Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperors

Categories

How will the categorization work? Right now all the "legitimate" emperors in the List are in Top-importance, while the "ambiguous" ones are uncategorized. Personally I find weird that co-emperors are in the "Top" when most of them are barely acknowledge, but whatever. The project scope says also "families and dynasties, and other various heirs and usurpers". I was having some ideas but I'm not sure. Tintero21 (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Importance is supposed to be gauged by how well known or recognizable they ought to be to the average reader, rather than a sense of literal importance they held in their own time. For example, Vitellius and Otho might be "High" or "Mid" tier because the Year of the Four Emperors is fairly well known as Roman events go and they are key actors in it. On the other hand, Marcus Aurelius Marius should be low as an unimportant ruler amidst an equally well known Crisis of the Third Century as emperor of the Gallic Empire. SpartaN (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Scope

Don't know how active this project is, but a question: does the scope include rulers like the emperors of Trebizond, or of Thessalonica? They were 'Byzantine' emperors after all, if not ruling from Constantinople... Constantine ✍ 20:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it should, since the project is said to cover all claimants to the throne. Tintero21 (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Late to the party, but yes, I would extend it to any claimants to the throne, including usurpers, with a cutoff around the fall of Constantinople; perhaps some marginal people on the after-side, but I don't think many of the other rump states claimed to be emperors. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Diocletian Featured article review

I have nominated Diocletian for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Diocletian

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Diocletian/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Caligula

Caligula has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Establishing a consensus for when Roman emperors became 'Byzantine' emperors

I know that the discussion about the use of the word 'Byzantine' on Wikipedia has been pretty much settled at this point, but I do want to ask where the threshold between 'Roman' and 'Byzantine' is for emperors and other figures. I've seen people described as "Eastern Roman" up until the 8th Century, whetheras some in the 5th Century are described as "Byzantine". I think it would be incredibly useful to find some date to settle on as to when the empire should be described as Byzantine.

My personal pick would be some date during the reign of Heraclius, possibly his death on the 11th of Feburary, 641. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Once Western Rome ceased to ever be part of the empire I think its fair to call them Byzantine.★Trekker (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I doubt there will ever be a sole definitive answer for that question. I believe we should simply think about “Byzantine” and “Eastern Roman” as interchangeable terms; there is no point in discussing a term accepted by historiography centuries ago.

Using Heraclius’ reign as the final transition into the Byzantine period makes sense to me given all the changes that happened in it. His reign is also sometimes treated as the last stage of Late antiquity. Tintero21 (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Caracalla's agnomen

Is it known why the form "Caracalla" (used in the 4th-century Epitome de Caesaribus) became popular over "Caracallus" (used by contemporary Dio and in the 4th-century Historia Augusta)? ★Trekker (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Zoë Porphyrogenita listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Zoë Porphyrogenita to be moved to Zoe Porphyrogenita. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

"Co-emperor" usage for infoboxes

How is "co-emperor" meant to be used for infoboxes? Should this only be used for the "senior" emperor to designate all the "junior" emperors under him, or is it for all emperors that reigned simultaneously regardless of status? For instance, I added all the co-emperors for Leo VI (Basil I, Constantine, Alexander and Constantine VII), but should only Alexander and Constantine VII be included since they were the only co-emperors *under* Leo VI. There doesn't seem to be a consistent usage- Basil I lists only the "junior" co-emperors under him, whereas Romanos II lists all the co-emperors just as examples.

Similarly, for co-emperors who never reigned as "senior" emperor, should the "senior" emperor be included as co-emperor in their infobox?

Debosneed (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think all emperors that are recognized during their reign should be listed.★Trekker (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree, I'm inclined to think that all emperors that were "legitimate" (as nebulous as that may sometimes be) should be included. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)