Merger proposal
Since the editor who proposed merging this article with Sextus (praenomen) didn't start any discussion, I suppose I'd better. These articles serve different functions: the other article is part of a series of articles about Roman praenomina, providing etymology and possible cultural data in some detail. It doesn't contain a list of Romans named Sextus, nor should it; if we included all the Romans who are known to have been named Sextus the page would include hundreds, if not thousands of entries; just accounting for those with articles on Wikipedia the list would be several times the length of the one in this article. This one is primarily a list of persons and things named Sextus or something similar. It's essentially a disambiguation page, even though the lead duplicates some of the information at the other article, which is to be expected.
If the two articles were merged, then either one of the articles in the series about Roman praenomina would vanish, or it would no longer match the rest of the series in terms of format and purpose. None of the others attempt to give a list of persons with the praenomen, although the rarer ones name or link to the gentes that are known to have used them, and might contain one or two examples. In this way they match the structure of articles about common names in English: articles about a name such as William or John (given name) don't include lists of people with the name. If such lists are necessary, they form the basis of separate articles that aren't concerned primarily with etymology. John is primarily a disambiguation page, for example. I'd say the same should be the case here: this article is primarily a list, which could be expanded and organized in greater detail, perhaps grouped by time period (Early Republic, Late Republic, Imperial Times, Other) or significance (Politicians/Military leaders/Writers/Religious figures). The other article should remain focused on etymology and relationship to other names. P Aculeius (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)