Talk:Caecilia gens#Merger proposal

I'm linking here a discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quintus Caecilius Metellus (tribune)) in which 'Llywrch' outlines some possible extra Metelli as of yet unmentioned in this page. Avis11 (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

[Transclusion of discussion from Talk:Caecilius Metellus]:

File:Merge-arrows.svg Formal request has been received to merge: Caecilii Metelli family tree into Caecilius Metellus; dated: September 30, 2020. Proposer's Rationale: Same information / redundant. Discuss here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 21:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• The other way around: this current page needs to be redirected to the family tree. But before that, all individuals listed herein {{underline|need to be sorted properly, as some do not have any sources and are of questionable existence even}}. Avis11 (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Sorting done, only individual of questionable authenticity already nominated for deletion. Avis11 (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• I would remove Caecilius Metellus. It is redundant with Caecilia gens. Outdated too. T8612 (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose all these proposals. I think the family tree should be moved to a template instead and this page remade into a prosopographical list, set index or disambiguation page of men in the family.★Trekker (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect Caecilius Metellus and Caecilii Metelli family tree to Caecilia gens (or make Caecilius Metellus a disambiguation page), merge all substantial content to Caecilia gens and put the family tree itself in a suitably useful format on that page. A synthesis of the proposals above. GPinkerton (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)