|WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
putting the full latin text in the article seems a little excessive seeing as the external link to an english version (perseus project) brings you literally one click away from the latin text.
it really needs to be edited. Deb 21:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry bout that, I guess I just forgot about it. I dont know if I have the time any more, because me real life Latin classes are draggin it al out of me.. so I might help but I can't do the complete overhaul I was planning. Articuno1 02:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- I decided to go ahead and remove the entire text. I'm not opposed to people adding important portions, however. 188.8.131.52 00:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Move to Wikisource
- Whilst I can see that it may be a little excessive putting the latin text on here, to be honest the only people who will search for Pro Caelio and use this article are those who are studying the works of Cicero or the Pro Caelio itself. Therefore having a copy of the text on Wikipedia can be extremeley useful for those who need it.--Lockster2004 20:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- How many encyclopedias do that though? OsFan 21:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- But the text isn't actually there; I'm going to remove the template. 184.108.40.206 14:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- I would say that copy and paste . It's pointless that it be here. It only makes the page bigger and it seems to have no other purpose than to lengthen the space between the article itself and the references. It's absurd that it's here. It should be at wikisource (which people that are familliar to wikipedia will go directly to) so it won't be a surprise to see it here.
--Agreatguy6 03:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone needs to remove the concerns at the top of the page because citations have been provided and the warning's concerns are void now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST3311 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to organize the background by breaking it up into paragraphs and subheadings. The "Scholarly Observations" section still needs to be organized this way. I will try to do what I can, but help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, Quae legit (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)