Talk:Auxilia

message: Added an auxillary section to the lorica segmenta article.
Intranetusa (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added a portion of this to another article

message: This article seems well structured, referenced and written in a clear fashion. I am surprised it is still a grade B article. Could it be put up as a class A?The Nouv (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Class A article?

message: In the third para. in Auxiliaries (Roman military)#Religion, is the data on Covnetia really necessary in this article?Abeer.ag (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Coventina is given as an example of the sort of local cults that auxiliary troops might follow. EraNavigator (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: no,no. What I mean is is Coventina was a British nymph associated with springs. Several dedications to her have been found e.g. offered by the garrison of the auxiliary fort at Carrawburgh (on Hadrian's Wall) necessary for this article, considering that users can access Coventina?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abeer.ag (talk • contribs) 19:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue 

message: Yesterday I looked over the first 2 major sections. Here are my notes on MoS issues only (no grammar, usage, or style). Remember, this is the MoS, not me. Don't shoot the messenger. :-)
* My add-on that puts the rating of the article on the article page under the title says that this article is B-class. The template has "A-class=pass", but it still has "class=B".
* "See also" section should be the first section after the main article text.
* The Table of Contents & article are very long. "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place."
* "Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other." On my equipment, there is a small "text sandwich" in Historical development, Later Principate.
* "c." is used for circa, not century. (Later Principate, 5th par.)
* For dates of reign, its: John Smith (reigned year–year)
* "Avoid joining two words by a slash"; for conjunction, reword; for disjunction use an unspaced ndash. (Later Principate, last par., Strategic role)
* Article could use a close proofreading. A casual read turned up: Fourth century, 1st par.; Flavian era text ("after a almost a century"); Flavian era image caption; closing punctuation on Illyrian Revolt section, Later Principate 4th par., and Strategic role.
* Appearance of footnotes in text: some form of punctuation, superscripted footnote, then a space (or end of par.)
** Fourth century, 3rd par.: no space afterward
** Revolt of the Batavi, last par.: Why not move footnote to the end of the sentence?
* Measurements should have conversions.
** Quality and combat capability (image), use 
** Strategic role, use 
* "Shortened notes" are in a section called Notes or Footnotes (not Citations), and are formatted:
** Author (year), p.##.  or   Author Title, p.##.
** At the very least, punctuation must be consistent.
** In the associated References section, publisher is optional "but generally required for featured articles".
* Single digit whole numbers 0–9 are rendered as words. (This presumably does not apply to years.)
* In non-scientific articles, "percent" or "per cent" is preferred (not %).
* Between the year and the BCE/BC/CE/AD designator there needs to be 1 non-breaking space.
* Headings shouldn't repeat title. Might consider Everyday life of auxiliaries --> Everyday life; Auxilia deployment in the 2nd century --> Deployment in the 2nd century.
* These are italicized (but not surrounding punctuation):  i.e., e.g., ca., et al.
* Hyphens are not used for sentence interruption or parenthetical phrases. Use unspaced mdashes or spaced (on both sides) ndashes.
* If a caption has at least one full sentence requiring end punction, any sentence fragments in that caption also get end punctuation.
* Wherever you refer to other sections of the article, consider using an internal, anchored wikilink (Pipe to the #Anchor only, not Title#Anchor). It's a nice touch.
* Many links point to inappropriate places, such as disambiguation pages. They need to be redirected to the appropriate article. The worst example is slingers. I think slingers is what you want.
--AnnaFrance (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MoS Survey 

message: There seems to be a contradiction in the part of the article where it talks about their pay, near the top it states that they were paid 1 third what the legionaries were, but then it goes on to state that they were paid 188 denarii which is over 80% of the 225 denarii that legionaries were paid. AVeryGoodEditor (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with pay 

message: There are a number of reference issues with this article. A few of the references reference something not in the bibliography so it's just a dangling tag. Much of the bibliography is also insufficient so that someone can identify a specific edition. It also doesn't seem entirely clear that auxilia were introduced in the Augustan age, per Gauthier 2019. It seems like some work needs doing. Ifly6 (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class A?