Talk:Didius Julianus

Untitled
I have added some lines of text relating to the removal of Julianus Anthony.bradbury 12:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

-

Any reason why a huge chunk of this text was taken out? Having read both versions, I can't see why, and no justification was offered anywhere. Kyle543 06:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Move notification
There is a move request at Talk:Julian_the_Apostate to move Julian the Apostate to Julian. Since this involves the question whether that Emperor is the primary (much more used than any other) meaning of Julian, the views of watchers of this page would be welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Didius Julianus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151128174101/http://www.tulane.edu:80/~august/handouts/601cprin.htm to http://www.tulane.edu/~august/handouts/601cprin.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Tone of the article
This article reads like it was copy-pasted from a 19th century reference work, with sentences like "After the initial confusion had subsided, the population did not tamely submit to the dishonour brought upon Rome." It needs a rewrite to be more neutral and less colorful. — howcheng  {chat} 17:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've made edits to change the wording and tone of the article. Could you take a look to see if the tone is better and suggest/make any edits/improvements to the tone (and the substance)? Gug01 (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While the tone is better, the article is nowhere near GA status right now. It only relies on primary sources, notably the unreliable Historia Augusta. You have to use way way more academic sources. I suggest you remove the GA nomination.  T8612  (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. Gug01 (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Scheldt
De Scheldt drainage basin in not in Germany, but in Belgium, so that information is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leenverkade (talk • contribs) 15:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)