Talk:Julius Nepos

Should make a page about the Roman ruler of Dalmatia
This is very importent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.162.204 (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Relation to the Julio-Claudian dynasty
Would this fella actually be a descendant of the old Julii who were the first Emperors?--Codenamecuckoo 09:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

- No. His true past( grand parents and after that ) is unknown, but all legal family heirs of old Julii has been dead in AD 69. Oldest Roman family which has survived lost of crown is Flavian Dynasty. Blood heirs of Nepos has survived until around AD 530. ? rjecina

Relation to Marcellinus
I can't find the source for this, but I thought I read somewhere that Nepos was the nephew and successor of Marcellinus (general), commander of the field army in Illyricum. —Abou 20:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes he has been cousin of Marcellinus (general) ( and governor of Illyricum . For more info about this general I can tell you that he has been in 1 situation sending army from Ilyricum even to Sicily. —rjecina 17:59 (CET), 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Rome or Ravenna?
This article says that Julius confronted Glycerius in Ravenna, while the page for Glycerius says that this happened in Ostia (or perhaps Rome). Ravenna makes more sense, as it is much closer to Dalmatia than Ostia is, but I don't know what actually happened. Does anyone know? Molinari 17:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Orestes the Germanic tribesman?
Why is Orestes descibed as a "Germanic tribesman"? Both his parents were Romans. And even if he were part German, he must have been less so than the half-Frankish Theodosius III, so it wouldn't have been an obstacle to his claiming the purple. —Abou 22:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Julius Nepos
How ded he die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathiasceasar (talk • contribs) 06:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Tightning up
This article need some tightning up. I don't think direct latin quotations from the sources is appropriate for Wikipedia. If no one objects I'll throw them out and put in a standard reference section. Fornadan (t) 13:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

At he very least could the "Rule" and "reign" sections be redacted.90.200.32.233 15:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote this page
Me Linkin Park nepos wrote this hole paign me, i wasen't a member, so thats the reason you don't se me. Julius Nepos rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linkin Park nepos (talk • contribs) 18:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Vandalsim/nonsense.

Julius Nepos
He could actually be a family member of the Julii because Julien familie didn't die out, the Claudius Familiy did. It's Recordet to be a Julien that became Prator in 267.
 * Let me change answer of october 2006. Old Julii are existing in that period but they are not heirs of Julius Ceasar or Augustus because all heirs have been killed by Nero.—rjecina 05:38 (CET), 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.91.99.205 (talk)

Ovida
I just read that it was Ovida who killed Nepos.--Dojarca (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Roman emperors vs. Category:Murdered Roman emperors
Category:Murdered Roman emperors is itself a category within Category:Roman emperors. — Robert Greer (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Overview section
One user keep adding an "Overview" section to this article with about the same length as the rest of the text. Wikipedia articles don't have "Overview" sections, they have a lead of a few paragraphs (without any section header) summarizing the article and then the main body going into more detail, there's no intermediate "Overview" level. This is the common layout across Wikipedia which we all most follow - single users don't get to make up their own. The "Overview" needs to be merged into the rest of the article, otherwise the result is a non-standard article with lots of duplicated, and possibly contradictory, material - all very confusing to the reader  Fornadan (t) 20:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * one user keeps deleting the overview section, which has been part of the article for years. it is better written, more coherent, & easier to follow than the rest of the article, which was until recently somewhat incoherent (& still needs work). until now, that user's "rationale" was factual accuracy. want a list of other articles with an "overview" or equivalent section?  Lx 121 (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * by the way, i note your use of "we" in your edit comment -- since you haven't been active on this article anytime recently except for one previous edit, in september 2007, i'll assume that the "other user" contacted you, requesting your support, no? Lx 121 (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

since there has already be another "exchange" of edits, in the interest of peace, i'm offering to drop the section header; you're wrong, but i really don't care if it has a header or not.

for the merits of the lead section as a lead section, i refer you to Lead_section Lx 121 (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::Actually I mentioned repeatedly WP:V and WP:RS but you just don't seem to have an idea what this even means, so please follow the relevant links. Regard why the overview is absurd, Fornadan's already said it all. Also I didn't contact Fornadan: I've been around here 6 years and I know hundreds of editors, but I don't think I've ever met Fornadan. But now that you mentioned it, contacting somebody, or more precisely I'll contact the relevant wikiproject, that is WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome.Aldux (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are now at least trying to get it; and having a good and solid overview where it should stay, is OK. But per WP:LEAD the lead is going to be trimmed to a maximum of three paragraphs, as it says that articles long "15,000–30,000 characters" (medium length) should have "Two or three paragraphs". Also, and I think this should be pretty obvious, the lead must summarize and not contradict the main article, and this is why leads don't have to be sourced: all statements made in the lead must be backed up by references in the main text. Anyways, I appreciate that you haven't attempted to put the phantomatic Domain of Moor and that Syagrius minted coins in his names. That said I will work on the lead after I've finished completing the expansion and referencing of the rest of the other sections.Aldux (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * that's nice; i will keep working on the lead also. (btw: you're wrong about syagrius, or at the very least, the question of whether he ever minted coins in nepos' name is "open to debate" http://www.roman-emperors.org/nepos.htm says "yes"; will look for numismatic evidence, but it's not at the top of my "to do" list.  what is your "take", then, on roman "remnants" in northwestern africa during this period?)Lx 121 (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I hadn't read that one, but yes it's a legitimate source so I'll be sure to put it in the main, even if Mathisen desn't exactly say "yes", he just say that there is a possibility that Syagrius may have minted, and this is all can be said because no coin at all can with reasonable assurance be attributed to Syagrius (this is the opinion of Roman imperial coinage, volume 10), whose importance and role has been itself put seriously in doubt, as the only real source on him is Gregory of Tours. Passing to the question you made to me about Africa, there is only one attested individual who seems to have created some sort of Romano-Berber polity around Altavia: the berber chief Masuna who in an inscription call himself "king": but his entity is from the 6th century, not the 5th century.Aldux (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)


 * a) the material in the led section IS sourced; i refer you in particular to [] . your rationale for removing the material on this basis is invalid


 * b) the material in the lead section recapitulates the information in the main body of the article, in a more condensed (& coherent) form. if the info is "bad" in the lead, then it's "bad" in the following sections as well


 * c) if we're contacting people to expand this conflict, why not just go to the wikipedia conflict resolution/arbitration process directly? it would save time


 * Lx 121 (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm responding to Aldux's notice at the Classical G&R project. WP:V states quite clearly that "anything challenged or likely to be challenged [must] be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." The material has been challenged, and therefore it's subject to deletion at will unless meticulous citations are provided for each of the statements at issue. I agree that the intro is far too long and leisurely; three paragraphs should indeed do it for an article of this size. Aldux isn't contacting "people," but posted a notice at one of the two projects that oversee this article. That's a perfectly legitimate way to solicit opinions. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * as stated above : the material in the lead recapitulates the material in the rest of the article. & i threw in a couple of extra references, for good measure, with more to come.


 * if you really want to apply the "inline citations needed"-thing as a technical rationale to remove the material, even when the refs are provided, does that only apply here, or on all the classical g&r project articles? Lx 121 (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the intro wasn't separated from the body text. If the intro is a properly constrained summary of the body text, citations are needed only for points that may challenge conventional expectations. But there was discursive material not appropriate for the intro that required meticulous citation because it was being challenged. This is not a long article, and the first step toward sorting this out is structural. I was concerned when you cited a web site, but saw that it was Ralph Mathisen; however, it would still be better to cite his books or articles, so page numbers could be provided, and for greater stability of verification, since web sites can disappear. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving your input Cynwolfe; I fully agree with you that websites should as a rule be avoided in articles like this, but as you yourself observed the website article was made by a respected scholar so I'm willing to make an exception. Regards inline citations, when an article is subjected to an upgrade it's normal to use them, as under the current rules no article will ever have a chance of becoming an FA or even a GA without thorough inline sourcing. If you doubt, look at all Featured Articles that have been written in the last years: they all use inline citations.Aldux (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify (when I look at this I wasn't clear to myself), it's my understanding that an intro that accurately summarizes the content of the article doesn't need to repeat the citations there, but points in the intro that may raise an eyebrow should be footnoted. When an article starts to become contentious, more precise and meticulous citations are the best defense. Another thing that might be kept in mind here is that a good lede is hard to write when the article is in a state of flux; I might suggest as a temporary workaround stripping the introductory section back to the current first paragraph only, and moving the rest (or most of the rest) to the appropriate sections. There is still too much info in the intro that isn't repeated in the body text; the reader expects that whatever's in the intro will be expanded in the body, and it isn't. The details of how Julius Nepos acceded, for instance, certainly don't belong in the intro. (And yes, the only problem with referencing Mathisen's site is that it's a website, and he's published a perfectly good body of scholarship. When the article is developed to a condition that can be considered stable, it might be better to give Mathisen's site as an external link.) Good luck to all, Cynwolfe (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

nepos coinage
"2nd reign", issued by odoacer -- http://www.acsearch.info/record.html?id=52935'\ general list of nepos coins (non-comprehensive) http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?search=similar%3A239104&view_mode=1#5

Lx 121 (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't have to persuade me: they've been discussed pretty much by scholards, as they are the only foundation for attesting Odoacer's recognition of Nepos, as no historians mention it (it's a badly sourced period); still, it's quite ambiguous as in exactly the same years Odoacer was also minting coins in Zeno's name.Aldux (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ambiguous yes, in terms of the exact, nuanced & detailed significance; but odoacer is minting nepos coins, along with zeno ones, both with imperial inscriptions.


 * it's not like the mints were just making "more of the same"; the coinage had already been changed from nepos to augustulus (must have been a good way to make a living in the 5th century, designing roman coins; no end of demand for new issues! :P).


 * odoacer had no reason to issue nepos coinage, unless it was by a deliberate choice, & i can't think of any OTHER reason he'd mint them; they're not particularly collectible or more valuable, or perceived as having more value (in their own era). it seems unlikely that dalmatia placed an "order" for them, or that nepos had extraordinary influence in the western mints...


 * so odoacer chose to produce them (possibly in rather small quantities, the nepos ones, at least; not sure what the ratio is of nepos-to-zeno, among surviving examples). the only reasonable basis for that decision, by him, is political.  he's acknowledging nepos, at least on a "de minimus" level (along with demonstrating his "loyalty" to zeno).  it doesn't imply nepos had any influence or control in italy; just that odoacer was a pragmatic, cynical politician, & was playing the cards to his best advantage.


 * Lx 121 (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

on the naming of names
question: if "nepos" is supposedly an agnomen j.n. gained from marriage to the emperor's niece(-in-law?), then are all these other "nepo-" names being derived from that? including the ones for persons that predeceased him? also, if j.n. was the son of marcellinus' sister, that makes him twice nepos to notable persons.

i'm assuming all this has been dealt with by historians, but what is the thinking on it?

(& perhaps it should be covered in the article?)

Lx 121 (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead
The intro section here is far too long. As per WP:LEAD, the "lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article," and for an article of this length, the lead should not be more than two or three paragraphs. Here the intro contains detail that isn't even present in the body. In particular, detail about Orestes, Romulus, Odoacer, and the empire should be summarized and the detail moved into the body. I'll work on this when I have time, if someone else does not address it sooner. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Fall and rule in Dalmatia
This section barely mentions Nepos. It seems to be in the wrong article. Can we write about Nepos's post-imperial life? 155.213.224.59 (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

New Citations
Propose to add citations to make the article more verifiable and to add any information from the source relating to the page. Kerr97 (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Kerr97 18:23 10 October 2019Kerr97 (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Kerr97, thanks for expanding the article. It's nice to be able to get rid of the banners saying more references were needed. We now have a lead that summarises the article, whereas before it was too short, and references so that readers can see where the information comes from. The bit about there being limited information on Nepos is a useful point to make as readers will notice the gaps around the early life and wonder whether that means the article is incomplete or we just don't know. In fact, I'd consider reiterating this point in the lead, as well as where it is in the 'family' section, since it's an important point. Further edits might add more information about the historiography around Nepos. Also, if there are further books or articles you think would be useful to a reader but you haven't had time to add it would be worth creating a 'further reading' section. The article is much improved and I've changed it's rating from a C-class to B-class. Richard Nevell (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)