Talk:Titus

Another Jewish Scruple

I am loath the be the proverbial 'bearer of bad news', although it has become apparent that every article questioning Jewish beneficence is, in some way or another, altered by Jews in order to render themselves beneficent (when they are, in actuality, the contrary). Par exemple, this article initially read:

' Prior to becoming emperor, Titus was a successful general who crushed the Jewish Rebellion in 70. Although his reign was brief, he was considered a good emperor by Tacitus and other contemporary historians; in this role he is best-known for his public building program in Rome and for his generosity in relieving the suffering caused by two disasters, the Mount Vesuvius eruption of 79 and the fire of Rome of 80. '

Then, after being reworked by a Jewish hand :

' Prior to becoming emperor, Titus served as a general under his father during the First Jewish-Roman War from 67 until 69, and ultimately led the Roman army to victory during the Siege of Jerusalem in 70, which resulted in the complete destruction of the Second Temple and the looting of the city. For his achievement Titus was bestowed with a triumph, the Arch of Titus which commemorates this victory until this day. '

I shan't touch upon this topic any further. Now, the article concerning the First Jewish-Roman War reads,

' was the first of three major rebellions by the Jews of Iudaea Province against the Roman Empire (the second was the Kitos War in 115–117 CE, the third was Bar Kokhba's revolt, 132–135 CE). It began in the year 66, stemming from Greek and Jewish religious tension. '

Thus, I am not generally opposed to an editor's mention of looting and so forth -- but, please, bestow an example upon my ignorant head when looting was not the result of any war or siege? By and large, Titus was quelling a rebellion.

Moreover, if this is not rectified within the next several days, I shall do so myself. I would not be so harsh in my judgement, although, to speak in earnest, this is, perhaps, the dozenth article I have hitherto read with some Jewish alteration staring forth at me like the black eyes of Ba'al. Alas, Beneifcent Jews, you are equally as (or more) guilty as (than) any other race.

-- Nalco 17:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As it happens, I was editing the lead while you were posting this. Tell me what you think of the new version. Regards. --Steerpike 17:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I can't discern any POV in the edit you find offensive, nor can I tell how you know that it was by "a Jewish hand". "Looting" probably needn't be in the lead, but I don't think that mention of the temple should have been taken out (despite Steerpike's most recent edit, which is otherwise a clear improvement) – its destruction led to major changes in Jewish religious practice and is an important part of Titus' legacy (arguably the most important) regardless of how one wishes to judge his actions. EALacey 18:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What gives you the airs to write in pseudo Elizabethan English about 'Beneficent Jews'? Thou should'st know, O Nalco, it is thy racism that bespeaks guilt. You have no way of knowing what race any editor is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.243.252 (talk) 08:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Nalco, the edits you flagged, by whoever it may have been - Jew or non-Jew - are perfectly sound, further enhanced by Steerpike's positive editing. They do not have any of the pro-Jewish sentiment you talk of. But your talk entry reeks of antisemitism. Try not to offend a community in discussions. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Issues

• Contradictory birthdates are given: 39 AD and 41 AD. It cannot be both. If ambiguity exists, it should be stated directly.

• "Some Jewish commentators, however, do not take this literally." <-- "Some" do not take it literally? Please can anyone point me to one "Jewish commentator" who believes that a mosquito went up the nose of Titus and grew in size so big as to kill him? - I don't think so.

• Titus is a big german store for hiphop and skater wear
  • That information might be useful on Titus (disambiguation). --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:20, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering, are the characters in La Clemenza di Tito based on figures in Titus' life? In particular, Sesto, Vitellia, and Publio? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:20, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the article is incorrect about La Clemenza di Tito being about Titus. It is set during the reign of Vespasian, So Tito in the opera is really Vespasian, not the man we know as Titus. Vitellia was indeed the name of Vitellius' daughter, but I'm not aware of any real historical connection she had to Vespasian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.242.54.162 (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This page links the wrong fire of Rome

This page links to the 64 A.D. Roman fire, not the 80 A.D. one. If there is no link for the 80 A.D. fire the link should be taken away. User_talk: WikipediafagsruinWikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.55.36 (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced claims (help requested)

I need some help verifying a few claims from this article for which I have not yet found a reliable source:

• "However Marcia's family was closely linked to the opposition to Nero. When Titus took fright at the failed Pisonian conspiracy of 65, he severed the connection by divorcing his wife. He never re-married." Where does this come from? Suetonius mentions the divorce but omits the reasons.
• The original article said the Romans disapproved of Titus' relationship with Berenice (which is backed up by Cassius Dio), but also says they were "already comparing her to a new Cleopatra". Is there any ancient writer who mentions this comparison?
• What was Agricola exactly doing during Titus' rule? I wrote he invaded Schotland but I think this may not have happened until the reign of Domitian. Tacitus does not mention Titus in his biography, and I'm really not sure when the events vaguely described by Cassius Dio take place. So I need some clarification here.

Thanks in advance. --Steerpike 18:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

On the #1

Historians have little clue when Arrecina Tertulla died, when Titus married Marcia Furnilla and when Titus divorced Marcia Furnilla. We know that Titus arrives in Rome in 63 and leaves in 67. We also know he offered Julia to Domitian before he died in 81, so she must have been of marrying age. Unfortunately 14-18 is marrying age in Rome, so that isn't too much help. Additionally, according to Philostratus' Life of Apollonius 7.7, Titus had another daughter and needed to have time to produce her. To top this off, there are those who say Julia was by Arrecina and not Marcia so maybe Julia could have born as early as 63 and a different sister was born to Marcia (See Suetonius, Titus 4). Whatever-the-case, the timing is unknown.

Marcia was the daughter of Antonia Furnilla and Q. Marcus Barea Sura. A Q. Marcus Barea Soranus died in the Pisonian conspiracy and its assumed they were brothers. Was that enough to get you condemned? Well Arrecina's family was known for its connection to the conspiracy against Caligula. The elder Arrecina was married to an assassin (see Josephus, AJ 19.190-200) who was killed by Claudius. She survived and did fine. Suetonius still called Marcia's family noble. Additionally, the Pisonian conspiracy involved a great number of trials involving rule of law. It was apparant that, unlike Tiberius and Caligula who killed on a whim, Nero now needed evidence of real wrong-doing prior to an execution. Vespasian was friends with Soranus and he was fine. (Tacitus, Histories 4.7)

Although its possible that Julia was born prior to 65 and Marcia was divorced then because of the Pisonian conspiracy, its all conjecture. After all, it could have easily been because of the Corbulo conspiracy of 66 or for a non-conspiracy reason. Titus probably had little to fear from Nero, but who knows what the atmosphere was like in 65.

In the end, it's a modern historian theory that will not be supported by ancient text alone. It relies on a lot of information we don't know. 1) we don't know when the divorce was. 2) We don't if Marcia was really Soranus neice. 3) we don't if that was really the reason. If it is included, I suggest using a "perhaps" or a "some modern historians theorize..."Hoshidoshi 20:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Slightly belated, but still thanks for your response. In the mean time I've also discovered where the comparison with Cleopatra originates from. It was Mommsen who made this connection in his History of Rome, volume 5, page 540. Didn't come from any ancient source. --Steerpike 17:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Was Titus really a good emperor?

These are just some personal thoughts on apparent contradictions in the life of Titus, leading me to believe that his reign was not nearly as rose-coloured as ancient sources would have us believe.

• To begin with, he only reigned for two years, which, like Cassius Dio says, really didn't give him an opportunity for wrongdoing. And the measures he carried out were not that different from any other emperor upon their accession: stopping treason trials, hosting expensive games,...
• For that matter, was his generosity in relieving the victims of the Mount Vesuvius or the fire really that remarkable? Tiberius and Nero also personally donated large amounts of money after the earthquake of 17 and the great fire of Rome. Again, this does not strike me as any exceptional measure for Titus specifically.
• And while I'm at it, one can wonder at the total expenses Titus' two years in office must have amounted to considering: 1) the disaster of Pompeii, 2) the fire of Rome, 3) the plague of Rome , 4) the completion of the Colosseum and the construction of the baths, and finally 5) the extravagant inaugural games he hosted. Sounds like the imperial treasury must have been nearly empty upon his death.
• As for the treason trials he nobly ordered a halt to: it seems that prior to becoming emperor he was quite vicious, both as a general (destroyed Jerusalem) and as praetorian prefect. Suetonius and Cassius Dio say he put a stop to the treason trials, but 1) were there even treason trials under Vespasian, and 2) isn’t this slightly hypocritical because the text also says that during his tenure as prefect, he summarily executed "suspected" traitors on the spot and probably used informers himself. Sounds like he should have banned himself along with the other informers.
• The surviving sources should be considered biased in favour of Titus: Josephus owed much to the Flavians, and was even part of their government. Tacitus, like he says, carved out his public career under the Flavian dynasty (Of course his account of the period is lost so we don't know *how* positive it was). About Suetonius I'm not so sure, although his text is also highly positive. Dio seems more balanced but his books aren't without contradictions either. For instance he writes that Titus threw wooden balls into the theatre audience inscribed with items, which could then be traded. Dio notes that this was "of practical use" to the people, but condemns a completely similar practice of Nero in book 62.
• Also, considering how loathed his successor Domitian was, any faults of Titus were probably quickly overlooked, and it's easy to compare him more favourable against his brother.

So conclusion: I'm perfectly willing to believe he was a fine emperor but 1) his reign was really too short to draw real conclusions, 2) the writers of the time were not objective so 3) he probably wasn't a saint either. Just my 2 cents ^^ --Steerpike 10:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Old comments, but any dictator can do a LOT of damage "in only two years." It's not the length of time, it is actions Titus took during that time.50.111.59.83 (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

GAR

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.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Excellent work. I hope you take this to FAC. One improvement I would like to see is the conversion of links to WikiSource from URLs to meta markup (ie wikisource:The_War_of_the_Jews). Good luck, Tewfik^Talk 05:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! --Steerpike 15:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Page move to Titus (emperor)

Since this Titus is less important than the Biblical Titus, I am moving it Titus (emperor). Captain Zyrain 18:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely you jest? The Biblical Titus is mentioned only a few times (more than a handful...) in the Bible, compared with the Emperor who fills volumes of historical record as well as archaeological data. Is there some other basis for this assertion? siafu 19:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur that Emperor Titus is not "less important" than the Biblical figure. However, as can be seen on the dab page, there are a lot of things in the world with the name "Titus". Renaming Titus to Titus (emperor) (which does follow a de facto convention of sorts) and turning Titus into the disambiguation page isn't a ridiculous idea, though I can't think of a compelling reason to make the change right now. De Guerre 01:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The change would involve many, many corrections to pages which currently link to plain Titus. If anyone is really determined to move the article to Titus (emperor), then they should make the effort to correct the wikilinks as well. I'm not sure if it's worth the trouble. --Steerpike 00:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Of 541 incoming links, 180 come from templates only, 6 are redirects, 33 are from discussion pages, 26 are from the project namespace, 6 from portals, 1 from an image, and 23 from user pages. That leaves 266 articles with links to Titus that would need fixing. In principle, a bot could do it, because almost all of the changes would simply look like "[[Titus]]" --> "[[Titus (emperor)|]]".

Ultimately, the difficulty of fixing links shouldn't be a determining factor in whether or not to move a page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I'm very happy to pass this, it is excellent. It wouldn't take a huge amount of work to get this to FA. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The cognomen Sabinus

As far as my sources show, Titus never bore the cognomen Sabinus at any point. He was as Titus Flavius T.f. Vespasianus from birth until the accession of his father, whereupon he became Imp. Titus Caesar Aug.f. Vespasianus. Upon becoming emperor himself, he became Imp. Titus Caesar Divi Vespasiani.f. Vespasianus Augustus. Sources: Stech, B. (1912) Senatores Romani qui fueriut inde a Vespasiano usque ad Traiani exitum. Klio Beihefte 10 pp. 3, 52 and De Laet (1941) De Samenstelling van den Romeinschen Senaat onder de Regeering van Keizer Nero pp.189-190. Both Stech and De Laet cite the Prosopographia Imperii Romani and Pauly-Wissowa as sources. These are pretty authoratative, so if anyone has proof that Titus bore the cognomen Sabinus, I'd like to know! 82.44.82.167 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio, all authoritative Roman historians, give the name of Titus's grandfather as Titus Flavius Sabinus. He had a son who was one of the consuls in the year 47 AD, and the emperor Vespasian. Vespasian's son, Titus, took the family name of Titus Flavius Sabinus and the agnomen Vespasianus that was inherited from his father. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed T. Flavius Sabinus (I) was the name of Titus' grandfather, but that's not my point. What is the point is that the cognomen was not passed onto Vespasian or, through him, to Titus or Domitian. The name continued only through the line of Vespasian's older brother, hence: T. Flavius Sabinus (II) (cos. c.47), Vespasian's brother, Titus' uncle. T. Flavius Sabinus (III) (cos. II 72), son of the above - Vespasian's nephew, Titus' first cousin. T. Flavius Sabinus (IV) (cos. 82), son of the above - Vespasian's grandnephew, Titus first cousin once removed. Despite your contention, neither Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio, or any other ancient literary, epigraphic, or numismatic source gives Vespasian or his sons the name Sabinus. If they do, please cite it, it shouldn't be hard. Until then, the name should be left as is.82.44.82.167 (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Suetonius writes in his Vita Divi Titi, "Titus, cognomine paterno," which translates to, "Titus, with his ancestral cognomen," has been taken to mean that he had the cognomen Sabinus that his father lacked ie his ancestral name and not his father's name. If Suetonius had wanted to say, "his father's cognomen," he probably would have said, "Titus cognomine patris" instead. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Titus, cognomine paterno" means "Titus, of the same surname as his father", and is correctly given as such in the Loeb and Penguin translations (J.C. Rolfe and Robert Graves, respectively). To state that the perfectly valid translation of "paterno" from "of his father" to "of his ancestors" without citation is your own original research and hence invalid for a wiki article. Despite being the son of a Sabinus (and grandson of a Petro) Vespasian's only cognomen was Vespasianus. Titus' only cognomen was Vespasianus. This is supported also by numismatic and epigraphic evidence - none of which records Titus (or Vespasian) being a Sabinus.

Also, how do you know that (in your textual analysis of Suetonius) the name Sabinus is being alluded to instead of Petro, also an ancestral name? Or indeed an older ancestor? Also, if Suetonius' wording has "been taken to mean" that Titus bore the name Sabinus, then please provide a citation that is of better academic quality than Pauly-Wissowa, the PIR, Stech, or De Laet.

Provide a citation and Sabinus stands, if you can't then it can't.82.44.82.167 (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

note on name

Could someone explain the note at the top explaining (sorta) the tria nomina? I mean this one:

{{ Roman name | praenomen = Titus | nomen = Flavius | cognomen = Vespasianus | agnomen = | nameused = Titus }} I haven't seen it on any other articles, and I'm not sure what it adds. Seems repetitive, since the first sentence of an article, especially on an emperor, usually explains the name. Thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Quotes without cited sources

I have been trying to find sources for the two unidentified quotes mentioned in the article. The first "no merit in vanquishing people forsaken by their own God" appears to be a modern interpretation of a quote from Flavius Philostratus's "The Life of Apollonius", Book 6, Chapter 29. In this translation, it says "but he disclaimed any such honor to himself, saying that it was not himself that had accomplished this exploit, but that he had merely lent his arms to God, who had so manifested his wrath." Since in the article this is claiming to be a direct quote, it cannot remain as is. Given the only translation I can find is very archaic, I think it the modern version should be kept in the article, but without the quotation marks.

The second quote ("because their god has forsaken them, I will offer them the sword or the cross, either one will do") I cannot find anywhere, in either this form, or in any other version. Therefore I am proposing to remove this second unsourced quotation, and I will attempt to do it in the next day or two. Oatley2112 (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Community reassessment (2016)

Titus

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a very surprising GA. Out of more than a hundred inline citations, all but nineteen are from first- and second-century sources.

• Are we taking the extant textual traditions Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus at their words?
• Are we interpreting them critically?
• Or is all the information in the article actually gleaned from the small number of modern critical works that are listed as "sources" but are only cited inline a few times each?

If the answer to either of the first two, especially the second, is "yes", then the article as it stands is an OR nightmare.

If the answer to the third is "yes", then the article, while not necessarily containing OR, is very poorly formatted and is not easily verifiable, as in order to check it against its sources one would need to make a detailed list of the factual claims in the article and then read two books from start to finish, checking the points off one by one.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the use of sources appears problematic. The prose mostly looks fine (though e.g. the introductory paragraphs to "Adult life" could stand to be improved). I'm also not hugely keen on the list of "Titus in later arts", especially because I'm not convinced by the blurbs given here that Titus actually even appears in some of the works (e.g. Ecce Romani and The Roman Mysteries). Even if they were cut out, however, it's still essentially a list of artworks and books where Titus is depicted: it would be much preferable, to my way of thinking, if it were a couple of paragraphs talking about how e.g. the story of his relationship with Berenice inspired later writers of romances, while the visual arts were more influenced by the sacking of the temple at Jerusalem and Titus' subsequent triumph for his successes in the Jewish wars. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I would be partial to a distinction being made between "fictional" modern works and "legendary" works from late antiquity and the middle ages. Up until I added it yesterday the article made no reference to the fact that apparently at least some medieval Christian antisemites believed Titus was a Roman client king, in the kingdom of Libya, north of Judah (LOL!). This is relevant historiographic information, but as the article is currently structured I could think of nowhere to put it except the shopping list of fictional representations. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

On the one hand, I don't have a problem with using primary sources in an article. There are many significant historical topics where an editor needs to rely more on primary sources than she/he prefer to. But in the case of this article, Titus lived during one of the better-documented (& analyzed) periods of Roman history. There are an abundance of good secondary sources that I'm amazed weren't used: for instance, there are three solid books in English on the Year of Four Emperors alone, which was an important event Titus played a role in. Ronald Syme has written an authoritative study of the works of Tacitus, & F. Millar has written another valuable study on Cassius Dio -- neither of which were cited for this article. Okay, the relevant articles on Titus' father Vespasian & his brother Domitian don't use these works either (although they'd be better articles if they did), but they do rely more on secondary sources than this one does. My guess about how this achieved GA status is based on the date it occurred -- July 2007. Standards were still evolving, & I doubt anyone would expect a GA class article to use secondary sources more extensively 9 years ago. I'd try to fix some of these issues, were it not that my available time is tied up with trying to fix problems in another set of articles about ancient Rome. -- llywrch (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but There are many significant historical topics where an editor needs to rely more on primary sources than she/he prefer to actually doesn't make much sense -- if a topic has not been covered in any modern reliable sources, then it doesn't meet GNG and should be deleted. It is theoretically acceptable to use ancient primary sources, but ideally those should be replaced when better (modern, critical) sources are found, and if no such sources exist, then the article should be deleted or merged. Obviously this is completely irrelevant for the topic at hand, though; I'm just talking about theory here. An article on a topic where modern reliable sources probably do exist should not be deleted, but it also shouldn't be listed as a GA as long as those sources are not cited. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Most of the examples that come immediately to my mind are from Ethiopian history. For example, the general history books mention several important battles -- Battle of Shimbra Kure, Three battles of Sarbakusa, much of the recent Ethiopian Civil War -- yet there are no easily accessible secondary sources about these battles that supply any detail. And I know this because I looked -- hard. It's a result of systemic bias in Anglo-European academia & news media; they don't consider it important, so the secondary sources aren't there, & those that exist often aren't collected into libraries -- both academic & public -- because that group doesn't consider it important. (No, I can't read Amharic, Oromo, or similar Ethiopian languages, so I'm unable to access modern secondary sources in those languages.) And in the case of Greco-Roman history, most consuls -- who are notable individuals due to being chief executives of the Roman state -- aren't the subject of studies in the secondary literature, so anyone writing about them will be forced to rely on Livy, Diodorus Siculus, & other primary sources exclusively to write articles about them. So either one simply repeats with minimal interpretation what the primary sources say about the subject, or leave the subject little more than a stub article -- which is what I have had to do in those cases. I'm not interested in fighting a futile battle with mindsets that can't accept that handicaps of structural biases in Western secondary sources exist & thus justify WP:Ignore all rules, so I've moved on to easier topics to research & write about. -- llywrch (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Technically, modern secondary sources written in other languages are just as good as modern secondary sources written in English, and should not be replaced with English-language sources unless those English sources are of the same or superior quality. Modern secondary sources written in other languages are therefore preferred to English translations of ancient and medieval primary sources. There is no rule here that needs to be ignored: if you wrote an article based on English translations of ancient sources, that's ... okay, I guess ... but ideally they should be replaced with modern reliable sources -- regardless of the language of those sources. The article as you wrote it, though, should not be listed as a GA, because it is essentially an OR nightmare. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we're getting off into the weeds here. You may disagree with me about the needs sometimes to rely heavily on primary sources. However, were you to agree with me about that exception, I believe we'd both agree there is no reason for this article to fall into that exception: there are sufficient secondary sources about the life & career of Titus that they should be used here more extensively than they have been. -- llywrch (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I thought it unnecessary to respond directly until now, as I thought my agreement with you as relates to this article was obvious, but I've seen some pretty shitty GAR closes recently, and someone might come along and interpret what you wrote above as a "don't unlist" !vote, when it clearly isn't, and close this as a 2-1 "no consensus to delist", so clarifying that we're all in agreement that this article does not meet the sourcing criterion for GA (and apparently never did) seemed like a good idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Titus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708190434/http://www.enginova.com/engineering_of_pompeii.htm to http://enginova.com/engineering_of_pompeii.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303013402/http://homeros.godsong.org/FRANKS_CASKET.pdf to http://homeros.godsong.org/FRANKS_CASKET.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Should this page be protected?

For some strange reason, there has been a spike in vandalism on this page (Idle minds locked at home?), which has led to problems for editors. Should I increase the protection level for this article to pending changes protection? HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

You can request it. But seeing only a dozen or so edits this year, I doubt WP:RPP would consider it. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)