's unclear whether the Felix in the dedication is that Felix (and so the subject of the portrait is someone else, probably Felix's master -- it's not named in the inscription), or whether it's another Felix and so the portrait is Iucundus. We often assume the latter, but have to be clear that it is only an assumption (and indeed to follow our source, which is Beard, who considers that the portrait probably isn't Iucundus).  UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Has been suggested"