Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Domitian

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:22, 3 August 2008 [1].

Domitian

[edit]
Nominator(s): Steerpike (talk)


This article has taken a lot of time and effort. As I believe it currently fits all the criteria for a Featured Article Candidate, I'm proud to put this up for nomination. Style should be good, structure is clear, images are free, treatment is comprehensive without going into unnecessary detail, etc... I would like to pre-emptively address three possible criticisms though:

  • Size: the current article size is 92kb, however readable prose only constitutes about 65kb. So I see no problems with the current size of the text. There is little that could be shortened in the current format anyway, since several terms relating to Roman history, especially in the opening sections, need at least some clarification for uninitiated readers.
  • Ancient sources: the use of ancient sources is generally discouraged as a primary source for a Wikipedia article. In some sections, I *do* cite ancient authors, but I have tried to use these sparingly, and only when a) the statements are uncontested, b) are used as a direct quote, or c) are used to highlight a controversy.
  • Modern source: some may criticize my "overreliance" on Brian Jones' The Emperor Domitian as the main source of reference for this article. However, as noted even within the article: book length studies of Domitian are few and far between, with the only other notable books either written over a hundred years ago (Gsell, 1894) or largely based on the work of Jones itself (Southern, 1997). At present, the work of Brian Jones is simply thé most authoritative source on the Domitianic era.

Any other objections I'd be very happy to discuss! Regards. Steerpike (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from epicAdam (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for starters, here are some WP:MoS problems that can be dealt with fairly quickly:

  • The article jumps between British and American word spellings... choose a variation and then make sure all the following words match up: armor/armour; neighbor/neighbour; meter/metre; defense/defence; offense/offence; pretense/pretence; organize/organise; criticize/criticise; ization/isation; equaling/equalling; traveled/travelled; fulfillment/fulfilment; program/programme
  • There are areas that need non-breaking spaces (i.e.  ) between numbers and their units of measurement.
  • Units of measurement should be spelled out in the main article text and converted both between US standard and metric units. (i.e. "My house is 15 miles (24 km) from the store." Not, "My house is 15 mi (24 km) from the store.")
  • When providing dates, don't write "the 13th of January" write instead "13 January" or "January 13" (depends, again, on British v. American grammar)
  • You have a number of wikilinks that lead to disambiguation pages... you probably want to take care of those as well: Arx; Bath; Corruption; Dacian Wars; Domitian; Expedition; Flavia Domitilla; Forth; Illyricum; Lucius Aelius Lamia; Nominal; Odeum; Parthenius; Play

I'll check over other parts of the article in a bit, just wanted to give you a head start.

Ok, I went with British spelling and fixed consistency and measurement units accordingly. Non-breaking spaces added and disambiguation pages removed, except "Odeum", which can't lead anywhere else. Should I put a non-breaking space between "80,000 soldiers"? The dates still have to be addressed. --Steerpike (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All dates have been checked and fixed now. --Steerpike (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • For authors like Eusebius of Caesarea. you usually alphabetize and/or list in references as Eusebius, not "of Caesarea".
  • Current ref 113 is missing a page number (Thompson, Leonard L.)
  • Current ref 94 is missing a page number (Di Martino, Vittorio)
  • http://www.livius.org/cao-caz/casperius/aelianus.html what makes this a reliable self-published work?
  • Also, I know you discussed this above, but there is a LOT that is sourced to primary sources. I don't have a problem with reliance on one secondary source, sometimes folks just don't write about what we want them to, but it's pretty much a given that Suetonius and Tacitus has axes to grind and too much reliance on them leaves you open to OR.
Otherwise links checked out with the link checker, sources look okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed Eusebius and replaced refs without a page with better alternatives. The pageless citations were basically a remnant from a past version of the article. As for "Livius.org", the author, Jona Lendering, has adequate credentials to be considered reliable, I believe. But just to make sure, I've replaced the citation with one from Grainger. As for the ancient authors, I agree that relying on primary sources is dangerous with regards to OR. But I've expressly tried to avoid piecing together the article based only on classical authors. Whenever I do cite these primary sources, it's always for the reasons I mentioned above. But I could cut back on them if you like. I do like to include some references to ancient authors, as their texts are not only very interesting, but still widely read and hugely influential. --Steerpike (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On livius.org, to determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.
On the ancient sources, I totally understand the desire to add some ancient sources, it's just that if you rely on them too much (which is a fine line and something that varies from article to article) you're treding into OR territory. I tend towards the "use them as sources the absolute least you can" school, but that's something that's a personal preference. My rule of thumb is I use ancient/medieval sources for quotes and color, and try to rely on modern historians for facts and all other information. That doesn't always work out, (I had to use Bede a LOT with Augustine of Canterbury, and I certainly can't see forcing you to change out the sources just because of my whims. I'm hoping to find time to actually review the whole article in the next couple of days, we'll see how it goes. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "between 69 and 96, encompassing the reigns of Domitian's father Vespasian (69–79), his elder brother Titus (79–81), and finally Domitian's own."
  • "...whose brief reign came to an unexpected end on 13 September 81." - tantalizing, but could you be a little bit less vague, even in the lead?
  • "The following day, Domitian was declared emperor by the Praetorian Guard, and began a reign which lasted more than fifteen years" - I'm not quite sure what's wrong with this sentence... maybe nothing is. However, I think that "and began a reign" seems not to use Domitian as a subject. Maybe "...Guard, beginning a reign..."?
  • I wonder why there's a citation for exactly one sentence in the lead? Is it a highly contentious statement?
  • "Domitian was born in Rome on 24 October 51, as the youngest son" - how about "...on 24 October 51; the youngest son..."
  • "Modern history has refuted these claims however, suggesting these stories..."
  • You seem to use commas very liberally throughout the article. While I don't think this is grammatically incorrect, it does make the reading a bit difficult sometimes. Would you clean this up a bit?
  • "A number of ancient authors have implicated Domitian in the death of his brother..."
  • "...suggesting the latter had played some part in uncovering the conspiracy..." - "some part" sounds strange - how about "a part"?
  • "A highly detailed account of the plot and the assassination is provided to us by Suetonius," - is provided to "us"? How about simply "is provided"?

Excellent article overall. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most points have been addressed in my last edit. With regards to the citation, I think someone once made a fuss about the statement in the lead not being sourced. But I've removed the citation now. As for the commas, I used these with the intention to improve readability, especially when the sentences are long, and contain a lot of information. But I'll see what I can do. --Steerpike (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all of my image concerns have been addresses/addressed as fully as possible, so there are no image formating problems when reading the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose MoS problems - sandwiching. Images shouldn't "sandwich" text between them. This happens six times. Also, comments in the image descriptions are lengthy, unnecessary, and sometimes include speculation/"weasel words", for example: "According to some authors, Nerva took part or had advance knowledge of the plot against Domitian. Immediately following the assassination, he was proclaimed emperor by the Senate." The phrase "according to some authors" jumps out, especially without citations to show that there are authors who believe such. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandwiching probably depends on screen resolution. I have a 1024 x 768 monitor, and it looks fine to me. So I'm not sure if this can be fixed. I like to include a little more elaborate commentary in images than merely state "what it is". I think this is a bit more informative. And I don't usually cite sources in image descriptions because it's already mentioned in the text. But I could source it if you like (or change the wording). --Steerpike (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't make sense. I have a tight resolution and it sandwiches. There is one image that is only a few lines apart, which would mean even with an extremely tight resolution, it should probably sandwich. I just moved the size to half of my screen width and it sandwiches at ceremonial heir. By the way, MoS does not allow images on the "left" to be directly under a heading, so thats a problem there. All you have to do about the wording is to drop the "some scholars" type of beginning. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your text size then? Anyway, here's a proposal for a different alignment of images: User talk:Steerpike/Sandbox. Would that be better? MOS prefers that multiple images be staggered alternatively left and right. BUT, it also discourages left-aligned images under second level headings. I'm not sure if my proposed solution actually solves this, but otherwise I think aligning all images to the right will look awkward. I've also edited some of the captions, and cut the images of Vitellius and Titus altogether (in my alternative version). What do you think? --Steerpike (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Now, to finish - 1) Under family, first paragraph, add a sentence or two extra. That will open the formatting up and the first paragraph is rather tiny. 2) Year of the four emperors - Move the picture down to the next paragraph, or split the top paragraph in half and move the picture infront of that new second paragraph. Add four lines or so to the second paragraph marriage section, split the top paragraph, move the picture down to the new second paragraph. I say this because the section is a little short and you can go into more detail about the state of the marriage. 3) In the administration section, move the picture down to the second paragraph, split the second paragraph, and add about two more lines. That section is a little brief, even though there is a lot you can say. 4) Military activity picture is 250 px, but other left pictures are 200px. Perhaps shrink it? Also, don't let pictures push the headings to the right, which it appears to do on my screen (Military activity and Dacian war, for example). Add a few lines about the state of military forces, what kind of patterns, leaders, etc. This will give you a new paragraph and you can move the fort picture down accordingly. 5) Standardize the image sizes, they tend to range a lot. If needed, crop the "excess" off the pictures. Domitians statue has a lot of extra hanging around that just takes up space. So does the stone face. Try that for now. It will fix a lot of the problems and fill out the article nicely. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the new version is currently in progress, but not yet completely finished. A few notes:
  • I've moved the dynasty box to the Emperor section. This will clear up some image space in the introduction, and fits better contentwise.
  • I've expanded the marriage section in accordance to your wishes, and cut back on the caption text in the image.
  • Most other images have been moved to fit better with the text-structure. There should be next to no sandwiching left now.
  • You asked to expand the administration and military section, especially with regards to the image placement in the text, BUT there really isn't that much left to say. At least nothing that isn't already mentioned either a) in the section or b) somewhere else.
  • I haven't yet standardized the image sizes. I picked a different size for each image depending on how much detail should/can/needs to be shown. Busts are obviously going to be smaller than full length statues or maps. Images of coinage are naturally wide.
  • I have cropped the statue from Vaison-la-Romaine.
  • EDIT: the rock sculpture has been removed because apparently, it was subject to a special Romanian copyright. I've replaced it with a map, although I will see if I can find a better one yet.
Tell me what you think. --Steerpike (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I leave matters to technical accuracy and referencing to those more well versed in the topic than myself. Otherwise, excellent work: generally very well written and well illustrated. Please address the following issues in the lead:

  • "While Titus shared almost equal powers in the government of his father, Domitian was left with honours but no responsibilities." Titus' powers were equal to whose?
  • "encompassing the reigns of Domitian's father Vespasian (69–79), his elder brother Titus (79–81), and finally that of Domitian himself."

I have made a few other copyedits but the text is well structured, flows well and is involving. Fully supporting the article for featured status is pending completion of the minor copyedits that remain. Dhatfield (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences you mentioned have been fixed. --Steerpike (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support. Great work. Dhatfield (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did go back and alter one or two of your copyedits. I think "foreshadowing what was to be his role for at least ten years" is less ambiguous than "foreshadowing his role for at least ten years", which could be read as if the foreshadowing lasted ten years. Also "was carrying on an affair", instead of "had carried on", in the Marriage section. The rumours of the affair were concurrent with the exile and return of Domitia. --Steerpike (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One thing that has been bothering me for a while is this: when do you capitalize the word "Emperor", and when not? I'm afraid capitalization is slightly inconsistent at the moment. --Steerpike (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support changed from Slight oppose I think it's got the basics, just needs some work. Still some concerns over overlinking and jargon, but able to support now.

  • It probably could do with a good copyedit by someone better at it than i am. The prose is servicable, but might be a bit wordy at times.
  • Need to explain what Domitian being hailed as Caesar meant.
UPDATE: I don't think I'll ever be able to fix this. Much as I tried, it would probably take a long and awkward paragraph to adequately explain what the significance of Domitian being hailed as Caesar was. I'm just going to have to assume that it is clear from the context that it is a title connected to the imperial power. The word caesar is not thát obscure anyway. --Steerpike (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as above about linking revolted and Batavian revolt.
UDATE: Fixed. --Steerpike (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jargon alert - the whole article is full of it. Folks aren't going to know what a suffect consul is, or what the various titles of magistracies are or anything like that. I strongly suggest having someone unfamiliar with Roman history read through the article. I'm too familiar to catch all the jargon.
Ok, general comment about the "jargon" complaints. I'll try to cut back on jargon wherever I can BUT, I can't and won't stop to explain every Latin/Roman term in the article. Not only would that make the text hopelessly convoluted (you should try to work in a definition for client in that paragraph), it would go against FA-criteria which ask that articles don't delve into unnecessary detail, and perhaps most importantly, would kind of beat the whole point of wikilinking, and Wikipedia in general. I don't think there's an elegant way to write an involving narrative on Domitian's life, AND at the same time digress to explain terms like quaestor, suffect consul, client,... I've checked the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on Domitian (otherwise far inferior to this article, if I may be so bold), and they also use terms like Praetor without explanation. Most of the times, it's clear from the context what the terms refer to (titles, offices), and if not, the explanation is only a click away.
While I sympathize, I only do so to some extent. I write FAs on almost as obscure topics (medieval English bishops, anyone? Quarter Horses?) and get constant requests to explain in the text things that I'd rather just wikilink. In all fairness, Domitian is probably a bigger topic (and more important topic) than Easy Jet, so it needs to be understandable to folks without having to leave your article to figure things out. Suffect consul should be explained, I would think, otherwise people aren't going to realise that while its an honor, it's not as big an honor as being named the main nominative consul for the year. I can see that maybe not so much need for praetor, etc., but when Domitian is acclaimed as Caesar, while it is clear from the context that this is a title, it's not clear why this acclamation is important. If it was clear that Caesar was the title right below Augustus, it would be more clear what the entire context of the event is. As far as client, if you can't explain what the it means in that sentence, you might just go for "spent the night hiding with a supporter of his father" which expresses what a client is without bogging the article down with uneccessary detail. As a last note, the idea is your article is so engaging and interesting that they don't WANT to click away to figure out what a term is, right? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As with caesar, I'm having a hard time fitting in a good explanation of "suffect consul". I don't think it's quite as difficult to do as caesar, but I haven't yet worked out a good new paragraph. --Steerpike (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the definition from the Oxford Classical Dictionary: "suffectio was the procedure by which a substitute or suffect (suffectis) was appointed whenever a Roman magistrate resigned or died in office." then later "Under the empire consuls ceased to hold office for the full year; those appointed after the original ('ordinary') pair were suffecti. They did not give their name to the year, unlike 'ordinary' ones, although they had the appropriate rank and title of consularis." (I can supply the exact page number and stuff if you like) It might work well as "...suffect consul, or replacement consul..." in the text with a longer explanation in a footnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, I THINK the MOS still says that date ranges have unspaced ndashes, but I'm not sure, so double check that with someone. I went through and changed them all that I saw to unspaced dates, since that was what was being used elsewhere in the article. If I'm wrong, feel free to revert.
Endash is spaced when either of the two parts contain a space (e.g. New York – San Francisco)
  • Might be a bit too much detail in the lead about Vespasian and Titus. It tends to overpower the rest of the lead which should be about Domitian. You discuss nothing of what Domitian DID, like the rebellions he faced, etc. It's all him overshadowed by his brother/father and what people thought of him.
Well the fact is, he was overshadowed by his brother and father during the 70s. His role in the civil war was limited, he had no active part in crushing the Batavian rebellion, and after that time his function was largely ceremonial. That's pretty much the point of the entire section. The only event of significance in Domitian's life during the 70s was his marriage to Domitia. But I've reworked the lead to include a bit more on Domitian's policies as emperor.
I just found it odd to have so much in the body of the article on what he did, but very little in the lead. I've gone ahead and marked this resolved, but you could add another paragraph if you really felt the need for more. The article is big enough that four paragraphs in the lead wouldn't be amiss. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will probably rework the lead sometime soon anyway. It doesn't quite flow well enough yet. --Steerpike (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third paragraph of the lead "Traditional views hold that Domitian.." seems a bit awkward to me, perhaps change it to "Traditionallly, historians hold that ..."?
Fixed.
  • Need to explain what a gens is. (Family section)
I've added a sentence here, but I think it's clear from the context that a "gens" is a family line.
Never assume on the reading abilty of 12 year olds. (I always wonder how many 12 year olds are assigned papers and run immediately to Wikipedia...)
  • Need a citation for the older siblings. Are they twins? they are given the same birth year. Do we know their birth dates exactly? If so might list those...
Somewhat surprisingly, I cannot immediately find a proper citation to back this up, so I'll have to put it on hold for a while.
EDIT: The statement is now sourced. Turns out she wasn't born in 39, but around 45. --Steerpike (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Helvetia (and all the Roman provinces) it would be nice if you gave modern locations also, so folks don't have to click through to the province articles. Not everyone has a grasp of Roman geography.
Fixed.
  • Probably a bit of overlinking going on. I noticed links for poverty, propoganda, adolescence, poetry, law, bow and arrow, baldness, wig, suicide, anarchy, bodyguard, seige/beseiged, literature, exile, heir, horse, divorce, adultery, democracy, culture, taxes, political corruption, debt, surplus, banquet, dwarf, swamp/marsh, gold, silver mining, chapel, morals/morality, satire, dagger,
Not yet addressed, but I'll see what I can do. I do like to wikilink less obvious terms in the article too, and certainly broad concepts like "democracy", "culture", "taxes", etc.
I'd have less problems with democracy, or propoganda if things like horse and wig and baldness weren't linked (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain who Britannicus is folks don't have to click through to the article.
It says in the paragraph that Britannicus was the son of Claudius.
Missed it! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Family section, you've linked "revolted" to the First Jewish War article. You'd be better off saying "The same year the Jews of the Judaea province revolted in the First Jewish War... " or whatever the title of the article is. The current link is titled revolt, and doesn't give any inkling that it links to something besides the definition of revolt. I'm afraid most folks won't click through to the hidden title.
Fixed.
  • Per the MOS, curly quotes are not used for block quotations.
Switched to "Quotation" template.
  • Need a citation for the last two sentences of Youth and character.
Fixed. --Steerpike (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Year of the Four emperors section - need to briefly explain princeps.
Switched princeps to emperor.
  • Same section, you use Egypt at first, then switch to Ægyptus. Pick one and stick with it, I lean towards Egypt, myself.
Fixed.
  • Same section "Vespasian accepted, and through negotiations by Titus joined forces..." is awkward, consider rewording.
Fixed
  • Same for "... leaving Titus in charge to end the Jewish rebellion." Perhaps "...leaving Titus in charge of ending the Jewish rebellion."?
Fixed.
  • Same for "Support for the old emperor was quickly wavering however.." Perhaps "Support for Vitellius was waning, however, ..."?
Fixed.
  • Year of the Four emperors - explain what the Arx is?
I've edited this out. Only a minor detail after all.
  • You need to explain that a client in Roman usage wasn't the modern usage, otherwise folks are going to think that after Domitian's escape from the Capitol, he spent the night with a business client of his father's.
EDIT: changed to supporter. --Steerpike (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath section... first paragraph, are you referring to only Rome or to the whole Empire? It implies Rome, although you don't specify where Vespasian returned to, which should be done.
Fixed.
  • Need to explain who Tacitus is.
Fixed.
  • If Domitian's son died between 77 and 81, he was 4 to 8 years old and no longer in infancy. Childhood would be better description.
Fixed.
  • Need a citation on the last sentence of the first paragraph of Ceremonial heir.
  • Need a citation on the last sentence of the second paragraph of Ceremonial heir section.
  • Need a citation on the last section of the fourth paragraph of Ceremonial heir.
  • Need a citation for the last sentence of the third paragraph of Economy section
  • Need citation for the last sentence of the fourth paragraph of the Religious policy section
  • Need a citation for the last two sentences of the first paragraph of the Revolt of Saturninus section.
All citations fixed.
  • I have some qualms about the reliance on the ancient sources for the basic biographical details of the life. It might be best to rely on modern scholars for this, especially as the subject is Domitian and the ancient authors are biased.
Well the problem is that there are no modern sources to provide basic biographical details of Domitian. A historian like Jones has to use the same information from Suetonius as presented here. But I repeat, whenever there is a controversy regarding statements from ancient authors (as in the alleged Flavian poverty under Nero), or bias comes into question, I do NOT quote these writers as presenting factual information.
The major problem is that Wikipedia guidelines want folks to use secondary sources for this sort of information. I'm not going to necessarily oppose based only on this, but it's going to be an issue if it makes it to the main page. There will be some folks that scream because the article uses primary sources and thus could be OR. Using secondary sources protects you from charges of OR. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut back on ancient sources. The Year of the Four Emperors is still a sore point (I really need Kenneth Wellesley's The Long Year 69 for this section), but otherwise citations to ancient authors were either replaced by modern sources, or are now accompanied by a second, modern citation. But this work is still in progress. --Steerpike (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links, but note that I did use some of these sources in the article, such as Agricola and Domitian, Imperial Finances under Domitian...,... In any case, The Emperor Domitian is already an excellent synthesis of all pre-1992 material.
Overall, I'm not ready to support. It's a slight oppose until the issues of jargon have been addressed at the very least. Other concerns are the reliance on ancient sources for basic facts and the need for a good copyedit by someone not connected with Roman history. I'd also like to see some of the above sources used, if possible, if they are worth using. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
Comments between your text. Regards. --Steerpike (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I've cut back further on ancient sources. Out of 153 references (not counting duplicates), "only" 32 are still sourced to ancient authors, as opposed to 56 in the original version. But only a few of these are actually used a direct source of "fact" (I'd have to order a new book to fix these). The others are usually sources to direct quotes, and accompanied by references to modern authors. --Steerpike (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reign of Domitian has some importance in the history of Scotland, so it would make sense to link it in this article. Maybe not so much Greece or Spain, but certainly Rome. Aside from the fact that Domitian's reign significantly changed the face of the ancient city of Rome, it seems beyond absurd not to link Rome in an article on a Roman Emperor. But I was already fixing the overlinking while you posted this. By the way, you linked "18 September 96" in the third paragraph of the lead, but this date already has a link at the top of the lead. --Steerpike (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dates are not linked or not because they were previously linked: they are linked or not so they will display consistently per user preferences. By linking one, and not the other, one of them displays for me as September 18, while the other displays as 18 September. See WP:MOS; either link all month-day combos or delink all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed + overlinking in general. If there's anything else that should be (de)linked, feel free to change it. --Steerpike (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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_article_candidates/Domitian&oldid=1078798840"