Talk:Dalmatius

GAs to compare this article to

Due to the short reign of Dalmatius it is hard to make a long article about him. Some shorter GA similar to him include Constantine (son of Leo V), Constantine Doukas (co-emperor), Andronikos Doukas (co-emperor), Florianus, Hostilian, and Victor (emperor). Jon698 (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Barbalalaika (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the caesar Dalmatius was murdered by his soldiers with the support of caesar Constantius II?

• Source: Pages 14; 18 of The Summer of Blood: The "Great Massacre" of 337 and the Promotion of the Sons of Constantine by R. Burgess

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Troadec family murders

5x expanded by Jon698 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 111 past nominations.

Jon698 (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC).

• @Jon698: The nomination may be closed within 24 hours if a QPQ is not provided. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I will be able to add one after 1 PM CST. Jon698 (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: QPQ done. Jon698 (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

• Thank you. Emphasizing that this is still in need of a full review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

This article is right up my alley, so I'm going to review it.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - no

QPQ: Done.

Overall: NeoGaze (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The article has indeed been expanded fivefold. It is long enough with 4882 characters (764 words) of "readable prose size". It is neutral in tone, and no case of copyright violations, plagiarism or close paraphrasing have been found. Copyvio only shows a mirror wiki that seems to copy the content of the article. The article is also exceptionally well-sourced, with every inline citation supporting each statement. The hook itself is also well-referenced, but in my opinion it doesn't appear to be particularly interesting or striking to a general reader, at least beyond those already interested in the history of the late Roman empire. No image is used and the one required QPQ has already been done for this nomination.

To fix the issue, I suggest proposing alternative hooks. For example I formulate one below that I think will attract more interest and catch the attention of general readers. If it is satisfactory to the nominator, we can proceed with it, if not now new ones should be created.

ALT1: ... that caesar Dalmatius was murdered by his soldiers in the midst of a massacre that killed nearly all the male members of the Constantinian family?

• Source: Page 10 of The Summer of Blood: The "Great Massacre" of 337 and the Promotion of the Sons of Constantine by R. Burgess

On second tought, I might have been overly strict or subjective on how much interesting the original hook is, so if other editors disagree with my judgement, then the original hook would be fine. NeoGaze (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@NeoGaze: I like the hook that you suggested. We would have to wait for another user to give approval for it though due to DYK rules. Jon698 (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Second opinion requested @Jon698: Thanks, then lets wait for a second opinion then. NeoGaze (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Article looks fine and this new hook is darkly interesting. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jon698: Happy to promote, but I don't see the mention to any soldiers doing the killing, neither in the article nor in the source. This needs fixing first - please ping me when done. Barbalalaika 🐌 21:14, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Barbalalaika: Soldiers are mentioned in the last pharagraph of the "Death" section in the article. About the source, Page 14 states that "it was the army that had assassinated Dalmatius Caesar in the midst of a mutiny". Page 18 also mentions the soldiers. NeoGaze (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jon698: Ah, sorry about that. I see it. I also see that "Aurelius Victor was uncertain about who was responsible for Dalmatius' death" - would it be nitpicky to ask the sentence to be reformulated? As it stands, I didn't fully understand what is uncertain: that he died by soldiers or by command of Constantius. Seems to be the latter, if I understood source 35 correctly? Barbalalaika 🐌 22:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Barbalalaika: There is certainly some ambiguity with that phrase, specially when compared with the one from the reference: "Aurelius Victor, however, is uncertain about the manner in which the Caesar died". Manner of death and perpetrators are different things. There is a footnote that points to the army as the murderers, but its from a source not fully confirmed to be from Victor. @Jon698: Some clarification would be welcomed. NeoGaze (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Barbalalaika: @NeoGaze: I moved the sentence to the front in this edit to make it clearer. Jon698 (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Barbalalaika and NeoGaze: where does this nomination stand? Is it ready for approval? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: @Jon698: Sorry, completely slipped my mind! I'll promote it now. Barbalalaika 🐌 13:56, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dalmatius/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Jon698 (talk · contribs) 07:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 10:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I have replied to your non-image comments below. Jon698 (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: I have replied to all of your points below. Jon698 (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: Courtesy ping Jon698 (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: I hope my answers to your additional comments are to your satisfaction. Jon698 (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

We still have unexplained names, titles and concepts throughout. I don't really want to have to point at every one -- could you read through and make sure that everything that won't be familiar to a reader without a background in Roman history is explained? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I have added additional descriptors in this edit. Jon698 (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: Thank you for all of your comments so far. I have done some of the requests you made in the sourcing section. I only have one question below. Jon698 (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: I have answered another round of comments below. Jon698 (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• A bit of Latin pedantry: why is Augustus capitalised but Caesar not?

I capitalized Augustus as it is being used right before a name per MOS:JOBTITLES. Caesar (prince) is not capitalized as it is being used solely by itself as the job title.

• We should explain who key people are per WP:GACR1: see Flavius Dalmatius, Exuperius and Aemilius Magnus Arborius in the lead.

Would the additions in this edit suffice?

• Ditto -- what's a Caesar and what was an Augustus?

I feel like Caesar and Augustus are historically notable enough for people to know what the titles mean.

The people, yes, but the Tetrarchic job titles -- definitely not. As with most things there's a relevant xkcd. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 23:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I changed Augustus to Emperor and added ", the princes and heirs," in the body in this edit Jon698 (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Moysés Marcos hypotized that Dalmatius was born between 290 and 317: hypothesized, I think.

Done in this edit

• Dalmatius was given the area in yellow: see MOS:COLOUR.

Changed to state that "Dalmatius was given control over a portion of the Balkans." in this edit

I'm now quite confused: do we mean the white-ish area including Greece? That should be clearer: at the moment it's not certain whether one of these blocks actually belongs to him, or whether he had control of part of one of them. You don't need to avoid mentioning colour at all, but it's helpful if your description still makes sense if readers are colour-blind, using screen readers, etc. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 23:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Could you suggest a caption for me to add? Jon698 (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Up to you, but it's going to need to be clear. One way to do it is to combine geographical and colour terminology: "the buff-yellow central area including Greece and the Balkans"; "the cyan area furthest east", or similar. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Done in this edit

• Text in non-English languages, such as Latin, should be enclosed in {{lang}} templates.

Done in this edit

• Fortissimo, a honorific meaning "most courageous" was given to Dalmatius: comma after courageous, and use the nominative: Fortissimus.

Done in this edit

• He might have participated: Dalmatius or Constantius?

Done in this edit

• a prince holding the ... parazonium: what's that?

Would providing a link to the parazonium page suffice as done in this edit?

It's not an ideal solution: see MOS:NOFORCELINK: Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 23:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Added "triangular dagger" before parazonium in this edit

• but were removed by the compilers of the Codex Theodosianus: ditto, what's that? In general, if there's a person, place or thing and it's important that our readers understand what it is, we need to explain that. It's not enough to simply provide a link. There's quite a few more examples of this.

Would adding "compilation of laws" or "legal text" in front of Codex suffice?

It would be a good start; I'd suggest an approximate date, too. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 23:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Added in this edit

• T.D. Barnes: space between initials.

Done in this edit

• Dalmatius was murdered after the death of Constantine: when was that?

Do you want me to provide a date for the death of Constantine. I cannot provide a date for Dalmatius' death as we only know the general timeframe of his death.

Yes, I mean a date for Constantine's death. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 23:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Done in this edit

A couple more:

• Still a few bits needing explaining for the general reader: we need, for example, to set out what the Tetrachy was before saying something like His appointment as caesar may have been part of an attempt by Constantine to restore the Tetrarchy.. Ditto "born in the purple" (a link isn't enough).

Changed "born in the purple" to "born to a sitting emperor" and added description for Tetrachy in this edit

• were made caesars, the princes and heirs, by Constantine in 317, 324, and 333: this needs respectively to be clear that each was only made caesar once.

Done in this edit

• If we're pluralising caesar as caesars, we're making it an English word, so shouldn't italicise: I would however suggest making it something like "raised to the rank of caesar" to keep the singular. If pluralising, it's caesares.

Done in this edit

• In Narbo or Toulouse, Dalmatius and his brother Hannibalianus were educated by Exuperius.: who was that?

Done in this edit

• Constantine raised Dalmatius to the rank of caesar in Ripa Gothica on 18 September 335, and was given control of Thrace, Macedonia, and Achaea: and gave him control, unless we mean that Constantine was given this control.

Done in this edit

• This date coincided with the eleventh annivarsry: typo.

Fixed by NeoGaze in this edit

• Hannibalianus was made rex regum et gentium ponticarum (King of Kings and of the Pontic Races).: what did this mean? Was it a big title or a small one?

Added a sentence stating that this was part of him being given authority over Armenia and eastern Anatolia in this edit (I fixed the harv error in the next edit)

• His appointment as caesar may have been part of an attempt by Constantine to restore the Tetrarchy.: as written, this should be Hannibalianus: clarify.

Done in this edit

• and triangular dagger parazonium: parentheses around "parazonium"

Done in this edit

• two prisoners of war lay: lie.

Done in this edit

• Theophanes the Confessor claimed that Dalmatius and his soldiers saved Athanasius of Alexandria from being murdered at the First Synod of Tyre,: a lot of "who?", "where?", "when?" here -- make sure this is comprehensible to those few of our readers not conversant in late antique church politics.

Added descriptors and a date in this edit

• the 5th century Codex Theodosianus: what's that?

Added "compilation of laws" before the wikilink in this edit

• Flavius Dalmatius might have served as Dalmatius' praetorian prefect similar to how : comma after prefect, and better as similarly.

Done in this edit

• Zosimus, Jerome, Eunapius, and the now-lost Enmannsche Kaisergeschichte reported that Dalmatius was killed by his soldiers with the support of Constantius II, but Aurelius Victor was uncertain about who was responsible for Dalmatius' death: again -- who/when/what are all of these people? The context of sources is important: these were very different kinds of people, often writing at different times, and with very different approaches and intentions in writing their works.

Added descriptors in this edit

Images

• File:Impero Romano da maggio a settembre 337.png: the Commons page doesn't cite any sources. Can you find some that support it and add them, so that this can be verified?

The book "Division of Empire: The Reign of the Sons of Constantine" might be able to properly source that. I will look at it in a second.

Added sourcing in this edit

• File:Delmatius Coin Abverse.jpg needs a tag for the coin itself, not just the photo.

Done in this edit

• The alt text could be improved considerably: remember that the point is to allow people who cannot see the picture (e.g. because they are blind and using a screen reader) to understand what it shows. The description of the coin should describe broadly what a sighted person would notice about the coin; that of the map should describe in broad terms the information a reader is meant to take away.

Done in this edit

Sources

All nicely formatted and, at first glance, passing WP:RS. Spot check to follow.

• Flavius Julius Dalmatius ... was born in an unknown year (note 4): this does check out from the source, but given Marcos's article the weight seems wrong: it's not like nobody has any idea when he was born. This book, p. 260, puts it at c. 315. I think we had better adjust the weight: we can say that his date of birth is uncertain, but move fairly quickly into saying that it was probably about 315. From Marcos, Kienast (here, I think) also hypothesized 315.

Changed and fixed in this edit

• Moysés Marcos hypothesized that Dalmatius was born between 290 and 317: this doesn't check -- the Dalmatius that could have been born around 290 is the censor. Marcos puts it in 315–317, most likely 315.

Changed and fixed in this edit (another edit here)

• Constantius Chlorus might have named Flavius Dalmatius after the province of Dalmatia, which he once governed (note 8): this checks.

One comeback above so far. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:45, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• the now-lost historical text Enmannsche Kaisergeschichte reported that Dalmatius was killed by his soldiers with the support of Constantius II (note 34): this mostly checks out, but there's a more fundamental problem. Scholars don't agree on whether the Enmannsche Kaisergeschichte ever existed, as the rather catty end to Burgess's footnote makes clear: Modern scholars fail to realize that all these works with their common account derive ultimately from a single common source, the KG. Even then, as it's lost, we can hardly go and say definitively what it said. Burgess's point is more nuanced and can be made more cleverly: there are a bunch of late antique historians, including Eutropius, Aurelius Victor, and Jerome who seem to say the same thing; Burgess is of the opinion that they concur because they were all using the KG as a source. We've effectively had two bites of the cherry: we can't really say "all these sources and the KG", since those sources are themselves the basis for thinking that the KG, if it existed, had anything to say on the matter.

Would you like for me to add an additional source talking about the KG's disputed existence or should I just remove that tiny bit from the sentence?

The exact approach is up to you, but there are two problems that need to be fixed -- one, as you say, we need to be clear that the KG may not exist; two, we need to put the facts in the right order -- in particular, to avoid adding the KG as if it's additional to or independent of the sources we listed already. The way I suggested above was to start with the sources we do have, and say that Burgess believes that the concurrence of these sources is evidence that an older source, called the KG, existed and contained this piece of information, but that there is no direct evidence of this older source and other scholars think it never existed at all. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: I removed it in this edit Jon698 (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I've been bold and added something back: comprehensiveness isn't required for GA, but it's a fairly major omission not to say that these sources may not be independent of each other. Feel free to tweak, naturally. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, let's do another round:

• The historian Aurelius Victor was uncertain about who was responsible for Dalmatius' death (note 34): this is not what the source says: Aurelius Victor, however, is uncertain about the manner in which the Caesar died. We also need to put a date on this historian, at least roughly -- 400, 1800 or 2014?

Done in this edit. BTW on page 167 it states that "Victor notes that it was unclear about who was responsible for Dalmatius' death"

• Flavius Dalmatius might have served as Dalmatius' praetorian prefect, similarly Gaius Furius Sabinius Aquila Timesitheus served as the praetorian prefect for his son-in-law Emperor Gordian III. (note 28): this needs an edit for grammar ("similarly to how..."), but it checks on a factual basis.

Done in this edit

• Fortissimus, a honorific meaning "most courageous", was given to Dalmatius; Constantius II was the only other caesar to receive this title. Dalmatius might have participated in Constantine's campaigns in Dacia due to a coin bearing his name featuring a prince holding the legionary standard and triangular dagger (parazonium) while two prisoners of war lie at his feet (note 23): again, an edit for grammar needed ("due to..." means that the coin caused him to participate: we mean that the coin is a reason to believe that this happened). It's also WP:CLOP: the reverse of the coin markedly displays two young prisoners of war lying at the feet of a young yet mature prince who is holding a legionary standard and parazonium. Naturally, it checks on a factual level, but the phrasing needs to be addressed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Done in this edit

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.