Talk:Western Roman Empire/Archive 2

Copy edit

Hi all. As requested at GOCE I will be copy editing this article. I will be making bold edits where I feel necessary, and relying on you to tell me where I go wrong. So if you disagree with any of my edits, or just don't understand why I have made them, please feel free to flag this up here. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Query 1

Is there a reason why the caption of the image above the ingobox is in small? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so. Changed it to normal size. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Query 2

I am struggling to make sense of this:
"With the support of the Gallic nobility and the barbarian Burgundians and Alans, Honorius turned to the Visigoths under King Ataulf for support against Jovinus."
Perhaps one of you could have a look at it.

What is meant is that the usurper Jovinus had the support of the gallic nobility, and the Bugrandians and Alans. To counteract this, Honorius turned to the Visigoths for help. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (I thought so.) Copy edited. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Query 3

"The barbarian kingdoms gradually replaced the old Roman system..."

I struggle to understand this. What is the system which is being replaced? (Do you mean 'gradually replaced the old Roman institutions', or something like that?) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, while the Barbarian Kingdoms made strives to preserve roman continuity their new institutions came to replace the older ones that had been created and maintained by the romans. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll have a go. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the current version looks good. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion 1

The article could do with a disambiguation. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As in a Western Roman Empire (disambiguation) page? Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry. I clearly need my own copy editor! I meant that there are a lot of duplicated Wikilinks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can have a go at removing duplicates, should I do it as soon as possible or maybe wait until the copy-editing is finished as some links might change? Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Start whenever you want. It won't disturb the copy editing. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Economic decline

The fourth paragraph of this section is uncited. I am also surprised (very) that you have written this section without referring to Ward-Perkins. If you like, once I have finished the copy edit I will add in something from him. (Entirely optional.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I wrote the paragraph (I don't recognise it and I am pretty sure everything was cited before) but it is possible that I am just forgetting stuff. Perhaps it would be best to remove the uncited paragraph? If you have more relevant information to add to the section that would of course be appreciated. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go. Usually I try to keep the roles of copy editor and content contributor separate. But this is right in my area of knowledge and sources so I will give in to temptation. Feel free to be harsh if you don't like it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Query 4

"All surviving Celtic languages, Albanian, and Slavic languages such as Polish and Czech and even the non-Indo-European Hungarian." This isn't a sentence. Care to give me a clue as to what it is trying to communicate? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is what remains of a longer discussion on latin influence in these languages but the sources used for the discussion was mostly just dictionary entries of select words and maybe not as notable for an article discussing a specific state and I think that is why it was removed. Not sure why this "sentence" remains, would probably be best to just remove it since there is already coverage of the romance languages which are direct descendants of latin and the germanic languages which were influenced considerably more than the others mentioned. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That makes sense. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map

I have added a map of the Exarchate of Africa, because it seemed to need one. If you disagree just delete it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article needs to be overcrowded with images, the Exarchate of Italy was put in since the capital was Ravenna and it covered Italy (which is typically seen as the Roman heartland). I put both the exarchate maps together into a double image, does that work? Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, personally, find the article image heavy at all. Although that is just one editor's opinion. Your solution looks very good to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion 2

I don't personally like those notes at the bottom of the infobox. Is there a reason why they are not at the bottom as "Notes"? (Eg as in this article - Razing of Friesoythe.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly based on what was done with notes in the infobox over at Byzantine Empire. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Fair enough. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fin

And I am call that a peace. I am sure that there are more bits to pick up, but I am glazing over and I am sure that it is up to GA standard. I shall be back in a day or three to make some input into the Economics section. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to look through and copy edit the article! Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thank you very much for the time spent improving our little (or rather, large...) article! -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Mostly I enjoyed it. I should probably have done more, but my brain was starting to melt! I will be back, as a normal editor, to make some contributions to the economics section. You have a fine piece of work here. You just need to find a GAN assessor who is a glutton for punishment

. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Division of the Roman Empire

Division of the Roman Empire redirects here. I replaced the redirect with a page explaining the basic chronology of the events from Diocletian to Theodosius but it's been reverted asking for a discussion.

Barjimoa (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your edit was reverted since it was completely without sources and because this article already does a reasonably good job at explaining why the Empire was "divided" (juridically it never was, as this article explains). Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was without sources because the links redirected to sourced articles. In any case, Division redirects only here right now and not also to the east. Plus not enough emphasis is put on Diocletian: he was the one to start the separation of imperial courts. The process of division "ended" with Theodosius' successors but began with Diocletian. You can't pick a single year for the West-East divide: it was more like a continuum, a process. Isn't it pretty established? Most importantly, 395 is not a conventional date like 476 or 27 BC. I may be fine with Western Roman Empire starting from 395 for practical purposes in the infobox but should thd redirect of Division be here instead of other articles like Tetrarchy or Diocletian? Barjimoa (talk)

Yes, but articles still need to be sourced individually. I do agree that it is far from optimal that "Division of the Roman Empire" only redirects here, the East was just as divided from the West as the West was from the East. I'd argue that the Empire itself never truly was divided. Diocletian created two independent imperial courts, yes, but they were governing parts of the Roman Empire, not two separate empires (this is sourced and stated in this article) and due to that the best date for the divide would be 286. I do not think 395 is the best date but since it is the most cited date for the start of what is referred to as the Western Roman Empire (due to the courts never being truly reunited after that if one does not count Emperor Zeno), it is what must be represented in the article, I do believe this article touches on dates and controversies pretty extensively. The Tetrarchy article seems to discuess the administrative nature of the Tetrarchy moreso than its history and Diocletian is a biography. At the moment, the most extensive treatment of the various divisions of the Roman Empire, who made them, why they were made and so fort is found in the "Background" and "History" sections of this article which is probably why the redirect redirects as it does. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point but a reader goes in here and thinks that the Western Roman Empire began in 395 and that is not correct. Can we make that clear? (here and on the page of Eastern Roman Empire). Perhaps replace 395 with 286 or 286/395 in the infobox? Regarding Division of the Roman Empire, maybe a solution could be a redirect to Dominate#Multiple Emperors where the line of multiple "Augusti" is explained....Barjimoa (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying but the most important aspect of this discussion, when pertaining to Wikipedia specifically, is the notion of consensus. Whilst the first appearance of a separate Eastern and Western Augustus is under Diocletian in 286, the overwhelmingly cited date of a "division" is 395. Wikipedia must follow academic (or in cases when that is not applicable popular) consensus and as such the stated date has to be 395. It is clarified in the first sentence of the article that the term "Western Roman Empire" is particularly used for the period 395-476 but that it can refer to any time where there was separate courts. Additionally, prior divisions are extensively covered under the "Background" section and information regarding dates is introduced in the lead.

Adding 286/396 to the infobox would muddle it in my opinion, it would have to be either 395 or 286, not both. The reason we have both 476 and 480 as end dates is that both are extensively used as end dates for the "Western Roman Empire", with citations for usage of 480 used in the "Fall of the Empire" section. Of course, the Roman Empire was first divided into East and West in 286 but to add this you will need to provide sources (preferably academic and more than one) that put the year 286 as the start date of the Western Roman Empire and it would be good if we could get more editors to join this discussion as well, that's how Wikipedia operates. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Western Roman Empire/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 17:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review this, finally! First comments below. Since the article is waiting for a long time, could you, maybe, briefly confirm that you are still on it?

Thank you for taking on the review! Yes, I'm still on. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering; I have the impression that the "background" section is disproportionately long. It could almost be an article on its own. Wouldn't it make sense to reduce it, keeping only the more general information that relate directly to the topic, leaving detail for the respective articles where the stuff belongs? I mean, it does a very good job in explaining that the political and cultural subdivision into east and west was there from the beginning on, and how the empire got increasingly difficult to govern. But do we need to retell the complete history of the empire?

It is a bit long, yes. Originally the article used 286-480 as the time range of the "Western Roman Empire" but as pointed out in an discussion on the talk page, consensus is that 395 is the start date, the last two subsections of the "background" section were originally the first two of the "history" section. We could do a separate "Division of the Roman Empire" article as proposed in a recent discussion and cut this one down but to me at least, a lot of the background history is relevant to understanding the Western Roman Empire and I'm not really sure what could be cut. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would avoid oversplitting. But moving the last two subsections back to the history section might be an idea, it would make sense to me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, moved them back into History. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph in "collapse" is without a reference.

Added reference. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Economic decline" also has an unreferenced paragraph.

Added reference. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

all in all, it reads very well, but I need much more time to read through. More soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of proposals. (I don't know if I have to put this here since I proposed this in the section above in the talk page):

It could be more historically accurate to use the older date there was (286) as starting point (perhaps put both: 286/395, unless it causes too much confusion).
Also, I think it would make more sense to redirect Division of the Roman Empire to Dominate#Multiple Emperors (or make it a new specific article) rather than redirecting it here which is just about the Western half.

Barjimoa (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to both of these points on the above talk page, it might be best to continue discussion of them there. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if the information in "Economic decline" should be incorporated into the "history" section, and the section dissolved. This section does not feel as part of this article. It contains a lot of redundancy, just retelling the same stories, just from an economical perspective. It is written as it would be an article for itself. The whole article would more concise without this.

Done, I removed some repeated content and moved the retained stuff to appropriate places in "history" and "political aftermath". Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same with "Barbarian Kingdoms". The early history of these kingdoms was already provided in the "History" section, and is repeated here. It also feels like an "article within an article". Why not having the "Political aftermath" as a single, continuous chronology? I really would encourage you to consider this option, but this is optional if you just want to reach GA status.

Yes, I agree. "Germanic Italy" and "Imperial reconquest" are already in a single continuous chronology, "Imperial reconquest" picking up right were "Germanic Italy" ends. And yes, there is a bit of repeated stuff in "Barbarian kingdoms" but there are also relevant bits of information (such as the bit on the Franks) that can't be moved to "History" due to chronology and doesn't fit with either "Germanic Italy" or "Imperial reconquest", I'll see what I can do. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done now, you might want to take a new look at the affected sections just in case. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In 286 he elevated Maximian to the rank of augustus (emperor) and gave him control of the Western Empire. – I would add "while himself ruling the east" for clarity – it got me confused.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Constantius was born in 317 at Sirmium, Pannonia. He was the third son of Constantine the Great, the second by his second wife Fausta, the daughter of Maximian. Constantius was made Caesar by his father on 13 November 324.[36] – This is an example of what I would consider "too much detail". It appears in the "background" section only, and is much more detail than given for any other ruler in the main part of the article.

Yes, it's a bit odd considering that his brothers are not detailed at the same level. I've cut this down a bit and changed the placement around a bit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was as a result of the campaigns of the generals Belisarius and Narses on behalf of the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian I from 533 to 554 that long-lasting reconquests of Roman lands were witnessed.[111]
During the 6th century, the Eastern Roman Empire under Justinian reconquered large areas of the former Western Roman Empire. – this is mutually redundant, and repetitive, in parts.

Removed the second one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justinian prepared an expedition led by prominent general Belisarius. – No need to introduce him as "prominent general", he was just introduced in the preceding sentences.

Removed "prominent general". Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hyper-rich – just "rich" would be enough I think, this does not seem like an encyclopedic choice of words. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, removed "hyper". Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: Had the chance to read the rest now, no problems apparent. Very well done article, and the new structure now feels much better. I would encourage to take this to FAC. Passing GA now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's been a long road to get here! I've personally got some paleontology articles I'm hoping to work to FA at the moment (both smaller than this article) so I'm hoping to test out the system with those first. Maybe Iazyges would be open to co-nominating this for FAC (as we did for GA)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paleontology articles are a worthy thing also, of course! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ACR?

Hi Ichthyovenator. Could I suggest that putting it up for an A class review at MilHist may be a useful way of both testing the water for FA and helping to get it two-thirds of the way there?

And congratulations to both yourself and Iazyges for finally getting this over the line. A huge amount of work.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely a good idea, I've put it up for a review. And thank you! Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Mauretania

The map in the infobox showing the Western Roman Empire's territory is inaccurate, the Romans did not loose their coastal territories in Mauretania as there was a Roman Road System in existent and Rusadir, modern day Melilla was in Roman hands before the Vandals invaded the region. Could we get a updated map eventually? Slapnut1207 (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Get the DEFINITION (YEARS) right before anything else

The first sentence, which contains the definition, reads

"The Western Roman Empire comprises the western provinces of the Roman Empire at any time during which they were administered by a separate independent Imperial court; in particular, this term is used in historiography to describe the period from 395..."

395? Why? This very article lead goes on to contradict the use of this very late date. The list of emperors of the entity includes everything from the Tetrarchy (286–313), to the first emperors of the Theodosian dynasty (392–455), who were all before 395. W/o a clear definition that's not constantly contradicted within the article, it all becomes arbitrary, confusing and useless. What makes the use of the term pre-395 weaker or less well-accepted than after? This belongs at the very start of the article, since everything else depends on it ("it" being the definition, the topic of the whole article.) Arminden (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

395 is true - the term "Western Roman Empire" typically does refer to the western provinces from the death of Theodosius I to whenever you consider the West to fall/collapse. This is followed in much of the rest of the article as well, such as the 'background' section going up to the time of Honorius, whose reign is the first described under 'history'. 'Western Roman Empire' is a thing made up by historians given that the Romans themselves did not see the empire as divided. There was a separate Western court several times before 395, intermittently from 286 onwards, but historiography mainly places its beginning in 395. The few cases where 286 is adhered to instead (capitals in the infobox, the list of emperors at the end) are not that many, certainly not as big an issue as 'constantly contradicted within the article' makes it seem to be. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]