This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
"Byzantine power lagged in the Mediterranean and the peninsula thanks to Lombard and Saracen incursions" is replaced with "Byzantine power lagged in the Mediterranean as the Eastern Roman Empire began to gradually lose influence in the West": the latter is less informative b/c it does not tell us how or why the Byz. emp. lost influence.
the adjective Muslim is removed without apparent reason in one place, once more leaving the reader less informed
a link to Barbary pirates is used with reference to a period 500 years too early
I added an infobox to this article, but that addition was reverted. The reverting editor said that as the article never had one before, it doesn't need one now. Could they please elaborate more on how an infobox is not an improvement to the article?--¿3family6contribs 00:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
See the essay Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes for a summation of the case against overuse of infoboxes. Can 3family6 explain why this article needs one of these things? It is wholly redundant and wholly unnecessary: nobody ought to come to an article on a relativly obscure early medieval dukedom expecting to find country data like they do in an almanac. Srnec (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought it summarized info that wasn't in the lead but scattered throughout the article. I for one find infoboxes a handy reference point, in particular things like timelines and predecessor and successor states.--¿3family6contribs 01:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Let's go through the box piece by piece.
Independent state. Maybe. It's not a big deal, but placing it in the infobox makes it seems very definitive when in fact the dukes usually regarded the Byzantines as their overlod, and later the Normans.
933–1135. These dates are misleading. Nothing was founded in 935, that's just the earliest date for the use of the title duke. Nor did the duchy disappear in 1135, its duke just did homage to the Norman king.
The Duchy of Naples was not its predecessor state, since it continued to exist alongside it. Nor was the Kingdom of Sicily its successor, since it preceded it and merely absorbed it.
Capital: Gaeta. Of course, but that's in the first line.
Languages: Greek, Neapolitan. The article does not say so, and I believe in official chartes the dominant language was Latin. Presumably locals spoke a local Romance dialect.
Government: Duchy / Duke / 866-906 Docibilis I / 1121-1140 Richard III. Calling the government a "duchy" is completely uninformative and not even true: "duchy" is not a form of government. It's also confusing to list as the first duke a man who died before the box says the state even existed. It's also confusing to give the last date for the last duke as later than the date upon which the box has already said the duchy ceased to exist.
Historical era: Middle Ages. Yup, but the very first line says this.
Constantine become first Hypatus c.839. Seems outside of the parameters based on the dates given for the state.
Docibilis I takes power 933. Should say Docibilis II, but even then its wrong. Why should anybody have to check for these kinds of things? It's the first year we know of when the ruler of Gaeta—Docibilis the Second—was called a duke, not when he took power.
Conquered by Roger II 1135. I am not aware that this was a conquest. I could be forgetting, but I suspect the boxmaker has simply read too much into the description "was forced to make submission" in the article.
Richard III dies 1140. Yes, but again, outside the dates given.
Today part of Italy. Yes.
Hopefully you can see why this box is a problem. Srnec (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that I can understand. FYI, the first and last dates were the "pre" and "post" event, which are supposed to be outside the date parameters - see, for example, Yuan Dynasty.--¿3family6contribs 02:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)