Talk:Year of the Four Emperors

message: This entry on Vespasian needs work.  It was featured today, 12/20/05, as a feature article on the Wikipedia welcome page.  Thus its quality reflects on the reputation of the compendium generally.  Vespasian's life and career needs to be fleshed out more beyond the facts of the  struggle for the throne in 68-69.  His earlier life, his career in the army and his overall rise to power, his role in the suppression of the Judean revolt and his career as Emperor need to be detailed.  Recently on NPR it was stated that Wikipedia articles are closely comparable to those in Encyclopedia Brittanica.  At this point this article falls far short of that standard.
:#This article is not about Vespasian.  It is about the Year of the Four Emperors.
:#Sign your comments if you expect them to be taken seriously.
:-Ikkyu2 17:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I'm a little confused.  Why is this period defined as a year when it takes place over a period longer than a year?
:-Cerise 22:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion?

message: "The forced suicide of emperor Nero, in AD 68" 
I disagree with this. Nero was not forced to commit suicide. He stabbed himself in the throat among his loyal servants. He had wanted to kill himself as his career was destroyed anyways (when he was in the Rome palace, and asked for a gladiator to kill him). 
It is true that Nero was declared a public enemy and it was ordered that he be beaten to death, but he was never FORCED to commit suicide as a way of execution. Although it was not uncommon for leaders to commit suicide when they had been defeated, it was still not forced upon Nero.
Usually, I would describe forced suicide as a way of execution.
--Zybez (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The forced suicide of emperor Nero, in AD 68" 

message: The map shows Arabia Petraea as a Roman province - however Arabia was only added under Trajan about 40 year after the battles of Bedriacum.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See the map key, by clicking on the map. If you still think it's inaccurate, you can contact its draughtsman at User talk:Steerpike --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, this map is far from perfect. The article certainly deserves better but at the time I could not find a free alternative or for that matter any map that gave a clear indication of who was where during 69, so I just kind of "improvised" this. I really call upon more experienced mappers on Wikipedia to improve this image. Ideally, the map would show how the allegiance of the different provinces changed over time, as well as major battles and the exact movement of the legions. If anyone's up for it... --Steerpike (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

text:  Well yes, the error regarding Arabia is still there and i agree with with the posting above that the map has other issues as well. Instead of one map for the whole year it might be easier to simply have a several maps (i.e.  series) showing the different allegiances of the provinces and legions at a certain time and as well several uprisings that took place in parallel (Jewish revolt, Batavian in norther Rhine regions, etc.) Personally i'd suggest at least 2-3 maps, before Vespasian entered the scene (july) and after and the situation after he had won the emperorship.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: error in map

message: This article is about the history of the Roman Empire. References to West Indian cricket teams have no place here and to continually insert them after they are removed amounts to vandalism and will be reported to an administrator. Stop it. Richard75 (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. --Dweller (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, to continually remove it amounts to vandalism.  Please seek consensus to remove the link.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard, the above two users are admins. Despite the way it makes Wikipedia look, there is a long-standing consensus to include the link. Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And despite the way "it makes Wikipedia look", we act here by discussion and agreement, not unilateral decision-making and threat.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I was agreeing with you. In this instance, consensus reigns over common sense because it's policy. Nev1 (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  If it needs discussion (and Dweller tried this a couple of threads above), then let's start another discussion.  Flicking "nuvola apps important.svg" in people's faces is a little too much.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply. I'll make my argument in the section above. Richard75 (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricket trivia 

message: 1. Galba marched into Rome at the head of a single legion, VII Galbiana (later Gemina). As for the other legions mentioned, VI Victix was the legion Galba left behind in Spain, I Macriana liberatrix was in Africa, and I Adiutrix did not exist at that point - Galba instituted it shortly afterwards from the remnants of a body of marines he massacred at the Milvian Bridge before entering Rome. (Gwyn Morgan,'69AD The Year of the Four Emperors' 2006)
2. Galba did not promise the Praetorian Guard any donative - the promise was made without his authority by the Guards prefect Nymphidius Sabinus.
3. Otho invited Vitellius to become his father-in-law, not his son-in-law. Otho was unmarried and childless; Vitellius had a grown daughter. (Suetonius, Otho:8 and Tacitus,The Histories:13)
The Morgan book is the most authoritative modern source. Tacitus 'The Histories', the key ancient source, should also be referred to and listed as a source for this page.
Fredceedobbs (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in the time it took you to say all that on the talk page, you could have put it in the article. Richard75 (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three errors 

message: Once again, I've changed this caption from "generals" to "noblemen". Otho was not a general. He held no military command before becoming emperor. His province, Lusitania, had no legions. He suborned the Guards illegally - he was not their commander. It's thus inaccurate to refer to "four generals" in the caption.  Fredceedobbs (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map caption edit 

message: You need more information lots more ! Helenagriffing (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The year of Four emperors  

message: Lead section - The lead section provides a good overview of the article, providing major details that allow the reader to achieve a concise overview. It includes a brief description of of the articles major sections, in chronological order. The lead section is not overly detailed and does not include information that is not present in the article
Content - The article contains content that is relevant to the topic and appears to be up-to-date. The content is neither missing nor contain content that does not belong. The article does not have deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps.
Tone and Balance - Throughout the whole article, a neutral point of view is established. There are no claims that are biased. There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented. There are no minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described. The article does not try to persuade the reader in anyway.
Sources and References - This article contains a general list of references. A lot of facts are not backed up by sources. The sources provided are thorough. Majority of the sources are about a century old. The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors but do lack the voice of marginalized individuals. The sources provided are peer-reviewed articles, but the article does lack sources. Every source referenced is accessible.
Organization and writing quality - The article is well-written, clear and easy to read. It does not contain any grammatical or spelling errors. It is organized in chronological order of the history, providing major points of the topic.
Images and media - The article contains images that do not enhance the understanding of the topic. The images provided do not contain detailed captions. The images adhere Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The images are laid out to compliment the adjacent paragraph, making it appealing to the reader.
Talk page discussion - Within the talk page, conversations of confusion and errors were talked about. This article is rated as C-class and there are two Wikiprojects that it is apart of. The Military history and Classical Greece and Rome Wikiprojects.
Overall impressions - The article's overall status is good, but it lacks sources and references to help back up the facts. The article also lacks images that help the enhance the understanding of the topic, and with that the caption of the images are not detailed. This article is not complete, as it lacks references but is somewhat developed. Nathangooi (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluating the Article 

message: Following today's edits, the new lede section seems inordinately long. What would be wrong with just having a brief summary in the lede, and putting all this detail in the rest of the article? Richard75 (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it too long? There are many articles with much longer lede. T8612 (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind other articles, I'm talking about this one. The more detail you put in the lede, the more repetitive the article gets when the reader has to read it all again in the sections below the table of contents. The lede is just meant to be an overview. Also, I can't see how removing most of the sources is meant to be an improvement. Richard75 (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede section too long