# Talk:Diadumenian

My printed sources seem to prefer "Diadumenianus", while "Diadumenian" is apparently what coin collectors use, and so it has many more Google hits. Leaving it at the latter for now. Stan 14:56, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Actually I agree with your thoughts. Most of my texts refer to him as "Diadumenianus" when he was co-emperor. Before that he is refered to as "Diadumenian." Many texts do not list him as a Caesar. It seems like only the more exhaustive texts do. I will get a definitive answer from an Ancient History professor. Since his proper name is "Diadumenianus" I think it shouldbe changed. Argonaut 18:59, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Our rule is to use the "most common" name that is still correct, thus Livy and Bill Clinton, with redirs from Titus Livius and William Jefferson Clinton. For someone this obscure, it's tougher to tell what is "most common"; ironically, the coin collectors seem more aware of his existence than the history professors. :-) Stan 19:43, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Use of the name "Diadumenian" instead of "Diadumenianus" is equivalent to English use of the names Constantine, Trajan, and Hadrian instead of the latin equivalents. Most English speakers would probably be searching on "Diadumenian", so I would leave it as is. It is probably a good idea to exercise caution in paraphrasing the Historia Augusta ("Diadumenian emulated Macrinus in tyranny. He called upon his father not to spare any who might oppose them or who made plots"). The HA is known to be very unreliable. This is particularly true for the time period of Diadumenian. Victor at least agrees with archaeological finds in Diadumenian's full name and titles (Marcus Opellius Antoninus Diadumenianus Caesar Augustus).  Bill Storage 10:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What does 'followed his father's death' mean? That he died? At the battle of Antioch? What is "a.C."?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.221.180.4 (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC) 

I’ve seen both 207 and 208 get used for Diadumenian birth year. Which one is it? PrinceofFrancia (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The 60-day child-emperor and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27#The 60-day child-emperor until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 16:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)