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 articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
Thank you, Davey, for moving this over after I pestered you relentlessly. I'm thinking that while the two paragraphs go together better than one could reasonably have hoped, yours should probably the first sentence immediately, and the one I contributed follow as the second. I don't want to make this edit while you're active, lest this simple switcheroo block some more intricate edit on your part. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was pleasantly surprised and encouraged by that. I'll swap them now - I got waylaid by some of the less-than-ideal primary-sourced articles that now link here. Haploidavey (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! [edit conflict] When I was looking for articles that should link here (reminds me: didn't you say something about section-linking to S.T.'s article?), I felt much relieved to discover that your section existed, believe me. The redirects to this article are Servian reform, Servian reforms, and Servian organization. I searched all those to see what articles might need to link here, though I didn't do a careful job (was just trying to avoid the dreaded "Orphan" hatnote). In a related matter, the long and dense article Roman censor needs to give birth to Roman census (now a redirect), especially since the census took place during the Empire at times when there may not have been censors as such. But that's a daunting undertaking: it's written with full-blown 19th-century high-falutinness, which is usually accompanied by intolerable class assumptions, while at the same time containing good information—that nonetheless has been thoroughly recontextualized by scholars a hundred years later. Meanwhile, I will probably go do something incredibly mindless and mechanical, or trivial and arcane. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the section linking... a hidden note in the "Classes" section (as was) informed us that the Structural History of the Roman military linked there. Rather than fall headlong into the pit of low-falutinness of Great Military Roman Dudes and Deeds (which even in modern interpretations sometimes reeks with the same 19th century class-based assumptions) - um, where was I? Oh yeah, I've linked it here instead. Haploidavey (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]