Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Byzantine emperors

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. We have basically even numbers of editors advocating Redirecting this article and those who want to Keep it. Luckily, a possible redirection, split, renaming or restructuring of this article is a discussion that can continue on the article talk page. Also, I'm here to assess this discussion not adjudicate whether or not Byzantine emperors and Roman emperors should be together on the same list or on separate lists or some sort of third option which is a content decision. This discussion has already been relisted twice and I don't think a final relist will substantially alter the divide in opinions here. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Byzantine emperors

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of Byzantine emperors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The List of Roman emperors is a featured article that contains the Byzantine Emperors also; whereas this article is sort of a mess and provides nothing that isn't provided by the Roman emperors list. Feel that this should be redirected to List of Roman emperors. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect FRA as outlined by OP. I do not feel that a separate page for the Eastern emperors is strictly necessary. Furthermore, the "master" page with all Roman emperors contains more details and, rather than having one cell with a relatively lengthy description for each emperor, has everything separated and organized more neatly; it's more to the point. Whoever wishes to see more detail can click through to the page of the emperor. As a little sidenote, I would suggest that the Greek names for all emperors on the Byzantine list from Constantine I to Focas are also penned down on the Roman emperor page, next to the English/Latin one(s), as is already the case for all emperors from Heraclius to Theodosius III. LVDP01 (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I always found the adition of that "Notes" section quite weird. These are supposed to be consice lists of rulers, not a list of small biographies. And bout the Greek names, I believe the Greek names are only given after 610 because of the language shift in official documents. Roman emperors always spoke Greek (Marcus famously wrote his Meditations in Greek). Personally I think adding the names would make the Name section much more tight. Either way, we can discuss that later. Tintero21 (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect; I see no reason to have two separate lists. One version is clearly better than the other; it's basically the same information but more concise and better sourced. Tintero21 (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The topic is notable and common sense suggests that there should be a page dedicated solely to this, but the article fails the criteria of WP:CONTENTFORK. Avilich (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably redirect but splitting List of Roman emperors to exclude from it those in the period after the end of the Western Empire would also be feasible. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. Aza24 (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The List of Roman Emperors is a typical example of original research, or rather original synthesis. Borsoka (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this discussion as redirect but am re-opening it per a request. Per WP:RELIST, any administrator is welcome to reclose at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My stance remains the same. I also want to add that I fail to see the relevance of the Holy Roman Emperors to the List of Roman emperors, as well as how they have "more of a connection with Rome"; even if this was true, they still are not actual Roman emperors, and should be kept separate. Same goes for the Latin emperors, Ottoman sultans, and Russian tsars among others post-1453, whom I cannot consider to be Roman emperors by any means. LVDP01 (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per above. Two articles are literally the exact same. However, we should not include the Holy Roman Empire, Latin Empire, Ottoman Empire, or Russian Empire in the list. Just Augustus to Constantine XI.
I think we should also start a broader discussion over the use of the term "Byzantine" on Wikipedia, and the incredibly arbitrary conventions regarding its use. For example, all "Byzantine" emperors from Constantine I to Justinian II are referred to as "Roman", yet everyone after are "Byzantine", with no elaboration. What changed from Justinian II to Philippicus? This is common throughout all of Wikipedia. Some individuals in the fifth and sixth centuries are referred to as "Byzantine", yet some in the seventh and eighth are referred to as "Roman". It leads to lots of edit warring, and general confusion for the reader. This page is just one example of a widespread problem on this we should seek to resolve, and provide a consensus on what is "Byzantine" and what is "Roman" (though I personally favor the view that Rome continued uninterrupted from 753 BC to 1453 AD). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Justinian II and many others were originally referred as "Byzantines" in their articles, but successive edits changed it to "Roman"; I'm surprised no one noticed it before. I always interpreted "Byzantine" as meaning "everything after the fall of the West". Assigning exact dates its quite arbitrary, but they are still points of reference. Justinian I may be called "the last Roman" by some, but he's still mostly referred as "Byzantine", with his reconquests marking the "peak" of the Byzantine Empire. I think we could rename the "later Eastern emperors" (which should start with the Justinians) to something like "later Byzantine emperors" or just "Byzantine emperors", with that section serving as the redirect of Byzantine emperor, maybe with an explanatory text or something. Tintero21 (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But my main point is, why? To put 476 even as the date for the fall of the west is incredibly misleading, as:
a. Literally nothing changed in 476, except the position of Western Augustus was abolished.
b. Most Romans of the time actually saw this as a reunification of the empire, as Odoacer pledged allegiance to the east.
There was no "Fall of the West", honestly if you were to put a date on it, the Punic Wars would be the closest thing, but even that can't be defined.
My point is that there is literally no reason why this list should be divided (especially as both articles convey the exact same thing), except to follow an arbitrary scholarly consensus that doesn't really exist. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Avilich: The topic is notable and common sense suggests that there should be a page dedicated solely to this. Our current list of Roman emperors page represents a highly "legitimist" interpretation. The Latin emperors are excluded in favour of the Laskarids, as are the rulers of Trebizond. The Holy Roman Emperors, who had a stronger connection to Rome, are ignored entirely. The list stops in 1453 without regards for any subsequent claims. In fact, we have three articles on such claims: Succession of the Roman Empire, Succession to the Byzantine Empire and Ottoman claim to Roman succession. I'm not saying this interpretation is wrong, but it is a particular POV that treats the claims of the Byzantine rulers very seriously and the claims of everyone else as nonsense. My own opinion, which agrees (IIRC) with that of E. A. Freeman, is that calling the empire "Roman" is unproblematic and preferable down to the 8th century. During that century, the emperors lose control of Rome (permanently) and, in 800, a rival claim to legitimacy is created. After that, "Byzantine" is preferable for the eastern empire for clarity.
If we are to have one list like this, I would title it List of Roman and Byzantine emperors for clarity, like our List of Roman and Byzantine empresses. I don't think it will help readers to land at the current page when they search for "Byzantine emperor". The lead would have to be adjusted, since it is concerned entirely with the ancient period. Moreover, the validity of the current list has been questioned. —Srnec (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, your comment here has caused me to realise that a separate Byzantine emperor article, like Roman emperor is a desideratum. Furius (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for better or worse, as long as we don't merge Byzantine Empire into Roman Empire, i.e., as long as the 'Byzantine' state is commonly treated as a distinct topic of study and identified as such, the topic of 'Byzantine emperors' will also need to have its own article. On the rest, I agree with Srnec's comments above. Constantine ✍ 12:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: All the Byzantine emperors called themselves Emperor of the Romans, ruled over a state named the Roman Empire, and their subjects called themselves "Roman". StellarHalo (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. None of the sources cited in the "Main bibliography" section of the List of Roman Emperors contain a list that covers the List's timeframe (from 27 BC to 1454 AD). The books listed in the "Secondary bibliography" section neither cover the same timeframe, and many of them explicitly refers to the Byzantine Empire instead of the Roman Empire. The same is true in case of more reliable lists presented in the "External links" section: Britannica covers the period from 31BC to 491 AD, Livius.org the period until 668 AD, metmuseum the period until 518 AD. Consequently, we can conclude that the List of Roman Emperors is nothing more than originaly synthesis. @LVDP01, Tintero21, Aza24, Avilich, Peterkingiron, PrecariousWorlds, and StellarHalo: why do you think WP should ignore scholarly literature in this specific case? I think the list of the Byzantine emperors should be improved by splitting the List of Roman Emperors to avoid original synthesis. Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's odd that we have two seperate articles covering the exact same topic only to please the "scholarly consensus" (even though the scholarly consensus is that the Roman Empire was the Byzantine Empire, and there was no break in continuity.) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you refer to sources cited in the List of Roman emperors verifying its timeframe? WP accept scholarly consensus and does not want to create or promote alternative consensuses. Borsoka (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Srnec and Borsoka: I myself argued sometime ago that the Roman emperors' list should be cut off at some point c. 600-700, but there was no consensus for this and the featured list ended up including everyone. But the nomination is correct that the Byzantine list adds nothing in its current state, and readers should not be directed to the page which contains inferior information. A notable topic may still fail WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:CFORK and be redirected, as this article should, until a consensus to split the Roman list emerges; but that discussion is a content dispute and as such belongs on the talk page, not AfD. The current broad definition of Roman is at least not wrong and there's no harm in provisionally keeping it that way until a better division is agreed upon. Avilich (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Proposal. Thank you for your comment. However, I think the current broad definition of Roman emperors is wrong because it is not verified and it presents a specific PoV. Consequently, the present list of Roman Emperors does not meet basic FAL criteria. I think this discussion should be closed without any decision, and the topic should be discussed on the target article's talk page. Borsoka (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is useful to have this separate from the very long list of Roman emperors, in the same way that it is useful to have lists of individual Chinese dynasties' emperors even though we have List of Chinese emperors. Furius (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (Also per the points made by Srnec, above) Furius (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and possibly split the list of Roman emperors from the Leonids onward to merge into this article, as appropriate. I think we should follow the majority of the scholarly literature, and conclude that list with Romulus Augustus, or possibly some of his eastern contemporaries who could reasonably go in both lists. Byzantine emperors, even if legitimately called "Roman" in the sense of cultural continuity, are really a separate topic, and should be listed separately under this title. P Aculeius (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel it should be redirected and we rename the page Roman and Byzantine Emperors. I agree we should close the discussion and move this to the talk page. Better to have Wikipedia stand above the historical confusion that was first created due to politics of the 8th century and expanded on in the 19th century when Byzantine studies was also created. Whilst I am not against keeping a page of Byzantine Emperors, ultimately, it's duplicate content and defining who sits where is too hard to get consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliasbizannes (talk • contribs) 18:26, February 2, 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep As far as I see it three lists could easily exist in varying level of detail, one very detail named List of Roman emperors that cover the period before the fall of Western Rome, another very detailed named List of Byzantine emperors that covers the post-ancient period, and one simpler list named List of Roman and Byzantine emperors that list them all.★Trekker (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I like Mary Beard's thesis that Rome fell when Caracalla gave citizenship to the entire Empire. Of the many ways historians say the Roman Empire transitioned to Byzantine they include:
    • Rome was not longer under imperial control (8th century)
    • When Egypt was lost and only Greek was spoken (Heraclius era)
    • When Rome "fell:" in 478
    • When Christianity was formalised (Theodosius? Constantine?)
    • when New Rome was inaugurated at Byzantium (330 and the original reason).
    ...instead, Beard is saying when the citizens of Rome became a political term across the empire, shattering the illusion Augustus first setup that he was carrying on the Republic. It's probably better to say that's when the Principate ended, but going back to this, too many opinions and too many ways to slice and dice. If we combine "Roman and Byzantine", we stay out of these debates and can just organise by rulings Houses as one page. But for that to work, one page and the rest redirects. Elias (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. When we have extremely long articles about extremely involved subject matters, wikipedians typically split them into reasonable sub-articles, occasionally truncating the original long article as a brief guide towards the more detailed subs. I see zero reasons presented which preclude our normal pedia growth processes for this list. List of Roman emperors, while perhaps featured, is way over-long and as several users have stated, not particularly inclusive of subjects like Holy Roman Emperors (which have a direct relationship with the overall subject matter). I believe "keeping" here moves this process forward. Users Srnec and Avilich make better cases than I. BusterD (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Historical subject. NYC Guru (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per above, the topic is notable enough for a stand-alone article and I'm not very sure if deletion would be an improvement. The other article covers a huge period of time, from antiquity to Middle Ages, and thus is crowded, a little hard to navigate, and possibly a bit confusing for the average reader. Since the two empires are very commonly treated as separate entities in historiography and literature and the rullers of the East are commonly referred to as Byzantines, it is possible that this is how the average reader would search for them. Based on my own experience, this article has actually been helpful. Piccco (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is sufficiently notable for a stand-alone page. Merging with Roman emperors wouldn’t be feasible since the Byzantine and Western Roman are generally treated as separate topics, and a merge wouldn’t really be helpful to a reader who may just be confused or find the resulting Roman emperors page difficult to navigate. Shawn Teller (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Byzantine_emperors&oldid=1138844550"