Talk:Petronius Maximus

Petronius Maximus 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
May 21, 2018	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 27, 2018.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that after Petronius Maximus angered their king, the Vandals sacked Rome so thoroughly that their name is still a synonym for wanton destruction?

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 31, 2012, March 17, 2013, March 17, 2016, March 17, 2019, May 31, 2023, and May 31, 2024.

Biography: Military / Royalty and Nobility

	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
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece: Byzantine

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

Military history: Biography / 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

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

Roman and Byzantine emperors Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Roman and Byzantine Emperors WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Roman and Byzantine emperors. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roman and Byzantine emperorsWikipedia:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsTemplate:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsRoman and Byzantine emperors
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Death date?

Why doesn't his death date in the text match his death date in the info box? --Michael K. Smith (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of name and source

One of the editors removed a book alledging a "modern invention", which is referring only to the websites. The book itself is valid. 194.38.128.26 (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Give at least a link to a diff to let other user understand. --TakenakaN (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor removed the websites that standed as sources for being "modern inventions". But the book itself is credited and for that reason should prevail. 194.38.128.26 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What diff are you talking about? Give some reference, otherwise it is impossible to understand the matter. --TakenakaN (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "diff"? I was referring to the coin book, just that. 194.38.128.26 (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sources, one is the PLRE and the other is the coin book. The PLRE is a serious prosopographical reference, the coin book is a serious numismatic source. We trust the PLRE for the names and the coin book for the coin issues. This means that the name stated by PLRE is to be trusted, until a source as authoritative as PLRE is found. Is that clear? --TakenakaN (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But why? They might be complementary. After all, PLRE was composed and published long before the coin book. 194.38.128.26 (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I removed the "Anicius", since it was clearly stated that "the name "Anicius" is nowhere attached to him in the ancient sources." If it isn't, and if the PLRE doesn't list him as an Anicius, then there is no reason to blindly accept a tertiary source such as a coin collecting book for this matter. Also, please include page numbers for your sources for WP:VERIFIABILITY. Constantine ✍ 14:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't a new book be based on new findings? 194.38.128.26 (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it will clearly states its sources. Are there? --TakenakaN (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that in "Fifth-Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity?" (Edited by John Drinkwater & Hugh Elton) (Cambridge University Press, 2002), there is a chapter by T.S. Mommaerts and D.H. Kelley entitled "The Anicii of Gaul and Rome" in which they argue that Petronius Maximus was a member of the Anicii, and thus his nomen was Anicius and his cognomen was Petronius (see pages 116-120). This for me qualifies as a relaible secondary source to at least ammend the first sentence to say Flavius Petronius Maximus (possibly Flavius Anicius Petronius Maximus) (c. 396 – 22 April 455) was Western Roman Emperor for two and a half months in 455. Oatley2112 (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General state of the article

This article is in very poor shape - it contains two sections, both giving overviews of his life and death, neither integrated with each other, with the second section containing poorly worded and difficult to comprehend sentences, as well as some challenging grammar. I shall attempt to revise the article over the next few days, so if editors could refrain from editing, that would be of great help. Oatley2112 (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date template

@Peaceray: you should look more closely, my edit did have an explanation. Date templates are only used for Gregorian calendar dates. Avilich (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich: Thank you for pointing that out. I did fail to click through on the link. I was also puzzled because the template appeared to work just fine with those date. However, I have undone my edit.

I think a more useful edit summary might have been Date templates should only used for Gregorian calendar dates as per Template:Death date and age#Background. Peaceray (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peaceray: best regards. Yes, I could've added a few extra words, especially since the current blue-linked summary is hard to see upon batting the eye. Avilich (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]