Most examples I can find about them either have to do with war or just make no sense to me. I am doing an independent source investigation on Cleopatra, and I need to understand what traditionalist and revisionist views are to better analyse my sources.
"Traditionalist" and "revisionist" are labels that can be moving-targets.
In the example that you are giving, about perspectives on Cleopatra, we might guess that a senior scholar who has been studying Ptolemaic Egypt for a 45 year career and has some very firm opinions might be considered "traditionalist". (though some senior scholars endeavor always to be flexible in their thinking!)
Or if go to Google Scholar and find a scholarly book or article about Cleopatra from the 1990s which has many citations and continues to be cited to this day. We might describe that piece of scholarship as representing a "traditionalist" or "conservative" perspective now, in 2020.
On the other hand, if there is an article that came out within the past 5-10 years which declares "we just discovered a previously unknown monument/archive/manuscript. This provides tantalizing evidence about Cleopatra's foreign relations with Meroe to the south." that would be considered revisionist.
Revisionist scholarship tries to incorporate new evidence, or reinterpret existing evidence to offer a new perspective. Revisionism tries to build upon what we know, and give new arguments.
Revisionism is also defined by its status of not yet being accepted as consensus.
Now, not everything new is automatically correct. Scholarship often operates on a model of a proposition, and then a response. Sometimes our "here is new evidence" revisionist scholarship may get an article in response saying "here is an alternate reading of that new evidence, and how this new evidence can be reconciled so as not to invalidate what we think we already know." That would be a traditionalist response to revisionism.
As I said, these things can be a moving target. The scholarly consensus in 2020 is different than what the consensus was in 1950. What was revisionist can over time become accepted and part of the new consensus (or it can be rejected because not enough evidence supports it). Edit- and things which had been consensus or "traditionalist" can fall out of favor and eventually be widely seen as out-of-date!
I hope this helps. /u/Cleopatra_Philopater might be able to give more informed comments on what sort of debates are going on currently about Cleopatra, and what counts as traditionalist view vs revisionist.