From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Nerva has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
September 30, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 12:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Marcus Cocceius Nerva → Nerva – The Emperor is universally known as Nerva. And nothing in the disambiguation page is as famous as him.--Panairjdde 13:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support, as per nomination --Panairjdde 13:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, plain old Nerva redirects here anyway; most Roman emperors are under their common name in any event.--cjllw | TALK 15:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The standard is for the article to be at the common name Eluchil404 01:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Year of Birth[edit]

Many Wikipedias state, that Nerva was born in 30, and a few say he was born in 35. Which is the correct year of birth? Ludde 15:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

From [1]:
"Aurelius Victor records the year as 35 (Caes. 12.11), Dio (68.4.4) as 30. The latter has been more widely accepted."
--Panairjdde 16:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (enough images: lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:

Excellent article! I do have a few small concerns, however, before I go ahead and pass it for GA status.

  1. The first bit of the second paragraph under "Administration" could use some cleanup. Especially with all the inline citations, the long sentence that begins with "Nerva granted..." is far too long and confusing - it might be better to reorganize it into two separate sections. The last two sentences are confusingly worded too - I'm a bit unclear about the bit after the semicolon "many sacrifices, games and horse races were abolished." I'm assuming you meant to say "many sacrifices to the gods..." but that is not directly obvious to someone unfamiliar with Roman history. Also, try to avoid starting sentences with words like "however" and "from" etc. because they tend to complicate the sentence and could be rewritten in a more proper fashion (eg. "Large amounts of money were obtained from..." for example). I think I caught a lot of them, but please check for and fix any ones that I might have missed.
  2. This sentence — "Archaeological excavation started on this forum in 1999, and continues to the present." — requires a citation.
  3. Under Crisis of succession, this sentence needs to be split up, as it is far too long: "Upon his accession Nerva had ordered a halt to treason trials, but at the same time he still allowed the prosecution of informers by the Senate, a measure that led to chaos, as everyone acted in his own interests while trying to settle scores with personal enemies, leading the consul Fronto to remark that "it was bad to have an emperor under whom nobody was permitted to do anything, but worse to have one under whom everybody was permitted to do everything.""
  4. The last two sentences require a citation.

In order to give you time to make these minor fixes, I am placing the article for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Given the caliber of work thus far, I suspect that I shall soon be passing it; a job well done. Cheers, CP 03:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time! I've fixed the article in accordance with your suggestions. A few remarks:
1) I've tried to sort this out as best as I could, but I'm still not completely satisfied with the way it reads, especially Nerva's financial reforms. His measures against overexpenditure I think I've made more concise, and flows better as a paragraph.
2) I've removed this sentence altogether. It was basically a remnant of the original article, but doesn't seem to be based on any fact. Apparently excavation of Nerva's forum was well underway before World War II. I guess it sort of goes without saying that it has continued to the present. Not sure if it really deserves mention.
3) Sentence split in two.
4) All referenced except the supposed statue of Nerva in Narni. There does seem to be a street named after him (Via Cocceio Nerva), but I can't immediately find a source on the existence of the statue, which is further complicated by the fact that most of the websites I'm directed to are in Italian. I'm not sure what I should do with this.
Regards. --Steerpike 19:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the article looks great as it is, and I will be passing it into Good Article status. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 20:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Succession policy[edit]

I would like more and more modern citations than a 1936 paper from some Russell Geer before undercutting ancient historians and historians like Gibbon and Rostovtzeff, as is done with the line "Likewise, Edward Gibbon's assertion that Nerva hereby established a tradition of succession through adoption among the Five Good Emperors has found little support among modern historians.[45]" which is redundant and not cited the first time: "By adopting Trajan as his heir, Nerva is said to have established a tradition of succession through adoption among the emperors which followed. Recent historians, however, have revised these opinions." I see only a single historian who isn't especially modern/recent and thus it would be fair to say only 'At least one historian has disputed this view.'

I'm not saying the Wikipedia article is *incorrect* - only that little reason to accept its assertion is presented. 18:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The section could do with some tweaking, yes, but I would like to point out that it's not uncommon in the field of classical studies to reference papers that are over 60 years old (or even more). That's just the nature of this area of research. Unless radical evidence turns up (e.g. a complete edition of Tacitus' Histories), interpretations often change little over the course of 50 years. It's not a fast evolving field like regular sciences. And Geer is by no means an obscure historian, btw. --Steerpike (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Trajanov otac.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:Trajanov otac.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Trajanov otac.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Era style[edit]

Out of respect for the Nerva-Antonine Dynasty, it would be preferred that "BCE" and "CE" be used instead of "BC" and "AD" since these people had no affiliation, or liking to Christianity. If you object, please provide a valid reason as to why. Lupus Bellator (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no call to switch from one convention to the other, per WP:ERA.--Cúchullain t/c 20:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree with Cúchullain. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
No to changing or deleting era designation, per the "Plotinus example" at WP:ERA. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


Given that Vespasian didn't claim the throne, as far as I'm aware, until after Otho's death, and that he took arms against Otho's murderer, Vitellius, why would it be surprising that Nerva would have supported him? (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)