Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Roman emperors/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Roman emperors edit

List of Roman emperors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk), Avilich (talk) and Tintero21 (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured list because it is well-sourced, comprehensive and clearly presents the information it is supposed to. This list has been the subject of five past failed featured list nominations but the last one was in 2008, 13 years ago. The main criticisms in the past have been format issues, lack of clarity and very few references. All of these issues have in my mind been sorted in the present version. The present version has clear references for every entry as well as a clear and referenced set of inclusion criteria (per WP:LISTCRITERIA). Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments
  • The lead has no references at all
Fixed - the lead is now fully referenced. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are rows where colour is used to indicate something - per MOS:COLOUR, colour alone cannot be used in this way, it needs to be accompanied by a symbol for the benefit of people who cannot distinguish the colours -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Do you have any suggestions for how this could be done in a seamless way? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the question relates to my second point, then for every row which currently uses colour to indicate ambiguous legitimacy, you also need to add a symbol such as †. I would suggest that the best place for it is after the emperor's name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added hash-tags. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB) edit

  • Seconding what ChrisTheDude said about color - {{dagger}} is an easy way to add a non-color indication.
I understand why this is necessary but I worry that the † symbol in particular could cause misunderstanding since this list deals with people (could perhaps be taken as an indication for a specific type of death) of different religions (could perhaps be misunderstood as marking them as Christians). Would something like § work just as well? Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{Hash-tag}} might be best, as it definitely meets accessibility requirements and I don't think would carry any other implications. Don't forget to add it to the key as well as the rows -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! width="17%" |Name becomes !scope=col width="17%" |Name.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |'''[[Augustus]]'''<br /><small>''Caesar Augustus''</small> becomes !scope=row |'''[[Augustus]]'''<br /><small>''Caesar Augustus''</small>. (Although it's the 2nd column, not the 1st, I'd go with making the name column primary since the image one isn't really "identifying" the row on its own.)
This has the side-effect of making all the text in the cell bold and making the background darker. Is there a way to add row scopes while avoiding this effect? I can't get it to work properly with the rows that already are darker in color either. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you change the table's "class" from {| class="wikitable" to {| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" it should prevent the style change. --PresN 16:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Required some tweaking and experimentation but I succeeded; done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images need alt text. There's already a name in the second column, so the alt text can be as simple as |alt=bust.
Added alt text to all images. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 15:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should be all of these addressed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Are there more accessibility concerns or is the article as it is now fine from this standpoint? Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

Missing bibliography
  • Mathisen 1998 (citation 28) is missing a bibliography
  • Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 241–242; Grant, pp. 188–189; Watson 1999, pp. 110, 225, 250 (n. 46) (citation 91) Watson 1999 lacks a bibliography.
  • Kaegi 2003, p. 194. (citation 157) lacks a bibliography
Misc
  • Kent, J. P. C. (1959) is not used by any citation.
  • Standardize usage of location.
Titles needing translation
  • Kienast, Dietmar; Werner Eck & Matthäus Heil give translate title
  • Schreiner, Peter (1977) translate title
  • Trapp, Erich, ed. (2001) translate title.
  • Estiot, Sylviane (1996) translate title
  • Hartmann, Udo (2002) translate title
  • Rea, J. R. (1972)
  • Seibt, Werner (2018)
  • Stein, Arthur (1924
Notes
  • Hammond 1957 (citation 48) breaks when 1957 is included (it is manually cited to just Hammond with a ref= parameter), so I've removed the date from the cite.
    Same with Schreiner, pp. 157–159. (citation 209)
  • Cameron 1988 was given date of 1998 in bibliography incorrectly (citation was correct 1988 date); I've corrected it.
  • Schreiner, Peter (1977) and Trapp, Erich, ed. (2001) ISBNs were swapped, now fixed.
  • Wu, Chiang-Yuan (2016) the google book link gives publisher as Springer, WorldCat only gives multiple Palgrave Macmillan, not sure why this is the case.
Palgrave Macmillan is a subsidiary of Springer so that's probably why. In any event, previewing the book itself on Google Books and scrolling down shows that the book itself uses "Palgrave Macmillan" so I think that's what's best to use. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges I've added the missing bibliography, it looks to me that you yourself and Tintero21 handled the other issues. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passing source review. User:Iazyges

More comments from ChrisTheDude edit

  • "absence of constitutional criterias" - criteria is already a plural word so shouldn't have an S added
  • "Imperial claimants whose power across the empire became, or from the beginning was, absolute and ruled undisputed" => "Imperial claimants whose power across the empire became, or from the beginning was, absolute and who ruled undisputed"
  • What's with the bar (for want of a better term) under Geta's entry (and in other places)?
  • "Brother of (more likely) half-brother of Tacitus" - think this should be "Brother or, more likely, half-brother of Tacitus"
  • "made emperor after their marriage following Romanos III' death" => "made emperor after their marriage following Romanos III's death"
  • "revolted against Michael VII on 2 July/October 1077" - what does this mean (the date)?
  • "it is customary among scholars of the later empire to only regard as emperors only those who actually ruled" - can lose one of those "only"s
  • I think that's all I got - fantastic work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The "bars" are meant to distinguish non-dynastic emperors. Maybe we should explain it somewhere, probably on "List structure" or in note. The alternative would be to make many more tables, even if they only have one emperor (like in the List of English monarchs). IMO it looks clean the way it is. About the 2 July/October question (I edited that section), it's mean to be “2 July or 2 October”. Tintero21 (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be all of these addressed. I've followed Tintero21's suggestion and added to the "List structure" section for what the bars represent - I don't think there is a cleaner way to represent dynastic breaks with non-dynastic rulers. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges edit

Lede
  • The Roman emperors were the rulers of the Roman Empire dating from the granting of the title Augustus to Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus by the Roman Senate in 27 BC,[1][2] after major roles played by the populist dictator and military leader Gaius Julius Caesar. "dating from" lends itself better to a "start-end" structure which this sentence lacks, finishing in past, rather than the actual end, perhaps change dating from to simply after?
Changed to "after". Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • regions of the empire were ruled by provincial governors answerable to and authorized by the Senate and People of Rome suggest the Senate and People of Rome authorized provincial governors, who answered only to them, to rule regions of the empire.
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • continued to be elected in the imperial period, but their authority was subservient to that of the emperor, who also controlled and determined their election may be worth mentioning briefly that often the emperors themselves were the consuls, perhaps Oftentimes, the emperors themselves, or close family, were selected as consul.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • dominus noster 'our lord' suggest dominus noster (our lord)
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depending on the author, the Dominate period of the empire is considered to have begun with either Diocletian or Constantine. author could mean primary or secondary source as written, perhaps Historians consider the Dominate period of the empire to have begun with either Diocletian or Constantine, depending on the author.
Yeah, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the division usually based in geographic terms suggest with the division usually based on geographic regions
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the centuries that followed, historians typically refer to the empire as the "Byzantine Empire", suggest Historians typically refer to the empire in the centuries that followed as the "Byzantine Empire". for clarity regarding timeline and primary/secondary sources.
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO the lede should mention Justinian re-conquered a good portion of the empire, perhaps a sentence or two before The seventh century saw much of the empire's eastern and southern territories lost permanently to Arab Muslim conquests.; maybe Under Justinian, in the sixth century, a large portion of the Western Empire was retaken, including Italy, Africa, and part of Spain. Most of this territory was soon lost, including Spain in 624, Africa in 698, and a large portion of Italy under his successor, Justin II, although Italy was not fully lost until 1071. The seventh century saw much of the empire's eastern and southern territories lost permanently to Arab Muslim conquests
Added in with some minor alterations. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should also give a sentence or two to the fact that many pretenders continued the claim to be Roman emperors, and mention that nations such as the Ottomans also made this claim.
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Legitimacy
  • A vast majority of emperors also died by non-natural means suggest Very few emperors died of natural causes,
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • considered legitimate began their careers as usurpers suggest changing careers to rule
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • as demonstrated already in the suggest changing already to either soon or removing it =,
Removed it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • wrestle power away suggest seize
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion
  • I've removed the usurper tag from Basiliscus as I don't think he is really considered as such by the main body of sources; he was the legitimate emperor as recognized by the political, religious, and military establishments of the time, including the senate. He just pissed all of them off at such a prodigious pace he only lasted 19 months. While the PLRE does refer to Basiliscus as a usurper in places (sometimes for differentiation I think, given that there was a Basiliscus as an opposing caesar during his reign), in his own section he is recognized as Augustus.
Yeah, I think that's fair. I think a lot of authors are a bit inconsistent in who they deem to be a usurper or legitimate. Does not make a lot of sense that Saloninus appears to be counted more often than Procopius. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should have had a cooler name, I guess. User:Iazyges
Guess he should have ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no other issues with the article, great effort put in, other than some prose issues (and source issues, under a different cap), I think the article is ready for featured status. User:Iazyges
Thank you for taking the time to go through this. All of the comments above should be addressed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Reywas92 edit

  • The fourth paragraph of the lead has more depth than necessary about the empire's borders, which seems undue since that's not what the article's about, and there was plenty of expansion and change in earlier centuries too.
I would argue that border changes are necessary information (and IIRC Iazyges also argued for this) - the changes described in the fourth paragraph are quite dramatic and what territory these rulers controlled can be construed to be relevant information. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there not anything similar to Territorial evolution of the United States for the Roman Empire? Agree that it's relevant, but when you're talking about many changes over an enormous area over hundreds of years, I'm not sure this is the best format.
Yes, I understand. There is Borders of the Roman Empire but it does not really fulfill that purpose (and doing so at the same level of detail as Territorial evolution of the United States would probably be impossible). I've tried shortening the border changes part considerably and put some of the detail in a note, does that work? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section "list structure" is not really about list structure, but rather inclusion criteria
I've renamed it and made it a subsection of the "legitimacy" section since it more or less follows on from that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are over 100 uses of "c." with a tooltip for circa; this seems excessive to have so many tooltips, especially in consecutive instances
Would it be more appropriate to remove all instances of the tooltip except for the first one, or to keep the first tooltip in each table but remove the rest? Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the first in each table would be fine. Reywas92Talk 19:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There inconsistency in unknown lifespan formatting, including (aged over 62?), (aged approx. 55), (aged approx. 76?), (aged c. 27)
Should be consistent now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92Talk 16:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "after major roles played by the populist dictator and military leader Gaius Julius Caesar". This is vague and does not help the reader. I would delete.
Deleted. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the position gradually grew more monarchical and authoritarian". A person can be authoritian, not a position.
replaced "the position" with "emperors". Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the late third century, after the Crisis of the Third Century" Repetition of third century. I think you could delete "In the late third century".
Deleted. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Diocletian formalized and embellished the recent manner of imperial rule. The period thereafter was characterized by the explicit increase of authority in the person of the emperor, and the use of the style dominus noster (our lord)." This is vague and wordy. How about "Diocletion increased the authority of the emperor and adopted the title dominus noster (our lord)".
Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and there were no true objective legal criteria for imperial acclamation beyond proclamation or acceptance by the Roman army, the event that most often came to signify imperial accession". "legal criteria for imperial acclamation" sounds wrong. It also does not seem from what you say below to signify imperial accession. Proclamation of a general by his troops was often the first stage, but as you say below he had to defeat his rivals to be regarded as legitimate.
I see what you mean; changed to just "there were no true objective legal criteria for being acclaimed emperor beyond acceptance by the Roman army". The point is that there was no legal obligations emperors had to fulfill before being proclaimed that stopped any successful general or politician from being proclaimed emperor by their supporters. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that Tiberius was co-emperor with Heraclonas in 641, but Tiberius is not listed. Then Constantine IV ruled with Heraclius and another Tiberius (659–681), but neither is listed. If they do not qualify for the list, then surely they do not qualify to be shown as co-emperors?
There is a note hidden away in the entry for Magnus Maximus that somewhat explains this; co-emperors in the Byzantine period constitutionally held the same title as senior emperors (i.e. both were basileus) and they thus qualify as emperors, both in a general sense and per the inclusion criteria. They are however rarely listed as such in lists of emperors in WP:RS (in contrast to ancient Roman junior co-emperors such as Diadumenian) and are not counted in enumerations of the senior emperors (Tiberius III would be Tiberius V if counted "correctly"). Here we solved the conundrum by not giving co-emperors full entries of their own but still mentioning them - this appears to be how some other lists handle things (the List of English monarchs for instance includes Henry the Young King but not with a full entry). They can't have full entries in the list because that will produce an unrecognizable list and confuse readers in regard to the numberings but they should not be wholly excluded either because then the list is not comprehensive enough. Perhaps this could be solved with adding some more clear explanation somewhere? Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest a footnote for co-emperors who do not have an entry, as with your note explaining the approximate dates in the year of the six emperors. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify; an individual footnote for every co-emperor without an entry (could this help to solve the point below as well) or an overarching footnote for all of them explaining their status as junior rulers (perhaps a slightly altered version of the footnote already in Magnus Maximus's entry)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was not thinking of separate footnotes for each one, but a single footnote, as with {{Efn||name=sixemperors}}, for co-emperors who do not have their own entry in the table, explaining the reason for their exclusion. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added a note with explanation to all entries that mention co-emperors. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be helpful if you distinguished between different emperors with the same name such as Tiberius, for example "Tiberius, son of Heraclian" and "Tiberius, son of Constans II"
I've added "son of" distinguishers to cases were confusion is likely (several co-emperors with the same name in quick succession, co-emperors with the same name as senior emperors etc.). Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dethroned and blinded Constantine in 797". Perhaps worth adding that Irene dethroned and blinded her son.
Added "dethroned and blinded her son Constantine in 797". Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that Isaac I Komnenos abdicated and died six months later, but below you say that he designated his successor on his deathbed.
Changed "on his deathbed" to "during his abdication". Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Retired as a nun in November 1071" This implies that she retired from being a nun. Presumably you mean to become a nun.
Yes, changed to "became a nun". Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Deposed in a palace coup while imprisoned by the Seljuk Sultanate, captured and blinded on 29 June 1072" You should say that this was after his release by the Seljuks.
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Great-grandson of Alexios I, proclaimed emperor by the people of Constantinople after refusing an order of arrest issued by Andronikos I, then captured, deposed and had Andronikos I killed" This is unclear. Who was the order of arrest for. Presumable you mean that he captured etc Andronikos, but this is ungrammatical.
Rewrote the entry. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Refused an order of arrest issued by Andronikos I, whereafter he was proclaimed emperor by the people of Constantinople. Captured, deposed and killed Andronikos I. This is still unclear. Did Andronikos order his arrest or order him to arrest someone else? If it was to arrest him then "resisted" would be clearer than "refused" Also, "whereafter" is correct but described by OED as "Now formal or archaic". Maybe "after which". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to your suggestions. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Heraclius transitioned to issuing administrative documents in Greek." This is bureaucratic gobbledygook. Maybe "Heraclius issued his later administrative documents in Greek." Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed In 629, Heraclius transitioned to issuing administrative documents in Greek to From 629 onwards, Heraclius issued administrative documents in Greek., which keeps the year of the change. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this review still waiting on something? I'm happy to take a look if the coords feel like more comments are needed, but frankly, the reviews seem to all be there. Aza24 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 20:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Roman_emperors/archive1&oldid=1132086766"