User talk:Ichthyovenator

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Ichthyovenator!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Since email doesn't work

I'll write back here. I think you're right, it is an error: the co-emperor of Constantine III in 641 was Heraklonas, and when Constantine III died that year, Heraklonas's co-emperors thereafter were Marinus and Tiberius/David. GPinkerton (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Yes, I'm also thinking it's an error. As I said, it is possible to get a Heraclius III, but not one that co-ruled with Heraklonas and Constantine III (also worth noting that Mango doesn't assign the name "Heraclius II" to any emperor, so the numeral does not make much sense in the context of his work). Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Heraclius II is always Heraklonas. The others may be omitted because they are not mentioned by Treadgold in the volume's relevant chapter. Remember: be on your guard against argumentum ex silentio. GPinkerton (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

---

2 DOIs for you for Rome-cum-Byzantium identity topics: 10.1515/bz-2014-0009 (2014 review paper) & 10.1553/medievalworlds_no5_2017s1 (2017 his own argument). Both are on Academia.edu, so enjoy! GPinkerton (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Thanks! I've already read Stouraitis (2017) (it's referenced extensively for the Byzantine section at Roman people), but I haven't read the 2014 paper. Will check out! Do you know if there are any sources that could be used to expand on Roman identity in the Republic and pre-5th century empire? Those sections, though I think they hit the important points, feel a bit lacking in Roman people. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Sadly not. Before the 5th century I can think only of Ammianus Marcellinus' vision of the spirit of Rome as an old woman (i.e., an old empire). Looking at the article, St Paul isn't mentioned, but he is one of the ancient sources which makes a big deal of being a Roman citizen (while being Jewish, of course). See (and look for search term including): Civis romanus sum. GPinkerton (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I will have a look around when I have the time. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I've just become aware Rûm exists. The thing is rather overlapping with Roman people and seems a poor content fork justified by linguistics alone. What a conundrum! GPinkerton (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the Rûm article is in poor shape but I believe it could hypothetically be expanded with more non-Roman people content in the future to justify its existence. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Also, NB that the PmBz starts at 641. I would resist calling the empire the Byzantine Empire at any time before the death of Heraclius. Conveniently, this makes the Roman period of the empire more or less begin and end with Roman control of Alexandria. Actium to Amr ibn al-As. It also means the Roman-Persian Wars involved Romans and Persians and not some third empire midway through the Sasanian period. By contrast, I would argue the first Byzantine emperor is Constantine, by definition, but by definition which is needlessly confusing when "Roman" exists already. The later Byzantines themselves understood that there were to be no more Roman emperors in the west after 476, but that did not stop the Byzantine emperors being the Roman emperors; on the contrary, all other rulers, imperial or otherwise, were excluded by default from being Roman. The Latin emperors cannot be counted as Roman emperors, but should be counted as Byzantine emperors, since they were exactly as Byzantine as Constantine was or Michael VIII would be. (i.e., they were not from Constantinople, but they governed it.) A list of Roman emperors, in my view, needs to have all the emperors of the Romans; a list of Byzantine emperors ought to contain all the emperors that ruled Byzantium between its re-foundation and 1453, and excluding the Ottoman "emperors" by contention and convenience. (To compare, the list of Roman pharaohs needs to have all the Romans who were afforded pharaonic honours and were recognized emperors in Egypt, including those whose bids for imperium went awry thereafter.) GPinkerton (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: If a historiographical division is necessary I agree that 641 is a much better date than 476 (interesting observations regarding Alexandria and the Roman-Persian Wars). I would argue that the Byzantines saw themselves as the Roman emperors in both East and West after 476/480 given that Zeno effectively succeeded Julius Nepos in his role as the "suzerain" of the Barbarian kingdoms and that the Byzantines clearly saw themselves as retaining claims to Italy and the rest and that they remained recognized as de jure universal monarchs. If a division has to be made and a pre-1453 end date has to be selected I would argue that the Roman Empire, as understood as the universal empire, effectively ends in 800 with Charlemagne's coronation (since there would never again be an empire fully recognized as universal after that point), but I have not found a reliable source that shares that opinion. I agree that the Latin emperors ought to be on the List of Byzantine emperors - they viewed themselves as rulers of the Eastern Empire and sometimes titled themselves as Imperator Romanorum - but I don't see why they should in that case be excluded from the List of Roman emperors.

Re: the list of Roman pharaohs: I agree, but I think we need to have sources referring to a Roman emperor/usurper as a "pharaoh" in order to include them in that list. The included figures as of now are all the ones with preserved Pharaonic titularies per Beckerath (1999). Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Regarding emperors known only from coins: I came across a "Carausius II" today! GPinkerton (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: It's not every day you find out about a brand new "emperor"! I had no idea about there being a Carausius II - very interesting. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

---

You might be interested in this : https://www.jstor.org/stable/623929 . The final sentence shows its datedness in a surprisingly casual way, but it might still be useful on some points. GPinkerton (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Thank you, I'm sure this will prove useful. If nothing else, it is very fascinating. The interpretation that the use of basileus by all of the diadochi was a direct claim to be Alexander's sole successor is interesting. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

---

This entry is quite interesting, and it may be worthwhile to look at the sources here too. GPinkerton (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I can't access either, is this about different periodizations of Roman history? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Vibia Sabina crop.png

Copyright status: File:Vibia Sabina crop.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Vibia Sabina crop.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 18:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Basil of Trebizond.png

Copyright status: File:Basil of Trebizond.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Basil of Trebizond.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

• File:Alexios II of Trebizond.png
• File:Alexios IV of Trebizond.png
• File:John II of Trebizond.png
• File:Manuel III of Trebizond coin.png

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 16:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:John II Orsini coin.png

Copyright status: File:John II Orsini coin.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:John II Orsini coin.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

• File:John of Gravina coin.png
• File:William II of Achaea coin.png

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 13:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

"Extracted from"

I added the tag "extracted from" for the description of the Source at your image :
{{extracted from|File:Assyrian Relief of the Banquet of Ashurbanipal From Nineveh Gypsum N Palace British Museum MH 01.jpg}}
Please revert of inadequate. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: Thank you, I always forget the "extracted from" tags exist. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

File:HRE and Ottomans 1798.png

File:HRE and Ottomans 1798.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Nanahuatl (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

File:TCL 18 111.jpg

File:TCL 18 111.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Zunkir (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Rhescuporis VI.png

File:Rhescuporis VI.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Rheskouporis (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)