Talk:Vitalian (consul)

Vitalian (consul) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 19, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
December 12, 2013	WikiProject A-class review	Approved

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 22, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Byzantine general Vitalian led a large-scale revolt against Emperor Anastasius I, was pardoned and named consul by his successor, Justin I, and was murdered seven months into his consulship?

Current status: Good article

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Biography / Balkan / European / Roman & Byzantine / Classical

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
	European military history task force
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Additional information:
/
	This article has passed an A-Class review.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece: Byzantine Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

DYK and birthplace

Hey Constantine, I saw the article on DYK and I'd be glad to review it. Date and length are okay of course, but there's some stuff I'd like you to elaborate on about the hook.

In the hook, you say it was a three-year revolt, and indeed, it lasted from 513 to 515. I could not locate in the article any hints as to when in 513 the rebellion started (I suppose this may be unknown). If that was towards the end of the year, then the rebellion would have lasted from late 513 to late 515 (the time of Vitalian's Constantinople battle), i.e. around two years. The duration would be a full three years only if the rebellion began in early 513. I suppose the quickest measure would be to reword the hook rather than dig for any details as to the start of the uprising.

Also, are there any details about the birthplace of Vitalian? A quick online check seems to indicate that (mostly unreliable) Bulgarian sources are quick to identify Zaldaba (Zalbada?) with Shumen.

Best, Todor →Bozhinov 13:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Todor! The exact date of the uprising's start is not known, although it must have been in early 513, since the battles with Hypatius occurred in the autumn, and before that there was the descent to Constantinople etc. So roughly three years would be correct. IF necessary, I'll reword it. As for the identity of Zaldaba/Zalpada, it is mostly identified with Abrit [1]. Constantine ✍ 16:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply, Constantine! I'll accept your arguments and I'll leave it to you to decide as to whether to reword the hook. My personal persuasion is that the current wording is a bit inaccurate, as the uprising did not last for a full three years, and should be reworded at least slightly.

Indeed, reliable source seem to identify Zaldapa with the site near the confusingly-named modern village of Abrit in Dobrich Province. I'll take that.

Best and thanks for another quality article, Todor →Bozhinov 17:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vitalian (consul 520)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Buchraeumer (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Nice article! No problems. I would only question the recent move from "general" to "consul", as most people, myself included, would know him as a rebel leader and not recognize him as a consul. PASS! Buchraeumer (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pass and the tweaks. As for the title, it appears that there is a tendency to use the "highest office held" as disambiguation factor for Roman people. Personally, I agree with your remark, but... Constantine ✍ 12:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion and the fact that almost all of the inbound links were for Vitalian (general) and only a handful (3 or 4) where for either of the two old names that use consul. In addition this is supported by the opening sentence of the article and the contents of the infobox. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vitalian (consul) → Vitalian (general) — his consulship is entirely irrelevant next to the fact that as a general he led the single biggest rebellion in 6th-century Byzantium, which is what he is chiefly known for. Alternatively, Vitalian (rebel) might be a possible solution. Constantine ✍ 00:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the move of Vitalian (general) → Vitalian (consul) was made on the basis of WP:ROMANS. However, I think this might be an appropriate exception to the guidelines. --Labattblueboy (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, the WP:ROMANS itself is IMO not applicable here. It is perfect for the Republic, where offices and the attending power structure were clear-cut, but completely useless for the Empire, at least in late Antiquity, when e.g. the consulship had become a honorary distinction of no real consequence. Constantine ✍ 02:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Constantine, thinking that consul in this case is misleading, for most people that would search for him at WP would only have heard of him as a rebel leader. What's more, consul is likely to be associated with a much earlier period and there might even be other consuls of that name. Buchraeumer (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.